Another report: Aotearoa New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy, the Implementation Plan. As someone who pays attention, I have about lost track of all the government reports on the environment that have come out of late. There are reports on reports, reports on court cases, but all are basically saying much the same thing - the environment is in ongoing decline, if not collapse.
It is not easy to determine how all the reports hang together or what they are expected to achieve. There are more reports on the horizon: Resource Management Act, Conservation and Wildlife Acts, National Parks Act, Trade in Endangered Species Act, to name a few. Nor can we do any of these reforms in isolation from the rest of the world. We must take into account the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN Convention on the Rights of Indigenous People.
Even for the layperson passionate about the natural world, it is pretty near impossible to keep up with it all. We are dependent upon ministers of the Crown, the Green Party, Greenpeace, Forest & Bird, Ornithological Society of NZ, Local and Regional Councils, not forgetting the media nor the Treaty of Waitangi--to keep us informed.
What have they achieved these last 50 years, the greater part of my adult consciousness? Some legislation and more and more paperwork?
I applauded local government when it decided to plant native trees rather than exotics in gardens but was confounded when they decided to exterminate the rook, Corvus frugilegus, something condoned by all of the above, by their simply remaining silent or their being “comfortable” about it. How do these decisions come about? With the help of requisite science one would hope and assume, and some sort of forward planning, some sort of direction from the government of the day, sadly lacking in a lot of decision making.
Many of these recent reports have come about because, according to the Parliamentary Commission for the Environment, there are considerable gaps in the data about the environment. ‘How can one give policy direction when one doesn’t know what is going on out there?’ As an example, regional councils, Department of Conservation, Manaaki Whenua and the Ornithological Society of New Zealand all carry out bird monitoring on public and private land using different methods. Although these different methods are used for a reason, the result is that it is not possible to build a consistent and up-to-date picture of the distribution and abundance of birds across the country.
In my perambulations around my back yard and in walking my dog around this small rural town where I live, I notice that there are few if any snails or slugs in my back yard, no huhu beetles, the bug bear of my childhood and youth, no stick insects, and so few moths attracted to the lights at night. I ask myself whether this is happening elsewhere. I’m no scientist but just how difficult is it to get and compile baseline data? Surely one can get schools to incorporate data collection in their science lessons. Not all schools, but just a number of strategically sited schools around the country collecting data on invertebrates, birds, water quality, etc., with perhaps one person in the Ministry to compile and disperse. How hard is that?
All of these people working, making a living, in the sphere of the “environment”, who by their own admission, by their published reports, have accomplished next to nothing in the last 50 years. What do they have to say for themselves? Who is going to hold them to account? Where are the dissenting voices from this group speak? The smug environmental establishment seems to have insulated itself from criticism, by condemning those who do attempt to speak out against the prevailing orthodoxy.
Conserving the environment or exploiting it? Even the revered David Attenborough has been accused of betraying the natural world when for so many years he remained silent about the destruction of the world he purports to love. Was he exploiting the environment as much as any mining company, tourist operator, or farmer? Are not those variously working in the environmental domain all exploiting the natural world?
The prevailing view is that indigenous people, Maori, are the real champions of biodiversity and holders of intimate knowledge and solutions to environmental collapse. Is the Maori way significantly different from the Pakeha? I have enormous respect for Dame Anne Salmond who has written extensively in this area but I am not convinced. Maori and Pakeha both, in my view, exploit natural resources, as a recent court case over commercial concessions and the sad fate of half the Te Urewera Kokako population wiped out by a lack of predator control has revealed. Customary use right has long been a bone of contention. What can I say but that chicken stuffed with miro berries is as good as kereru, or so I am told. I am not opposed to the Conservation Estate being devolved to Maori. There are good reasons why that should happen, but not I hope before Maori’s commercial interests and guardianship roles are clearly defined.
So, what to do? I have little faith that Predator Free 2050 will accomplish much. Why Barn owls, which have managed to get to NZ of their own accord, have not been considered as bioagents to control rats and mice confounds me. Fenced mainland islands like Zealandia and offshore islands are the way to go, even though it seems we are confining our wildlife to zoos of a sort. Culling is of course necessary but done by professionals, not a lot of amateurs running around, some of whom use it as an opportunity to eliminate their pet hates. Unless we have a programme to drastically reduce the use of pesticides, as proposed by the UN Convention on Biodiversity, then it will accomplish little. The Hazardous Substances part of the Ministry for the Environment seems to do little but approve every chemical under the sun, and the harm to invertebrates and vertebrates alike are rarely mentioned in all the reports churned out --although some attention is now being paid to plastics.
There is a growing sense among those of us bleeding for the natural world that what is needed is a paradigm shift in the way we live our lives and produce our food. The habit of economic growth persists with it’s extractive and exploitative demands. There are hopeful signs out there but unless we make a concerted effort, then the usual suspects of war, plague and famine will force that paradigm shift upon us.
Comments