Human intrusions & disturbance

Above-ground biomass stock in forest (tonnes per hectare)

Anonymous — Wed, 24 Mar 2021 09:56:05 +0000

Above-ground biomass stock in forest (tonnes per hectare)

Anonymous Wed, 03/24/2021 - 05:56

Changes in the above-ground biomass stock in forest indicate the balance between gains in biomass stock due to forest growth and losses due to wood removals, natural losses, fire, wind, pests and diseases. At country level and over a longer period, sustainable forest management would imply a stable or increasing biomass stock per hectare, while a long-term reduction of biomass stock per hectare would imply either unsustainable management of the forests and degradation or unexpected major losses due to fire, wind, pests or diseases.

Response (Policies and Goals/Targets)

15.2: By 2020, promote the implementation of sustainable management of all types of forests, halt deforestation, restore degraded forests and substantially increase afforestation and reforestation globally

Technical Reference/Fact Sheet

https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/files/Metadata-15-02-01.pdf

Source

Source:

Ranking

off

Make Map Points

Off

State

forestry

Pressure

Human intrusions & disturbance

National Data

Above-ground biomass stock in forest (tonnes per hectare)

https://unstats.un.org/SDGAPI/v1/sdg/Series/AG_LND_FRSTBIOPHA/GeoArea/NUM/DataSlice

{"name":"year", "show": true, "nameLocation": "middle", "nameGap": 80, "type":"category", "data":"timePeriodStart"}

{"name":"tonnes for hectare", "nameLocation": "middle", "nameGap": 80, "type":"value", "data":"value"}

{"name":"Above-ground biomass stock in forest (tonnes per hectare)", "type":"line", "bp_count":"Above-ground biomass stock in forest (tonnes per hectare)", "data":"value"}

Descending

REST

dimensions

Natural Breaks (Jenks)

diverging-3

Change in Population Pressure Indicator (CPPI)

Anonymous — Thu, 08 Nov 2018 12:31:02 +0000

Change in Population Pressure Indicator (CPPI)

Anonymous Thu, 11/08/2018 - 08:31

How much potential impact may humans living in a protected area have on that protected area and on the habitats, species and ecological processes therein? How much of this potential impact is due to recent (15-year) increases in human population density? By identifying protected areas with low population density, it is possible to highlight locations that are likely to better conserve the species and ecological processes that are associated to more pristine conditions and that are more sensitive to the direct and indirect impacts from human activities. On the other hand, by identifying protected areas with a relatively high or increasing population density, it is possible to suggest in which locations it is likely most necessary to ensure an effective management of the human-nature relationships and the sustainability of human activities. In these locations, a priority would be to orient human activities and livelihoods in ways that are compatible with the conservation targets, such as ecotourism and other regulated recreation activities, or supporting traditional modes of rural development that have been compatible with the persistence of the biodiversity values of the protected area.

Indicator unit: The PPI assesses human population density for a given area in year 2015, expressed as the average number of people per km2 . The CPPI assesses the percent change in human population density for the same area from 2000 to 2015.

Area of interest: PPI and CPPI have been calculated for each terrestrial protected area and for the terrestrial parts of each coastal protected areas. To assess pressures around protected areas, we further computed the indicators for the 10 km unprotected buffer zone around the protected areas of size ≥ 5 km2 . PPI and CPPI are reported in DOPA Explorer for each terrestrial and coastal protected area of size ≥ 1 km2 and their unprotected buffers (values for buffers are reported only for protected areas of size ≥ 5 km2 ). We further show trends regarding the changes in rural and urban population at the country level.

