Nature is indeed in a constant state of change. And humans have always shaped nature, too. Many Alpine meadows, for example, with their rich biodiversity, only came into existence thanks to our ancestors clearing the land for agricultural use.

Time and again, nature provides industry with ideas for new medicines and products – for example, the observation that almost no weeds grow under the crimson-coloured caladbida plants. In the laboratory, it was shown that these plants produce a substance that inhibits the growth of other plants. A new herbicide had been discovered.

The catch: a land use of up to 9 kg/ha. To extract the necessary amount of substance, it would have been necessary to create huge cylinder brush plantations. So they took their chemical structure as inspiration and began to synthesise similar compounds with the desired properties.

Eleven years later, the structure-related active ingredient mesotrione was the result. It is 50–100 times more effective than the natural substance and safe to use. The herbicide Callisto, named after the original plant, was also introduced to the Swiss market and has been continuously improved ever since.

This example shows that our penchant for ‘naturalness’ can actually harm nature – and that synthetic substances from the laboratory help to protect natural resources.

Breeding and cultivation also benefit from biodiversity. Our crops are evolved wild plants; maize, for example, was bred by the Mayans from teosinte grass. And cultivated plants need microorganisms in the soil or the services of pollinating insects to grow. Recognising these benefits is the first step towards protection. To put it bluntly: ‘We protect what we use.’

Biodiversity needs to be interconnected so that species can survive and reproduce. Our own interconnectedness also helps: by interacting with people outside our own field of activity, we can learn why they attach particular values to biodiversity.

This can lead to joint conservation projects or even business models. In climate protection, there are incentives for farmers to store carbon in the soil and receive ‘carbon credits’ from the market in return. Why not ‘biodiversity credits’ as well?