It's not often possible to hear, in one day, commitments to saving nature from the Deputy Prime Minister, the Archbishop of Canterbury, a global cement company and from Sir David Attenborough.
Yet we did yesterday at the Conference for Nature. And it felt good. I hope the c200 people that were there in the hall and the others (100s, 1000s?) that watched online or followed on twitter agreed.
If you missed it, you can watch parts of it online now. Or you could try to piece together the story via twitter - as most of the best quotes from the speakers were tweeted using the hashtag #Naturesintrouble.
There will be those that wonder whether another conference, another seven hours of talking can make a difference. But, I think the content and mood was slightly different to previous events...
...a succession of business leaders (from Cemex to Marks and Spencer and from United Utilities to Conservation Grade) explained how they were finding ways to protect and restore while making a profit. And they offered clues as to how others could and should do more. I've written before (see here) that to be a genuinely environmentally sustainable business, you first need to get your own house in order, then talk about it but also be prepared to advocate change to make it easier for others to do more. I think that's what we heard yesterday.
...politicians from across the political spectrum laid out their environmental credentials offering a flavour of what we could expect if they were to form the next government. We even had some real commitments: for example regarding the future of the Public Forest Estate, Natural Capital Committee and the introduction of a Nature and Wellbeing Act. These pledges were genuinely welcomed. I'll add links to the speeches, in addition to Nick Clegg's given above, when I can - you can then be the judge of the relative merits of what they had to say...
...civil society voices from established commentators such as Germaine Greer to new faces on the block such as Lucy McRobert (from A Focus on Nature), offered a plain speaking challenge to us all. Germaine said "get serious", Lucy said "change the conservationists" - their was a little nervous laughter in the room after Lucy's remark...
It's too early to offer a proper critique of the day - there were a lot of three-point plans, which if stitched together could form the basis of a shared agenda, but I'll have to go through my notes in a bit more detail before sharing.
But my sense is that the state of nature, as described in last year's ground-breaking report, has had a galvanising effect and that is just great. There was a show of solidarity within and between sectors, a desire to learn from each and a commitment to work together to do more together .
That, I think, is why I left feeling good. I wanted to be inspired and I was - by the commitment of those there to use their energy, wit and creativity to make things better.
If you were at the conference or watched online, I'd be keen to hear any reflections you might have and what you think we should do next to capitalise on the day.
It would be great to hear your views.
Good point - Redkite - we'll make sure we get the right messages to the people that need to hear!
Will another conference do any good? I think the answer is, it depends who receives its message. In other words it won't do much good if all it does is to reach those that are "already converted". The conference message needs to reach those that might repond as, "I didn't realise that nature is in such a serious situation." As I understand it, the conference was successful in that respect.
In the final analyisis, I think it is largely the main conservation organisations, the NGOs, that must provide the lead in "Saving Nature". They must say what needs to be done and send the message out to that effect. I don't think Governments have the experise or will to provide that sort of leadership. However where the Government's role is vital is in responding positively to this lead set by the NGOs and providing support in the form of finance and legislation. A Government that really responds well to the biodiversity crisis and is willing to work constructively with the NGOs can make a huge difference. One that does the reverse is inviting a biodiversity disaster.
Overall therefore I think the RSPB's initiative, in the form of "Vote for Bob" to encourage each of the political parties to commit in their manifestos to a Bill in the the next Parliament to address the biodiversy crisis and to Saving Nature, is an extreemly good idea and it is through "Vote for Bob" that yesterdays conference should be capitalise upon.
redkite