For all of you carrot lovers out there, here is a new song from Formidable Vegetable. For information on their new album Micro Biome and Australian tour dates, see their web page.
Why Our View and Approach Towards Invasive Species is Wrong
Every gardener is annoyed by weeds in their garden, and different gardeners often have very different approaches for controlling them. It’s not unusual for gardeners to have strong disagreements over weeds.
The Reasons for Having Weeds
Weeds are actually an important part of your garden’s ecosystem, and it’s impossible to get rid of them completely without damaging your garden. Many people mistakenly look at weeds in their neighbors garden, and think if their neighbor would just take care of them their own weed problem would go away.
The truth is most weeds come from seeds that are already in the ground, and have been there a very long time. Studies have shown weed seeds can survive in the ground hundreds of years or longer. As gardeners disturb the ground in their garden, they bring seeds up to the surface, which in turn grow.
All gardeners know that weeds don’t grow randomly, and it’s generally possible to identify 4-5 different weeds that account for the majority in their garden, and also that weeds favor different areas of the garden. There’s a very important reason for this. Weeds actually repair your garden.
For example, if you have too much nitrogen or potassium in your garden, stinging nettles may grow. As they grow, they will consume the nitrogen and potassium, and try to bring your garden into a healthier balance. You will get particular weeds if your soil is compacted, too wet, lacking nutrients, and so on. In each case the weeds will work to correct the imbalance or problems. Gardeners who use weed killer like Round Up in their gardens will notice they get Mare’s Tail, and this is for the same reason, to repair the damage caused by the chemical.
Repairing your garden with weeds alone is usually impractically slow. They are however very good as indicators. Letting some weeds grow, together with other organic methods, can be a very effective way of keeping your garden in balance, and over time weed problems tend to go away on their own.
On the other hand, if you keep fighting the weeds, you end up damaging your garden and you end up being unaware of fundamental problems that could possibly be easily corrected.
The View With Chemicals
People who use chemicals to control weeds in their garden sometimes have a completely distorted view of the world. The often blame the seeds blowing into their garden from nearby weeds as the source of their problem. They believe the best state of affairs is for all weeds to be destroyed, and only their desired plants to be growing. They often look further and further away from their garden.
Some gardeners even think some weeds are worse than others. For example nettles because they sting, or thistles because they prick you. I even knew a gardener that thought all yellow flowered weeds were bad. I guess because there was Round Up ready rape(canola) growing wild, and he had to pull this out by hand.
Some farmers have a similar view. For example, on one hand using chemicals to destroy a disease on their own crop, then looking for the same disease on neighboring (organic) crops and blaming those gardeners or farmers for causing the problem.
Invasive Species
The arguments are often mixed with racism. In fact the Dutch language has a term ‘alloctone’, that can refer to either an invasive species or a person of foreign origin. Some people even think it’s possible or desirable to completely eliminate invasive species, maybe with gene drives.
Of course reasonable steps should be taken to prevent invasive species from spreading.
The reality is invasive species are an indicator of very serious environmental problems that need to be addressed. There are natural methods for control, like introducing natural predators or commercial harvesting. Attempting to remove them completely in an unnatural way can’t be done without further damage to the ecosystem, and shouldn’t be attempted.
Kunming CBD Wish List
In October Convention of Biological Diversity delegates will travel to Kunming for the delayed Conference of the Parties. In the hope my opinion matters, here’s a wish list of what I think needs to be accomplished in order to stimulate biodiversity.
End Nagoya Protocol: This is so complex and theoretical that no one understands what it means. This has effectively stopped the legal transfer of genetic material between people, across many scientific disciplines, and has brought the work of many people to a complete standstill. Not only should this be ended, but there should be no replacement protocol considered.
End or Adjust Worldwide Plant Health Restrictions: I have not been able to identify any working document justifying these restrictions. There doesn’t seem to be any peer-reviewed research suggesting such overly broad restrictions will have an impact on plant health, nor do there seem to be any strategy documents detailing what is attempting to be accomplished. If there are true plant health risks, and some measured restrictions might be of help mitigating these risks, then restrictions might be justified. Where there are no risks, there should be no restrictions. Where there are risks, these should be clearly explained and restrictions justified. Above all else, these restrictions should be open for democratic discussion and debate.
