the nearest of horizons...

New Zealand seems to have forgotten there is a future

Our leadership and our expectations of the leadership are slipping and vision seems an absent friend these days. New Zealand has an international reputation for being alternative and forward thinking.

We were the first in the world to give women the vote, and women have been powerful catalysts for change and innovation ever since. The idea of a female CEO, a female principal or indeed a female prime minister is still ridiculous in some countries of the world and we did it early, we did it well and it's just normal.

We (Lord Rutherford) split the atom, a profound step for science...but when the rest of the world sought to use that and subsequent technology for nuclear weapons and power generation, we said "hell no!". We said no because we did not think they were safe, the weapons were too powerful and the ability to generate nuclear power was only two short shuffles for the weaponry aspect. So we just said no as the steinlager ad proclaims, and the horror of the Japanese quake and matters since surrounding the Fukushima nuclear plant maybe proves we had a point.

There are dozens of other examples of where we have done it our way, and we have lost that vision and willingness to be unpopular. The grey-faced National Government are a major contributor to this, with their charisma-free governance that turns on the die of filthy lucre and rubbing their rich mates backs. We seem to have forgotten we have a future, and that the quality of that future is dependant on the choices we make now.

Our leaders make decisions at all levels of government that look to the nearest of horizons, with little regard for what programmes really make a future. Youth development, family support, mass transport and environmental programmes suffer for the sake of major roading upgrades that promise to be largely defunct in the post carbon society that is imminent.

Tertiary education institutions; hotbeds of research and innovation no longer allow their academics and students to focus on original contributions to knowledge. Instead they, like staff at research institutions, must regularly prostitute themselves to private enterprise at the expense of full focus on what they do best.

High schools now grapple with the ill-concieved National Standards that follow the PC bollocks of NCEA that teaches our young that failure can be avoided by repetition and short-sheeting your education. Teachers face the same horrendous class sizes, and their ever growing role in trying to keep the next cohort of sprogs from going to the dogs continues to inflate.

The governance is shallow of New Zealand, and it seems that it is largely because the populous is. We sit back and don't seem to notice our country is being run like a dot.com by suits with the vision of a chopping board. The government would appear to justify anything with money, and that's because it's bloody easy to do. The best ideas aren't always the least costly, the worst ideas often turn the highest profit and maybe, just maybe, a calculator should not be the chief decision making tool.

So what do we need? We need a leader and a political party in charge with VISION...not some hackneyed song book that already buried us in crap two decades ago. The other side have the charisma of a tea towel in large part and should probably let half their gang out to pasture and then try again. The Greens and Maori party are well intentioned, but haven't the numbers, the panache or the resources to contest as a major party. They just get to choose what idiots they work with, hopefully more wisely this time. Oh and Winston Peters might be back (don't cheer too loud) and when Rodney Hide returns from paternity leave (god help us all) he's going to contest too, all yellow jacket and misplaced ego.

Slim pickings folks....slim pickings....

Not that one, or that one either...

I read a report the other day that applied to a proposed development. It was the most tiresome twaddle, that systematically deconstructed an ecosystem and attested to just what parts the other parts could do without. Each component was substituted or substitutable, allow me to demonstrate:

1. Riparian vegetation
Ecologists know the importance of vegetation on streambanks. Its very simple...vegetation grows and holds things together, like soil. Without vegetation, high flows or even normal flows tend to take said soil with them. And the soil is not industriously trucked back by powerful fairies, it is lost to another part of the system.

Further, indigenous riparian vegetation drops leaves (senescence, a great word and neat process of shedding bits you don't need - the diet kings would love to copy it!). Said leaves etc are called detritus and they form the basis of most food chains, which is lovely. Because, in the most academic of terms, you can't have many big things, without lots and lots of little things.

Cretinous report writer however, attested that riparian vegetation removal and subsequent channelisation of a stream would not only 'create valuable space for other land uses' but would also make the site less 'messy'. So there you go, humus = 0, cretin = 1. But wait theres more...

2. Fish habitat
Many of our waterways are choked with all manner of things, including invasive pest fish. But indigenous species hang on in good numbers in many spots. This was one of them. But cretin said we dont need this particular type of habitat and the fish could be removed and located to a stream 4km away. Thereby justifying the fish barrier that the development would install, on top of the channelisation of the stream.

Ok, so we dont need riparian vegetation, and we dont need fish. Right, what else can we shed?

3. Hillside vegetation
A kanuka cloaked hillside is a common site in this country. There are a number of reasons that fragments like it exist. First because some well-meaning citizen, once upon a time, set some aside and decided not to burn/cut or erase in some other fashion all of it down. Nice. Secondly because it is 'just scrub' that got away. Third because the hill is just too damn steep. Fourth because it belongs to DoC or some other means of having reservation status. And finally, purely by accident and subject to change at any time.

