The material discusses the development of an international fund to protect the world's forests. While the reading looks at the topic from one perspective, the listening challenges this and says that forests are under tremendous pressure, but the suggestions that the reading states are fault for several reasons.
First, the author mentions that using international funds could help forest-agriculture. On the other hand, the professor opposes this and posits that by raising the population, farmers have to increase the harvest of crops. The lecturer explains that farmers would use modern agriculture technology to enhance their productivity, so they use pesticides. The speaker adds that these chemicals have a detrimental effect because they increase waste and water contamination, which have a more negative impact than logging. Thus, according to the reading, protect forest-agriculture is not a good idea.
Second, the reading cits that these funds could promote the financial situation of villages and tribal communities. On the contrary, the professor disagrees and contends that this idea is inadequate. The lecturer explains that the money will go to the forests' owners who are governments. The speaker states that these funds will not end up in the hands of residents, so it could not enhance their economic situation.
Third, the writer posits that the international funds will protect forests' biodiversity. Conversely, the professor contradicts this and states that farmers could use these funds to plant merely trees, which have commercial purposes; thus, it could not help biodiversity. The lecturer adds that develop international monitor could not protect forests. The speaker concludes that this approach is inadequate.
The material discusses the development of an
international
fund
to
protect
the world's forests. While the
reading
looks at the topic from one perspective, the listening challenges this and says that forests are under tremendous pressure,
but
the suggestions that the
reading
states are fault for several reasons.
First
, the author mentions that using
international
funds could
help
forest-agriculture.
On the other hand
, the professor opposes this and posits that by raising the population, farmers
have to
increase the harvest of crops. The lecturer
explains
that farmers would
use
modern agriculture technology to enhance their productivity,
so
they
use
pesticides. The speaker
adds
that these chemicals have a detrimental effect
because
they increase waste and water contamination, which have a more
negative
impact than logging.
Thus
, according to the
reading
,
protect
forest-agriculture is not a
good
idea
.
Second, the
reading
cits
that these funds could promote the financial situation of villages and tribal communities.
On the contrary
, the professor disagrees and contends that this
idea
is inadequate. The lecturer
explains
that the money will go to the forests' owners who are
governments
. The speaker states that these funds will not
end
up in the hands of residents,
so
it could not enhance their economic situation.
Third, the writer posits that the
international
funds will
protect
forests' biodiversity.
Conversely
, the professor contradicts this and states that farmers could
use
these funds to plant
merely
trees, which have commercial purposes;
thus
, it could not
help
biodiversity. The lecturer
adds
that develop
international
monitor could not
protect
forests. The speaker concludes that this approach is inadequate.