---

Data Uploaded by Luca Battistella using the Digital Observatory for Protected Areas Services (2022)

ATG

BHS

BRB

BLZ

CUB

DMA

DOM

GRD

GUY

HTI

JAM

KNA

LCA

VCT

SUR

TTO

Technical Reference/Fact Sheet

DOPA Factsheet

Source

Source:

Ranking

off

Make Map Points

Off

Pressure

Human intrusions & disturbance

National Data

DOPA Change in Population Pressure Indicator

PPI can be used to assess the relative potential impact that human population may have on the biodiversity and ecological integrity of a protected area, while CPPI is useful as a proxy of the changes in the potential impacts of human population in a protected area over the last 15 years. Because about 40% of the world’s population lives within 100 kilometers of the coast, a figure that is constantly increasing, this indicator is particularly useful to assess pressures on coastal protected areas. There are several reasons why a high or increasing human population density in a protected area may be of concern and lead to negative outcomes for the conservation of the habitats, species and ecological processes therein (see e.g. Mcdonald et al., 2009; Güneralp & Seto, 2013). First, human activities may increase pollution, noise and light disturbance in marine and terrestrial protected areas. Second, human settlements and built-up areas may cause, by themselves, some habitat loss and degradation, as well as trigger additional unregulated land cover and land use changes or extractive activities within the protected area. Third, human presence in the protected area may in some cases, if not properly regulated, directly reduce wildlife populations through poaching and overfishing. Fourth, some species may avoid or be found at lower abundances near human settlements, as related to the impacts just mentioned. Fifth, a higher human population density may increase the number and the spread rates of invasive species, including new diseases to which native species may have no or may only have a weak immunity response, as well as of disturbances like forest fires. Even if no invasions of alien species occur, humans may also indirectly favor the abundance of more generalist, cosmopolitan species in detriment of the specialist species that are associated to largely undisturbed habitats, which are usually those species of higher conservation concern. Although the PPI and CPPI do not separately evaluate each of these pressures or potential effects, they provide a general assessment of the potential combined magnitude of all these impacts that may be associated to human populations living in a protected area. These impacts are exacerbated in protected areas with poor management, enforcement or institutional support, and are likely to be significantly lower in effectively managed protected areas in which the impacts of humans on biodiversity and ecosystems are minimized through appropriate regulation and support to the activities, such as traditional ones, that are compatible with the conservation objectives. Protected areas can in many cases, if they are well managed, supported and funded, provide opportunities for enhancing the livelihoods of local communities, promoting job creation and reducing poverty, as well as help to maintain the ecosystem services on which many communities depend, thereby contributing both to biodiversity conservation and to the long-term sustainability of human activities in and around protected areas (Scherl et al., 2004; EU 2015). For further discussions on population growth near protected areas, we also refer to Wittemyer et al. (2008) and Joppa, Loarie & Pimm (2009) who obtain contradicting conclusions.

https://dopa-services.jrc.ec.europa.eu/services/d6dopa/dopa_41/get_de_country_pa_stats?format=json&c_un_m49=NUM

wdpaid

WDPAID

{"name":"Protected area (WDPA ID)", "show": true, "nameLocation": "middle", "nameGap": 80, "type":"category", "data":"pa_name"}

{"name":"Percent change", "nameLocation": "middle", "nameGap": 80, "type":"value", "data":"ppi_change"}

{"name":"Percent change in human population density 2000-2015", "type":"bar", "bp_count":"Percent change in human population density 2000-2015", "data":"ppi_change"}

Ascending

REST

un_m49

Topic

Human Impact and Pressures

Country extinction-risk footprints

Manager — Tue, 07 Jun 2022 14:09:45 +0000

Country extinction-risk footprints

Manager Tue, 06/07/2022 - 10:09

A new study quantified how the consumption habits of people in each country, through trade and supply networks, imperil threatened and near-threatened terrestrial species of amphibians, mammals and birds. For the study, recently published in Scientific Reports, researchers used a metric called the extinction-risk footprint. The team found that 76 countries are net “importers” of this footprint, meaning they drive demand for products that contribute to the decline of endangered species abroad. Other countries, e.g. Madagascar, Tanzania, are designated as net “exporters,” meaning their extinction-risk footprint is driven more by consumption habits in other countries. In several countries domestic consumption is the most significant driver of extinction risk within those nations. Learn more: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-09827-0

This sub-dataset provides detail on each country's extinction-risk footprint. A global level, the map shows the impact of global consumption on the species found within that country’s borders in percentage. A national level, the map shows the imported and exported consumption for each country. The imported extinction-risk footprint is a result of consumption within the country driving extinction risk in other countries, and its exported extinction risk footprint is a result of consumption outside of the country driving the extinction risk within the country.

