supplementary information for email: [email protected] fig. s2. the distribution of aboveground...

1

Supplementary Information for The Role of Forest Conversion, Degradation, and Disturbance in the Carbon Dynamics of Amazon Indigenous Territories and Protected Areas Wayne S. Walker, Seth R. Gorelik, Alessandro Baccini, Jose Luis Aragon-Osejo, Carmen Josse, Chris Meyer, Marcia N. Macedo, Cicero Augusto, Sandra Rios, Tuntiak Katan, Alana Almeida de Souza, Saul Cuellar, Andres Llanos, Irene Zager, Gregorio Díaz Mirabal, Kylen K. Solvik, Mary K. Farina, Paulo Moutinho, and Stephan Schwartzman. Wayne S. Walker Email: [email protected] This PDF file includes:

Supplementary text Figures S1 to S8 Tables S1 to S8

www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1913321117

2

Case Studies in Local Carbon Dynamics Our results reinforce the growing body of evidence supporting the critical role that Amazon ITs and PNAs play in regional carbon storage and avoided emissions from forest loss. The vast majority of studies, including this one, are conducted at spatial scales ranging from thousands to millions of square kilometers. Yet regional changes in aboveground carbon storage reflect the net effect of many interacting local processes – natural and anthropogenic, social and political – whose impacts on a landscape are better understood when viewed through the lens of local people and places. Case studies can provide valuable insights into the local circumstances and specific drivers that underlie regional trends. Here we present two case studies: one from central Brazil in the state of Pará near the town of Novo Progresso (SI Appendix, Fig. S7) and a second from northeastern Ecuador in the province of Sucumbíos along the Colombian border near the town of Shushufindi (SI Appendix, Fig. S8). Our goal is to highlight specific, place-based examples as a means of contextualizing the changes in aboveground carbon storage observed across Amazonia. Pará, Brazil: Kayapó/Mekrãgnot people The BR-163 highway (Fig. S7) is a main north-south transportation artery stretching nearly 4,500 km through the middle of Amazonia. Construction began in the early 1970s as part of an effort to develop the Amazon region; however, until recently significant portions of the road through Pará state remained unpaved. Increases in soybean production in Mato Grosso state in the early 2000’s made transport to Pará’s northern ports (Miritituba and Santarém) highly desirable. The announcement of government plans to pave a long (otherwise seasonally impassible) stretch of the highway in Pará triggered unregulated land grabbing, land speculation, and violent confrontations (1). In an effort to reestablish order and mitigate the socio-environmental impacts of the paving project, the federal government launched in 2006 a Regional Sustainable Development Plan for the Area of Influence of Highway BR-163 (the ‘Sustainable BR-163 Plan’). The plan, which included a number of environmental and social policies, was never completely implemented but did result in the creation of a 6.4 million ha mosaic of conservation units (i.e., PNAs) along the eastern and western flanks of the highway (SI Appendix, Fig. S7). Prior to 2006, land grabbing was pervasive along a ca. 400-km section of BR-163, which spurred deforestation (SI Appendix, Fig. S7a) and associated losses in carbon density (SI Appendix, Fig. S7b). Several PNAs (green hatching; SI Appendix, Fig. S7b) were established to the west of the highway, including the 1.3 million ha Jamanxim National Forest (Jamanxim Flona), ostensibly to stem the advance of forest loss (SI Appendix, Fig. S7c (iii)). Throughout this period, the Kayapó/Mekrãgnot inhabitants of the Baú IT (located to the east of the highway and predating its construction) helped prevent eastward advances in land grabbing and associated deforestation and forest degradation. The role of the ITs in maintaining carbon stocks over time is clear (SI Appendix, Fig. S7c(i)), with the trajectory of carbon density during the 2003-2016 timeframe confirming small yet decreasing losses and a small but increasing net sink (i.e., net gain). PNAs in the region have been less successful than ITs in stemming the tide of carbon density change (SI Appendix, Fig. S7c(ii)). Jamanxim Flona (green hatching immediately west of the highway) experienced the most deforestation of any Brazilian conservation unit between 2012 and 2015 as a result of illegal squatter occupation. An important postscript in the carbon dynamics of the region involves efforts initiated in late 2016 by the Temer administration to transform 305 thousand ha of Jamanxim Flona into an Environmental Protection Area (APA), the least restrictive form of PNA in terms of permissible land use. The proposed Provisional Measure (PM 756) sparked major public outcry and was ultimately vetoed. The veto lead to protests by those favoring the PM and resulted in the administration presenting a new bill (PL 8107/2017) to the National Congress, reviving the proposal to reduce the Flona, this time by 354 thousand ha. As of this writing, the bill has yet to reach a final vote and its future – and hence the future of Jamanxim Flona – remains uncertain.

