The reading mainly presents that there are three benefits that the development of an international fund to help developing countries implement useful conservation techniques in forest protection is the best way to protect the world’s forests. However, the lecturer challenges what are stated in the passage by providing three evidences.
Firstly, in the reading, using the internationally established forest protection fund to protect forest agriculture is perhaps the most important initiative. In contrast, the lecturer holds an opposing views, saying that farmers would increase much more their production according to population. So, they would use agricultural technologies such as fertilizers and pesticides. It cause serious problems such as water pollution because pesticides and fertilizers include harmful chemical compounds. Deforestation rate would increase much more.
Secondly, the passage asserts that use of this protection fund could be used to improve the local areas by parceling out fund to provide villagers and tribal resident . However, the professor also claim the opposite opinion that stipends and other financial aid would would give to forest owners and villagers and tribal residents do not get stipends and other financial aid. For this reason. It is not rational solution.
Finally, the author of the reading passage believe that humans use many plant and animals for their convenience such as food and etc. using the international fund to help government and people establish protected forest areas is the best way to maintain valuable forest biodiversity. On the other hand, the lecturer disagrees it with the point that people use plants and animals for commercial purpose or their profit instead of food, shelter, clothing and medicinal needs.