DNA testing and seed sample collection cannot be justified for reasons of plant health, and these should be stopped. Above all else, stop lying. If it’s not for reasons of plant health, be honest about what it’s for.
Stop DNA testing of seeds without permission of grower: DNA testing of seeds has enormous privacy implications for people using those seeds, just like DNA testing of people does. There should be no databases or analysis of those seeds unless requested by the user.
Stop the Open Source Seed Initiative: Seeds and documentation have been collected for this under misleading circumstances, and the people providing this are not aware of the true consequences of their participation. Return these seeds to the public domain.
Return all genetic materials to the public domain: Genetic materials that have been collected under the auspices of the CBD have been done so under misleading circumstances. It’s unlikely very many people have given their materials up with fully informed consent. These materials have always existed in the public domain, and the CBD has no right to them. The rules the CBD have placed on these materials makes them unusable for a great many people who could otherwise be working seriously on the greatest existential crisis the world has ever faced, global warming and biodiversity loss. The CBD should either be helping people with their work, or get out of the way. In the current direction, the CBD is a substantial hindrance.
Before the CBD these materials were always considered in the public domain. Collections were maintained and paid for by the companies making profits from their exploitation, and everyone had the right to receive free samples. We need to return to a similar situation, combined with collections funded with taxes imposed on the wealthy.
Stop all administrative burden: There should be no administrative burden for using biodiversity. No sMTA’s, no registrations or declarations. Biodiversity belongs to everyone, and no one has the right to demand paperwork just in order to use it.
Stop all patents on life: Genes exist in nature. Collecting and editing these genes do not constitute invention or innovation. Genes are naturally occurring and should not be subject to patents. Patents give too much power to the patent holders. It’s a ridiculous situation that governments must fund the research leading to COVID vaccinations, then companies are allowed to patent them and restrict their manufacture and use. It gives too much power to pharmaceutical companies to overcharge patients and ignore unprofitable treatments, especially in places without universal health care. It’s unreasonable to expect people who work to promote biodiversity to contend with patent restrictions. We need to pay for this sort of R&D with taxes on the world’s wealthy, or simply find another way.
It’s very possible millions of people in the world may die because patents on COVID vaccinations might prevent their efficient manufacture and distribution in poor countries. This must not be allowed to happen, and in any case must never happen again.
No payments for biodiversity services: The expectation of such payments was probably a factor in Bolsonaro’s encouraging the destruction of the Amazon, and there should be no payments to him for stopping what he’s doing or reversing the damage. Such payments should be discussed and debated in a democratic way, and paid for from taxes on the wealthy. There should be no automatic mechanisms that might stimulate biodiversity loss.
Existential crisis: Above all else remember the world and it’s biodiversity are in a real crisis. We all know we need to do a lot more than just stopping the release of greenhouse gases, we need to start removing CO2 from the atmosphere. If we aren’t going to wait for Elon Musk to develop the technology to suck all the CO2 out of the atmosphere, our only choice is to develop biodiversity in such a way that CO2 is sequestered in healthy farming soils, old growth forests and other living areas of biodiversity. Please get serious and act now.
Biodiversity = People
The Green Revolution was all about separating farmers from their seeds. The ideas from this came out of WWII. It was to address world food shortages and food insecurity, with the idea that agriculture needed to be taken out of the hands of people. Large investments could be made to increase production, then commodities could be tracked so investments could be rationalized. This worked, with a huge price paid by the environment and biodiversity.
Now we’re making the same mistake all over again. We’re turning nature into commodities and, in order to make large investments, we’re taking matters out of the hands of people.
Removing People from the Equation
It all starts with the very undemocratic and faceless Convention on Biological Diversity. The only thing this institution is concerned with is manipulating the finances behind agriculture and biodiversity, and has no interest in ordinary people. The fact that I might have some tiny bit of influence there is the source of well founded resentment among many who work with biodiversity, because who’s listening to them?
Doesn’t anyone else share my concerns over plans to give the Brazilian government a lot of money to protect their biodiversity? Just how is this going to work, and how is this going to help? What’s president Bolsonaro going to do when you give him a big pile of money? Buy a new car? Since this money has been under discussion for so long, it seems likely the destruction of the Amazon has been accelerated, in order to increase the urgency of this payment. It’s the people of Brazil that should be paid for taking care of their own environment, not the government.
