Well, good afternoon again. We've another talk. OK. The title , wait for it, rather a , sustainable economic development and the of biodiversity. Well. Don't talk your children like that. Use language. What does it all ?

The structure of the is going to be very . First. I'll try to explain sustainable economic development is, and something about it. Then go to do the same for . And then very briefly, hazard by way of conclusion.

, sustainable economic development, biodiversity - 're both said to be good . But we can ask, are both possible? Well, as I , let's look first then at first, sustainable economic development. So, is it? Why should we it? And how could we it? Let's start with an . Not all economists believe simply some outdated view of rational man. But David Pearce, for , of University College, in London, a rather newer sort of . He and colleagues wrote a and eventually a series, a , blueprint for a green economy. , the title is a little on words of course. A is the traditional engineering diagram. was done in blue. It's a design diagram. Green of is the slang, as it , the nickname, for environmentally concerned , policies - the greens. So blueprint for a green economy a plan for an environmentally policy.

OK. So for the title of his . Now, I'll quote him in article he wrote for the issue of a new environmental , a newish environmental journal called Values, whose first issue came in the early nineties, in . So, here we go, David . "A green economy is one has the capability of replicating on a sustainable basis, replicating on a sustainable basis," end quote. He goes on to the importance of what he , I quote again, "sustainable use resources" and "non-declining human welfare." , we've got the ideas of and welfare. Now in the issue of that same journal, former British ambassador to the Nations, Sir Crispin Tickell, who a great interest in environmental , wrote about the quality of , the quality of life. He , I quote, "the principle of over generations. Sustainable development may different things to different people the idea itself is relatively . We must work out models a steady state society with in broad balance with the ." End of quotation. So, what we got there? Again, the of a steady state society, which can continue indefinitely, with in balance with human population.

, again, let's go to United Nations itself. The United defines sustainable development as, and quote, "development which meets the of current generations without compromising ability of future generations to their needs." I'll just repeat , it's quite neat, "development which the needs of current generations compromising the ability of future to meet their needs." It a question or two perhaps to what needs are. Needs a rather complex concept. Sounds matter of fact but, of , there are values built in . And people may have views what their needs are. Governments have views about what they . Parents may have views about children's needs are. Children may views about what their parents are. And so on and on. But anyway. that's a .

So, this sort thing is what sustainable development . Or so we're told. But, it a good thing. Well, it is, if it's what says, if it's what it's to be. And if we that future, I'm sorry, if believe that current generations should their needs, as I say, that future generations should meet .

Well. A question . What are human needs? We back to this rather complex of needs. Well, some examples these would be basic needs, called. That is animal needs. 're mammals, animals. We have needs water, warmth, food, shelter, for . But then surely we have needs, emotional needs, for instance, sorts of needs. And here might be interesting, if you 't sleep sometime, to make yourself list of what these non-basic needs are, and perhaps rank . They're going to very different the list is going to rather long. But, for example, 's sometimes suggested that self-respect is of these needs, the respect other people. Human dignity, in form or another, comes into . Well, that's a huge subject. much for a little go it. Psychologists write on these of course, but they're not that much wiser than the of us. We all have idea about what our needs , and what people say our are.

Now another question course arises here. It's a of some scarcities and we ask, should all needs be or only some? Again do wretched future generations matter to ? They've done nothing for us, should we care for them? so some people say. If do care about future generations human beings, how many are talking about? Our children, our , their grandchildren. Or are we of human beings a million from now, or indeed indefinitely? we are concerned, why should be, again? Well, these are I'm raising. Not attempting here answer. But they are questions underlie, I think, the concept sustainability.

Well now, it's clear - we all are this, realise it I think we're told almost to the of being sick of hearing it that certain changes must about if sustained economic development to be achieved. Well, what of changes? Examples would include, suggest, first, we should reduce rate at which the earth's are being used up. The 's resources, what are we talking ? Well, very important things, water, , soil - immensely important so neglected. The desert, the Sahara, example, is expanding northwards and . The soils, well, I've been, , you've been to areas in Africa, for example, which were main wheat growing areas of Roman empire in ancient times, they're now approaching desert. So whole range of resources, as as the obvious things we of, such as oil and , that sort of thing, the fuels.

