I want to address that first, because I was referring to the loss of connection as having a bearing on the urgency of the issue. Climate change is much more immediately felt by the general population and it has been more successful in drawing media attention and people's concern to that issue an immediate one to address, whereas people don't always understand that the erosion of biodiversity and ecosystems really does have a direct bearing on their well-being that probably is going to be playing out more in the future. With people living more and more in cities, this nature deficit disorder is becoming an increasing issue, so it is absolutely very real.
At the same time, you see that when nature becomes more scarce, people flock to it. Particularly in crowded areas, either within or outside cities, people feel an innate need to go to visit these spaces in national parks. This is being shown by the pressure. This should show us that we need more of these green spaces and nature for this connection to keep going.
On the Species at Risk Act, I can totally understand your reticence and concern, because that in and of itself is not the only prong. Again, remember that species at risk are really just the tip of the needle here in terms of when species are in real trouble. That's when they show up on the list and we're in crisis situation.
What we really need to be focusing on in that equation is bolstering some of our processes that happen much earlier than that, so that species don't become at risk. We have to really focus on prevention and on species of special concern with monitoring and understanding at the regional scale, as Harvey just talked about, including how we might be able to fit all of these needs together, because the trade-offs are becoming more stark. We have to be thinking about biodiversity at large and not just species at risk.
I'm going to leave it at that and see whether my colleagues have anything to add.