3

Sucumbíos, Ecuador: Siona, Secoya, and Kichwa people Several ITs occupied by the Siona, Secoya and Kichwa indigenous groups (SI Appendix, Fig. S8) were voluntarily included in Ecuador’s Socio Bosque program – a federal initiative to provide payments for ecosystem services (PES). Following conservation agreements signed by the indigenous groups in 2008-2009, land commitments have been regularly monitored to certify performance against program objectives. Indigenous territories in the Sucumbíos region (orange hatching; SI Appendix, Fig. S8b) exhibited small and stable losses in carbon density through time (SI Appendix, Fig. S8c(i)), with a tendency toward increasing gains and a small net sink by 2016. These units have effectively blocked agricultural expansion from the west, driven primarily by growth in the production of coffee, cacao, and palm oil. An oil palm plantation to the southwest of the central ITs is clearly visible in high-resolution satellite imagery (blue hatching; SI Appendix, Fig. S8a) and has gained carbon density over the same period (SI Appendix, Fig. S8b). The trajectory of carbon dynamics inside the bounds of the oil palm plantation (SI Appendix, Fig. S8c(iii)) captures carbon losses (ca. 2003-2008) associated with biomass removals, followed by gains associated with the expansion of the complex (2008 onward). While this activity resulted in a localized net sink, oil palm plantations should be viewed as short-lived and ultimately ineffective carbon sinks from the standpoint of climate change mitigation, particularly when compared to the carbon sequestration capacity of the dense humid forest that formerly occupied the site. A portion of this forest remains and is protected by the IT bordering the oil palm plantation to the north. The two case studies presented above exemplify the complex sociopolitical dynamics at work locally across the region, which have the potential to impact – positively and negatively – ITs and PNAs, the IPLCs living within them, and the forest carbon they collectively protect. On the one hand, these examples can be viewed as “success stories” that highlight the contributions that IPLCs have made to maintaining forests and forest carbon intact. On the other hand, they underscore the myriad threats facing IPLCs and their forests, which have the potential to significantly alter the patterns of forest carbon dynamics documented in this study. 1. P. M. Fearnside, Brazil’s cuiabá- santarém (BR-163) highway: The environmental cost of paving

a soybean corridor through the Amazon. Environ. Manage. 39, 601–614 (2007). 2. National Institute for Space Research (INPE), Earth observation general coordination,

Monitoring Program of the Amazon and other biomes. Deforestation - Legal Amazon. Available at: http://terrabrasilis.dpi.inpe.br/app/dashboard/deforestation/biomes/legal_amazon/

4

Fig. S1. Amazon land area and total carbon. The relationship by country between (A) the land area in ITs/PNAs and the land area in Amazonia; and (B) the total carbon stock (ca. 2016) in ITs/PNAs and the land area in Amazonia.

5

Fig. S2. The distribution of aboveground carbon density (ACD) in 2003 (A) for pixels exhibiting gains from 2003-2106 (green lines) and (B) for pixels exhibiting losses from 2003-2016 (red lines) across the four primary land categories considered in this study. Whereas gains in ITs, PNAs, and the IT/PNA Overlap occurred primarily in areas with higher existing carbon stocks (i.e., >100 MgC ha -1), gains in the Other Land category exhibited a bimodal distribution with a significant portion of the total gain occurring in areas with relatively low existing carbon stocks (i.e., <100 MgC ha -1), likely associated with degraded/secondary forest.