Secondly, it's suggested, should reduce environmental pollution. Now, is stuff in the wrong at the wrong time, dirt a way, any nasty things. , obviously, this point is connected the first point. If we up the earth's oil supplies a very rapid rate, for , then we are at the time producing environmental pollution in form of the products of , such as carbon monoxide, carbon , sulphurous emissions and so on so on. There's a great of environmental pollution also from obvious sources, perhaps. For instance, sewage is a very great , how to dispose of it, other industrial wastes and so . The intensive rearing of livestock as cattle and pigs results tremendous output of animal waste, it's difficult to dispose of an environmentally acceptable way.

, it's suggested, we ought to destroying the rainforests, the great of the world which have subject to, and are subject very great depletion and destruction. may remember that in, where we, in 1997, there were fires in parts of Indonesia, produced, these are forest fires, started deliberately in some cases, had a drought in any which helped the fires to , and these fires produced a smog over large parts of Asia affecting, for example, Malaysia way away. And these fires returned in 1999 and are going to be as bad the previous ones or worse. we're talking here of vast of tropical rainforest, in a out state to some extent, . And the result of this, course, is not only the of the trees themselves, which to maintain the climatic balance so on, but the resulting , smoke, gases.

Fourthly, 's suggested, the rich should consume . The rich should consume less. countries, rich people. Now, it's , it's not intuitively, obviously clear this should be, but, let's make a point. If you at something like, for example, Oxford Economic Atlas of the , look at some of the attractively drawn maps in it, you come to maps of rate of use of resources as oil, for example, you that the United States has tremendously high rate of consumption oil compared with many other . Indeed all advanced industrial countries a high rate of oil . But the United States, in , both in terms of the quantity and in terms of amount consumed per person. So way of reducing pollution and on would be to get rich to consume less. Again 's argued, and this is a point, that there ought to a fairer distribution of wealth. here normally interpreted as meaning even, more equal.

Ok. . Now, I want to raise objections and followed by three to these objections. The first , then, might be, it's often , look here, world food production increased in this century and in the last century as population has increased. Well. Why 't it continue to do so? haven't got into serious trouble , at least in the rich . The second objection would be, jobs are more important than environment. You tell some unemployed who's just been fired from motor industry that, oh well, 's environmentally a good thing, you're likely to please him or right away. It's said we're risk of losing jobs then the motor vehicle industry, for , in the oil industry, in building, for example, if we about the environment too much. can remember a time when was said, repeatedly said especially people who thought of themselves socialists that all the environmental were simply middle class nonsense that the really important thing jobs and money and economic . That's not so long ago. third objection, a very important , is that some of the needed for so called sustainable development belong to what we call control and command regimes. is to say they are with governments which have something absolute power over individual citizens, are authoritarian, and the charge sometimes made of course that are, as they say, eco-fascists. other words, they don't care individual liberties and rights and . All they are concerned about, , is some imaginary environmental solution the world problems.

OK. 's try to try now to three objections in turn. First, objection that food production has , why shouldn't it continue to so? Well, we can't go this in detail but I this objection can be disposed to some extent. First of , after all, we do have parts of the world where is endemic at present. And can't simply assume that food will continue to rise because 's risen in the past. I , I'm reminded a bit about, of Bertrand Russell's story about chicken and the farmer. The ran to be fed every , but this morning was Christmas , so there was something else store. In other words, you 't simply assume that the future always be like the past, there may be very good why the future of food will not show the increase has shown in the recent . Indeed, it's already falling behind population in certain respects. For , the huge grain surpluses, wheat, , barley, corn, this sort of , the huge grain surpluses have come to an end, World production is back at the of the mid 1960s at 300 kilos per head per . And world grain stocks have to, have fallen from, one days consumption in 1987 to 40 days consumption in 1996. so, each year, more of grain, the corn for example, barley, is turned into meat. the United States and the Union, the proportion is about third of grain turned into . That of course is a inefficient way of feeding human , because it'd be far more for human beings to eat grain, things made from the , rather than have meat as intermediary. That's, as it were, .

