NEWSWEEK: On the whole, are the world’s forests on the way back?

Pekka Kauppi: It’s not happening yet. The world is still losing forests and has a negative balance. But the balance could become positive if changes are made. We want to show that this is a feasible scenario that can happen within 30 years.

Deforestation will come to an end ultimately. The pace of deforestation today is about 10 million hectares per year (nearly 39,000 square miles). The entire forested area of the world is 3,000 million hectares. In 300 years [at the current rate] there will be no more forest to lose. The question is, can we stop this development in some range of a few decades, 20, 30 maybe 50 years? Most estimates neglect this option. I was involved in the United Nations Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, and we created scenarios for the future. We devised four different alternatives of how the world would develop in the next 50 years. Each one assumed the continual decline of forests. With this report we want to open a fifth scenario. With some luck and policy efforts by many people around the world, then maybe we can reverse the trend.

Is this the kind of result that you were expecting from your research?

It is a new conclusion. The team worked on it very actively for a year and a half, and we have developed it gradually. We are happy that we have come up with something that, we think, is consistent with the data. The journal accepted it for publication, they did screening and analysis, but it will remain for the scientific community and experts to judge. The way the numbers have been analyzed is a new method. Perhaps this can help us organize the data a little better in the future.

Are there exceptions to this trend?

There are many countries, maybe even half, which are still losing forests. Above a certain level of income, all countries gain forest biomass. We analyzed the threshold level and it is around $5,000 gross domestic product per capita. Above that level, there is no country that loses forest. But below that in the less prosperous countries, there are some that lose and some that gain. It seems that prosperity, in general, is not bad. Not that richer people pay more attention to forests, but that high income is a reflection of the society. There is law enforcement in place and the system is organized. Nobody wants to lose forests if the society has the means and capability to act and manage land more sustainably.

What can be done to reverse deforestation?

There are millions of people making decisions everyday. Governments have a very important role, as do private sector companies that can act in alternative ways. Also individuals in different circumstances can help but it is difficult to have one general behavioral pattern. If people could somehow cooperate, then step-by-step things will get better. There are many problems that interfere—war, for example—and many social issues that have to be dealt with at the same time. With the concept of sustainable development, you need to have a balance of your ecology, economy and social issues, all working together towards a common goal.

What does a more optimistic assessment of forestation mean for global warming?

[Forestation] is just a small part, but it is certainly positive. All carbon in forests is from the atmosphere, so if you have more biomass in the forests, you have less carbon in the air. It is very simple. The main solution [to global warming] will always be the reduction of fossil-fuel emissions, but the loss of forests in the tropical regions is a large emission source. If that forest is lost, the carbon will go into the air, adding to the fossil-fuel emissions.

What impact will reforestation have on wildlife?

Certainly it will be positive, regardless of what the forests look like. Some of the new forests are rather dull. They are not the same as the forests that are being lost. We have exchanged the natural forests for planted forests and they cannot provide all the same services, but they are better than nothing. It is very important to achieve balance for nature and wildlife, especially as biodiversity is richest in those areas that are now in jeopardy.

Is this good for biodiversity?

It will help a little. Think about the other scenario of losing all the forests in 300 years. All the species will be lost. If this can be counteracted, then it is good.

How did you get these results?

We got data from approximately 200 countries. Experts sent their best forest estimates to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) that compiles this data. The FAO made a similar report a year ago, but we expanded upon that in two ways. First of all we used other data to support the FAO and then we looked at biomass in particular. We collected independent scholarly data from countries not only for the 15-year period that we analyzed but also for a longer period. We emphasized biomass, which is difficult to measure. Essentially, biomass is the amount of trees. Big trees mean more biomass while small trees mean little biomass. It is the same with forest density, for example a dense forest will have a high biomass. One hectare of forest can vary in biomass from another. In many countries, hectares have not changed but the biomass is increasing. This has not been widely noted. Experts are aware of it, but it hasn’t been elaborated on.

How accurate are these results?

It varies between countries. The countries with the biggest problems with their forests also have the most problems with their data. We have very good data from Western Europe, the United States, Japan, China and Russia. But in tropical regions where forests are receding, sometimes there are no roads, and it becomes difficult to carry out measurements programs. As a result, the data is not as good and that is certainly a problem.