For a generation the BBC’s Panorama programme has featured the major issues of the day, so it was significant that the programme on August 30 was devoted to declining biodiversity and the consequent threats to our food supply.
The programme focused on threatened fish stocks and the economy of fishing fleets and ports, as well as threats to the insects which pollinate our fruit and vegetables.
The livelihood of thousands of people, from growers to retailers depends on this free service.
The fundamental point is that nature conservation should be a core element of a wide range of government policy and practice.
Earlier this year, the Government’s nature conservation body, Natural England, published a report detailing the scale of losses and threats to our wildlife (Lost Life: England’s Lost and Threatened Species – at www.NaturalEngland.org.uk).
It shows that in the last 200 years we have lost nearly 500 species.
Continuing threats mean nearly a thousand more are now vulnerable to extinction, and hundreds are classed as being in “significant decline”.
Some of them are obscure specialists living in rare habitats, but some, such as eels, red squirrels and common toads, are more familiar. Once abundant species like water voles, house sparrows and skylarks are among those causing concern. The natural world is like a giant, multi-dimensional web. Every time a species becomes extinct one of the threads is cut and the whole web is weakened.
The causes of the decline are many, but are mainly related to the way we live. Development destroys habitats as we build more houses, roads and airports.
Countryside management often works against wildlife (although there has been progress with more environmentally-friendly farming in recent years). Pollution of air, water and soil continues despite increasing regulation. Then there is the increasing threat from non-native species which clog our waterways, crowd out native plants and prey on or out-compete native species.
The way to tackle these problems is not to take society backwards to some sort of golden age when we lived in harmony with nature.
The way forward is to capitalise on the knowledge we have of the natiural world and find mechanisms to decouple social progress and economic development from ecological damage. That is why consideration of the natural world should be part of all decision making, and not the province of a few enthusiasts and advocates.
If we cannot do this then perhaps we will have to rename Natural England ‘Unnatural England’.
