LitFuse » conservation

The price of nature

litfuse — Sun, 23 May 2010 05:07:43 +0000

The UN project shows us how expensive biodiversity loss has become – but the danger is that it becomes something tradeable

• Economic report into biodiversity crisis reveals price of consuming the planet

“You can’t value nature per se, other than to say it’s priceless, and you’re part of nature and you would not exist were you not,” declares the man in charge of the biggest attempt ever to measure nature’s worth.

“But what you can do,” he continues, “is measure the economic value of services that come to you from nature.”

The speaker is Pavan Sukhdev, study leader of the UN’s three year project to measure The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB). The project should show us all how expensive the global destruction of the natural world has become and – it is hoped – persuade us to slow down.

Written by Paul Dalby, 23 May 2010

Linking Policy to Science

litfuse — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 21:21:01 +0000

Corey, thanks for posting a link to the Gibbons et al paper on linking science to policy makers. The suggestions by Gibbons et al are spot on. Policy makers operate in short time frames and must take into account much more information than just that of science. For example, people often say “why doesn’t someone just fix the Murray Darling Basin”? We know that the science says that the ecological systems need more water. But policy makers are not just getting information from ecologists. They are also getting information from rural psychologists telling them that there is widespread depression and even suicides. Economists tell them that whole economies are collapsing. Political advisers are telling them that local communities need to be appeased. Local, regional and global industries are lobbying hard to survive. Media players may emphasise certain problems that shift community perceptions and make it difficult to get community support for certain actions.

The reason we have a political process is to try to balance all of this information and all of these needs. You will never be able to model it perfectly and come up with THE right answer. We live in a political system where all ideas are contestable, even ideas based on very sound science. This is a good thing. Whenever communities have vested all knowledge and power in a few people – disaster has always ensued.

If scientists want to be influential in this world, they must be:

1. Very honest about what the science says. As we can see from the climate change debate, it does not help the cause of putting across a credible message on science when the results are exaggerated to try and build support for a particular cause. Let the truth tell its own story. In the end civilisations rise and fall on the political process. There is not much you can do to change that. Go along for the ride.

2. Very vocal about what the science says, but more circumspect about what the response should be. Scientists can appear arrogant when they presume that they know the right response. It is important to suggest policy responses and explain what you think the implications are of different approaches, but stick to your knitting and talk about what you know about most of all – the science.

3. Tell your story. People love stories, which is why singing contests, sport, soap operas and crime shows are more popular than shows about science. If you want to reach more people, put a story around what you are trying to say. Corey’s blog-post on how frogs were disappearing because of the global appetite for frogs legs went viral because it was a interesting story. And the science message got out as a result. Some scientists complain to me that this is “spin”. True, but not in the sense that you are trying to deceive someone, just that you are trying to get them interested. You are showing respect to your audience by “spinning” the message in an interesting way.

4. I need to hear it at least seven times before I’ve heard it. Putting out one media release, or one article or one presentation and thinking that you’ve done the job of communicating is delusional. Good communicators get their message out lots of times in lots of different ways. When your audience has heard the message so many times they are getting sick of it, (think Kevin Rudd and “working families” or Tony Abbot and “great big Labor tax”) they have finally heard it.

5. Maintain patience and pressure. It is sometimes frustrating that no action occurs even when you think it is obvious that it should. Don’t burn your bridges by taking it out on policy makers in government. You may need to work with them for many years to come, and they are likely to get more powerful over time, not less. But on the other hand, don’t let up the pressure. Maintain a professional tone to your discussions and presentations in the media. In the end, you will mostly be respected if you keep telling the story about the science. And policy makers can be just as frustrated as you about the lack of action as you are, even if they are not allowed to show it.

I’ll finish this post with a quote from Machievelli, one of the great thinkers on political science, said that “… nothing is more difficult than to introduce a new order. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new…”

True

Written by Paul Dalby on 2 February 2010

Darren Willis on Adaptive Flows Management Framework

litfuse — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 00:58:57 +0000

Darren Willis from Natural Logic presents the Adaptive Flows Management Framework developed for the Upper South East Salinity and Flood Management Program. Darren presented this at the Living Laboratories workshop on developing a research prospectus for the Fleurieu Swamps in South Australia. A copy of the Powerpoint presentation can be downloaded here. More information on the workshop can be found here.

Written by Paul Dalby on 16 September 2009

Response to Corey on Biodiversity

litfuse — Tue, 19 May 2009 23:02:11 +0000

Corey Bradshaw from the Environment Institute at the University of Adelaide in Australia writes about how climate change is getting all the attention while biodiversity conservation does not.

Biologists like Corey should know that the selection pressure for being able to respond to immediate scary, dangerous things has been much more powerful than the selection pressure for being able to see well into the distance and respond to dangers that will effect populations down the track. Our DNA just isn’t up to the task. A few outliers and individuals who get pleasure and/or income directly from biodiversity conservation might really care, but the general huddled masses who vote people in and out of government do not so much. We might donate money or sign petitions, but we rarely vote governments in and out of power based on their biodiversity conservation policies. We also rarely choose NOT to buy something because of that companies impact on biodiversity (except dolphins and tuna – I give you that). This is not true for climate change. It was not an issue globally until there were heat waves in Europe, unseasonal hurricanes in the US and a long, long dry period in Australia. It is a direct impact that got people scared. The fickle populations who could not give two hoots about climate change the year before voted governments out of power because they were soft of climate change, and now you can buy carbon neutral beer! Seriously – a beverage MADE with carbon dioxide!!

It is not government who are the problem. It is us. Our brain is too interested in the immediate problems of how to survive, get sex and not be bored. Genetic engineering is required if you want lots of interest in biodiversity conservation. Or we need the bees to die out to show us the direct impact of no free services.

Written by Paul Dalby on 20 May 2009

Vote now for conservation

litfuse — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 00:00:43 +0000

The University of Adelaide proposes to develop a part (63ha) of Glenthorne Farm (208ha) in the southern suburbs of Adelaide to establish a Trust Fund to support research and on-ground works for decades to deliver a 100-year restoration project across the Mt Lofty region (in all 150,000ha of agricultural land need to be transformed back to native habitat etc). This is a key initiative addressing the state government’s ‘no species loss’ philosophy. Around 30 staff would be employed, more than half would be research staff. It will benefit terrestrial, freshwater and marine systems (reducing runoff from land) etc. See www.adelaide.edu.au/woodland-recovery/ if you want more details on the University’s proposal.

At present there is a push by two local groups backed by the local media to prevent housing on the Farm. If you support the university’s woodland recovery initiative then please see the web pages below and vote yes to the question proposed. This poll is all about creating a perception that no-one wants the housing or the Woodland Recovery Initiative and its outcome may sway politicians to reject the University’s proposal.

Select “yes” on the Guardian Messenger’s online poll (just under the main headline section) to support the Woodland Recovery Initiative for Glenthorne.

http://guardian-messenger.whereilive.com.au/

Written by Paul Dalby on 22 March 2009