Permaculture in New Zealand

MEMORANDUM

2009-06-21

Reciprocate Biocapacity Ltd NPO
Registered Charitable Organisation

H. Janssen, C. Janssen
BioCapacity Analyst, Forest Ecologist,
Economist

Phone: +64 3 571 6026

Email: (biocapacity [at] gmail [dot] com">biocapacity(at)gmail.com)  
Skype: biocapacity
www.LifeCapacity.org    *see also www.bushvitality.org.nz

Reciprocate Biocapacity to sustain Life and Culture.

Introduction

Biocapacity[1] projects re-establish Earth’s biological capacity. They are fundamentally wholistic and long-term; they establish natural resources that sustain life and culture.
   

A culture that respects, restores and guards Earth's life-systems is an evolutionary necessity. Charitable Reciprocate Biocapacity Ltd was set up in May 2008 to advance a culture of ecosystem guardianship and help sustain Earth’s biocapacity. 

Financial support and land is sought at all times to significantly up-scale ecological reforestation, the re-establishment of natural resources, effective carbon sequestration and the restoration of indigenous biodiversity for a future of life and culture on Earth.

Background

The pervasive influence of society and its economy on Life’s functional integrity
requires a fundamental reorientation and acceptance of responsibility to maintain local and global biocapacity, which thus far has been subject to exploitation for corporate and personal gain the world over. The banking and economic crisis represents the house of cards of a fundamentally unsustainable system of exponential growth, built on the exploitation of natural resources and concomitant degradation of Earth’s biological capacity to sustain life.

Society has reached the tipping point, where worldwide resource and energy scarcity is
set to significantly shrink world trade and resource availability, resulting in
increased pressure on local resources and dependence on regional biocapacity.  Thus far economic and societal activities perpetrate the degradation of biocapacity at local and global scales by way of the systematic exploitation of natural resources (both renewable and non-renewable):

• The felling of accessible native timber trees to the late 1980s,
  • Extracting the
    best, leaving the rest (high grading).
• Fossil fuelled monocultures and
  • Resulting decline of soils’ storage and cycling bio-capacity for nutrients and water. 

Issues and Objectives

Pay-back time! We are all in arrears to compensate future generations for
the greedy consumption of Earth’s natural resources and for squandering its
energy!  

Surprisingly, despite easily accessed information, there is still little consideration for
life’s future and blatant disregard for our descendants’ plight for survival
within resource-depleted environments.

This issue outweighs by far the looming loss of self determination from crippling debt, driven
by a redundant economic system that is inherently unable and incompetent to
maintain life on Earth. 

In the near future towns’ material and energy requirements will primarily be sourced
locally.  Material and energy supply continuity will largely depend on the capacity of regions for sustained production inside functionally intact ecosystem processes, which in all
probability is achievable as environments’ land cover is proportioned[2]
as follows (Janssen 2006; 1,2):

1) 60 % permanent canopy forests composed of:

a) 20 % indigenous cover remaining[3] is considered the tipping point for indigenous ecosystems functional integrity and a minimum requirement for all environmental domains to maintain indigenous
biodiversity, as long as presently isolated remnants are connected by…

b) 40% of a bioregion’s area will have established indigenous and compatible exotic reforestation and permanent canopy silviculture, providing towns’ structural materials and energy requirements and linking remnant indigenous biodiversity

i) Biochar (Lehmann, 2007) produced here sustains soils’ productivity of (3) and contributes to energy (H2)
requirements of (4).

2) 20% grazed parkland; commons’ agro-forestry of pollarded or nut trees;

3) 10 % fields and orchards

4) 10 % towns’ infrastructure and gardens.

Biocapacity projects are primarily concerned with establishing and managing (1)b), 1)b)i) and 2) (> Font) ecological reforestation sites (40 %)and enhancing present land-uses to include grazed parkland; agro-forestry of pollarded or nut trees (20%) on public and private land.

Purpose

Any Biocapacity project’s purpose is to establish local community’s capacity[4] to support and deliver any biocapacity project [refer to 1)b), 1)b)i) or 2)] in a locality or ecoregion. 

Each project typically provides funding and guidance for reforestation design and establishment until such time (generally 5-10 years), as land guardians (families or communities of private or public land) acquired necessary expertise and are capable to care take established permanent-canopy ecosystems and its natural resources.

Each biocapacity project integrates and mitigates major environmental and sustainability issues of our time, as:

1. Natural resources are established for future generations, while
2. Ecosystem functions are restored to maintain biodiversity
3. Carbon pollution of the air is sequestered as useful carbon in permanent canopy forests, compatible agro-forests and in soils, thus re-establishing
   1. Soils’ storage and exchange capacity for water and nutrients and
   2. Resilient Environments that can provide for Communities’ sustainable natural resource needs.  

Response

Charitable Reciprocate Biocapacity Ltd was set up in May 2008 to advance a culture of ecosystem guardianship and sustain biological capacity. 

Financial support and land is sought at all times to significantly up-scale ecological reforestation, the re-establishment of natural resources, effective carbon sequestration and the restoration of indigenous biodiversity for a future of life and culture on
Earth.

