In some cases that could destroy another wonderful natural resource. In Africa for instance it is not a net positive to plant a forest that would replace a Savannah that supports native animals if it were possible -- that is, there might not be enough water in such a place to support a forest so you could plant a bunch of trees and not have them grow.

But on some level you're right, "stopping deforestation" is an ecological goal that is valuable on its on and many of the ways to link it to climate finance don't really make sense. For instance you might take a flight for 4 hours that requires a permanent land use change, but the forest you protected might get cut anyway a few years later or burn down or maybe they plant a bunch of trees in the wrong spot and they don't grow.

We could start with just stop cutting down the old growth ones that are still left

> they are more prone to wildfires in the much hotter and drier middle eastern climate.

Maybe they are tree plantations, not forests, like in most of Europe.