Belgian Biodiversity Platform : EOS Podcast: How do we save Biodiversity?

PODCAST: How do we save Biodiversity?

This month EOS Wetenschap had an interview with our Scientific Coordinator Hilde Eggermont, talking about biodiversity.

The podcast covers the basics on biodiversity, main causes of biodiversity loss, what we can do ourselves as the general public, scientific evaluation of biodiversity and much more!

Listen to the podcast (in Dutch) here.

Podcast transcript ( in English)

EOS: The panda, the polar bear, the Siberian tiger and closer to home, the acorn mouse, the eel, the wild bees, and the fire salamander. I could fill an entire episode of this podcast by just listing endangered species. Why is the situation with our biodiversity so bad? How bad is it, and how can we turn it around? I am asking this to Hilde Eggermont. She is the coordinator of the Belgian Biodiversity Platform.

Hallo Hilde.

Hilde: Good morning.

EOS: If we want to evaluate the state of nature, we also need to understand what nature is. Is there some sort of definition for it?

Hilde: Nature is a broad concept. We could describe it as all the living things and the environment with which they interact. But of course, there are different types of nature, there is untouched nature, with very little influence from humans, and there is nature where the human influence is clearly noticeable or even very strong. It may be relevant to look at the concept of biodiversity. It is a difficult concept in itself, and it is even more difficult for many people to grasp. Biodiversity stands for the diversity of life on earth, and we distinguish three levels: the diversity of species, that is the richness in terms of species of animals, plants, fungi, and micro-organisms; then you have genetic diversity, that is the diversity of individuals within a species; and you have ecosystem diversity that refers to the diversity of interactions between living things and their environment. It is clear that biodiversity is a very complex concept, and between those different levels of biodiversity there is also a lot of dynamics. Biodiversity is definitely much more than just the sum of all species.

EOS: To be very specific: we consider forest as nature, but can croplands or wastelands in a city be considered as nature?

Hilde: Yes, for sure, this is nature too! It is a matter of the degree to which man has influenced this nature. Of course, it determines how we experience it, but it is still a form of nature.

EOS: Biodiversity is often in the media because it is not doing well. Why is it so important to protect our biodiversity?

Hilde: In fact, biodiverse and healthy ecosystems provide us with a lot of useful and even vital services. We call them ecosystem services and could be considered as our common heritage, the foundation of our economy and our food security. Just think of the pollination of crops by bees, bumblebees, and butterflies. Healthy ecosystems also provide us with clean water, clean air, and are very important for our health, not only our physical health, but also our mental health. Just think of the healing effect of a walk in nature or how it improves our quality of life. I think we all got to experience that during the COVID-19 times. Therefore, healthy and biodiverse ecosystems are a very important safety net, and they offer solutions to a lot of social problems that we are currently facing, such as climate change. We call them nature-based solutions. Sound management of nature, for example, does not only ensure healthy biodiversity, but it also reduces the risk of flooding during extreme weather conditions, it protects inland regions against storms and tidal waves, and it can also save a lot of human CO² emissions. Another example is green infrastructure in the city, such as parks and green roofs that provide natural cooling in the city, storage of water, and they also make the city more liveable in general. So, preserving biodiversity is not only important because of its intrinsic value, but it is also essential for the survival of our society.

EOS: Most of this is already in your answer… but how big is the impact of biodiversity on our lives?

Hilde:To give you some concrete examples, an estimated 4 trillion people depend on a primary healthcare based on natural medicines. Also, 70% of cancer drugs are natural or are synthetic products inspired by nature. Even if we look at our food production, for example, more than 75% of the global food crops are completely dependent on pollination by animals. These are all numbers and examples that clearly illustrate how important nature is for our society, for our economy, and for our survival.

EOS: What about biodiversity or species richness on Earth today? Can you describe it with some numbers?