Uploaded by Simona Lippi (Using BIOPAMA GEONODE)

Technical Reference/Fact Sheet

Source:Irwin, A., Geschke, A., Brooks, T.M. et al. Quantifying and categorising…

Ranking

off

Make Map Points

Off

Pressure

Human intrusions & disturbance

Global Data

National extinction-risk footprints

https://geonode-rris.biopama.org/geoserver/geonode/ows?service=wfs&version=1.1.0&request=getfeature&MAXFEATURES=9999&typename=geonode:footprint_risk&PROPERTYNAME=isoa3_id,terr_foot,&outputFormat=application/json

isoa3_id

iso3

{"name":"Country", "show": true, "nameLocation": "middle", "nameGap": 80, "type":"category", "data":"isoa3_id"}

{"name":"Territorial footprint as % of global total", "nameLocation": "middle", "nameGap": 80, "type":"value", "data":"terr_foot"}

{"name":"Territorial footprint as % of global total", "type":"bar", "bp_count":"Territorial footprint as % of global total", "data":"terr_foot"}

Descending

External Map Data

features

https://geonode-rris.biopama.org/geoserver/geonode/wms?

Natural Breaks (Jenks)

sequential-8

National Data

Countries ‘Import’ and ‘Export’ Extinction Risk

A national level, the map shows the imported and exported consumption for each country. The imported extinction-risk footprint is a result of consumption within the country driving extinction risk in other countries, and its exported extinction risk footprint is a result of consumption outside of the country driving the extinction risk within the country.

isoa3_id

iso3

{"name":"Country", "show": true, "nameLocation": "middle", "nameGap": 80, "type":"category", "data":"isoa3_id"}

{"name":"% Consumption footprint imported", "nameLocation": "middle", "nameGap": 80, "type":"value", "data":"foot_impor"}

{"name":"% Consumption footprint imported", "type":"bar", "bp_count":"% Consumption footprint imported", "data":"foot_impor"}

{"name":"% Territorial footprint exported", "type":"bar", "bp_count":"% Territorial footprint exported", "data":"foot_expor"}

Descending

REST

features

https://geonode-rris.biopama.org/geoserver/geonode/wms?

Natural Breaks (Jenks)

sequential-6

Topic

Human Impact and Pressures

Forest area under an independently verified forest management certification scheme

Anonymous — Fri, 26 Mar 2021 14:50:55 +0000

Forest area under an independently verified forest management certification scheme

Anonymous Fri, 03/26/2021 - 10:50

This sub-indicator is the forest area that is certified by an independently verified forest management certification scheme. Such certification schemes apply standards that generally are higher than those established by the countries’ own normative frameworks, and compliance is verified by an independent and accredited certifier. An increase in certified forest area therefore provides an additional indication of progress towards sustainable forest management. It should however be noted that there are significant areas of sustainably managed forest which are not certified, either because their owners have chosen not to seek certification (which is voluntary and market-based) or because no credible or affordable certification scheme is in place for that area.

Response (Policies and Goals/Targets)

Technical Reference/Fact Sheet

Metadata

Source

Source:

Ranking

off

Make Map Points

Off

State

forestry

Pressure

Human intrusions & disturbance

National Data

Forest area under an independently verified forest management certification scheme

https://unstats.un.org/SDGAPI/v1/sdg/Series/AG_LND_FRSTCERT/GeoArea/NUM/DataSlice

{"name":"year", "show": true, "nameLocation": "middle", "nameGap": 80, "type":"category", "data":"timePeriodStart"}

{"name":"Thousand hectares", "nameLocation": "middle", "nameGap": 80, "type":"value", "data":"value"}

{"name":"Forest area under an independently verified forest management certification scheme", "type":"line", "bp_count":"Forest area under an independently verified forest management certification scheme", "data":"value"}

Descending

REST

dimensions

Natural Breaks (Jenks)

Forest-related greenhouse gas fluxes

Manager — Fri, 04 Mar 2022 09:18:35 +0000

Forest-related greenhouse gas fluxes

Manager Fri, 03/04/2022 - 05:18

Net forest-related greenhouses gas flux represents the net exchange of greenhouses gas between forests and the atmosphere between 2001 and 2020. This net flux layer is part of the forest carbon flux model described in Harris et al. (2021). Here, the average annual net fluxes in MtCO₂e is shown at global level and the average annual net fluxes in MtCO₂e/ha in protected areas and outside protected areas at national level.

