This is what tropical ecologist Jaboury Ghazoul provided during a talk at the Association of Tropical Biology and Conservation (ATBC) meeting this summer in Marburg, Germany. Throwing out a dazzling array of big ideas and even bigger questions—incorporating natural history, biodiversity, morality, philosophy, and art—the enthusiastic Ghazoul left his audience in a state of wonder.
Mongabay couldn't help but catch up with Ghazoul and discuss the questions raised in his talk: our crisis generation; why biodiversity matters; the connection between economy and nature; the 'inherent' value of life; building a conservation ethic; and the moral implications of sharing—rather than ruling—the plant.
Jaboury Ghazoul.
Like his talk in Marburg, Ghazoul leads us out from the trees to see the whole forest.
PERSONAL
Mongabay: What is your background?
Jaboury Ghazoul: I am lucky in having had the privilege to spend the first 13 years of my life growing up in two countries, Iraq and the UK, both of which shaped my interests, experiences and cultural perspectives. These experiences were enhanced further through the eight years I spent in Scotland as a university student, during which time I had inspirational friends, teachers and landscapes. A career in marine biology was derailed by an opportunity to work in Vietnam for a year which led me, via another three years in Thailand, into tropical forest ecology. I have since enjoyed studying tropical forest ecology and conservation in many Southeast Asian countries, but also in India, southern Africa and Latin America. After an eight year stint at Imperial College London I now find myself in Zurich, still enjoying the challenges of tropical forest ecology and conservation—though if someone were to offer me a job in marine ecology, my first love, I would be seriously tempted!
Mongabay: What is your primary area of study?
Jaboury Ghazoul: We mainly study the viability of plant populations in tropical but human-dominated landscapes. In shaping the landscape for our own immediate needs we have altered ecological processes, species compositions and habitat patterns. There are, of course, many implications
Mongabay: You have called this generation the 'crisis generation'. What do you mean by that term?
Percentage of species extinct and listed as threatened by extinction according to the IUCN. However, the IUCN lacks data on many species and has little information on the threatened status of plants, invertebrates, and insects.
Jaboury Ghazoul: Every generation has its crises. In the past these were often pestilence and famine, sometimes on catastrophic scales. We also happen to have crises that are global in extent, but what’s more, they are truly novel. Unlike diseases and famines, rapid climate change is not something that we have had to deal at global scales. We have also become exceedingly good at publicizing our crises. Not a day goes past when I do not read something about energy shortages, water conflicts, biodiversity loss, climate change, pandemic diseases, food security.
BIODIVERSITY AND ECONOMY
Mongabay: To the non-biologist, why does biodiversity matter?
Jaboury Ghazoul: Two reasons. One, the variety of life underpins life support and economic systems in more ways than can be conceived—we are still discovering the full range of interactions by which we benefit from a rich biodiversity. Two, our natural heritage, be it local or global, enriches our personal and societal cultures. A failure to appreciate this constrains our mindset and impoverishes humanity.
Mongabay: You wrote an op-ed in Science this January pondering what would happen if America's stimulus package actually went to saving the world's biodiversity. Do you think 789 billion dollars would be enough?
Jaboury Ghazoul: Who can tell what is enough? Certainly managing the world’s biodiversity does not require a one-off cash injection, but rather an ongoing commitment in perpetuity. A cash injection of 789 billion dollars will, after all, be exhausted at some stage, and interpreted in this way it is clearly not enough. My guess though, is that a lot less would go a very long way towards making a necessary and immediate change for the better. I have estimated that current spending on all conservation related activities is around 14 billion dollars per year, globally. Despite this ecosystems continue to be degraded and species lost, and despite our best efforts of restoration we will never be able to fully recover lost natural capital. So to make the biggest difference we need to act now while we still have what we have, and in such circumstances a few hundred billion would help.
Mongabay: How does society's spending habitat's reflect our priorities? What do you think those priorities are today?
Jaboury Ghazoul: Since writing the Science article it has become clear that 789 billion dollars was actually only the first installment of a stimulus package that is now several times that amount—principally to rescue a corrupt financial system. Regretfully, this does reflect societies’ priorities, but does not reflect well on society. I am no economist, but I expect there is an element of truth in my suggestion that investment in other societal values, which should be elevated to priorities, would have wider economic benefits. I refer the need for far more investment in activities and economies that work with the environment rather than against it. Climate change, for example, is potentially catastrophic for nature and humans, but in responding to its challenges it presents very many opportunities for new economic growth—if only we could be brave enough to make the appropriate policy and investment decisions. In investing in response to climate change and acting to reverse biodiversity loss, we are also working towards current societal priorities. Top of the list are, perhaps, inexpensive and continuously available energy, good health and education systems, plentiful and rich food, and peaceful and stable societies. If one cares to investigate how to deliver these societal objectives they quickly discover that underpinning all these priorities is a well functioning and diverse environment.
Purple-striped jellyfish Chrysaira colorata at the Monterey Bay Aquarium. Photo by: Rhett A. Butler.
Mongabay: Why do you think biodiversity is very low—or often not even mentioned—on many media and government's list of global problems, i.e. economy, terrorism, fossil fuels, water shortage, food crisis, climate change?
Jaboury Ghazoul: There are many political, social and economic reasons, but in short, governments respond to meet the immediate, often perceived, needs of their people. To a large extent it is the economy that underlies peoples’ well being, and this is what people respond to, but quality of life consists of far more than a strong economy. Prosperity has been built on the exploitation and control of nature, and while this has worked for much of human history, with occasional hiccups, the accumulated impact is now beginning to tell. The problem is that people and governments remain grounded in the belief that we can address current problems within the existing paradigm of control. There is societal inertia in adjusting to new realities, particularly when the new realities require us to grapple with the complexity of our interactions with biodiversity and the wider environment. The solutions are not immediately obvious and often lack direct benefit—and the benefits of biodiversity conservation are indeed diffuse. So we have a global tragedy of the commons scenario that limits foresight. The same applied, until recently, to climate change, and it is only now as we begin to feel the impact of climate change directly—heat waves in Europe, fires in California and Greece, coastal damage and inundation in the Netherlands and New Orleans, failed monsoons in India—do we respond to our immediate need.
Mongabay: Do you think apart of the problem is due to scientist's difficulty in communicating to non-scientists why biodiversity matters?
Life rising: swarms of lake flies in a garden near Lake Victoria, Uganda. Photo by: Rhett A. Butler.
Jaboury Ghazoul: To some extent, yes, although this is a simplification. I don’t think that scientists are any better or any worse at communication than the next person. Scientists perhaps have an even harder time of it as they often deal with complex scenarios which they do not fully understand, but the same could be said for other sectors of society. Communication is more than just conveying information, it is also about receiving it. Scientists may not be very good at conveying information, but it is equally valid that much of society is simply not well attuned to receiving it. In our modern and largely urban-centered societies people have become dissociated from biodiversity in a direct sense, and as a result find it more difficult to understand their dependencies on it.
Mongabay.com is an environmental science and conservation news website.
