A good read - and exactly what rewilding is about. You're right, as both the terms restoration and conversation send the wrong message. Conservation is just straight-up wrong, as nature cannot and should not be conserved (i.e. canned, kept as is). And restoration might suggest restoring nature to a certain time in the past, as you write. But here at least I'd say that when rewilders talk about restoration, it is not that about restoring to a past baseline, but restoring biodiversity, the necessary wealth of flora and fauna to create a healthy ecosystem, whatever that future healthy ecosystem chooses to look like. Terminology is always a tough one - a single word can be used and misused, can be boon and bane.
Great thoughts, Daniel. Agree the terms are a bit fraught, but they're here to stay. Rewilding is much more useful nowadays. I'm not sure I used that term once in my post somehow! Ooops. Basically what the whole thing is about. Rebuilding the conditions that allow ecosystems to sustain key functions now and into the future.
This is excellent, Jonathan, a thoughtful balance between the necessity of fixing our mess and the reality that the mess is now larger than we are, across both time and space. I don't have any hackles up, but I worry that "redefining ecosystem integrity for an Anthropocene biosphere" will mean for some folks that we can move the goal posts closer to apathy... But as long as we have some integrity about redefining ecosystem integrity, we'll be on a better path.
Thanks, Jason! This is the challenge. I think it's a risk that's worth being aware of because, like you say, some folks could use it as an excuse to just not restore at all. People don't like nuance -- they see "we should be careful about aiming to restore the past" as an excuse to not restore at all.
And so topics like this can divide folks. Similar to discussions about non-native species where many fall into either end of the spectrum. But ecosystems are complex and require nuanced consideration and approaches.
The other thing is that it forces you to confront tradeoffs between functionally degraded "natural" ecosystems and novel ecosystems that can maintain critical processes.
Which is why it's key to have a clear definition of 'success'.
I'm not sure how to articulate where we'll draw the line, but I look forward to the day where the major debates in the news center on the nuances of ecological restoration. We can hope, right?
This article has really highlighted the need for change and to look at the ongoing care of our planet in more of a holistic view. No single one action will work anymore. Yes, it is good to reflect on the mistakes of the past but more importantly it is better to be flexible in how we can help our ecosystems to be more diverse and resilient in the future.
The terminology used can be challenging, there's no doubt about that. But to do nothing or say nothing, that is worse!
Thanks for sharing. This is an interesting topic to wrestle through. I just finished reading about how the critical minerals like copper and oil needed to sustain this culture are nearing their end, so not sure about your 'never going back' statement, especially since we've only just deviated in the last several hundred years (north american here).
idk, it's awkward to claim that this economy, that we know is unsustainable, will continue as is. It's really young, changes at speeds only nitrogen can produce, and hasn't shown much resilience. Any restoration work done in this time will be prized by future land stewards. Our shifting baseline has gone into uncharted waters. Preserving
One of several problems about discussing restoration is audience. Hippy organic farmer on 20 acres has very different perceptions and toolbox than large corporate entity serving large corporate projects, different than gov agencies that own and manage alot of land, and different than academic researchers. Oftentimes we get into these arguments about restoration without understanding each others background and utilities, and will rarely find common ground.
Appreciate your take here on not fixating on a historical marker. I get it because early in my career that was all I had really to rely on as a benchmark. After getting experience it evolves similar to what you've done here.
I found to focus on ecosystem health. To assess the ecosystem similar to how a doctor would during a visit. Most ecosystems have degraded health for the reasons you list and more. Restoring health is an open-ended target that can look infinite ways, not just a species list.
But I appreciate the species lists. The complexity that increased biodiversity brings can be transformational health wise. All these species are linked together with other species, whether it be a pollinator for one plant that needs another plant to breed, and another plant to eat. The big white oak needs the flowers at its feet, nurturing insects and a rhizosphere that the white oak benefits from. To look at the species list as a list of individuals hides their collective identity and dependence on each other.
Having an incomplete species list is a puzzle incomplete. Assembling as many of the puzzle pieces as are left is often the best path we have to restoration. But other stuff usually needs be happening alongside species additions. The species list is not all that matters. But it's a key component. Maybe the issue is that we have been trained in reductionist thinking and problem solving, and don't know how to integrate the species list without hyper-focusing on it??? Like if we can feel we are in control of something then life makes sense. It happens, I've done it and seen others do it.
