Editorial
The
Lord of the Rings is a sensational film in the best sense. It is a powerful
story played by good actors. It is the story of small, peaceful people
caught up in momentous events which will shape the whole future of their
world. It is about the uncomplicated simplicity coupled with unexpected
heroism of these people. It is a great adventure with lots of action.
And it is set in some of the most beautiful and spectacular scenery on
earth.
In
one analysis of the original book, the author JRR Tolkien is thought to
be commenting on the humanity and decency of the folk who were living
in a peaceful part of rural England, “The Shire”, who are threatened
by the twin evils of industrialisation and World War I. Tolkien loved
that “backward” rural area and was worried about the encroachment
of the ugly industrial cities that were advancing on it. He had fought
on the terrible battle fields of the Great War and was appalled by what
he had seen.
The
Lord of the Rings was a parable for the 20th century, probably for many
centuries. The vast industrial enterprise, the pit where Saruman’s
orcs laboured, devouring the forests to fuel their furnaces, may have
been more like the dark satanic mills of the 19th century rather than
modern ones. Still many factories are ugly places and their workers are
badly treated in some countries. We still destroy forests and rip up the
ground in our modern quest for power. The mighty armies marching and the
blood thirsty hand to hand combat have been replaced by long distance
fighting, but still we maim and slaughter.
Look
back at history and you can see the story repeated so often that it is
easier to ignore than to face. Look around us now, look into the future;
we see more of the same. Like the hobbits it is good to get on with our
own quiet life, but the evil in the world forces itself on our attention.
The
central theme in the book is the recognition that something of overwhelmingly
evil power, the One Ring, has been made and peace can not come to Middle
Earth until the Ring has been destroyed. In our own world there is nothing
as simple as a Ring of power. Certainly humans have acquired such power,
power to destroy much of nature and power to destroy themselves in the
process, but the power we have is not like the Ring, it is not uniformly
or inevitably bad.
What
we have to do is control that power, and control those who would use it
badly - the power itself cannot be destroyed. We have to recognise that
though we have the power to harm we also have the power to heal, although
healing is much harder than harming. It is easy to destroy a forest, very
hard to restore one to its original complexity. It is easy to introduce
exotic species, very difficult to remove them, and usually impossible
to replace lost species. It is easy to cause massive erosion, to dam rivers,
destroy wetlands. To return them to their original state of equilibrium
is difficult indeed. It is even easy to alter the climate of the whole
world, but next to impossible to reverse that change.
In the wonderful scenery of New Zealand it is easy to see the irreversible
changes caused by human power. The Maori began the process with their
extinction of the Moa, those giant chickens dispatched soon after the
first humans reached the Land of the Long White Cloud. Their travelling
companion, the Pacific rat, undoubtedly caused havoc amongst other bird
species. This is not surprising or blameworthy. No species of plant or
animal, including humans, can move into a new environment without affecting
the species already there. Usually that effect will be deleterious, occasionally
it is beneficial.
The
only native mammals in New Zealand were a couple of species of bats, but
there was a rich bird fauna and the birds occupied all available niches,
including those usually held by mammals. These birds suffered greatly
after European settlement, after the introduction of many mammals. The
rabbit was introduced and then in an effort to control it, ferrets, stoats
and weasels followed. Deer were introduced for hunting. Australian possums
were added in the hope of founding a fur trade. Wallabies were brought
in to add a bit of cuteness and variety, Cats, of course, came with the
settlers.
All
these creatures, one way or another, harmed the local bird life. Ground
dwelling and flightless birds fell an easy victim to introduced predators.
Most of the bird species suffered even more at the paws of the possum.
New Zealand turned out to be possum heaven: they loved the trees to death.
They ate the leaves and flowers, depriving the birds of food and shelter.
They ate the eggs and fledglings. Some species are extinct, many endangered,
and the bird song that so captivated early settlers has been replaced
with near silence in the forests.
The
distinctive red-flowering pohutukawa and rata trees had suffered so much
possum damage that Project Crimson was initiated in the 1990s. Its aim
was to re-establish them through plantings, scientific research, possum
control and public education. This is having some success.
There are success stories, too, in re-establishing some bird species.
The Department of Conservation has become expert in eradicating rats,
mice and cats from off-shore islands so that birds can be released in
safe areas and begin breeding up. There are some mainland ‘islands’,
securely fenced to protect their inhabitants, even a few unfenced ‘islands’
where heavy baiting is relied on to control the ferals. All these measures
take heroic efforts from their human guardians.
