The material discusse the conceot of develop an in ternational protection funds to protect forest. While the reading loks at the topic from one perspective, the listening challenges certain points outlined in the reading passage.
Fitst, the reading claims that develop an international funds could encourage agriculture and improve the environment. On the contrary, the listening challenges that and states that agriculture itself could be a destructive way for the ecosystem because increasing population forces farmers to increase harvest by using modern technology, such as fertelisers and pestisides, which have a detrimental effect on the environment by increasing water wast and contamination. As a result, enhancing agriculture is not a proper idea.
Second, the author postes that this aproach could promote the economies of villages. Conversely, the lecturer opposes that and mentions this money will go the forests owners, who are usually governments not residents, so these funds will end up in the hand of government not forests dwellers.
Third, thereading says that international protection funds could enhance forest biodiversity. On the other hand, the professor contradictes that and claims that people will use this money to plant trees because they have a great commercial benefits, so if people use the money merely trees that will never help foresdt biodiversity. Consequently, protect international forests is inadequate.
The material
discusse
the
conceot
of develop an in
ternational
protection funds to protect
forest
. While the reading
loks
at the topic from one perspective, the listening challenges certain points outlined in the reading passage.
Fitst
, the reading claims that develop an international
funds
could encourage agriculture and
improve
the environment.
On the contrary
, the listening challenges that and states that agriculture itself could be a destructive way for the ecosystem
because
increasing population forces farmers to increase harvest by using modern technology, such as
fertelisers
and
pestisides
, which have a detrimental effect on the environment by increasing water wast and contamination.
As a result
, enhancing agriculture is not a proper
idea
.
Second, the author
postes
that this
aproach
could promote the economies of villages.
Conversely
, the lecturer opposes that and mentions this money will go the
forests
owners, who are
usually
governments
not residents,
so
these funds will
end
up in the hand of
government
not
forests
dwellers.
Third,
thereading
says that international protection funds could enhance
forest
biodiversity.
On the other hand
, the professor
contradictes
that and claims that
people
will
use
this money to plant trees
because
they have a great commercial benefits,
so
if
people
use
the money
merely
trees that will never
help
foresdt
biodiversity.
Consequently
, protect international
forests
is inadequate.