Uncategorized

MAAP #234: Illegal gold mining in Yapacana National Park, including on top of Yapacana Tepui (Venezuelan Amazon)

Posted on by Matt Finer
Intro Image. Illegal gold mining deforestation (in red) on top of Yapacana Tepui. Data: Planet

In a series of previous reports, and in collaboration with SOS Orinoco, we have tracked the illegal gold mining deforestation and related impacts in Yapacana National Park, located in the Venezuelan Amazon.

Critically, some of this illegal mining activity has been happening on top of the Yapacana tepui (see red circles in Intro Image). 

Tepuis are stunning table-top mountains found in northern South America. They are considered sacred by indigenous groups of the Guiana Shield region; in fact, the word tepui means “mountain” in the local indigenous (Pemon) language. 

In 2022, we published an urgent report about the illegal mining on top of the Yapacana tepui (MAAP #169). In this report, we documented over 400 points of mining camps and heavy machinery, indicating an organized and large-scale operation, causing the deforestation of 8.8 hectares on top of the tepui.

Given the importance of this finding, the Washington Post published a high-profile article on the subject, further exposing the severity of the illegal mining on the tepui.

In response, the Venezuelan government conducted a military operation against illegal mining activity on the tepui in December 2022.

In early 2024, we reported that all illegal mining camps and equipment on top of the tepui had been removed (MAAP #207). Indeed, we detected no additional mining deforestation on top of the tepui during 2024.

However, we now present evidence that the illegal mining activity has resumed on top of the tepui in 2025. 

We also show continuing mining deforestation surrounding the tepui in other parts of Yapacana National Park. As of the time of the government intervention in late 2022, we detected the cumulative mining deforestation of 2,190 hectares in the park, including large increases in both 2021 and 2022 (MAAP #173). This mining deforestation has slowed, particularly in 2024 and 2025, but has now impacted 2,240 hectares in the park.

Gold Mining Deforestation in Yapacana National Park, 2020-2025

Figure 1 presents our digitized results for annual mining deforestation across all mining areas in Yapacana National Park, based on an analysis of high-resolution satellite imagery.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Graph 1. Mining deforestation in Yapacana National Park. Data: ACA/MAAP

Graph 1 shows the trends found in the digitized data of Yapacana National Park.

The orange line shows the annual mining deforestation decreasing following the highs detected in 2021 and 2022. Both years had over 400 hectares of new mining deforestation, while 2024 had just 37 hectares.

The red line shows the cumulative mining deforestation rising from the baseline in 2020 before plateauing in 2024 and 2025, with a current deforestation total of 2,250 hectares.

 

 

 

 

 

Gold Mining Deforestation on top of Yapacana Tepui, 2020-2025

Figure 2. Mining deforestation on top of Yapacana Tepui. Data: ACA/MAAP, Planet, NICFI.

Figure 2 presents our digitized results for annual mining deforestation on top of the Yapacana Tepui, based on an analysis of high-resolution satellite imagery.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Graph 2. Mining deforestation on top of Yapacana Tepui. Data: ACA/MAAP,

Graph 2 shows the trends found in the digitized data on top of Yapacana Tepui.

The orange line shows the annual mining deforestation of about 2 hectares in both 2021 and 2022, followed by a notable decrease after the government intervention in late 2022. In fact, there was zero detected mining deforestation in 2024, followed by the reappearance detailed in this report.

The red line shows the cumulative mining deforestation rising from the baseline in 2020 before plateauing in 2024 and 2025, with a current deforestation total of  9.3 hectares.

 

 

 

 

Recent Gold Mining Deforestation Events, 2024-2025

Base Map. Boxes A-C indicate location of detailed analysis below. Data: ACA/MAAP, Planet, NICFI

In the Base Map, Insets A-C indicate the three areas with documented gold mining expansion between 2024 and 2025, based on an analysis of very high-resolution satellite imagery.

Below, we provide a more detailed examination of these three areas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Illegal gold mining on top of the Yapacana Tepui

Zoom A shows the recent gold mining deforestation of 0.09 hectares between January 2024 (left panel) and August 2025 (right panel), located on the top of the Yapacana Tepui in Yapacana National Park. Although a small expansion, it indicates the return of illegal mining on the tepui.

Zoom A. Gold mining deforestation on top of Yapacana Tepui. Data: Planet, ACA/MAAP

Illegal gold mining in Yapacana National Park

Zoom B shows the recent gold mining deforestation of 22.4 hectares between March 2024 (left panel) and August 2025 (right panel) in Yapacana National Park, just to the north of the Yapacana Tepui. There are also signs of mining equipment associated with this activity.

Zoom B. Gold mining deforestation in Yapacana National Park. Data: Planet, ACA/MAAP

Zoom C shows the recent gold mining deforestation of 1.01 hectares between March 2024 (left panel) and August 2025 (right panel) in Yapacana National Park, just to the north of the Yapacana Tepui.

Zoom C. Gold mining deforestation in Yapacana National Park. Data: Planet, ACA/MAAP

Policy Implications:

Photo of illegal gold mining in Yapacana National Park. Credit: SOSOrinoco

Mining is strictly prohibited in all Venezuelan national parks. This legal protection is fundamental to the conservation of the country’s most biodiverse and ecologically significant areas.

In addition, mining is explicitly prohibited in Amazonas (state in which Yapacana National Park is located) by Presidential Decree No. 269 (1989). This decree was enacted to safeguard the unique ecosystems and indigenous territories of the region, recognizing their global and national importance.

To enforce these legal prohibitions, there is a permanent command post of the Bolivarian National Guard at the entrance of Yapacana National Park. The presence of this security force raises important questions about the effectiveness and willingness of law enforcement and the actual control over activities within the park.

Although the recent mining deforestation on top of the Yapacana Tepui in 2025 is quantitatively small (0.09 hectares), it highlights the importance of early detection and response, especially in such ecologically and culturally sensitive zones. The fact that this renewed activity occurs in the presence of a permanent National Guard command post raises serious concerns about the effectiveness of enforcement and the real capacity of the state to prevent illegal operations. It also suggests that even minimal incursions should not be dismissed, as they may signal the beginning of a new cycle of degradation.

Fuel distribution in the region is officially managed by PDVSA (the state oil company) under strict military supervision. However, given Amazonas’ status as a border state with Colombia and Brazil, gasoline may also be sourced from one of them, most likely Colombia, due to its proximity. The transport of fuel—whether Venezuelan or Colombian—requires the use of boats or helicopters, both of which are highly visible and subject to monitoring by the Bolivarian National Armed Forces. This context places the Armed Forces at the center of the logistical dynamics that either enable or prevent illegal mining, as both aerial control and fuel supply are essential for mining operations.

These facts invite us to reflect critically on the disconnect between legal frameworks and on-the-ground realities. How is it possible that illegal mining persists and even expands in areas with such clear legal protection and a strong security presence? What are the implications for conservation, indigenous rights, and the rule of law? The answers to these questions are crucial for understanding the challenges facing protected areas in Venezuela and for designing more effective strategies to address them.

This entire situation highlights the need to establish mechanisms to monitor illegal gold trafficking, both at its exit points outside the country and on the routes to the markets where the gold is refined and sold.

Biodiversity impacts:

Photo of Yapacana Tepui. Credit: SOSOrinoco

Yapacana Tepui (Cerro Yapacana), a sandstone mountain rising to 1,345 meters above sea level in the southwestern quadrant of Yapacana National Park (PNY), is a geomorphologically and ecologically unique formation within the Venezuelan Amazon. The park encompasses a mosaic of landscapes, including alluvial plains, erosion-alteration peneplains, and nutrient-poor white sand savannas, which host highly specialized vegetation with floristic links to both the Paleotropics and Neotropics. The mountain itself supports two distinct montane forest types—submontane evergreen forests on its slopes and cloud forests on its summit—harboring at least eight critically endangered endemic plant species. These ecosystems are part of the ancestral territory of Arawako, Huottüja (Piaroa), and Mako peoples, who regard the tepui as sacred (MARNR-ORSTOM 1988; Castillo y Salas 2007; SOSOrinoco 2019).

Illegal gold mining has emerged as a major threat to the integrity of these ecosystems, particularly on the summit of Cerro Yapacana, where deforestation from mining camps and machinery has directly impacted the fragile forest habitat. The destruction of summit vegetation not only endangers endemic flora but also disrupts ecological processes vital to the survival of species such as the Yapacana antbird (Myrmeciza disjuncta) and the red Yapacana frog (Minyobates steyermarki), both of which are exclusive to this tepui. Mining-induced deforestation across the park has reached over 2,240 hectares, threatening the continuity of forest cover, savannas and the ecological connectivity essential for species migration and resilience (Huber 1995; Llamozas et al., 2003; Lentino, 2006; Señaris and Rivas, 2006).

The broader biodiversity of Yapacana National Park is also at risk, including its designation as an Important Bird Area (IBA) due to the presence of species such as Crax alector, Selenidera nattereri, and migratory birds like Dendroica striata. The park hosts over 260 bird species, alongside 51 reptiles and 29 amphibians (Lentino, 2006; Señaris and Rivas, 2006). The illegal mining not only degrades these habitats but also introduces pollutants and human disturbance, undermining conservation efforts and threatening the survival of species with restricted ranges and specialized ecological requirements. Urgent and sustained action is needed to halt further degradation and safeguard the exceptional biodiversity of Cerro Yapacana and its surrounding ecosystems (SOSOrinoco, 2019).

Acknowledgements

We thank the organization  SOSOrinoco for important information and comments related to this report.

This report is part of a series focusing on gold mining in the Amazon, with support from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

MAAP #233: Current situation of gold mining in the Peruvian Amazon

Posted on by Matt Finer
Base Map. Gold mining in the Peruvian Amazon.

Gold mining continues to increase in the Peruvian Amazon. Following the initial success of the major multisectoral government intervention Operation Mercury in southern Peru in early 2019 (MAAP #104, MAAP #121, MAAP #130), the illegal mining activity rebounded during the COVID-19 pandemic, as the government withdrew from the area (Vadillo, 2022).

The current increase, directly linked to soaring international gold prices, has led to expanding mining activity: continuing mining in southern Peru, and emerging mining fronts in the central and northern parts of the country.

This report presents information on the current state of gold mining activity, in both forests and rivers, across all of the Peruvian Amazon.

Notably, we report that gold mining has spread to nine regions across the Peruvian Amazon: Amazonas, Cajamarca, Cusco, Huánuco, Loreto, Madre de Dios, Pasco, Puno, and Ucayali.

Total gold mining deforestation has reached 139,169 hectares (343,894 acres) as of mid-2025, the vast majority (97.5%) in the Madre de Dios region of southern Peru. The Huánuco and Puno regions have also experienced rising mining deforestation (1,262 and 1,014 hectares, respectively).

Moreover, alluvial gold mining is also expanding in numerous rivers across the Peruvian Amazon, especially in the northern regions of Loreto and Amazonas. We have identified 989 mining dredges in Loreto since 2017, followed by 174  in Amazonas.

Overall, we have documented gold mining activity in 225 water bodies (rivers and streams) across the Peruvian Amazon.

Below, we present the detailed results of this report in three regional sections: northern Peru (Amazonas, Cajamarca, and Loreto); central Peru (Huánuco, Pasco, and Ucayali); and southern Peru (Cusco, Madre de Dios, and Puno). Each section presents information about mining in forests (deforestation) and rivers.

Base Map. Data: ACA, ACCA, CINCIA, FEMA, SZF, IBC, SERNANP, Mapbiomas Perú

 

Northern Peru

Gold mining has spread to both the forests and rivers of Amazonas, Cajamarca, and Loreto regions of the northern Peruvian Amazon (Figure 1).

Gold mining deforestation has impacted 491 hectares, located near rivers and within Indigenous communities (see red areas in Figure 1). The mining deforestation has been localized along the Chinchipe River in Cajamarca, and near the Marañón River in Amazonas and Loreto.

Figure 1. Gold mining in the northern Peruvian Amazon. Data: ACCA, FEMA, SZF, IBC, SERNANP
Figure 1A. Gold mining deforestation along the Sawintsa River, Amazonas region. Data: ACCA, Maxar

We highlight the recent mining deforestation along the Sawintsa River near the Peru-Ecuador border in the Amazonas and Cajamarca regions (Figura 1A).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1B. Mining dredges identified in the Nanay River (Loreto). Data: Planet, ACCA

In addition, river-based mining has emerged as a critical issue in northern Peru, where we have documented mining barges in at least 14 rivers (see yellow dots in Figure 1).

Loreto is the most impacted region, where we have documented 989 mining dredges between 2017 and 2025.

The Nanay River, located in Loreto, is the most impacted by mining dredges Figure 1B. We have identified 841 mining dredges since 2017, including 275 in 2025. This mining activity extends into Indigenous communities and the Alto Nanay – Pintuyacu – Chambira Regional Conservation Area.

Mining also impacts the Cenepa and Santiago Rivers, located in Amazonas. We have identified 137 and 51 mining dredges, respectively, in these rivers since 2022. Some of this mining activity surrounds Indigenous communities in Amazonas.

 

 

 

Central Peru

Gold mining also impacts both the forests and rivers of Huánuco, Pasco and Ucayali regions in the central Peruvian Amazon (Figure 2).

Gold mining deforestation has reached 1,320 hectares, located along rivers, in Indigenous communities, in the Carpish Montane Forest Regional Conservation Area, and in the buffer zone of the El Sira Communal Reserve (see red areas in Figure 2).

Figure 2. Gold mining in the central Peruvian Amazon. Data: ACCA
Figure 2A. Gold mining deforestation due in Puerto Inca province, Huánuco region. Data: Maxar, ACCA

The Huánuco region is the most impacted by mining deforestation in central Peru, with the vast majority (97%) occurring in the province of Puerto Inca (Figure 2A).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figura 2b. Deforestación por minería de oro aledaño al río Chinchihuani, región Pasco. Datos: Maxar, ACCA

In the Pasco region, gold mining deforestation has been recorded in pending mining concessions along the Chinchihuani River since August 2024 (Figure 2B).

Gold mining in the Ucayali region has been located along the Abujao River.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2C. Mining dredges in the Aguaytía River, Ucayali region. Data: Maxar, ACCA

In addition, river-based mining is impacting the Aguaytía River, in the Ucayali region (see yellow dots in Figure 2).

We first detected mining dredges in mid-2024 (Figure 2C) in this area,  located near the buffer zone of Cordillera Azul National Park.

