–World-wide: 30) 10% reduction in deforestation from 2005-2030 would cost $2-5 per t CO2, and a 50% reduction would cost $10-21 per tonne CO2? 31) Earth’s saving depends on us, 32) Value of services afforded by healthy forests, 33) Deforestation amplifies flood severity,

World-WIde:

30) The cost to nations of avoiding deforestation, in terms of incomes from land foregone, is relatively low. A 10% reduction in deforestation from 2005-2030 would cost $2-5 per t CO2, and a 50% reduction would cost $10-21 per tonne CO2. “These are well within the range of costs for other climate change policy options,” says Brent Sohngen, one of the report’s key authors from Ohio State University. A recent US study estimated a cost of $9 per t CO2 for reducing emissions by altering patterns of energy use. Carbon payments could provide a powerful incentive to reduce deforestation. If the carbon price was a modest $10 per t CO2, standing forests could generate an income of more than $250 per hectare per year for some landowners, according to these models. Devising a reliable mechanism to reward avoided deforestation may be tricky, but Sohngen is optimistic. “If you create an economic incentive to avoid deforestation,” he says, “people will find a way to measure, monitor and verify it.” The researchers reported their findings in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/futures/35344

31) The responsibility of safeguarding our magnificent earth lies in the hands of its populace. Needless to say, we as humans are accountable for preserving our planet. Our actions do major impacts on the natural world; our choices can either revive our Earth or totally annihilate it. The many forested lands are being shattered all over the world, and we must make moves to further pursue the deforestation solutions. Deforestation is in fact an inescapable problem; it should therefore be addressed to and not put aside. Solutions are needed for this kind of problem if we want to stay away from its consequences. Although smaller forests are but a speck of soil in contrast to the whole land mass of the globe, there is a likelihood that the entire world might one day end up like a wasted place if deforestation persists without fervent actions taken against it. The False Solutions At HandIn the past, various solutions have been taken account to for further experiments against what could bring deforestation down. However, some of the solutions failed and some progressed, and here is the list of what should not be considered as a problem solving equation for one of the world’s biggest threats: Sustainable Commercial Logging Options, Tropical Forestry Action Plan, Limits of Reserve Strategies, and International Biodiversity Program. The Sustainable Commercial Logging Options has been considered negligible by most of our environmentalists. Its key concept of permitting logging at a minimal rate resulted to more deforestation events all over the world. People did not seem to listen or to participate in such program since aggressive prohibition of logging was not made. http://www.itfindhealth.com/deforestation-solutions-and-its-types/

32) Andrew Mitchell, founder and director of the London-based Global Canopy Program (GCP), said he is encouraged by signs that investors are beginning to look at the value of services afforded by healthy forests. Speaking to an audience of more than 500 scientists at the annual meeting of the Association for Tropical Biology and Conservation, Mitchell said the world presently faces a crisis of values, which translates to threats to food security, energy security, and environmental security. “These are combining to create a kind of a perfect storm that we have going on right now,” he said. “You see it in rising food prices, rising energy prices, and a great land grab to produce biofuels. The easiest way to grow these crops is to grab lands in the tropics… from rainforests.” “Meanwhile the developing world sees climate change as a train crashing through their countries, but something that is not their fault,” Mitchell continued. But hope is on the horizon. Mitchell believes that valuing forests for the services they provide could play a critical role in addressing climate change, rural poverty, and the food crisis, as well as safeguarding biodiversity. “Forests fall because they are worth more cut down than standing. This is a classic example of a market failure,” Mitchell told mongabay.com in an interview following his speech. “But ecosystem services could change that.” According to Mitchell, the concept really gained momentum in 2005 after Michael Somare, the prime minister of Papua New Guinea, told developed countries at an international climate meeting that if they wanted tropical nations to stop cutting down their forests, they would have to pay them. Since then the idea has won wider support from interests ranging from environmentalists to business to politicians. Even some indigenous rights’ groups see the concept as offering potential to protect forests and improve rural livelihoods, provided it takes their historical land rights and access into consideration. http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0818-mitchell_interview_gcp.html

33) And I published a paper entitled Global evidence that deforestation amplifies flood risk and severity in the developing world in Global Change Biology (highlighted in Nature and Faculty of 1000) that has finally provided tangible evidence that there is a strong link between deforestation and flood risk. Using data from 56 developing nations in Central/South America, Africa and Asia, we correlated information on flood frequency and severity with country-specific forest data. After controlling for differences in rainfall, elevation, soil moisture and degraded areas, flood risk was strongly correlated with increasing deforestation. The models constructed predicted a 4 – 28 % increase in flood frequency with only a 10% increase in deforestation. An important additional finding was that only the amount of native forest was correlated with reductions in flood risk – plantation forests had the opposite effect. This has huge implications for governments of developing nations trying to save lives and reduce expenditures. Promoting native forest conservation also has the added benefits of slowing climate change by storing vast quantities of carbon, reducing wildfires, and conserving species. The study also investigated how deforestation affects the severity of flooding. We examined flood duration as an index of damage potential, as well as direct measures such as the number of people killed and displaced by floods, and the total estimated damage measured in dollars caused by powerful flood waters. Although the correlations were not as strong, we found real evidence that deforestation also leads to more intense and devastating floods that kill more people and damage more property. The implications of this study are measured potentially in the trillions of dollars over the next coming decades, so we hope it is used wisely as yet another good reason why we should preserve forests. http://conservationbytes.com/2008/08/20/native-forests-reduce-the-risk-of-catastrophic-floods/