For anyone who frequents Facebook rewilding pages, the interaction was depressingly familiar. One man repeated the well-worn statement: “The UK is one of the most nature-depleted places on Earth.” Another took issue with it. Five minutes later, one had been called a murderous psychopath, the other accused of bestiality. Nothing was achieved and neither party made the slightest dent in the other’s thinking.
This petulant exchange might seem unworthy of further comment, but barely a day goes by without someone in conservation casually spouting the words: “nature-depleted country.” When it comes to conversations about how our land is managed, there are few statements more inflammatory.
So, what does “nature-depleted” actually mean? Why does the term elicit such a furious reaction, and what lessons might conservationists learn from this?
Let’s deal with these questions in order.
“Nature-depleted” is a term used to describe places that have lost much of their wildlife and habitats due to human activity. It gained prominence following the creation of the modelling metric, the Biodiversity Intactness Index (BII). This Index estimates the percentage of living organisms that remain in countries around the world. By comparing current biodiversity levels to that of similar, near-undisturbed sites, it demonstrates how ecological communities respond to human pressures.
To our children, the idea that a drive on a summer’s night would leave windscreens covered with dead insects, would seem like the stuff of fantasy.
Using the BII, the latest State of Nature Report tells us that the UK is nature-depleted. There should be nothing surprising or controversial about this – anyone can see that we have lost much of what we formerly had. Gone are many of our large mammals – lynx, wolves, bears, elk and aurochs. Victorian gamekeeper records tell us how much wildlife was here until relatively recently. And within our own lifetimes, most of us have noticed further declines in species and habitats. To our children, the idea that hedgehogs were once common, that a drive on a summer’s night would leave windscreens covered with dead insects, and that trees once stood where houses are now built, would seem like the stuff of fantasy.
This island has evidently slipped far from its natural state. But then so has most of the developed world. According to the BII, the average global biodiversity intactness is 75%. This lies well below the 90% said to be a safe limit to allow vital processes like pollination to happen. What makes the UK’s situation more alarming is the estimate that we have lost significantly more than other countries. With just 53% of our original biodiversity said to remain, the Index ranks us in the bottom 10% of nations worldwide.
Unflattering comparisons with other countries can inspire (or shame) governments into improving policy, and they can galvanise certain individuals into positive action for nature. But, as we see in countless arguments across mainstream and social media, they often provoke the opposite reaction, leading people to double-down in defiance.
There are many reasons for this: a sense that the figures do not accord with what people see on the ground; a distrust of measuring metrics, and those promoting them. Central to all of this is the belief that conservationists are taking a simple fact – that we have lost a lot of wildlife – and using it to attack the people who manage land. If nature-depletion comparisons are met with anger, it’s because many people believe them to be unfair.
When landowners hear “nature-depleted”, they also hear the implicit accusation: “And it’s your fault.”
They have a point. The choices land managers make inevitably impact the environment, but many other factors have also contributed to UK nature loss. We are a small island with a harsh and increasingly erratic climate. Industrial and agricultural revolutions began here. We endured two world wars. And, in England at least, the human population and its associated levels of consumption, has grown significantly. Yet these facts are seldom referenced when arguments grow heated. Land managers are bound to dig their heels in when they are repeatedly told that we are nature-depleted. When they hear these words, they also hear the implicit accusation: “And it’s your fault.”
Restoring what has been lost is a must. Remove too many pieces, and the ecosystems upon which we all depend will cease to function, threatening everything and everyone.
But to turn the tide, we must ask whether nature-depletion comparisons are still helpful.
My take? This is one lever conservationists have pulled too often. The argument is losing its potency. It’s important to understand how much nature we once had, but more important to agree the steps necessary to create a nature-rich, climate-resilient future.
USEFUL LINKS
State of Nature Report: https://stateofnature.org.uk/
SUGGESTED READING
Roger Lovegrove: Silent Fields – The Long Decline of a Nation’s Wildlife.
Mark Cocker: Our Place – Can we Save Britain’s Wildlife.