Still
there are people who cannot or will not learn. There are hunters who move
deer and wallaby to new areas, to increase their hunting options, with
no thought for the effect on the forest. Someone has tried to introduce
the Australian Eastern Rosella in the North Island. Just as someone has
introduced foxes to Tasmania, a move that could destroy several species
for which Tasmania is the last refuge.
Trying
to get across to everyone the need to look after what is left, to stop
selfish acts that destroy, to realise that humans have so much power that
if they do not control it they can irretrievably damage the world, that
is the challenge for this century.
Back
to Top
Forthcoming
NSF meetings
17 April
- 7.45 pm, Heysen Street, Weston
The
Australian Eco-labelling Program: a market trigger for sustainable
development
Petar
Johnson, President, Australian Environmental Labelling Association
(AELA)
The Australian
Ecolabel Program seeks to deliver to the Australian market a credible
indication of the environmental performance of a product or service.
By being able to recognise environmentally preferable products and
services, consumers can better choose their ecological footprint and
manufacturers can gain a competitive advantage on environmental performance.
Environmental labelling promises to be an important market-based instrument
for increasing design for environment and integrated product policy
on the Australian market. Petar will present an overview of how the
Ecolabelling Program works.
15 May
- 7.45 pm, Heysen Street, Weston
Peter
Young, Managing Director of Prime Waste Water Treatment, will talk
about his company's treatment of waste water biologically, without
the use of chemicals, to achieve the high standards required by Government.
19 June
- 7.45 pm, Heysen Street, Weston
Anna
Carr is a post-doctoral fellow at the ANU's Centre for Resource and
Environmental Studies. She is the author of Grass roots and green
tape: principles and practices of environmental stewardship.
Back
to Top
Solar
Energy Technology
Jenny
Wanless reports on the NSF March discussion meeting featuring a talk by
Dr Andrew Blakers
It was a
particular pleasure to welcome Andrew Blakers, who gave up an evening
(and rode his bike to Weston?) to tell NSF members about the work of the
ANU’s Centre for Sustainable Energy Systems.
For a start
Andrew listed the environmental problems arising from the use of fossil
fuels and nuclear energy for electricity generation. These include resource
depletion, acid rain, oil spills, local pollution in cities and warfare,
either nuclear or non-nuclear. Loss of habitat and biodiversity, of course,
are a result of the enhanced greenhouse effect, and in Australia fossil
fuel usage causes half of our greenhouse gas emissions, and half of that
is for electricity production. The other half of our greenhouse gas emissions
is the result of land clearance.
Energy generation
falls into four categories. In addition to fossil fuel and nuclear, there
is the ‘solar’ sector and ‘other’. The latter includes
tidal and geothermal. In general these are very restricted in location,
and tidal can be environmentally destructive, damaging or destroying sensitive
coastlines, as it would in the Kimberley region of Australia.
This leaves
solar, which includes, wind, hydro, waves and ocean thermal. Wave power
is not practical on a large scale, ocean thermal would have to be massive
in scale and is in the wrong place. Hydro and wind power are the only
good sources of indirect solar energy, but hydro can have high environmental
costs (cf. Lake Pedder and China’s Three Gorges Dams). Wind is very
efficient. The energy pay back time for the construction of wind generators
is less than a year. They also provide the largest return by area of alienated
land, far, far better than coal or nuclear, as farm animals can graze
very comfortably amongst the wind mills. Some people think there is an
aesthetic problem, but others do not agree.
Australia
has very suitable areas for wind generation around the southern coast:
wind speeds are generally higher on the coast, or off shore areas. This
is important because as wind speed doubles, energy output is cubed. New
Zealand is particularly suited to wind generation, but Australia is far
better for it than Europe though some European countries are investing
heavily in wind power. Scotland would be the best site for wind power
in Europe.
For sunshine-blessed
Australia direct solar energy should be the obvious electricity choice.
Solar input occurs all over the continent. At present solar electricity
can compete with high priced diesel generation in outback areas. The energy
pay back time for photovoltaic cells is less than two years now.
There are
two major solar energy research teams working in Australia to provide
cheaper and more efficient technologies. A group of about sixty people
is led by Martin Green at the University of NSW. Blaker’s own team
at the ANU has forty plus workers divided into a Photovoltaic (PV) group
and a Solar Thermal one.
Unfortunately
the Government is taking little interest in solar energy and does not
fund research. Money from the Greenhouse Office is only for commercialisation
of products, research has to be funded by commercial interests, which
is the reverse of former practices. Fortunately the company Origin Energy
has a very enlightened management which funds research. Indeed Origin
Energy is a good choice for ethical investment in the energy sector.