Anyway, should it persist it better not have a cretin in charge of writing about it. The git proceeded to explain that it was an 'area of trees' (wow, two points!) that had limited habitat values as there were no endangered species in it. No falcons, no green geckos, no Bengal tigers of any kind. Bugger. Anyhoo, as a result of not harbouring the last population of Great Spotted Giant Things or some such it was, in its 23.4ha glory, all rather expendable having "limited to no value".

And there were other bits and reasons they be removed with a blatant lack of reasonable review, coherent discussion or counter assertions to make the whole report seem robust. But the point was, that you could argue to destroy any one part of any ecosystem. And he did, and he won...and its gone. And that irks me...

This is not a punishment....

At this time New Zealand is in the grip of our biggest natural disaster in many, many decades. A powerful earthquake shook the major southern city of Christchurch just two days ago and flung the entire country into turmoil. A substantial relief effort is running against the clock to rescue well over two hundred people still believed to be missing, and we have sadly already lost 98. It is a disaster on a scale unprecedented in living memory, and there is not a kiwi in the world not feeling the weight of the tragedy.

Most of us sit glued, resolute, to news footage and radio broadcasts and general conversations about the magnitude of what we are in the midst of. Knowing that we'll recount the events of this week for generations to come, the emotion is palpable whenever it is mentioned. For the people (nearly 400,000) in Christchurch, their battles are immediate, life-threatening and in some cases, virtually insurmountable. May they stay as strong as strong can be and know we are all with them.

Many radio stations have taken on the admirable task of fielding calls from those in and outside the city. Some hysterically trying to locate loved ones still unaccounted for. Others ring to vent at the indiscretions of a nameless few that loot and vandalise in the worst of times. Others call using the radio network as a vital organisational tool for the distribution of donated food, water and goods. Still others call with tales of hope and strength that boost the audience, some of which will be sitting, exhausted and miserable in the debris they once called home. It is addictive broadcasting. But some calls have irked me.....

One chap rang today and said that Christchurch was feeling God's wrath (didnt say why?). Another said we are 'asking for it' building on a fault line. And yet another insightful individual attested that natures fury was upon us and we ought to just walk away. All three spiked my blood pressure due to their sheer insensitivity and timing, but the last one hurt. First because we have world class rescuers working around the clock to have to do anything but walk away. But second because it implied that nature has an intention....a maligned purpose to destroy humans.

The truth is, despite in some instances of it probably being wholly justified, nature does not act in such ways. It does not regard entities as enemies and friends. It is a complex system of interacting parts, processes and transformations of each that carries on whether we are there or not. Of course many of our actions cause great change to those elements, but nature is not a force to be angered. It is not a God that deals out punishment. And it certainly did not target the people of Christchurch. It is ridiculous to suggest so, barely 48 hours on and amid so much fear and misery that it is anything of the sort.

Nature is as nature does and the beautiful Garden City is not being punished. Two plates slid against each other....a sudden movement...a burst of energy....and a quake rocked our world. That simple...mindless rants ought to stay off the airwaves....most unhelpful

to fight and fade or engage and trade...

Those of the conservation persuasion are often idealists. Those that contend that a small amount of progress is good, but not near enough. We implore the masses to try that much harder to achieve utopian outcomes. Not utopian because they are inherently unreasonable or philosophically shaky - but utopian because the likelihood of their achievement is so confounded by the brutal context of modern development.

I come across this all the time in my research into environmental compensation, policy effectiveness and tradeability of natural values. There is a spectrum of perspectives on the offsetting of environmental damage. On one hand, there are those ardently opposed to the concept of treating nature as a commodity or worse, a checker on a checkerboard. This 'camp' tends to contend the following:
- nature is unique and any area of remote significance to the protection of biodiversity (read: almost everywhere) should be utterly devoid of human development. Anything less than total prohibition is selling out.
- offsetting loss of natural values is not only undesirable but nigh-on impossible. Establishing equivalency of exchanges is too uncertain and too damn hard.
- That the ultimate alternative to any undesirable activity should be to do nothing: to proceed far far away or not at all.

On the opposite side of the spectrum (keeping in mind the swathe of shades of grey in between) there are those that enthusiastically spout of the opportunities that compensation presents. The desperately underfunded conservation organisations (non government, government and otherwise) note the possibilities of tapping into private sector resources to achieve positive conservation outcomes. Regulatory agencies see light at the end of the arduous tunnel of negotiating the oxymoronic strands of sustainable development. Private sector eyes light up at the idea of the opportunity to leverage public favour and a smoother ride through the quagmire of resource management litigation.

And each side alternates in it's dominance. The former perspective, although noble, appears in practice to be old-fashioned, preservationist and largely non-constructive. It runs into deep difficulty when one considers the importance of the rights to utilise private land to fulfil private aspirations. It is more richly applied when such private interests see value gleaming in the public realm.

