ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION ORGANISATIONS OF NZ INC.

Level 2, 126 Vivian St, Wellington, New Zealand; PO Box 11-057, Wellington Email: eco@eco.org.nz Website: www.eco.org.nz Phone/Fax 64-4-385-7545

As for 5 September 2016

ECO NZ’s Submissions PART TWO - re Conservation and Environmental Science Roadmap to inform

development of the roadmap

Dear Team,

You gave us an extension for this submission because of our commitments for and at the IUCN Congress in Hawai’i for which we thank you.

This is Part TWO of the ECO submission and is to be read in conjunction with our Part ONE, which took us to p15, sorry, not p47 as earlier stated.

Name: Environment and Conservation Organsiations of NZ Inc

Address: P O Box 11-057, Wellington

Submitter type: Environmental NGO – umbrella group.

We are fine about you releasing ECO’s details but not those of particular individuals.

Things to note about our submission.

It is in two parts – this is part 2 but We reproduce part ONE of our submisisons at the end of this Part TWO submission.

We have ommited the yes/no answers that you asked for since it is rare that we can answer in such a binary fashion. We felt it best to go to the substance not an all-or-nothing judgement

It would make it much easier on submitters and on submission analysts if you used numbers instead of bullet points in your discussion documents please.

We have been pressed for time on this and apologise both for the delay and for the typos and inelegant language that are inevietably in this submission.

1

We wish to follow the progress of the work here. We thank you for much in the paper that is wise and well framed. For the sake of brevity we have largely left out commenting where we agree with you – so please do not think that we are wholly negative about this work – we are not. We have simply highlighted those areas where we have suggestions and disagreements, for brevity’s sake.

--------------------------------------------

Re p16 – Roadmap Phase 1 – the Discussion Paper.

P17 The Themes and Questions

In this and many other sections of the paper, we support reference to “ecosystems” but consider that this should also include “biodiversity” so that all of the levels of biodiversity are included.

Inclusion of research relating to New Zealand’s international obligations.

We would like to see reference here to reserch to fulfill’s New Zealand’s international obligations.

The “social and economic dimensions” research needs to be “unpacked”. This should include theories and evidence of:

changes of behviour;

the changing of social norms and their significance in influencing pro-social and pro-environmental behaviour;

the social and individual paychology of behaviour;

the role of norms, incentives and disincentives in shaping behaviour;

internalisation of externalities; inducing instrinsic motivation and impacts of extrinsic motivators;

the recognition of the value of non-rival and non-excluable (ie public) services and goods, and the funding there-off;

the ethical and other framing of choices;

framing choices as citizens rather than as those of consumers and producers in the market.

2

The evidence about the strengths and the limitations of self-governance, collaborative processes, of markets and of government and hybrids of these.

The Question of Priorities:

P18

We consider the priority advice useful but inadequate.

In our view:

In 1, the irreversibility of environmental harm is more compelling than a lost opportunity, since the latter tend to be more substituable than environmental harms are.

In 2, rearrange so that it says: the impact on nature’s welfare and subject to that, human welbeing.

To 3 ADD, after “probability”, “the severity, duration, scope and range of” damage.

To 4 insert after “risk and impact can be”, the words “avoided, remedied or”, since this idea is embedded in both the RMA and the EEZ&CSActs. Avoidance of damage is higher up the mitigation heirarchy than simply “minimisation” which could imply the toleration of the damage with no attempt to avoid it.

P 16, re your Questions about feedback on the questions:

We would like to ADD:

Research on what the evidence and literature says about the sources and measures of human well being – and the variables that contribute to or detract from this. [This will involve a critique of GDP and other macroeconomic indicators as well as drawing on the literature of evidence and self assessment of wellbeing – as for instance covered in the Spirit Level.

Research on the drivers of human behaviour (social, psychological, economic, etc) and the barriers to pro-environmental and pro-social behaviour change.

Re other comments, we suggest the addition of what IUCN calls “Nature-based solutions” – to climate change, to mental and physical health problems, to social delinquency, and other such.

3

Decision making and rules in information-short environmentals.

Research to comply with international obligations.

Related Roadmaps:

ECO requests that we be added to the list of those consulted about the Primary Sector Science Direction roadmap.

4

Theme 1 – Climate ChangeThese visions and goals are too weak.

1) While understanding the mitigation potential is an essential component, we need to move beyond getting New Zealand to “understand” the pathways that can lead to a low-carbon economy. We need this goal to emphasise that we must introduce a programme of actions, that will ensure we are on a learning curve that allows the results to be increased rapidly as the damaging impacts of climate change become more and more evident.

2) Yes we need a planned adaptation and risk reduction strategy. But an essential element of this strategy has to be to strengthen the public understanding through actions which can be increased as the situation gets worse.

3) ECO’s understanding of the science is that we need to move faster and further in reducing our GHG emissions and in particular, we need to srip carbon out of the atmosphere. New Zealand needs to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050, a more ambitious target than the feeble 30% reduction by 2050 and that the baseline must be 1990, not 2005.

Emerging ideas:

In our view we need to increase our understanding of the implications and methods of increasing the capacity of soil as a carbon sink, and not expect to do so until the impacts of that are unerstood.

Needs to be far greater focus on the impacts of greater precipitation events, and stronger droughts.

Carbon Capture and Storage seems to be the refuge of those who want BAU and to avoid substantial emissions reductions.

CC&S in the marine enviornment is opposed by ECO since the impacts of this are not likely to be well understood and this strategy is likely to be used as an excuse for not de-carbonising the economy.

Re your 7th bullet point under this heading, the emphaisis need not necessarily be the use of “novel” land use practices but rathe to develop those land use practices that are adapted to climate changes AND are low carbon emissions.

We suggest that you ADD here, research on spreading the acceptability and adoption of low enviornmental damage, low-input and low carbon emission land uses especially.

Methods for encouraging native bioidiversity provision and ecosystem services on privately held land.

8th bullet point – changes of plants and land uses, not just plant breeding and not biotech where this means genetic engineering where adverse ecosystem or health impacts may result.

Innovative techniques? Well mahbe, but much is already known about this – as Alison Dewes’s work shows – and the real question is to research how to spread the uptake of the known methods.

Methods to induce switching from ruminant animal production to other animal and to plant-based farming is needed. This could include economic and other instrucments, social norms, peer-group influence and so on. One particularly important bit of work is to examine, using the natural experiement of changing dairy prices, the price elasticity of supply of dairy products v alternative land uses.

5

Last bullet point – this needs to be done for all invasive alien species, not solely those that will flourish with climate change. We need a further research point, which is how to improve our border and our internal biosecurity controls.