The researcher estimated the Net Forest Carbon Flux calculating the balance between carbon emitted and sequestered by forests during the last 20 years (2001-2020). Negative values are found where forests sequestered more carbon from the atmosphere than what they emitted and positive values are found where emissions from stand-replacing forest disturbances were higher than removals. Emissions include all relevant ecosystem carbon pools (aboveground biomass, belowground biomass, dead wood, litter, soil) and greenhouse gases (CO2, NH4, N2O) while removals are into the aboveground and belowground biomass pools.

Source:Harris et al. (2021). Global maps of 21st century forest carbon fluxes, from Global Forest Watch.CC BY 4.0

---

Data Uploaded by Simona Lippi using the BIOPAMA Services (2022)

Technical Reference/Fact Sheet

Harris, Nancy L., et al. "Global maps of twenty-first century forest carbon flu…

Ranking

off

Make Map Points

Off

State

climate

Pressure

Human intrusions & disturbance

Global Data

Forest-related greenhouse gas fluxes

Net forest carbon flux represents the net exchange of carbon between forests and the atmosphere between 2001 and 2020. This net flux layer is part of the forest carbon flux model described in Harris et al. (2021).This net flux layer is part of the forest carbon flux model described in Harris et al. (2021). At the global level we show the average annual net fluxes in MtCO₂e. The researcher estimated the Net Forest Carbon Flux calculating the balance between carbon emitted and sequestered by forests during the last 20 years (2001-2020). Negative values are found where forests sequestered more carbon from the atmosphere than what they emitted and positive values are found where emissions from stand-replacing forest disturbances were higher than removals. Emissions include all relevant ecosystem carbon pools (aboveground biomass, belowground biomass, dead wood, litter, soil) and greenhouse gases (CO2, NH4, N2O) while removals are into the aboveground and belowground biomass pools.

Source:Harris et al. (2021). Global maps of 21st century forest carbon fluxes, from Global Forest Watch.CC BY 4.0

https://api.biopama.org/api/climate/function/api_netcarbonforestfluxes

isoa3_id

iso3

{"name":"country", "show": true, "nameLocation": "middle", "nameGap": 80, "type":"category", "data":"isoa3_id"}

{"name":"Forest net flux", "nameLocation": "middle", "nameGap": 80, "type":"value", "data":"net_forest_carbon_flux_totalcountry"}

{"name":"Average annual net fluxes in MtCO₂e", "type":"bar", "bp_count":"Average annual net fluxes in MtCO₂e", "data":"net_forest_carbon_flux_totalcountry"}

Descending

REST

Natural Breaks (Jenks)

sequential-14

National Data

Forest-related greenhouse gas fluxes

At the national level it is displayed the average annual net fluxes in MgCO₂e/ha in protected areas and outside protected areas. The researcher estimated the Net Forest Carbon Flux calculating the balance between carbon emitted and sequestered by forests during the last 20 years (2001-2020). Negative values are found where forests sequestered more carbon from the atmosphere than what they emitted and positive values are found where emissions from stand-replacing forest disturbances were higher than removals. Emissions include all relevant ecosystem carbon pools (aboveground biomass, belowground biomass, dead wood, litter, soil) and greenhouse gases (CO2, NH4, N2O) while removals are into the aboveground and belowground biomass pools.