In total, we have identified 26 mining dredges in the Aguaytía River in 2024 and  2025.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Southern Peru

Gold mining deforestation has had major impacts in the regions of Cusco, Madre de Dios, and Puno, in the southern Peruvian Amazon. Note in Figure 3 that mining deforestation (indicated in red) is the dominant impact, and not mining barges as seen in the northern Peruvian Amazon.

We have documented the gold mining deforestation of ​​137,558 hectares (339,913 acres) in these southern regions, accounting for 98.7% of total mining deforestation in the Peruvian Amazon. This massive gold mining deforestation started in 1984 in Madre de Dios.

Figure 3. Gold mining in the southern Peruvian Amazon. Data: ACA, ACCA, CINCIA, Mapbiomas Perú, AMW
Figure 3A. Gold mining deforestation in the buffer zone of Tambopata National Reserve. Data: Planet

Madre de Dios has the highest gold mining deforestation of all the regions in Peru (135,939 hectares), accounting for 97.5% of the national total.

This widespread mining deforestation in Madre de Dios has extended into Indigenous communities and the buffer zones of protected areas, such as Tambopata National Reserve (Figure 3A) and Amarakaeri Communal Reserve.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figura 3b. Deforestación por minería oro en la Concesión para Conservación Camanti Sostenible. Datos: Maxar

In the Cusco region, gold mining deforestation has spread to various areas around the Araza and Nusiniscato Rivers.

Además, parte de la deforestación por minería se ha extendido al interior de la zona de amortiguamiento de la Reserva Comunal Amarakaeri y en la Concesión para Conservación Camanti Sostenible (Figura 3b). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3C. Gold mining deforestation near the Huari Huari River. Source: ACCA, Maxar

The Puno region has experienced gold mining deforestation near the Inambari and Huari Huari Rivers (Figure 3C), surrounding the buffer zone of the Bahuaja Sonene National Park.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figura 3d. Tracas en pozas mineras en la zona de amortiguamiento de la Reserva Nacional Tambopata. Fuente: Planet

In Madre de Dios, we have detected over 2,000 pieces of mining infrastructure, such as drills, chutes, dredges, and mining rafts (Figure 3D) (ACCA, 2022).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Policy recommendations for gold mining in Peru:

Gold mining in Peru represents one of the country’s greatest socio-environmental challenges, impacting Amazonian forests, rivers, and local communities (Arana Cardó, M, 2024). In response, we present five policy proposals aimed at minimizing this impact, focusing on 1) implementing gold traceability, 2) strengthening the Artisanal and Small-scale mining (ASM) Law, 3) establishing environmental obligations, 4) strengthening supervision, and 5) promoting clean technologies (including banning mercury).

1. Implement an effective gold traceability system that links production, marketing, and export

Foto: ACCA

Currently, the Special Registry of Gold Traders and Processors, created by Ministerial Resolution No. 249-2012-MEM-DM, lacks effective mechanisms for cross-referencing information.

Therefore, it is recommended to consolidate a comprehensive traceability system that covers not only producers, traders, processors, and exporters, including the jewelry industry, but also the control of critical inputs such as mercury and fuels, in order to guarantee supply chains free of contamination and illegal activities.

This system must integrate real-time digital controls, cross-reference information between what is declared as production and what is actually traded, prevent the illegal export of gold in the form of jewelry, and align with international due diligence requirements.

 

2. Strengthening the Artisanal and Small-scale mining (ASM) Law & improving the formalizatin registry (REINFO)

Foto: ACCA

Regulations on small-scale and artisanal mining should establish clear categories based on production and technology, differentiating the formalization process (aimed at pre-existing informal miners and includes phased-in measures and technical support) from the ordinary permitting process, which requires full compliance with environmental and technical requirements for new projects.

The new law for Artisanal and Small-scale mining (ASM) should incorporate real incentives for formalization and the adoption of sustainable practices, effective oversight mechanisms, and the delimitation of exclusive zones for formalized activity, excluding natural Protected Areas, Indigenous reserves, bodies of water, and cultural heritage sites.

Additionally, this new regulation must establish mandatory due diligence throughout the gold value chain, linking the formalization process to the implementation of a traceability system. Thus, formalized miners must not only comply with basic legal requirements but also ensure that their production is free of illegal inputs such as mercury, meeting international standards of transparency and sustainability.

Likewise, given the formalization extension granted until December 31, 2025, in Supreme Decree No. 012-2025-EM, it is essential that the government improve the Comprehensive Registry of Mining Formalization (REINFO in Spanish), permanently removing those who do not meet the minimum requirements established in Law No. 32213 and its regulations, as indicated by its update through Supreme Decree No. 009-2025-EM. Furthermore, proportional sanctioning mechanisms must be evaluated to discourage the misuse of the registry. Only in this way will it be possible to prevent this registry from continuing to be used as a shield of impunity against the actions of the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the National Police, and to ensure that formalization translates into an effective change in mining practices.

3. Establish environmental obligations from the beginning of mining formalization & ensure their supervision

Foto: ACCA

Regulations should establish that all small-scale and artisanal mining activities must be subject to the respective environmental obligations from the initial formalization process, in order to ensure early and effective oversight.

During this process, operations must be subject to governmental oversight by the Environmental Assessment and Oversight Agency (OEFA in Spanish), the Supervising Agency for Investment in Energy and Mining (OSINERGMIN in Spanish), and the National Superintendence of Labor Inspection (SUNAFIL in Spanish). Likewise, administrative and criminal sanctions must be applied to responsible authorities who fail to fulfill their oversight duties.

Additionally, forest zoning should be promoted and advanced, in accordance with the provisions of the Forestry Law (Law No. 29763), with an emphasis on the Amazon regions of Peru. This should be integrated into the mining formalization process and become a formal requirement for granting permits. The integration of zoning will prevent the granting of new permits in priority forests for conservation, reducing deforestation and misuse of forests by directing mining toward areas of lower impact and prohibiting it in critical areas. This would require mining formalization authorities to consult zoning maps from the outset. That is, applicants must include the forest zoning category of their plot and demonstrate compatibility before issuing a permit.

4. Strengthen ASM supervision at the regional level through inter-institutional agreements

Foto: ACCA

We propose the signing of agreements between OEFA and the Amazonian regional governments, accompanied by technical support and technological equipment for real-time monitoring of operations in remote areas.

Furthermore, following the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) guidelines, the formation of specialized multidisciplinary teams to support field supervision is recommended, helping to close capacity gaps and ensure the effectiveness of environmental monitoring in critical territories.

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. Promote clean technologies and ban the use of mercury by 2030.

Foto: ACCA

In compliance with the Minamata Convention, Peru must adopt a policy to phase out mercury in gold mining.

To this end, it is recommended that miners be facilitated access to clean technologies through loans, subsidies, or tax benefits, ensuring safer processes for the environment and public health, so that the technological transition increases gold recovery and reduces impacts on rivers and local communities.

However, this policy must be accompanied by specific goals for the protection of forest resources, as well as stricter sanctions for those who continue to use mercury and generate deforestation, thus ensuring true environmental and public health protection. Furthermore, these goals must be expressly incorporated into the Minamata Convention’s National Action Plan, ensuring its effective and coordinated implementation throughout the country.

 

Methodology

The identification of gold mining deforestation in Peru was based on the visual interpretation of high- and very high-resolution satellite imagery available on Planet, Maxar, and Google Earth Pro for the regions of Amazonas, Cajamarca, Cusco, Huánuco, Loreto, Pasco, Puno, and Ucayali. We conducted a preliminary review of maps and platforms related to mining detection in Peru (the Early Detection and Environmental Monitoring System of the Peruvian Ministry of the Environment, Amazon Mining Watch, and Mapbiomas Perú) to locate potential mining areas. In addition, we compiled reports and newspaper articles related to gold mining in different regions of the country  to identify mining areas, as well as direct communications from representatives of different institutions regarding signs of mining activity at the local level. Based on these preliminary processes, we identified gold mining deforestation using satellite imagery. Additionally, we conducted monitoring of mining-related deforestation using monthly Planet NICFI mosaics (4.7 m spatial resolution) to track the expansion of mining-related deforestation and identify new nearby mining areas.

The identification of gold mining deforestation in Madre de Dios used historical mining deforestation information generated by the Amazon Scientific Innovation Center (CINCIA) for the years 1984 – 2019, by Mapbiomas Perú for the year 2020, and by Amazon Conservation (ACA) for the period January 2021 – March 2024. Then, we used the LandTrendR algorithm to identify forest loss in monthly mosaics of Planet NICFI for the period April 2024 – July 2025. Subsequently, we conducted a manual review to identify forest loss resulting from gold mining and other causes.

The identification of river-based mining was based on the visual interpretation of very high-resolution satellite imagery available on Planet, Maxar, and Google Earth Pro for various Amazonian rivers and mining areas in Peru. In addition, confidential reports and direct communications from various institutions regarding the presence of mining infrastructure in Amazonian rivers were included.

 

References

Arana Cardó, M. (2024). Minería ilegal en la Amazonía peruana: Informe sobre las actividades mineras en las regiones amazónicas de Loreto, San Martín, Amazonas, Ucayali, Madre de Dios y Huánuco. Fundación para la Conservación y el Desarrollo Sostenible Perú (FCDS). https://fcds.org.pe/wpcontent/uploads/2024/07/Resumen_Ejecutivo_informe_mineria_compressed-1.pdf

Conservación Amazónica (ACCA), Proyecto Prevenir – USAID. (2022). Estimación de la población minera informal e ilegal en el departamento de Madre de Dios, a partir del uso de imágenes satelitales sub métricas. https://repositorio.profonanpe.org.pe/handle/20.500.14150/2744

Delfino, E. (20 de julio de 2025). Minería ilegal en Perú: “Hay una presión internacional por el oro y los principales países consumidores no realizan una debida diligencia respecto al origen” | ENTREVISTA. Mongabay. https://es.mongabay.com/2025/07/mineria-ilegal-peru-oro-amazonia-contaminacion/

OCDE (2016). OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas: Third Edition. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264252479-en.

Vadillo Vila, J. (2022). La minería ilegal y su impacto en tiempos de pandemia. Diario El Peruano. https://elperuano.pe/noticia/170967-la-mineria-ilegal-hoy

Zapata Perez, M., Arana Cardo, M., Ramires Valle, D., Castro Sánchez-Moreno, M., Garay Tapia, K., Rivadeneyra Tello, G., Vega Ruiz, C. y Cabanillas Vasquez, F. (2025). 10 propuestas para la formalización efectiva de la pequeña minería y minería artesanal. Observatorio de Minería Ilegal. https://www.observatoriomineriailegal.org.pe/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/10_propuestas_ley_MAPE_020525.pdf

Citation

Pacsi R, Novoa S, Yupanqui O, Quispe M, La Torre S, Balbuena H, Huamán B, Valdivia G, Castañeda C, Soria M, Finer M, Santana A (2025) Current situation of gold mining in the Peruvian Amazon. MAAP: 233.

Acknowledgments

This report is part of a series focusing on gold mining in the Peruvian Amazon, through a strategic collaboration between Amazon Conservation and Conservación Amazónica – Peru (ACCA), with support from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

MAAP #232: The Amazon Tipping Point – Importance of Flying Rivers Connecting the Amazon

Posted on by Matt Finer
Intro Map. Amazon moisture flow (aerial river) for the southwest Amazon. Source: Amazon Conservation/MAAP

The Amazon biome, stretching over a vast area across nine countries in northern South America, is renowned for its extreme diversity (biological and cultural) and its abundant water resources. Indeed, the major features of the Amazon are linked by interconnected water flows, both on land and in the air (Beveridge et al. 2024).

The natural phenomenon of aerial moisture transport and recycling, also known as “aerial rivers” and popularized in the press as “flying rivers,” has emerged as an essential concept related to the conservation of the Amazon. In short, moisture flows from the Atlantic Ocean across the Amazon, uniquely facilitated by the rainforest itself. As they move westward, these flying rivers drop water onto the forest below. The forest subsequently transpires moisture back into them, thus recycling water and supporting rainforest ecosystems far from the Ocean source. For example, the Intro Map illustrates the aerial river for the southwest Amazon.

Continued deforestation and forest degradation, however, will disrupt and diminish the critical east-to-west aerial water flow, inducing a “tipping point” of impacted regions that would transition from rainforest to drier savannah ecosystems. 

In this report, we aim to both summarize the current state of knowledge on the movement of atmospheric moisture across the Amazon and develop novel analyses based on this information. Overall, we aim to show the critical connections between the eastern and western Amazon, and how these connections change during the major seasons (wet, dry, and transition) of the year.

Our analysis is divided into three main parts:

First, we summarize the state of knowledge on the movement of atmospheric moisture across the Amazon, drawing on a review of recent literature and exchanges with experts. Second, we identify the sensitive areas that are the most vulnerable to deforestation-caused disruption of moisture recycling. Third, we relate these sensitive areas in the west to their respective eastern key source areas for moisture for each of the three Amazonian seasons: wet, dry, and transition.

In summary, we identified the sensitive areas that are the most vulnerable to deforestation-caused disruption of moisture recycling from the Atlantic Ocean source are mostly located in the southwestern Amazon (Peru and Bolivia). For the wet season, much of the moisture flow to these sensitive areas crosses the continuous primary (non-deforested) forests of the northern Amazon. For the dry and transition seasons, however, the moisture flow to the sensitive areas must cross several major deforestation fronts located in the eastern Brazilian Amazon.

Thus, an important contribution of this work is to reveal that, contrary to the common perception that the tipping point is a single Amazon-wide event, certain parts of the Amazon are more vulnerable than others. Most notably, the southwestern Amazon (Peru and Bolivia) is most vulnerable to a possible tipping point, particularly stressed by disrupted dry season moisture flows over major deforestation fronts.

1. Movement of aerial moisture across the Amazon (moisture flow)

Figure 1. Amazon moisture flows by season for the SW Amazon. Data: ERA5, ACA/MAAP

Driven by permanent trade winds, aerial (atmospheric) moisture flows westward from its source in the Atlantic Ocean, across the Amazon lowlands, and toward the Andes Mountains. These moisture routes are recharged by evapotranspiration and discharged by precipitation, creating moisture recycling systems (Beveridge 2024, Weng et al. 2018, Staal 2018, Weng 2019). Evaporation recycling reloads atmospheric moisture after rainfall, while precipitation recycling removes this moisture. The Amazon forest is therefore a key component of a giant water pump, starting with water transported from the tropical Atlantic Ocean and helping push it westward  (Zemp 2017, Boers 2017). Aerial rivers are the long-term and large-scale preferential pathways of the moisture flows driving this pump (Arraut et al. 2012) (see Intro Image). Thus, aerial rivers are the overall average (coarse-scale) moisture flow pattern, while moisture recycling focuses more on the seasonal differences (finer-scale). 

