A fortnight ago, the RSPB's Council of trustees met in the new David Attenborough Building for the first time. The meeting coincided with the annual Cambridge Student Conference on Conservation Science and so our Board and Council dropped in to listen to first session which included a talk on ecosystem services by Taylor Ricketts.
Early on in his talk, Taylor asked the audience (which, as well as the hierarchy of the RSPB, was made up of over 100 students from around the world) to vote on whether people thought that "ecosystem services and biodiversity should be dual goals for conservation, whether ecosystem services are an effective means to the ultimate end of conservation or whether ecosystem services represent mission creep for conservation". The vast majority voted for the first of these options, some went for the middle one while noone thought (or were prepared to say) that ecosystem services were an unhealthy distraction.
This is a debate that been bubbling away for nearly two decades and is prominent now that governments have begun seriously talking about natural capital. Although I probably sit in the middle camp - as my prime motivation has always been wildlife - I'm intensely relaxed about the rise of ecosystem service thinking as it is a useful way of capturing the benefits that nature gives to people thereby offering another argument for its protection. Yet, I worry about any agenda that focuses exclusively on ecosystem services as this can lead to perverse outcomes: artificial substitutes for natural services - such as clean drinking water, flood protection and even pollination - can be found and may even be cheaper.
A solely utilitarian approach will always put the needs of humans first. Although I argue that a healthy natural environment is key to our prosperity, we should perhaps be honest and recognise that the loss of a few species or even a few thousand species may not necessarily be catastrophic for our own species. While we can never be sure of the long term consequences, it is at least possible that our species could flourish without many other species. And this is why I am happy, and believe it is essential, to make the moral case for nature conservation. If we allow threatened species (however use-less they are perceived to be to humans) to become extinct, it is my belief that we will have failed in our moral obligation to live in harmony with nature.
This is why the RSPB has, and will always, focus some of its finite conservation resources on those species most at risk of extinction. We are a UK based organisation and so our prime interest will be those at risk in this country - species such as willow tit and turtle dove which are our fastest declining species - but also those of our overseas territories which are home to hundreds of endemic species. Yet, where we think we can make a material difference and where the need is great, we have always been prepared to take action for species in trouble anywhere in the world. This is why we stepped in to support the 19 of 22 albatross species at risk of extinction, to help recover Asian Gyps vultures and even step in to help lesser known critically endangered species such as the Liben Lark in Ethiopia.
Black-browed albatross by Grahame Madge (rspb-images.com)
Scientists now estimate that "current extinction rates are 1,000 times higher than natural background rates of extinction and future rates are likely to be 10,000 times higher". It is clear that our moral cause of protecting the other millions of species on this planet is growing tough with every passing decade of inadequate action. We failed to halt the loss of biodiversity by 2010, unless we think and act differently, we will fail to meet the 2020 target.
So when any government, such as the UK, comes up with a plan - even a 25 year plan - to protect the environment, ask what it will do to help recover threatened species not only to help people but also for their own sake.
Which of the Taylor Ricketts' camps do you sit in?
It would be great to hear your views.
I guess if other species had a vote they might reckon that letting humans die out was the best solution for the planet.
I am not entirely sure I fully understand the meaning of the three options put forward by Mr Rickets. But one thing is for sure it is critical that we we as the human species try our damdest to conserve all species on this planet. Those who take the attitude loss of species does not matter are not only laying up trouble for themselves for the future but are being very short sighted as well as having a very selfish approach. If this short sighted attitude is allowed to be adopted then it will first of all be a few species that become extinct and then after a time it will become an avalanche and the planet as a whole will then face a tragedy.
In addition, for those people who have worked with animals they find them generally intelligent and caring for their offspring. It is only that they can't communicate like we can that puts them at a disadvantage when it comes to grabbing the planet's resources. Therefore as a single species we do not have the moral right to push them off this planet.
The RSPB and other conservation organisations, is therefore totally and completely right is concentrating at least a good part of its efforts in saving species at risk. Great work RSPB keep it up. In a hundred or a thousand years time it is your efforts that will be remembered and the selfish attitudes of those who have not interest in the welfare of other species completely forgotten.