Lack of forest definition ‘major obstacle’

Discussions related to the issues of forest preservation and environmental conservation

Moderators: edfrank, dbhguru

Post Reply
User avatar
Posts: 4217
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 5:46 pm

Lack of forest definition ‘major obstacle’

Post by edfrank » Wed Oct 20, 2010 6:02 pm

Lack of forest definition ‘major obstacle’ in fight to protect rainforests
Kara Moses

20th October, 2010 ... rests.html

Click on image to see its original size
In the second in our series examining REDD we report how ambiguous forest definitions are putting the future success of forest protection schemes in doubt and allowing logging companies to destroy biodiverse habitats
The current lack of a working definition of what degraded forest or land is ‘plays into the hands’ of logging companies, say forest campaigners. The companies claim to responsibly develop ‘only on degraded land’, but in reality this can actually mean they are clearing forests and peatlands.

Most of Southeast Asia’s remaining forests are classed as ‘production forest’ and are therefore open to logging. Once a forest has undergone one round of logging it is often considered to be degraded and becomes vulnerable to conversion to agricultural crops such as palm oil.

Campaigners and ecologists say this is an error and that many of these ‘degraded’ forests are only slightly altered by logging and remain highly biodiverse, carbon-rich habitat for endangered species such as orang-utans and tigers. (continued)



The source of this piece tends to be on the more extreme end of the conservationist spectrum, but the point being made here is still a good one.


"I love science and it pains me to think that so many are terrified of the subject or feel that choosing science means you cannot also choose compassion, or the arts, or be awe by nature. Science is not meant to cure us of mystery, but to reinvent and revigorate it." by Robert M. Sapolsky

Post Reply

Return to “Forest Preservation and Conservation”