Hilde:The rate of loss of biodiversity is now faster than ever in human history The extinction rate is now tens to hundreds of times faster than during the past millennia and therefore, some scientists talk about it as the sixth extinction wave. To put some numbers on it, for example, at least 680 vertebrates species have become extinct since the 16th century, and 9% of all the domesticated mammal breeds we use for food and agriculture are also extinct. It is estimated that one million species are threatened with extinction worldwide, which is of obviously huge. This concerns a lot of amphibian species, corals, marine mammal species, and many insect species. For insects, the picture is a little less clear, but available data shows that it concerns 10% of the species. Besides the decline in the number of species, there is also a decline in the abundance, that is the number of individuals of a species. In a recent report from the WWF, published two weeks ago, it has been shown that mammal, bird, fish, amphibian, and reptile populations have experienced a catastrophic decline of nearly 70% since 1970. That is quite significant. For example, we now see very clearly far fewer dead insects on windscreens than roughly 20 years ago. Some research even shows that it is up to 80% less, calling it an “insect apocalypse”. In addition, the factors responsible for the decline in biodiversity in the last 50 years have also accelerated.

EOS: What does it mean when an animal is labelled as “endangered with extinction”?

Hilde: It means that that it might become extinct because population size has dropping below a critical level. Indeed, you need a minimum number of individuals and sufficient genetic diversity for a species to survive. When it drops below a certain level, there is a high probability that it will disappear.

EOS: When a species drops below that level, is that usually a point of no return, or can you still bring it back with some effort?

Hilde: Normally, if a species falls below a certain level, it becomes very difficult to bring it back in a natural way. Often species will either be genetically manipulated or reintroduced. We can help nature a little bit, but now this also raises ethical questions: can we do that? Are we allowed to do that? Should we do that?

EOS: Which animal or plant species are suffering the hardest now?

Hilde:: That is difficult to say because biodiversity is very complex, and we do not know the status and trends for many species. We know mainly about species that are very easy to detect, that you can measure in a consistent and standardized way, and for which you can collect long-term data. Reports show that the situation is particularly problematic for amphibian species, corals, marine mammals, insect species, as well as field birds.

EOS: Is the situation around the world equally problematic, or are there areas where the situation is either better or worse?

Hilde: Biodiversity loss is a global problem. And that's because 3/4 of our land and 66% of our marine environment has been significantly modified by humans. However, on average, areas managed by local and indigenous peoples are doing better, although we see a decline in biodiversity there too. In addition, there are countries that are doing better and that we can consider as success stories, such as Costa Rica. There, the government has implemented very strict environmental controls after decades of deforestation. They also invested millions of dollars in biodiversity protection and reforestation. They are well on their way to doubling their forest area and even becoming CO² neutral. That's an example of a success story. However, other areas such as the Amazon, for example, are doing very badly. In Brazil, more than 1.2 million trees are cut down every day and we are increasingly witnessing the effect of forest fires. That has a lot to do with environmental legislation that encourages exploitation of the Amazon. It is a very complex problem and we cannot simply point the finger only at Brazil. A lot of pressure and action is also needed from international players, companies, investors, and governments. Everyone has its part of responsibility here.

EOS: Are there places left on Earth where nature has not been affected by humans?

Hilde: I have to say, strictly speaking, no, because of the effects of climate change and of invasive species (those are species that have been introduced and that are affecting native species) which are factors that are going to have impacts across borders. They can therefore also be felt everywhere, also in areas such as Antarctica where the direct influence of humans, such as land use, is less visible. These effects have impacts across borders, on biodiversity everywhere. There are areas where nature is relatively undisturbed, or where nature is very strongly protected, where we still have wilderness. But at the beginning of the last century about 85% of nature was undisturbed and now, 100 years later, it is only still about 10% to 20%. And the places where we find that wilderness, are limited to five countries: they are mainly in Russia, Canada, the United States, Australia, and Brazil.

EOS: Could one of the options to help biodiversity be to just stay away from certain areas, to regulate the presence of humans?

Hilde: There are currently a lot of discussions around this idea such as: we could allocate 50% of the planet to nature and let us use the other 50%? But it is not a clear black and white story, there should be space for people, to let them function and live. It’s more of a trade-off: how can we have a good relationship with nature? How can we create a sufficient balance between the natural environment and ensure that we do not exhaust or completely disrupt the system in such a way that we can still provide for our own necessities of life? That is a difficult question.

EOS: Is the situation in the oceans as bad there as it is on land?