To reconcile, I add the species in small quantities at a time as tests. Who does well, who doesn't. Maybe those who don't will do better once other species have been added later, so we try them again later too. This way the site is informing restoration while the person doing the restoration is getting feedback they can respond to. This iterative process fine-tunes the restoration customizing it.
Ultimately, it's the biodiversity and abundance at the rhizosphere that I want to get a sense for, and work to restore health there. Each plant species offers unique microbiology the opportunity to flourish. Adding plant species back influences the rhizosphere for other plants and accumulates to scale at every level going up.
For example, an urban client called because in her 3 year old new build home, all the expensive landscaped native plants were sick, dying, or dead. We amended the scraped lawn soil with some stuff and watched the plants all come to health. We restored health to a degraded site. A suburban lawn. Plants became productive, which lit up the insects and other animals. For me, restoration is about restoring life to a degraded site.
Maybe the problem is that we think 'restored' is a target, which is where you ended your thoughts. A noun. I just read another substack post about how our modern day technoculture is noun based whereas more earth based cultures are verb based. This might be an area to consider our dependence on a noun.
Probably best to just use it as a verb. We are restoring. Always restoring. Restoring function, productivity, health, resilience, diversity, life...
Thanks -- this resonates. Treating restoration as a verb rather than a destination is key. And just to clarify, when I say we're not going back, I mean ecological and climatic conditions are continuing to change -- not that our current economic system is somehow permanent. Appreciate your in-depth thoughts here.
Nice article. Key is that restoration cannot be a single action. Restoring functions and processes requires stewardship, including the funding required to sustain persistent functional improvements in ecosystem processes. Modest tweaks are usually sufficient, letting nature do much of the “work”. Resetting conditions such that natural processes are unleashed is better than building out a “preferred condition”.
I agree, Jonathan. However, the terminology that I have trouble with is resilience. Not very helpful! Each restoration project must have a timeline and a species list in mind (with a range of equally desirable species). These goals must absolutely be set with the best climate modelling in mind. We will get better at hitting those targets as we go. We will also get better at incorporating process rates into the restoration work. https://stephenmccanny.substack.com/p/conservation-biology
That all really depends on how you define resilience. I'm not sure what you mean by it not being helpful. If we take the social-ecological view -- the ability of a system to adjust, learn, and reorganise in response to change -- is that not a helpful state to be in? Even the classic ecological view -- the amount of disturbance a system can absorb before it shifts into an alternative stable state. These are pretty good states to reach, no?
"Instead of designing restoration to achieve targets that no longer exist" ... my first large land work was exactly this, a Council requiring a short timeframe "Restoration" of 16Ha of dryland in an area with a 150 years of pastoral burning, a history of urea, super phosphate, zero plants council's ecologist said should exist, and all in an atmosphere where CO2 had risen 18% since 1965. I argued for something different as a successful outcome looked exceedingly unlikely, and obtaining the plants would have been near impossible as few were in cultivation, let alone planting in a short window.
I call what I do Earth repair. Even after studying plants for 35 years, I know it can only ever be repair. That knowledge is very hard on my mind, to choose which beings have a chance .. and which do not. Much better to resist damage in the first place and not get into this globalised mess.
(the law's requirement for everything to be sure, known, defined and parameterized is maddening in its ignorance and hubris), if Sveninng's framework in your quote was in district plans and national law it would make all our lives so much better, and Earth and her societies (all beings) would benefit so much if we (all people) could work honestly with ecology.
"Earth repair" -- love that. Agree -- there's so much uncertainty that we need, flexible, adaptive approaches to deal with the level of uncertainty we face. The ecological models of change are highly uncertain, and they use climate models as input, which is equally uncertain. These uncertainties propagate. So we need approaches capable of dealing with such uncertainty.
Here’s* a Earth repair example - getting from theory to planted solution .. is complex, I will prob. still be involved in steering this in the 2030’s, a lot of new things learnt too.
A lot of 'to make this work as a whole (legal, ecologically, aesthetic, landslide, funding, planting logistics....), I need 300 kanuka here, 200 ti-kouka there, an
a line of pine trees there (cull before they cone)..... for that patch I need... and there are 100 patches.
