Views of Nature and biodiversity

[1]. Questions of bio- and (agri)cultural diversity, species extinction, indigenous peoples and traditional (agro)farming practices are approached in an instrumental-rational way, which often boils down to a combination of a discounted cashflow analysis and a legitimizing ritual.  As discussed elsewhere, there are other perspectives on nature, at least partly as a reflection of different biogeographies (§6.3; Box 13.5). Investigating the valuation of biodiversity loss in a Cultural Theory framework (and one additional perspective: autonomous) reveals that for some people it is an environmental problem; for others primarily a social-cultural problem; and for a third group an ethical-cultural issue (Beumer and Martens 2010). An investigation of Australian attitudes towards wildlife, shows a distinct difference between aboriginals and Anglo-Australians (Aslin and Bennett 2000). Whereas aboriginal society shared a substantial consensus about what is acceptable behaviour towards animals, the present Anglo-Australian population has a more fragmented view on and less personal connection to or responsibilities for wildlife.

Nature in European Antiquity [2]   

How nature was seen depended in antiquity – and in many places still – on its actual or potential threat to humans. Nature, with its unpredictability and threats, was in no way always a friend. Therefore, it was permitted, and even a duty, to fight it, as can be seen in a variety of cultural motifs. The disappearance of forests was seen as a sign of civilisation, at least in the dominant view.

Clearing forests for agriculture, wood, firewood and animal grazing was the main cause of deforestation. Timber demand was another one. Thirgood (1981), quoting Strabo, mentions the mountains in southeastern Spain ‘covered with thick woods and gigantic trees’, being cut for shipbuilding. North Africa was another important timber-producing region for the Romans, leading to temporary depletion of Moroccan forests. Wars had a devastating effect as it accelerated the felling of trees to be used for the warships and made people flee into the mountains and abandoned their land. Wild animals were another aspect of nature. Heracles battled with near-invincible mythical wild animals, becoming a symbol of courage. The Roman Emperors wanted not only slaves but also wild animals to be taken from the conquered lands and to be emblems of total dominance over man and animal. More intense hunting brought some species to extinction. The enormous demand for animal skins, from as far as the Baltic and northern Russia, further increased the pressure.

The Pax Romana acquired a specific connotation through the mass killing of wild animals. Thousands of wild animals were slaughtered in the venationes during the games or ludi. These took place in every garrison town, but Rome had by far the largest. With the inauguration of the Colosseum in 70 AD, some 5,000 animals were ‘used’ in a few days time. It must have given rise to huge transport problems. Only recently, it has been acknowledged that the grand scale of these killings may have led to the extinction of some of these species. The games may indirectly have contributed to the expansion of agriculture in the Mediterranean by strongly reducing the threat from wild animals – an idea that fits into the view that humans should ‘civilise’ the world and was, therefore, approvingly supported by scholars until recently. [MORE TO BE ADDED?]

Attitudes towards biodiversity

On request of EU Directorate-General Environment, Eurobarometer has asked more than 27.000 European Union citizens in spring 2010 how familiar they are with the term biodiversity and with the concept of biodiversity loss (EC 2010). Two-thirds of these citizens were familiar with the term biodiversity in the sense of knowing the meaning (38%) or having heard of it (28%). Thus, more than one-third (34%) have never heard of the term and, unsurprisingly, respondents with low-level education, manual workers and non-working respondents are significantly overrepresented in this group. As to biodiversity loss, 43% says that it is about certain animals and plants disappearing and 19% that certain animals and plants are endangered. Therefore, it is primarily associated with species, although a minority (13 to 18%) mentions habitat change, declining forest and loss of natural heritage. There are significant differences between countries. Most knowledgeable and best informed are the citizens of Germany and Austria.

The survey also posed questions about the threats to biodiversity and the importance of protecting biodiversity and natural areas. More than a quarter of the interviewees mention air and water pollution as the greatest threat to biodiversity. Next come intensive farming, deforestation and overfishing (19%), climate change (13%) and the creation of more roads, houses or industrial sites and land use changes (9%). The perception of the seriousness of biodiversity loss varies widely. Whereas in Finland only 9% consider biodiversity loss a very serious domestic problem, it is about two-thirds in Italy, Greece, Romania and Portugal. A large majority consider it a very serious global problem. Over three-quarters of citizens thinks that biodiversity should be protected for moral reasons but also because it is essential for economic prosperity. One-third of the respondents opt for stricter regulation, about one-fifth prefer a focus on better information. The results also indicate that there is relatively low familiarity with the Natura 2000 European Union-wide network of nature protection areas.

The difficulty of drawing conclusions in situation of divergent values, beliefs and interests is illustrated with the practical example of the Dutch Oostvaardersplassen. It is an area of 5600 ha of swamps, reeds and grasslands in one of the polders. It is, for Dutch people at least, ‘wild nature’, unmanaged and with birds, deer, horses and other animals. Ecologists point out that it shows how nature evolves without human intervention, but massive starvation in winter led to accusations of causing animal suffering; a nearby airport may make it necessary to kill geese for security reasons; farmers complain that it is a waste of high-quality farmland; the tourism sector advocates the construction of a network of walking- and bicycling paths; and hunters are impatiently waiting for permits. It may be argued that this is a luxury problem in a country which anyway has no nature left. Indeed, there is much more at stake in decisions about logging in the African or Indonesian tropical forests or even road construction in the Alps. Yet, the question remains: how to decide? The worldview approach suggests possible strategies.

A person’s background can also play an important role. Last summer I attended a retreat near Lake Balaton, where we discussed the relation between humans and Nature. Some participants brought in flowers, others drew the sun – and the biologist among us came with a telling painting shown in the figure above. In his view, mankind has been ‘conquering’ Nature for the last ten millennia, at an accelerating pace – the red covering the green in the painting. What might happen in the future is that Nature starts to reconquer the space it lost – the black dots. Only those human communities will survive who are able to somehow adapt to the new situation, just and perhaps less successful than many other species. It is worth pondering occasionally on such a long-term evolutionary-biological perspective too.

 

Footnotes

[1] To give an impression of accounting proposals: The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) to capture values, payment of ecosystem service (PES), REDD+. Green Accounting and Inclusive Wealth, UN-SEEA, Natural Capital project with InVEST, ecological budgeting, Corporate Ecosystem Service (ESR), Artificial intelligence for Ecosystem Services (ARIES)(Folke et al. 2011).

[2] This box is based upon a contribution from Jan Boersema, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, in de Vries and Goudsblom (2002).