Strict legal and policy frameworks related to forest conservation can only help in preserving forests.

Strict legal and policy frameworks related to forest conservation can only help in preserving forests.

This is a very nice thinking...........

Yes, how far we should go? To me the answer is not same for all the parts of the world. You mentioned different communities are depending on the forest clearance for their livelihood. If we protect those forests, it could destroy that ethnic community. On the other hand, we must save forest for the ecological balance. So, to me we should go for reforestation wherever it is possible, the total forest coverage of the world will remain same.

This is a loaded question! We will be in big trouble shortly if we go on reproducing at the present rate. One problem will be the supply of food. Another will be where will we live. We keep using up farmland for houses and cut down forests to supply more cleared land. Sometimes the logs are used for building, manufacturing of pulp and paper, and in colder climates for fuel. These cold regions are largely uninhabitable  without a source of heat in winter. Without trees they need fossil fuels that those in warmer climates wish to ban. The destruction of these forests far outstrips the reforestation, and even with the latter, it takes temperate trees about 100 years to become a suitable replacement of its predecessors.

Cutting down trees causes a whole lot of problems. Before Costa Rica cut down 85% of its forests to produce more farmland, the soils were of very low density and stored enormous quantities of moisture so that there was little runoff. Humidity in the forest was very high, so that the forests stored large quantities of moisture and reduced runoff and erosion. After the large scale deforestation, the mean annual precipitation dropped by 30%. The relative humidity over the cleared land was significantly lower and the soil nearly doubled in dry density, becoming largely impervious to rain  As a result, the water table dropped and soil erosion has become a serious problem

Where did the missing water go? Into the sea, of course, along with the sediments. Then people worry about rising sea levels! Surprise, surprise! Other factors affect sea levels such as diastrophism, plate tectonics and reclamation of shallow tidal areas as in Holland. Volcanoes also build up large rock masses in the sea, displacing sea water. It is also suggested that the earth is expanding, but whether this helps or hinders is questionable.

The choice of use of the land also creates problems. In Iraq, salinization occurred when the agriculture expanded using irrigation without adequate drainage to wash out the salts. As a result, deforestation was followed by cultivation, salinization of the soils and land abandonment. The areas are now semi-desert. Similar things happened all across central Asia along the five main Silk Roads. Libya was the grainery of the south for the Romans, but now the soils have been eroded by wind though they may have provided much needed soils over the limestone rocks of Palestine. In the Congo, cutting down forest produced patches of agriculture for one or two years, after which the soft lateritic soil hardened into ironstone producing gaps in the forest covered in laterite. These gaps are called bovals and nothing can grow there.

Then there is the problem of carbon dioxide. We have been steadily removing the trees that turn carbon dioxide into oxygen. Meanwhile, our population is exploding and our output of carbon dioxide just in breathing is enough to create problems with rising temperatures. Remember human being are warm blooded an that implies that each of us is emanating heat into the micro-environment. This is advantageous in an igloo but otherwise helps global warming. Bringing oil and gas to the surface from underground means that additional heat is brought with it. This heat inevitably ends up heating the environment.

In short, Mankind has some important decisions to make regarding the use of  the Earth. Politicians do not seem to confront the public with a summary of the choices, so we are headed for a surprise in the not too distant future.

Stuart.

It has been very clearly and in an exhaustive way Dr. Stuart has explained all the related issues on the question. Increased urbanization; agricultural activities; industrialization; all have been covered and the main reason for all these is the ever increasing population. There is no doubt that forest cover is very important in the water resources conservation and there is no need to explain the importance of water resources. Many of the problems related to present day water scarcity is due to deforestation and this deforestation is due to Human needs and GREED. It is high time everybody in their own way regenerate the forest and protect the environment.

There is no dearth for legal or policy frameworks, but it is the incompetence of the responsible agencies in implementing and monitoring the same.

Thanks so much, Suresh, Md, Stuart, and N B, for your valuable insights!

Your question appears to me to based on incorrect information.  An intact forest provides much more economic value to impoverished and tribal cultures than ANY forest CLEARING.  A good example is the Amazon forests where tribal peoples depend upon the forests for food and all other important physical/economic needs.  The poor (non tribal)  people who live in small villages often depend on the intact rain forest to collect products (brazil nuts, rubber) that support them and their families.  Intact forests also provide lumber continuously if harvested in a sustainable.manner.  Clear cutting is only done by large economic organizations and it eliminates economic value for a decade or decades after.  There is almost never a real benefit to impoverished or tribal peoples.

In addition to the benefits of forests already mentioned, and many many more, destroying a forest for short term gain and long term misery is never a choice that should be made.  And from a faith perspective we should be ashamed of destroying Gods' creation for a short term, unwise, economic reason.