The ANU has
the world’s biggest dish for solar thermochemical energy production
and storage utilising ammonia disassociation and heat exchangers. Work
is also progressing on Phase Change machines utilising the latent heat
involved in phase changes.
Photovoltaic
researchers are delighted to be seeing an exponential rise in the production
of PV cells. Extrapolating from current rates we could see the whole surface
of the earth covered with PV cells within 50 years. (That should please
growth addicts!)
Current growth
is partly due to the policies of governments in Germany and Japan, which,
despite their unfavourable locations, are pushing PV installations on
roofs. In Australia we could supply all the electricity we use by covering
half of our roofs with PV cells.
The ANU PV
team is working with BP Solar on microcrystalline silicon cells, and with
Origin Energy on the Epilift process, which is reducing the amount of
silicon in silicon wafers, and therefore their cost. Along with those
reductions there will be a big increase in efficiency.
The team
has also developed trough concentrators, using the mirror-lined insides
of a trough to focus sunlight on PV cells along the focal axis of the
trough. The mirrors track the sun all day, so collect maximum sunlight.
Far fewer cells are needed, so the cells can be more expensive and more
efficient.
On their
roof at ANU, the team has installed a combined heat and power system (CHAPS),
which again tracks the sun. It produces both hot water and electricity,
giving a remarkable efficiency of 70 per cent. Because the hot water surface
is much smaller than in existing systems, there is little heat loss. There
are plans for a long trough CHAPS on the roof of Bruce Hall at ANU.
Despite the
ongoing struggle to get research funding Andrew’s talk was remarkably
positive. Industry is being helpful. Governments are tending to include
PV systems in aid packages to less developed countries. Surely we in Australia
could encourage governments to take solar energy seriously.
Back to Top
Linking
the Market to Sustainable Development - the Contribution of Ecolabelling
Petar
Johnson
Primary to
the causes of ongoing environmental degradation are the results of market
operations. Specifically the production and material characteristics of
products sold on the market, how they are consumed and how they are disposed.
The product life cycle within Australia for many modern products has resulted
in the now well established term “the throw away society”. Sustainable
consumption is the term accepted by the United Nations and many governments
as a policy aim underpinning many different environmental program efforts.
There is now a “sustainable consumption” program by the United
Nations Environment Program. Related approaches have been the arrival
of a number of other concepts including Factor 4, Factor 10 and Factor
20 each arguing that sustainable consumption requires a reduction of social
metabolism of our natural environment through the economy to one quarter,
one tenth or correspondingly one twentieth.
Efforts to
date to facilitate this type of reduction can only be classed as emerging
and in trial stages within different sectors of the Australian economy.
There are now a number of scientific approaches to delivering reductions
in the environmental impacts of the product life cycle. These are generally
known under a number of terms:
- Cleaner
Production - more energy efficient and less polluting production processes;
- Design
for Environment - a methodology used for designing products in such
a way that they perform their intended function with minimal environmental
impact and includes approaches such as the use of recycled materials,
less use of materials, servicisation and longer life;
- Life Cycle
Analysis - a scientific approach to tracking the environmental loads
of each stage of the product life cycle with precision and converting
these impacts to actual loads such as biodiversity, air pollution, water
pollution.
- Eco-Efficiency
- A general term for all of the above and anything else that has the
effect of more efficiently using the environment along the product life
cycle.
- Product
Stewardship – A management approach to the environmental and community
costs of the product life cycle whereby the manufacturer of the product
ensures that the products environmental and community loads are effectively
ameliorated by redesigning the life cycle and/or paying for rehabilitation,
waste management or community costs. It is a very broad term and can
be used for anything from the massive payouts by tobacco companies to
governments due to the health costs their products result onto the community
to companies planting trees as a way of compensating for their greenhouse
gas emissions.
A recent
study completed by Environment Australia showed that the financial subsidy
from the community in both financial and environmental terms amounted
to over $500 million per year to the electrical and electronic appliance
industry by considering only the cost to the community in disposing of
this equipment, greenhouse gas emissions from the use of appliances, and
some limited costings of toxicological releases from the waste. It is
little recognised in Australia that similar products or product services
can have very different effects on the environment depending upon how
their life cycle is managed.
The value
of a product life cycle environmental labelling scheme is that it allows
consumers of products sold on the market to differentiate between the
dirty and environmentally damaging products and those developed as greener
products which should have a significantly lower environmental impact.
