|
Site† |
Year operations began |
Land or concession area secured
(ha) |
Area developed
(ha) |
Area deforested‡
(ha) |
Feedstock expansion causing forest loss
(%) |
Forest type |
| |
|
Brazil: Mato Grosso State§ |
Various |
Various |
5,075,079
(by 2007) |
540,000
(2001–2004) |
13–18¦ |
Dry forest (cerrado) |
|
Ghana: Pru District, Brong
Ahafo |
2008 |
14,500 |
780
(by 2010) |
379 forest, 240 fallow
(by 2010) |
47
(77 including fallow) |
Dry forest (forest-savannah transition
zone) |
|
Indonesia: Kubu Raya, West Kalimantan |
1994 |
13,605 |
5,350 |
4,949¶
(as of May 2009) |
94 |
Secondary peat swamp forest |
|
Indonesia: Manokwari, West Papua |
1982 |
12,049 |
10,207 |
5,260¶
(as of Jun/Aug 2006) |
96 |
Primary humid tropical rain forest |
|
Indonesia: Boven Digoel, Papua |
1998 |
34,000 |
18,804 |
20,709¶
(as of Dec 2008) |
99 |
Primary humid tropical rain forest |
|
Malaysia: Sabah |
1987 |
6,861# |
6,861 |
5,329 |
75 |
Scrub forest and logged forest |
|
Mexico: Yucatán |
2007 |
12,000
(2009) |
2,350
(2009) |
Unavailable†† |
Secondary dry forest (acahual) |
| |
†Land-use change data for Mato Grosso encompass two of the research sites: Sorriso and northern Mato Grosso (Guarantã do Norte/Alta Floresta). Similar data are unavailable for the Santarem site.
‡With the exception of Ghana, only a portion of this area is from the biofuel industry; much of oil palm and soybean production is destined for food and feed markets.
§This case is unique in capturing trends within an entire state rather than a specific plantation investment.
¦This is the total due to soy expansion, but the authors estimate between 0.8 and 5.9% to be attributable specifically to the biodiesel component, depending on the food-fuel allocation approach used (Lima et al. 2011).
¶These figures correspond with oil palm-induced deforestation; total deforestation was found to be 7100, 6833, and 36,666 ha, respectively, in the three sites (Obidzinski et al. unpublished manuscript).
#Area figures are for Sapi 1 and Sapi 2 estates; total landholdings of PPB Wilmar are about three times this.
††This analysis was attempted but is left unreported because of the high level of patchiness of the displaced vegetation, the difficulties of clearly differentiating vegetation at different stages of regeneration, and the uncertainties therefore introduced in producing an unambiguous land cover classification.
Sources: Achten and Verchot 2011, German et al. 2011a, Lima et al. 2011, Schoneveld et al. 2011, Skutsch et al. 2011, Dayang Norwana et al. in press, Obidzinski et al. unpublished manuscript.
|
|