The second perspective is perhaps more pragmatic, but often bereft of an ability to consider the spatially specific importance of an ecological context and the intrinsic values thereof. The notion that everything is tradeable acorss space does, in all fairness, fly in the face of sound ecological science. And this perspective has been shown in theory and in practice to lead to skewed and ineffectual outcomes, based more on achieving consensus than success.

So, the debate will rage on. Some activities are, by their very nature, adverse in effect on natural ecosystems. Subdivision of open space, damming of rivers, construction of wind turbine fields, mining and other extraction activities, industrial activities like processing and refining, and any number of other examples. The residual effects can (purportedly) in some cases, reasonably be offset but what of the justification?

First you must justify why the activity proceeding free of restriction is not reasonable. Is it significant? What is significant and where do you draw the line? On the other hand, aren't areas that are not of significance important for biodiversity to provide buffers, connectivity and the like? Does that not make just about everything significant? And is that fair and why?

Once the common ground of this is established (i.e. we think it is 'this much' significant) then the contention becomes the reasonableness of proceeding with the proposed activity. Another opportunity for fighting as the decision is made whether the proposal be abandoned, scaled down or somehow offset.

Then, should option 3 be entered into, what then? How much is a reasonable offset and how much does it depend on external pressures for its scale, timing and likely success? And once established, how do you protect it so that the gain is as certain as the loss?

On reflection, it would seem to me that environmental compensation demands not only astute policy, nor simply robust scientific metrics, but rather a profound and fundamental decision on behalf of human kind. Do we want outcomes for biodiversity in the context of sustainable development that are 'good' or just 'good enough'? And to what extent does downgrading our aspirations to good enough mean that the current unsupportive context negates the possible positives? Are we resorting to more symbolic policies or making a genuine commitment to retaining the full suite of biodiversity and ecosystem function?

Conversely, is the desire to stop everything (except on Tuesdays between 4 and 6) counter productive? Is the cultivation of an adversarial approach to biodiversity protection retarding our ability to integrate resource management? Is there not some value in reasonable engagement with those embarking upon resource use to help to mould approaches, rather than just fight them? Or is the fear of selling out and downgrading too pervasive to see this happen in some instances?

It could be that our failures (repeated that they are) to 'sustainably manage', 'sustainably develop' or 'wisely use' (which ever moniker takes your fancy) biological resources is less about shaky policy, lax laws and poor resourcing than it is about a fundamental mismatch of expectations. These two sides of the spectrum have profoundly disparate and irreconcible views and discourse on the relative values of resistance and collaboration is sorely needed....

triage ward in Godzone

Protecting the vulnerable is an underpinning tenet of not just conservation, but movements to recognise and protect human rights, provision of welfare systems and nets in modern society, and is often a charismatic angle of the above and other ventures.

A natural affinity to things that are rare, special, remote or vulnerable is often tapped into very effectively by conservationists. New Zealand boasts an unfortunately comprehensive array of species who fit these parameters and triage conservation could well cast a critical eye over our efforts to drag species and ecosystems back from the brink that are arguably poked.

Most of our species that are classified as being in serious trouble now have a perverse reliance upon the actions of humans to ensure their persistence. Far from self-propelled ongoing evolution and spatial distribution changes, our takahe, kakapo, kokako, Powelliphanta snails, and scores of others occupy another plane altogether.

Cuddled in boxes and shunted through airports, their geographic distribution is pure science with a militaristic edge. Dropped strategically from choppers often with dedicated minders these birds and others are being propped up by the ingenuity of the very species that deprived them of sufficient resilience to survive alone.

And the resources are significant to do so. Between 1080 to hold back the tide of mammalian predators from utterly destroying our ecological systems, and individual targeted endangered species management: the overworked and desperately underfunded DOC and NGO stalwarts have their work cut out for them.

When one considers the arguable futility of some of the efforts, the great cost of keeping bad things from mainland and sanctuary islands and the 'frozen in time' vulnerability of our fauna and flora...it is not then hard to ask the hard question. Why bother?

If the dumpy form of the takahe and kakapo cannot fight back to vicious stoats and ferrets then is that not just evolution in action? If the kokako cannot defend its nest from a plump possum who spies a tasty snack tweeting in the trees, then is its extinction not an inevitable, predictable and quite reasonable outcome? And if the kiwi chick jostling around in the Northland bush cannot scamper fast enough from the un-muzzled pig dog who decides to tear it apart in the name of afternoon tea, then is that not just survival of the fittest?

In purest terms....it is. Evolution is propelled by changes (often rapid) in abiotic and biotic characteristics including shifts in predator prey interactions. The sink or swim approach could possibly see the kakapo, kokako, and other species in desperate trouble simply left alone, the signicant resources for them promptly withdrawn.

