In Portugal, at least until the generation of our grand parents, it was usual that when people were eating and by accident droped a piece of bread to the floor, they had to kiss it and eat it after. That kiss meant full respect for the bread, as primordial food, as a source of livelihood, as something almost sacred.

There is a documentary film I saw long time ago on TV, about a tribe – can’t remember where they lived – that followed animist rituals. If they had to prepare a goat for a meal, they killed it, but not without making a ritual prayer before, thanking to the animal for its sacrifice.

When I was in Bonn, for the COP9 events, at a certain lunch I joined a table with japanese people. A japanese girl I had met before was there dressed with a traditional garment. I told her that many christians usually have a short pray to thank God for the food they are about to eat and I asked if japanese had some similar prayer. She answered that japanese have many prayers to thank nature, like thanking a tree for everything it gives us.

All these examples make me think how much people got disconnected themselves from nature and from the natural resources that provide our day-to-day living. In fact, we forget to have a thankfull attitude most of the time. The industralization process and the highly intensive consumption culture made us turn as automats, buying, consuming and discharging the garbage.

But in fact, everyday an enourmous flux of natural resources flows from distant fields, rivers or oceans into our cities, such artificial islands were most of the european population lives. Cities were we get the final produts from soil, water, forests, fully transformed or under extreme make-overs and hidden under fashionable atractive packagings.

Therefore, one thing must be done: to get connected with the real thing, with the real sources, with the real world. To some extent that’s what the film The Matrix^tm tried to tell us, I believe. We are living in a virtual world, with virtual lives, consuming pleasant things, but disconnected with the real physical world, its carrying capacity, its problems. “Wake up, no matter if what you will see is not pleasant, and do something” it seems to tell us.

That’s what happens with the biodiversity crisis. It is affecting directly the poor at local level, as Mr. Pavan Suckdev keeps warning us, but that is still invisible in the cities, as long as we get supplied with a big nice array of products. If a fish gests extinct in some river or sea, no problem, in our shelves there will be another similar fish, noone will remark it. We have a Global Market that provides.

We rely on the matrix to feed us.
Or not.

Recent echoes on the on-going discussions about setting a new target for Biodiversity in 2020, make us think the question seems to be if the target must be either realistic or something more close to the ideal we want to achieve.

Indeed a target seems not just to be only a goal (the ultimate goal we’d like to achieve would be to halt the loss of biodiversity and restore the lost one), but “target” seems to mean an actually achievable goal. I copied below the 11 meanings of the word “target” and put in red the one useful for us.

However, people need ideals to put traction on their lives and action, not just expectable, mid-average realistic goals!

When we deal with the methodology of strategic thinking of organizations, we use the word “Vision” to define the ideal scenario we would like to achieve one day, somewhere in future. Then we define the “Mission“, which is what we are or will be doing to get there or to contribute to get there. And finally many organizations also define their “Values“, which may be points were we have to put some effort and act as orientation references in future decisions or options (many like to adopt transparency, participation, etc).

Targets and indicators are things we define at a lower and more detailed level, on specific items.

The problem therefore, in my view is first of all a linguistic one and also a problem of lack of metodology on strategic thinking, here applicable to our “planetary organization”.

First of all: what is our Vision, in terms of an ideal planet? Which biodiversity would we want for an ideal world?

Then, what is our Mission? What are we assuming/saying we will actually do in order to contribute to that ideal situation?

Not to mention the Values: What are our values, regarding our relation as humans with biodiversity, or the options to save biodiversity, or halt its loss? Could it be competitivity? Could it be cooperation? Frugality? Or the opposite of greed? Etc. This part is harder to define.

Maybe all the methodology of strategic thinking around the “target” for biodiversity is wrong. People should have to think first on those things, and only then, in the final result to be achieved. I personally believe that the effort people do to achieve some ideal situation is often more valuable than the final result they actually achieve, which might be limited by outside factors. The will, the effort, the determination is something valuable. And depends on us, not on any meteor that might fall upon the Earth and cause some new extinction again.

Hence, I think we should put more emphasis on what are we committed TO DO do actually, in order to achieve that something. The new phrasing should commit people.

And then eventually we could change the phrasing of “2020 target: (…)” into: “2020 – One Vision, one Mission: (…)”

Basically the need of communicating  the value of biodiversity for people and the planet, and the  importance of the current biodiversity crisis. “The measurable  cost of the loss of biodiversity is somewhere between 1.5 and 3 trillion Euros per year. In comparison: the total sum of all the financial packages  approved by governments worldwide to mitigate the worst financial crisis of the last century was 3 trillion per year”. These figures, presented  by Pavan Suckdev, leader of the study “Economics of Ecosystems &  Biodiversity”  illustrate the economic value of the sound management  of our natural capital.

Its true there is already a  lot of information available to the general public about Nature: TVs   broadcast frequently many nice programs about wild species, about natural  habitats; about the beauty of Nature. No complaints about that. But…

Where is the notion that biodiversity loss is happening at a rate equal  to 1000 times the natural (or fossil record) rate?
Where is the message  that our own ways of life are causing major impacts and driving pressures  that cause habitat loss and fragmentation, pollution, invasions of species,  etc?
Where is explained that our own lives rely and depend on the services  provided by nature?
Where is the connection between the links?

That’s the current failure.  Some say that scientists have some fault. But in fact, as some participant  in the researchers conference said “biodiversity is very diverse”  and unlike other issues, such as climate change is more difficult to  tackle the diversity of causes and links. As someone said in another  seminar, it is also more difficult to have an impressive single “round  number” indicating a dangerous boundary or threshold beyond which  the system no longer can re-balance it self, to present it to politicians,  as we have for instances the 350ppm CO² as a limit for safety for climate  change.

Anyway, it’s worthy to make the  effort. Someone among the researchers said “Its better to give an  approximate answer to important questions than an exact answer to unimportant  questions”.

I’m not an active scientist,  but for sure will keep that in mind and risk to do so in what concerns  communication, I’ll speak about that later.

“Do you speak biodiversitish?” could be a project to improve a better communication of biodiversity  in the current context; I presented it informally to some NGO colleagues  and people at the EU Commission, as a tool to help people that normally  communicate with wider public or politicians. Available in the Internet  as a resource centre, could have many contents for professionals of  communication, NGOs and other.

Meanwhile, other efforts are done by many people around the world. I found an interesting publication  called “Entangled in the web of life – Biodiversity and the media”  by Mike Shanahan, from IEED. One of the things it mentions is the  potential for tackling Biodiversity and Religion, which reassured my  own thoughts and the “priesting” I’ve been doing about this the  last years (see soon article on this here).