6

Fig. S3. Trajectories of annual change (2003-2016) in aboveground carbon storage across Indigenous Territories including the region of IT/PNA Overlap, Protected Natural Areas, and Other Land. Individual panels include trajectories of loss (red lines), gain (green lines), and the difference between losses and gains (i.e., net change; blue lines). Values in blue reflect the net change (2003-2016) as a percentage of the baseline carbon stock in 2003.

7

Fig. S4. Annual deforestation estimates for the Brazilian Legal Amazon from 1988-2018 as estimated by PRODES (2). Light green bars (i.e., 2003-2016) correspond to the period of this study.

8

Fig. S5. Estimates of carbon loss (negative values), carbon gain (positive values), and the net change in carbon (bold black lines) during the 2003-2016 period of study as a percentage of the total stock present in 2003 across Brazil’s Indigenous Territories, Protected Natural Areas, regions of IT/PNA Overlap, and Other Land.

9

Fig. S6. Estimates of carbon loss (negative values), carbon gain (positive values), and the net change in carbon (bold black lines) during the 2003-2016 period of study as a percentage of the total stock present in 2003 across Peru’s Indigenous Territories, Protected Natural Areas, regions of IT/PNA Overlap, and Other Land.

10

Fig. S7. Case study in the state of Pará, Brazil, near the town of Novo Progresso. (A) Natural color Landsat 8 composite ca. 2016, pan-sharpened to 15-m resolution. (B) Changes (2003-2016) in aboveground carbon density (ca. 2016) relative to the distribution of ITs (orange), PNAs (green), and roads (grey) within and around the case study region (black). (C) Trajectories of annual and cumulative change (2003-2016) in aboveground carbon density as a percentage of the carbon stock present in 2003 across the three land categories considered. Values in red reflect the percentage of loss attributed to forest conversion in each case. Values in blue reflect the net change (2003-2016) as a percentage of the carbon stock in 2003.

11

Fig. S8. Case study in the province of Sucumbíos, Ecuador, along the Colombian border near the town of Shushufindi. (A) Natural color Landsat 8 composite ca. 2016, pan-sharpened to 15-m resolution. (B) Changes (2003-2016) in aboveground carbon density (ca. 2016) relative to the distribution of ITs (orange), PNAs (green), roads (grey), and an oil palm plantation (blue) within and around the case study region (black). (C) Trajectories of annual and cumulative change (2003-2016) in aboveground carbon density as a percentage of the carbon stock present in 2003 across the three land categories considered. Values in red reflect the percentage of loss attributed to forest conversion in each case. Values in blue reflect the net change (2003-2016) as a percentage of the carbon stock in 2003.

12

Table S1. Geodemographics of Indigenous Peoples, Indigenous Territories (ITs), Protected Natural Areas (PNAs), and Other Land across the nine-nation region of Amazonia (AMA; Fig. 1). Roughly half (52%) of the region by area is comprised of ITs and/or PNAs spanning parts of Bolivia (BOL), Brazil (BRA), Colombia (COL), Ecuador (ECU), French Guiana (GUF), Guyana (GUY), Peru (PER), Suriname (SUR), and Venezuela (VEN). Percentages reflect the proportional area in each land category by country relative to the total area of the Amazon in each country except the last row (Amazonia), which reflects the proportional land area in the Amazon by country relative to the total area in each country. BOL BRA COL ECU GUF GUY PER SUR VEN AMA Indigenous Peoples†

Groups 25 170 53 11 6 9 60 10 31 375 Population (thousands) 99 383 232 238 8 69 418 20 173 1,640

Indigenous Territories ††

Officially Recognized 32 335 209 435 22 107 1,751 0 8 2,899 Not Officially Recognized 1 0 0 194 0 0 183 0 56 434

Reservations/Intangible Zones 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 Proposed Reservations 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 6

All 33 335 209 629 22 107 1,945 0 64 3,344 Protected Natural Areas†† 45 279 27 54 17 6 48 18 28 522 Area (thousands of km2)

Indigenous Territories 81 969 236 48 1 31 209 0 125 1,698 17% 23% 49% 47% 1% 15% 27% 0% 27% 24%

Protected Natural Areas 105 1,053 63 15 37 9 160 22 48 1,514 22% 25% 13% 15% 44% 4% 20% 15% 10% 22%