Of all the rainfall in the Amazon, its trees have directly transpired 20% of it (Staal et al. 2018). Half of this precipitation (10%) is from moisture from one recycling event, and the other half (10%) is from multiple recycling events. This latter process of cascading precipitation, or cascading moisture recycling (Zemp et al. 2014), may happen multiple times (up to five or six), recycling water from the eastern to western Amazon, to areas increasingly distant from the Atlantic Ocean source (Lovejoy and Nobre 2019, Beveridge et al, 2024). Precipitation tends to increase exponentially as moist air travels over forests, but then drops off sharply once it moves beyond them, showing just how vital forests are in sustaining rainfall across large regions (Molina et al. 2019). Transpiration-driven moisture recycling is especially important during the dry season (Staal et al. 2018, Nehemy et al. 2025).

Thus, there are transboundary implications, as actions occurring in an eastern country can have an impact on a western country downwind of the moisture cascade. For example, deforestation in eastern Brazil can negatively impact moisture flow going to Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia, including the tropical Andean mountains (Ruiz-Vasquez et al., 2020; Sierra et al. 2022, Flores et al 2024). As moisture recycling also continues beyond the boundaries of the Amazon, there may also be impacts to agricultural areas in southern Brazil, Paraguay, northern Argentina, and northern Colombia (Martinez and Dominguez 2014; Ruiz-Vasquez et al., 2020).

The resulting terrestrial flow of water from the Andes mountains through the Amazon lowlands and back to the Atlantic Ocean as runoff and flow of the Amazon river and its tributaries results in the emerging concept known as the “Andes–Amazon– Atlantic” (AAA) pathway (Beveridge et al, 2024).

Importantly, the moisture flows change seasonally in the Amazon. Figure 1 illustrates these seasonal changes for the southwest Amazon, as an example.

In the rainy season (January–February), the moisture flow is both westward and southward, creating a giant arc (Arraut 2012). Thus, the continental moisture source is the northeast Amazon (Boers 2017, Weng et al. 2018, Sierra et al. 2022). 

In the dry (July–August) and the dry-to-wet transition (September-October) seasons, the moisture flow shifts more directly westward (Arraut 2012, Staal et al, 2018). Therefore, the continental moisture source is the southeast Amazon, and some studies have identified this region as the most important for maintaining overall Amazonian resilience (Zemp et al. 2017, Staal et al. 2018).

There is increasing evidence that future deforestation will reduce rainfall downwind – further west – of the moisture recycling networks, inducing a “tipping point” of impacted regions that would transition from rainforest to savannah ecosystems (Boers 2017, Staal 2018, Lovejoy & Nobre 2018). This has led to calls for forest protection strategies to maintain the cascading moisture recycling system fueling the pathway (Zemp 2017, Encalada et al. 2021). A recent review indicates limited evidence for a single, system-wide tipping point; instead, specific areas of the Amazon may be more vulnerable (Brando et al, 2025).

Scientists are already documenting impacts linked to increasing forest loss.  Several recent studies have found that Amazon deforestation has already caused a significant decrease in precipitation in the southeast Amazon, particularly during the dry season (Qin et al, 2025, Liu et al, 2025, Franco et al. 2025). Moreover, deforestation reduces rainfall upwind of the cleared areas, impacting the western Amazon as well (Qin et al, 2025). In addition, recent studies have shown that Amazon deforestation delays the onset of the wet season in southern Amazonia (Ruiz-Vasquez et al., 2020; Commar et al., 2023; Sierra et al., 2023).

Related to deforestation, additional climatic factors, such as increased temperature and the length of the dry season, are also contributing to the tipping point (Flores et al. 2024). Multiple sources have reported on the lengthening of the dry season in southern and eastern Amazonia in recent decades, with the largest dry season observed in 2023-2024 during the major drought reported in Amazonia (Marengo el al 2024; Espinoza et al., 2024). As a result of these drier conditions, recent years have experienced record-breaking fire seasons, most notably during the El Niño years of 2016 and 2024 (Finer et al 2025). Notably,  the predicted forest-to-savannah change is already happening in places experiencing increased wildfire frequency due to these hot and dry conditions (Flores et al. 2021).

2. Areas most dependent on moisture recycling in the Amazon (sensitive areas)

Figure 2. Merged sensitive areas. Data: Staal 2018, Weng 2018, Amazon Conservation/MAAP

A series of recent empirical and modeling studies indicate that the southwest Amazon (including the Peruvian and Bolivian ranges of the tropical Andes) is the major moisture sink – the area where precipitation is most dependent on moisture recycling (Boers et al. 2017, Zemp et al. 2017, Weng et al. 2018, Staal et al. 2018, Sierra et al. 2022). In fact, tree-transpired rainfall is greater than 70% in this region (Staal et al. 2018, Weng et al. 2018). 

Given its dependence on transpiration-driven precipitation, the impact of a reduction in rainfall from cascading moisture recycling is predicted to be greatest in the southwest Amazon (Zemp et al. 2017, Weng et al. 2018, Staal 2018, Sierra et al. 2022, Beveridge 2024). Indeed, the southwest Amazon forest may enter the bioclimatic equilibrium of savannas following projected extensive Amazon deforestation scenarios (Zemp, 2017). Forests in the northwest and Guyana Shield are also relatively dependent on forest-rainfall cascades (Hoyos et al 2018; Staal et al. 2018).

To precisely identify the most vulnerable areas in the Amazon to disruptions of transpiration-based moisture recycling in a spatially explicit manner, we merged two key studies featuring spatially explicit model outputs (Weng 2018, Staal 2018). These studies cover data for the dry season (Staal 2018) and yearly (both dry and wet seasons) (Weng 2018). 

Weng 2018 identifies “sensitive areas,” defined as areas having more than 50% of rainfall coming from Amazonian evapotranspiration (representing the 98th percentile of the highest sensitivity to Amazonian land use change). Staal 2018 estimates the effect of Amazon tree transpiration on Amazon forest resilience. We selected the areas with the highest resilience loss (0.8 and higher), quantified as the fraction of resilience that would be lost in the absence of tree transpiration by Amazonian trees.

Figure 2 illustrates the merged dataset, which we refer to as “merged sensitive areas.” Notably, both studies concur that the most vulnerable areas are located in the southwest Amazon, spanning the lowlands of only two of the nine countries of the Amazon Basin: Peru and Bolivia. This merged sensitive area covers a 1,750-kilometer-long swath along the Peruvian and Bolivian Andes. In this merged data map, we include Manu National Park as a reference point, located roughly in the middle of the sensitive areas. 

Weng et al. identified higher elevation areas of the Andean-Amazon transition area in both Peru (Junín, Cusco, and Puno regions) and Bolivia, while Staal et al (2018) identified slightly lower elevation areas in this same range. These regions are consistent with predicted areas of higher rainfall reduction due to deforestation (Sierra et al. 2022). Also, note that Staal indicates an additional area in the Venezuelan Amazon.

Although, as noted above, forests in the northwest and northeast (Guyana Shield) are also relatively dependent on forest-rainfall cascades, the forests of the southwest are the most dependent, likely given their location at the far end of the Atlantic-Amazon-Andes pathway.

3. Moisture flows to sensitive areas (by season)

Figure 3. Amazon moisture flows by season relative to sensitive areas in the southwest Amazon. Data: ERA5, ACA/MAAP

Given the reliance of western, especially southwest, Amazon forests on cascading moisture recycling, a key challenge is to identify the most important moisture source areas in the eastern Amazon. In this respect, the literature provides a less definitive answer, likely because the moisture recycling routes change with seasons, in contrast to the long-term path of the aerial rivers that represent overall preferential pathways (Arraut 2012, Staal 2018, Weng et al. 2018). 

We correlate the merged sensitive areas in the southwest Amazon with their respective moisture source areas by back-tracking the moisture flows upwind. This component of the work was inspired by the precipitation-shed concept, defined here as the terrestrial upwind surface areas providing evapotranspiration to a specific area’s precipitation (Keys et al. 2012, Weng et al. 2018). 

We determined that analyzing all three major seasons is essential because of the major seasonal variability (Staal et al, 2018) and that each plays a key role in the stability of the rainforests: During the wet season, nearly 50% of total annual precipitation falls over the region, and these wet periods recharge Amazonian groundwater reserves vital for sustaining forest transpiration rates during dry months (Miguez-Macho and Fan 2012, Sierra et al 2022). During the dry season, moisture recycling processes are particularly important to ensure that some of the limited precipitation reaches the western Amazon (Beveridge et al, 2024). Tree-transpired rainfall then peaks during September to November, when large parts of the Amazon are at the end of the dry season and transitioning to the wet season (Zanin et al., 2024).

To map the pathway of moisture flow between the western Amazon merged sensitive areas and their eastern moisture sources, we utilize moisture flow data from the ERA5 reanalysis (Hersbach 2023). Specifically, we merged vertically integrated data for both northward and eastward water vapour flux. We chose data from 2022 as a recent year not heavily influenced by extreme weather events such as El Niño or drought (Espinoza et al., 2024). For 2022, we downloaded and analyzed the moisture flow data for three separate time periods: January-February (representing the wet or monsoon season), July-August (dry season), and September-October (dry-to-wet transition season).

The results for all three seasons are illustrated in Figure 3, where the arrows represent the ERA5 reanalysis moisture flow data from the Atlantic Ocean to the merged sensitive areas in the southwest Amazon. 

Note that in the wet season (January-February), moisture flows from the Atlantic Ocean over the northeast Amazon (northern Brazil, French Guiana, Suriname, Guyana, and Venezuela) before taking a major southern turn (arc) through the southeast Colombian Amazon and northern Peru before reaching the Sensitive Areas. This general pattern is consistent with other studies focused on the wet season (Arraut 2012, Boers 2017, Sierra et al. 2022) and year-round (Weng et al. 2018).

In contrast, in the dry (July-August) and transition (September-October) seasons, the moisture flows from the Atlantic Ocean further south across the central Brazilian Amazon, and has a less pronounced arc near the border with Peru. Specifically, the dry season pattern is consistent with other studies focused on the dry season (Arraut 2012, Staal 2018, Zemp 2017 NC).  Note that the transition season flow is located between the wet season to the north and the dry season to the south.

For all three seasons, we emphasize that the entire trajectory from east to west is important for conservation regarding cascading moisture recycling. That is, the farthest away areas in the east represent the full cascading trajectory, while the closest areas in the west exert the strongest direct influence (Weng et al. 2018). 

While moisture recycling covers a vast area from east to west, much of the tree-induced rainfall in the southwest Amazon is transpired nearby (Stall 2018). That is, areas exerting the strongest and most efficient influence on the southwest Amazon are located just upwind, in the central-west Amazon (Weng 2018; Wongchuig et al., 2023). In sum, extensive forest loss anywhere along the cascading moisture pathway from the eastern to the western Amazon, far or near, may affect transpiration-based precipitation in the western Amazon, adding to its sensitivity.

The overall annual pattern, accounting for all three seasons, could then be described as aerial rivers. As indicated by Weng et al. (2018), this mostly matches the pattern of the wet season.

Figure 4. As in Figure 3, plus forest cover. Data: ERA5, Amazon Conservation/MAAP

For additional context, Figure 4 incorporates current land classification broken down into three major categories based on satellite imagery analysis: Forest, Non-forest (such as savannah), and accumulated Deforestation areas (as of 2022).

For January-February (wet season), note that much of the moisture flow crosses the continuous primary forest of the northern Amazon. That is, the moisture crosses predominantly non-deforested areas of northern Brazil, French Guiana, Suriname, Guyana, Venezuela, southeast Colombia, and northern Peru.

In contrast, the moisture flows for July-August (dry season) and September-October (transition season) cross several major deforestation fronts in the central Amazon, particularly during the dry season.

During the critical dry-to-wet transition season, the role of the local area’s tree evapotranspiration is especially important. The southern Amazon presents lower overall evapotranspiration values (Fassoni-Andrade 2021; Zanin et al., 2024). Due to the greater access of forest roots to deep soil water, however, evapotranspiration over forested areas is higher than croplands/grasslands during this time (von Randow et al. 2004). Since, during this transition season, the moisture transport to the southwestern Amazon passes over large deforested areas, the conservation of the remaining forest along this pathway is critical.

In addition, recent studies show that the main patterns of moisture flux can be altered at a continental scale due to deforestation (Commar et al., 2023; Sierra et al., 2023). As a result, reduced moisture transport from the Atlantic to the continent and delays in the onset of the wet season may occur in the future due to Amazon deforestation and climate change (Agudelo et al., 2023).

Conclusion

Above, in this initial technical report, we merged three key points that are critical to understanding the tipping point concept in the Amazon.

First, we presented an overview of aerial moisture flows originating from the Atlantic Ocean and then moving and recycling from the eastern to the western Amazon. Second, we identified the “sensitive areas” that are the most vulnerable to deforestation-caused disruption of moisture recycling, mostly located in the western Amazon (Peru and Bolivia).  Third, we relate these sensitive areas in the west to their respective eastern key source areas for moisture for each of the three Amazonian seasons: wet, dry, and transition. 

Incorporating updated land-use data, we found important differences by season. For the wet season, much of the moisture flow crosses the continuous primary (non-deforested) forests of the northern Amazon. For the dry and transition seasons, however, the moisture flow must cross several major deforestation fronts mainly located in the central Amazon.

Thus, an important contribution of this work is to reveal that, contrary to the common perception that the tipping point is a single Amazon-wide event, certain parts of the Amazon are more vulnerable than others. Most notably, the southwestern Amazon (Peru and Bolivia) is most vulnerable to a possible tipping point, particularly stressed by disrupted dry season moisture flows over major deforestation fronts.

We will soon build off of these results in an upcoming policy-focused report that presents the major implications of the maintenance of aerial moisture flows for conservation. This analysis will include how to identify key conservation areas for each season based on the key concept of maintaining cascading moisture flow to the sensitive areas, in relation to protected areas, Indigenous territories, and major road networks. It will also reveal several policy implications that require urgent attention and new approaches to national governance and international cooperation. For example, It considers the implications of planned roads (most notably BR-319) and fortifying existing conservation areas and creating new ones in undesignated public lands.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Leo Model Foundation.