Research Questions:1.1 Add: and avoiding “non-economic growth”, ie that economic growth which does more damage than benefit, or does irreversible damage to the environment.1.3 We suggest the insertion of “species” after “organisms”

The research questions do not capture the need for research and analysis of existing data which demonstrates that stocks of fish and wild life are becoming critically endangered and are likely to be worsened by climate change.

Long term weather change impacts – ever increasing large rainfall events (and droughts) need further elaboration.

New or Expanding capability NeedsBullet point 3: After “Maintaining” insert “and publishing for public access in a timely manner”;

ADD: Health impacts of climate change Health impacts of increased access to native biodiversity and “nature”. Drivers of human behavior and of behavior change. Understandign our current carbon budget and how to achieve progressive and

ambitious milestones Sources of government and of market failures. Impacts of sea level rise. We need open data so that mass resources of scientists can analyse and suggest

further remedies. Learning from adaptation and mitigation measures instituted in other countries is

essential – but we must take very fast follower actions – and lead in areas where we have unique conditions, qualifications and experience.

Continued over page.

6

Theme 2 Integrated ecosystems and processes.

We support the reference to ecosystems and processes, but also consider the other aspects of biogeophysical process and to biodiversity needs to be incorporated into the and similar sections. We suggest that this be incorporated through out.

Context Add reference to the RMA’s integrated approach. Note that the EEZ&CSA is a “gap filler” and that we still await integrated oceans

policy and law. Need to reduce silo fisheries management. Key interface environments should also refer to atmosphere-ocean-land-freshwater

interfaces. Add the gradations and interfaces from coast to deepsea, seamounts, thermally

active areas, deep seeps etc.

Vision /goals Refer to “nature-based solutions – cf. IUCN’s work on this at iucn.org Add biogeophysical systems

Emerging ideasRe second bullet point – this should not be framed as “balanced”, but rather that the environmental should constrain the economic , and social and cultural conditions may, constrain the economic activity (eg the taboo on trading babies) and may need to change to protect the environment. The “needs” of society are not necessarily equally ranked, and thus should not be regarded as equally tradable. Environmental constraints are just that – and not all “needs” have equal standards, so “balance” is a misleading and inappropriate term to use. Some may have to change or be abandoned as no longer sustainable in an environmentally constrained world.

Re bullet point 3 It is not only “land use” but activities and impacts that need to be considered, including activities at sea.

Bullet 4 – agreed.

The non-linear effects of fresh water systems need to start well before the coastal-marine and estuary areas.

The impacts of glacier melt and the permanent impacts on the local environment are also missing from the questions.

Research questions2.3 It is not only environmental policy but also transport, industrial and primary production and marine policy.

It is essential that the data collected is made available openly for analysis.

7

There is a huge amount of data collected that already has very little (often zero) resources for analysis and interpretation.

(continued below)

8

Theme 3 – Freshwater ecosystems and processes

Enduring Question:

We suggest that this be rephrased to say “What tools, novel and existing,… to ensure freshwater ecosystems are healthy and resilient, adverse human health impacts are avoided, and cultural needs are recognised, while, to the extent consistent with these, identifying tools, sysstems and uses that can allow human uses of water.

“Minimisation of human health impacts” lacks ambition, Avoidance is the first goal.

Identify economic, social, political and governmental barrieers to improved water quality and better functioning fresh water ecosystems

Improved institutional and legal requirements for monitoring, reporting, publishign and inducing compliance with better rules for freshwater and freshwater ecosystems.

YES we need many new and novel tools, however we also need higher base level standards and regulatory actions to ensure the base level standards are achieved – so we need research into why this hasn’t happened so far.

There is too strong an emphasis on research into new or novel tools, systems and processes to improve water quality. Conversely there is not enough research into the reasons such as agency capture by industry, the Ministry’s own caving in to political pressure to change the standards and distort reporting, council unwillingness to prosecute, and so on.

Context:

NOTE the potential for growing human well being while lowering private impacts on freshwater and freshwater systems.

ADD references to the benefits to be gained from aesthetics, recreation, tourism and ecosystem services and the need to capture these benefits in decision making and to recognise the non-rival and non-excudable benefits.

The reference to the “quality of water in New Zealand;s lakes” etc as “variable” is quite inadequate. This should be clear in its acknowledgement of the downwards trajectory of water quality and be very clear that this is more than “some negative trends”.

Vision/Goals

There is no need to requite “novel tools” – the application of any tools is needed and there must be work to analyse the socio-political and economic pressures that inhibit better outcomes.

The vision / goals needs to be rewritten to place the appropriate standards limits and targets as the first element of the vision – with the development of tools etc as the second element to improve the standards over time.

9

Emerging Ideas

We do not agree that collaborative approaches have been shown to be appropriate for setting limits and implementation. We consider that is a matter for research, not assumption. There is evidence of failures of these approaches, and there is evidence of community based management failures, government and market failures. What is needed is further literature reviews and research on the relative strengths and weaknesses of the various approaches, and how methods can be best implemented in different circumstances.

We need more analysis of the science of behaviour changes, individual and social, the barriers to change and how to overcome these, and unflinching politico-economic research into government failures, market failures and community decision makein failures.

Research questions

ADD the above also to the Research questions – and modify 3.1 to EXAMINE the extent toi which communities and iwi can set and implement limits etc.

ADD text to reference whether government failures can be avoided and remedied, not simply to see a wholesale retreat from government as implied by 3.1.

3.2 – Refer to “full cost accounting” not “economic costs” and ethics.

ADD

3.6 Changing norms, attitudes, values and behaviours to be more pro-environmental.

3.7 The strenths and limitations of the institutional arrangements for research, for management and reporting

Policy measures and their efficacy and weak points. NOTE: the Immediate establishment of higher water standards is the essential pre-

cursor to allow research to have a higher baseline for research to start from.

10

Theme 4 - Land Ecosystems and Processes

Context: Include references to increased intensity of land use, esepcailly farming and include

irrigation We support and recommend inclusion elsewhere throughout the document to plant,

animal, fungal and microbial life, and this should apply throughout the document, instead of simply plants and animals. Microbial life is vital and prolific in the marine environment also.

Some conservaiton land is private, as well as the much larger areas of public conservation land.In para three, add in references to mineral and fossil fuel mining and production forestry as having impacts.

Make clear that natural capital is biogeophysical systems, not “stocks” and flows of “resources” and that the conditions for maintenance and repair pf such natural capital systems must be attained and preserved.

Replace references in para 3 and 5 to “resource base” and “resource” with the term “environment base” and “environment”.

Vision/GoalsWe reject this formulation since it reeks of “reverse sensitivity” – ie allowing harmful land uses and controlling other land uses that are affected by such harms.

Instead, we suggest a vision and goal of land uses that do not stress ecosystems and their processes or the biogeohysical systems; that we do not reach overcapacity and environmental limits, that human quality of benefit from land ecosystems and processes are maintained and enhanced from non-damaging and non-extractive uses.