*Google: "growplan" "leaflet" "module planting" -ai. Search will find my post, I get “attachements ate not allowed” when I tried to post url.
I'm just getting back from NAFEW, the North American Fire Ecology Workshop, and I think fire ecologists are way ahead of the curve on the need to manage forward towards desired future conditions that support ecosystem function, rather than trying to restore backwards to lost historical conditions. I really enjoyed coming across this parallel and lovely take on the same questions this morning!
Very cool, Sophie! Glad to hear that. I think when the stakes are that high for human assets, the need to be more proactive is so much more readily accepted.
I’ll summarize a video I watched and was influenced by probably ten years ago.
It described a depleted landscape, exhausted of all its soils and suffering endless erosion.
What happened as with any who spend *time* with the people/things they wish to help, was a longer term curiosity, the typical term of seven years to one location, a practice is not a theory, it remains a practice.
What observation can do is see the cover crop, not the monoculture.
Watch which ‘invasive’ or assumed *weed* builds soil, grows quickly and brings nutrients to hide the wound.
What we may assume ‘competition’ may just be renewal, the foundational work, stabilizing an act of soil from rocks.
My secret favourite the Arbutus tree, digesting granite for breakfast.
Over time honoured study the sharing of soil becomes apparent, plants share, Darwin was right, the plebes were wrong.
The word is *fittedness* not fitness, but when the wrong word is not included in observation, the causation is judgement not humility of the time required to study.
Who do you know who always picks up the book by reading the cover, seeing the popularity, admiring the recommendations and consuming the material just to poop it out as quickly as it arrived?
The world has been lost in transitional behaviour, the expecting can only expect, the witness can only remain a spectator.
**I’ll be back**
Can be our century of waiting, confused, calculating and authority of none.
By way of example
Every flower has its insect, every insect has its behaviour, we only just discovered the solitary ground bee, how truly stupid of a monocultural education we have become, the ground bee is the most prolific fruit crop pollinator, which makes us look insane for not noticing.
An important concept, and one I've been struggling with as well. Before switching to writing about biodiversity, I worked in conservation, and part of my job was to restore prairies (that's also what my master's thesis was about).
Even 20 years ago some conservationists knew that getting back to baseline ecosystems (the oft-touted "pre-industrial") was not realistic, but the tough thing is figuring out what to "restore" to instead for ecosystem resilience. What are these species assemblages that will thrive in this new world with new climatic conditions and non-native species introductions we are creating?
One useful thing about the baseline habitats was that we at least knew what species belonged there (at least kind of, the degree of knowledge differers by habitat type). But under changing conditions different species are adjusting differently, and we don't know enough to be able to accurately predict what a resilient ecosystem will look like in 100 years.
Instead, I think we'll have to experiment and ensure as much genetic diversity as possible (and that is appropriate for a particular species), and allow connections between habitat types so species can move (with the caveat that a study I wrote about yesterday found that 70% of temperate species are actually not moving north (in the Northern Hemisphere) in response to climate change - yikes! What will conservationists do now?).
Ultimately it's our own lack of knowledge about the intricacies of life on Earth that will be the biggest hindrance of moving beyond the baseline restoration targets to find something that actually works in functionally protecting biodiversity.
Great thoughts, Ruth! Interestingly, a lot of paleo work is showing us now that we're not even as sure about the baselines anymore. Things that are considered nonnative now were actually present in past times that pre-date modern history in many cases. There's a lot to learn. But the key is being nimble and focusing on processes, not states.
I’ve spent a few years working in the environment sector in the UK and from my experience a lot of conservation there is built on this framework of different organisations/landowners essentially vying to have what they see as the ‘true’ baseline restored. Eg a pre-ice age forest vs a thousand year old heather moor. The islands there have been inhabited by people for so long, it creates these competing, and sometimes contradictory, ideas about what restoration looks like. I wonder if there is something in what you say that would enable a more collective approach in such cases.
Also, it strikes me how privileged we are in NZ in terms of our response to biodiversity loss. You want to know what the land looked like before there were humans, you go for a walk in a national park. Yes there is damage from invasive mammals, but by and large you can see the pre-human baseline. Or perhaps this makes us more biased towards restoration in the backward-turning sense? Would be interested to know your thoughts around the role of novel ecosystems in the NZ specific context.