Hilde: It is difficult to compare ecosystems with each other, like, to compare land with the ocean. Generally speaking, we do see that the decline of biodiversity is also very strong in the oceans, due to pollution, plastic, heavy metals, overfishing, and we also have the problem of climate change. So indeed, there is also a problem here. But it is also true that biodiversity from the deep sea is much less known than biodiversity on land. That’s because for species that live in or on the seabed, we have to go miles deep to detect and to identify them. When it comes to biodiversity in the oceans, there is still a lot to discover. There are some species that we know quite well, such as the sea birds, fish, marine mammals,…. But if you look at sponges, seashell and crustaceans, microorganisms, there is still a lot to discover. We don't know for sure yet what the impact is on those species in the deep sea.

EOS: Maybe the deep sea is one of those places that has not been affected yet by humans?

Hilde: The impact is definitely tangible there too. It's just that we may not know exactly what the impact is because we are less able to identify those species.

EOS: What are the main causes of biodiversity decline?

Hilde: There are five major direct factors, as we call them. The most important factor is the changes in land use and sea use, for example the fragmentation and destruction of habitats for food production. Nowadays, we use 1/3 of the Earth's surface for agriculture and livestock; and of course, there is also deforestation for urbanisation. The second most important factor is overexploitation, which means direct use of species, for example for fishing or illegal hunting. A third factor is climate change: greenhouse gas emissions have doubled since 1980, causing our temperature to rise by 0.7 degrees, and that has a direct effect on biodiversity. And it is expected to further increase in the coming decades; as it will be the case for the effects of land use. The fourth factor is pollution and nutrients: including pesticides, plastic pollution, etc. They have increased tenfold since the 1980s and that also plays a very important role. The last direct factor is what we call invasive alien species. These are species that have been brought into new habitats by humans and that are disrupting the native biodiversity. Those are five direct factors, but it's important to realise that those direct factors are determined and driven by indirect factors. And by this we mean, for example, demography. The world's population has quadrupled since 1970, that plays a very big role. By indirect factors, we also mean economic systems, because everything now is dominated by economic growth. There are many subsidies for industries and for practices that are harmful to our environment. By indirect factors, we also mean our political system, legislation, international trade, which has increased tenfold in the last 50 years. And finally, an indirect factor is way of producing and consuming. This also concerns our own behaviour; our values, our relationship with nature. Therefore, we can say that biodiversity loss is not only an environmental problem, it is also a development problem, an economic problem, a security problem, a social problem, and even a moral issue.

EOS: All these factors, that's why it is such a difficult situation.

Hilde: And, everything is connected with each other.

EOS: Who is responsible for that: is it everyone together? Citizens? Politicians? Industry? Agriculture?

Hilde: I think we should all take some responsibility in that story. Of course, the government plays a role because they contribute to guide our behaviour and there are a number of actions that politicians can do to help out with the situation. But still, we cannot put all the responsibility on the government. We, the people, play an important role too, and we have a responsibility ourselves.

EOS: You mentioned climate change as one of the factors contributing to the decline in biodiversity. What role exactly does it play?

Hilde: It is important to realise that the climate crisis and the biodiversity crisis are actually one single crisis, that they are interlinked and connected with each other, and that we should address them as such. The global temperature has already risen by almost 1°C, and in Belgium it is even well above the 2°C. That has direct impacts on biodiversity, because the changes in temperature determine the distribution of species, and this can also influence certain physiological processes of species which result in, what we call, mismatches. Concretely, for example, it may be that, due to climate change, insects show up earlier in the year and that migratory birds do not return in time from their migration area or from their wintering area therefore missing their main source of food. Climate change also leads to more extreme weather conditions and that occur much more frequently, such as drought, floods, and forest fires. They also have a direct impact on biodiversity. In addition, conversely, the decline of biodiversity also contributes to climate change, because it has a reinforcing, amplifying effect. Deforestation and degradation of natural areas, for example, are responsible for almost 1/5 of global CO² emissions. Finally, it is important to realise that many solutions to tackle climate change can be found in nature. These are the nature-based solutions I talked about earlier: for example, healthy forests and healthy oceans can capture enormous amounts of CO². So, it is important to not separate the climate crisis from the biodiversity crisis, because if we do disconnect them, we may come up with solutions to the climate problem that have negative impacts on biodiversity. For example, the production of biomass can have detrimental consequences for biodiversity if we do not consider it in a coherent and inherent way.