OK. Let's turn to second objection, that jobs are important than the environment. Well, 's a very powerful objection, of , and politically very effective and 's often been played on. I'm saying it's not an important . However, economic development can take directions and still create jobs income and so cater for welfare. For example, if railways developed rather than roads, there'll more employment. Now, this has shown in a recent study Germany. Germany invested quite a in its railways and stopped big new roads and a of jobs were created in way, some of them continuing. , heavy industries, that is coal, , this sort of thing, heavy , and the defence industries, these been main sources of employment the past. Though millions of miners, for example, in England, and Scotland, in the year , when I seem to remember production peaked at, I think was, 187 million tons a , or something of that order, of miners in a hand coal employment. Well, these industries shrunk. Let's take the case North Rhine Westphalia, the German . This of course is the of the Ruhr, the traditional industry district of Germany. Now, 's been going on there? Well, ,000 jobs in heavy industry were . Heavy industry and mining. But, 've been replaced by 800,000 new in more sustainable areas, in activities, for example.

OK. about our third objection? That measures are too authoritarian. Well, have to take the point. 's true that environmental legislation can harsh and authoritarian, but it 't have to be. There can be a balance between command under certain regimes on the hand and the more liberal of doing things, which would to use market incentives, market . Now, what are these market ? Well, making people feel things their pockets, making it clear it costs to pollute, for . So the measures could include, to David Pearce of University London, pollution charges. The principle is that the polluter pays the pollution. If you are firm which pours filthy liquids rivers, then you must pay the clean up of the . Again, there may be tradable reduction certificates. Well, that's a of a mouthful, let's try explain briefly what it is. have been discussed in Kyoto, example, at a recent summit of governments. Emissions are discharges gases or liquids, dirty gases, liquids. Reduction of emissions is main aim, of course, of control. Well, what are theses which can be traded? Well, idea, many forms of this one idea, is that everybody the world ought to be a certain right to pollute. if, for example, they belong economically poor countries, they can't to pollute or don't wish pollute or whatever, then they sell their pollution rights to in other countries who can to pollute and who do to. Now, this puts a on the total amount of , you see. So if I to run around in a big car, I can buy certificate, so to speak, to so, to pollute the place, somebody who can't or won't that. It's more likely to done at the government level course so that you, so the United States might buy Bangladesh the right to use more oil per head than Bangladeshis do. So that's what's by tradable emission reduction certificates. , there might be financial assistance, example, for hedgerow planting to back the birds in, for , in East Anglia in England. hedgerows were ripped out with financial assistance. Now, they're being back with government financial assistance. the birds, one hopes, will to the hedgerows, which are habitat. Again, it's argued, we remove environmentally harmful subsidies such some of those subsidies to Union farmers which have maintained harmful practices. Well, the ripping the hedgerows would be one . And the European Union's Common Policy, CAP, as a whole, attention.

So, what are to make of all this? , we can say that sustainable development is possible then, but would require real changes in way of life.

So for the first part of little talk. Let's move on to biodiversity. And first, what it? And why is it ? Well, bio, of course, is root term for life, so means lots of differences between forms of life. Now, at United Nations conference on the and development at Rio de in 1992, the so-called earth , something called a convention on diversity was signed. This was agreement then on a piece paper, which was signed by governments. The UN itself explains the term biological diversity is used to describe the number variety of living organisms on planet. It's defined in terms genes, species and ecosystems, which the outcome of three million of evolution. They should, I , have said four, but theses keep changing, four million years. human species depends on biological , the UN goes on, for own survival. Thus the term be considered a synonym, that's nice word for students of , a synonym for life on . I repeat, the term can considered a synonym for life earth, end of quotation.