The issue of over-fishing the oceans can be solved through reorganizing it’s use. Reduce the size of vessels and nets to make it small scale, and limit markets to local populations. Fish is not a human need, and this isn’t rocket science. The world finally addressed the problems with tobacco use by restricting marketing and use. Many problems can be solved in a similar way, including the way oceans are managed.
New supranational institutions are going to further remove people from the equation and make matters worse.
Biodiversity Emergency
We’re in the middle of a covid emergency. We’re all aware of the drastic measures that have been taken. It’s now time for environmental and biodiversity emergencies of the same scope. Not by making the same mistakes and paying large amounts of money to governments or institutions to do the wrong things, but by addressing real needs in an urgent way.
Importantly biodiversity is inextricably linked to people and the genes within them. This idea goes far beyond something philosophical. Biodiversity depends on good management from people, and people depend on the many things biodiversity gives them. Only people, as individuals, can restore their environment. The most important things needed to accomplish this are the freedom and capacity to move forward.
Reconstructing Biodiversity
In what can only be described as a well funded and coordinated effort, biodiversity is in the news again.
…the financial value of ‘ecosystem services’ is increasingly guiding policy.
I find the idea of this almost too ridiculous to comment on. About all I can say is whatever guiding policy is developed, it shouldn’t interfere with real work others are trying to get done. What’s been done so far has been so clumsy, it doesn’t seem likely anything useful will emerge, but there’s still a lot of potential for destroying ecosystems and interfering with people’s work. A top down approach like this will never succeed, and time is precious at the moment. It’s really an imperative that efforts like this fail as quickly as possible, so the world can move on to something that works.
Mangrove Forests
Consider for example the Bezos Earth Fund recent contribution to the WWF in order to restore mangrove forests. While I don’t know the details of this particular contribution, I think in general this is the worst kind of solution. Certainly nothing is going to be gained by planting a new forest where one used to be, without addressing the causes of the deforestation in the first place. A better overall approach might be to focus on preserving the mangrove forests that remain, or community building in general.
The WWF is not in the business of community building, but a healthy forest can’t exist without a healthy community having a vested interest in it. A healthy mangrove forest is much more than planting a bunch of mangrove trees, and biodiversity in general needs to be considered. The community needs much more than a few $15/hr jobs that last a short time during planting, and maybe come back at harvest time when it’s time to export the wood products. If the mangrove forest is owned by a corporation, it’s going to contribute to the problem of land grabbing, and put land ownership beyond the means of many people. No one is going to care about a forest if they don’t own it.
Building Communities
A healthy community needs universal health care. Everyone needs enough money to buy what they need, on a level that’s ideally middle class. The forest and local economy then needs to be developed, and produce products and services for people to spend this money on, like food, housing, energy, clothing and so on. At the beginning, and times of crisis, it’s probably going to mean direct cash payments to individuals and small businesses, much in the same way many governments are providing COVID relief. The costs of this needs to be paid for either by donations made by wealthy people, or taxes imposed on them. The long term problems will never be solved without reducing the big gaps between rich and poor.
Land needs to be given to members of the community. This might be made available for purchase at a reasonable price, or for example in the form of 100 year land grants. These land grants could be renewed if the land continued to be put to good use.
The focus of these forests needs to be producing sustainable products for local consumption. This means legalizing and eliminating administrative and financial burdens associated with these products. For example seed laws need to be eliminated so people can grow their own food and save their own seeds. Patents, IPR and regulations need to be eliminated that interfere with day to day needs and affairs.
In order for communities around the world to support one another, laws that interfere with this need to be eliminated. Biodiversity needs to be maintained in-situ, in multiple locations independently, and needs to be able to move and be used freely around the world. There should be no central ‘doomsday vault’ whose existence means other collections need to be destroyed. Of course genuine plant health issues need to be considered, but when these issues don’t exist, they shouldn’t be regulated.
Bottom up approach
Of course biodiversity issues are all more complex than what’s laid out here, but attempts at a top down approach need to stop. Paying governments or corporations for ‘ecosystem services’ is not going to solve any problems, or make anyone care. It’s time to start on a bottom up approach, beginning with basic human needs, and progressing to helping people take care of their own environments.
