As we all know, forests are not only just natural habitats of plants and animals,

they also provide us a stream of serviceshave a range of other functions -

stabilizing the soil and helping prevent erosion, storing carbon dioxide while
emitting producing oxygen and cooling the planet. – that most of the people get
for free.

However, the majority of forests, especially tropical rain forests, are located in
poor countries. Paradoxically, there is a fact that the more prosperous a society
is, the more likely it is to protect its natural environment. Conversely, less
developed nations are prone to exploit and even destroy their natural resources
in order to increase country’s their prosperity. According to the World Wildlife
Fund for Nature (WWF) over 43 million hectares, an area roughly the size of
Morocco, was lost in between 2004 and 2017.

Two questions are therefore raised: “Do we need to reimagine forests as a public
utility like water, electricity?”, and “Sshould people in the richer world pay
poorer countries to protect their forests?”

The idea is quite logical and easy at the beginning, because the main reasons for
deforestation are agricultural expansion and wood extraction, in order to make
moneyenerate revenue. Some projects have been launched, which have had
some and the statistics which were published are possitive results as well. The
governments of some developed nations like Norway, Germany and the UK
have also announced that they will take part in these .... It would be a win-win
situation for both rich and poor nations, because we would all benefit from
preserving those forests, which honesltly provide a bargain climate service, a
quite cheap sollution to reduce emissions.
On the other hand, there are other questions that should be asked: “How has
thatose money have been used? Have theyHas it been used effectively and for
the right purposes?”, because many of the developing nations which own most
of the world’s forests also have the highest rates of corruption. Our money are
simply payments for services, so we could not be attach any condition or have
right to say what the governvents of those countries have to do.
Furthermore, the protection of forests could lead to scareceness of their
products, which increases their prices of them. The high profits then could be
the motive for illegal deforestation. Enforcing laws that to protect forests is
because forof this reason not only costly, but also takes up money, political
space and administrative capacity.
In conclusion, I would like to say that it is still a good idea. But we need to
know on for which purpose we are we spending our money, and a the plan
hashave to be made particularly and precisely.
Alawys use your spell check! Typos are unacceptable!!
This text is quite hard to follow. Please be as clear and tot he point as possible, it
is your responsibility that the reader can follow you!