Many still ask: Bio…what?

The problem with biodiversity is that, although together with climate change it has become a most critical global environmental threat and can also give rise to substantial economic and welfare losses, many are at a loss as to what biodiversity means and is really all about.

Since a decade ago, countries like the UK started coming up with professors of environmental psychology.

If these remain somewhat baffled about how people react to climate change they must surely end up scratching their heads even more when coming to gauge public response to biodiversity.

One conclusion they recently reached was that people are not really interested in concepts such as “saving the planet” or in “doing it for their grandchildren”.

People want impacts that are concrete, immediate and personal to them.

One cannot expect the same level of activism about biodiversity as in climate change when the level of awareness is far lower… so far. Worldwide.

While it is manifestly evident that the EU will have failed miserably in halving its biodiversity loss by the end of this year as planned in 2001 – in spite of an action plan in 2006 meant to accelerate progress – there have been instances when Malta did not submit the relevant data to the EU. Or else, when it did so it did it in an incomplete manner.

We need to engage as of now in a post-2010 EU vision together with a set of targets.

In our case, land use change, over-exploitation, unsustainable practices such as overfishing, pollution, transport and climate change are responsible for the strongest pressures on biodiversity.

People have to realise that if a 2˚C rise in temperature above pre-industrial levels will be catastrophic for our climate, the loss of biodiversity beyond certain limits will have far reaching consequences.

The rate of loss of marine biodiversity is alarming. Even more so when one realises that 90 per cent of the planet’s biomass lives in the ocean.

One cannot either ignore the massive economic costs associated with biodiversity loss. These were recently quantified as representing some €50 billion.

In spite of these implementation and policy gaps it is even more worrying that not only do funding needs for biodiversity in the EU call for a proper assessment but also that only 20 per cent of total financing needs for managing protected areas in Europe are being met so far.

It is good to work on a vision for 2050 but only with clear time frames.

It is pointless having a marine strategy framework directive as part of the EU integrated maritime policy, which, at the same time, has not yet been sufficiently turned into specific measures.

A post-2010 vision must not be an end in itself but it should mark the beginning of a process to put a new strategy in place.

To ensure we can combat biodiversity loss we need to ensure the sector achieves a higher policy profile.

It comes as little consolation that no country in the EU has met its targets to protect nature. At the same time, many plans hatched and developed in the 1990s to protect biodiversity are still sitting on the shelves of ministries. We know the feeling in Malta!

I was pleased to note that a leading UN official recently lambasted countries for separation of action on climate change from protecting biodiversity. The loss of biodiversity exacerbates climate change although they are two separate and distinct challenges. Climate change cannot be solved without action on biodiversity and vice versa.

The health of our ecosystems is neither an abstract scientific concept nor the pet project of a Green elite. Biodiversity and healthy ecosystems are the vital underpinnings of human society.

At stake is our human well-being. What the Italians aptly call benessere.

Finally, we must avoid another pitfall.

In thinking that biodiversity is an issue to be addressed in the future will be as counter productive as nurturing the idea that economic growth is independent of environmental health.

Engagement and education are strong allies against these threats.

But the first hurdle we must address and overcome is that public awareness of the biodiversity crisis is virtually non existent.

In spite of an abortive Copenhagen summit, climate issues were regular front page news. Global warming even among climate sceptics was somehow understood. Biodiversity meanwhile remains a more arcane and academic word.

The Guardian – an environmental friendly newspaper if there ever was one – recently compared its recent references to biodiversity and climate issues. The final figure says it all: 9,647 references to climate and only 428 to biodiversity.

No wonder I still come across people even with a tertiary education who pose the question: Bio…what? when I mention biodiversity.

www.leobrincat.com

brincat.leo@gmail.com

The author is shadow minister for the environment, sustainable development and climate change.