Interesting, Anna! You've hit the nail on the head. Knowing what the baseline is is almost impossible in Europe given the long human history. As mentioned in my response to Ruth, we're continually uncovering new information about where species used to be.
Yes, I think we're a unique case here in NZ given the short human occupation. We know pretty well what our ecosystems looked like before humans. I think we need to start thinking clearly about novel ecosystems here in NZ. While our climate has less cues compared to continental climates (given the maritime weather system), there are still important events that are being disrupted. So species will begin to hit up against their limits and we need to design systems that can cope with these novel conditions.
This is such an informative, interesting piece, thank you Jonathan. I do a bit of woodland conservation in my local patch and it’s always interesting to engage with the public who sometimes find the idea that conservation isn’t always necessarily maintaining the status quo or a version of the past that is increasingly difficult to recreate sustainably, quite tricky to accept. I’m not an expert by any means but when I’m working with my students (11-15 yrs mostly), we talk a lot about biodiversity and how things change and we need to adapt - while trying to frame things as positively as I can as there’s a lot of eco anxiety and sadness out there.
Thanks Rebecca. Great to hear from the front lines. Yes, it's hard to convey the message that restoring to the past isn't always the best thing to do. Environmentalists are passionate folk. And yes, there is a lot of eco anxiety out there. I don't think the answer is to just convey good news stories 100% of the time but a mix is key. But most importantly, is to show that action can result in positive outcomes. People need to know they have agency.
A good read - and exactly what rewilding is about. You're right, as both the terms restoration and conversation send the wrong message. Conservation is just straight-up wrong, as nature cannot and should not be conserved (i.e. canned, kept as is). And restoration might suggest restoring nature to a certain time in the past, as you write. But here at least I'd say that when rewilders talk about restoration, it is not that about restoring to a past baseline, but restoring biodiversity, the necessary wealth of flora and fauna to create a healthy ecosystem, whatever that future healthy ecosystem chooses to look like. Terminology is always a tough one - a single word can be used and misused, can be boon and bane.
Great thoughts, Daniel. Agree the terms are a bit fraught, but they're here to stay. Rewilding is much more useful nowadays. I'm not sure I used that term once in my post somehow! Ooops. Basically what the whole thing is about. Rebuilding the conditions that allow ecosystems to sustain key functions now and into the future.
This is excellent, Jonathan, a thoughtful balance between the necessity of fixing our mess and the reality that the mess is now larger than we are, across both time and space. I don't have any hackles up, but I worry that "redefining ecosystem integrity for an Anthropocene biosphere" will mean for some folks that we can move the goal posts closer to apathy... But as long as we have some integrity about redefining ecosystem integrity, we'll be on a better path.
Thanks, Jason! This is the challenge. I think it's a risk that's worth being aware of because, like you say, some folks could use it as an excuse to just not restore at all. People don't like nuance -- they see "we should be careful about aiming to restore the past" as an excuse to not restore at all.
And so topics like this can divide folks. Similar to discussions about non-native species where many fall into either end of the spectrum. But ecosystems are complex and require nuanced consideration and approaches.
The other thing is that it forces you to confront tradeoffs between functionally degraded "natural" ecosystems and novel ecosystems that can maintain critical processes.
Which is why it's key to have a clear definition of 'success'.
It's tricky though -- where do you draw the line?
I'm not sure how to articulate where we'll draw the line, but I look forward to the day where the major debates in the news center on the nuances of ecological restoration. We can hope, right?
We can hope indeed! Wouldn't that be amazing.
This article has really highlighted the need for change and to look at the ongoing care of our planet in more of a holistic view. No single one action will work anymore. Yes, it is good to reflect on the mistakes of the past but more importantly it is better to be flexible in how we can help our ecosystems to be more diverse and resilient in the future.
The terminology used can be challenging, there's no doubt about that. But to do nothing or say nothing, that is worse!
100%!
"Is restoration chasing ghosts?"
... and is it actually creating them?
Noting that 'restored' forests (mass tree planting) tend to have significantly shorter survival time than original growth forests.
