At the same time, you've got 2 British social scientists here. Dilysrow works for the International Institute for Environment and development in London and Joe Elliott actually works for wildlife works for African Wildlife Foundation nowadays.
But she's saying here poor people should not pay the price for biodiversity protection. So you can see this off the nature of the debate. what is the impacts that they're all talking about? Well it's about whether you can achieve a win-win solution, whether you can achieve economic growth which brings wealth in order to cut poverty without damaging biodiversity, and the argument is that if you want to protect biodiversity you have to focus on that as a goal, but if you do that, you run the risk of hurting the poor and you also run the risk of inconveniencing or reducing economic growth.
And we used in developed countries and industrialized countries to seeing this argument., this axis argued about with let us say a government wishing to start drilling for oil in place X which is full of Wildlife and the Wildlife Conservation Society is urging them not to, on the grounds that it's a wilderness refuge. We used to that debate, what I'm saying is it in the developing world there's a third axis and it's quite a complex one.
The lecture is about trade-off between conservation, development and poverty. Poor people should not pay the price for biodiversity protection, which usually come with the risk of hurting the poor or reducing economic growth. The ideal solution is to achieve win-win situation. The equation of biodiversity protection in developed countries is to balance economic growth and biodiversity; however, when it comes to developing counties, poverty becomes the part of equation which is a complex issue.
