We continue to develop resources related to the COVID-19 pandemic. See COVID-19 initiatives on Appropedia for more information.
User:KVDP/Safeguarding of forests
|This page has been userfied - moved to the userspace of one of its editors, to be worked on further.|
|If a reason was given it will appear here:
lack of factual content.
If you wish to discuss this move, please do so at the Village Pump. If any concerns have been raised, you may wish to addressing those concerns before asking for it to be moved back.
If you want to get feedback on the article (e.g. "Is this accurate?" or "Is it useful?") you can also ask on the Village Pump. Just link to this page like this: [[User:KVDP/Safeguarding of forests]].
|Please help review and edit this page (click the edit tab above) to make it more accurate.
This page has been flagged as inaccurate for the following reason:
Filled with opinions and ideas, instead of facts or even experiences.
Firstly, the forests/biological hotspots you are protecting may be researched for any new animal/plant species (these can be useful for the field of bionics (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bionics ). In order to do this, perhaps you may contact the Encyclopedia of Life (www.eol.org/ ); this organisations works together with a great array of researchers which may be asked to look whether your forests house new species. I am guessing that many researchers would be happy to do this free-of-charge as finding a new species would improve the researchers credentials, as the attaining of documents is often difficult for them, and as many researchers just left school and wish to do a doctorate, ...
Next, I figure that avoided deforestation or Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD), were it to be implemented in the Kyoto Protocol would make the wheels turning for Carbon Capital. I already implemented this notion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#Successor . Perhaps you may make the REDD-page, explaining the option and what it does. This would improve intrest and perhaps put extra pressure on quick implementation in practice.
Finally I have another small suggestion on how you may protect more forest with the same amount of funding. This idea rests on buying scattered plots of land of a biologically important area (hotspot) in order to safeguard a larger area. This would be possible as by buying a scattered range of plots would make it harder or even impossible to log an area efficiently. For example if the plots around a river are bought, logs (from adjecent, unprotected forests) can no longer be chopped and transported by this river. Also, by buying eg plots of land eg in a scattered formation, loggers will often not know which plot of land they are working on, making their work significantly harder and more costly. Follow up of your land may be done by satellite (governments are already using this technique for this purpose, and their skills can be used). The minute they log your land, they may be sued, resulting in heavy extra losses for them. Perhaps that, cooperation with similar organisations as yours (several other companies are also buying forests for avoided deforestation) may be done to join adjecent areas or to have more funding to safeguard certain large areas by this scattered formation method.