Conservation and development

Answer

Protecting nature often means a poorer country or community forgoing income from logging, mining or farming — so conserving can mean staying poorer.

Answer

Something everyone benefits from, like a stable climate or biodiversity, that no one owns — so the cost of protecting it tends to fall locally.

Answer

A poorer country is asked to conserve for the whole world's benefit while bearing the cost alone, which is unfair unless the world helps pay.

Answer

Growth that does not destroy the resource — eco-tourism, sustainable forestry, clean industry — reconciling conservation and development.

Answer

Through conservation funds, carbon credits, and debt-for-nature swaps that compensate poorer countries for protecting ecosystems.

Answer

An arrangement where part of a country's debt is cancelled in return for it protecting an ecosystem — turning conservation into a benefit.

Answer

Conservation that excludes or evicts the people who depend on an ecosystem tends to fail and be unjust; local and indigenous communities are often its best guardians.

Answer

Because nature is a global public good but the cost falls locally, so those who benefit — the whole world — should compensate those who conserve.

Answer

The income is temporary and the ecosystem is lost forever, and its destruction harms the country's own long-term development too.

Answer

A false choice — through sustainable development and paid, community-centred conservation, nature and livelihoods can be protected together.

Answer

Not whether to conserve or develop, but who funds the protection of nature that benefits everyone.