SUBJECT: Local produce and biodiversity conservation
AUTHOR: Caspian Richards
DATE: 2nd April

KEYWORDS: Decentralised production, intrinsic value, local biodiversity, biodiversity conservation.

SUMMARY: The author discusses the appeal of decentralised forms of production to consumers and makes a parallel with the possible effects of such approaches to views regarding biodiversity conservation.


The issue of whether products are 'local' or not, and what difference this makes to their desirability to consumers, is an interesting one. There is obviously a significant difference between a food production system based on selling all produce at or close to the place of production, and one based also on decentralised production but where products are widely circulated between regions. Both are in some respects in opposition to the kind of centralised food production system with national distribution that has come to dominate in the UK. My impression is that both decentralised forms of production appeal to at least a certain kind of consumer, the first because 'local' products are more attractive (due to a kind of brand loyalty, desire to support the local economy, the belief that 'food miles' should be minimised, etc.), the second because people like to know that the product was local to somewhere (I suspect because the precise place of origin of much of the produce sold in our supermarkets cannot be given, since it is just drawn from the centralised vat), even if not their own locality. People may also like to buy produce from places they are familiar with or have a positive impression of, as well as of course from places famous for particular products (Parma ham etc.), whose trademarks the EC has been keen to protect. As Barbara says, the fact that for some reason (production conditions, trademarks...) a particular product can only be produced in a specific region is no doubt an important part of its appeal.

To relate this back to biodiversity, this may help to think about what people might value in the diversity of life-forms (presumably the reason why cheeses were mentioned in the first place...), but also to distinguish some differences between the two cases. Martin argues that there are dangers in arguing for biodiversity conservation on the grounds of the value of biodiversity to humans, and I think this is right; but at the same time, when trying to persuade people to buy into the vision it is inevitable that this strategy will be called upon at times. A crucial difference between, say, wild birds and cheeses is that wild birds cannot be distributed according to consumer demand. I also doubt that most of us associate anything more than a handful of species with well-defined places (as opposed to regions or habitat types), perhaps partly because of the failure of ecological processes to respect administrative boundaries or trademarks. When arguing that biodiversity has to be preserved, one may therefore find oneself required to focus on the one hand on persuading people to look after their 'local' habitats, and on the other hand on promoting the intrinsic value of diversity - this general case would have to be presented on intrinsic grounds, as experience of non-local species is limited to travel (and individuals cannot travel everywhere) and to the circulation of images rather than the real thing - although admittedly images may still help the cause, but more for particular photogenic species rather than for diversity per se. Persuading people of the intrinsic value of biodiversity is quite a challenge, especially given that there is no real consensus on what it is, but hopefully later sessions will deal with what intersection might exist (or be established) between ecologists' and other people's perceptions of the matter.

A contribution by:

Caspian Richards
The Macaulay Institute
Craigiebuckler
Aberdeen
AB15 8QH
Scotland, UK