It looks like it might be, although not to a point where it’s a clear trend or a significant improvement. The annual forest area loss has been falling from a 2004 high of over 27,000 km^2 to 11,500 km^2 in 2007, with a slight increase to almost 12,000 km^2 in 2008. However, 1991 was a year with smaller losses of only about 11,000 km^2. This is, of course, better than the 70′s and 80′s that had losses in excess of 21,000 km^2 a year, but only about as good as early 90′s. I’d say the celebration should wait if the losses go steadily down to under 10,000 km^2 a year, and then some.
1
Answers
It looks like it might be, although not to a point where it’s a clear trend or a significant improvement. The annual forest area loss has been falling from a 2004 high of over 27,000 km^2 to 11,500 km^2 in 2007, with a slight increase to almost 12,000 km^2 in 2008. However, 1991 was a year with smaller losses of only about 11,000 km^2. This is, of course, better than the 70′s and 80′s that had losses in excess of 21,000 km^2 a year, but only about as good as early 90′s. I’d say the celebration should wait if the losses go steadily down to under 10,000 km^2 a year, and then some.