The State of Nature report and its associated media coverage were a tribute to a lot of hard work from a lot of people.  It’s a fine publication, powerfully delivered and expertly promoted.  It’s probably the single most powerful and focused attempt by the conservation sector to raise the alarm on the assault afflicting our wildlife. 

But for me, it was not only the catalogue of ‘horrendous facts’ it contained that made it an uncomfortable thing to read and experience.  I think it was also uncomfortable for what it said about the state of conservationists themselves.  The abiding sense which came over to me was one of collective, impotent despair – a sense of conservationists thumping the stack of evidence and saying “Look! We’ve been telling you this was happening for years!  Here’s the evidence, clear as day!  Why won’t you DO something!”

Certainly there’s plenty to feel despairing about, ecologically, politically, financially.  But given how bad everything is, it surely shows we’re getting it wrong in the way we try and make gains for nature, and encourage more effective actions from society – something has to change in us (as conservationists) as well as amongst everyone else ‘out there’.

I personally took issue with the overall negative tone of the report – however accurate and justified its facts, I simply don’t believe that throwing bad news at people really changes behaviour – not when there isn’t an easy, obvious scapegoat to blame.  In some walks of life, bad news does shock us into action.  Shocking news from the recent NHS reports about the state of care in our hospitals will have a big effect on health care management, because there is a clear(ish) line of responsibility, and despite the political mud slinging it is clear who needs to take action.  But the state of the natural world is such a complex picture, with so many interacting strands of cause and effect, that simply saying what’s wrong does not spark change by itself.  If anything, it causes people to just stop listening to the messenger.

When using shocking facts to make a point, sometimes black and white data, calmly delivered, can do the trick.  Other times, it needs something more raw and impassioned to make a difference.  One of the most resonant moments from the State of Nature launch was the speech by Iolo Williams in Cardiff (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnJQjtvngqA).  Why did his speech get noticed?  Because it was impassioned.  And we lack many instances when passion really shows.  Not the breathless enthusiastic ‘passion’ of TV presenters watching webcams, but angry, articulate, politically edgy passion that rages.  Iolo very effectively harnessed not just his rage, but the rhetorical power that flows from an appeal to conscience – a sense of loss, of despair, of shame, of regret.

When someone has the balls to say what they think in the way that Iolo did, it seems wrong to criticise him, but I think what he went on to say betrayed two common mistakes which beset many of us in conservation.  Where his speech came unstuck for me, was in when he chose to focus his bile on the “grey, fat salaried spineless bureaucrats” who, he claimed, had sold nature down the river.  I’m not saying he’s wrong – sadly he’s probably right.  But isolating blame like that is too easy, too convenient.  Grey bureaucrats are a manifestation of wider society, and none of us can claim to be free of responsibility in the web of cause and effect which underlies the state of nature.

The second failing of Iolo’s speech was that he made a fine rhetorical bang in talking about what is wrong, but offered a relative whimper in describing what the solutions should be.  He rightly criticised cosy self-serving bureaucracy, and “endless committees, meetings, action plans, empty words”, and he rightly called for more effective action that translates into tangible change in the countryside.  But what, exactly?  And the State of Nature report itself has virtually nothing to say about solutions, at all.

I believe that delivering the bad news about the state of nature in a way which makes a difference, demands the addition of three ingredients, alongside that basic indigestible cocktail of facts.  The first is passion – to summon up the blood, and show the anger we feel.  The second is honesty – to stiffen the sinews and tell it how it is, by pointing to the uncomfortable truth that the solution to nature’s woes lies not just with the faceless bureaucrat, but also with the face in the mirror – our own face, for we are all contributors to this sorry state.  And the third is hope – the prospect of a way forward, the knowledge that there are actions available to all of us, from the smallest personal act to the farthest reaching political strategies. 

 If that is so, how do we explain to people that their own life choices affect nature, in a way which will find willing ears?  How do we point the finger at all parts of the spectrum of human causes of wildlife degradation, in a way which is constructive rather than just condemning?  And how do we present solutions as clearly as we currently present the problems? 

(First published on BANC blog, September 2013