Emerging IdeasIt is a matter for research whether OVERSEER is adequate, and whether community based management systems are adequate. Ostrom and Fikret Birkes’ work shows clearly that these only work in certain – and often limited- circumstances. We suggest you examine Fiorino’s surveys of this literature.

We agree with your para re soils, but we consider this section should also include the values of conservation-based and ecosystem based management and the many health benefits from access to nature.

Include in the research questions references to:

Methods to induce the uptake of low-impact, low input farming; Reductions in irrigation How the uptake of already known low impact practices can be accelerated The price elasticity of supply of dairy farming compared othe rland uses Methods for changing social norms Methods for internalising enviornmental externalities. Methods for improving the uptake of internal biosecurity controls.

11

Theme 5 0 - Coastal and Marine Ecosystems and Processes

We agree with the Definition/scope, but changes to the geographic scope stated earlier in the document need to be made to cover the extended continental shelf, the full area of the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Organisation, SPRFMO; and other areas relevant to NZ’s international obligations.

Enduring QuestionDELETE the text “while at the same time unlocking the economical potential of these areas in a context of land-use intensification”. Any such reference to economic outcomes must be qualified to limitation on impacts, reductions of extraction, observance of limits etc.

ContextThis account of the impacts of harvesting is “spin” and should be rewritten.

Hunting and harvesting notably has depleted fish stocks, including orange roughy, hoki and many other species. Benthic damage is continuing and can hardly be called “unintentional” since it is well known to be the result of trawling and other bottom fishing methods. Such damage is not unintentional, rather, it is disregarded.

Fish harvesting still does enormous environmental damage, and it is a thoroughly moot point whether it is truly economically sustainable, even in market terms. It is almost certainly not in any full cost accounting of the harms done.

No mention is made of seabird mortality and the pressing need to reduce such.

Add to your list of impacts of climate change the ice melt and ice dynamics, sea level rise, and current destabilisation and location changes due to changes in salinity and hence density of seawater.

We do not accept that progress towards agreed international targets will be constrained by increasing recreational and commercial use of the marine environment and its resources. Rather, we should aim that such use is increasingly non-extractive and non-industrial. We do agree that there will be increasing pressure from the commercial and to a lesser extent, extractive recreational activities.

There are not only international “targets” but unqualified international obligations to “preserve and protect the marine environment (Art 192 of UNCLOS).

Vision/Goals Add after “means to” the word “avoid”.

ADD the SDG goals in here as they related to the protection and the coastal and to

the marine environment, the ecosystem based management and achieving

12

precautionary principle-based management with the goal of protection of the environment.

ADD That New Zealanders understand the need to ecosystem based management, that there is political will to achiever the goals.

Add the long term to the “short and medium term”.

Emerging Ideas

We agree with most of these, but once again, we disagree with the assumption in your last bullet point that collaborative processes will deliver good outcomes. It is better to have research on the range of conditions under which governmental, community and market mechanisms will be successful at protecting the environment and conserving it.

Research Questions

ADD Which institutional arrangements will facilitate the goals in the vision and avoid failures?

New or Expanding capability Needs: The systematic evaluation of approaches should be to manage human impacts and

activities on coastal and marine environments. Understanding of and elimination of actual and quasi subsidies for environmentally

damaging activities Research into the conditions for and impacts of any release of methane hydrates

/clathrates and how such releases can be avoided.

13

Theme 6 – Urban Ecosystems and Processes

Enduring Ecosystems and processesThe question should be extended to:

“and maximise the positive health and well-being impacts for humans and minimise damage from extreme climate events. And pursue a low carbon development plan.

Context Replace “natural resources” with “the supporting environment and its systems”

Vision/Goals This needs to include specific reference to “improved resilience to extreme weather

events and sea level rise resulting from climate change.”

ADD: Access for all to non-extractive benefits from nature.

Emerging ideas ADD to the first bullet point: carbon emissions, plastic pollution, biosecurity risks

and biodiversity losses. The human phsical and mental health benefits from access to nature. Needs more emerging ideas related to the need for urban resilience related to

extreme weather events on biodiversity, energy systems, and the three waters (water supply, storm water and waste water).

The quality of the built internal environment has a significant impact on the external environment. This is not captured.

The urban built environment needs to be integrated with transport systems which are currently unsustainable and very locally polluting.

Research Questions:

ADD: What does the literature including empirical research tell us about the contribution

of environmental systems and access to nature, to human health and well being?

What does the behavioral literature and evidence tell us about making cities more livable and safer while lowering their environmental impacts?

How can urban dwellers be provided with more non-extractive access to nature at a more local and proximate and accessible way so lessening impacts on nature?

How can peoplein urban situations

How can the social sciences be brought to bear on improving social connectedness, pro-social and pro-environmental behavior?

How can infrastructural redesign be achieved to lower our environmental impacts.

14

There needs to be further questions related to the pollution from the dominant use of fossil fuel energy systems for transport within urban areas.

Note the following from the 2016 IUCN World Congress Resolution 028 about conservation in urban areas:

“……..o “AWARE that nature is essential to people’s physical and mental health,

development, and well-being, that natural areas in and around cities help give residents a sense of place, offer opportunities to learn about nature and sustainability, provide a wide range of ecosystem services, contribute to carbon sequestration, and bolster resilience to climate change and natural disasters, and that many natural and semi-natural areas in and around cities are rich in biodiversity and geoheritage and can include protected areas in any of IUCN’s six categories;

o NOTING the dependency of urban populations on goods and services, such as drinking water, energy, food and flood protection, provided by rural ecosystems;

o FURTHER NOTING that urban natural areas can enhance tourist attractions of cities and boost income from tourism;

o RECOGNISING that access to nature in urban areas can be important in addressing environmental justice and sustainability issues; 

o FURTHER RECOGNISING that cities can have major negative impacts on surrounding ecosystems, for example, air and water pollution, deforestation for fuelwood, and harvesting of wildlife for human consumption, that urban ports, airports, and gardens are entry points for invasive alien species, and that urban sprawl is often a major threat to nature

o ALSO RECOGNISING the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its SDG 11 to make human settlements, inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable; and

o NOTING that Habitat III, the United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development will be held in Quito, Ecuador, in October 2016, and will act on the development of a new Urban Agenda;”

[the operative paragraphs are directed to IUCN itself and are not relevant here].

15

Theme 7 – Population and SpeciesDefinition/Scope

The geographic definition includes Antarctica, which is great, but it needs to extend into the South Pacific and other areas where New Zealand has international obligations. The definition provided is too restrictive.

Recognition of the species types listed is welcome, but marine species, including the invertebrates and micro organisms should also be included here, and the chemico-synthetic organisms such as those in the deep sea vents and black smokers should also be included.