So why persist?

In my view it is simply a question of ethics. Kokako did not one day wake up and note the presence of a pregnant ferret who somehow managed to float here on a raft. They woke up to a signicant and sustained (and thoroughly purposeful) series of introductions of species to make NZ look a little more like bonny England. And whether or not the people doing that had any idea of what they were doing and what the implications would be is a moot point but no matter...

We have what we have, and conservation in New Zealand must persist with the vulnerable on an ethical basis if nothing else. We are one the worlds 28 biodiversity hotspots with a level of endemism virtually comparable to Madagascar and have much that we must save not just for ourselves, but for the rest of the planet.

Biodiversity underpins ecological function and resilience, and the sum of the parts is far greater than the percieved value of any one element. So...we push on...for the sake of every kakapo that fancies a chopper ride....and so we should.

Use 2011 wisely....

Most wetlands do not look like they matter. Bog, drain, swamp, fen, moor, quagmire, marsh and mire variations dot our landscapes right around the world. Recognised as some of the most productive ecosystems on the planet, they sustain lives and lifecycles we can only begin to understand.

In 1971, their critical importance was recognised as the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Significance came into being. Today it is signed by the majority of nations and recognises nearly 2000 amazing examples of these environments. New Zealand itself boasts six such sites.

In 2011, this is the fortieth anniversary of this recognition and a crucial year in which to take stock of the plight of these environments. To what extent are we maintaining, enhancing and protecting them, to ensure their persistence which is inextricably linked to the persistence of so many species and processes? Anecdotally, it is probably fair to say that they remain unsung in their importance at smaller scales and their recognition remains a battle.

Why so?

First that they are not tall and beautiful like forests, nor stark white and ocean-side like beaches, or magestic like mountain ranges. Very often they simply sit on the fence between land and sea and slink through legislative and social awareness nets as the 'bits in between', sometimes not being seen as beautiful enough to save. They lack appeal to many.

Second that they are often highly fertile and are or border some of the most productive land in any area they are in. It is therefore inordinately tempting to drain them and put some cows on them...or a crop....or perhaps just bury the rubbish in them. They are just so wonderfully placed and useful.

Thirdly (and I am sure there's more)is that they appear simple. An area of saltmarsh for example, to the untrained eye, would appear similar in complexity to a swatch of kikuyu on a hillside. That is not true of course; the interaction of a plethora of biotic and abiotic conditions and processes have beautifully combined to create these unique and highly specialised habitats. And if something is seen as simple, it is automatically ascribed less value, on the false assumption that something so 'simple' can be recreated, or done without entirely.

So, 2011 is the year to embrace a challenge. Carry the purpose of Ramsar through into the smaller scales of conservation and environmental management in each jurisdiction around the globe. In accordance with a central pillar of Ramsar which is the 'wise use' principle, defined as:

"the maintenance of their ecological character, achieved through the implementation of ecosystem approaches, within the context of sustainable development".

Let's see what we can do with that....

2011.....a new year of old goals...

So it's 2011...a fresh new year of opportunities await each of us. Several billion humans scurry about over a planet that has not or will not get any larger, or more capable of supporting any more life. All of us wish to improve our lot and rise ever higher each day...but we need to be mindful of our impact in aggregate. And that's the crux of the idea of worldeternal as a concept....as a movement...and hopefully one day as an organisation (a pipe dream perhaps, but only time will tell).

Worldeternal is about understanding that this is where we live, and (NASA aside) where we are likely to live for a long time yet. It is about treating Earth like our own backyard instead of a musty hotel room. Acknowledging that we are here to stay and living within the limits. All this is old fashioned ecology, the grating birth of a discipline that drives so many of us to advocate for the protection of nature, the sustainable use of resources, and accountability for those that don't play the game.

Worldeternal is about the recognition that we are not passing through, and our decisions should be based on an assumption that we need this planet, we need functioning ecosystems, we need the full suite of biodiversity...that these things are not 'nice-to-haves', but the fundamental building blocks of our persistence as a species, and the persistence of all others.

So what does this mean? Well many things...but for starters....

It means that neoliberal economics must confront it's fallacies and undeclared assumptions that drive so much of the world's worst environmental damage. It means that the continued expansion of agriculture, rampant urbanisation, and the population growth rate must slow and cease and (in most cases) retreat. It means that precious parts of the globe must be protected, put away and not decimated where there is a buck to be made. It means that species protection must be an ethical venture, not a cost-based triage decision.

It means the responsibility to curtail our needs and wants (and accurately demarcate these) becomes the responsibility of each individual, community and country and it must be given urgent attention. The science says stop, society says slow, and economics tells us to ramble on, business as usual. I suggest we somehow meld the first two and put the latter one to bed....