IT/PNA Overlap 52 97 32 16 7 1 32 0 201 438 11% 2% 7% 16% 8% <1% 4% 0% 43% 6%

IT/PNA Total 238 2,119 332 79 44 41 401 22 374 3,650 50% 50% 68% 77% 52% 19% 51% 15% 80% 52%

Other Land 242 2,095 153 24 40 170 388 124 96 3,334 50% 50% 32% 23% 48% 81% 49% 85% 20% 48%

Amazonia 480 4,214 485 103 84 211 789 147 470 6,984 44% 49% 42% 40% 100% 100% 61% 100% 51% 100%

† Sources:

Bolivia - Fundación Tierra 2011; estimated from the 2001 census. Brazil – IBGE 2001; estimated from the 2010 census. Colombia – DANE 2005; projected to 2017 from the 2005 census. Ecuador – INEC 2010; estimated from the 2010 census. French Guiana – Davy and Grenand 2009. Guyana – Bureau of Statistics 2007; estimated from the 2002 census. Peru – INEI 2017; estimated from the 2017 census. Suriname – Berger et al. 2019; estimated from the 2012 census. Venezuela – INE 2011; estimated from the 2011 census.

†† Source: RAISG 2016.

13

Table S2. Carbon stock estimates (million metric tons; MtC) inside Indigenous Territories (ITs) and Protected Natural Areas (PNAs) versus outside these units (Other Land) across the nine-nation region of Amazonia (AMA; Fig. 1) at the beginning (2003) and end (2016) of the study period. Percentages reflect the fraction of the total carbon stock in each country in either 2003 or 2016.

BOL BRA COL ECU GUF GUY PER SUR VEN AMA ITs 2003 664.6 11,432.8 2,915.0 623.8 6.6 328.3 2,569.9 0.0 1,131.4 19,672.5 17.6% 26.0% 52.3% 50.5% 0.6% 12.9% 27.5% 0.0% 25.1% 26.6% ITs 2016 655.9 11,426.0 2,913.8 620.8 6.6 327.8 2,566.8 0.0 1,131.2 19,648.8 17.6% 26.7% 52.5% 50.5% 0.6% 12.9% 27.5% 0.0% 25.2% 27.0% PNAs 2003 810.8 12,332.6 752.2 160.9 510.9 114.3 1,972.2 271.4 520.4 17,445.7 21.5% 28.0% 13.5% 13.0% 43.6% 4.5% 21.1% 14.5% 11.5% 23.6% PNAs 2016 817.2 12,217.0 755.5 161.7 510.7 114.1 1,985.1 271.2 516.8 17,349.3 21.9% 28.5% 13.6% 13.1% 43.7% 4.5% 21.3% 14.6% 11.5% 23.8% IT/PNA overlap 2003 442.0 1,185.7 404.5 214.3 94.6 11.5 457.1 0.0 2,193.0 5,002.8 11.7% 2.7% 7.3% 17.3% 8.1% 0.5% 4.9% 0.0% 48.6% 6.8% IT/PNA overlap 2016 440.8 1,183.4 401.8 213.4 94.5 11.6 460.3 0.0 2,186.8 4,992.5 11.8% 2.8% 7.2% 17.3% 8.1% 0.5% 4.9% 0.0% 48.7% 6.9% IT/PNA total 2003 1,917.4 24,951.1 4,071.7 999.1 612.1 454.1 4,999.2 271.4 3,844.9 42,121.0 50.9% 56.7% 73.0% 80.8% 52.3% 17.8% 53.5% 14.5% 85.3% 56.9% IT/PNA total 2016 1,913.9 24,826.4 4,071.1 995.9 611.8 453.4 5,012.1 271.2 3,834.9 41,990.7 51.2% 57.9% 73.4% 81.0% 52.3% 17.9% 53.8% 14.6% 85.4% 57.7% Other land 2003 1,848.5 19,067.2 1,504.4 237.0 558.3 2,096.8 4,348.2 1,594.9 665.1 31,920.5 49.1% 43.3% 27.0% 19.2% 47.7% 82.2% 46.5% 85.5% 14.7% 43.1% Other land 2016 1,821.6 18,038.1 1,476.9 234.2 557.4 2,084.3 4,309.0 1,583.6 655.8 30,760.9 48.8% 42.1% 26.6% 19.0% 47.7% 82.1% 46.2% 85.4% 14.6% 42.3% Total 2003 3,765.9 44,018.3 5,576.1 1,236.1 1,170.5 2,550.8 9,347.5 1,866.4 4,510.0 74,041.4 Total 2016 3,735.5 42,864.5 5,548.0 1,230.2 1,169.1 2,537.7 9,321.1 1,854.8 4,490.7 72,751.6

