By Peter Boyle
The reports of the prime ministerial task force on "ecologically sustainable development" stack up to more than the height of former prime minister Bob Hawke. But environmental groups are divided on how productive the process is.
The task force, set up in 1989, handed the final reports of its nine working groups to the federal government on December 2.
The Wilderness Society, which refused to participate in the working groups from the outset, has repeated its doubts on whether the reports will lead to anything constructive. Greenpeace, which pulled out of the process last year when the Hawke government announced its plans to pass "resource security" legislation, stands by its decision.
However, the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), which participated jointly in all but the forestry working group (boycotted because of the federal go-ahead for logging in the south-east forests of NSW), have given qualified support to the reports. The joint ACF/WWF ESD Policy Unit has published a 270-page response.
The ACF and WWF say that the working groups were stacked with business and pro-business government officials, that government and business representatives opposed any mandatory measures on the private sector and that the recommendations were of a short-term nature and phrased in bureaucratese that will make it easier for the recommendations to be avoided.
The ACF and WWF are worried that the process will drag on and the recommendations will be further watered down if the reports go to the May 1992 Premiers Conference, as is foreshadowed. They want a new federal office of ESD to be formed as part of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet to start implementing the recommendations now.
Agriculture
The National Farmers Federation intervened in the working group on agriculture with ideologically entrenched positions, according to the ACF/WWF, allowing only "incremental" progress.
The ACF/WWF complained that the group refused to seriously consider the impact of the vast area of land used as pasture, and plumped instead for the future development of improved pastures.
The ACF/WWF called for national farm planning, an immediate moratorium on clearing of native vegetation (pending protective legislation in all states) and more federal funding for research and development of organic farming and sustainable agricultural systems.
They demanded mandatory targets for reduction of the use of dangerous chemicals in agriculture and national monitoring and labelling of ood. There should also be a nationally coordinated program of demonstration farms to promote ecologically sustainable farming.
The ACF/WWF also raised some issues not included in the official report, such as: a ban on the release of genetically modified organisms until protective legislation was in place, Aboriginal representation in future ESD processes, special provisions for women in Landcare programs and the consideration of animal welfare.
Energy
The energy working group was dominated by representatives of coal, mineral and electricity industries and supporting government officials. It supported more exploitation of minerals and their processing as the only "competitive" future for the Australian economy. Development of "green manufacturing" was dismissed.
The energy and energy use working groups rejected a tax on all carbon fuels. However, they urged greater funding for research and development on renewable energy technologies.
The energy use working group made a vague recommendation on the possible use of waste as an energy source. (Industrial recycling was barely discussed by any of the groups.) It did not encourage co-generation and fuel-switching by domestic consumers (e.g. natural gas for cooking and solar energy for hot water) — as demanded by the conservation groups.
The ACF/WWF applaud these reports' support for "least-cost energy planning", under which they say a number of renewable energy sources can compete with new power stations and new gas pipelines. They also count as positive a recognition that society should be prepared to accept some sacrifice for the sake of reducing greenhouse emissions.
Transport
The conservationists also felt frustrated in the transport working group, which decided that the big changes needed were too difficult and politically unacceptable.
The report did not call for increased funding for public transport, recommending only that ESD considerations be taken into account in decisions about transport infrastructure. Authorities were urged to encourage greater use of public transport but at the same time focus on becoming more "efficient", which means cutting expenditure. The report also encourages "user pays", which suggests higher fares and hence lower patronage.
Much was made instead of trying to make cars less polluting and of reducing car usage through pooling and urban planning. The report also urged the removal of various subsidies for low-density outer suburban development, but there was little positive encouragement for a transition to sustainable cities.
Pollution controls
In the manufacturing and mining working groups, there was considerable discussion of pollution controls. While the former was prepared to accept a mix of regulation and market measures, there was no agreement on what were "sustainable levels" of pollution. Manufacturing and mining companies were keen to receive tax and other incentives to reduce pollution but did not like the idea of big fines for offenders.The working groups did not fix targets for pollution reduction or for a transition to "clean production". It was clear, if not stated openly, that nothing would be acceptable that industry could escape by shifting overseas. "Australia's competitiveness" served as the euphemistic label for this threat to take their money and run.
There are few recommendations which will result in immediate action on the environment. It is telling that the ultraconservative Business Council of Australia welcomed the ESD groups' "commendable progress".