We thank the following colleagues for datasets and/or comments on earlier versions of the report:

Wei Weng
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research
Potsdam, Germany  

Arie Staal
Assistant Professor
Environmental Sciences
Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development
Utrecht University

Juan Pablo Sierra
Institut des Géosciences de l’Environnement,
Université Grenoble Alpes, IRD, CNRS,
Grenoble, France  

Jhan-Carlo Espinoza
Directeur de Recherche, Institut de Recherche pour le Developpement (IRD)
IGE Univ. Grenoble Alpes, IRD, CNRS (UMR 5001 / UR 252) – France
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. Lima – Perú
–
Co-chair of ANDEX: A regional Hydroclimate Initiative for the Andes – GEWEX
Coordinator of the AMANECER Project (Amazon-Andes Connectivity)

Corine Vriesendorp
Director of Science
Conservación Amazónica – Peru (ACCA)

Federico E. Viscarra
Science Officer
Science Panel for the Amazon

Daniel Larrea
Director of the Science & Technology Program
Conservación Amazónica – Bolivia (ACEAA)

Citation

Finer M, Ariñez A, Sierra JP, Espinoza JC,, Weng W, Vriesendorp C, Bodin B, Beavers J (2025) The Amazon Tipping Point – Importance of Flying Rivers Connecting the Amazon. MAAP: 232.

Literature Cited

Agudelo, J., Espinoza, J.C., Junquas, C., Arias, P. A., Sierra, J. P., Olmo, M. E (2023) Future projections of low-level atmospheric circulation patterns over South Tropical South America: Impacts on precipitation and Amazon dry season length. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres.

Beveridge et al (2024) The Andes–Amazon–Atlantic pathway: A foundational hydroclimate system for social–ecological system sustainability. PNAS 121 (22) e2306229121

Boers N, Marwan N, Barbosa HM, and Kurths J. (2017) A deforestation-induced tipping point for the South American monsoon system. Scientific reports, 7(1), 41489.

Brando PM, Barlow J, Macedo MN, Silvério DV, Ferreira JN, et al (2025) Tipping Points of Amazonian Forests: Beyond Myths and Toward Solutions. Annual Review of Environment and Resources. Vol. 50.

Commar, L.F.S., Abrahão, G.M., & Costa, M.H. (2023) A possible deforestation-induced synoptic-scale circulation that delays the rainy season onset in Amazonia. Environ. Res. Lett. 18, 044041.

Delphine Clara Zemp, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Henrique M. J. Barbosa, Marina Hirota, Vincent Montade, Gilvan Sampaio, Arie Staal, Lan Wang-Erlandsson & Anja Rammig (2017) Nat Comms 8: 14681  

Encalada A.C., Adalberto L. Val, Simone Athayde, Jhan Carlo Espinoza, Marcia Macedo, Mirian Marmontel, Guido Miranda, Maria Tereza Fernandez Piedade, Tiago da Mota e Silva & Julia Arieira (2021) Conserving the Amazon’s freshwater ecosystems’ health and connectivity. SPA Policy Brief.

Espinoza JC., Jimenez J.C., Marengo J.A. Schongart J., Ronchail J., Lavado-Casimiro W. Ribeiro JVM (2024) The new record of drought and warmth in the Amazon in 2023 related to regional and global climatic features. Sci Rep 14, 8107. 

Fassoni-Andrade, A. C., Fleischmann, A. S., Papa, F., Paiva, R. C. D. d., Wongchuig, S., Melack, J. M., et al. (2021). Amazon hydrology from space: Scientific advances and future challenges. Reviews of Geophysics, 59, e2020RG000728.  

Finer M, Ariñez A, Mamani N, Cohen M, Santana A (2025) Amazon Deforestation & Fire Hotspots 2024. MAAP: 229.

Flores, B.M., Holmgren, M (2021) White-Sand Savannas Expand at the Core of the Amazon After Forest Wildfires. Ecosystems 24, 1624–1637.

Flores et al. (2024) Critical transitions in the Amazon forest system. Nature, 262 (555–564).

Franco et al. (2025) How climate change and deforestation interact in the transformation of the Amazon rainforest. Nature Communications 16:7944.

Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Biavati, G., Horányi, A., Muñoz Sabater, J., Nicolas, J., Peubey, C., Radu, R., Rozum, I., Schepers, D., Simmons, A., Soci, C., Dee, D., Thépaut, J-N. (2023): ERA5 hourly data on single levels from 1940 to present. Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) Climate Data Store (CDS).

Hoyos, F. Dominguez, J. Cañón-Barriga, J. A. Martínez, R. Nieto, L. Gimeno & P. A. Dirmeyer (2018) Moisture origin and transport processes in Colombia, northern South America. Climate Dynamics. Volume 50, pages 971–990

Josefina Moraes Arraut, Carlos Nobre, Henrique M. J. Barbosa, Guillermo Obregon, and José Marengo (2012) Aerial Rivers and Lakes: Looking at Large-Scale Moisture Transport and Its Relation to Amazonia and to Subtropical Rainfall in South America. Journal of Climate 25 (2):543-556.

Keys, P. W., Van Der Ent, R. J., Gordon, L. J., Hoff, H., Nikoli, R., and Savenije, H. H. G. (2012) Analyzing precipitation sheds to understand the vulnerability of rainfall dependent regions, Biogeosciences, 9, 733–746.

Lovejoy T. & Nobre C. (2018) Amazon tipping point. Science Advances, 4(2)

Lovejoy T.E., C. Nobre (2019) Amazon tipping point: Last chance for action. Sci. Adv. 5, eaba 2949.

Marengo, J. , Cunha, A. , Espinoza, J.C. , Fu, R. , Schöngart, J. , Jimenez, J. , Costa, M. , Ribeiro, J. , Wongchuig, S. and Zhao, S (2024) The Drought of Amazonia in 2023-2024. American Journal of Climate Change, 13, 567-597. 

Martinez J.A. and Dominguez F. (2014) Sources of Atmospheric Moisture for the La Plata River Basin. 27 (17) 6737–6753.

Miguez-Macho G, Fan Y (2012) The role of groundwater in the Amazon water cycle: 1. Influence on seasonal streamflow, flooding and wetlands. J Geophys Res Atmos. 

Molina, R. D., Salazar, J. F., Martínez, J. A., Villegas, J. C., & Arias, P. A. (2019). Forest-induced exponential growth of precipitation
along climatological wind streamlines over the Amazon. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 124, 2589–2599.

Nehemy MF et al. (2025)   Embolism resistance supports the contribution of dry-season precipitation to transpiration in eastern Amazon forests. PNAS 122: 33.

Qin, Y., Wang, D., Ziegler, A.D. et al. (2025) Impact of Amazonian deforestation on precipitation reverses between seasons. Nature 639, 102–108.

Ruiz-Vásquez M. Arias PA., Martinez JA., Espinoza JC. (2020) Effects of Amazon basin deforestation on regional atmospheric circulation and water vapor transport towards tropical South America. Climate Dynamics. 

Sierra, J.P., Junquas, C., Espinoza, J.C., Segura, H., Condom, T., Andrade, M., Molina-Carpio, J., Ticona, L., Mardoñez, V., Blacutt, L., Polcher, J., Rabatel, A., Sicart, J. E. (2022) Deforestation Impacts on Amazon-Andes Hydroclimatic Connectivity. Climate Dynamics.

Sierra, J.P., Espinoza, JC., Junquas, C. Wongchuig S., Polcher J., Moron V., Fita L., Arias PA., Schrapffer A., Pennel R. (2023) Impacts of land-surface heterogeneities and Amazonian deforestation on the wet season onset in southern Amazon. Clim Dyn. 

Staal, A., Tuinenburg, O.A., Bosmans, J.H.C. et al. (2018) Forest-rainfall cascades buffer against drought across the Amazon. Nature Clim Change 8, 539–543.

von Randow C, Manzi AO, Kruijt B et al (2004) Comparative measurements and seasonal variations in energy and carbon exchange over forest and pasture in South West Amazonia. Theor Appl Climatol 78:5–26.

WCS (2023) High Integrity Forest Investment Initiative (HIFOR): The Science Basis

Weng W. (2019), Aerial river management for future water in the context of land use change in Amazonia   

Weng, Wei, Matthias K. B. Luedeke, Delphine C. Zemp, Tobia Lakes, and Juergen P. Kropp. (2018) “Aerial and Surface Rivers: Downwind Impacts on Water Availability from Land Use Changes in Amazonia.” Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 22 (1): 911–27

Wongchuig S, Espinoza JC, Condom T, Junquas C, Sierra JP, Fita L, Sörensson A, Polcher J. 2023. Changes in the surface and atmospheric water budget due to projected Amazon deforestation: Lessons from a fully coupled model simulation, Journal of Hydrology, Volume 625.

Zanin PR, Pareja-Quispe D, Espinoza JC. (2024) Evapotranspiration in the Amazon Basin: Couplings, hydrological memory and water feedback. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. 

Zemp, D. C., C-F Schleussner, H. M. J. Barbosa, and A. Rammig. (2017)  “Deforestation Effects on Amazon Forest Resilience.” Geophysical Research Letters 44 (12): 6182–90 

Zemp, D. C., Schleussner, C.-F., Barbosa, H. M. J., van der Ent, R. J., Donges, J. F., Heinke, J., Sampaio, G., and Rammig, A.(2017) On the importance of cascading moisture recycling in South America, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 13337–13359, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-13337-2014, 2014.

MAAP #229: Amazon Deforestation & Fire Hotspots 2024

Posted on by Matt Finer
Base Map. Deforestation and fire hotspots across the Amazon in 2024. Data: UMD/GLAD, Amazon Conservation/MAAP.

Continuing our annual series, we present a detailed look at the major 2024 Amazon forest loss hotspots, based on the final annual data recently released by the University of Maryland and featured on Global Forest Watch. As in other reports of the series, we take this global dataset and analyze it for the Amazon specifically.

This forest loss dataset serves as a consistent source across all nine countries of the Amazon, distinguishing forest loss from fire and non-fire causes. We use the non-fire forest loss as a proxy for human-caused deforestation, although it also includes some natural loss (such as landslides and windstorms). Previous research has confirmed that nearly all Amazon fires are human-caused (MAAP #189).

With this context, we are able to present both estimated deforestation and fire hotspots across the Amazon (see Base Map and Graph 1). 

In 2024, the deforestation was the fifth highest on record (since 2002), at over 1.7 million hectares (4.3 million acres) across the Amazon. This value represents a major increase (34%) from 2023, but a decrease (12%) from the recent peak in 2022 (1.98 million hectares). The majority of the deforestation occurred in Brazil (54.7%), followed by Bolivia (27.3%), Peru (8.1%), and Colombia (4.7%) as the clear top four in 2024.

The big story in 2024, however, was the record-breaking impact of fires on primary forests, with a total of 2.8 million hectares (6.9 million acres). This total shattered the previous record of 1.7 million hectares in 2016. The vast majority (95%) of this fire impact occurred in just two countries: Brazil and Bolivia, which both set annual fire records of their own (along with Peru, Guyana, Suriname, and French Guiana). Overall, this fire data may be interpreted as forest degradation, in contrast to the more permanent impacts of deforestation.

In terms of spatial patterns, the Base Map indicates that most of the intense forest loss hotspots were due to fire. These fire hotspots were especially concentrated in the soy and cattle frontiers of the southeast Brazilian Amazon and southeast Bolivian Amazon. The deforestation hotspots (without major associated fires) were largely due to agriculture and gold mining across the Amazon, notably in Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. See Annex 1 for the overall forest loss hotspots (without the specific fire loss data).

Previous research has revealed the tight link between deforestation and fires in the Amazon (MAAP #189). That is, many major fires are burning recently deforested areas, and sometimes escape into surrounding forests, especially with extended dry conditions.

In total, 4.5 million hectares (11.2 million acres) of primary forest were impacted by deforestation and fire combined. This total is the highest on record by far, surpassing 2016 (3.4 million hectares) by over a million hectares.

Since 2002, we estimate the deforestation of 33.7 million hectares (83.4 million acres) of primary forest, greater than the size of the state of New Mexico. An additional 10.6 million hectares (26.2 million acres) have been impacted by fires.

Below, we zoom in on the four countries with the highest deforestation (Brazil, Bolivia, Peru, and Colombia), plus additional highlights from around the Amazon (Guyana, Venezuela, and Ecuador).

Amazon Primary Forest Loss, 2002-2024

Graph 1 shows the historical trend of Amazonian primary forest loss, from 2022 to present.

Graph 1. Amazon Forest Loss, 2002-24. Data: UMD/GLAD, Amazon Conservation/MAAP.

Amazon Primary Forest Loss (By Country), 2002-2024

Graph 2a shows 2024 Amazon primary forest loss for all nine countries. In Annex 2, Graph 2b removes Brazil and Bolivia to see the other countries in greater detail.

Graph 2a. Amazon primary forest loss for all nine countries. Data: UMD

Brazilian Amazon

Figure 2. Deforestation and fire hotspots in the Brazilian Amazon. Data: UMD.

In 2024, the Brazilian Amazon lost 954,126 hectares (2.4 million acres) of primary forest to deforestation. Although this total marked a 13.6% increase from 2023, it was historically relatively low (16th highest overall since 2002).

The bigger story is that fires directly impacted an additional 1.9 million hectares (4.6 million acres). This fire impact was the highest on record, surpassing the previous high of 2016 (1.6 million hectares).

All of the most intense forest loss hotspots were characterized by intense fires. Many of these hotspots were concentrated in the southeast Brazilian Amazon (Figure 2). These areas include along the major north-south road in the state of Pará (BR-163), and further to the east of this road. The hotpots also expanded south into the soy frontier of Mato Grosso state.

Fire hotspots were also located in the northern state Roraima, and along the other major road networks, especially road BR-230 (Trans-Amazonian Highway) in the states of Pará and Amazonas, and road BR-364 in the state of Acre.

Previous research has revealed that over 70% of major fires in the Brazilian Amazon are burning recently deforested areas (MAAP #189). In extended dry conditions, such as 2016 and 2024, these major fires escape into surrounding forests.

 

 

Graph 3. Deforestation and fire trends in the Brazilian Amazon. Data: UMD.

Bolivian Amazon

Figure 3. Deforestation and fire hotspots in the Bolivian Amazon. Data: UMD.

In 2024, the Bolivian Amazon lost 476,030 hectares (1.2 million acres) of primary forest to deforestation. This total was the highest on record, surpassing the previous high of 2022 (245,177 hectares).

In an even bigger shattering record, fires directly impacted an additional 779,960 hectares (1.9 million acres). This total crushed the previous record of 2023 (250,843 hectares).

