2010 is the International Year of Biodiversity, so I thought I would have a look at some of the issues that are being raised this year and, in particular, comments from Hilary Benn, the Government’s Environment Secretary, in a blog on the BBC website. The full article can be found here.

In his blog, ‘Biodiversity nears Point of No Return’, he urges the international community to act to safeguard biodiversity before it is too late. He says, “The restoration of our ecosystems must be seen as a sensible and cost-effective investment in this planet's economic survival and growth.” I feel that if the current situation is as bad as some are saying that it is, then concentrating on cost-effectiveness will limit the amount of work that can be carried out and therefore not enough will be done. The realisation that we need to act has come much too late and, unfortunately, during a recession. I’m afraid that politicians will be unwilling to make a big enough contribution at this time.

He also states that it is hard to measure biodiversity, but they still know that targets to reduce biodiversity loss, set in 2002 by the World’s governments, have not been met. This would be like a scientist developing a new drug saying, I don’t have any evidence, but I know this drug will cure cancer with no side-effects. Would you trust them?

If it is so hard to measure biodiversity, do the government actually know that it is decreasing? Side by side with Hilary Benn’s article was a picture gallery showcasing newly discovered species from the deep ocean trenches. If new species are being discovered, and there are probably millions more still to be recorded, how accurate can figures of biodiversity loss ever be? I’m not suggesting that we do nothing to protect biodiversity, just that leading figures should be able to give us more concrete evidence successes or failures.

He goes on to make bold statements such as, “Much greater concerted effort is needed to stop the plunder of our ecosystems. Overfishing has reduced blue fin tuna numbers to 18% of what they were in the mid-1970s” and “So when it comes to biodiversity, we desperately need to start restoring links between science and policy, between taking action and evaluating it and between economies and ecosystems”.

This is all well and good, but statements like this have been made before and never acted upon as expert’s advice is ignored in attempts to appease the people whose livelihoods may be at risk. If tuna fishing were banned, for example, there would be a backlash from the fishermen. What is needed is a complete ban on fishing of any species that is in danger, but no government will be strong enough to take that step.

The article is full of bold statements of intent and calls for the world’s governments to take action, which I applaud. But am I being cynical, in the lead up to an election, if I think that they will turn out to be empty promises in an attempt to win votes on the ever more important environmental issues?