Biodiversity complexities still not understood

Another Life: 'Biodiversity loss matters. It matters for ethical, emotional, environmental and economic reasons. Ethically, we have a responsibility to future generations to maintain the diversity of life on earth . . ." Such impeccable thoughts were tapped into somebody's word-processor in the Department of the Environment for an EU gathering in Ireland back in the Republic's presidential year. The words still hover like a seagull battling the wind.

You'd think that, since Rio 13 years ago, just one of successive "ministers for nature" would have wanted to get behind the UN Convention on Biodiversity that we eventually ratified in 1996 - really understand what it was about, why protecting species and their ecosystems mattered to this green island as much as to the rest of a ravaged world. But the story has been one of a grudging, politically-blank-eyed compliance with "obligations" imposed by the Convention and the EU Habitats Directive.

After long delays, a National Biodiversity Plan was published in 2002 without any public launch or promotion. It set out 91 "actions" - but no prioritised targets or time scales, no co-ordinating biodiversity unit, no dedicated funding, no incentives to co-operate. A mid-term review of the actions finds progress "slow or minimal". And where it has been made, it is largely where the EU Commission has stepped up the pressure on Ireland "to deliver on commitments". The plan, concludes the review, "does not have political and public support and generally has not achieved its objective". The review is published by Comhar, the government-funded think-tank otherwise known as the National Sustainable Development Partnership. One of Comhar's principles is "respect for ecological integrity and biodiversity", which could be why it was asked by the D0EHLG to carry out the job, helped by the Heritage Council and the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Comhar set up a biodiversity working group, drawing on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Heritage Council, IFA and several conservation NGOs.

The latter, in particular, see themselves as stakeholders (get used to it) whose enthusiasm, expertise and support has been largely frozen out in an official "top-down" approach. Even among government departments, the word "biodiversity" has been generally left sitting in the in-tray. The Rio Convention wanted concern for species to be set to work in all departments and agencies, not just those directly concerned with nature conservation.

"Action One" of Ireland's 91 actions duly called for departments to make plans of their own. But so far, apart from circulation of a set of draft guidelines, only Agriculture - which runs the Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS) - has done anything about it. Otherwise, says the Comhar review tersely, "Complexity of task not fully understood."

Much the same might now be said of the Government's treatment of the National Biological Records Centre, being set up by the Heritage Council in the Waterford Institute of Technology. Knowing what species we have and where they are, is a basic tool of conservation. Without it, as the Environmental Protection Agency repeatedly impressed on the Government, it is impossible to assess Ireland's biodiversity.

The Heritage Council, which had also been lobbying for the centre, drew up a policy, apparently accepted by the Minister for the Environment (then Martin Cullen, TD). "A Records Centre," it insisted, "must employ full-time professional staff. The staff must comprise a director, supported by three additional professionals [ in] IT, botany, zoology and marine ecology . . ." What the centre will now get, apart from an office on the campus of the Waterford Institute of Technology and co-operation in research, is funding for a "Contract for Service" put out to tender, presumably to ecological consultants. What ought to be a scientifically prestigious, publicly significant centre, respected by the researchers and agencies asked to share their hard-won data banks, is seen officially as little more than a one-off exercise in assembling computer files.

The Heritage Council, however, is nothing if not resilient. It has invited all the stakeholders in the project - EPA, NGOs, universities, state agencies, individual recorders, and so on - to a meeting in Waterford on October 19th. It plans to involve them in guiding the centre's work programme.

The Comhar group, too, is out to boost participation in biodiversity plans and policies, nationally and locally.

It calls for establishment of a National Biodiversity Stakeholders' Forum (not the catchiest of names) under the auspices of Comhar and with resources of its own - a sort of super-NGO with elected members and open meetings. For the review and its recommendations, e-mail comhar@environ.irlgov.ie.