The International
Standards Organisations has developed a standard to guide environmental
labelling programs classified as ISO 14 024. The standard is a useful
guide to ensure credibility, transparency and due rigor in the operation
of a program. The Australian Environmental Labelling Association Inc has
committed itself to delivering a national full product life ecolabelling
program for Australia in general conformance to this standard. The organisation
is pleased to announce that it has now issued three voluntary environmental
labelling standards for adhesives, recycled plastic and recycled rubber
products. The organisation is seeking expressions of interest from environmental
professionals to contribute to the work program of this non-profit Canberra
based organisation.
Back to Top
Lessons
from Malawi
“The
people with the problem are the people with the solution” - Miles
Horton, Highlander Center
Malawi
is often described as a poor country and it is common to read in the introduction
to any report on Malawi that: “Malawi is one of Africa’s poorest
countries. The most recent poverty analysis of Malawi suggests that 65%
of the population is poor.” Even a recent article in the Nature &
Society journal (Oct/Nov 2001) titled ‘People, Planet and Debt’
had an accompanying commentary which ended by pointing to ‘desperately
poor nations such as Sub-Saharan Africa’. The authors rightfully
pointed to the many destructive aspects of the loan systems such as those
that the IMF and World Bank are providing to governments, and I agree
it is the heavy focus on money which is causing many of our current problems,
but I don’t agree that Malawi is desperately or ‘woefully’
poor. Most people in Malawi didn’t think they were poor until foreigners
came here and told them they were. Prior to the arrival of the foreigners,
communities used what they needed from the environment and traded what
they had with other communities who had different things or different
skills.
The poverty
label that the ‘developed’ world has placed on the ‘developing’
nations is extremely detrimental to the self-sufficiency that could be
taking place if solutions, not problems were the focus. One of the biggest
barriers I’ve seen to improving lives is a focus on what is not available,
instead of what is available. This is putting so much focus on income
and money that the non-cost resources right around us are overlooked,
in fact they are even destroyed in the name of making money instead of
being protected and utilized in the name of health & prosperity! This
is not to say that money has no importance within most societies around
the world, as today many bartering systems have been replaced with a monetary
system of exchange. But the financial cost of living varies greatly in
each area of the world and in many of the developing nations the financial
cost of living is often very low – and in some areas it is non-existent.
A large part
of my work with nutrition and HIV has focused on dispelling the recent
myth of poverty in Malawi and reminding people of the wealth of resources
in Malawi that can supply everything we need. It involves an exciting
way of thinking that reverses the negative, problem-oriented view of looking
at what we don’t have to a more positive, solution-oriented view
of looking at what we do have, and how those resources can be utilized
to meet our needs. With this focus, a new set of eyes, and creativity,
riches are suddenly seen everywhere. It isn’t a skill that develops
overnight, but the more it develops and the more we learn, the more riches
can be found. Once we are making the most out of all of our resources
and are fulfilling our basic needs, then we can branch out more and more
to identify other opportunities to improve our community’s well-being
and to teach others to do the same.
Health
Many development
organizations focus on improving health of populations and collectively
spend millions of dollars on importing medicines, health care systems,
training, food aid, nutrient supplements & fortification, etc. But
inside each of our bodies we have a free built-in health system to defend
us from diseases that try to enter and to heal us from the ones which
do make it in; this system is the immune system. People and communities
with strong immune systems are able to prevent and fight many of the diseases
which can afflict weaker bodies. To work properly, the immune system must
have the nutrients it needs to fight, in addition to other factors like
rest. In order to improve nutrition, we have to provide the body with
a variety of different foods. But the food that people eat is only as
healthy as the soil that it is grown in and, just like humans, the soil
becomes unhealthy if it is ‘eating’ only one type of food. The
soil needs a wide variety of organic matter returning to it to get all
of the nutrients that it needs. This variety of organic matter can only
be obtained when people are planting and growing many different things—not
just one or two. As the soil improves and the organic matter is present,
it also helps to allow water to sink into the ground. Water is filtered
as it passes through the different layers of the earth, so that by the
time it reaches our drinking water it should be free from bacteria and
other things that cause illnesses. We refer to these connections as ‘The
Cycle of Better Living”:
• when we have healthy soil through having a variety of plants and
animals,
• it gives us healthier food and clean drinking water;
• healthier food and water give us better nutrition;
• better nutrition helps to strengthen our immune systems;
• when our immune systems are strong it helps to protect us from
disease and stay healthy.
What do
we have to do to improve nutrition?