Absolutely, Jeff. Technically, that'd not be 'restoration' but many consider it that way.
Thanks for sharing. This is an interesting topic to wrestle through. I just finished reading about how the critical minerals like copper and oil needed to sustain this culture are nearing their end, so not sure about your 'never going back' statement, especially since we've only just deviated in the last several hundred years (north american here).
idk, it's awkward to claim that this economy, that we know is unsustainable, will continue as is. It's really young, changes at speeds only nitrogen can produce, and hasn't shown much resilience. Any restoration work done in this time will be prized by future land stewards. Our shifting baseline has gone into uncharted waters. Preserving
One of several problems about discussing restoration is audience. Hippy organic farmer on 20 acres has very different perceptions and toolbox than large corporate entity serving large corporate projects, different than gov agencies that own and manage alot of land, and different than academic researchers. Oftentimes we get into these arguments about restoration without understanding each others background and utilities, and will rarely find common ground.
Appreciate your take here on not fixating on a historical marker. I get it because early in my career that was all I had really to rely on as a benchmark. After getting experience it evolves similar to what you've done here.
I found to focus on ecosystem health. To assess the ecosystem similar to how a doctor would during a visit. Most ecosystems have degraded health for the reasons you list and more. Restoring health is an open-ended target that can look infinite ways, not just a species list.
But I appreciate the species lists. The complexity that increased biodiversity brings can be transformational health wise. All these species are linked together with other species, whether it be a pollinator for one plant that needs another plant to breed, and another plant to eat. The big white oak needs the flowers at its feet, nurturing insects and a rhizosphere that the white oak benefits from. To look at the species list as a list of individuals hides their collective identity and dependence on each other.
Having an incomplete species list is a puzzle incomplete. Assembling as many of the puzzle pieces as are left is often the best path we have to restoration. But other stuff usually needs be happening alongside species additions. The species list is not all that matters. But it's a key component. Maybe the issue is that we have been trained in reductionist thinking and problem solving, and don't know how to integrate the species list without hyper-focusing on it??? Like if we can feel we are in control of something then life makes sense. It happens, I've done it and seen others do it.
To reconcile, I add the species in small quantities at a time as tests. Who does well, who doesn't. Maybe those who don't will do better once other species have been added later, so we try them again later too. This way the site is informing restoration while the person doing the restoration is getting feedback they can respond to. This iterative process fine-tunes the restoration customizing it.
Ultimately, it's the biodiversity and abundance at the rhizosphere that I want to get a sense for, and work to restore health there. Each plant species offers unique microbiology the opportunity to flourish. Adding plant species back influences the rhizosphere for other plants and accumulates to scale at every level going up.
For example, an urban client called because in her 3 year old new build home, all the expensive landscaped native plants were sick, dying, or dead. We amended the scraped lawn soil with some stuff and watched the plants all come to health. We restored health to a degraded site. A suburban lawn. Plants became productive, which lit up the insects and other animals. For me, restoration is about restoring life to a degraded site.
Maybe the problem is that we think 'restored' is a target, which is where you ended your thoughts. A noun. I just read another substack post about how our modern day technoculture is noun based whereas more earth based cultures are verb based. This might be an area to consider our dependence on a noun.
Probably best to just use it as a verb. We are restoring. Always restoring. Restoring function, productivity, health, resilience, diversity, life...
Thanks -- this resonates. Treating restoration as a verb rather than a destination is key. And just to clarify, when I say we're not going back, I mean ecological and climatic conditions are continuing to change -- not that our current economic system is somehow permanent. Appreciate your in-depth thoughts here.
Nice article. Key is that restoration cannot be a single action. Restoring functions and processes requires stewardship, including the funding required to sustain persistent functional improvements in ecosystem processes. Modest tweaks are usually sufficient, letting nature do much of the “work”. Resetting conditions such that natural processes are unleashed is better than building out a “preferred condition”.
Well said, Michael! Resetting conditions is key.