EOS: Does our daily behaviour, what we do every day, only or mainly have an impact on the biodiversity nearby? If you invest in a green garden and you support the local nature organisations, is that enough to help biodiversity?

Hilde: It is certainly a good step in the right direction and one that should not be neglected. But still, a great deal of our behaviour also has an impact on biodiversity beyond our national borders. We pass on many impacts on biodiversity abroad, due to international trade in raw materials and agricultural products. That's the story behind the ecological footprint. Belgium is certainly among the worst students in the class. A study was made in 2016, and it turned out that we have an ecological footprint of 6.25 hectares. That is how much we need to meet our needs. That also means that, if world citizens were to take over our standard of living, we would need four planets to meet all of our needs. That is clearly not feasible.

EOS: If you want to reduce the ecological footprint as an individual, what important initiatives can you take? What are some of the most important things you can do?

Hilde: Like I said, our footprint is highly dependent on our consumption pattern. That is the key: we have to rely more on local and seasonal products, on short circuits, and we should also switch our diet to a more plant-based diet, because this is an important part of the solution. We should also consume much less and in a much more conscious way and waste a lot less. There are many things that we can do ourselves by simply adjusting our consumption patterns.

EOS: Are, we, humans the only ones who are responsible for the loss of biodiversity?

Hilde: If we look at the speed and the scale with which that is happening now, yes, it is clear that humans play a major role in it. The extinction of species is also a natural phenomenon that is also determined by evolution. In the course of history, we have gone through five extinctions waves, and 70% to 90% of the species disappeared. But that was through natural processes, like ice ages, impacts of meteorites, volcanic eruptions,... But there were very different time scales. What we see now is a 6th extinction wave and it is caused by humans.

EOS: If we keep going the way we do now, what will Earth's biodiversity look like in 10, 20, or 50 years?

Hilde: It depends on how these direct and indirect factors will evolve: the world population, our economy, our technology, our political system, our values and norms,… Scientists make models and predict the outcomes under different scenarios. It is clear that under all those scenarios, we will never meet all of our goals for 2030 and beyond if we continue as we do. The question is: is there a tipping point where the entire system collapses and where we will lose all ecosystem services? There might not be such thing as a biodiversity tipping point like there is one for climate change, but by disrupting biodiversity you can initiate processes that will push our planet into a new state of equilibrium. In addition, due to the disappearance of wilderness, of the “real” nature over time, we have somewhat lost our reference point on what nature once looked like. It is no longer the same as, for example, 100 or 200 years ago. That means we have forgotten what has disappeared and that we consider the current impoverished nature as our new normal. We call this the shifting baseline, and it is very dangerous.

EOS: What impact does biodiversity loss have on biodiversity, by this I mean on the functioning of the ecosystems? What would happen if the cabbage white or even the wolf disappeared?

Hilde: We cannot separate species from each other; they are interconnected, and they influence each other. Because of evolution, they are aligned to each other. Concretely, this means that if even a few links disappear, the entire system can be disrupted. It’s too easy to say that we're only going to protect certain species, and that will solve the issue. That’s certainly not true. Even though, some species play an important role in the system. We call them key species, as they have a proportionally greater effect on their natural environment compared to others. Without these species, ecosystems would look different, that is especially the case for predators such as the wolf, because of their top position in the food chain.

EOS: Wouldn't it make more sense to focus on those key species and because our lack of means, to let other species disappear?

Hilde: No, biodiversity is too complex to simply turn it into a black and white story. And that's also an oversimplified, short-sighted approach that has often led to wrong decisions in our policy, and in our own choices. For example, when we focus on very charismatic species, without realising that micro-organisms play at least an equally important role, even if we don’t see it.

EOS: So, we cannot speak of useful species and useless species.

Hilde:You cannot classify them in such a black and white way. We have to look at the system in its entirety, where every species plays a role.

EOS: Is loss of species necessarily bad news? Or could it be that it doesn't change that much about the world and nature?

Hilde:In my view, it is by definition bad news because less diversity means that ecosystems are less resilient to changes, for example against global warming. They are less likely to recover if a natural disaster occurs. Less resilience means more and more disruption, so by definition it is bad news.

