14 DAY TRIAL // The idea of rich, developed countries paying poorer nations annual sums of money for the protection of the rain forests is not a new one, and international officials have been considering the pros and cons of this kind of measures for quite some time now. Recently, Prince Charles, speaking on behalf of the United Kingdom, said that the developed world should fund economic activities in countries that house rain forests, so that these developing nations could progress without deforestation.
Currently, the issue of rain forest reduction is very problematic, given that more and more countries that have such forests on their territories have already begun cutting trees for a few decades. As there is little to no law enforcement to the ban on deforestation, illegal lodging poses a serious threat to the safety of the "lungs of the planet," as these forests were named.
Developed nations, which are the promoters of cleaner energy and renewable power sources, should not expect poor countries to just curb their economic activities and stop expanding agricultural fields, when their people are starving. Instead, they should pay them a fee, one that would cancel the effects that deforestation would otherwise have on emerging economies.
"These emergency funds could be provided directly by developed world Governments, perhaps from expanded development aid budgets, from surcharges on activities which cause climate change or from the auction of carbon market emission allowances. However, I hope that even in the short term the large part of the required funding could be provided by the private sector by subscribing to long-term bonds issued by an international agency," Charles said.
Opponents to the idea drew attention to the fact that such an endeavor would encourage a growth in corruption levels in the countries housing rain forests, as local authorities would not stop illegal tree cutting, but would claim international funds nonetheless. On the other hand, major powers could drop their carbon emission reduction plans, saying that they offset their output through the funds they pay. Needless to say, the issue will still be opened for debate for a very long time.