Why it makes so much sense to work together g
Our world would be so much more resilient if we could harness the specialists.
Afriend who worked in a university once described academia as “a collection of people who learn more and more about less and less, until they know everything about naff-all.”
I remembered that comment when I came across three things affecting many block owners and farmers which are being assessed separately but which would greatly benefit from collation.
Those three particular items were riparian strips, biodiversity and bee corridors. You don’t need a PHD to see the connection, do you? All we need is interconnected, biodiverse riparian plantings, and we’ve got all three boxes ticked, an obvious candidate for a combined, co-ordinated approach. The thought occurred to me during a
| one-day seminar on biodiversity, hosted by Forest and Bird which may point to one of the problems. Even single issues take significant chunks of discussion time, and the more issues you try to address, the less ground you cover. There’s also the need for someone to set the agenda, to decide what is in and what is out, and how much emphasis each part gets.
If I do an online search on riparian strips, biodiversity and bee corridors in Otago, I find the bee corridor issue is only being addressed in one geographical area ( Waitaki) and essentially by one person. Biodiversity is being covered in a wider fashion, but it appears that the Otago Peninsula (a long way from Waitaki) is where it has the most traction. Riparian planting is wider still, addressed by the Otago Regional Council and by Dairy NZ (which has an excellent website), but neither group seems to mention bees.
An over-arching approach would work best. Dairy NZ, despite the clear and useful web-offering, is a ‘vested interest’, so even with the best will in the world, it has the potential to weigh things in a skewed manner.
Would it not be best if monetary
WE WOULD END UP WITH A SEPARATE GROUP OF PEOPLE SPECIALISING IN GENERALISING...
considerations had no part in identifying what the best environmental, physical or social outcomes might be? We only have to look at the removal of shelterbelts in Canterbury to see what happens when ‘financially beneficial’ meets ‘environmental improvement’.
This tells us that overall governance (with rules and limits) via structures like the Regional Council might be the best way to go. But it would require at least 51% of the voting populace to be adequately informed and vote in favour of it. The Canterbury example also shows us how easily the local voting populace can be side-lined by vested interests. Logically then, we also need an informed populace voting for an enlightened