It’s not easy to feel cheerful at the moment, what with economic crises, war in Ukraine, nuclear threats, climate change and more to think about. But if you are in any danger of feeling cheerful today, and want to be brought back to earth with an injection of real gloom, then I recommend the WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature) “Living Planet Report 2022”. It shows a devastating reduction in the quantity of “Life on Earth”, as Sir David Attenborough would put it.
“The Living Planet Report 2022 is WWF’s most comprehensive study to date of trends in global biodiversity and the health of our planet. The latest flagship publication reveals global wildlife populations have plummeted by 69% on average since 1970”.
Latin America and the Caribbean shows the biggest regional decline, with a stunning 94% drop in populations over the last 50 years. Deforestation and development such as mining in the Amazon have been major drivers of that disaster. Africa is not far behind with a 66% reduction. Infrastructure such as cities and roads encroaching on natural habitats plays a major role in the decline in that region, and with African populations forecast to grow rapidly in coming decades, it is hard to see matters improving for wildlife there.
In terms of different habitats, perhaps surprisingly freshwater species populations show the biggest global decline, driven by habitat loss and barriers to migration routes – often caused by damming of rivers and extraction of water for agriculture and other human purposes.
More than 41,000 species are on the WWF “red list” and are under threat of extinction. It’s not just high-profile examples such as rhinos, sharks or koalas, but thousands of species of insects, plants and smaller sea creatures are threatened. We don’t really understand the consequences for humankind of this potential disaster – but in some areas such as the need for pollinators to ensure plant crops, it may well be very serious. Anyway, I’m pretty sure our great, great grandchildren (if they survive climate change) won’t be very impressed that our generation wiped out most of the living creatures on earth.
In December this year there’s an opportunity to move forwards at the 15th conference of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (COP15) in Montreal, Canada, under the presidency of China. The WWF says that we need more than a “net zero” equivalent for biodiversity. We need to actually restore nature rather than just halting its loss, and aim to be “nature positive” by 2030 - “more natural forests, more fish in the ocean and river systems, more pollinators in our farmlands, more biodiversity worldwide. A nature-positive future will bring countless benefits to human and economic well-being, including to our climate, food and water security”.
This issue may not seem very relevant to most procurement professionals. But any organisation that buys products which originate with or contain materials that are grown, or mined, farmed or fished has a role to play. Large agricultural and mining firms are major destroyers of habitats. Large buyers in particular can put pressure on suppliers and incorporate these factors into supplier selection and qualification processes.
Whenever an organisation is involved in construction, there is an environmental impact that can have an impact on biodiversity and non-human life. So buyers in that sector have a key role to play. At a very local level, organisations can look at making their own premises more “nature positive” – beehives on the office roof maybe? There is an interesting article here on the New Statesman website, sponsored by engineering and construction consultants WSP, which discusses some of the steps that leading construction firms are taking to be more “nature positive”. Special house bricks that provide a nest for Swifts is one of the creative ideas.
However, whilst there are positive steps we can take, I’m more optimistic to be honest about us addressing emissions than I am about real progress on biodiversity and reversing species loss. We can understand the tangible actions that impact carbon reduction – more renewable energy, for instance. But the bio-diversity issue feels less tangible, harder to address, because it is so complex and there are so many different stakeholders with very different interests. In my gloomier moments, I suspect at some point, fishing becomes economically unviable because we’ve caught all the fish. And the last lions and orangutans will be in zoos and nature reserves.
In the meantime though, procurement can play its part in at least trying to reverse the decline. Good luck!