THORNY PROBLEMS - Rethinking Invasion Ecologies from the Environmental Humanities - page 119

keeping out non-native species that could potentially carry exotic diseases and
organisms (Muller et al ., 2009). The rise of the global discourse of biodiversity
conservation during the 1980s was embraced by environmentalists and agricultural
policy-makers alike through the metaphor of invasions by alien species. The first
newsletter of the IUCN's Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG) entitled 'Aliens'
declared that 'the spread of non-indigenous plant species' was 'among the greatest
threats to Australia's biodiversity . . . Almost every major ecosystem has been
extensively altered . . . and degradation continues as these species infill and expand
their range' (ISSG, 1995: 13).
Although contemporary imaginings of Australian national identity celebrate
Indigenous and multiple cultures of immigrants, the legacy of the awkward
relationship between settler and native nature persists in new ways of engaging with
the land. Native flora and fauna have gone from being grotesque and inadequate
to beautiful and cherished for their intrinsic native-ness, but their value continues
to be measured in economic terms in relation to agricultural and pastoral industries.
Protecting Australian nature continues, at heart, to be about defending a particular
culture of pastoralism and agriculture on the land as symbolic of the country's
national identity (Davison and Brodie, 2005).
National land narratives: from improvement to care
The terms 'land' and 'country' are often used interchangeably in everyday con-
versation, but the words convey very different sensibilities of relationships between
people and place. Broadly speaking, land conveys a sense of ownership, the
possibility of delimiting territory, establishing a claim to it, making it a commodity.
Country, on the other hand, carries a meaning that is much more than possession.
It places individuals in relation to a living world encompassing human and non-
human species; it is constantly produced and sustained through these living
relationships. It is interesting that Australian Aboriginal English chooses 'country'
as the word to refer to areas that would, in mainstream English, be commonly
considered land. 'Country', not preceded by any article indicating possession, is the
Aboriginal English expression of 'a living world that has its sources in the past and
in place, that is in the process of becoming, that works towards interspecies
relationships that are “always coming”' (Bird Rose, 2008: 157). It alludes to a world
of geographical, historical and ecological relationships which exists beyond pos-
session and is instead about 'belonging' with them. Perhaps this relational sensibility
is why colonial governments, obsessed with ownership, found it easy to dismiss
Aboriginal presence and belonging and take possession of the land.
Ideas of land improvement in the colonies were not only expressed through the
introduction of economically useful plants and animals, but also through that
ideology of property, which requires wresting every bit of value out of every
measure of land owned or occupied. Settlers were required to clear land for
agriculture to prove productive use and show efficient stocking rates of sheep and
cattle to secure pastoral leases on Crown Land. The gospel of efficiency justified