Biodiversity is central to symbiotic living amongst humans and animals. What more can be done to maintain such fragile sustainability?
As population grows, so do demands for space on the planet. Giles Crosse wonders how to harmonise human existence with the world around us.
“There are still tens of millions of unknown wild species out there. More than half of our global pharmaceutical and agricultural sectors exist because of bioprospecting among wild species. So it would make sense for biodiversity to be protected and used sustainably, as a raw material for continued discovery and wealth creation.”
This is the opinion of Dr. Julian Caldecott, Ecologist and Advisor to Our Future Planet. He’s not alone. Growing consensus shows we need planetary resources more than they need us, to maintain not only food, water or air, but the raw materials for our economic innovation, science, medicine or computers.
“Long term investments in catchment, wetland and carbon storage services all offer pathways to long term profitability,” continues Caldecott, “while also helping the world adapt to environmental change. People need protection from droughts, floods and landslides, they need waste treatment, fisheries and recreation, and they need climate change to be mitigated. Many of them are able to pay for these services.”
Caldecott reckons a solution is to link things up. That way, we can pay for protection of millions of hectares of natural forest and peat swamp in Papua. We may pay because of carbon, which people care about, rather than the biodiversity those forests contain, which people don’t, but the effect remains the same.
Shared concerns
It’s a view shared by many. Anthony Field is Campaign Manager for the WWF, and he too is urgent regarding the need to protect our green heritage for both science and children.
“The vital thing to remember is that everything, including economics, depends on biodiversity, we need it for foods, clothes, goods, but also air, water, human health is intrinsically linked with ecological biocapacity, and we’ve moved beyond these limits, we’re beyond the point at which degradation begins.”
“Mass extinction, when more than half of all the species on Earth may die out during this century, is mainly due to the destruction of ecosystems.” agrees Caldecott. “But those ecosystems give us water and safety, so their loss contributes to the global water crisis and escalating disaster risks. They also store carbon, so damaging them releases greenhouse gases and increases global warming.”
There are more human elements to the issues. Global warming and water crises impact most heavily on those who consume least, live in deepest poverty, and are most ill equipped to deal with them. Areas like Nepal, or the Sundabands, prove how economy, humanity and ecology all interlink, showing the effects of resource depletion in the natural world stem from inequalities in planetary consumption.
“Areas like the Sundabands by the Ganges are suffering salt intrusion,” says Field. “Sea levels are rising, creatures like the Bengal Tiger are massively threatened, as are areas in Nepal. There are certain hotspots for biodiversity. If we lose these we lose economies which are based on the natural wealth of the world, we need these wild spaces, they are self serving to humans too, so we mustn’t be profligate with resources.”
Historical lessons
There’s a real urgency, as our consumptive footprint had already overshot worldwide capacity back in the 80’s. ‘In 2005, global demand was 30 per cent greater than supply, the United States and China had the largest total footprints, each using 21 per cent of the planet’s biocapacity,’ explains the WWF Living Planet Report 2008. The UK has the same ecological footprint as 33 African countries put together.
“To achieve balance we need to put sustainability in at the front end. If you build a hospital the impacts of its design last for 40 years, so it’s no good just bolting sustainability on.” says Field.
“Companies need to offer sustainable purchase options and we need to move away categorically from things like single use products, it’s simply not true to say one person can’t make a difference.”
Back in 2008, the UK Prime Minister asked Johan Eliasch to write a paper on ‘how the preservation of global forests could be financed,’ According to The Independent, Mr Eliasch estimated that, according to one scenario, this could cost between $18 and $26bn annually. In February 2009, money.co.uk estimated ‘the government's recent bailout of RBS and Lloyds TSB will cost the UK tax payer up to £1.5 trillion.’
Once more the true imbalance between ideology and action is revealed.
What are your views? Not sure? Read the resources below for more information. Add your comment below. We welcome your thoughts and proposals. Not a Planetary Citizen? Sign up now!
Resources for a more in-depth analysis:
WWF: Living Planet Report 2008
ELIASCH review, exec summary: Climate Change, Financing Global Forests
ELIASCH review, full report: Climate Change, Financing Global Forests
Video:
