- Indicates that 10-30% tree cover is debatable, but the continues to work with >10% threshold
- Ignores potential for forest to grow as well as actual land use, as satellite imagery cannot accurately identify either
- Assumes deforestation is solely driven by the main commodity, a serious oversimplification
GFW: “Loss” indicates the removal or mortality of tree cover and can be due to a variety of factors, including mechanical harvesting, fire, disease, or storm damage. As such, “loss” does not equate to deforestation. (http://commodities.globalforestwatch.org/#v=map&x=4&y=-26.07&l=3&lyrs=tcc%2ChansenLoss) For more information, see http://earthenginepartners.appspot.com/science-2013-global-forest/download_v1.5.html.
Ergo, no link between EU’s ‘expansion’ and the identified tree cover loss.
Download the presentation here.