Specifically in relation to kiwi recovery, a cold hard look needs to be taken to assess whether the 24/7 egg-napping and incubation and and chick-napping and raising is really necessary and whether predator control alone without handling the birds is a more cost-effective mechanism.

The focus of this section is excessively terra-centric.

The genomic selection proposals verge into genetic engineering. The solution to one environmental problem with GE may well be the genisis of other, more intractable ecological problems.

Too often the specialsim of one bio-control agent has been misjudged with the result that we have accumulated invasive species. We urge caution in such an approach. The use of chemical poisons has significant downsides. A very positive side though is that we can choose to discontinue their use. In contrast, biocontrol agents and GE may both be impossible to reverse (thought that depends on the GE in quesiton). They can both be irrevocable in impacts, whereas the use of chemicals can be at least stopped, though bioaccumulative or persistent pollutants may be dangerous for long periods.

Vision/GoalsWe consider the objective of protecting “the highest priority” populations and species lacks ambition and is not sufficient as a goal. We want to see not simply particular species but whole ecosystems functioning well. The “highest priority” stipulation suggests that we give up on the rest. That is unacceptable to ECO.

Emerging IdeasWe are not convinced that the argument for abandoning some species is sound.

Research Questions

There is a risk that the emphasis on genomics will lead to a species silo approach and will fail to notice the ecosystem impacts.

16

Theme 8 – Biosecurity

We agree with much of your discussion in this section but we also consider that education and particulary, changed social norms and internalized motivations are needed too. Gardeners’ attitudes and behaviours, social norms about moving potentially infected materials such as soils and plant material need also to be addressed.

Changing the social acceptability of dumping plant material must be addressed urgently and that needs to harness the social sciences and psychology and sociology as well as the evidence from regulatory research as to what works and what doesn’t.

The relatively risky process of introducing bio-control agents should also be reviewed.

We consider the emphasis on biotechnology controls inhibiting conservation needs to be assessed critically. Biotechnology may sometimes help, but it carries with it significant unknowns as to ecosystem and species impacts. A “gung-ho” approach is not sensible. Haven’t we learnt from previous introductions gone wrong?

We do agree that the sustainability of taxonomic collections and of the people with the skills to analyse these is vital and needs urgent attention, particularly in the marine environment.

We draw to your attention the following IUCN World Conservation Congress 2016 Resolution regarding the development of a classification system for assessing the impact of invasive alien species, and we suggest that New Zealand should be part of the developments discussed. Note that the references to the director General is to that of IUCN, and the reference to the SSC is the IUCN Species Survival Commisssion.

014 - Toward an IUCN standard classification of the impact of invasive alien species

CONSIDERING that invasive alien species are recognised as a major direct and indirect driver of biodiversity loss across the globe, and that their economic impact is estimated at hundreds of billions of dollars each year (Bellard et al. 2016; Simberloff et al. 2013; Pimentel et al. 2005);

RECALLING that Aichi Target 9 of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and Target 15.8 of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) call for the prioritisation of invasive alien species for prevention, eradication or control;

HIGHLIGHTING that there is no global, standardised, systematic evaluation, prioritisation and monitoring process in place for invasive alien species;

17

RECOGNISING the need for metrics to be context specific, particularly at the population and ecosystem level given available data;

RECOGNISING the efforts carried out by the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG) for developing authoritative global knowledge products on invasive alien species, namely the IUCN Global Invasive Species Database and the Global Register of Introduced and Invasive Species;

FURTHER RECOGNISING that, in addition to species prioritisation, pathways assessment and management are also key strategic actions in invasive alien species prevention and that IUCN work on pathways (see 'Progress toward pathways prioritisation in compliance to Aichi Target 9' UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/20/INF/5) is still a priority;

ALSO RECOGNISING that many protocols and risk assessment tools are available and in use by various countries and authorities across the world;

APPRECIATING that a global and standardised framework and guidelines for implementing an IUCN Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT) have recently been developed and published in the scientific literature, with the notable contribution of the SSC ISSG, following an approach similar to the Categories and Criteria of the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species;

NOTING that the framework to ensure the consistent application of EICAT is now available, along with technical protocols for the assessment, review and quality assurance of the resulting classifications, following a wide testing and consultation phase with the main stakeholders to ensure that their diverse needs have been properly met; and

RECOGNISING, that the classification of species under EICAT can feed into risk assessments and statutory regulations, and that changes in classifications over time can be used as an indicator of trends in invasive alien species impacts and management at regional, national or global level;

The World Conservation Congress, at its session in Hawai‘i, United States of America, 1-10 September 2016:1. REQUESTS the SSC and the Director General to conduct a consultation process involving all relevant stakeholders within the Union to develop EICAT, integrating the outcomes into the IUCN Global Invasive Species Database and the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, thus providing an essential background for the achievement of Aichi Target 9 (and subsequent related targets) and SDG Target 15.8; 

18

2. REQUESTS Council to adopt the framework for the IUCN Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa, once the consultation process referred to above has been completed, as the Union’s standard for classifying alien species in terms of their environmental impact;

3. CALLS ON all Members, and national, regional and global institutions, and the scientific community to work in collaboration with SSC on:

a. EICAT and the integration of its outcomes into the IUCN Global Invasive Species Database and The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, as this information is essential to prevent and mitigate the impacts caused by invasive alien species; and

b. fostering the formal adoption of EICAT and promotion of its use as a decision support tool; and

4. CALLS ON the scientific community to apply EICAT, in coordination with SSC, providing comprehensive supporting information to be published in the IUCN Global Invasive Species Database.

19

Theme 9 – Matauranga Maori

In most respects we agree with this discussion and welcome the inclusion of Matuarnga Maori in an authentic manner to our knowledge.

We are compelled though to notice that too often the holistic approach is drowned out by the vigorous assertion of Maori property rights at the expense of the rights and health of the environment itself.

New or Expanding capability NeedsWe suggest using the term “environmental impacts management” instead of the term “natural resources sector”. The term “natural resources” in itself separates the product from the systems that produce them and commodify nature.

20

Theme 10 – Social and Economic Dimensions

The Definition/Scope is fine in its first sentence but the second is disjointed from the rest and strangely singles out just one economic aspect for consideration.

We suggest the addition of an ethical and inter-temporal dimension here. This could be social justice, responsibilities to the future (and the present) and responsibilities to maintain the bequest from the past with an “as good or better” bequest to the future – human and non-human.

On the microeconomic front, we suggest some research into the price elasticity of supply of dairy proudcts compared to less greenhouse gas and polluting activities of non-dairy production and land use. That would help policy makers understand some at tleast of the implications of full environmental cost pricing, internalisation of costs and so on.

We should also include here a better understanding of the variables in human well being and how to get better alignment with those in our micro and macroeconomic policies. Specifically, this will involve considering what really motivates and drives behavour, the lack of satisfaction derived from much consumption, the contributions and detractions from well being of relative and positional goods, inequality, mal-distributional outcomes, and the significance of relationships with friends and family, respect and esteem, and so on.

