Biodiversity, Cameron and Conservation (Dis-)Credit
Posted May 13th, 2010 by
Last Monday, the Convention on Biological Diversity launched a new report: “Global Biodiversity Outlook”.
With no surprise the highlights from the report are that: “Natural systems that support economies, lives and livelihoods across the planet are at risk of rapid degradation and collapse, unless there is swift, radical and creative action to conserve and sustainably use the variety of life on Earth [...]massive further loss of biodiversity is becoming increasingly likely, and with it, a severe reduction of many essential services to human societies as several “tipping points” are approached, in which ecosystems shift to alternative, less productive states from which it may be difficult or impossible to recover.”
The Global Biodiversity Outlook will be a “key input into discussions by world leaders and heads of state at a special high level segment of the United Nations General Assembly on 22 September.”
So what do the “world leaders” actually think about biodiversity? David Cameron for instance?
In a speech to the Wildlife Trust in April 2009, Cameron stated the importance of “making sure that our approach to development is consistent with developing biodiversity” and proposed a system of “conservation credits” whereby any cost to biodiversity, through building development, is compensated for by at least an equivalent investment in biodiversity elsewhere*.
Cameron’s proposition is based on the (relatively new) concept of Biodiversity Neutrality. This concept is based on the same principal and system as Carbon Neutrality: to measure, reduce, and offset/compensate the unavoidable (emissions) of biodiversity loss. And as with Carbon Neutrality, Biodiversity Neutrality has a sharp commercial pitch and a counter argument for each of its critics ( read them by visiting http://www.biodiversityneutral.org , and read this report).
I don’t want to be judgemental but this kind of speech demonstrates a dangerous simplistic vision of biodiversity which is the most complex system on earth. Can “Cost to biodiversity” be really “compensated”?
I am not a biologist, not even a scientist but my common sense makes me feel this Biodiversity Neutrality is the biggest hoax since…Carbon neutrality… By trying to artificially recreate the result of billion of year of evolution we’re playing the sorcerer’s apprentice. Are we capable of recreating biodiversity, to move ecosystems? Maybe yes, maybe no? Is that what we want for the planet? Personally? Definitely not!
I am not saying we should stop development projects, or that nothing should be done to protect and enhance biodiversity. Balancing biodiversity conservation must be a pre-condition at the heart of every kind of development project. In most instances placing biodiversity at the heart of a project should drive organisations to develop solutions that limit (prevent?) biodiversity impact so there’s no need to offset any loss in the first place.
Let’s hope Cameron has changed his mind on this subject since and that he’ll have some more serious propositions to present during his mandate
*****GREEN is an official partner of the International Year of Biodiversity (IYB)*****
Author: Caroline Martinot
