Saturday, January 22, 2011

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.

Sunday, January 9, 2011

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....

Wednesday, January 5, 2011

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....