At a macroeconomic level, the range of public variables and alternatives and indicators other than GDP and its derivatives is also needed.

Where this has already been done, then the task becomes, how can such evidence and analysis be brought into currency in policy and public notice, and the old misleading aggregates and indicators be replaced by much more accurate, encompassing and relevant measures and indicators?

We agree with most of the discussion here. We observe that it applies across almost all the elements in previous themes and

that it needs to be considered in each one of those.

Institutional design and impacts on framing choices and governance are also crucial and must be considered here too.

Market failures, community governance failures and government failures all need to be analysed and researched, with such published.

Research processes and institutional arrangements also need serious attention, for their tendency to special interest and industry capture, for their stifling or liberating of the thinking of those within them, for their scope of research and for the ability of the public to critique their problem definitions, question formulation, research design and access to research reports.

21

Vision/Goals

ADD: New Zealanders reduce their GHG emissions to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050.

“Effective management” is too vague. This must be specified to include protected areas and species, and “effective management” needs clear environmental milestones and emissions and impact reduction targets.

We suggest the use of the term “inter-temporal” rather than intergenerational. The latter is anthropocentric and fails to scale impacts to their duration.

As before, we are not convinced that, flavour of the year that it is, collaborative decision making is necessarily or even demonstrably better than other methods – particularly when it is too often used as a “sand pit” to distract and occupy some players whilst others use the usual power games for end runs and cherry picking of any outcomes.

Research into environmental history, including non-traditional sources such as the information about the environment in diaries and literature is also needed. Prof Daniel Paully has shown how potent and reliable a source of information this is. Similarly, some of the stories from Maori and other sources can also provide insights into changes of abundance, range and the behaviour of the environment.

Harnessing emotions and aesthetics to convey meaning, emotion and association with the environment is also needed.

22

Theme 11 – Informatics, modeling and monitoring

We agree with much in this section.

We would add that the information needs to be there but also to accessible, to be asking the questions that matter or at least be able to be used to address them, and that the public must be able to have input into the research questions AND to access the results.

Institutional arrangements for NGO and public access to public good science, research of other kinds, and to independent expert assessment of client driven research that is presented to hearings needs also to be examined and assessed – and publicly reported on.

23

Theme 12 – New and Emerging Technologies

There are many new technologies and some indeed could be very useful for conservation. It is not necessarily the case that we should focus mainly on new technologies: often it is the lack of political will to use what we already have or to fund these that is the problem.

Biotech can be helpful – but it can also be hazardous. Too much of this paper comes across as a plug for GE.

The new high tech sensing and seeing techniques are impressive. One needs to be careful though, that we are not simply engaged in a “tech arms race” where as fast as techniques are developed for, say, “seeing” or sensing or mapping the sea floor, those who would exploit it are in for the kill. This is all too likely, especially in the marine environment.

We thank you for the opportunity to submit on this matter and look forward to your next report.

**************************************

Our Part ONE comments were as below:

ECO’s comments on your Sections in Developing A Conservation and Environment Science Roadmap

Time Frame (in the Message from Ministers):We welcome the 20 year timeframe for the Roadmap, but would like to see a clearer set of milestones within that time period, and also a section that looks out beyond 20 years.

Comments on the section: Developing A Conservation and Environment Science RoadmapFocus

The use of the term “science” is too limiting. We suggest instead that the term “research” be used. This would much more clearly include social sciences – since for some people, “science” means natural sciences. “Research” would allow for the

24

inclusion of some rather crucial research such as research into successes and failures of governance, legal and policy research, and research into cultural and other aspects such as attitudes and behaviour and Traditional Ecological Knowledge.

Setting the Scence

We find much to agree with in this section, but:

In relation to paragraph two, we strongly recommend that the focus on New Zealand in 20 year’s time be reframed from New Zealand being “rich in natural resources” to references to having more knowledge of what contributes to human well-being, and that we frame the discussion of the enviornment in terms of natural systems and environments. “Resources” is an unfortunate term that instantly commodifies the environment, and frames it not as a system but as stocks (or sometimes flows).

It might be useful in this section that rehearses some of the challenges and problems, to refer to IUCN’s work on “Nature based Solutions” and to the Millennium Development Goal targets, the Aichi Targets under the Convention on Biodiversity and to impart a sense of urgency. The IUCN Wawai’I commitments could be .

ECO considers that this section is a good place to insert a paragraph about New Zealand’s international conservation and environmental obligations, our obligations to “preserve and protect the marine environment” under the UN Conventionon the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and various other relevant commitments that involve New Zealand in having to do research.

These include, but are not limited to, the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP), the South Pacific Fisheries Management Organisation (SPRFMO), the Antarctic Treaty and the the Convention on the Conservation of Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR). All of these mean we have to do various research related to our obligations.

We suggest that New Zealand also fold into this research agenda this fresh Resolution from the IUCN World Conservation Congress 2016, August-Sept 2016. We urge that this be included in this roadmap document. It represents world opinion of both governments and non-governmental organisations:

“094 - Increase resources for biodiversity conservation research

CONSIDERING the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Strategic Plan of the Convention on Biological Diversity, and its associated Aichi Biodiversity Targets, we request the establishment of public policies – or

25

strengthening of existing policies – that enable scientific research on biodiversity and natural resources conservation;

FURTHER CONSIDERING, in the context of the SDGs, the role of scientific knowledge about biodiversity and resulting conservation actions, that the above-mentioned research could contribute to science-based policymaking and ultimately help to foster environmental sustainability (SDG 15), and integration of sustainability principles in public policies and programmes that reverse natural resources losses and that contribute in the long term to reducing the proportion of people with no sustainable access to clean water and basic sanitation (SDG 6);

ALSO CONSIDERING that in order to achieve the Aichi Biodiversity Targets it is important that accurate scientific information is gathered and published providing guidance for the effective planning and implementation of protected areas, including balanced management that is ecologically representative and connected to the diverse protected areas system (Target 11), prevention of threatened species extinction – especially those with recognised decline status until 2020 (Target 12) [and we suggest beyond] as well as the development and enforcement of technologies based on biodiversity conservation (Target 19);

The World Conservation Congress, at its session in Hawai‘i, United States of America, 1-10 September 2016:

1. ENCOURAGES national governments, in accordance with national and international law, to establish – or strengthen existing – public policies and incentives that enable and stimulate scientific research on biodiversity and natural resource conservation, highlighting their benefits to society; and

2. ENCOURAGES governments to consider conclusions and recommendations generated from scientific research as inputs for management and conservation strategies related to the protection of natural areas, including the establishment of new protected areas, management plans, and development of action plans for threatened species, as well as periodic updating of the official list of threatened species.”

