New Zealanders have an opportunity to share their thoughts on what the country's biodiversity strategy should be over the next fifty years. Submissions are due 28 February, 2019 to the Department of Conservation. The submission form (here) has several questions on it. Below are my answers. If you care about biodiversity in New Zealand, take time to make your own submission. You are free to "borrow" some of my thoughts if you want, but please reword them.
Why does biodiversity
matter to you and your community?
I think for a lot of people, biodiversity matters mostly
because they’ve been told it should matter. Few people have actually put much
thought into this, and some don’t even know what biodiversity means. Most of
our agricultural industry, which is the economic backbone of New Zealand, is much
more interested in monocropping and growing/raising conforming plants and
animals (they’re easier to manage and harvest) than encouraging biodiversity
because having a little of everything is not easily managed, and not very
profitable. That said, biodiversity is hugely important because an ecosystem is
made stronger when it is made up of a diverse range of bioforms, rendering it
capable of withstanding environmental stresses.
What does
biodiversity mean to you? What other words would you use to describe
biodiversity?
The definition of biodiversity is “the variety of plant and
animal life in the world or in a particular habitat, a high level of which is
desirable.” New Zealand’s conservationists seem to have hijacked this word by
inserting “indigenous” or “endemic” or “native” into the definition (often
implied). The natural world, however, isn’t at all concerned with where a species
came from—that’s a societal construct that enables people to label some species
as more desirable than others. Such value judgments create the concept of
“good” and “bad” plants and animals, which implies humans have the right (indeed,
some would say obligation) to step in and manage them by nurturing the desired
ones, and killing the undesired ones. As a nation of farmers and gardeners,
with a farming and gardening mentality, this comes as little surprise. Me? I
like the proper definition better. I think we DO need biodiversity, especially
in our wild spaces, and without the “indigenous” constraint. I love to see what
Mother Nature does to repair and create life in all of the various ecological
niches using all of the many species she has on hand to work with. Nature is
not static. Monocrops are not natural. Limiting the number of species in an
ecosystem is not natural and makes it less resilient, less healthy. New Zealand
is blessed with many unique species, but an appreciation of biodiversity does
not mean to me that only those unique species that we claim as indigenous (or
profitable, and fenced) should have value and a right of protection.
What are your
aspirations for biodiversity in New Zealand?
I would like to see New Zealand’s natural spaces allowed to
be natural, without man’s interference. I would like to see recognition and
appreciation for all living things without judgement. I would like to see
Nature’s creativity encouraged, with evolution and change being recognized not as
something to be fought against, but as processes to be understood and
appreciated. I would like to see all plants and animals, not just indigenous
ones, valued and understood for the roles they fill in creating and sustaining
an ecosystem. I would like to see more “bottom up” science where natural
ecosystems are studied and understood without fear-mongering, media-hype, political
agendas, and interventions.
What kinds of goals
or objectives should a strategy aim to achieve?
The most important goal is to make New Zealand a safe,
wholesome place to live where the joys, delights, wonders, and beauties of
nature are accessible to everyone, and where people come to understand that
they are part of nature, not the bosses over it. The “clean, green” motto is a
worthy aspiration/goal. To do that, we need to get chemicals and poisons out of
our ecosystem, and stop our reliance on the “quickest, cheapest fix”. Indeed,
we need to stop trying to “fix” Nature. She isn’t broken. It is time for a new
paradigm. Pull the money out of chemicals and poisons, invest it in education
and parks and access to what we already have. Encourage the establishment of
new wild places. Urban/suburban parks, which are managed, are good too, as
places near towns and cities where people can interact with nature. Let the dog
run, kids climb trees and play cricket, as well as discover plants, thrill at
the sight of a kaka, a pheasant, a hare, a swath of manuka in bloom, a Monarch
butterfly. Plantings of both natives and exotics can enhance barren areas, and
in well-used parks these, of course, need some ongoing maintenance. Build
biodiversity by allowing a wide range of plants and animals to intermingle and
interact. Watch. Observe. Put more money into “bottom-up” science funding for
understanding how species interact and affect their environment, less on
management. We know too little, and assume too much.
What are the key
challenges facing biodiversity that you think a new strategy needs to address?
The biggest challenge is changing the existing management
paradigm and mindset with its war-like seek and destroy mission aimed at
invasive plants and animals, and the over-handed management of indigenous
species—e.g., regular handling of wild birds and handicapping them with radio
collars or planting indigenous plants in places no longer optimum for them due
to climate change or human terraforming. This means also means back-tracking on
the “Predator Free” initiative (which will never happen) without losing face.
It means trying to retain jobs and budgets while redirecting funds to more
positive uses. Changing these attitudes and ways of doing things both within
DoC, and within the minds of the general public, is an enormous task.
There are some unique native species in New Zealand that
need special protection. Offshore islands and areas like Zealandia with
predator-proof fences do not create truly “natural” areas, but they are
important for the protection of some of our most vulnerable species and
certainly superior to zoos with cages. More areas like these are an excellent
direction for resources.
Scientifically, more bottom-up observational science of the
inter-relationships within any given ecosystem is essential, and keeping the
public educated and informed through media. Overseas, for example, we are
learning of the extraordinary loss of insect life that forms a foundation food
source for many species. Is that being studied here? What effect does the use
of poison (both herbicides and pesticides) have on our insects? Or, what about
water quality? If our ponds, lakes, streams, estuaries, and shorelines are
contaminated by farm runoff, urban sewerage outflows, and the use of
agricultural chemicals, herbicides and poisons, what run-on effect does this
have on our biodiversity? And what steps do we need to take to stop or at least
mitigate the harm?
Do you have examples
of successful biodiversity management in your area?
I live on the Kapiti Coast, and there is a strong environmental
interest here. We have many parks and fine places to walk with good paths
through natural-seeming areas. Many local people participate in beach clean-ups
and indigenous plantings. These are positive things. Personally, I believe
herbicides like Roundup and pest poisons like brodifacoum are way over-used,
and some individuals are over-zealous in their approach to natives--I remember
a few years back a when a lot of native plants were removed after being identified
as not actually indigenous to the Kapiti coast per se. Again, this comes back to the definition of biodiversity.
Strictly speaking, any limiting of species in an area goes against the true
meaning of biodiversity.
What would it take to
make a strategy meaningful to you? What is the best format for it—a document,
website, etc?
Meaningful? Whatever strategy is taken, it has meaning for
me because I care about the environment, our land, our water, our ecosystems, and
our planet. Personally, I use a computer quite a lot, and both PDF documents
and websites are useful for information, but “meaningful” implies something
more—it implies, perhaps, “I care”. I will care about an official biodiversity
strategy and support it if it aligns with my personal values (e.g., “first, do no harm”).
Can you help to
develop a title / analogy for the New Zealand biodiversity strategy?
Clean water, clean air, clean forests. Valuing all life in
its many forms. Compassionate conservation. Allowing evolution to happen.
Other Comments