Skip navigation
6634 Views 12 Replies Last post: Oct 8, 2010 9:28 AM by ali48845 RSS
Currently Being Moderated

Sep 16, 2010 6:00 PM

What questions would you like to ask the Big Nature Debate panel?

On Thursday 7 October a panel of experts will be discussing what we can do to protect biodiversity in advance of the Nagoya summit.

 

In this debate they will be responding to questions and views you post on this forum. What do you think should be discussed at Nagoya? What’s the biggest threat to biodiversity? What can we do to help to support the natural world? Tell us what you would like to ask the panel.

  • I am passionate about helping projt our biodiversity what voluntary organisations are most effective and  need extra man power?
    • Report Abuse
  • Why do you think the media doesn't seem to have a lot to say about biodiversity loss? It's certainly not up there on the agenda with climate change.
    • Report Abuse
    • The climate change issue is seen by many to encapuslate everthing from conservation to bio diversity to species protection, etc etc. It is used as short hand for every enviromental and natural science problem we face which is wrong. Bio diversity and conservation are massively important but the dialogue with the public which is needed to give them a higher profile is often overriden in the media in the name of reinforcing or belittling( depending on your agenda) the importance of preventing caustrophic Climate change. Which is perhaps the wrong way of looking at it. Overall planaetary enrichment is the phrase a conservationist friend of mine likes to use.
      • Report Abuse
  • I feel the issues discussed and the agreements reached have to have a holistic framework. It is important that the consequences of each decision have to be considered and how they will effect other species. In essence the decisions should not be about how to protect just individual species, but individual ecosystems/micro-environments. I am aware that this would involve more consideration and we cannot avoid any more delays, but this is important. I would also like to hear the thoughts of those on the panel concerning such decision frameworks. Recently there was a situation concerning a critically endangered species of theraphosid from India (Poecilotheria hanumavilasumica), which is critical on the IUCN red list and I believe is now being protected within its natural environment by the Indian government. This species is a consumer of insects, bugs in general and small rodents. The impact its diet has on limiting the risk of deseise such as malaria/cholera etc. is unknown. however to allow it to become extinct and then have a serious problem because it was one of the main consumers of deseise-bearing animals/insects in that area would be a disaster and would cost a lot more for the Indian government in health costs than it would to simply protect a spider! We have to look at these issues in ecosystem terms, and include ourselves within the equation too.
    • Report Abuse
    • I so agree wit you about looking at solutions that take into account the entire ecosystem as well as adding into the equation humans. Its is however also important to frame the arguments for protecting these endangered species so that you stress the importance and benefits of protecting these species for the policy makers of the regions. The holistic approach for conservation can only really work if you frame the arguments for action in terms of  mutual interests. i.e. large mammals protection and  benefits to tourism. Thanks for your great answer Nicola 68 to my question and I well agree with your approach
      • Report Abuse
    • I so agree with Shiela's comment. We should change the protection regime from species specific to the area in which they live. We are learning that one species relies on other species to survive.It is the whole sensitive site that must have legal protection. Just choosing one creature, like the crested newt, allows the media and the sceptics to joke, and be very critical.
      • Report Abuse
  • We heard a lot about the 2010 target of reducing the rate of loss of biodiversity.  Well, it's 2010 and was the rate of loss reduced?  If not why not?  Will the Nagoya meeting put something in place that will enable targets like this to be met?
    • Report Abuse
    • In our area we have lost more biodiversity in the last few years. Ludlow did a survey and found their areas of wildlife was still decreasing and here, close to Ludlow, 21 acres of studied wildlife area, containing woodland, marsh and scrub land was bought by a property developer and flattened, and double dug! There were crested newts, water voles and bats close by but NO ONE would do anything, even though all the words writen in policies and regulations gave us the idea this area would be protected.
      • Report Abuse
  • What practical steps can we take to more effectively engage the wider general public in the importance of maintaining global biodiversity?
    • Report Abuse
  • The biggest threat to world bio diversity is the ever increasing desire for nations to progress economically in a global world. Industry, economic growth and development of infrastructure always override the case of protecting the natural world. Natural resources are being used at a devastating pace and the situation to me appears bleak this breaks my heart. We have to hone the messages of conservation and interconnectivity between different species and we have to empower the UN and other respected global organisations to create new tough restrictions that are properly enforced.
    • Report Abuse
  • Is there still a role for targeted species conservation?

    Large amounts of time and resources have traditionally been spent on the re-introduction and relocation of threatened or locally extinct 'native' species (eg the Red Squirrel), along with the constant battle to irradicate successful ‘alien’ species (eg the Grey Squirrel). The long-term impacts of such projects have had greatly varying degrees of success, which begs the question whether such work is viable? At a time of global economic uncertainty and environmental crisis, do the panel have any thoughts on the future role of such projects? Should targeted species work be prioritised towards those species with the greatest biodiversity value, such as pollinators, and species that act as indicators of healthy ecosystems? Or should we reject this avenue all together and instead fund only landscape scale, habitat orientated projects?

    • Report Abuse
  • A couple of questions for the panel:

     

    One of the major drivers of biodiversity loss is the demand for soy feeds for the intensive livestock industry, which is directly linked to deforestation in places like South America.  What does the panel think the Government should be doing to reduce the impact of meat & dairy production in the UK?

     

    Another key driver of deforestation is the large-scale production of liquid biofuels for transport and power generation.  Given the difficulties involved in assessing the sustainability of biofuels and the uncertainties inherent in any certification scheme, does the panel think that the current UK & EU targets for biofuels can still be justified?

     

    Thanks,

     

    Ali

    • Report Abuse

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked by (0)