We are heartened by the evident commitment to draw from and learn from and integrate Matuaranga Maori.

Goal for the Roadmap We recommend that the roadmap be framed in terms of “research”, not

“science”, to allow for a wider scope of knowledge to be explored.

We would like to see explicit mention in this section of research on values, attitudes, social norms, and behaviour change and barriers to change in this

26

section. Reference here to psychology and social pyschology is important. So too is research on pro-social and pro environmental and pro-enviornmental values, attidtudes and behaviour.

Research on governance and decision making and

on how to monitor, report, to induce compliance and sanction non-compliance and enforcement.

Research on policy measures and their efficacy is needed here too.

We sugggest that strategies for decision making in information-short environments be included in this goal. This would include research for instance, on the application of information sufficiency tests, the precautionary principle, and whether adaptive management is anything more than “suck it and see”.

Scope of the roadmapWe recommend the following amendments to the scope of the road map:

1 In your intitial list, add:

a. the atmosphere,

b. human behaviour and motivation,

c. biogeophysical systems,

d. the cryosphere (icey areas),

e. energy alternatives and impacts,

f. sociolgy and psychology as these relate to conservation and the environment,

g. ecological economics,

h. ecosystem services, and

i. legal and policy research as these relate to conservation and the environment.

j. Research on the impacts of primary production and other human activities on the environment and conservation should also be included here, and not left to the primary production roadmap since that is not likely to do justice to the topic and its urgency.

k. Research on the institutional arrangements for research, the methods of organising, funding and reporting research, and the availability of research results. The balance between public funding for public good science v privte good research needs exploring, as does the impact of the current system of CRIs and the impacts of the various institutional and administrative arragements on researcher motivation and productivity.

27

2 The geographic scope of the research is too limited and is ambiguous. It is anyway unclear as to whether this geographic scope refers to the object of research, the place of research or the nationality of the researchers.

The geographic limitations are incompatible with the nature of the biogeophysical systems that comprise the enviornment and the systems that affect New Zealand.

Our research may need to go outside New Zealand in order to understand the environmental systems, our biodiversity, and impacts on and by New Zealand.

New Zealand has responsibility directly for our impacts on the continental shelf as well as the EEZ, albeit we do not have management control over the water column in the case of the Continetnal shelf.

New Zealand has a variety of obligations to undertake research as part of our role as world citizens and as a state with international obligations. These include but are not limited to New Zealand’s international conservation and environmental obligations such as:

o our obligations to “preserve and protect the marine environment” under the UN Conventionon the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS),

o our obligations under the UNFCCC;

o the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) and its Aichi targets;

o UNCLOS and its implementing agreements such as the Fish stocks Agreement, the International Seabed Authority requirements;

o the Montreal Protocol relating to ozone depletion;

o the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP);

o the South Pacific Fisheries Management Organisation (SPRFMO);

o the Antarctic Treaty and the the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR);

o The implementing agreement being negotiated on Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction.

o The International Labour Organisation and the UN Convention on Human Rights may also require research, for instance into lbaour and human rights conditions in our environmental activities.

All of these – and more - mean we have to do various research related to our international obligations.

What the Research [Science] roadmap will be used for:We can see the appeal of an integrated research agenda, but we should also be aware also that monolithic world views can have their disadvantages too. Diversity

28

in research, as in nature, provides for more truly questionning, more robust research and allows for a greater breadth and depth of research, but particularly more capacity to engage with unexpected questions and unforseen enviornmental stressors.

Although the paper (p9) refers to the research helping to achieve our international obligations, the geographic scope specification will preclude us complying with these to a considerable extent. That limitation should be reviewed.

MBIE and Conservation and Environmental Science

We are entirely unconvinced that MBIE is the right institution to be the core agency that sets the National Statement of Science Investment. MBIE is focussed on economc growth, has little known expertise in judging research needs, and has a bias towards its own “patch” of business, innovation and enterprise. Research into how conservation and environmental research fares in this arragement should be undertaken.

We are very shocked that, according to your figures on p44, MBIE had $12.8m for Integrated ecosystems and processes, whilst DoC had a derisery $115,000, and MfE a mere $13,500. This is truly shocking underfunding of DoC and MfE.

Looking at the totals, and even remembering that the table is incomplete, DoC is conspicuously underfunded in research, as is MfE. MBIE by contrast takes the lion’s share in most categories and overall, despite its mission not being central to the environment or to conservation. Overall, it takes 67% of the total budget outlined in the tables at the back of the paper. DoC has 17.5%, MfE 12% and MPI 5% (with an error due to rounding). MPI will have a further budget via the Primary Production roadmap.

We consider that the research budget need to be reviewed with more research funding to DoC and MfE.

Looking AheadWe suggest that the first paragraph under this heading also include invasive species and pathogens.

In this section and throughout the document, we would like to see less attention to new technologies, important as these will be, and more attention to the monitoring and reporting of existing technologies. We need more monitoring of the effects, for instance, of the use of 1080, so that the gains from it are clearly apparent.

29

Climate Change – mitigation and adaptation opportunities

This section needs more mention of impacts of climate change on the marine enviornment and the cryopshere. Ocean acidification, ice melt, freshening of oceans around Antarctica and the north pole need to be included since these will affect global systems and New Zealand. It is not enough to just look at mitigation and adaptation – we need to keep working on the actual and projected changes and synamic systems as well.

Enhancing Ecosystem Services

We welcome this section. We suggest the addition of fungi, and the addition of a discussionnot only of ecosystems but of all of the dimensions of biodiversity and biogeophyscal systems. Some reference here to the dis-services of pathogens and invasive species is also needed in this section.

Freshwater – a continuing challenge

We’d like to see reference to aquatic biodiversity, not just “water” . The statement “there are still some negative trends in fresh water health” is an absurd understatement. Please be frank, cut the spin.

Alignment of research Is ok, but we need diversity too. Mike Joy’s work is a powerful illumination of why a single approach is a very bad idea.

Our land, coastlines and seas – supporting our economy.

Yes they do support out economy but no need to set the frame as economic. They have many other biological, ecosystem, geomorphological, aesthetic, scenic, recreational, cultural, identity, existence, bequest and othr values. Stressing economc values and this slant, though pleasing to the Cabinet, reinforces the utilitarian mind set and excludes recognition of other values and services.

We suggest the insertion of “micro-organisims in the beginning of the last paragraph under this head because these are ubiquitous and multitudinous.

Add a section on the implementation of our international obligations and also the governance issues, the international dimension and obligations with respect to the sea, EEZ and Continental Shelf and the high seas.

