The reading states that the international forest protection fund is a good approach towards protecting the forests in developing countries and gives three reasons for support. However, the professor explains that the suggestions made in the article are flawed and refutes each of the author's reasons.
First, the article claims that International forest protection fund can be used to protect forest agriculture. The funds distributed to the government and land owners will resist their intrusion by building industries in the forest area. However, the professor refutes this by stating that agriculture is itself destructive for the forest ecosystem. He explains that the farmers use harmful pesticides and fertilizers to increase the harvest yield. Consequently, this practice has detrimental effects on the environment by generating run off waste and water pollution. Therefore, promoting agriculture is not a good idea to save the forests from deforestation.
Second, the reading avers that the funds can be used to develop economies of the forest tribal communities. As a result, it will aid them to seek education and health services and prevent them from performing destructive forest practices to make their living. The lecturer rebuts this argument and says that the idea of paying stipend to the forest villagers is inadequate. He says that the funded money is dispersed to the owners of the forest, which is the government and not the residents. Thus, the complete fund is unlikely to reach in the hands of the forest dwellers for its given anticipated use.
Finally, the article posits that funding the government and the people can be helpful to prevent deforestation and establish forest areas with biodiversity. Conversely, the professor explains that the government may not use these funds appropriately to protect forests and develop biodiversity. Instead, people might plant more trees of commercial purposes. In such a scenario, this measure will not fulfil the goal of the forest protection fund.
The reading states that the international
forest
protection
fund
is a
good
approach towards protecting the
forests
in
developing countries
and gives three reasons for support.
However
, the professor
explains
that the suggestions made in the article
are flawed
and refutes each of the author's reasons.
First
, the article claims that International
forest
protection
fund
can be
used
to protect
forest
agriculture. The funds distributed to the
government
and land owners will resist their intrusion by building industries in the
forest
area.
However
, the professor refutes this by stating that agriculture is itself destructive for the
forest
ecosystem. He
explains
that the farmers
use
harmful pesticides and fertilizers to increase the harvest yield.
Consequently
, this practice has detrimental effects on the environment by generating run off waste and water pollution.
Therefore
, promoting agriculture is not a
good
idea
to save the
forests
from deforestation.
Second, the reading avers that the funds can be
used
to develop economies of the
forest
tribal communities.
As a result
, it will aid them to seek education and health services and
prevent
them from performing destructive
forest
practices to
make
their living. The lecturer rebuts this argument and says that the
idea
of paying stipend to the
forest
villagers is inadequate. He says that the funded money
is dispersed
to the owners of the
forest
, which is the
government
and not the residents.
Thus
, the complete
fund
is unlikely to reach in the hands of the
forest
dwellers for its
given
anticipated
use
.
Finally
, the article posits that funding the
government
and the
people
can be helpful to
prevent
deforestation and establish
forest
areas with biodiversity.
Conversely
, the professor
explains
that the
government
may not
use
these funds
appropriately
to protect
forests
and develop biodiversity.
Instead
,
people
might plant more trees of commercial purposes. In such a scenario, this measure will not fulfil the goal of the
forest
protection
fund
.