Like Brazil, the most intense forest loss hotspots were characterized by intense fires.

These fires were concentrated in the soy frontier located in the southeastern department of Santa Cruz (Figure 3). We emphasize that this particular hotspot is further north than in previous years, indicating a northern expansion of soy plantations.

There was also a concentration of fire hotspots along the Beni and Pando departments’ border, and closer to the Andes Mountains in the departments of La Paz and Beni.

Deforestation hotspots (without fires) were concentrated in the soy frontier in the southeast.

 

 

 

 

Graph 4. Deforestation and fire trends in the Bolivian Amazon. Data: UMD.

Peruvian Amazon

Figure 4. Deforestation and fire hotspots in the Peruvian Amazon. Data: UMD.

In 2024, the Peruvian Amazon lost 141,781 hectares (350,341 acres) of primary forest to deforestation. This total marks the 6th highest on record since 2002.

Breaking a record, fires impacted an additional 47,574 hectares (117,554 acres). This total more than doubled the previous high of 2023 (20,042 hectares). As noted above, this fire data may be interpreted as forest degradation, in contrast to the more permanent impacts of deforestation.

Like both Brazil and Bolivia, all of the most intense forest loss hotspots were characterized by intense fires. These fires were concentrated in the central and southeast Amazon (Ucayali and Madre de Dios regions, respectively) (Figure 4).

Deforestation hotspots were concentrated in the gold mining frontier in the southern Amazon and throughout the central Amazon. The very high hotspot in central Peru corresponds to the latest deforestation by Mennonite colonies (see MAAP #222 for context).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Graph 5. Deforestation and fire trends in the Peruvian Amazon. Data: UMD

Colombian Amazon

Figure 5. Deforestation and fire hotspots in the Colombian Amazon. Data: UMD.

In 2024, the Colombian Amazon lost 81,396 hectares (201,129 acres) of primary forest to deforestation. This total marked a striking 82.5% increase from the recent low recorded in 2023. It was the 7th highest on record, continuing the trend of elevated forest loss since the FARC peace agreement in 2016 (all top seven deforestation annual totals have occurred since 2016).

Major fires were less of an issue in the Colombian Amazon, but did directly impact an additional 5,184 hectares (8th highest on record).

As described in previous reports (see MAAP #120), Figure 5 shows that there continues to be an “arc of deforestation” in the northwest Colombian Amazon (Caqueta, Meta, Putumayo and Guaviare departments). Most notably, there is a pair of very high deforestation areas surrounding Chiribiquete National Park, and high deforestation areas within Tinigua and Macarena National Parks.

This arc impacts numerous Protected Areas (particularly Tinigua and Chiribiquete National Parks) and Indigenous Reserves (particularly Yari-Yaguara II and Nukak Maku).

 

 

 

 

Graph 6. Deforestation and fire trends in the Colombian Amazon. Data: UMD.

Rest of the Amazon

Other important highlights from around the Amazon include:

Deforestation and fire hotspots in northeast Guyana. In total, Guyana lost 25,858 hectares of primary forest to deforestation, and an additional 38,314 hectares to fires, both of which shattered previous records.

Deforestation in the Venezuelan Amazon was the highest on record (32,240 hectares), and additional fire impacts were the second highest (36,471 hectares).

Deforestation in the Ecuadorian Amazon was the second highest on record (18,615 hectares), just behind 2022 (18,902 hectares). Deforestation hotspots were concentrated in the northern Amazon, areas characterized by high gold mining activity (MAAP #227, MAAP #221, MAAP #219). As in Colombia, major fires were less of an issue in the northwest Amazon overall, but did directly impact an additional 1,540 hectares (4th highest on record).

Fires were the highest on record in Suriname (7,926 ha) and French Guiana (635 ha).

Policy Implications

The dominant policy development of 2024 was the record-breaking fire season across the Amazon. These fire records were not only region-wide but also country-specific, occurring in Brazil, Bolivia, Peru, Guyana, Suriname, and French Guiana.

The 2024 records are particularly significant given that the Amazon has experienced several intense fire years over the past two decades. The most notable, and previous record-breaker, occurred in 2016, following the “Godzilla” El Niño event of 2015-16. However, the extreme drought conditions of 2023 and 2024, also associated with El Niño,  exceeded those past benchmarks, creating extreme conditions for widespread fires across the Amazon.

As a result, fire policy is now emerging as a central pillar of Amazon conservation, alongside longstanding efforts to curb deforestation. This growing prominence is directly related to climate change, both in terms of intensifying dry seasons and the projected increase in the frequency, length, and severity of El Niño events.

These policies must be centered on how to avoid fires in the first place, and then how to effectively respond to major fires once they appear.

Previous research has revealed the tight link between deforestation and fires in the Brazilian Amazon (MAAP #189). That is, many major fires are burning recently deforested areas, and sometimes escape into surrounding forests, especially with extended dry conditions. Therefore, strengthening deforestation control remains one of the most effective fire mitigation strategies in Brazil and other Amazonian countries.

There is also a strong link between deforestation and fire in the Bolivian Amazon. While deforestation often precedes fires, as in Brazil, there is also a second round of deforestation following the fires

In both contexts, real-time fire monitoring, such as the MAAP Fire Tracker,  should be integrated into national response protocols and field-level coordination. 

Beyond fire, high rates of forest loss continue to be driven by deforestation across other parts of the Amazon. In Colombia’s arc of deforestation, we detected very high deforestation around Chiribiquete National Park, as well as high deforestation within Tinigua and Macarena National Parks. Although the national government is engaged on the issue of deforestation, these losses are closely tied to the presence and influence of armed groups in the country, which exert substantial control over land-use and deforestation dynamics (explaining shifts such as the dip in 2023 and the rise again in 2024). The major deforestation drivers in Colombia are roads, land grabbing (and associated cattle pastures), and coca cultivation.

Other high forest loss areas include gold mining fronts in northern Ecuador and southern Peru, Mennonite colonies in central Peru, the soy frontier in southeast Bolivia, and along major existing roads in Brazil. Although there is gold mining in both Venezuela and Guyana, the most intense forest loss hotspots were associated with fires surrounding agricultural areas.

It is important to note that the data presented here may differ from national data presented by governments. This difference may be due to methodology (we focus on impact on primary forests), spatial resolution (30 meters in our case), and Amazon boundaries (we employ a hybrid boundary designed for maximum inclusion of both watershed and biogeography). Due to these potential differences among sources, it is best to focus on the convergence of overall trends and patterns, and not overly focus on absolute numerical differences. 

Annex 1

Annex 1. Forest loss hotspots in relation to fire specific hotspots across the Amazon in 2024. Data: UMD/GLAD, ACA/MAAP.

 

Annex 2

Graph 2b. Amazon primary forest loss for seven countries (except Brazil and Bolivia). Data: UMD

Methodology

The analysis was based on 30-meter resolution annual forest loss data produced by the University of Maryland and also presented by Global Forest Watch.

This data was complemented with the Global Forest Loss due to fire dataset that is unique in terms of being consistent across the Amazon (in contrast to country specific estimates) and distinguishes forest loss caused directly by fire (note that virtually all Amazon fires are human-caused). The values included were ‘medium’ and ‘high’ confidence levels (code 3-4). This fire data may be interpreted as forest degradation, in contrast to the more permanent impacts of deforestation.

The remaining forest loss serves as a likely close proxy for deforestation, with the only remaining exception being natural events such as landslides, wind storms, and meandering rivers. The values used to estimate this category was ‘low’ certainty of forest loss due to fire (code 2), and forest loss due to other ‘non-fire’ drivers (code 1).

For the baseline, it was defined to establish areas with >30% tree canopy density in 2000. Importantly, we applied a filter to calculate only primary forest loss by intersecting the forest cover loss data with the additional dataset “primary humid tropical forests” as of 2001 (Turubanova et al 2018). For more details on this part of the methodology, see the Technical Blog from Global Forest Watch (Goldman and Weisse 2019).

Our geographic range for the Amazon is a hybrid designed for maximum inclusion: biogeographic boundary (as defined by RAISG) for all countries, except for Bolivia and Peru, where we use the watershed boundary, and Brazil, where we use the Legal Amazon boundary.

To identify the deforestation hotspots, we conducted a kernel density estimate. This type of analysis calculates the magnitude per unit area of a particular phenomenon, in this case, forest cover loss. We conducted this analysis using the Kernel Density tool from the Spatial Analyst Tool Box of ArcGIS. We used the following parameters:

Search Radius: 15000 layer units (meters)
Kernel Density Function: Quartic kernel function
Cell Size in the map: 50 x 50 meters (0.25 hectares)
Everything else was left to the default setting.

For the Base Map, we used the following concentration percentages: High: 3-14%; Very High: >14%. These percentages correspond to the concentration of forest loss pixels, with a pixel size of 50 x 50 meters (0.25 hectares).

Acknowledgements

We thank colleagues at Global Forest Watch (GFW), an initiative of the World Resources Institute (WRI) for early access to data.

We also thank colleagues from the following organizations for helpful comments on the report: Conservación Amazónica – ACEAA in Bolivia, Conservación Amazónica – ACCA in Peru, Fundación EcoCiencia in Ecuador, and Instituto Centro de Vida (ICV) in Brazil.

This work was supported by Norad (Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation).

Citation

Finer M, Ariñez A, Mamani N, Cohen M, Santana A (2025) Amazon Deforestation & Fire Hotspots 2024. MAAP: 229.

MAAP #228: Illegal Gold Mining in the Puré and Cotuhé Rivers in the Colombian Amazon

Posted on by Matt Finer
Base Map. Illegal gold mining in the Puré & Cotuhé Rivers, Colombian Amazon. Data: ACA/MAAP, FCDS, RAISG

Illegal gold mining poses a challenge to environmental sustainability, governance, and security for all nine countries of the Amazon. The high price of gold on the international market has fueled the growth of this activity, combined with other factors such as the scarcity of economic alternatives, the presence of illicit groups, corruption, and a lack of effective government action.

In the Amazon, illegal mining has generated massive deforestation (MAAP #226), contamination of water sources due to the use of mercury, and expansion of illicit economies, with gold becoming a key source of financing for organized armed groups (Note 1).

In a series of reports, MAAP has detailed and illustrated cases of illegal mining in many parts of the Amazon, including Peru, Ecuador, Brazil, and Venezuela. These reports include both forest-based mining causing deforestation, and river-based mining causing mercury contamination.

In this report, we focus on river-based mining in the northwestern Amazon, specifically the triple border region between Colombia, Brazil, and Peru (see Base Map).In this area, illegal mining activities impact several rivers that connect these countries: the Puré, Cotuhé, Caquetá, Amazonas, Apaporis, and Putumayo Rivers in Colombia; the Napo, Curaray, Putumayo, Yaguas, Nanay, and Mazán Rivers in Peru; and the Puruí and Japurá Rivers in Brazil.

Although it doesn’t cause deforestation, this type of mining activity directly impacts not only the rivers but all ecosystems interconnected with them, due to the use of dredges and mercury. This mercury contamination spreads through the food chain, accumulating in species consumed by the local population, harming their health. This type of mining can extract up to three kilograms of gold per month, equivalent to approximately $275,000 per month (Notes 2-3).

Specifically, this report examines the current situation of the Puré and Cotuhé Rivers, in their southeastern reaches, located in the Colombian Amazon (see Base Map). These rivers are located in the department of Amazonas, along the borders of Brazil and Peru.

In both cases, we analyzed these river stretches using a combination of very high-resolution satellite images (0.5 meters, Planet/Skysat) and overflight photographs (courtesy of the Amazon Alliance for the Reduction of the Impacts of Gold Mining – AARIMO in Spanish).

This report was produced in collaboration with our Colombian partner, the Foundation for Conservation and Sustainable Development (FCDS), and with financial support from the Overbrook Foundation and Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation..

Detection of mining activity in the Puré River

The Puré River flows through the core of the Río Puré National Park in the southeastern Colombian Amazon (see Base Map).

This protected area, in addition to its extraordinary biodiversity and high carbon levels, also plays a role as a food source for Indigenous communities and is recognized as home to Indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation, including the Yurí–Passé, whose high vulnerability has been widely recognized internationally.

This protected area faces pressures and threats primarily associated with alluvial mining activities, which are increasingly occurring along the Puré River from the border with Brazil. The impacts of this activity include mercury contamination of water and fish, destruction of aquatic habitats and ecosystems, hunting, logging, and impacts on food security and the environment where communities in voluntary isolation live.

Despite interventions by the Colombian government and ongoing monitoring by organizations, mining activities continue, with increased intensity during periods when the river flow is lowest.Analyzing a Skysat image from November 2024, we found 29 dredges along the Puré River (see red dots in Figure 1). Figures 1J-L show examples of these findings. In other Skysat images from March and April 2025, we identified 27 dredges (see yellow dots in Figure 1).

Figure 1. Detected gold mining activity in the Puré River. Data: Amazon Conservation/MAAP, FCDS.

Overflight photos – Puré River

The following photos (corresponding to points 1-3 in Figure 1) were taken during a low-altitude overflight conducted by FCDS in September 2024. This additional resolution provides additional information on mining methods and their impacts (AARIMO 2024).

Punto 1

Overflight photo, Point 1. Green-roof dredger, with Starlink. Data: FCDS.
Overflight photo, Point 1. Green-roof dredger, with Starlink. Data: FCDS.

Punto 2

Overflight photo, Point 2. Three dredgers with barges and skidders. Data: FCDS.
Overflight photo, Point 2. Three dredgers with barges and skidders. Data: FCDS.

Punto 3

Overflight photo. Point 3. Dredges and heavy machinery. Data: FCDS.

Detection of mining activity in the Cotuhé River

The Cotuhé River borders the north of Amacayacu National Park (see Base Map) and passes through the Cotuhé Putumayo Indigenous Reserve (see Figure 2), in the southeast Colombian Amazon, on the borders with Peru and Brazil.

Analyzing a Skysat image from November 30, 2024, we found five dredges (Figure 2). Figures 2A-D show examples of these findings.

Figure 2. Detected gold mining activity in the Cotuhé River. Data: Amazon Conservation/MAAP, FCDS.

Overflight photos – Cotuhé River

The following photos (corresponding to points 4-5 in Figure 2) were taken from a low-altitude overflight conducted by FCDS in September 2024 (AARIMO 2024).

