Winning hearts and minds

This week I am reflecting on Rio+20 and considering how we rise to some of the big challenges facing us and the natural world.  I am not claiming to have all the answers but simply want to continue the debate. Today I consider the importance of winning hearts and minds.

I enjoyed the comment from Hesychast on yesterday's blog - arguing that we need to decide "when we need emotion to drive change and when what we really need are very, very cool heads".  I imagine that it is the politician that keeps their head in the middle of a long night of negotiation that gets their way, but occasionally, raw emotion can win the day.  No doubt, the Government has learnt from the scars they bear from recent rows over forests, planning and buzzards.  These were issues which touched a nerve with people who care passionately about the natural environment.

The recent debate about the Natural Capital Committee is a good example of when to engage the head but to recognise the limitations with this approach.  In yesterday's Independent for example, Terence Blacker argued that "putting a price on everything is no way to treat the countryside". 

My view?

I think that the Natural Capital Committee (NCC) is undoubtedly a good thing and something the UK Government deserves great credit for having the foresight to create during trying economic times.  One of today's great challenges, brilliantly articulated in the National Ecosystem Assessment, is how to get the most from our land and seas.  To do that we need to be able to describe the whole array of benefits these assets can deliver.  The NCC is therefore as much about natural science as it is about economics.  It’s as much about understanding ecosystem stability, resilience and connectivity as it is about clean water to drink or crops to eat.

There is no presumption whatsoever that all benefits can be reduced to monetary benefits or that valuation will be the sole criteria for future decisions.  Even economists recognise that there are some things in the natural world that cannot be expressed meaningfully in monetary terms.  The existence value of species, for example.  My guess is that most of the ten million people that support BirdLife International partners in 120 countries (including the RSPB in the UK) love nature and think that there is a moral imperative to look after it.  They express this time and again through the generous support they give to our conservation efforts.  We have, for example, raised millions to protect threatened species which most people will never see (such as albatrosses, endemic seabirds on Henderson island, vultures etc). 

The whole rationale for understanding natural capital is because we currently overexploit it by undervaluing its importance to us.  This failure is reducing current wellbeing and undermining prospects for achieving a tolerable future for our children.  Understanding why natural capital is so vital, and finding systematic means to articulate that importance into decision making is a no-brainer.  It helps to win the minds of decision-makers keen to improve our well-being.

But...

As I argued yesterday, valuation on its own is not going to be a panacea to solve the biodiversity crisis.  Politicians are brilliantly in touch with the electorate.  We need more support for nature conservation and more people prepared to exercise their vote for nature.  And that means we need to reach out differently to more people in new ways. But it also means we need to encourage more people to have contact with nature ideally from an early age.  This is something that the RSPB is evangelical about.  More young people having contact with nature means more young people being aware of what's going on around them, more young people wanting to find out more, becoming passionate about nature and wanting to fight to save it.  When you have nature in your heart, you can be a powerful force for good.

Simple really.

How would you go about winning hearts and minds for nature conservation?

It would be great to hear your views.