Iwi, rural communities, towns and their organisational structures (Local Councils, NGOs) are well placed to scope long-term environmental sustainability issues and respond by restoring resilience of local biocapacity and thereby its community.

A region’s biocapacity results from the organisational capacity of its (biotic or
human) community to establish resilience from the efficient use and cycling of a locality’s available energy, nutrients and water in plants and soils[5]. 

In NZ multi–tiered, multi-species temperate forests are the ecosystems that
evolved efficiency to achieve this. 

Request 'Figure 1' here: biocapacity [at] gmail [dot] com .

Figure
1: BioCapacity Indicators: Biomass and Soil Carbon. Example of land-use type
effects (Janssen 1995, Tate 1997, Ford-Robertson 1999, Valentini, 2000,2, Scott
2000, 2006).

Note: Soil carbon depletion under fast growing trees (compare Pinus radiata) result from ecological strategies of fire-adaptation that specialise in effective soil
nutrient extraction.  Such ecosystem strategies are incompatible with native and indeed most temperate forest ecosystem strategies that instead specialise in evolving efficiencies in the cycling and storage of nutrients in plants and soils. (Janssen 1995).

A biocapacity project applies advanced ecological reforestation techniques to fast track a natural succession[6] from a state of depletion of natural resources to:

1. productive and site-adapted indigenous trees, managed as permanent canopy forest and / or
2. compatible agro-forests / parkland forage / nut-tree alley-cropping

that yield materials and energy on a sustainable basis and establish premium quality resources for future generations, while maintaining indigenous biodiversity and effectively offsetting sponsors’ ecological and carbon footprints.

Each biocapacity project integrates and mitigates major environmental and sustainability issues of our time, as natural resources
are established for future generations, while biodiversity is maintained and ecosystem functions are restored. Carbon pollution of the air is sequestered as useful, permanent canopy forests and in soils, thus re-establishing soils’ storage and exchange capacity for water and nutrients.  

Biocapacity Bonds.

Your Donation on www.lifecapacity.org

Your donation of $ 200 gets you a credit of 1 Biocapacity Bond, which permanently restores biocapacity on 100 m2 by establishing 20 multipurpose trees, that sequester 10 tonnes of CO2 equivalents (eq. to 10 Carbon credits) in both soil and plants.

Your purchase of 500 Biocapacity Bonds ($ 100,000)
restores the biological capacity on 5 global hectares, which is the Ecological Footprint (area required to produce materials and energy) that maintains an average person's consumer lifestyle in Europe and Asia. 

An affluent consumer should donate (sponsor / bequest)> 1000 Biocapacity Bonds to mitigate lifestyle effects on natural resources and environment and leave the Earth as abundant as you found it at birth.

Options (Portal to your Future)

Charitable Reciprocate Biocapacity can be regarded as your time PORTAL; your link to a future for life and your families’ descendants. 

Reciprocate Biocapacity is our ultimate option to forge a sustainable culture by reconciling blunders of our (in-) voluntary participation in an unsustainable global economy and society.

This Portal challenges you and every other person to be measured by your choice of one or the other option:

Option I:

Reciprocate Biocapacity to retain life and culture.  Establish Permaculture lifeboats. Grow Organic!

Donate / bequest land / funds to Reciprocate Biocapacity, mitigate your effects of consumption and begin to restore Earth’s natural resources.

• Descendants will acknowledge your eleventh-hour awareness in supporting wholistic actions that provide for their material and emotional needs and may thus pardon participation in a consumer lifestyle fuelled by unthinking ignorance and impulsive greed. 

Option II:

Do Nothing, ignorance, green-wash, self-serving half-measures, Demise.

Ignore this portal for a future and

• Be assured of descendants’ eternal repulsion when referring to the legacy of a lethargic and greedy ancestor, too ignorant and stupid to grasp the most basic concepts of housekeeping (ecosystem guardianship) and sustainability.  

Recommendations:

We recommend you: 

1)Note that pay-back is in arrears for the greedy consumption of Earth’s natural resources and for squandering its energy.

2) Commit yourself to achieve Option ONE and help establish a future for life and your families’ descendants.

Please take action and help establish a future for life and your descendants. 

 

• Donate Biocapacity Bonds, transfer, assets, sponsor, bequest to achieve wholistic objectives of charitable RECIPROCATE BIOCAPACITY Ltd (visit www.lifecapacity.org).

• Contact Reciprocate Biocapacity (biocapacity [at] gmail [dot] com)as a potential recipient of biocapacity funding to discuss opportunities and prepare your case; including environmental features and area of land you consider suitable for establishing a biocapacity project on, your skills, commitment and existing resources.

 

• Offer or bequest land to Reciprocate Biocapacity to help restore Earth’s natural resources. (www.lifecapacity.org
  / wholistic donations)

References

Ecoregions.World Wildlife Fund Conservation Science Programme http://www.worldwildlife.org/science/ecoregions/item1847.html

Ford-Robertson,J., Robertson, K. and Maclaren, P. (1999) Modelling the effect of land-use practices on greenhouse gas emissions and sinks in New Zealand, Environmental Science & Policy (2)135-144

Janssen HJ, 1995.  Trees’ Influence on Soil Development. Nutrient Cycling Strategies of Trees. MSc thesis Otago University.