Source:Harris et al. (2021). Global maps of 21st century forest carbon fluxes, from Global Forest Watch.CC BY 4.0

https://api.biopama.org/api/climate/function/api_netcarbonforestfluxes/isoa3_id=ISO3

isoa3_id

iso3

{"name":"country", "show": true, "nameLocation": "middle", "nameGap": 80, "type":"category", "data":"isoa3_id"}

{"name":"MgCO₂e/ha in protected areas", "nameLocation": "middle", "nameGap": 80, "type":"value", "data":"net_fluxes_mean_ha_protected_area"}

{"name":"net flux in protected areas (MgCO₂e/ha)", "type":"bar", "bp_count":"net flux in protected areas (MgCO₂e/ha)", "data":"net_fluxes_mean_ha_protected_area"}

{"name":"net flux in unprotected areas (MgCO₂e/ha)", "type":"bar", "bp_count":"net flux in unprotected areas (MgCO₂e/ha)", "data":"net_fluxes_mean_ha_unprotected_area"}

Descending

REST

Natural Breaks (Jenks)

Topic

Climate

Geospatial data - MIKE programme I: Designated MIKE sites

Anonymous — Mon, 12 Aug 2019 12:40:11 +0000

Geospatial data - MIKE programme I: Designated MIKE sites

Anonymous Mon, 08/12/2019 - 08:40

MIKE sites distribution and longevity

The CITES Monitoring the Illegal Killing of Elephants (MIKE) Programme has designed a site-based system to monitor trends in the illegal killing of elephants, build management capacity and provide information to help range States make appropriate management and enforcement decisions. The European Union has been the most important donor for the MIKE programme and has funded implementation in Africa since its inception in 2001, and in Asia since 2017. Funding has also been provided by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Governments of Japan, the United Kingdom and China. Since 2014 the program has been followed up by Minimising the Illegal Killing of Elephants and other Endangered Species (MIKES) project.

In 2018, 68 sites in 31 African countries were reported by the CITES MIKE programme with different timing of enrollment in the programme.

In the map, MIKE sites are classified by the number of delivered annual reports. Out of all sites, 59 produced killings report at least once. Four of them were nominated in 2018- Kafue, Lower Zambesi, North Luangwa, Sioma Ngwezi, 42 sites reported for 10 years and 7 sites over 17 years.

Response (Policies and Goals/Targets)

REDUCE ILLEGAL KILLING OF ELEPHANTS AND ILLEGAL TRADE IN ELEPHANT PRODUCTS

Technical Reference/Fact Sheet

CITES MIKE Programme web page

Ranking

off

Make Map Points

Off

Pressure

Human intrusions & disturbance

Add Map Layers

Years of reporting of the CITES MIKE sites

{ "id": "MIKE_site_ACP", "type": "raster", "source": { "type": "raster", "tiles": [ "https://geospatial.jrc.ec.europa.eu/geoserver/biopama/wms?bbox={bbox-epsg-3857}&service=WMS&request=GetMap&layers=MIKE_site_ACP&format=image%2Fpng&transparent=true&version=1.1.1&height=256&width=256&srs=EPSG%3A3857" ], "tileSize": 256 }, "paint": {} }

https://geospatial.jrc.ec.europa.eu/geoserver/biopama/ows?service=WMS&request=GetLegendGraphic&format=image%2Fpng&width=20&height=20&layer=MIKE_site_ACP

Geospatial Data - MIKE programme III: Illegal Killing (PIKE) in MIKE sites

Anonymous — Mon, 17 Jun 2019 13:59:04 +0000

Geospatial Data - MIKE programme III: Illegal Killing (PIKE) in MIKE sites

Anonymous Mon, 06/17/2019 - 09:59

Map of the normalised average Percentage of Illegal Killing of Elephants (PIKE) by MIKE sites over the reporting period.

The indicator is calculated as the average percentage of illegal killing in observed carcasses over the reporting period, normalized by yearly mean carcasses number (= total carcasses/years of reporting) to account for the different magnitude of carcass numbers found across sites.

The role of MIKE monitoring program in preventing illegal killing could be influenced by several factors. Reported data suggests an overall lack of correlation between the longevity of the monitoring program and the illegal killing rate in the sites.

