We encourage you to republish this article online and in print, it’s free under our creative commons attribution license, but please follow some simple guidelines:
  1. You have to credit our authors.
  2. You have to credit SciDev.Net — where possible include our logo with a link back to the original article.
  3. You can simply run the first few lines of the article and then add: “Read the full article on SciDev.Net” containing a link back to the original article.
  4. If you want to also take images published in this story you will need to confirm with the original source if you're licensed to use them.
  5. The easiest way to get the article on your site is to embed the code below.
For more information view our media page and republishing guidelines.

The full article is available here as HTML.

Press Ctrl-C to copy

Biodiversity is at its richest in developing countries. Enforcing conservation practises is difficult because for local people, surviving in the short-term by exploiting their resources is more pressing than protecting them for future generations. For example, Kenya's national parks and reserves would be worth about US$270 million per year if it were developed.

In this feature, Henry Nicholls suggests that if locals are expected to conserve their environment, developed countries will need to provide sufficient recompense. Indirect approaches — such as community-based ecotourism — are not enough of an incentive, argues the author. Direct payments to local people, to prevent them fishing or hunting endangered species, could be far more effective in preventing environmental degradation.

However, critics of direct payments believe that they lend conservation a mercenary edge. Instead, they say, locals should be educated and made aware of biodiversity issues as a long-term conservation strategy.

Link to full article in PLoS Biology

SciDev.Net debate: Biodiversity and development: are they compatible?

Related topics