Janssen H, 2006 (1).  Bush Vitality Assessment.Growing Common Futures.  www.bushvitality.org.nz

Janssen H, 2006 (2). A pilot inventory of elite native timber trees as seed-sources for
native afforestation silviculture from lowland environmental domains. http://www.maf.govt.nz/sff/about-projects/search/L06-047/index.htm

Landcare Research Soil Horizons Issue 13 March 2006

 

Lehmann, J, 2007. Bio-energy in the Black. Front Ecol Environ 2007; 5(7): 381–387

Scott,N.A., White, J.D., Townsend, J.A., Whitehead, D., Leathwick, J.R., Hall,
G.M.J., Marden, M., Rogers, G.N.D., Watson, A.J., and Whaley, P.T.(2000) Carbon and nitrogen distribution and accumulation in a New Zealand Scrubland Ecosystem, Canadian Journal of Forest Research, (30) 1246-1522

SCOTT Neal A. (1) ;TATE Kevin R. (1) ; ROSS Des J. (1) ; PARSHOTAM Amon (1) 2006, Processes influencing soil carbon
storage following afforestation of pasture with Pinus radiata at different stocking densities in New Zealand Australian journal of soil research. Aust. j. soil res. vol. 44, no2, pp. 85-96 [12
page(s) (article)] (1 p.3/4)

Tate, K.R., Giltrap, D.J., Claydon, J.J., Newsome, P.F., Atkinson, A.E., Taylor, M.D.
and Lee, R. (1997) Organic Carbon Stocks in New Zealand’s Terrestrial Ecosystems. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand.

Ulrich B, 1987. Stability, Elasticity, and Resilience of Terrestrial Ecosystems with Respect to Matter Balance. In: Potentials and Limitations of Ecosystem Analysis. Berlin, Heidelberg, NY: Springer Verlag.

Valentini, R., A. J. Dolman, P. Ciais, E.-D. Schulze, A. Freibauer, D. Schimel, and M. Heimann.2000. Hörhold, Jena, CarboEurope European Office, Max-Planck-Institute
for Biogeochemistry, Jena, Germany, October 2000. Accounting for carbon sinks in the biosphere, European perspective.

Valentini, 2002.  Results of Carbo-Europe. Europe-wide Programme that has Pioneered Research in to the Carbon Budget.

Valentini, 2002. Tree farms won’t halt climate change. New Scientist, October 2002.

Wackernagel, M., Monfreda, C., Moran, D., Wermer, P., Goldfinger, S.,Deumling, D., Murray,
M., 2005. “National Footprint and Biocapacity Accounts 2005: The underlying calculation method”. Global Footprint Network, Oakland, California, USA

WWF, 2001. Terrestrial Ecoregions of the world: A New Map of Life on Earth. Vol.51
No.11 BioScience 933.

WWF, 2004. “Living Planet Report 2004”. World Wide Fund
For Nature (WWF), Gland, Switzerland

WWF, 2005. “Europe 2005 The Ecological Footprint”. World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) European Policy Office, Brussels,Belgium. 

[1] "BioCapacity (biological capacity)" means the ability of ecosystems to sustain intrinsic biodiversity, produce useful biological materials and energy, and
cycle / reuse wastes generated by human activities (including carbon emissions). (Wackernagel 2005, WWF 2004-5).

That ability of ecosystems to sustain, produce and cycle, depends on its functional integrity and biodiversity which together establish an ecosystem’s resilience to buffer (sustain its people, plants and animals) against life threatening events (climatic and weather extremes, loss of bio-capacity to store and cycle nutrients in soil and living biomass) (Ulrich, 1987).

[2] Such land-cover type proportions are set to:

·         
Re-establish resilient and efficient ecosystem processes,

·         
Sustain intrinsic biodiversity and biological capacity,

·         
Produce sufficient useful biological materials and energy,
natural resources for future communities and towns

• Absorb and cycle emissions
  & wastes to replace depleted resources (soil carbon and nutrients)

·         
Transition towns / regions towards sustainability

·         
Empower bio-regional communities and

·         
Retain culture.

[3] In general hill country and mountainous environments, managed by the Department of Conservation.  In lowland environments,indigenous biodiversity is acutely threatened.  Here, 30 % of remaining native vegetation is privately owned. 

sp;

[4]
Expertise, reliable funding, significantly up-scaled productivity of top-quality natural resources

[5] Pragmatic BioCapacity indicators include (see Figure 1):

• Soils’ organic matter and exchange capacity for water and nutrients (t CO2 / ha) by
  land use type.
• Intact intrinsic biodiversity (proportion of each environmental domain)
• Biomass use potential and versatility (materials / energy)
• Recycling
  efficiency of non-renewable resources
• Towns and Bioregion’s community diversity and functional integrity.

[6] Ecological afforestation models apply species’ synergies to establish in excess of 100 top quality canopy trees per hectare, as opposed to 1-3 top
quality canopy trees per hectare, if a forest was to be left to regenerate from
depleted natural sources or conventional planting.