Data source: CITES

Response (Policies and Goals/Targets)

REDUCE ILLEGAL KILLING OF ELEPHANTS AND ILLEGAL TRADE IN ELEPHANT PRODUCTS

Technical Reference/Fact Sheet

CITES MIKE programme website

Ranking

off

Make Map Points

Off

Pressure

Human intrusions & disturbance

Add Map Layers

Normalised average percentage of Illegal killing of elephants (PIKE) in MIKES sites

{ "id": "mike_PIKE_tot", "type": "raster", "source": { "type": "raster", "tiles": [ "https://geospatial.jrc.ec.europa.eu/geoserver/biopama/wms?bbox={bbox-epsg-3857}&service=WMS&request=GetMap&layers=mike_PIKE_tot&format=image%2Fpng&transparent=true&version=1.1.1&height=256&width=256&srs=EPSG%3A3857" ], "tileSize": 256 }, "paint": {} }

https://geospatial.jrc.ec.europa.eu/geoserver/biopama/ows?service=WMS&request=GetLegendGraphic&format=image%2Fpng&width=20&height=20&layer=mike_PIKE_tot

Human pressure potential index in PAs

Anonymous — Tue, 06 Apr 2021 09:24:58 +0000

Human pressure potential index in PAs Anonymous Tue, 04/06/2021 - 05:24

Indicator of potential human pressure in and around protected areas derived from indices of forest loss, population and agriculture pressures (DOPA 4.0).

This indicator is a proxi for potential human activities pressure inside and in a 10km-buffer around protected areas. Therefore it may indicate potential vulnerability in conditions whereby protected area financial resources, local economy and supply chains are disrupted by national and/or international crises, and so coping and adaptation strategies may consist in an increased pressure from human activities on natural resources.

It is a component of the vulnerablity indicator to gloabl tourism and travel crisis.

Ranking

off

Make Map Points

Off

Pressure

Human intrusions & disturbance

National Data

Human pressure index in PAs

Indicator of potential human pressure in and around protected areas derived from indices of forest loss, population and agriculture pressures (DOPA 4.0). The composite indicator was calulcated as the mean value of four standardised indices of forest loss, population change (1995-2015), population density and agriculture coverage.

It is a component of the vulnerablity composite indicator to global tourism and travel crisis.

https://api.biopama.org/api/vulnerability/function/api_vuln_pa_country/iso3=ISO3

wdpaid

WDPAID

{"name":"Protected areas", "show": true, "nameLocation": "middle", "nameGap": 80, "type":"category", "data":"wdpaid"}

{"name":"Human Pressure index", "nameLocation": "middle", "nameGap": 80, "type":"value", "data":"humpressure_ind"}

{"name":"Pressure index", "type":"bar", "bp_count":"Pressure index", "data":"humpressure_ind"}

Descending

Yes

REST

Standard Deviation

diverging-1

Irrecoverable Carbon

Manager — Tue, 18 Jan 2022 13:26:45 +0000

Irrecoverable Carbon

Manager Tue, 01/18/2022 - 09:26

A new paper published in Nature Sustainability mapped the irrecoveral carbon in earth's ecosystems. It shows how manageable, vulnerable and irrecoverable carbon are distributed among ecosystems. Petland, mangrove forests, old-growth forests are the most important- reserve of irrecoverable carbon. ““Irrecoverable carbon” refers to the vast stores of carbon in nature that are vulnerable to release from human activity and, if lost, could not be restored by 2050 — when the world must reach net-zero emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change..”. Here we are showing the percentage of irrecoverable carbon density by ACP country in million tonnes and the mean of irrecoverable carbon density for the year 2018 in Mg ha-1 protected by protected and conserved areas.

To explore deeper the original dataset and research, visit Conservation International Resilience Atlas. Source: Noon, M.L., Goldstein, A., Ledezma, J.C. et al. Mapping the irrecoverable carbon in Earth’s ecosystems. Nat Sustain 5, 37–46 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00803-6

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.t

---

Data Uploaded by Simona Lippi using the BIOPAMA Services (2022)

Technical Reference/Fact Sheet

Noon, M.L., Goldstein, A., Ledezma, J.C. et al. Mapping the irrecoverable carbo…

Ranking

off

Make Map Points

Off

State

climate

Pressure

Human intrusions & disturbance

Global Data

Where is the irrecoverable carbon?

