Alien Species.vp - IUCN

costs. Notes Michael (1991): “so many have deeply vested and powerfully held interests in the
status quo (more or less), thereby, strong unconscious as well as conscious needs to deny the
reality of the fundamental unrecognised issues … ” Says Ehrlich (1997): “The biological and
cultural evolution that eventually produced people (including ecologists) has also largely tuned
the human nervous system (and presumably those of other animals) to ignore very gradual
changes in the ‘back-drop’ of the environmental stage on which the drama of life is played out”.
Cause and effect in invasion biology often seem disconnected. As Low (1999) says: “The
power we wield seems incomprehensible – tiny actions ignite explosive consequences.
Something as trivial as a seed on a sock or a spore on a shirt can rewrite world history. Someone
took a diseased potato to Europe last century and triggered the Irish Potato Famine and a
million people died … . We are clumsy giants on a fragile planet vested with powers we cannot
comprehend … ”
These explanations do not explain why conservationists neglect this issue. How do we
explain the failure of Suzuki, a leading environmentalist and bitter critic of globalisation, to
grasp the most serious environmental consequence of globalisation? According to Maj De
Poorter (pers.comm) of the IUCN Invasive Species Specialist Group, only in New Zealand
does a leading conservation group (The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society) take a major
interest in invasions. This is because alien invasions have devastated New Zealand, with most
native forest birds now extinct on the main islands. Nowhere in the world is an NGO devoted
entirely to alien invaders in toto (although such a group may form soon in Australia). This
represents an extraordinary omission by conservation groups, especially as many are trenchant
critics of globalisation.
Conservationists neglect this issue for several reasons: they are pre-occupied by dramatic
events (invasions are often subtle), are reluctant to demonise plants and animals; are
ecologically unaware; perceive alien invasion as an old-fashioned issue mainly affecting
farmers; or believe the issue is simply one of better quarantine. Another problem is that alien
invasions are often viewed in isolation, as a thistle problem or a rat problem or a fire ant
problem. The larger picture is overlooked.
According to Michael (1991) “we choose our social causes in terms of our own
psychological needs”. Many conservationists are disillusioned by humanity, finding solace in
the “purity” of untainted nature. In a duality of wilderness and culture, alien invaders do not fit,
for they are effectively tainted nature.
Also, the wilderness ethos promotes a holistic approach to nature instead of a classificatory
one. Wilderness devotees rarely notice weeds because they cannot identify them.
Conclusions
A dilemma confronts us. “We want a world in which people are as free as possible to travel and
to exchange goods and ideas” says Bright (1998). “But at the same time, we need a world in
which most other living things stay put.”
Unfortunately, these two goals are largely irreconcilable. Alien invasions are inevitable
when goods and people move. New technology will reduce invasions but will not stop them.
We may stall ballast invaders and cut down on petty smuggling at airports, but pests will not be
stopped from travelling in cargo, on hulls, or during crises such as war. We should design
transport systems with the goal of eliminating invasions, but without expecting success.
The most logical way to reduce alien invasions would be to reduce mobility of people and
products. But this will not happen because we value freedom and mobility more than we fear
pests. Most world leaders endorse globalisation.
We should at least acknowledge the full cost of mobility. Cost-benefit analyses applied to
trade and travel would show their true cost. (Costings exist for several pests travelling the wake
of freer trade.) Were the true costs shown, some trade (i.e. bait fish, cut flowers, used farm
41
Human dimensions of invasive alien species