Summary of session 1:

Semantics were very much the focus of a strain of contributions, with the ever-present discussion of the meaning of biodiversity. Lorenzo Ceccolini and Jari Niemela both defined biodiversity as "all living organisms", and emphasized the need to consider biodiversity as a whole biotic system, with different organisational elements, and where even the smallest detail had to be taken into account in order to avoid a cascade of extinctions. Lorenzo Ceccolini, Jari Niemela, Martin Sharman and Alan Feest all pointed out that biodiversity was not simply a list of species, but a combination of functional and compositional aspects. There was a definite emphasis on the fact that biodiversity was a highly complex trophic web, for which we still had very little knowledge of the effects on biodiversity of human activities, the effect of extinctions in natural systems (see Michel Loreau's contribution for example), or the true value of biodiversity to humans (Allan Watt, Caspian Richards, Martin Sharman, Rainer Muessner).

Lorenzo Ceccolini's anecdote about cheese led Tor-Bjorn Larsson to raise some questions regarding the market value of local products, different types of biodiversity involved in local areas, and the impact of traditional knowledge in biodiversity. This then led to semantics over the "local" concept in a second Ceccolini contribution and a contribution by Barbara Tomassini. Lorenzo Ceccolini argued that a local product sold in a supermarket in another area could no longer be considered as local, as it would then loose the strong link with local cultural aspects. Both Barbara Tomassini and Caspian Richards agreed on the fact that "local" products were appealing to consumers for a number of reasons, and Caspian Richards went on to link this issue towards biodiversity conservation. He discussed the fact that biodiversity conservation could be focussed in two ways: by promoting the conservation of "local" biodiversity and by promoting the intrinsic value of biodiversity.

With the example of the "Integrated Management of European Wetlands" project, Sandra Bell highlighted the fact that although local people were often quite willing to help in conserving local wildlife, confusing legislation and the perception that their local ecological knowledge and culture were not being respected could prevent local people from actively participating in biodiversity conservation. Rainer Muessner added a word of caution by saying that although local knowledge, participation and integrated decision making were important in local biodiversity conservation, some aspects could not be negotiable under national/international laws.

The second question of the e-conference, i.e. why biodiversity should be conserved, was dealt with by a number of contributions. Jari Niemela highlighted the fact that biodiversity resources and ecosystems goods had to be maintained in order to benefit from the vital services that biodiversity offered. Martin Sharman however argued that because we did not know the ecological value of biodiversity, protecting biodiversity for the goods and services it produces for humans could lead to a philosophy of conserving certain aspects of biodiversity we value (in economic, aesthetical or cultural terms) and discarding others which we perceive have no value for us. John Hutcheson disagreed with the concept that ecological value or quality of biodiversity was not scientifically measurable, and argued that conservation could only be achieved through a change in the perception of humans towards biodiversity. Although there is no doubt that humans depend on tangible resources such as food, water and air for survival, Allan Watt concentrated on the less tangible, but perhaps just as or even more essential resources biodiversity provides us by discussing biophilia. He argued that more practical research was needed to better understand our bond with biodiversity, and supported the view that we should conserve all biodiversity. Rainer Muessner added that to promote biophilia, the improvement of environmental education methodology and effectiveness was needed. Although this may all be ethical commendable, Tor-Bjorn Larsson argued that certain priorities had to be set in biodiversity exploitation and resource allocations, which would be best achieved by providing politicians and policy-makers with the relevant information. In view of this, Kajetan Perzanowski suggested eco-regions encompassing all levels of organisation, as basic conservation units- the question remains how to identify these eco-regions and how to secure them as conservation areas. Christian Kleps elaborated on this theme and suggested that existing environmental agreements between countries should be considered when establishing eco-regions.

In order to understand our dependence on biodiversity better and the impacts of biodiversity changes on the functioning of ecosystems, Michel Loreau, Jari Niemela Klaus Henle and Martin Sharman suggested a synthesis of both scientific knowledge (on ecological changes and extinction processes) and societal applications of that knowledge. In order to reach an estimation of biodiversity quality, Alan Feest suggested measuring the biodiversity qualities of as many taxonomic groups as possible and compare these between areas. This could be achieved through global networks of research groups according to Klaus Henle. Michel Loreau summed up the question by adding that although scientific knowledge could help in determining why and what biodiversity to conserve, ultimately, biodiversity conservation was a societal choice.

Jurgen Tack closed the discussion by suggesting that instead of trying to determine the risks associated with our dependency on biodiversity, we should consider how to synthesise our knowledge to understand the benefits associated with our dependency on biodiversity. In both cases, the first step it to understand ourselves. Erling Berge and Kajetan Perzanowski agreed that the concept of humans as an integral part of biodiversity had to be considered in biodiversity conservation and together with Caspian Richards, Jurgen Tack and John Hutcheson he emphasised the importance of changing humans' attitudes towards biodiversity and conservation but added that education was insufficient and that understanding the complex human structures and dynamics had to be considered together with biodiversity dynamics.