What can we expect from the creation of an international group of biodiversity experts modeled after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)?

The situation isn't great in terms of either biodiversity or climate. Cooperation among all the stakeholders needs to be improved. The initiative is especially important because it will focus attention on the biodiversity-related work performed by non-profits and scientists and, even more importantly, put the issue on the radar of decision-makers and policy-makers. That said, we want to avoid one of the IPCC's shortcomings: in its concern not to be perceived as alarmist, it is often overly cautious, failing to keep pace with the real situation, as observed by scientists. We face the same kind of risk. But we have to tell the truth - biodiversity is in genuine crisis.

You advocate an economic valuation of ecosystems. Is that so you can come up with figures the way the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change did?

This economic approach helps governments, their finance ministries and business leaders better understand what we are saying. It uses their language to give a clearer picture of a complex reality that should not be reduced to dry statistics. The Stern Review has been very useful in making it easier to more clearly understand climate change holistically and the interdependence of factors and stakes. Interdependence also applies to biodiversity. Biodiversity loss affects agriculture, of course, but also a number of other sectors and businesses at the global level. Many of the products used in our health care systems depend on the preservation of biodiversity.

In addition, an intergovernmental panel approach can shape action priorities, provide a foundation for possible compensation for and by countries or industries, based on a determination of responsibilities, and make it easier to draft the joint regulations that we need.

In addition to managing their own impact, what role should businesses, especially extractive companies, play in a more organized system to protect biodiversity (corporate funding and skills sharing, R&D, etc.)?

Their main responsibility is to change their practices to take biodiversity into account more effectively in their operations. We always appreciate corporate philanthropy, whether funding or skills sharing. But that's not what's most important. The main way we can help them find win-win solutions for everyone is through dialogue. These solutions may sometimes be more expensive, while in other cases they can produce savings, especially in terms of energy use.

Big companies are better equipped to get to grips with biodiversity issues. Most smaller companies, in particular in developing countries, are more concerned by their day-to-day survival - and they have every right to be. Awareness of the pressing nature of the issue is also a matter of education and attitude. That said, increasing numbers of people are committing actively to biodiversity worldwide.

But these changes always take more time than we have. Although we're winning small battles, we may lose the war. That's exasperating. We have reached a point of no return in some cases. In Europe, ecosystems have already been seriously damaged. For instance, it's too late to stop the spread of invasive species. On the other hand, we still have time to do more to protect tropical coral reefs, even though ocean acidification makes action especially urgent. We have to slow or reverse the trend wherever it's not too late. As with climate change - biodiversity and climate change are linked - if we stand by and do nothing, we risk serious consequences.