14

Table S3. Loss and gain (2003-2016) in carbon stock (million metric tons; MtC) inside Indigenous Territories (ITs) and Protected Natural Areas (PNAs) versus outside these units (Other Land) across the nine-nation region of Amazonia (AMA; Fig. 1). Percentages reflect the fractional contribution of each land category to the total region-wide change (i.e., loss or gain).

BOL BRA COL ECU GUF GUY PER SUR VEN AMA Loss

ITs -30.4 -223.7 -67.8 -16.5 -0.2 -8.8 -64.0 0.0 -22.8 -434.1 19.1% 9.9% 38.1% 39.0% 0.9% 11.9% 23.3% 0.0% 21.0% 13.8%

PNAs -19.8 -313.1 -16.5 -5.9 -7.7 -2.7 -40.0 -3.9 -13.1 -422.7 12.5% 13.9% 9.3% 13.8% 41.3% 3.6% 14.5% 10.7% 12.0% 13.5%

IT/PNA overlap -13.1 -16.9 -11.7 -7.4 -1.4 -0.3 -6.4 0.0 -41.8 -99.0 8.3% 0.8% 6.6% 17.4% 7.6% 0.3% 2.3% 0.0% 38.5% 3.2%

IT/PNA total -63.3 -553.7 -96.1 -29.8 -9.2 -11.8 -110.4 -3.9 -77.6 -955.9 39.9% 24.6% 54.0% 70.2% 49.8% 15.9% 40.1% 10.7% 71.5% 30.4%

Other land -95.6 -1,694.7 -82.0 -12.6 -9.3 -62.4 -164.7 -32.7 -30.9 -2,184.9 60.1% 75.4% 46.0% 29.8% 50.2% 84.1% 59.9% 89.3% 28.5% 69.6%

Total -158.9 -2,248.4 -178.1 -42.4 -18.6 -74.2 -275.1 -36.6 -108.6 -3,140.7 Gain

ITs 21.7 216.9 66.6 13.5 0.1 8.3 60.8 0.0 22.6 410.5 16.9% 19.8% 44.4% 37.0% 0.9% 13.6% 24.4% 0.0% 25.3% 22.2%

PNAs 26.2 197.6 19.9 6.6 7.5 2.5 52.8 3.7 9.5 326.3 20.4% 18.0% 13.3% 18.1% 43.4% 4.1% 21.2% 14.7% 10.6% 17.6%

IT/PNA overlap 11.9 14.6 9.0 6.5 1.3 0.3 9.6 0.0 35.6 88.8 9.3% 1.3% 6.0% 17.8% 7.3% 0.5% 3.9% 0.0% 39.8% 4.8%

IT/PNA total 59.8 429.0 95.5 26.6 8.9 11.1 123.3 3.7 67.6 825.6 46.5% 39.2% 63.7% 73.0% 51.5% 18.3% 49.6% 14.7% 75.7% 44.6%

Other land 68.7 665.5 54.5 9.9 8.4 49.9 125.4 21.4 21.7 1,025.3 53.5% 60.8% 36.3% 27.0% 48.5% 81.7% 50.4% 85.3% 24.3% 55.4%

Total 128.5 1,094.6 150.1 36.5 17.2 61.0 248.7 25.0 89.3 1,850.9

15

Table S4. Loss, gain, and net change (2003-2016) in carbon stock (million metric tons; MtC) inside Indigenous Territories (ITs) and Protected Natural Areas (PNAs) versus outside these units (Other Land) across the Brazilian Amazon (Fig. 1). Loss and gain percentages reflect the fractional contribution of each land category to the total change (i.e., loss or gain). Net percentages reflect the change in carbon stock within each land category during the study period (i.e., relative to the 2003 baseline).

