Fragile limits of the natural world

Date: 24/05/06

For the poet Alfred Tennyson, nature was "red in tooth and claw". For Dylan Thomas, it represented what was best about the world.

Europe is still divided between those who see nature - now labelled 'biodiversity' - as having to be managed by human beings and those who see it as something sacred.

Pieter de Pous, biodiversity policy officer at the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), falls into the Thomas camp.

"Biodiversity provides a whole range of services, from food and water to biofuel. We need ecosystems to be fit to provide all these services in the long run."

In the past, said Pous, the western world had "the luxury of being able to use what is there. Now we are starting to see the consequences - the dramatic loss of species and natural habitats, the collapse of fish stocks".

But a fundamental problem in the sustainability debate was showing people that biodiversity mattered, he said, since many of the problems were "indirect" and "not obvious to the average European on a daily basis".

For example, the collapse of coral reefs thousands of miles away could in the long run affect the breeding patterns of fish.

People, too, seem less concerned about running out of natural resources than the other great environmental debate: climate change. This was partly, suggested Pous, because "extreme weather events [such as last year's hurricane Katrina in the US or the 2003 summer heat wave in Europe] have brought the issue close to home".

"The pessimistic view is that we need some disaster to show the importance of biodiversity. That is certainly not our view but you can see the argument," he said.

Pous said that the EEB was pleased to see the new biodiversity strategy explaining that climate change and biodiversity were in fact closely linked.

The importance of getting public support for the biodiversity protection campaign was shown in the lifestyle-changes society might have to make in order to protect the natural world.

The problem of biodiversity loss could be tackled, said Pous, "partly through technological innovations and improvements, but there would also inevitably have to be some changes in consumption patterns".

"We need to make it clear to consumers that the choices they make in everyday life are relevant.

"We need to make the message positive. We shouldn't tell people 'You can't do this' - no one likes that. We should say 'You should do this because...' and explain how to choose."

These choices would range from what type of fish to buy in the supermarket to "where to put your savings - most banks today have sustainable investment funds".

Ceri Dingle, director of Worldwrite, a development and education group, said that the biodiversity message raised several uncomfortable questions about EU priorities.

In 2002 Worldwrite dubbed the sustain- able development debate "sustainababble", because of its failure to tackle real problems.

The emphasis on changing consumption patterns to protect biodiversity risked lowering aspirations, said Dingle. "Telling people they should want less and have less can have a serious effect on solving real problems."

For example, de-salination is widely ruled out as a way of avoiding drought because "the energy needed could be bad for the environment", she said.

Dingle said this was particularly dangerous for the developing world, where Worldwrite carries out most of its projects, since "the west has a disproportionate impact in developing countries".

"[The west is] saying that more is not desirable, which means the aid and investment go not into huge infrastructure projects that could lift people out of poverty, but into small pathetic awareness campaigns.

"My charity sees the horror of life in the developing world every day, logically no one in Europe wants to live like that. On the other hand, they are prepared to feel guilty about having so much themselves, or to think there is something appalling about China building malls everywhere."

She warned against the "misanthropic" tendency in the biodiversity debate to blame humans for everything that was wrong with the world, by portraying them as "damaged and damaging...while respecting nature and all of its restrictions".

"Left to its own devices nature is pretty limited," she said.

Some would say, red in tooth and claw.

Stakeholder voices comment on how to promote and manage biodiversity.
Article is part of a European Voice Special Report, 'Biodiversity'.

• Primary Source