Punto 4

Overflight photo, Point 4. Dredger in operation with Starlink antenna. Data: FCDS
Overflight photo, Point 5. Dredger. Data: FCDS

Policy Implications

The illegal river-based mining analyzed here occurs within two important Colombian protected areas, Río Puré and Amacayacu National Parks. In these areas, no mining operations of any kind are permitted, due to impacts on biodiversity, Indigenous communities in voluntary isolation, and local Indigenous communities that depend on natural resources for their survival, putting their food security at risk.

An important factor that has intensified mining activity in the area has been the significant upward trend in the price of gold. In January 2008, an ounce of gold was quoted at around $812. By July 2024, this value reached $2,514, representing an increase of more than 200% over that period. Furthermore, recent changes in tariff policies have further boosted demand for gold (GoldMarket, 2024). Consequently, in February 2025, gold reached new highs, approaching $3,000 per ounce, substantially driven by central bank purchases (El País, 2025a).

Although Law 1658 of 2013 initiated the ban on the use of mercury in Colombia, it was not fully implemented until 2023. This ban includes the import and export of mercury to and from Colombia. However, despite the ban in Colombia, this element is used in considerable quantities for illegal gold mining in border areas, such as those observed in this report. Thus, Colombia, Brazil, and Peru face a significant challenge in complying with the law, as controls on the sale and use of this element in border areas are very complex due to the fact that these are difficult-to-access areas.

In general, a correlation has been observed between the granting of mining concessions in cross-border areas and the increase in informal mining in the Amazon subregion. For example, in the case of the Río Puré National Park, the presence of mining dredges has increased within protected areas. These dredges enter the Puré River from the Brazilian side, where therea area a large number of formal mining concessions.

A key challenge is to strengthen operational capacities and coordinate control actions among the three border countries (Colombia, Peru, and Brazil) to combat environmental crimes associated with illegal mining. These operations must be effective and not result in actions that harm the local communities and Indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation in the region, as this exacerbates the internal conflict in Colombia.

Notes

1 Ministerio de Minas y Energía, 2023

2 Ebus & Pedroso, 2023

3 Bullion Vault, 2025

Acknowledgments

This report was produced in collaboration with our Colombian partner, the Foundation for Conservation and Sustainable Development (FCDS), and with financial support from the Overbrook Foundation and Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

FCDS Logo

MAAP #227: Gold Mining in the Ecuadorian Amazon – Northern Sector

Posted on by Matt Finer
Base Map. Gold mining deforestation in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Data: Amazon Mining Watch, RAISG

In a recent report (MAAP #226), we presented data from Amazon Mining Watch (AMW), a collaboration between Amazon Conservation, Earth Genome, and the Pulitzer Center. This public resource uses AI (artificial intelligence) to detect gold mining deforestation across the Amazon, starting in 2018.

The Base Map illustrates the current data, highlighting the most recent mining deforestation (2019–2024) in red. Note the concentration of new mining activity in the western part of the Ecuadorian Amazon, along the transition with the Andes Mountains.

This is the first in a series of reports detailing gold mining in these areas. In this report, we focus on deforestation due to mining in the northern sector, around the Cofán Bermejo Ecological Reserve.

The Cofán Bermejo Ecological Reserve was one of the best-preserved protected areas in the province of Sucumbios until approximately 2020. In recent years, a rapid expansion of gold mining has been unfolding in the buffer zone of the southeastern edge of the reserve.

The vast majority of this activity has been identified as illegal mining, as it occurs outside designated mining areas, or is carried out in concession areas without proper authorization. The expansion of illegal gold mining in this sector is promoted by criminal groups located on the border with Colombia (Note 1).

 

 

Mining in the Ecuadorian Amazon – Northern Sector

Figure 1. Mining to the southeast of Cofán-Bermejo Ecological Reserve. Data: AMW, ACA/MAAP; MAATE; NCI, Planet.

In a previous report, MAAP #186 analyzed mining activity just outside Cofán Bermejo Ecological Reserve, located in the northern Ecuadorian Amazon, in the province of Sucumbíos. Here, we update and expand this analysis around the reserve.

This expanded analysis incorporates additional conservation areas, such as El Bermejo Protective Forest and the Cascales Municipal Conservation and Sustainable Use Area (see Figure 1), as well as Shuar and Kichwa Indigenous territories (Figure 2).

Due to the development of this mining activity in several different land designation areas, it is worth emphasizing that there are two major factors determining its legality or illegality in Ecuador:

1) Express prohibition provided for by the Constitution or law, as in the case of metal mining activities in protected areas (Article 407 of the Constitution) or the prohibition on the use of mercury in mining operations (Article 86.1 of the Mining Law).

2) Lack of authorization, such as conducting exploration and exploitation activities without the corresponding permits.

In terms of social impact, Mongabay Latam (2023) contextualizes this area (References 1-2): “Indigenous communities and social and environmental organizations that work in the territory cannot openly denounce what is happening in this border area with Colombia, due to the presence of armed groups and the serious security problems that exist there.”

Considering that the largest area of ​​gold mining deforestation is located in the Cascales Conservation and Sustainable Use Area (Figure 1), it is important to note that this type of designation (Conservation and Sustainable Use Areas) are zones created by decentralized autonomous local governments, communities, or private landowners to conserve biodiversity and develop sustainable activities that maintain ecosystem services beneficial to human life. Activities such as conservation, research, restoration, education, culture, recreation, and tourism, as well as sustainable subsistence production activities, can be carried out in these protected areas. The declaration of these protected areas does not modify mining concessions granted by the National Environmental Authority that remain in force and may be renewed, as long as they are compatible with sustainable use.

Regarding El Bermejo Protective Forest, this designation type (Protective Forest) is natural vegetation formations (trees, shrubs, or herbs) found in areas with rugged topography, headwaters of watersheds, or zones unsuitable for agriculture or livestock farming. Their primary function is to conserve water, soil, flora, and wildlife. Activities permitted in these forests, with authorization from the National Environmental Authority, include the promotion of wildlife, the execution of priority public works, sustainable forest management, and scientific, tourism, and recreational activities.

Indigenous Territories

Figure 2. Gold mining deforestation in Indigenous territories (Shuar & Kichwa). Data: ACA/MAAP; EcoCiencia; Planet

In addition to  the Cofán Bermejo Indigenous Territory, which shares boundaries with the Ecological Reserve of the same name, gold mining deforestation threatens six surrounding Shuar and Kichwa Indigenous territories (Figure 2).

Note that these territories overlap with the conservation areas noted above.

In total, 68% of the mining deforestation detected in the study area was identified as occurring within these Indigenous territories.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Increase in Gold Mining Deforestation 2020 – 2024

Using satellite imagery (Planet), we estimated the annual expansion of gold mining deforestation in this area between 2020 and 2024. The total forest area affected by mining by the end of 2024 is approximately 754 hectares, equivalent to 1,863 acres.

The vast majority of this mining occurred in the Cascales Conservation and Sustainable Use Area or Indigenous territories.

The analysis shows that the largest increase occurred in 2024, with an expansion of 189.62 hectares. Overall, we documented a trend of continual accumulated expansion of gold mining deforestation across the region (Graph 1).

Graph 1. Mining activity 2017-2024 outside the Ecological Reserve Cofanes – Bermejo. Data: ACA/MAAP; Fundación EcoCiencia.

Mining Concessions

Figure 3. Overlay of mining activities with the mining cadastre. Data: ACA/MAAP; EcoCiencia; ARCOM; Planet

By adding the mining land designations, we determined that 59% of the mining deforestation (444 hectares) occured outside legal mining areas (Figure 3).

The Ecuadorian government, through the Ministry of Energy and Mines, grants mining rights for the exploitation of mineral resources in each of its phases (mining activity is divided into an exploration and development phase).

The exploration phase is further divided into three periods: initial exploration, advanced exploration, and economic evaluation.

Carrying out development activities prior to the granting of the right is illegal and may incur administrative or criminal sanctions.

 

 

 

 

 

Case Studies

We selected three case studies within the monitoring area to illustrate the rapid expansion of mining activity (see Insets A-C in Figure 3). The comparative panels below demonstrate the expansion of mining activity between May 2024 (left panel) and December 2024 (right panel) in each case.

Zoom A.

Panel A shows mining deforestation taking place outside designated mining concession areas. Moreover, this activity is occurring within a Shuar Indigenous territory (Taruka Territory).

Panel Zoom A. Mining deforestation in Shuar Indigenous territory. Data: ARCOM (2025); Planet

Zoom B.

In Panel B, we identified 61.4 hectares of mining activity within the El Tuerto mining concession. However, this concession is currently in the initial exploration phase, meaning it has not yet been authorized for development.

Panel Zoom B. Data: ARCOM (2025); Planet

Zoom C.

In Panel C, we recorded 19.65 hectares of mining activity within the El Porvenir mining concession. It is also currently in the exploration phase, with no authorization for development. Furthermore, this activity takes place within the ancestral territory of the Puma Kucha Commune (Kichwa Indigenous territory).

Panel Zoom C. Data: ARCOM (2025); Planet

Policy Implications

The recent gold mining deforestation described above highlights several key policy needs:

  • Regulate public investment to ensure that the various conservation entities recognized by the national government have the necessary resources for oversight within their jurisdiction.
  • Strengthen investigation and oversight processes in institutions responsible for ensuring environmentally responsible mining activities.

Methodology

In addition to Amazon Mining Watch to create the Base Map, we used LandTrendR, a temporal segmentation algorithm that identifies changes in pixel values ​​over time, to detect forest loss at the edge of the Cofán-Bermejo Ecological Reserve between August 2017 and December 2024 using the Google Earth Engine platform. Importantly, this method was originally designed for moderate-resolution (30-meter) Landsat imagery (Reference 3), but was adapted for higher spatial resolution (4.7-meter) NICFI-Planet monthly mosaics (Reference 4).

References

  1. Antonio José Paz Cardona. (2023, 7 junio). Ecuador: minería ilegal sigue avanzando hacia el interior de la Reserva Ecológica Cofán Bermejo. Noticias Ambientales. https://es.mongabay.com/2023/06/mineria-ilegal-reserva-ecologica-cofan-bermejo-ecuador/
  2. Amazon Watch report ‘Oro, bandas y gobernanza: La crisis que enfrentan las comunidades indígenas amazónicas de Ecuador’ 
  3. Kennedy, R.E., Yang, Z., Gorelick, N., Braaten, J., Cavalcante, L., Cohen, W.B., Healey, S. (2018). Implementation of the LandTrendr Algorithm on Google Earth Engine. Remote Sensing. 10, 691.
  4. Erik Lindquist, FAO, 2021

Acknowledgments

This report is part of a series focused on the Ecuadorian Amazon through a strategic collaboration between the EcoCiencia Foundation and Amazon Conservation, with support from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

MAAP #225: Carbon in the Amazon (part 4): Protected Areas & Indigenous Territories

Posted on by Matt Finer
Figure 1. Total aboveground carbon change, Amazon protected areas & Indigenous territories 2013-2022. Data: Planet, ACA/MAAP.

We continue our ongoing series about carbon in the Amazon.

In part 1 (MAAP #215), we introduced a new dataset (Planet’s Forest Carbon Diligence) with wall-to-wall estimates for aboveground carbon at an unprecedented 30-meter resolution between 2013 and 2022. In part 2 (MAAP #217), we highlighted which parts of the Amazon are currently home to the highest (peak) carbon stocks. In part 3 (MAAP #220), we showed key cases of carbon loss (deforestation) and gain across the Amazon.

A key finding from this series is that the Amazon biome is teetering between a carbon source and sink. That is, historically the Amazon has functioned as a critical sink, with its forests accumulating carbon if left undisturbed. However, relative to the 2013 baseline, the Amazon flipped to a source during the high deforestation, drought, and fire seasons of 2015-2017. It then rebounded as a narrow carbon sink in 2022.

Here, in part 4, we focus on the importance of aboveground carbon in protected areas and Indigenous territories, which together cover 49.5% (414.9 million hectares) of the Amazon biome (see Figure 1).

We find that, as of 2022, Amazonian protected areas and Indigenous territories contained 34.1 billion metric tons of aboveground carbon (60% of the Amazon’s total). Importantly, in the ten years between 2013 and 2022, they functioned as a significant carbon sink, gaining 257 million metric tons.

With this data, we can also analyze aboveground carbon for each protected area and Indigenous territory. For example, Figure 1 illustrates aboveground carbon loss vs. gain for each protected area and Indigenous territory during the 10-year period of 2013 – 2022 (see details below).

Below, we further explain and illustrate the key findings.

Amazon-wide & Country-level Results

Amazonian protected areas and Indigenous territories currently cover nearly half (49.5%) of the Amazon biome, but contain 60% of the aboveground carbon. Together they contained 34.1 billion metric tons of aboveground carbon as of 2022, gaining 257 million metric tons since 2013, thus functioning as a carbon sink (Figure 2).1,2 

In contrast, areas outside of protected areas and Indigenous territories (424 million hectares) contained 22.6 billion metric tons of aboveground carbon as of 2022, losing 255 million metric tons since 2013, thus functioning as an overall carbon source.

Thus, the carbon sink function of protected areas and Indigenous territories narrowly offsets the emissions in the rest of the Amazon.

We emphasize that the protected areas and Indigenous territories functioned as a significant carbon sink (p-value = 0.01), while the outside areas were not a significant source (p-value= 0.15).

Regarding results by country, protected areas and Indigenous territories were significant carbon sinks in Colombia, Brazil, Suriname, and French Guiana (Guyana gained carbon but not significantly). In contrast, they were significant carbon sources in Bolivia and Venezuela (Peru and Ecuador lost carbon but not significantly).

Figure 2. Amazon aboveground carbon 2013-2022, within vs. outside protected areas and Indigenous territories. Data: Planet, ACA/MAAP.

Individual Protected Area & Indigenous Territory Results

Figure 1 (see above) illustrates total aboveground carbon loss vs. gain for each protected area and Indigenous territory during the 10-year period of 2013 – 2022. 

Overall, we found 1,103 areas that served as significant carbon sinks (dark green) during this period (238 protected areas and 865 Indigenous territories). These areas are concentrated in the northern and central Amazon. See Annex 1 for a list of specific areas that were significant carbon sinks.

It is important to note that deforestation pressures currently threaten several of these significant carbon sinks, including Chiribiquete National Park and Nukak-Maku Indigenous Reserve in Colombia, Sierra del Divisor National Park in Peru, and Canaima National Park in Venezuela.

In contrast, we found 1,439 areas (156 protected areas and 1,283 Indigenous territories) that served as significant carbon sources. It is important to note that some areas with little documented deforestation, such as Alto Purus National Park, may have carbon loss from natural causes.

