Reforestation proposal (or justification for herbicide ban)
Banning the import or production of herbicides would result in initial rationing and subsequent careful, selective use.
In time, inevitably, herbicide stocks would be depleted, leaving their former 'consumers' to make do without.
Without access to a cheap, nasty way of killing back nature and clearing land for grazing and cropping, farmers would be forced to revert to alternate techniques if they wished to prevent areas of land becoming forested.
Such techniques include heavy grazing with animals, manual labour and selective burning.
Burning should be discouraged as it releases carbon dioxide, increases erosion risk during heavy rainfall events and can lead to damage to people and property.
Using manual labour to clear plants from land offers several benefits including; employment for local people, more selective control of what is removed, as well as keeping a downward pressure on farm sizes. More on this later.
Working with grazing animals such as sheep, goats, cows, pigs, geese and others has numerous benefits besides the clearing of land for pasture or cropping. Firstly and most importantly where making money is concerned, the animals work for free. Secondly, they leave a conveniently placed scattering of fertilising manure wherever they spend time. Additional, the animals clear out the under story first. This makes the larger remaining trees accessible for people to cut manually. Felled trees can be used for composting or terracing on site or removed for fuel wood or timber. Finally, animals turn some of the biomass they into products of value, such as leather, meat, milk and the like.
A direct result of the disuse of herbicides would be the gradual reforestation of landscapes that could not be economically cleared with the techniques described above. This produces its own set of benefits:
- Increasing absorption of atmospheric carbon dioxide
- A growing stock of timber to fill the gap left by rising cost and dwindling availability of plastics derived from fossil fuel
- Fuel wood for space and water heating, cooking and other energy uses
- Reduced soil erosion
- Improved soil water retention and reduced evaporation
- Ecosystem in which to hunt and gather wild foods
- Higher nigh-time temperatures under the canopy
The difficulty with proposing to remove access to herbicides, even gradually, is the inevitable opposition by effected parties and individuals. They would attempt to make a case that would allow for business as usual, likely seeing imposed restrictions or regulations as an assault on their freedom to choose and their liberty to pursue profit.
In order to revoke a privilege like the widespread use of toxic chemicals it is necessary to offer some form of compensation for the loss.
One possibility here is to reduce the barriers to subdivision of land. Promoting smaller parcels of land results in more intensive and diverse farming on a scale suited to a lower energy future of manual labour and draft animals. Farmers can reduce their farm sizes, selling excess land.
Taking such a radical step would go a long way to re-enforce the clean, green brand and identity that New Zealand actively promotes.
