Forest management/Policy issues: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
# a high ambition option (“FM-High”) with full substitution of conventional selective logging by [[hasAcronym::RIL]] practices and plantation establishment targeted at 40% of global wood demand. This still represents a plausible development for future plantation growth (Brown, 2000). Application of RIL measures is implemented immediately in 2010, while plantation establishment continues up to 2050. | # a high ambition option (“FM-High”) with full substitution of conventional selective logging by [[hasAcronym::RIL]] practices and plantation establishment targeted at 40% of global wood demand. This still represents a plausible development for future plantation growth (Brown, 2000). Application of RIL measures is implemented immediately in 2010, while plantation establishment continues up to 2050. | ||
The ambitious implementation of improved forest management (SFM-H) results in considerable less land-use for forestry by 2050. The globally required forest area increases by only 0.5 million km2 between 2000 and 2050, and now a total of about 10 million km2 will be in use (two thirds compared to the baseline). With such a reduced forest use, and the assumed positive effects from applying RIL, the biodiversity loss through forestry is lower. For the less ambitious option, the gains are of course smaller, with an expansion of the forestry area of well over 3 million km2, and less avoided biodiversity loss. See figure 1, Prevented loss is measured in [[hasAcronym::MSA]], see Biodiversity component. | The ambitious implementation of improved forest management (SFM-H) results in considerable less land-use for forestry by 2050. The globally required forest area increases by only 0.5 million km2 between 2000 and 2050, and now a total of about 10 million km2 will be in use (two thirds compared to the baseline). With such a reduced forest use, and the assumed positive effects from applying RIL, the biodiversity loss through forestry is lower. For the less ambitious option, the gains are of course smaller, with an expansion of the forestry area of well over 3 million km2, and less avoided biodiversity loss. See figure 1, Prevented loss is measured in [[hasAcronym::MSA]], see Biodiversity component. | ||
|IMAGEComponent=Biodiversity | |IMAGEComponent=Biodiversity | ||
}} | }} | ||