Following the launch of the State of Nature report, I have been keen to stimulate a debate about what else we need to do to live in harmony with nature. Over the past few weeks, people from differing perspectives have proposed their One Big Thing for Nature. To close this series, I am delighted to welcome Chris Packham.
State of Nature - state of crisisThe very sad thing about this report is that it contains little surprises. No new figures, no revelations, no skeletons freshly dragged from the closet. It is simply an amalgam of all the previously published data about the catastrophic declines befalling our wildlife. What is notable however, is that finally they have been collated, lumped together, to produce an instantaneous and easily available snap-shot of the state of all of that wildlife in 2013. And this is what makes the document so important, it’s a frank, precise and very accurate audit which allows for no ambiguity - things are going to hell in a handcart. Our so called countryside is in crisis and our conservation efforts have not been enough to stifle or stall the overwhelming majority of declines. Thus State of Nature is a line in the sand, it has invalidated any excuses, past, present and future, if we don’t act, then we are culpable of failing in our duties.
In turn that’s why all the agencies who contributed to this report should be commended . It’s a very brave step, its honesty is difficult to swallow, a bitter but necessary pill. But then for all its very obvious doom and gloom this is so clearly not a pessimistic report either for one very apparent reason...the causes of the vast majority of these declines are known. Alongside each of the accounts are brief notes which betray that the reasons for species or habitat losses have been measured and identified. So often this is the hardest part of any conservation concern and obviously once they are known we can act to rectify the problems.
So why haven’t we been doing that? Well, in some small ways we have, we have learned how to micro-manage individual species to greatly increase their numbers (Stone Curlew , Cirl Bunting), we have developed new technologies to re-build habitats from scratch (Lakenheath Fen), we have cleaned up parts of the environment or reduced other pressures so well that species can recover 'naturally' (Otter, Peregrine). We have even perfected the art of re-introductions (White-Tailed Eagle, Red Kite). We can make the difference but just not on the necessary scale. And this is the crux of it. We neither have the space (enough reserves) , the money (we will never have enough) or sadly the influence over the bigger picture.
But you do, because you have a free vote and the choice about how you spend the pound in your pocket. We must learn to elect decision makers at all levels of governance who both understand and care about wildlife , it has to be a central part of their personal manifesto. We must recognise that our insatiable desire for cheap food does nothing to help our countryside and those custodians of it, our farmers. We must question far more rigorously the policies of nature conservation agencies and critically those who manage our countryside, from those farmers who flail their hedges into useless picket stumps, those councils who seek to build on every last scrap of our cities green spaces, those politicians who delay and deflect action to safeguard our environment, to ourselves who stand as those who now have no excuses not to act.
And if we fail, if our fields fall fallow and our springs fall silent, then at some stage in the future they will point to us and say 'they stood by whilst paradise shrivelled and died'. Doesn’t bear thinking about does it?
Do you agree with Chris? And what would be your One Big Thing for Nature?
It would be great to hear your views.
Hi Chris I agree with all of this as far as it goes. What said it on climate change ? Nothing ? Now Iolo Williams other wise excellent appeal to his own constituency of rural Wales and their grand children seemed to blame the "plod" bureaucrats with their great "pension" pots for fence sitting. True perhaps and I certainly know some examples of that ! However yesterday we heard about some pretty large anonymous pension pots getting knighthoods!
Now I do nt suppose Iolo was thinking of them, now was he ? he blames the chap with the clip board in someone else's nitrogenous, cricket pitch flat field and not the chap with the knighthood that got rolled over quietly who helped frame the policies that defined our lifetimes witness of declines ? There was a cabbage white in my garden yesterday and I marvelled at its beauty; its become rare when there were clouds in my gran's garden.
Me I blame above all the media and the timid editors that define impartiality at the BBC Nat Hist Unit ! Its notable that Bill Oddy has got radical since he left their cloying grasp. What about the chortling Spring Watch presenters ? Have they communicated the gravity of the situation while maintaining enthusiams and motivation ?Mr Attenborough has changed his tune in the last decade but in the decade prior ie post Rio 1992 we had global celebrations of our wildlife at a considerable carbon profile and defined by "impartiality" that omitted the antthropengic influence to all ecological systems.
The impartiality I would particularly challenge you on is what emission reductions do you advocate on screen ? We know 350ppm is the "tipping point"; I believe the last time in earth's history we were at 400ppm CO2 there were no ice caps; so when the integrity of the science is reduction why an earth has Wildlife Trusts Simon King never said a word here ? Why, to my knowledge has Attenborough never advocated emission reductions or in the 1990's defended the Rio Protocols ? Post 2007 the BBC has decided that the science is clear. OH have they ? Who are they to define science ? They mean the politics are clearer do they not ?Above all where do you stand re the stranglehold that BBC "impartiality" which in my view has emasculated the communication of the climate science and effectively denied its integrity. What emission reductions do you advocate ? You all have a global reach and for a generation have denied that opportunity; the Okavango collapsed before climate change was even mentioned in all BBC output from Africa post 1992 and that was in the 2013 Africa Series and the reductions to stabilise the situation were still not a part of the editorial brief but a figure was mentioned re temperature increases that was wrong.
'We must recognise that our insatiable desire for cheap food does nothing to help our countryside and those custodians of it, our farmers'
Understatement of the piece - food & nature from the same place - that countryside! EU food prices (incl ours) are actually in the top five most expensive globally due to tariffs and support which guarantees our domestic food supply. What makes food seem cheap - or undervalued - is that we 'exclude' the cost to the environment of producing it. Partly because we can't measure it properly yet but are learning to via such research as the National Ecosystem Assessment, plus much more data is required (the State of Nature was based on merely 5% of UK species) and partly because we can't work out how to include the environmental costs without raising the cost of food too high.
We are all driven by economics - we shop for the cheapest rather than buy expensive enviro friendly organic, we introduce red kites rather than deal with costly invasive species (£1.3 billion a year) - we, my friends, will have to dig a lot deeper or divert money from some of the luxuries we think we deserve to ensure we can eat affordably and enable nature thrives.
One Big thing for Nature? Look in your supermarket trolley & don't waste a thing!
I agree completely with Chris, as always he is very much "on the ball" and articulate. He also knows "his stuff"
By the way has the RSPB filled its top non executive position yet??