EOS: I’m now going to play devil's advocate, but we could say very crudely that we may soon no longer need a very diverse nature if technology takes over all the things we get from it. For example, if bees or pollinators disappear, we could then find a technological solution for it.

Hilde: It is true that we could replace or improve some ecosystem services with technological interventions. For example, the recycling of nutrients can be replaced, to a certain extent, by chemical fertilizers. However, if you look at the pollinators of our crops (bees, bumblebees, butterflies) it is clear that technology cannot replace them. And when you know that 15 trillion of our annual agricultural production in Europe is directly linked to the work of pollinators, you can do the math pretty quickly. Another example is the fact that experiencing nature is now even prescribed by doctors against depression and burnouts. Of course, you could replace this with chemical antidepressants, but the healing effect of nature is super powerful and just perfect for our mental and physical health. It just cannot be underestimated. In addition, and this has been scientifically proven, nature-based solutions are much more cost-efficient and much more sustainable than technological solutions, even in the context of global warming. Finally, a lot of those technological solutions are still in their infancy, if we wait for them to develop, it might be too late.

EOS: You contributed to various reports on biodiversity. How do scientists measure and evaluate biodiversity?

Hilde: Measuring biodiversity, because it consists of species diversity, genetic diversity, ecosystems diversity, is very complex and is a challenge. There is not one way to identify, monitor, and analyse changes in biodiversity; it is much more complex than climate. There are different indicators that will measure certain aspects of the reality, with either advantages or disadvantages, which is why it is important that we consider them together, as they are complementary. We can, for example, measure the decline of biodiversity on the basis of the extinction of species (there are indexes for it), or on the basis of the evolution of populations such as in the well-known “Living Planet Index” of the WWF. We can use these indicators but overall, it is important to do it in a holistic way by putting the different puzzle pieces together.

EOS: I suppose you cannot monitor all animal and plant species in the world but that you choose a few ones to follow up. How do you choose them?

Hilde: It depends on the context and the objective of the study. In Belgium, for example, there are certain legal frameworks against which we must report and specific species that we have to monitor like, for example, the Habitats and Birds Directives or the legislation on invasive species. We often also chose species that can easily be detected, seen, measured, and monitored in a standardized way. Or we focus on species that play a key role in the ecosystem or that are good indicators or representatives of the health status of that system.

EOS: How do you track animals and plants in hard-to-reach places, such as the oceans or in the Amazon Rainforest?

Hilde: There is more and more use of innovation for this. For example, remote sensing, satellites, what we call machine learning, artificial intelligence, environmental DNA (where species can be identified by collecting DNA from the water). There is an increasing number of techniques that can help us, although they are not completely watertight, and they only show us part of the reality.

EOS: Let’s now look into the future. Can the current worldwide decline of biodiversity be stopped or perhaps even reversed?

Hilde: In the best case, and I really mean the very best case, we could maybe somehow stop and stabilize biodiversity loss by 2030-2040 and put it back on the path of recovery by 2050. But it is clear that we aren’t going anywhere, and we won’t be able to achieve our biodiversity goals if we keep doing what is called business-as-usual, basically doing the same thing, but a little bit differently. It is also clear that none of the 20 targets that we set ten years ago will be reached (and by “we” I mean more than 200 governments). And we are currently also completely undermining the sustainable development goals (SDGs) because biodiversity also affects poverty, health, urban development, equality, migration. Everything is pretty much determined by biodiversity; it lies at the basis of everything. While it is not too late to turn the time around, it will require very fundamental adjustments in our economy, in our political system, in our technology, and also in the way we live, in our relationship with nature, to undergo what is now being called a “transformative change”. It is a very fundamental, profound change of our entire system.

EOS: When you say we won't meet the targets, I think of policymakers and politicians. How could they do better or at least do what they promise to do?

Hilde: I do think this should be done top-down, by reforming our economic system. For example, get rid of subsidies that are harmful to the environment, get rid of the paradigm of economic growth. Look at other indicators, not just the gross national product, consider indicators that take into account aspects of quality of life. Focus more on nature restoration, nature conservation, on nature-based solutions, and introduce elements that have an impact on our consumption behaviour because, we, citizens, need a little push to change. For example, make use of eco-labels, clearly indicate what is fair trade, or where the product comes from. We have to be guided by policy. Politicians and policy-makers can do a lot in cooperation with companies, so that we can make the production process a lot more sustainable and environmental-friendly.