We note these fresh Resolutions from the IUCN World Conservation Congress 2016, August-Sept 2016. We urge that the research based elements of these be included in this roadmap document. They represents world opinion of both governments and non-governmental organisations:

30

094 - Increase resources for biodiversity conservation research

CONSIDERING the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Strategic Plan of the Convention on Biological Diversity, and its associated Aichi Biodiversity Targets, we request the establishment of public policies – or strengthening of existing policies – that enable scientific research on biodiversity and natural resources conservation;

FURTHER CONSIDERING, in the context of the SDGs, the role of scientific knowledge about biodiversity and resulting conservation actions, that the above-mentioned research could contribute to science-based policymaking and ultimately help to foster environmental sustainability (SDG 15), and integration of sustainability principles in public policies and programmes that reverse natural resources losses and that contribute in the long term to reducing the proportion of people with no sustainable access to clean water and basic sanitation (SDG 6);

ALSO CONSIDERING that in order to achieve the Aichi Biodiversity Targets it is important that accurate scientific information is gathered and published providing guidance for the effective planning and implementation of protected areas, including balanced management that is ecologically representative and connected to the diverse protected areas system (Target 11), prevention of threatened species extinction – especially those with recognised decline status until 2020 (Target 12) as well as the development and enforcement of technologies based on biodiversity conservation (Target 19);

The World Conservation Congress, at its session in Hawai‘i, United States of America, 1-10 September 2016:

1. ENCOURAGES national governments, in accordance with national and international law, to establish – or strengthen existing – public policies and incentives that enable and stimulate scientific research on biodiversity and natural resource conservation, highlighting their benefits to society; and

2. ENCOURAGES governments to consider conclusions and recommendations generated from scientific research as inputs for management and conservation strategies related to the protection of natural areas, including the establishment of new protected areas, management plans, and development of action plans for threatened species, as well as periodic updating of the official list of threatened species.

31

053 - Increasing marine protected area coverage for effective marine biodiversity conservation

NOTING the ocean covers 71% of the earth’s surface;

CONCERNED that pollution, over-exploitation, warming, acidification, and biodiversity loss in the ocean are occurring at rapid or unsustainable rates and human impacts have reached the distant polar regions and the high seas;

*AWARE that effectively managed, Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), as provided for in IUCN’s Protected Areas Management Categories and Governance types, including highly protected reserves, are important tools that help conserve the critical habitats, ecosystem services and biodiversity that support human life;

MINDFUL that scientific evidence supports full protection[1] of at least 30% of the ocean as reviewed[2] to reverse existing adverse impacts, increase resilience to climate change, and sustain long-term ocean health;

RECALLING the recommendation in the marine crosscutting theme at the IUCN World Parks Congress (Sydney, 2014) to "urgently increase the ocean area that is effectively and equitably managed in ecologically representative and well-connected systems of MPAs or other effective conservation measures. This network should target protection of both biodiversity and ecosystem services and should include at least 30% of each marine habitat. The ultimate aim is to create a fully sustainable ocean, at least 30% of which has no-extractive activities;

FURTHER RECALLING the 2014 World Parks Congress commitments by State Members, such as Bangladesh, Brazil, Cambodia, Comoros, Fiji, France (French Polynesia), Gabon, Madagascar, Russia and South Africa to expand their MPAs coverage using the six different categories of management of IUCN;

RECOGNISING the progress being made by states to establish large, highly protected marine reserves within their jurisdictions, efforts at the United Nations to create an instrument allowing for the establishment of MPAs in areas beyond national jurisdiction, and the commitment of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) to create a representative system of MPAs in its geographic area of competence;

ALSO RECOGNISING that the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, acknowledges the importance of conserving and sustainably using the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development;

32

CONSIDERING that the 10th Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD COP10, Aichi, 2010) set Aichi Biodiversity Target 11[3] by 2020; and

WELCOMING United Nations General Assembly Resolution 69/292 on the Development of an international legally binding instrument under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction, , in particular, together and as a whole, marine genetic resources, including questions on the sharing of benefits, measures such as area-based management tools, including marine protected areas, environmental impact assessments and capacity-building and the transfer of marine technology;

[1] Sciberras et al.: Evaluating the biological effectiveness of fully and partially protected marine areas. Environmental Evidence 2013 2:4

[2] O'Leary, B. C., Winther-Janson, M., Bainbridge, J. M., Aitken, J., Hawkins, J. P. and Roberts, C. M. (2016), Effective Coverage Targets for Ocean Protection. CONSERVATION LETTERS. doi:10.1111/conl.12247

[3] Target 11: By 2020, at least 17 per cent of terrestrial and inland water, and 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, are conserved through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative and well connected systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, and integrated into the wider landscapes and seascapes.

The World Conservation Congress, at its session in Hawai‘i, United States of America, 1-10 September 2016:1. CALLS ON the Director General and all components of IUCN to promote and support the actions described in paragraphs 2-4 below;

2. ENCOURAGES IUCN State and Government Agency Members to designate and implement at least 30% of each marine habitat in a network of highly protected MPAs and other effective area-based conservation measures, with the ultimate aim of creating a fully sustainable ocean at least 30% of which has no extractive activities, subject to the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities[1], by:

a. committing to work towards designating and effectively implementing at least 30% of their national waters as MPAs and other effective area-based conservation measures, as provided for in IUCN’s Protected Areas Management Categories and Governance types, by 2030; and

33

b. engaging constructively in establishing MPAs in areas beyond national jurisdiction, areas of joint international management and their own jurisdictions, including through:

i. the development of a new instrument under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction, and that such a new instrument contains a robust mechanism for establishing effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative and well connected systems of marine protected areas, including reserves; and

ii. the adoption of existing Southern Ocean and other MPA proposals in 2016 and the timely preparation and adoption of new MPA proposals by CCAMLR;

3. URGES IUCN State Members to accelerate progress towards achieving Aichi Target 11 by 2020 ;

4. ENCOURAGES the Parties to the CBD to consider a new process for developing post-2020 targets to increase the percentage of marine areas highly protected to 30% by 2030; and

5. REQUESTS all Members to support the achievement of the actions described in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 above.

[1] The potential impacts of the motion on the rights and interests of indigenous peoples, and their conservation, economic, social and cultural traditions and aspirations, should be reviewed in a manner that allows  participation consistent with both indigenous peoples' traditional decision-making process, and UNDRIP.

The Urban EcosystemWe reproduce here some of the preambular paragraphs of the IUCN Congress motion 28 regarding incorporating urban dimensions of conservation. We have left out the operative paragraphs because these are not addressed to states.