I agree, Jonathan. However, the terminology that I have trouble with is resilience. Not very helpful! Each restoration project must have a timeline and a species list in mind (with a range of equally desirable species). These goals must absolutely be set with the best climate modelling in mind. We will get better at hitting those targets as we go. We will also get better at incorporating process rates into the restoration work. https://stephenmccanny.substack.com/p/conservation-biology
That all really depends on how you define resilience. I'm not sure what you mean by it not being helpful. If we take the social-ecological view -- the ability of a system to adjust, learn, and reorganise in response to change -- is that not a helpful state to be in? Even the classic ecological view -- the amount of disturbance a system can absorb before it shifts into an alternative stable state. These are pretty good states to reach, no?
A realistic view of what restoration/rewilding projects should take into consideration. Thanks for the insights.
My pleasure, Dawn. Glad you enjoyed it.
"Instead of designing restoration to achieve targets that no longer exist" ... my first large land work was exactly this, a Council requiring a short timeframe "Restoration" of 16Ha of dryland in an area with a 150 years of pastoral burning, a history of urea, super phosphate, zero plants council's ecologist said should exist, and all in an atmosphere where CO2 had risen 18% since 1965. I argued for something different as a successful outcome looked exceedingly unlikely, and obtaining the plants would have been near impossible as few were in cultivation, let alone planting in a short window.
I call what I do Earth repair. Even after studying plants for 35 years, I know it can only ever be repair. That knowledge is very hard on my mind, to choose which beings have a chance .. and which do not. Much better to resist damage in the first place and not get into this globalised mess.
(the law's requirement for everything to be sure, known, defined and parameterized is maddening in its ignorance and hubris), if Sveninng's framework in your quote was in district plans and national law it would make all our lives so much better, and Earth and her societies (all beings) would benefit so much if we (all people) could work honestly with ecology.
"Earth repair" -- love that. Agree -- there's so much uncertainty that we need, flexible, adaptive approaches to deal with the level of uncertainty we face. The ecological models of change are highly uncertain, and they use climate models as input, which is equally uncertain. These uncertainties propagate. So we need approaches capable of dealing with such uncertainty.
Here’s* a Earth repair example - getting from theory to planted solution .. is complex, I will prob. still be involved in steering this in the 2030’s, a lot of new things learnt too.
A lot of 'to make this work as a whole (legal, ecologically, aesthetic, landslide, funding, planting logistics....), I need 300 kanuka here, 200 ti-kouka there, an
a line of pine trees there (cull before they cone)..... for that patch I need... and there are 100 patches.
*Google: "growplan" "leaflet" "module planting" -ai. Search will find my post, I get “attachements ate not allowed” when I tried to post url.
I'm just getting back from NAFEW, the North American Fire Ecology Workshop, and I think fire ecologists are way ahead of the curve on the need to manage forward towards desired future conditions that support ecosystem function, rather than trying to restore backwards to lost historical conditions. I really enjoyed coming across this parallel and lovely take on the same questions this morning!
Very cool, Sophie! Glad to hear that. I think when the stakes are that high for human assets, the need to be more proactive is so much more readily accepted.
I’ll summarize a video I watched and was influenced by probably ten years ago.
It described a depleted landscape, exhausted of all its soils and suffering endless erosion.
What happened as with any who spend *time* with the people/things they wish to help, was a longer term curiosity, the typical term of seven years to one location, a practice is not a theory, it remains a practice.
What observation can do is see the cover crop, not the monoculture.
Watch which ‘invasive’ or assumed *weed* builds soil, grows quickly and brings nutrients to hide the wound.
What we may assume ‘competition’ may just be renewal, the foundational work, stabilizing an act of soil from rocks.
My secret favourite the Arbutus tree, digesting granite for breakfast.
Over time honoured study the sharing of soil becomes apparent, plants share, Darwin was right, the plebes were wrong.
The word is *fittedness* not fitness, but when the wrong word is not included in observation, the causation is judgement not humility of the time required to study.
Who do you know who always picks up the book by reading the cover, seeing the popularity, admiring the recommendations and consuming the material just to poop it out as quickly as it arrived?
The world has been lost in transitional behaviour, the expecting can only expect, the witness can only remain a spectator.
**I’ll be back**
Can be our century of waiting, confused, calculating and authority of none.
By way of example
Every flower has its insect, every insect has its behaviour, we only just discovered the solitary ground bee, how truly stupid of a monocultural education we have become, the ground bee is the most prolific fruit crop pollinator, which makes us look insane for not noticing.