EOS: What can we do as individuals? For example, can we help nature within our own garden?

Hilde: Definitely, it can start in our own backyards. By letting your garden be wild again, you can bring some nature back, you can attract pollinators which can then provide ecosystem services elsewhere. Everyone can do something in their own backyard; it is a very important first step. Then, of course, we can do something by changing the way we live, consume, produce, as it is a very important aspect of the story.

EOS: Not only the gardens, but also our homes are no longer attractive to animals. In the past, sparrows or swallows or insects could nest in all kinds of cavities, but now houses are perfectly insulated. Can we make our homes, let’s say, more nature-inclusive, so that they welcome more biodiversity?

Hilde: For sure, there are ways to do that. You see this more and more happen in cities with green roofs. But, it is important that green roofs are developed in a way that biodiversity can effectively develop and remain there. If you plant only one species on a roof, this won't actually help biodiversity. If you look for which types can be combined, which species fit into the Belgian system, then you can make sure to create a biodiverse system that is resilient to change, and that you can sustain for five to ten years.

EOS: I was going to ask who is responsible for making this whole turnaround a success, but I suspect the answer is: all of us, citizens, politicians, farmers, industry,… everyone is responsible for it.

Hilde: Yes, I do believe the answer is everyone. For the government, it is especially important that biodiversity is integrated across all policy areas, to ensure that solutions which are sought for some sectors do not have a negative impact on biodiversity. And that biodiversity not pushed into a corner, but that we realise that everything depends on healthy nature.

EOS: Are you hopeful that this awareness and turnaround will happen?

Hilde: I am an optimist, and I think that the COVID-19 crisis has showed that people's behaviour can change very quickly. Just think of social distancing, wearing masks, these are things that we would not have thought possible one year ago, yet within a few weeks, months they have been fully normalised. So, I do believe that it is possible, also with regard to the adjustment of our consumption behaviours. But unfortunately, for this to happen, we usually have to be faced with a fait accompli, we have to be guided. Politics have to be shaken up too, but there seem to be some very positive signs here, both from Europe and internationally.

EOS: Now let’s go briefly to the local level, to our own country. How does Belgium perform in terms of biodiversity compared to neighbouring countries or to the rest of the world?

Hilde: In Belgium, there are encouraging signs: for example, the wolf is back, the otter is back. A very recent report shows that the decline of biodiversity in Belgium has slowed down and that it has been stabilised. However, we have to be honest and admit that biodiversity in Belgium is still very much in the red, especially when you compare with other European countries. Belgium is actually one big city; every day, pieces of very valuable nature are disappearing under the concrete. That is something we cannot ignore. But I think it is important for citizens that we do not always present such a doomsday scenario and that we pick up the positive signs. It really helps that we bring this sufficiently up in the media and that we pay enough attention to it to demonstrate that nature conservation and nature restoration work. There are success stories, so let’s highlight them too and don't let the negative stories get the better of you.

EOS: What are the biggest challenges with regards to our own local nature?

Hilde: I mainly think of the loss of nature and the fact that we have to focus on nature conservation, but also nature restoration. We have to improve a lot the organisation of spatial planning Belgium. Compared to the Netherlands, France, we are doing very bad, which means there is a lot of potential here. With regard to the climate issue, we have to approach it in a holistic way and give a place to biodiversity. I believe that the politics are on the right track. Like today, there is a virtual summit of the UN on biodiversity in which more than 45 government and state leaders come together to say they are going to commit to biodiversity and biodiversity policy, they want to take very drastic measures, and this will be endorsed by Europe, which means Belgium included. There are political signs showing that biodiversity is getting higher on the political agenda.

EOS: I would like to conclude with that positive message and thank you for the very interesting answers. I will especially remember that, despite the fact that biodiversity is not going well, we can still be hopeful and that awareness to do something about it is growing. Thank you.

Hilde: Thank you very much.

EOS: Thank to you listeners for listening. Did you find this podcast interesting? Be sure to share it with friends and family, feel free to write a review about it. If you want to stay informed about future episodes, follow us on www.eoswetenschappen.eu, subscribe to our weekly newsletter and you will be informed of new episodes in time. See you next time!

-----