RECOGNISING that the majority of the world's population is urban and that urban people are critical for nature conservation, nationally and globally, that cities are where most wealth is concentrated, and most media are based, and that conservation depends on support from urban voters, consumers, donors, and communicators – yet people living in cities have diminishing contact with nature;

NOTING that urban conservation actors include national, sub-national, and local authorities, and a range of non-governmental organisations, academic and scientific bodies, and community groups;

34

AWARE that nature is essential to people’s physical and mental health, development, and well-being, that natural areas in and around cities help give residents a sense of place, offer opportunities to learn about nature and sustainability, provide a wide range of ecosystem services, contribute to carbon sequestration, and bolster resilience to climate change and natural disasters, and that many natural and semi-natural areas in and around cities are rich in biodiversity and geoheritage and can include protected areas in any of IUCN’s six categories;

NOTING the dependency of urban populations on goods and services, such as drinking water, energy, food and flood protection, provided by rural ecosystems;

FURTHER NOTING that urban natural areas can enhance tourist attractions of cities and boost income from tourism;

RECOGNISING that access to nature in urban areas can be important in addressing environmental justice and sustainability issues; 

FURTHER RECOGNISING that cities can have major negative impacts on surrounding ecosystems, for example, air and water pollution, deforestation for fuelwood, and harvesting of wildlife for human consumption, that urban ports, airports, and gardens are entry points for invasive alien species, and that urban sprawl is often a major threat to nature;

ALSO RECOGNISING the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its SDG 11 to make human settlements, inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable;

We provide this text to help focus on the significant gains to health and wellbeing from urban conservation.

Environmental Contaminants Air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions should be included in this section.

Plastics in the marine environment should be highlighted.

Wastes from exploration, mining and minerals processing and dumping on land and in the marine environment needs explicilty to be added here.

Protecting New Zealand’s unique flora and faunaADD fungi and native micro organisms to what should be protected

and pathogens ;

35

ADD In para 1 to the threats:

fungi and pathogens and ocean acidification to the list of threats.

Overfishing and the use of destructive fishing methods and minerals activities.

wetland weeds and

invasive species in the marine enviornment.

In the 2nd paragraph,

ADD reference to invasives in the Southern Ocean and in Antarctica.

ADD reference to the need to research more rigourous preventiona nd response to invasive species and to review the criteria for this to avoid the “victim pays” principle.

Like the introduction of biocontrol species, genetic techniques have the potential to cause irreversible changes that were not expected. Genetic engineering may have benefits but once let loose may have ecological consequences that are not anticipated and are severe. We agree more discussion is needed, but we do not think that text which does not alert the reader to the risks of irreversible ecological harm is helpful to this.

Globalisation and BiosecurityFine to focus on border controls, but we also need more focus on internal biosecurity. The criteria for research and response should not be so skewed to commercial impacts. The spread of Guava moth is a primary case in point.

Maturanga Maori and ToW relatied opportunitiesAgreed.

People Matter Agreed, but more needs to be said about research into messaging, into

nudging behaviour change, social norm changes, and

about science researchers understanding the significance and legitimacy of ethically motivated and value based decision making.

ADD that we also need to explore responsibilities of all people to the environment and the future, and

the rights of the environment and the future itself.

Underpining Science

36

ADD:

Research into the nature and application of decision making and decision rules in information short situations. This should include research on information sufficiency tests for decisions, the application of the precautionary pinciple, the use of protected areas as insurance mechanisms, etc.

Research on the New Zealand research institutional arrangments and rules, the allocation of the research budget, public access to defining research questions, public access to results, public access to public good research in resource management and conservation or utilisation decision processes.

Providing solutions through technologyThis section seesm to focus on the issue of biotechnology and genertic engineering of various kinds. There are many other technologies that need attention. These include:

Remote sensing

The use of drones and unmanned underwater or aerial sensing and monitoring vehicles and vessels, aerial and nautical, bio-indicators.

This section reads like a Gluckman inspired ode to genetic engineering. It is not helpful because it pushes the case and does not acknowledge ecological risks, the irrversibility of the release of non-lethal genetic engineering, etc.

In general we agree that informed debate is useful, but Gluckman’s declaration that those who oppose GE are “mad” fails to understand the ecosystem implications concerns and issues of irreveribility as opposed to human health concerns.

We recommend that this section be modified, as above.

We also recommend that IUCN’s work on “Nature based solutions” to climate change, biodiversity losses, mental and physical health problems and more be added in here. See Appendix 1.

--------------------------------------------------

Appendix 1

37

062 - Integration of nature-based solutions into strategies to combat climate change

RECALLING the commitments made by Parties at the 21st Session of the Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC COP21 – Paris, 2015) to fight against climate change;

STRESSING the recognition given in the Paris Agreement to the role played by ecosystems in climate regulation and in the adaptation to climate change regulations;

RECALLING that the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the UNFCCC recognise the importance of integrating ecosystem approaches into the responses to climate change, and ask for them to be considered as an integral part of local and national strategies to combat climate change;

ALSO RECALLING Aichi Biodiversity Target 15, calling for "ecosystem resilience and the contribution of biodiversity to carbon stocks" to be enhanced "by 2020" "through conservation and restoration, including the restoration of at least 15% of degraded ecosystems, thereby contributing to climate change mitigation and adaptation and to combating desertification";

WELCOMING the inclusion of the importance of the role played by ecosystems in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, adopted by the Third UN Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction (Sendai, Japan, 2015);

WELCOMING and ENCOURAGING existing initiatives, in many countries, involving nature-based solutions implemented by governmental organisations, local authorities, the managers of natural areas or citizens;

NOTING with great concern that the aggregate greenhouse gas emission levels in 2025 and 2030, resulting from the intended nationally determined contributions, do not fall within the least-cost 2ºC rise in temperature scenarios; and

RECALLING Resolution 5.083 Advancing the role of nature-based solutions to climate change mitigation and adaptation and their potential to contribute to the global climate change regulatory regime (Jeju, 2012);

The World Conservation Congress, at its session in Hawai‘i, United States of America, 1-10 September 2016:1. INVITES the States to:

a. integrate nature-based solutions into their national climate change mitigation and adaptation policies and strategies;

38

b. include these solutions in their intended nationally determined contributions and other documents where appropriate;

c. implement these solutions through actions aimed at protecting intact ecosystems and those in a good ecological state, including marine and terrestrial protected areas; actions aimed at improving the sustainable management of ecosystems used for human activities; and actions to restore degraded ecosystems and recreate natural environments contributing to these objectives;

d. integrate these solutions into natural disaster risk reduction projects and policies; and

e. find the necessary financial means for implementing these solutions, by mobilising all the financial mechanisms to address climate change from UNFCCC and other sources including the Green Climate Fund;

2. ENCOURAGES regional and local authorities to integrate these solutions into their territorial climate change adaptation and mitigation, energy and land-use planning policies and strategies, as well as their budgets where appropriate;

3. INVITES AND ENCOURAGES non-governmental organisations to promote and join in the implementation of these solutions and citizens' initiatives in countries and territories; and

4. ASKS companies to deploy these solutions in their projects and innovations.”

--- END of Part ONE of ECO’s Submissions --------------------------------------------------------

39