A new paper published in Nature Sustainability mapped the irrecoveral carbon in earth's ecosystems. It shows how manageable, vulnerable and irrecoverable carbon are distributed among ecosystems. Petland, mangrove forests, old-growth forests are the most important- reserve of irrecoverable carbon. ““Irrecoverable carbon” refers to the vast stores of carbon in nature that are vulnerable to release from human activity and, if lost, could not be restored by 2050 — when the world must reach net-zero emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change..”. Here we are showing the percentage of irrecoverable carbon density by ACP country in million tonnes. Source: Noon, M.L., Goldstein, A., Ledezma, J.C. et al. Mapping the irrecoverable carbon in Earth’s ecosystems. Nat Sustain 5, 37–46 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00803-6

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

https://api.biopama.org/api/climate/function/api_country_irrecoverablecarbon/

isoa3_id

iso3

{"name":"Country", "show": true, "nameLocation": "middle", "nameGap": 80, "type":"category", "data":"isoa3_id"}

{"name":"% of irrecoverable carbon", "nameLocation": "middle", "nameGap": 80, "type":"value", "data":"perc_irr_c"}

{"name":"Percentage of irrecoverable carbon by country", "type":"bar", "bp_count":"Percentage of irrecoverable carbon by country", "data":"perc_irr_c"}

Descending

REST

Natural Breaks (Jenks)

sequential-3

National Data

where the ecosystems, with irrecoverable carbon stored, are protected?

Protecting Irrecoverable Carbon

Identifying to what extent ecosystems storing irrecoverable carbon are protected is crucial to better address conservation strategies and protected areas management in order to achieve climate goals. This dataset shows the mean of irrecoverable carbon density for the year 2018 in Mg/ha that falls within protected and conserved areas. The original dataset is the irrecoveral total carbon density for the year 2018 at 300 m spatial resolution. Source dataset: Noon M, Goldstein A, Ledezma JC, Roehrdanz P, Cook-Patton SC, Spawn-Lee SA, Wright TM, Gonzalez-Roglich M, Hole DG, Rockström J, and Turner WR 2021. Mapping the irrecoverable carbon in Earth’s ecosystems. Nature Sustainability. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4091029.

https://api.biopama.org/api/climate/function/api_wdpa_irrecoverablecarbon/iso3=ISO3

wdpaid

WDPAID

{"name":"Protected Area", "show": true, "nameLocation": "middle", "nameGap": 80, "type":"category", "data":"orig_name"}

{"name":"mean of irrecoverable carbon for the year 2018 in Mg ha-1 ", "nameLocation": "middle", "nameGap": 80, "type":"value", "data":"mean_irr_c"}

{"name":"mean of irrecoverable carbon for the year 2018 in Mg ha-1 ", "type":"bar", "bp_count":"mean of irrecoverable carbon for the year 2018 in Mg ha-1 ", "data":"mean_irr_c"}

Descending

REST

Natural Breaks (Jenks)

sequential-3

Topic

Ecosystem functioning and services

MIKE programme II: Protected areas in MIKE programme

Anonymous — Wed, 21 Aug 2019 14:13:33 +0000

MIKE programme II: Protected areas in MIKE programme

Anonymous Wed, 08/21/2019 - 10:13

Protected Areas in MIKE programme

All MIKE sites but one overlap with protected areas included in the World Database of Protected Areas (UNEP-WCMC), either entirely or partly.

Check the Regional and National tabs for more details.

The CITES Monitoring the Illegal Killing of Elephants (MIKE) Programme and the follow up project Minimizing the Illegal Killing of Elephants and other Endangered Species (MIKES) have maintained a site-based system designed to monitor trends in the illegal killing of elephants, build management capacity and provide information to help range States make appropriate management and enforcement decisions.

