Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Department of Geography, Environment and Development Studies, Birkbeck College University of London,
London WC1B 5DQ
email: k.barker@bbk.ac.uk.
National borders, national ecology and national the presence of risk goods. (‘Duties of people in biose-
curity control areas’, New Zealand Government 1993,
citizenship identity?
no 95 s. 35)
While national elements in some citizenship forma-
tions have come into question in the face of globali- Just as biometric passports seek to make the fixed
sation, cosmopolitanism and the transnational biological characteristics of an individual transpar-
character of environmental degradation (Dean ent, an arsenal of technologies including x-ray,
2001; Ong 2006; Gabrielson 2008), biosecurity is a visual and olfactoral inspections by human eyes
state-forming activity and profoundly national in and dogs’ noses, risk profiling and signed New
highly significant, though fractured ways. This is Zealand Passenger Arrival Card declaration forms
despite biosecurity requirements enshrined in glo- (which constitute legal documents) seek to make
bal legislation, including the World Trade Organi- transparent the relational biological characteristics
sation’s ‘Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary Agreement’, of individuals and unwanted organisms. Any bio-
and the Convention on Biological Diversity.6 Inva- security transgression, including erroneous failures
sive species as ‘life out of bounds’ (Bright 1999) are to declare risk goods, receives an infringement
non-territorial and ‘constitutively international in notice and instant fine of NZ$200, with intention-
the sense that they do not, cannot, and will never ally false declarations facing a fine of up to
respect national borders’ (Dobson 2003, 2). Non- NZ$100 000 and ⁄ or 5 years’ imprisonment (MAF
native yet valued agricultural species disrupt the Biosecurity 2007).8
singular attribution of value to native species, and A parallel form of national bordering utilises
attention to correct local ecotypes breaks down the aligned inclusionary and exclusionary discourses,
monolithic category of the national, natural native. rather than powerful legislation and border tech-
However, at key junctures biosecurity is fundamen- nologies, to generate a homogeneous New Zealand
tally defined by the bio-ecological transgression of identity tied to a particular vision of a national eco-
the political borders of nation states. The nation logical resource (Anderson 1991 [1983]; Ginn 2008).
state underpins the scientific classification of native The outsider to this national natural identity is pro-
from alien species (Kendle and Rose 2000; Warren duced and vilified through the explicit use of coun-
2007), and native nature is utilised as a fixed eco- try names within common names for invasive
logical metaphor around which to delimit natural species (Mexican daisy; Chilean flame-creeper;
heritage and national citizenship identity (Dunlap Argentinean pampas grass) (Mike Harré9 interview
1999). The classification for biological entities of 2005), and through the dramatised metaphors of
being ‘new to New Zealand’ (not known to be in terror, security and war within biosecurity public
New Zealand prior to July 1997, when the Hazard- education messages to generate concern and fear
ous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 came (Barker 2009). In contrast:
into force) restricts their importation through the
Our native species – including our national icons (the
requirement of an environmental impact assess- kiwi, silver fern, and koru) – and their supporting habi-
ment with zero-tolerance to biological risk. tats and ecosystems help define us as a nation. (Biose-
National borders are utilised to control biological curity Council 2002, 15)
mobility enabled through symbiotic individuality.
Invasive species that threaten native nature, threa-
When crossing into New Zealand at airports or
ten the image of the nation, and so controlling or
seaports, the biosecure citizen passes through bio-
preventing them is a patriotic act. This can be seen
security control areas, crucial ‘detachment zones’,7
in MAFBNZ’s original mission statement, which
where they are contractually obliged to:
urged New Zealanders to: ‘Be vigilant and protect
(a) Obey any reasonable direction of an inspector in those things which quintessentially define us as a
relation to risk goods; and nation – which make our country and our spirit
unique and special in the world.’ The strap-line for
(b) Answer all questions asked by an inspector that are
an editorial in the policy magazine, Biosecurity,
necessary for the inspector to ascertain the presence,
reads: ‘Biosecurity is an issue at the heart of many
nature, origin, or itinerary of any risk goods; and
‘‘home proud’’ citizens of Aotearoa. This statement
(c) Make available for examination by an inspector any
is certainly true of Maori’ (Clark 2006, 310). By con-
goods in his or her possession or under his or her structing biosecure citizen identity around a native
immediate control so that the inspector may ascertain (spatially and temporally fixed) natural heritage in