Govts face tough balancing act

IMPACT: Seabed iron sand mining may take place off the coast of Patea.

With an election looming, those of us concerned about balancing economic development with environmental protection should be looking at emerging trends elsewhere to see what challenges we'll face in the near future. The prospects don't look good.

Concerns about economic growth, job creation and government deficits predominate. Support for mining and logging natural forests grows. In Australia, the Government wants to delist 74,000 hectares of Tasmania's World Heritage Area so as to expand logging in these forests. The move was rejected by Unesco's World Heritage Committee, but the Government is considering revisiting the issue.

In 2010 the UK Government announced a plan to sell off about half of England's public forest land. This was abandoned in 2012 after huge public opposition, but it showed the willingness of some to discard conservation land in favour of development. That sounds familiar.

Threats to national and globally significant conservation areas have emerged elsewhere. The Queensland Government, with federal Government backing, will allow dredged material to be dumped within the boundaries of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, another World Heritage Site. Up to five ports along this coast are scheduled for expansion to boost coal exports. Support for increased fossil fuel and mineral extraction, including using controversial extraction techniques, is widespread, regardless of environmental consequences.

Paralleling these developments, Governments have been cutting back those agencies responsible for environmental protection, or bringing them under closer political control. Australia has scrapped its National Water Commission, set up to oversee water reforms, and shut down the politically independent Climate Commission, transferring its functions to the Department of the Environment.

The Canadian Government has shut down or limited the functioning of some of its scientific agencies. Environment Canada, responsible for co-ordinating the country's environmental policies and programmes, has had its budget cut by 20 per cent. Natural Resources Canada has experienced similar cuts. Major job losses will follow.

In Britain, the Government's Environment Agency, responsible for conservation and ecological research, has lost a quarter of its funding since 2009. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs faces similar budget cuts.

With over nine billion people on the planet and, for many, rising standards of living and increasing consumption of food, energy and materials, the demand for resources can only intensify. The need for effective environmental protection must rise with it. Unfortunately, too many people - current Governments among them - see environmental protection as a stumbling block rather than as an essential complement to the process of using the world's natural resources sustainably.

Are our politicians promising anything different or are we destined to follow the same path? (To some extent we already are.) Despite the apparent short-term benefits, what will be the longer-term outcomes? Which political party will best serve the interests of sustainable resource use? Do you know? It is worth considering carefully and choosing wisely.

Peter Frost is an environmental scientist who has worked on issues of environment and development overseas, and who wonders if our current development pathways are truly sustainable.