Gain Loss Net

ITs 216.9 -223.7 -6.8 19.8% 9.9% -0.1% PNAs

Strict Protection 67.8 -78.8 -11.0 6.2% 3.5% -0.2%

Sustainable Use 129.8 -234.2 -104.5 11.9% 10.4% -1.3%

Total 197.6 -313.1 -115.5 18.0% 13.9% -0.9% IT/PNA overlap

Strict Protection 10.3 -10.7 -0.4 0.9% 0.5% 0.0%

Sustainable Use 4.2 -6.2 -2.0 0.4% 0.3% -0.4%

Total 14.6 -16.9 -2.4 1.3% 0.8% -0.2% IT/PNA total 429.0 -553.7 -124.7 39.2% 24.6% -0.5% Other land 665.5 -1,694.7 -1,029.1 60.8% 75.4% -5.4% Total 1,094.6 -2,248.4 -1,153.8

-2.6%

16

Table S5. Loss, gain, and net change (2003-2016) in carbon stock (million metric tons; MtC) inside Indigenous Territories (ITs) and Protected Natural Areas (PNAs) versus outside these units (Other Land) across the Peruvian Amazon (Fig. 1). Loss and gain percentages reflect the fractional contribution of each land category to the total change (i.e., loss or gain). Net percentages reflect the change in carbon stock within each land category during the study period (i.e., relative to the 2003 baseline).

Gain Loss Net

ITs Officially Recognized 43.7 -49.6 -5.9

17.6% 18.0% -0.3% Not Officially Recognized 4.6 -4.7 -0.1

1.8% 1.7% 0.0% Reservation/Intangible Zone 4.6 -2.8 1.8

1.8% 1.0% 0.7% Proposed Reservation 7.9 -6.9 1.0

3.2% 2.5% 0.3% Total 60.8 -64.0 -3.2

24.4% 23.3% -0.1% PNAs 52.8 -40.0 12.8

21.2% 14.5% 0.6% IT/PNA overlap 9.6 -6.4 3.2

3.9% 2.3% 0.7% IT/PNA total 123.3 -110.4 12.9 49.6% 40.1% 0.3% Other land 125.4 -164.7 -39.3 50.4% 59.9% -0.9% Total 248.7 -275.1 -26.4

-0.3%

17

Table S6. Losses (2003-2016) in carbon stock (million metric tons; MtC) attributed to forest conversion (FC) and forest degradation/disturbance (D/D) inside Indigenous Territories (ITs) and Protected Natural Areas (PNAs) versus outside these units (Other Land) across the nine-nation region of Amazonia (AMA; Fig. 1). Percentages reflect the fraction of the total loss observed by category in each country.

BOL BRA COL ECU GUF GUY PER SUR VEN AMA ITs

Forest Conversion -13.5 -45.3 -2.8 -2.8 0.0 -0.8 -17.3 0.0 -2.4 -85.0 44.4% 20.3% 4.2% 16.9% 24.5% 9.1% 27.1% 0.0% 10.4% 19.6%

Degradation/Disturbance -16.9 -178.4 -65.0 -13.7 -0.1 -8.0 -46.6 0.0 -20.4 -349.2 55.6% 79.7% 95.8% 83.1% 75.5% 90.9% 72.9% 0.0% 89.6% 80.4%

PNAs

Forest Conversion -6.3 -131.9 -3.5 -0.4 -0.7 0.0 -2.0 -0.2 -1.6 -146.6 31.6% 42.1% 20.9% 7.1% 9.4% 1.1% 4.9% 5.2% 12.5% 34.7%

Degradation/Disturbance -13.6 -181.2 -13.1 -5.4 -6.9 -2.7 -38.1 -3.7 -11.4 -276.1 68.4% 57.9% 79.1% 92.9% 90.6% 98.9% 95.1% 94.8% 87.5% 65.3%

IT/PNA overlap

Forest Conversion -3.5 -2.1 -0.2 -0.2 0.0 0.0 -0.3 0.0 -5.3 -11.7 26.6% 12.7% 1.6% 3.0% 2.9% 4.8% 4.6% 0.0% 12.7% 11.8%

