It is on the lips of everyone today and now that all the continents are affected by the virus COVID 19 or "Corona virus". Originally identified in the end of December 2019, in the province of Wuhan in China, it has caused the death of thousands of human. On the 19^th March 2020, around two hundred thousands lives have been lost due to the virus spread, and the trend keeps on raising. One major recommendation, the containment, seems the only way to escape from the crisis. Distancing between human beings, less interaction, less physical contact are behavioural habits expected from each and everyone. Such instructions quite basic, will have dramatic consequences on the economy at the global level and more over for developing countries.

What a mess! When we think of how resources implied to develop a nation cannot be active anymore. As companies shut down part or all activities, labour can only work when conditions of working remotely are met; symposiums and meetings at national and international levels for decision making related to forest conservation and other environmental issues are cancelled. That seems dramatic on the moment, but thinking further, can something positive find its way out of the situation?

In the forest sector a slow down in wood harvesting, extraction and exportation is visible, agriculture is affected by the reduction of the demand from abroad since borders crossing is restricted, ivory traffic to China is less intense as before, to name but those. In other words, the major ecological threats follow or might follow a decreasing trend. For an environmentalist, an interpretation of the situation is obvious: less impact of man on the environment. Yes, less water and air pollution from factories, less agricultural land expansion, less wood exchange giving more chance to resilience, less carbon emission with cars left at rest in parkings, and the list goes on; If I had to be optimistic, that is exactly what I would think about! However, is it ethical to consider the ecological side on top position when humans considered as the main component of biodiversity are at risk?

Economically, Financial resources become limiting, and when possible, governments support non-active enterprises, such as developed countries compensating income deficit and covering rent bills and other expenses of enterprises during the crisis. That is a good initiative by the way, but many countries cannot afford similar measures and they will be the ones suffering the most. But, for how long the crisis? Is the loss experienced won't induce a need to recover very fast to mother nature's disfavour? After an economic crisis, a need for development is commonly observed with more input of resources required. The real challenge is to make sure after the crisis, that all action, remain correlated to a sustainable development. At the end we should act responsibly and forget about the permissive goal of cash gain.

Written by: Laura Donfack

Fact

If we conserve the tropical forest, then may be there is a reason to hope for a better future for the next generation.

Our actions are correlated to our expectations and we are responsible of what the planet is becoming.

That say, let us act in consequence !