Loading...
 

Changes in the agricultural and livestock frontier

Changes in the agricultural frontier of the binational basin

In this chapter it is important to highlight that of 1117,030.07 ha, which make up the entire basin area, by 2016 4732.49 ha were deforested (figure 1). In Ecuador there are 3102.55 deforested ha, representing 66%, and in Colombia 1629 ha, corresponding to the remaining 34% (figure 2). In addition, the cantons and municipalities with the largest deforested area are mentioned.

Deforestation map (digital image)
Figura 1. Mapa de deforestación 2014-2016.
Figura 1. Mapa de deforestación 2014-2016.


Deforestation by country (digital image)
Figura 2. Deforestación por país 2014-2016.
Figura 2. Deforestación por país 2014-2016.


Land use conflict map published from ArcGIS Online
(The full GeoViewer is at the following link: GeoViewer)


According to table 1, the municipality or canton with the most deforested hectares is Tumaco, with 1020.42 ha, corresponding to 21.56%, where the coverage stands out for being fragmented forest with secondary vegetation, fragmented forest with pastures and crops, secondary vegetation high and a lesser extension in the mosaic coverage of crops with natural spaces. These areas mostly have an overuse and underutilization conflict.

Tulcán has 778.87 hectares deforested, which represents 16.45% of the total, highlighting the high dense forest cover, therefore, a transition from forest to agricultural mosaic. Most of the deforested hectares correspond to the conflict of land use called underutilization.

In addition to Tumaco and Tulcán, the canton of Mira has a representative deforestation percentage of 19.9% or 610.6 ha, which are found on the cover of high dense forest, with a transition from native forest to agricultural land. Likewise, deforested areas are located in the fragmented forest with pastures and crops, mosaic of crops, pastures and natural spaces, shrubs and with a lower proportion of mosaic of pastures and crops.

Ibarra is another of the cantons that has a significant percentage of deforestation, with 10.04% of the total or 475.4 has deforested. Ibarra has a concentration of deforested hectares in the northwest of the canton, on the cover of dense low forest and, therefore, a transition from native forest to agricultural land and with a conflict of use related to underutilization. In the rest of the canton Ibarra, deforestation is evident in the bush cover and in a minimal proportion in the mosaics of pastures and crops.

Ricaurte has 338.1 deforested hectares, which represent 7.14% of the 4732.21 total hectares. Deforestation in this territory is concentrated in the north of the study area, on high dense forest covers, fragmented forest with pastures and crops, mosaic of crops, pastures and natural spaces.

Added to the previous cantons or municipalities, it is also emphasized that San Miguel de Urcuquí has 316.2 ha corresponding to 6.68% of the total deforested, distributed in the covers of high dense forest, mosaic of crops, pastures and natural spaces, and a minimum extension on the mosaic cover of pastures and crops.

The Espejo canton has 312.09 that represent 6.59% of the total deforested area, mainly concentrated in the northwest of this territory. These zones are located in the high dense forest covers, with a transition from forest to agricultural land, added to the mosaic coverage of crops and natural spaces, and to a lesser extent over the mosaic of pastures and crops.

Finally, it is understood that the other cantons or municipalities such as: Antonio Ante, Barbacoas, Bolívar, Cotacachi, Cumbal, Esmeraldas, Mallama, Montufar, Otavalo, Pimampiro, San Pedro de Huacas and Sapuyes, have a deforested area of less than 5%, Similarly, it is highlighted that Cayambe does not have any deforested area, because in this territory there is no forest cover.

Table 3. Deforestation by canton or municipality

Canton or municipality Area (ha)
Antonio Ante 1.20
Barbacoas 127.70
Bolívar 22.18
Cayambe 0.00
Cotacachi 49.61
Cumbal 75.67
Esmeraldas 223.73
Espejo 312.09
Ibarra 475.40
Mallama 67.23
Mira 610.60
Montufar 88.69
Otavalo 54.14
Pimampiro 159.40
Ricaurte 338.10
San Miguel de Urcuquí 316.20
San Pedro de Huacas 10.27
Sapuyes 0.72
Tulcán 778.87
Tumaco 1,020.42
Total 4,732.22

Source: adapted from the Institute of Hydrology, Meteorology and Environmental Studies. Bogota Prepared by: MMRB.

Methodology to integrate binational information

This section briefly describes how the information between Ecuador and Colombia was unified, as well as the challenges, gaps, and non-existent information.

For the deforestation chapter, the information obtained from Colombia corresponds to the Monitoring of the change in the area covered by natural forest of the Institute of Hydrology, Meteorology and Environmental Studies (IDEAM), 2014. In Ecuador, the information available from the Ministry of Environment and Water, 2018.

However, deforestation for the countries is from the period 2014 - 2016 and at a scale of 1: 100,000. In Colombia, to represent this chapter they had 3 categories, for example, stable forest, non-stable forest and deforestation.

The stable forest represents the native forest areas that have not undergone any change from one year to the next, “the stable forest is an area that remains covered by natural forest, both at the beginning and at the end of the analysis period”. (SIAC 2013) .

The non-stable forest is when "a surface remains with a different coverage to that of natural forest, both at the beginning and at the end of the analysis period." (Colombian Environmental Information System, 2013). And deforestation is "a direct and / or induced conversion of forest cover to another type of cover in a given period of time". (SIAC 2013).

On the other hand, in Ecuador only deforested areas were visible and its shapefile contained information on the transition of coverage, that is, if in 2014 it was native forest, in 2016 it was an agricultural mosaic and therefore, it did not have the information of stable forest, non-stable forest.

Similarly, the information for Colombia did not have the transition column, so to unite the information the shapefile for Colombia had to be generalized and only worked with the deforestation category, creating a common field and excluding forest categories. Stable and non-stable forest, in addition the transition column that belonged to the information for Ecuador was excluded; however, this column was used in the chapter description.

Bibliography




Last update: Friday October 9, 2026 15:14:07 -05