Response (Policies and Goals/Targets)

REDUCE ILLEGAL KILLING OF ELEPHANTS AND ILLEGAL TRADE IN ELEPHANT PRODUCTS

Technical Reference/Fact Sheet

MIKES website

Ranking

off

Make Map Points

Off

Pressure

Human intrusions & disturbance

Add Map Layers

MIKE sites boundaries

{ "id": "MIKE_sites_gen", "type": "raster", "source": { "type": "raster", "tiles": [ "https://geospatial.jrc.ec.europa.eu/geoserver/biopama/wms?bbox={bbox-epsg-3857}&service=WMS&request=GetMap&layers=MIKE_sites_gen&format=image%2Fpng&transparent=true&version=1.1.1&height=256&width=256&srs=EPSG%3A3857" ], "tileSize": 256 }, "paint": {} }

https://geospatial.jrc.ec.europa.eu/geoserver/biopama/ows?service=WMS&request=GetLegendGraphic&format=image%2Fpng&width=20&height=20&layer=MIKE_sites_gen

Regional Data

Reporting period of protected areas involved in the CITES MIKE sites by protected areas-regional

Reporting period of protected areas in the MIKE programme.

Since 2002, an increasing number of protected areas have been involved in the project. In fact, all MIKE sites but one overlap, either entirely or partly, with protected areas included in the World Database of Protected Areas (UNEP-WCMC).

In the map, protected areas included in MIKE programme are classified by the number of annual reports delivered to the programme.

In Central Africa, 16 designated MIKE sites entirely overlap with protected areas. In Western Africa, 17 out of 18 designated MIKE sites entirely overlap with protected areas, only one site (Nazinga Gamme Ranch) is not included in the World Database of Protected Areas. In Eastern Africa (EA), 16 designated MIKE sites overlap with 67 protected areas. In Southern Africa, 18 designated MIKE sites overlap with 33 protected areas.

Please note that protected areas included in the same MIKE site share the same statistic.

https://geospatial.jrc.ec.europa.eu/geoserver/biopama/ows?service=wfs&version=1.1.0&request=getfeature&MAXFEATURES=9999&typename=biopama:wdpa_PIKE_tot&PROPERTYNAME=wdpaid,name,nyr_rep,Region,&CQL_FILTER=Region='REGION'&outputFormat=application/json

wdpaid

WDPAID

{"name":"Protected area", "show": true, "nameLocation": "middle", "nameGap": 80, "type":"category", "data":"name"}

{"name":"Year", "nameLocation": "middle", "nameGap": 80, "type":"value", "data":"nyr_rep"}

{"name":"Years of reporting by protected area in MIKE programme", "type":"bar", "bp_count":"Years of reporting by protected area in MIKE programme", "data":"nyr_rep"}

Descending

REST

features

https://geospatial.jrc.ec.europa.eu/geoserver/biopama/wms?

Equal Interval

sequential-11

National Data

Reporting period of protected areas in MIKE programme_national

Reporting period of protected areas in the MIKE programme.

In the map, protected areas included in MIKE programme are classified by the number of annual reports delivered to the programme.

Please note that protected areas included in the same MIKE site share the same statistic.

The CITES Monitoring the Illegal Killing of Elephants (MIKE) Programme and the follow up project Monitoring the Illegal Killing of Elephants and other endangered species (MIKES) have maintained a site-based system designed to monitor trends in the illegal killing of elephants, build management capacity and provide information to help range States make appropriate management and enforcement decisions.

https://geospatial.jrc.ec.europa.eu/geoserver/biopama/ows?service=wfs&version=1.1.0&request=getfeature&MAXFEATURES=9999&typename=biopama:wdpa_PIKE_tot&PROPERTYNAME=wdpaid,nyr_rep,iso3,name&CQL_FILTER=iso3='ISO3'&outputFormat=application/json

wdpaid

WDPAID

{"name":"Protected area", "show": true, "nameLocation": "middle", "nameGap": 80, "type":"category", "data":"name"}

{"name":"Year", "nameLocation": "middle", "nameGap": 80, "type":"value", "data":"nyr_rep"}

{"name":"Years of reporting by protected area in MIKE programme", "type":"bar", "bp_count":"Years of reporting by protected area in MIKE programme", "data":"nyr_rep"}

Descending

REST

features

https://geospatial.jrc.ec.europa.eu/geoserver/biopama/wms?

Equal Interval

sequential-11