Degradation/Disturbance -9.7 -14.8 -11.5 -7.2 -1.4 -0.2 -6.1 0.0 -36.5 -87.3 73.4% 87.3% 98.4% 97.0% 97.1% 95.2% 95.4% 0.0% 87.3% 88.2%

IT/PNA total

Forest Conversion -23.3 -179.3 -6.5 -3.4 -0.8 -0.9 -19.6 -0.2 -9.3 -243.3 36.7% 32.4% 6.7% 11.5% 8.7% 7.2% 17.8% 5.2% 12.0% 25.5%


Other land

Forest Conversion -55.6 -1,219.0 -50.8 -5.7 -1.7 -4.8 -83.4 -6.6 -6.2 -1,433.8 58.2% 71.9% 62.0% 44.8% 17.9% 7.6% 50.7% 20.2% 20.1% 65.6%


Total

Forest Conversion -78.8 -1,398.4 -57.3 -9.1 -2.5 -5.6 -103.0 -6.8 -15.5 -1,677.1 49.6% 62.2% 32.2% 21.5% 13.3% 7.6% 37.5% 18.6% 14.3% 53.4%

Degradation/Disturbance -80.1 -850.0 -120.8 -33.3 -16.1 -68.6 -172.1 -29.8 -93.0 -1,463.7 50.4% 37.8% 67.8% 78.5% 86.7% 92.4% 62.5% 81.4% 85.7% 46.6%

18

Table S7. Average aboveground carbon density (2016; Mg ha-1) inside Indigenous Territories (ITs) and Protected Natural Areas (PNAs) versus outside these units (Other Land) across the nine-nation region of Amazonia (AMA; Fig. 1). BOL BRA COL ECU GUF GUY PER SUR VEN AMA

ITs 81 118 123 130 132 107 123 0 91 116 PNAs 77 116 120 105 138 123 124 122 108 115 IT/PNA overlap 85 122 125 130 142 116 143 0 109 114 IT/PNA total 80 117 123 125 139 111 125 122 103 115 Other land 75 86 96 98 139 122 111 127 68 92 Total 78 102 114 119 139 120 118 127 96 104

19

Table S8. The 95% confidence intervals (MtC) associated with the loss, gain (Table S3), and net change (Table 1) in carbon storage. For example, the net change in Amazon carbon storage (taken from Table 1) would be reported as -1,289.9 ±108.8 MtC.

BOL BRA COL ECU GUF GUY PER SUR VEN AMA Loss

ITs 1.5 13.9 4.4 0.9 0.0 0.5 3.8 0.0 1.4 16.7 PNAs 1.0 17.5 1.0 0.3 0.5 0.2 2.4 0.2 0.8 18.4

IT/PNA overlap 0.7 1.1 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 2.6 3.5 IT/PNA total 2.1 23.6 4.8 1.2 0.5 0.6 4.8 0.2 3.3 28.6

Other land 4.1 65.8 3.6 0.7 0.6 3.7 8.9 1.9 1.5 69.6 Total 4.9 72.9 6.3 1.4 0.8 3.8 10.7 2.0 3.8 81.7

Gain

ITs 1.2 13.9 4.3 0.8 0.0 0.5 3.7 0.0 1.3 16.5 PNAs 1.4 12.5 1.3 0.4 0.5 0.2 3.3 0.2 0.6 14.0


Other land 3.1 29.6 2.5 0.6 0.5 3.0 7.3 1.4 0.9 33.1 Total 4.0 37.8 5.6 1.2 0.8 3.1 9.6 1.4 3.1 47.2

Net

ITs 2.0 20.7 6.5 1.3 0.0 0.7 5.6 0.0 2.0 26.2 PNAs 1.8 22.5 1.7 0.5 0.7 0.3 4.3 0.3 1.1 25.2


Other land 5.4 74.9 4.6 1.0 0.8 5.0 12.1 2.5 1.8 82.7 Total 7.0 88.7 9.4 2.1 1.2 5.3 15.9 2.6 5.5 108.8

supplementary information for email: [email protected] fig. s2. the distribution of aboveground...

Documents