The recent declarations of a climate emergency convey the sense of urgency to safeguard our human world.
However, there has been a habitat emergency unfolding for many decades in the natural world.
We may be more critically affected by habitat decline now than we are by climate change, yet the two are inextricably linked, and we cannot have an 'emergency' in one and not the other.
Simply put, we have not made the connection that biodiversity sustains life, our lives and our livelihoods.
Take the oceans. Sir David Attenborough recently said in Our Planet: "A functioning ocean is vital to the health of our planet and humanity."
Yet we continue to damage and destroy the resilience of our seas globally, and New Zealand is doing this on a gigantic scale.
According to Government reports, each year millions of tonnes of sediment pour from our land, and a blitzkrieg of heavy trawl gear hits millions of kilometres of seabed habitat.
Fragile, long-lived habitats, which capture carbon, process nutrients, and provide havens for life are disappearing rapidly, and more estuaries are tipping into ecologically degraded states.
Government and councils are legitimising these activities, even though we have signed international agreements, passed legislation, and have a sea of policy that says all the right things.
The reason is a systemic implementation failure. Our institutions are paralysed by the status quo.
In effect, this is 'state-enabled vandalism', to paraphrase the famous words of Professor JT Salmon, describing the extensive clear-felling of old-growth native forest last century.
Fortunately, we have the opportunity to take back our ecosystems and protect our habitats. There are three important decisions to be made this winter.
The first is a Court of Appeal case to determine the roles of regional councils and Fisheries NZ in managing biodiversity. The Motiti Rohe Moana Trust and Marlborough District Council are fighting to protect living biogenic habitats and reefs under Section 6 of the Resource Management Act.
The Government and fishing interests oppose this, arguing that only the Fisheries Act should manage biodiversity and protect habitats. Behind the scenes, some regional councils support this, as they do not want to spend ratepayer funds identifying and protecting habitats in our coastal waters.
If the Government loses, fishing companies may be required to submit resource consent applications demonstrating that they have identified, and will avoid, these life-supporting habitats.
The question for Environment Canterbury, Auckland Council and Nelson City is whether they support the protection and restoration of carbon-sequestering biogenic habitats under their jurisdiction? A climate 'emergency' may mean co-investment with Government and the fishing industry in seabed habitat mapping.
As Sir David said: "If we continue to harvest the seas in this way, it is not just fisheries that will collapse, the whole ocean system could follow."
The second decision is the review of the National Environment Standard for Plantation Forestry. This is only two years old and is already a failure, as it does not require replanting management plans to avoid erosion-prone gullies and steep faces, thereby perpetuating unsustainable erosion.
The third decision involves us all. The Department of Conservation will shortly release discussion papers for the next national Biodiversity Strategy, along with the draft National Policy Statement for Biodiversity on Private Land under the Resource Management Act.
These documents need to be transformational. If they are not, then no amount of nice talk about climate change or habitat emergencies is going to change what we have now.
This transformation does not have to come at the cost of the sustainability of industries and local communities. We can have a healthier cake and eat it too, if we follow principles similar to these:
- · Fish without damage
- · Hold sediment at source
- · Whoever damages habitats pays to restore them for enduring outcomes
- · Whoever benefits from habitat use pays for research
- · We do not benefit from habitat decline beyond our borders
The transformation needs to fit within a just transitions framework, given the legacy of past public-funded incentives that have helped co-create the current situation.
Government needs to co-invest in new technologies with industry, and to facilitate the transition to new practices in a fair timeframe. It is time to re-imagine the Provincial Growth Fund.
If we are to tackle the climate emergency, we must address the habitat emergency too.
Our youth get this. Just as our young people led the call for action on climate emergency, they have also called for a Royal Commission on ocean management.
If we wish to provide them with better choices, we must elevate our concern for nature to the forefront of our wellbeing.
This is because we utterly depend on biodiversity to survive. The ecological functions that intact habitats provide include oxygen, carbon sequestration, biomass, energy, and above all – life itself.
This opinion piece by Lincoln University environmental management lecturer Dr Steve Urlich originally appeared on www.stuff.co.nz. Images; Stuff.co.nz
