Hallelujah to Lisa's sentiment.  A reference to realism.   The prospect of
distrust is the result that I find most environmentally damaging.  If we do
not have a continued trust in environmentalism - especially where the work
against rather than with communities, then we risk making environmental
gains.  That is how the unethical stance of some groups can entrench the
ethics of others - by giving them the excuse to dismiss ALL environmental
claims.

I feel the urge to tell a story.  Recently NZ worked on its Biodiversity
Strategy.  It started in 1996 when yours truly was the forestry policy guy
on the officials group (before I got out in 98) and we had a great stoush
with Treasury who wanted an assurance of "no fiscal implications" before we
had even started.  A number of us pointed out that starting from conclusions
might be the way Treasury economists work, but it seemed to pre-empt science
and policy analysis just a trifle (I guess they were doing their job).
There was the usual rounds of interminable policy meetings, and people
writing papers, and stakeholder processes where community concerns were
canvassed etc.  Then a draft strategy was produced, with a regional roadshow
and submission round etc.  It was all looking reasonable in my view - there
was a shift to working with the community and an acknowledgement that the
biggest biodiversity bangs for the few bucks were not isolated to more pest
control in the "preserved" Department of Conservation estate (35% or so of
our land area).  Private land management was a big         There were many
industry people who felt that biodiversity was not their concern, and that
DOC could deal with it "over there" - and on the other side there were those
that I shall call "preservationists" who emphasised DOC as well as dumping
on any private land owner within reach, with an obvious eye to increasing
the "preserved estate" (meaning take it out of farmers hands and fence it
off).  Fencing it off and removing human interaction (besides observation of
course) is a particular obsession with both DOC and some preservation
groups - and it is a useful option in many situations - but they cannot seem
to see beyond it.  If you have something significant on your land - then all
sorts of legal mechanisms come to bear (through the use of the Resource
Management Act in particular) to remove the extractive human association.

Anyway, all this policy making process was a credit to those involved -
reasonable people debating and openly discussing issues - and, though we had
a right wing govt. of whom I was no friend (nor a friend to most doing the
work I would assume), they didn't interfere much at all (if at all - I can't
recall an instance - other than their indirect minions from treasury who
seemed to be in hand because we kept going back to the facts).  Then came
the election, and as well as the policy on the hoof of the West Coast
issue - there suddenly appeared a number of other objectives put into the
final Strategy when released that had been widely canvassed and - well -
rejected (or so we thought).  They were premised on my favourite premise
that human use was incompatible with environmental protection.  The result
is that you throw your whole desk full of paper at the ceiling and say
"what's the point?!!  Polemics always wins".

Anyway, the effect of this small illustration, as well as the continuing DOC
attitude of working against rather than with farmers etc, is that there is
the makings of an impasse.  In my humble opinion, many people on the land
appear willing to acknowledge environmental issues, and would be amenable to
changing land management practices SO LONG as that does not mean they have
to cease! - despite the fact that there are obviously
environmentally-unfriendly farmers  It needs a mix of the carrot and the
stick, while the preservationists only see the stick.  It is (IMHO) the
preservation orientated environmentalists - many with extreme views on
humanity's place on this planet who are the major antagonistic force.

There was a poem written in a farmers journal recently that illustrates the
lack of trust.

Biodiversity - bio What?
This has the smell of a greenie plot
A clever ploy to take over our land
hoping like hell that we don't understand
the full intent of this devious scheme
handed to us on a tablet of green.
They'll come to your land, they always trespass,
they're the sneaky green movement, they never ask.
"You have something significant",
they'll tell all of us.
"It'll have to be fenced, now please don't fuss!"
And there could be a rare snail further along,
so no top dressing from now on.
It's exciting to find a bug or a beetle,
and far more important that feeding our people.
That gully yonder looks rather unique,
and was that a lizard we spied by the creek.
It will have to be fenced, that's what you must do,
to protect these poor insects, never mind about you.
You must understand, it's a very good cause,
and DoC needs more land to grow broom and gorse.
But we'll help with the cost, we'll put in our chip,
and all that we'll want is joint ownership.
And soon you'll realise with a degree of alarm,
the Greenies have got your whole bloody farm.

>From Rita Dymock of Maruia, Nelson

Who is willing to suggest that the preservationist attitudes of SOME
environmentalists does not contribute to this point of view?  Accountability
in the environmental community is vital if we are to achieve environmental
outcomes.  And most people do not differentiate a moderate environmental
group that accommodates humanity with another that does not.

The attitude of the West Australian Conservation and Land Management dept
(CALM) is in direct contrast to NZ DOC.  The former identifies
environmentally significant areas, and then appears to develop a land owners
OWNERSHIP of that environmental value - to the extent that it will be the
land owner who takes a trailer of nesting material to the buzzard in the
back paddock (at least you'd think so if you read the CALM newsletters).

It is ETHICS that changes land management practices - and that requires
TRUST.   It also means that you HAVE to work WITH communities, who are
INTEGRAL to the whole ETHICAL process.  Telling porkies does not do that.
It does the REVERSE..

Chris Perley

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask]
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Friday, 28 July 2000 05:44
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Greenpeace U.S.A.
>
>
> The problem I see it as, it is just as unethical. It is not to
> difficult to
> hunt
> down the truth. I think this a mistake for greenepeace to act this way.
> Implementing fear mongering is no more as healthy for people as,
> it is for a
> company to pollute. If things are going to be ethical, NGO's should be
> concerned
> with ethical practices and participating in these practices as
> well. Double
> standards have no go implications in this case. The fact is, if
> people find
> out they have no basis for what they are trying to say and do then who is
> really going to listen to them, after the public realizes what's
> going on.
> Real change, requires truth, integrety, and the finding out of
> what's really
> going on.  If companies are lying on EIA's, then that should be
> an issue, but
> it should have proof as such is happening.
>



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%