Published in HABITAT #24
A lot is being written about nature and the need to preserve biodiversity, both locally and globally. And it’s good and about time. Animal and plant species are disappearing at an alarming rate, and to make matters worse, we are in the midst of a climate crisis that threatens to make the problems even worse and change nature forever.
This year we should have adopted a new biodiversity convention that sets the framework for future global efforts to conserve and restore biodiversity. However, due to the global COVID-19 pandemic, the summit was postponed to 2022 and the preparatory meetings have had to be held virtually. Fortunately, an EU Biodiversity Strategy has been adopted, which is a step in the right direction. In fact, the new EU Biodiversity Strategy is quite strong and, if implemented in the spirit in which it was adopted, could have a major impact on European biodiversity. The problem is that all strategies and conventions are open to interpretation when it comes to implementation, and that’s where I can get worried.
The agreed biodiversity targets from the previous version of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, the so-called Aichi Targets, were good and almost eternal. But none of them were achieved, not even close. There are many reasons why things went so wrong, and it is hoped that the poor result has opened everyone’s eyes to how important it is to follow up on the agreed targets so that they do not just become fine words but also real actions. Biodiversity is not preserved through intentions and fine conventions, but through actions that stem from the written word.
So what will it take for the upcoming biodiversity convention not to end up in the same jam jar, but to be translated into action? I’m not going to provide a thorough political analysis of the problem here, but will simply point out a single point that I believe permeates the entire global approach to biodiversity and sets the level for political priorities. We tend to take nature for granted and largely regard it as a luxury – something to be taken care of only when all other needs are met. This is especially true when it comes to prioritizing between growth and nature. Should we set aside forest for production forest or biodiversity forest? Should the construction of infrastructure automatically take precedence over the preservation or restoration of nature? And should consideration for certain types of production justify the extinction of countless animal species?
The answer to the above question is often “yes”, because nature is pitted against the economy. And in this context, nature is always the big loser. Only in very few cases will short-term considerations for nature be able to match the economy created by various forms of production and the establishment of the infrastructure that surrounds us. The result is that the most economically rewarding solution in the short term is chosen, and then – perhaps – a little nature is added to the project to show that nature has not been forgotten. Nature becomes an “add on” rather than an equal factor in the decision-making process.
But is this really the priority we want? And is it sustainable? I don’t think so. We forget to include in the calculations that nature also has a value in itself – a value that cannot be directly measured in dollars and cents, but which is nevertheless important for ourselves and future generations. Countless studies have shown that we need nature around us to become whole people. We need it to feel good. Most recently, a Swedish study has shown that walking in the forest is both physically and mentally good for our health. A group of people who were selected because they were severely exhausted and thus both physically and mentally vulnerable were regularly sent to the forest and allowed to walk around on their own. Their heart rate and blood pressure were then measured every ten minutes and both dropped significantly. At the same time, it turned out that they became better at concentrating, and after a few months, everyone had settled into an inner peace with time for contemplation. None of this is immediately measurable in financial terms, but it is nonetheless of great value to us as individuals and to society as a whole. And this project is just one of many that come to the same conclusion: nature has a beneficial effect on our health, helping us to find peace in our daily lives and thus become even more efficient in everything we do. If you’re interested in reading more about this, you can read Peter Qvortrup Geisling’s book “Naturen på recept”, published by Gyldendal in 2017, which provides an excellent overview of what nature means to us. Nature creates prosperity!
However, nature and all its opportunities are seen as soft values that too often fall short of the hard economic values that prevail in our society. And this is not a frontal attack on the economic models of society used in our part of the world, or globally for that matter, but a call to accept that in our political priorities we must also take into account the so-called “soft values” that ultimately shape our daily lives and consider them equal to economic ones.
We are also familiar with the problem in many other places when it comes to making decisions and possibly legislating on important issues. Over the years, animal welfare considerations in production systems have suffered the same fate as nature – animal welfare has often been relegated to an add-on that could be added once the big picture has been decided, taking into account production and economics. But by doing so, a patchwork solution has been introduced where animal welfare considerations are not integrated into the final solution, but come as a band-aid to mitigate some of the welfare problems caused by the new production methods. And that, of course, is not good enough. The right way to develop new forms of production is, of course, to take all three main considerations, production considerations, economic considerations and welfare considerations into account from the start, so you can find the right balance between the three.
The above is not a reproach of the past, but a call to change course in the future. I myself worked for just over 37 years at the Copenhagen Zoo and have seen how similar mechanisms have been at play. When I started as a research assistant in 1983, animal behavioral enrichment was a largely unknown concept. Animal enrichment was based on two other important considerations: the physical health of the animals (as sterile as possible to avoid disease) and their nutrition. This made sense, as up until then, several species had been difficult to keep alive and therefore focused on the most obvious factors for survival, namely hygiene and nutrition. However, with the increasing knowledge of the psychological well-being of animals and its impact on the rest of their health, this important factor had to be taken into account when designing and planning their care. So “add ons” began to be introduced such as giving the animals a surface to dig and rummage in, hiding their food so they had to spend time looking for it, feeding whole carcasses rather than sliced meat, and so on, all of which became known as “behavioral enrichment”. But it was still something that was only done when there was time and energy for it, when everything else was in place. And the initiative was met with a lot of resistance at the time. Today, however, behavioral enrichment is an integral part of pet care alongside good hygiene and healthy food, and behavioral enrichment is as deeply ingrained in the souls of pet sitters as hygiene and food. In other words, they have succeeded in prioritizing the softer side of animal care just as much as the harder-hitting part, the part that has an immediate effect if it is not in order. This has resulted in a much healthier animal population than before – a population that is both physically and mentally balanced and can be included in nature conservation projects where necessary.
Of course, the example from the zoo cannot compare to nature as a whole. But it contains the same ingredients, and it’s an example of how, if the will and awareness are there, you can make radical changes in the values you use, and that you can achieve far better results than if you just stand still and do what you’ve always done. In the ongoing debate on nature, I would like to see something similar, a helicopter perspective, looking at the role of nature without being tied to established mechanisms and habits. Nature must be taken much more seriously than it is today, even though in this country we continuously see good initiatives such as the establishment of a number of national nature parks where nature is in focus, protected areas on land and at sea, etc. But we must not leave it at that. This should only be a start, and only when nature is valued as much as economic growth in everyday decisions can we achieve what most of us probably want – that nature gets better conditions and that we can pass on an even better nature to our descendants than we have today.