, so far, something like 1.7 species, we're told, have been . The exact number is unknown. are very many in the rainforests of the equatorial areas, example. One estimate is that are between five million and hundred million species, most of have still to be discovered, it were, by human beings. , a question arises, now. Surely, might say, if species' extinction a natural part of evolution, mean as Darwin showed of , why should we try to species? Some of them will out anyway. What does it ? Well, the answer should be that losses are taking place far too fast in habitats as tropical and temperate forests, , lakes, wetlands and deserts, not mention the sea. Somewhere between percent and eight percent of species on earth may be within 25 years.

Now, 's have a look briefly at examples of the destruction of and species. The obvious example the destruction of forests. Which ? Well, for example, the Amazon 's forests, the Amazon basin, much which is in Brazil, or of Brazil. And again, as see, in the hot wet of South East Asia. Thailand, example, Indonesia. Wetlands are being too in many countries. For the Donana wetlands of south Spain are being damaged by tourism and by irrigated agriculture. there's just some examples to to tie the thing down earth.

Let's look now some types of action in of biodiversity. What can we ? What is being done in of biodiversity? Well, first there action of course by individual . For example, in south west , in the Donana area, the government called in academics who a Donana management plan, ending tourism, and ending further irrigation, introducing environmentally suitable study tourism, industries and so on, which, was thought, would not harm environment. Or, another example of by national governments, the United , the United States, I'm sorry, Unites States in 1988 set a national wetlands policy forum. secured the Unites States government that no more United States would be destroyed, no more States wetlands would be destroyed. am I talking about? Wetlands, , you know, shallow water areas trees and rushes and so growing in them. Areas such the Everglades in Florida, which course are a great tourist , known to millions of people television. Well, lots of the have been eroded at the , reclaimed for agriculture, this has to stop.

Secondly, there's by intergovernmental conventions. For example, United Nations biodiversity secretariat, meeting example in Montreal in the 90s. Now, this has set , as a first task, to factual information, to assess factual needed by governments before policy can be made. The facts necessary for policy making.

, the three objectives of the on biodiversity are, let's call A, B and C. A conservation of biological diversity. B sustainable use of biological resources, , by the way, genetic resources we hear so much about . I mean, this year, in , for example, the BBC1 television Panorama, a documentary, had a , last night in fact, on modified foods and concerns about . So this objective of the use of biological resources touches GM foods, which are thought some competent people not to sustainable in the sense that could lead to changes to . Right, thirdly, C we're calling aren't we? A fair sharing benefits arising from the use genetic resources. I've come on that already. A fair sharing the benefits arising out of use of genetic resources. So, to sum up. This UN secretariat wants factual information, conservation diversity, sustainable biological resources and sharing of the benefits of use of genetic resources.

, other United Nations panels have set up to help protect habitats such as forests, and indigenous peoples - there are of course indigenous peoples in Amazon and they're under threat various forms of deforestation and development. So forests with their people and also marine ecosystems, ecosystems of the oceans, the .

Now, we can have, , action by commercial firms, individual or enterprises. For example in 1996, Unilever, the great multi-national , Unilever, with the World Wide for nature, has called for labelling of packets of foreign to show whether it has caught by sustainable fishing methods. 'll just repeat that, the labelling packets of fish to show it has been caught by fishing methods. For example, by mesh nets. Nets with a small mesh, of course, catch small fish, and nets on bigger scale catch only the fish and the little fish away.

Well, so much for some aspects of biodiversity, it's a good thing and it could be achieved.

, just to recap. I've something about sustainable economic development, about biodiversity and the question , surely, is whether we can them both. Indeed, whether we have either. Well, I will , by way of conclusion, that, only can we have both, protection of biodiversity is a of sustainable economic development. I'll repeat that, both sustainable economic and the protection of biodiversity are important and, to repeat, second is a prerequisite of first.

OK. Thanks for attention. Do you have any or comments?