Figure 3. Total aboveground carbon stocks in each protected area and Indigenous territory. Data: Planet, ACA/MAAP.

Figure 3 offers the most recent snapshot of total aboveground carbon stocks in each protected area and Indigenous territory.

It presents data for 2022 categorized into three groups of High, Medium, and Low. Note that the highest carbon totals (over 330 million metric tons) are concentrated across the large designated areas of the northern Amazon.

These High and Medium carbon areas may be considered to have the highest overall conservation value purely in terms of total carbon.

See Annex 1 for specific areas with the highest carbon stocks as of 2022.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4. Aboveground carbon density in each protected area and Indigenous territory (2022). Data: Planet, ACA/MAAP

Finally, Figure 4 also displays the most recent data (2022) in each protected area and Indigenous territory, but standardized for area (aboveground carbon/hectare).

Note that the highest carbon totals (over 50 metric tons per hectare) are more evenly concentrated across the Amazon.

These High and Medium carbon areas may be considered to have the highest carbon conservation value per hectare.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Policy Implications:
Unlocking the Climate Value of Protected Areas and Indigenous Territories in the Amazon

Policy and finance for tropical forests as a climate solution have largely focused on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+). These efforts have made important strides in slowing and directing finance to tackle forest loss, particularly in high-deforestation regions. However, this emphasis on avoided emissions overlooks a critical component of the global carbon cycle: the carbon sink function (gaining of carbon over time) of primary tropical forests — which this analysis using Planet’s Forest Carbon Diligence data show is both measurable and significant.

This omission leaves a major flux in the carbon system—ongoing carbon sequestration in old-growth forests—outside the scope of existing market or non-market incentives. Critically, many of these carbon-absorbing forests are already located within established protected areas and indigenous territories. These areas are globally recognized for their importance in biodiversity conservation and for the stewardship provided by Indigenous Peoples and local communities. 

As global attention increasingly turns to engineered carbon removal strategies such as BECCS (Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage) and Direct Air Capture, there is an urgent need to recognize that Amazonian forests are already performing this function—naturally and at scale. Yet the value of Protected Areas and Indigenous territories as a potent carbon sink is neither monetized nor rewarded under current frameworks, unless they can demonstrate that they are under threat from deforestation or degradation in order to access REDD+ finance. An emerging exception is the High Integrity Forests Investment Initiative (HIFOR), which recognizes the value of carbon sequestration in old-growth forests, but does not generate tradable credits for each ton absorbed.5 The Tropical Forests Forever Fund (TFFF) proposed by Brazil for adoption at COP 30, would also reward forest countries at a rate of approximately US$ 4.00/year for every hectare of tropical forest they protect, regardless of whether they are under threat.6

To date, however, protected areas and Indigenous territories, despite their proven climate contribution, often lack the financial support necessary to ensure long-term effectiveness and resilience. As a result, they often face chronic underfunding,7 limiting their long-term effectiveness and resilience. Policy innovation is needed to close this gap and integrate the carbon sink function of mature forests into funding mechanisms for forest protection. Doing so would unlock meaningful incentives for the continued, long-term stewardship of these high-carbon ecosystems and would ensure that one of the planet’s most effective natural climate solutions receives the attention and resources it deserves.

Annex 1

Specific areas that were significant carbon sinks include:

Otishi, Sierra del Divisor, Güeppí-Sekime and Yaguas National Parks, Matsés, and Pucacuro National Reserves, Ashaninka Communal Reserve, and Cordillera Escalera and Alto Nanay- Pintuyacu Chambira Regional Conservation Area, Matses, Pampa Hermosa, and Yavarí – Tapiche Indigenous Reserves, and Kugapakori, Nahua, Nanti Territorial Reserve in Peru;

Amacayacu, Chiribiquete, Cahuinari, Rio Pure, and Yaigoje Apaporis National Parks, Nukak Natural Reserve, Amazonas Forest Reserve, and Putumayo and Nukak-Maku, Yaigoje Rio Apaporis and Vaupes Indigenous Reserve in Colombia;

Campos Amazônicos, Juruena, Mapinguari, Nascentes do Lago Jari, Serra do Divisor, and Montanhas do Tumucumaque National Parks, Amanã, Aripuanã, Crepori, Tapajós, and Tefé National Forests in Brazil, Itaituba and Jatuarana National Forests, and Alto Rio Negro, Baú, Aripuanã, Aripuanã, Apyterewa, Mundurucu, and Vale do Javari Indigenous Territories in Brazil.

Achuar Indigenous Territory and Zona Intangible Tagaeri – Taromenane in Ecuador; Manuripi Heath National Reserve and Takana, Takana II, and Yuracare Indigenous Reserves in Bolivia; Central Suriname and Sipaliwini Nature Reserves in Suriname; Canaima National Park in Venezuela; and Parc Amazonien de Guyane National Park in French Guiana, 

Specific areas with the highest carbon stocks, as of 2022, include:

Alto Purús, Manu, Sierra del Divisor, and Cordillera National Parks in Peru; Chiribiquete National Park in Colombia; Montanhas do Tumucumaque, Pico da Neblina, Jaú, and Juruena National Parks and Yanomami, Menkragnoti, Kayapó, Mundurucu, and Vale do Javari Indigenous Territories in Brazil; Caura and Canaima National Parks in Venezuela; and Parc Amazonien de Guyane National Park in French Guiana;

Methodology

We analyzed Planet Forest Carbon Diligence, a cutting-edge new dataset from the satellite-based company Planet, featuring a 10-year historical time series (2013 – 2022) with wall-to-wall estimates for aboveground carbon density at 30-meter resolution.3,4

One notable caveat of this data is that it does not distinguish aboveground carbon loss from natural vs human-caused drivers, so additional information may be incorporated to understand the context of each area. 

Based on these data, annual aboveground carbon values ​​were estimated in Amazonian protected areas and Indigenous territories to obtain a time series for 2013-2022. In addition, the Mann-Kendall test was used to analyze trends in the generated time series.

Our data source for protected areas and Indigenous territories is from RAISG (Amazon Network of Georeferenced Socio-Environmental Information), a consortium of civil society organizations in the Amazon countries. This source (accessed in December 2024) contains spatial data for 5,943 protected areas and Indigenous territories, covering 414.9 million hectares across the Amazon.

We determined that many of these areas (4,000) did not include creation date metadata, prohibiting any time-series control for that variable. Instead, we used the most current extent of protected areas and Indigenous territories as a proxy for those that existed from 2013 to 2022.

There was substantial overlap between protected areas and Indigenous territories, but we accounted for this to avoid double counting of the overlapping areas.

The aboveground carbon values for protected areas and Indigenous territories were calculated for each country and then summed across the Amazon.

The remaining areas were combined into the category of “Outside protected areas and Indigenous territories” and also calculated for each country and summed across the Amazon.

Our geographic range for the Amazon is a hybrid designed for maximum inclusion: biogeographic boundary (as defined by RAISG) for all countries, except for Bolivia and Peru, where we use the watershed boundary, and Brazil, where we use the Legal Amazon boundary. Our area estimate for this definition of the Amazon biome is 839.2 million hectares.

Notes

1 Breaking down the results by category, protected areas contained nearly 21.1 billion metric tons of aboveground carbon as of 2022, gaining over 204 million metric tons since 2013, while Indigenous territories contained over 16.8 billion metric tons of aboveground carbon as of 2022, gaining over 132 million metric tons since 2013. Note that protected areas and Indigenous territories overlap in many areas.

2 Standardizing for area (that is, calculating the results per hectare), protected areas and Indigenous territories contained 82.2 metric tons of aboveground carbon per hectare as of 2022, gaining a net 0.6 metric tons per hectare since 2013. In contrast, areas outside of protected areas and Indigenous territories contained 53.2 metric tons of aboveground carbon per hectare as of 2022, losing a net 0.6 metric tons per hectare since 2013.

3 Anderson C (2024) Forest Carbon Diligence: Breaking Down the Validation and Intercomparison Report. https://www.planet.com/pulse/forest-carbon-diligence-breaking-down-the-validation-and-intercomparison-report/

4 In terms of the limitations of Planet’s Forest Carbon Diligence data, Duncanson et al (2025) recently wrote a Letter in Science focused on spatial resolution for forest carbon maps. Given the natural constraint of the size of a tree, they discuss the challenge of pixel-level validation below 5 meters for forest carbon monitoring. The authors state that spatial resolution should at minimum exceed the crown diameter of a typical large tree, which is about 20 meters for tropical forests. In this sense, the 30-meter product exceeds this limitation.

Duncanson et al (2025) Spatial resolution for forest carbon maps. Science 387: 370-71.

5 WCS High Integrity Forest Investment Initiative (HIFOR): The Science Basis

6 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2025-04-04/too-big-to-fell-brazil-takes-trees-to-wall-street?cmpid=BBD040425_GR

7 UNEP-WCMC, IUCN, and NGS. (2022). Protected Planet Report 2022. Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC.

Acknowledgments

Through a generous sharing agreement with the satellite company Planet, we have been granted access to this data across the entire Amazon biome for the analysis presented in this series.

We thank colleagues from the following organizations for helpful comments on this report: Planet, Conservación Amazónica – ACCA, Conservación Amazónica -ACEAA, Gaia Amazonas, Ecociencia, and Instituto del Bien Común.

We especially thank colleagues at Conservación Amazónica – ACCA for help with the 10-year data analysis.

This report was made possible by the generous support of the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD)

Citation

Bodin B, Finer M, Castillo H, Mamani N (2025) Carbon in the Amazon (part 4): Protected Areas & Indigenous Territories. MAAP: 225.

MAAP #220: Carbon across the Amazon (part 3): Key Cases of Carbon Loss & Gain

Posted on by dcadmin
Graph 1. The Amazon biome functions as a narrow carbon sink from 2013 to 2022. Data: Planet, ACA/MAAP.

In part 1 of this series (MAAP #215), we introduced a critical new dataset (Planet’s Forest Carbon Diligence) with wall-to-wall estimates for aboveground carbon at an unprecedented 30-meter resolution between 2013 and 2022. This data uniquely merges machine learning, satellite imagery, airborne lasers, and a global biomass dataset from GEDI, a NASA mission.

In part 2 (MAAP #217), we highlighted which parts of the Amazon are currently home to the highest (peak) aboveground carbon levels and the importance of protecting these high-integrity forests (see Annex 1).

Here, in part 3, we focus on aboveground carbon loss and gain across the Amazon over the 10 years for which we have data (2013-22; see Base Map below).

The Amazon loses carbon to the atmosphere due to deforestation, logging, human-caused fires, and natural disturbances, while it gains carbon from forest regeneration and old-growth forests continuing to sequester atmospheric carbon.4

Overall, we find that the Amazon still narrowly functions as a carbon sink (meaning the carbon gain is greater than the loss) during this period, gaining 64.7 million metric tons of aboveground carbon between 2013 and 2022 (see Graph 1).

This finding underscores the importance of both primary and secondary forests in countering widespread deforestation. Moreover, it highlights the critical potential of primary forests to continue accumulating carbon if left undisturbed.

This gain, however, is quite small relative to the total 56.8 billion metric tons of aboveground carbon contained in the Amazon biome (that is, a gain of just +0.1%), reinforcing concerns that the Amazon could flip to a carbon source in the coming years (with carbon loss becoming greater than its gain) due to increasing deforestation, degradation, and fires.1  See Annex 2 for more details, including how the Amazon became a carbon sink following the 2015 drought, but since rebounded.

The countries with the largest carbon gain are 1) Brazil, 2) Colombia, 3) Suriname, 4) Guyana, and 5) French Guiana. In contrast, the countries with the greatest carbon loss are 1) Bolivia, 2) Venezuela, 3) Peru, and 4) Ecuador.

Zooming in to the site level yields additional insights. For example, we can now estimate the carbon loss from major deforestation events across the Amazon from 2013 to 2022. On the flip side, we can also calculate the carbon gain from both secondary and primary forests.

Areas with carbon gain in intact areas indicate excellent candidates for the High Integrity Forest (HIFOR) initiative, a new financing instrument uniquely focused on maintaining intact tropical forests.2 Importantly, a HIFOR unit represents a hectare of high-integrity tropical forest within a high-integrity landscape that has been “well-conserved” for over a decade.3  Intact areas with carbon gain between 2013-22 may indicate decadally “well-conserved” areas that can be overlapped with areas of high ecological integrity.

Below, we illustrate these findings with a series of novel maps zooming in on emblematic cases of large carbon loss and gain across the Amazon from 2013 – 2022. These cases include forest loss driven by agriculture, gold mining, and roads, as well as forest gain in remote primary forests.

Base Map – Amazon Carbon Loss & Gain (2013-2022)

The Base Map shows wall-to-wall estimates of aboveground carbon loss and gain across the Amazon between 2013 and 2022.

Carbon loss is indicated by yellow to red, indicating low to high carbon loss. Carbon gain is indicated by light to dark green, indicating low to high carbon gains.

Below, we present a series of notable cases of high carbon loss and gain indicated in Insets A-I.

Base Map. Areas of major carbon loss and gain across the Amazon between 2013 and 2022. Source: Amazon Conservation/MAAP, Planet.

Emblematic Cases of Carbon Loss & Gain

Figure 1 highlights emblematic cases of carbon loss (Insets A-F in red) and carbon gain (Insets G-I in green). Below we highlight a series of emblematic cases.

Figure 1. Emblematic cases of carbon loss and gain across the Amazon. Source: Amazon Conservation/MAAP, Planet.

Carbon Loss

We can now estimate the carbon loss from major deforestation events across the Amazon during the past ten years, directly from a single dataset. These cases include forest loss from agriculture, gold mining, and roads. Note that the presented values represent just the carbon loss featured in the selected area.

A. Colombia – Arc of Deforestation

Figure 1A. Carbon loss in the Colombian Amazon’s arc of deforestation. Source: Amazon Conservation/MAAP, Planet.

Figure 1A shows the extensive carbon emissions (39.5 million metric tons) associated with the major deforestation within and surrounding protected areas and Indigenous territories in the Colombian Amazon‘s arc of deforestation.

The carbon loss within the protected areas and Indigenous territories is likely from illegal deforestation.

See MAAP #211 for more details.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

B. Peru – Mennonite Colonies

Figure 1B. Carbon loss by new Mennonite colonies in the Peruvian Amazon. Source: Amazon Conservation/MAAP, Planet.

Figure 1B shows the carbon emissions of 224,300 metric tons associated with the recent deforestation carried out by new Mennonite colonies arriving in the central Peruvian Amazon starting in 2017.