Interesting — there’s definitely something about how we judge weeds and early-stage recovery there.
An important concept, and one I've been struggling with as well. Before switching to writing about biodiversity, I worked in conservation, and part of my job was to restore prairies (that's also what my master's thesis was about).
Even 20 years ago some conservationists knew that getting back to baseline ecosystems (the oft-touted "pre-industrial") was not realistic, but the tough thing is figuring out what to "restore" to instead for ecosystem resilience. What are these species assemblages that will thrive in this new world with new climatic conditions and non-native species introductions we are creating?
One useful thing about the baseline habitats was that we at least knew what species belonged there (at least kind of, the degree of knowledge differers by habitat type). But under changing conditions different species are adjusting differently, and we don't know enough to be able to accurately predict what a resilient ecosystem will look like in 100 years.
Instead, I think we'll have to experiment and ensure as much genetic diversity as possible (and that is appropriate for a particular species), and allow connections between habitat types so species can move (with the caveat that a study I wrote about yesterday found that 70% of temperate species are actually not moving north (in the Northern Hemisphere) in response to climate change - yikes! What will conservationists do now?).
Ultimately it's our own lack of knowledge about the intricacies of life on Earth that will be the biggest hindrance of moving beyond the baseline restoration targets to find something that actually works in functionally protecting biodiversity.
Great thoughts, Ruth! Interestingly, a lot of paleo work is showing us now that we're not even as sure about the baselines anymore. Things that are considered nonnative now were actually present in past times that pre-date modern history in many cases. There's a lot to learn. But the key is being nimble and focusing on processes, not states.
I’ve spent a few years working in the environment sector in the UK and from my experience a lot of conservation there is built on this framework of different organisations/landowners essentially vying to have what they see as the ‘true’ baseline restored. Eg a pre-ice age forest vs a thousand year old heather moor. The islands there have been inhabited by people for so long, it creates these competing, and sometimes contradictory, ideas about what restoration looks like. I wonder if there is something in what you say that would enable a more collective approach in such cases.
Also, it strikes me how privileged we are in NZ in terms of our response to biodiversity loss. You want to know what the land looked like before there were humans, you go for a walk in a national park. Yes there is damage from invasive mammals, but by and large you can see the pre-human baseline. Or perhaps this makes us more biased towards restoration in the backward-turning sense? Would be interested to know your thoughts around the role of novel ecosystems in the NZ specific context.
Interesting, Anna! You've hit the nail on the head. Knowing what the baseline is is almost impossible in Europe given the long human history. As mentioned in my response to Ruth, we're continually uncovering new information about where species used to be.
Yes, I think we're a unique case here in NZ given the short human occupation. We know pretty well what our ecosystems looked like before humans. I think we need to start thinking clearly about novel ecosystems here in NZ. While our climate has less cues compared to continental climates (given the maritime weather system), there are still important events that are being disrupted. So species will begin to hit up against their limits and we need to design systems that can cope with these novel conditions.
This is such an informative, interesting piece, thank you Jonathan. I do a bit of woodland conservation in my local patch and it’s always interesting to engage with the public who sometimes find the idea that conservation isn’t always necessarily maintaining the status quo or a version of the past that is increasingly difficult to recreate sustainably, quite tricky to accept. I’m not an expert by any means but when I’m working with my students (11-15 yrs mostly), we talk a lot about biodiversity and how things change and we need to adapt - while trying to frame things as positively as I can as there’s a lot of eco anxiety and sadness out there.
Yes - agency is key!! We have to be honest about the mess but without hope, as one of the younger students said, what’s the point of it all!?
Absolutely!
Thanks Rebecca. Great to hear from the front lines. Yes, it's hard to convey the message that restoring to the past isn't always the best thing to do. Environmentalists are passionate folk. And yes, there is a lot of eco anxiety out there. I don't think the answer is to just convey good news stories 100% of the time but a mix is key. But most importantly, is to show that action can result in positive outcomes. People need to know they have agency.
When the ball jumps the cup. Whats the new functional state? Make sure your desired condition is attainable.
Indeed! Defining success ahead of time is critical.
Great article, Thanks!
My pleasure, Brian! Glad you think so.