Phrasing a new target to replace the passed “Halt of Biodiversity loss by 2010” is quite difficult. First because we failed to achieve the target in 2010. If we keep the same phrasing and just replace the time line by a new one, people may suspect the commitment is not that serious and the result might be the same in the end…

We failed 2010 for many reasons. One of them was not tackling the drivers behind the causes for the loss of biodiversity. But it is consensual that the most important direct cause for biodiversity loss is habitat deterioration and loss. Then we also have over-exploitation, invasive alien species, pollution and climate change as major ones.

Thinking about that, we could start by the referred main direct cause: loss and degradation of habitat, which could includes damage by pollution and climate change and to some extent IAS. Therefore, a new phrasing could result in:

HALTING THE LOSS OF NATURAL HABITATS BY 2020

But this target phrasing excludes for instances the loss of biodiversity by over-exploitation, which is important. There can be over-exploitation without a significative damage on the habitat itself.

Therefore, it is not good enough. What about a new target that encompasses the causes, and not the consequences or results (more or less biodiversity), and therefore generates a higher sense of tangible commitment? In fact most of the times human action does not hit biodiversity itself, nor people desire such consequences. Human activities hit more commonly the life support systems.

Anyway, the meaning of the word “target” is indeed what we want to achieve as a final result.

However, going back to the beginning and reflecting on the ultimate drivers for biodiversity loss, we ultimately find out that they are closely related to the present economic model of unsustainable production and consumption of natural resources. Studies such as TEEB show us that money valuable ecosystem services are lost as a result of unsustainable development, or that they are – if preserved in A healthy state – a vital capital for our lives and ultimately for the long term sustainability of the economies on Earth.

A target phrasing that would encompass everything biodiversity-related: habitats, biodiversity, landscape, money-value of ecosystems and at the same time hit better the minds of politicians, economists and business people, without excluding the general public, could eventually be drawn.

After the financial crises everybody heard about bail-outs and injection of capital, as means to re-balance the system. Nature does not do bail-outs, it needs its capital maintained and preserved. But “natural capital” is now a more frequent expression. Some fierce anti-capitalists may feel some repulse for the word “capital”, but a new daring, ambitious but objective target could be:

HALTING THE LOSS OF NATURAL CAPITAL BY 2020

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).