See MAAP #188 for more details, including information regarding the legality of  the deforestation causing the carbon loss.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C. Peru – Gold Mining

Figure 1C. Carbon loss associated with gold mining deforestation in  southern Peruvian Amazon. Source: ACA/MAAP, Planet.

Figure 1C shows the extensive carbon emissions (11.3 million metric tons) associated with gold mining deforestation in the southern Peruvian Amazon.

Most of the carbon loss within the protected areas (and their buffer zones) and Indigenous territories is likely from illegal deforestation.

See MAAP #208 for more information, including details regarding the legality of the deforestation causing the carbon loss.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

D. Brazil – Road BR-364

Figure 1D. Carbon loss along BR-364 in the southwest Brazilian Amazon. Source: ACA/MAAP, Planet.

Figure 1D shows the carbon emissions along road BR-364 that crosses the state of Acre in the southwest Brazilian Amazon.

This road was opened in the 1960s and paved in the 1980s.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E. Brazil – Road BR-319

Figure 1E. Carbon loss along paved roads. Source: ACA/MAAP, Planet.

Figure 1E shows a controversial road paving project that would effectively link the arc of deforestation to the south with more intact forests to the north in Amazonas and Roraima states.

Note that the current carbon loss is concentrated along the paved roads.

The paving of road BR-319 has recently caused headlines as President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva recently authorized the paving of 20 km of the road and plans to bid for an additional 32 km (thus, paving of 52 km in total).

Modeling studies predict extensive new deforestation from this road construction, and thus additional associated carbon loss.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F. Brazil – Road BR-163

Figure 1F. Carbon loss along BR-163 in the eastern Brazilian Amazon. Source: ACA/MAAP, Planet.

Figure 1F shows the extensive carbon emissions (71.4 million metric tons) along a recently paved stretch of road BR-163 which crosses the state of Pará in the eastern Brazilian Amazon.

Importantly, this stretch of road has been presented as a case study of what may happen along road BR-319 if it is paved.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Carbon Gain

We can also calculate the carbon gain from both secondary and primary forests. These cases include forest gain from remote primary forests that may be good candidates for the HIFOR initiative.

Figure 1G. Carbon gains in the southeast Colombian Amazon. Source: ACA/MAAP, Planet.

G. Southeast Colombia

Figure 1G shows the carbon gain of over 52.5 million metric tons in the remote southeast Colombian Amazon.

This area is anchored by three national parks and several large indigenous territories.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1H. Carbon gains along the border of eastern Ecuador and northern Peru. Source: ACA/MAAP, Planet.

H. Ecuador – Peru border

Figure 1H shows the carbon gain of nearly 40 million metric tons along the border in eastern Ecuador and northern Peru.

Note this area is anchored by numerous protected areas, including Yasuni National Park in Ecuador and Pucacuro National Reserve in Peru, and Indigenous territories.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1I. Carbon gains in the tri-border region of the northeast Amazon. Source: ACA/MAAP, Planet.

I. Northeast Amazon

Figure 1I shows the carbon gain of 164.7 million metric tons in the tri-border region of the northeast Amazon (northern Brazil, French Guiana, and Suriname).

For example, note the carbon gains in Montanhas do Tumucumaque National Park and Tumucumaque Indigenous territory in northeast Brazil.

Also note that this was an Amazonian “peak carbon area,” as described in MAAP #217.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Annex 1

Annex 1. Peak carbon areas in relation to the carbon loss and gain data. Source: Amazon Conservation/MAAP, Planet.

In part 2 of this series (MAAP #217), we highlighted which parts of the Amazon are currently home to the highest (peak) aboveground carbon levels.

Annex 1 shows these peak carbon areas in relation to the carbon loss and gain data presented above.

Note that both peak carbon areas (southeast and northeast Amazon) are largely characterized by carbon gain.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Annex 2

Annex 2. Amazon biome functions as a narrow carbon sink from 2013 to 2022, but became a source in between. Data: Planet, ACA/MAAP.

Annex 2 shows all ten years of aboveground carbon data grouped by two-year intervals (thus, it is an extension of Graph 1 above, adding data for the intermediate years).

In this context, black indicates our baseline of 2013-14, red indicates a decrease from the baseline (carbon source), and green indicates an increase from the baseline (carbon sink).

Importantly, there was a decrease in aboveground carbon from 2015-18, which likely reflects the severe droughts of 2015 and 2016 and subsequent severe fire seasons of 2016 and 2017. Aboveground carbon rebounded from 2019-22.

This trend supports the hypothesis that the Amazon biome is teetering on being an aboveground carbon source vs sink.

It also raises the possibility that the Amazon may return to being a carbon source following the intense drought and fires of 2024.

.

.

Notes

1 In part 1 of this series (MAAP #215), we found the Amazon “is still functioning as a critical carbon sink”. As pointed out in a companion blog by Planet, however, the net carbon sink of +64 million metric tons is quite small relative to the total estimate of 56.8 billion metric tons of aboveground carbon across the Amazon. That is a net positive change of just +0.1%. As the blog notes, that’s a “very small buffer” and there’s “reason to worry that the biome could flip from sink to source with ongoing deforestation.”

2 High Integrity Forest (HIFOR) units are a new, non-offset asset that recognizes and rewards the essential climate services and biodiversity conservation that intact tropical forests provide, including ongoing net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere. HIFOR rewards the climate services that intact tropical forests provide, including ongoing net carbon removal from the atmosphere, and complements existing instruments to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD+) by focusing on tropical forests that are largely undegraded. A HIFOR unit represents a hectare of well-conserved, high-integrity tropical forest where ‘well-conserved’ means that high ecological integrity is maintained over a decade of monitoring as part of equitable, effective management of a site and ‘high ecological integrity’ means a score of >9.6 on the Forest Landscape Integrity Index. For more information see https://www.wcs.org/our-work/climate-change/forests-and-climate-change/hifor

3 Two additional important references regarding HIFOR methodology and application:

High Integrity Forest Investment Initiative, Methodology for HIFOR units, April 2024. Downloaded from https://www.wcs.org/our-work/climate-change/forests-and-climate-change/hifor

Forest Landscape Integrity Index metric used by HIFOR: www.forestintegrity.com

4 In Planet’s Forest Carbon Diligence product, carbon loss and gain are detected via changes in canopy cover and canopy height during the given periods (in this case, 2013 vs 2022).

Acknowledgments

Through a generous sharing agreement with the satellite company Planet, we have been granted access to this data across the entire Amazon biome for the analysis presented in this series.

We also thank D. Zarin (WCS) for helpful comments regarding the implications of our findings for the HIFOR initiative.

This report was made possible by the generous support of the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD)

Citation

Finer M, Mamani N, Anderson C, Rosenthal A (2024) Carbon across the Amazon (part 3): Key Cases of Carbon Loss & Gain. MAAP: 220.

MAAP #222: Mennonite Colonies Continue Major Deforestation in Peruvian Amazon

Posted on by Matt Finer
Base Map. Mennonite Colonies in the Peruvian Amazon. Data: ACA/MAAP.

In a series of reports, we have demonstrated that the Mennonites have become a leading cause of large-scale deforestation in the Peruvian Amazon.

The Mennonites, a global religious group dating back to the 1600s, often require vast tracts of land to support their characteristic industrialized agricultural activity. As such lands have become scarce in other parts of Latin America, new Mennonite colonies began appearing in the Peruvian Amazon as of 2017.

In October 2019, we first reported on the deforestation of 2,500 hectares across three colonies (Masisea, Vanderland, and Osterreich; MAAP #112). A year later, in October 2020, this deforestation increased to 3,440 hectares (MAAP #127).

By the end of 2021, two new colonies (Providencia and Chipiar) had appeared, and the total deforestation had reached 3,968 hectares (MAAP #149).

Deforestation across all five colonies increased to 4,819 hectares by October 2022 (MAAP #166) and 7,032 hectares by August 2023 (MAAP #188).

Here, we update our findings, showing that deforestation across all five colonies has increased to 8,660 hectares (21,400 acres), as of October 2024.

Below, we illustrate the increase in Mennonite deforestation over the past eight years and show the pattern in each colony with satellite images.

In addition, there is mounting evidence that this massive deforestation is illegal, with numerous ongoing investigations by the Peruvian government (see the Legal Summary, below).

 

 

Graph 1. Deforestation caused by Mennonites in the Peruvian Amazon from 2019 to 2024. Data: ACA/MAAP.

The increasing deforestation of the Mennonites in Peru

 

Graph 1 illustrates the rapid increase in Mennonite deforestation in the Peruvian Amazon, from zero in 2017 to over 8,660 hectares in 2024.

It is the clearest evidence yet that authorities need a more effective strategy to avoid continued escalating deforestation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deforestation in Mennonite Colonies (Peruvian Amazon)

Chipiar Colony

Figure 1. Deforestation in the Chipiar Mennonite colony. Data: ACA/MAAP, Planet.

This colony is located on both sides of the border between the departments of Ucayali and Loreto, originating in the district of Padre Marquez on the Loreto side.

It is the newest colony, where deforestation began in 2020.

This deforestation escalated in 2021, peaked in 2022, and continues to expand in 2023 in 2024.

We document the deforestation of 2,708 hectares in the Chipiar colony since 2020.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vanderland, Osterreich & Providencia Colonies

Figure 2. Deforestation in the Vanderland, Osterreich & Providencia Mennonite colonies. Data: ACA/MAAP, Planet.

These three colonies are located near the town of Tierra Blanca, in the Loreto region.

We have documented the deforestation of 4,824 hectares since 2017.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Masisea Colony

Figure 3. Deforestation in the Masisea Mennonite colony. Data: ACA/MAAP, Planet.

This colony, located in the Ucayali region, was the first to be established in Peru (2017) and was occupied by settlers who arrived from Bolivia.

Deforestation of 963 hectares has been documented in the Masisea colony since 2017.

Deforestation was most intense between 2017 and 2019, with a small expansion between 2022 and 2024.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Legal Summary

MAAP #188 details the legal actions taken by the Peruvian government. The Specialized Prosecutor’s Office for Environmental Matters (FEMA in Spanish) is conducting ongoing investigations against all five Mennonite colonies.

In addition, National Forestry and Wildlife Service (SERFOR in Spanish) has received five complaints for deforestation activities without authorizations for clearing, which have been referred to the competent entities.

Likewise, through a judicial process, before the Second Criminal Appeals Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Ucayali, it ratified the suspension of predatory deforestation and logging activities by the colony in July 2023.

Since August 2024, the Regional Forestry and Wildlife Management of Ucayali – GERFFS, especially the Illegal Logging Directorate, has been coordinating prioritization actions for this case with other competent actors such as the Specialized Prosecutor’s Office for Environmental Matters – FEMA and the National Police of Peru – PNP.

 

Citation

Finer M, Mamani N, Ariñez A (2024) Mennonite Colonies Continue Major Deforestation in Peruvian Amazon. MAAP: 222.

MAAP #221: Illegal mining in protected areas of the Ecuadorian Amazon

Posted on by Matt Finer
Base Map. Protected areas in the Ecuadorian Amazon threatened by mining.

In a series of previous reports, we warned about the emergence and expansion of mining deforestation in the Ecuadorian Amazon (MAAP #151, MAAP 182, MAAP #219).

Illegal mining in Ecuador tends to operate in remote areas, such as protected areas.

Furthermore, this activity’s proximity to Colombia and Peru facilitates cross-border flows essential for the gold trade.

Here, we analyze the four protected areas in the Ecuadorian Amazon that are currently threatened by mining activities: Podocarpus and Sumaco Napo-Galeras National Parks, Cofán Bermejo Ecological Reserve, and El Zarza Wildlife Refuge (see Base Map).

The mining is occurring deep within Podocarpus National Park.

In the other three areas (Sumaco Napo-Galeras National Park, Cofán Bermejo Ecological Reserve, and El Zarza Wildlife Refuge), unregulated mining activities are expanding in their buffer zones and starting to penetrate their respective boundaries.

Below, we present a concise analysis of these four affected protected areas, featuring high-resolution satellite imagery.

 

 

 

Podocarpus National Park

We analyzed the illegal mining activities along the Loyola River within Podocarpus National Park. We first detected the mining deforestation of 22 hectares in July 2023. By September 2024, this impact had increased to 50 hectares (124 acres), resulting in an illegal expansion of 125% within the park between 2023 and 2024 (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Mining deforestation on the banks of the Loyola River inside the Podocarpus National Park, July 2023 (left panel) vs August 2024 (right panel).
Figure 1a. Skysat image of mining deforestation of the Loyola River within the Podocarpus National Park,

In addition, we used a very high-resolution image (SkySat, 0.50 meters) from March 25, 2024, to visualize the pattern and impact of the illegal mining in greater detail.

Importantly, we found evidence that the mining activity is changing the course of the Loyola River.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sumaco Napo – Galeras National Park

We have continuously monitored the expansion of illegal mining in the Punino River basin ((MAAP #151, MAAP #219).) and its advance towards Sumaco Napo-Galeras National Park. In May 2024, we first detected the penetration of illegal mining across the park’s southeastern boundary.

We estimate the expansion of 142 hectares (350 acres) in the park’s buffer zone, between September 2022 and August 2024. We also just detected the penetration (0.32 hectares) of illegal mining into the park’s boundaries (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Mining deforestation in the Sumaco Napo-Galeras National Park, September 2022 (left panel) vs August 2024 (right panel).

Cofán Bermejo Ecologial Reserve

In MAAP #186, we showed how mining activities along the Bermeja River threaten the boundaries of the Cofán Bermejo Ecological Reserve in the northern Ecuadorian Amazon. In this area, a total mining advance of 337 hectares (833 acres) was recorded during the period from February 2020 to September 2024, of which it was estimated that 1.05 hectares (2.6 acres) are within the boundary of the Cofán Bermejo Ecological Reserve (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Mining deforestation in the Cofán Bermejo Ecological Reserve, Feb 2020 (left panel) vs Sept 2024 (right panel).

El Zarza Wildlife Refuge

We detected mining activities along the Zarza River impacting 33 hectares (82 acres) in the buffer zone of the El Zarza Wildlife Refuge (Figure 4).

Figura 4. Deforestación minera en la zona de amortiguamiento del Refugio de Vida Silvestre el Zarza, septiembre 2022 (panel izq) vs agosto 2024 (panel der).

Acknowledgements

This report is part of a series focused on the Ecuadorian Amazon through a strategic collaboration between the EcoCiencia Foundation and Amazon Conservation, with the support of the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad).

Ecociencia Logo