There are places around the world where the ruling class simply pushes everyone else aside at will, usually while saying that it is for the "collective good". This lack of individual property rights is a separate issue, and one I think is actually of more concern than the loss of natural forests that often results from it.
Some countries are hit hard by this deforestation- Haiti for one is pretty much devoid of trees now. So I certainly didn't mean to say that reforestation is taking place everywhere, and in all places balancing out deforestation.
But the map is completely missing the massive reforestation taking place in India and China... which makes me wonder about the criteria they use for "forest". There are some people who insist only naturally regenerated forests with the original biodiversity should be considered "forests". That may be a valid viewpoint, but it should be more openly presented as such.
The loss of that biodiversity is something to be concerned about. Who knows what is being lost? But if we are talking about the "lungs of the planet", the uptake of CO2 and the balance of plants to animals, we also have to understand that the actual foliage cover on the planet has increased by a large amount in the last thirty years.
In fact, the tropics are near their maximum capacity for carrying plants, with much of the increase in worldwide foliage coming from the greening of deserts.
So, this loss of forests is not an existential danger to humanity. We will not lose anything we already have, and it is allowing a lot of people to feed themselves. The loss we face is in future knowledge, information that we might have gotten from some plant, fungus, or animal that is lost to what we are doing today.
If we want to slow the loss of natural forests without causing hunger and privation, the only
option is more widespread adoption of GMO crops. GMO allow us to get greater production from less space, and with less impact on the environment.