Food security
is generally measured by the amount of a few staple crops (often only
one grain) that are available to meet a population’s calorie needs.
This is unfortunate as this says nothing for nutrition security, which
depends on a variety of different foods from several food groups in order
to meet calorie needs. The emphasis that is placed on increasing the yields
of one staple crop often results in: a diet that is low in nutrients;
soil infertility; high chemical & labor input farming; higher risk
of crop failures from weather, diseases and insects; destruction of natural
areas for crop expansion; decreasing & contaminated water supplies;
increased food aid, supplementation and fortification; and time-consuming,
expensive research into problems, such as genetic engineering.
In Malawi
the emphasis for about the last 50 years has been on maize, a crop which
is not even native to the culture. Before maize, Malawi’s environment
and diet revolved around a wide variety of local fruits, vegetables, nuts,
seeds, millets, sorghums, roots, and various animal foods. Although many
of these foods are still available, they are vanishing quickly because
of the push to supply maize year-round either by forcing the land to produce
it or by bringing in maize aid when the environment is unable to meet
our maize demands. Maize is not the only culprit, people are becoming
more interested in obtaining the foods of the west than in giving attention
to the abundance of foods right around them. Expatriates who come in to
‘help’ often never take the time to learn about these valuable
food resources that are already here. These local foods that are being
crowded out by maize and western foods are often higher in nutrients than
western foods, are available with no work or money, and are delicious!
There are over 500 foods available in Malawi that are able to meet all
the nutritional needs of people living here and we are trying to revive
the knowledge and use of these plants as part of the diet. Even food aid
and nutrition supplement programs can be provided in the form of local
resources instead of focusing on the intake of one or two items. In Malawi
it is feasible to provide calories in the form of local pumpkins, gourds,
beans, nuts, seeds, insects, fruits, roots, etc. as part of an aid package
when disaster interferes with the food supply, and micronutrient sources
are in abundance through local fruits and vegetables. By including a wide
variety of foods in our environment we can have better food & nutrition
security, in addition to healthy soil, plants and animals.
What about
disease treatment?
With the
current health system, there is a lot of emphasis on medical treatments
which are imported into developing nations instead of focusing on the
supplies which are already available in country. Medicinal treatments
have been a part of the Malawian culture for centuries, and there is a
lot of accurate and inaccurate information about the cause and treatments
of diseases. Around the world more people are taking heed of this knowledge,
including in Malawi, to identify the accurate treatments and to promote
them as part of treating diseases or symptoms. In some places, traditional
and non-traditional systems are coming together to share expertise, such
as western clinics offering herbal remedies or supporting traditional
healers in disease identification, and traditional healers are coming
together to form associations for advocacy and research documentation.
Development programs can come together with each other to focus on local
knowledge and assist to document & promote local medicine resources,
then assist in the logistics of making them available in a safe manner
to wider audiences.
What have
we done?
We have been
collecting plants, learning about them, sharing the seeds, teaching about
their importance in nutrition and the environment, using them in our own
meals, and encouraging their use for anyone living in Malawi – but
not as a job, as our life! In our first two years here we established
over 100 different local foods in one small half-acre plot, in addition
to other plants that can be used for fuels, medicines, and building materials.
Each year we have been able to add to our collection and knowledge and
to establish a few more things. As of last year, we had about 150 different
foods in the yard, along with numerous medicines and other supplies. We
are in the process of adding up the figures for this year’s yields.
The yields from this system are continuous (unlike a monocropped system
with yields once a year), and our yields are also increasing every year
as new trees reach maturity and more of the soil is improved to support
more life.
Many places in Malawi are now establishing similar permanent gardens utilizing
the principles of a way of living known as Permaculture (coined from “permanent
culture or agriculture”), and taking advantage of the riches which
we have here. People are utilizing grey water from washing clothes, dishes,
or bathing; using water at the end of wells where water often sits in
a large puddle; putting organic matter to use instead of burning it; reducing
the amount of clearing that is done; observing what nature has to offer
and using it wisely; and incorporating local varieties of foods and medicines
along with the conventional system that is in place. Everyone is the target
audience for this way of thinking and people from all walks of life in
Malawi have grasped the ideas and understood the importance of using what
we have available around us to the fullest potential - individuals, government
ministers, business people, health centres, nutrition rehabilitation units,
people living with HIV/AIDS, schools, expatriates, locals, wildlife &
environmental organizations – and the list goes on.
We all have
a part to play in improving the world and our thoughts, words and actions
can have a lot of impact on the world around us. If we each begin thinking
about local solutions to problems, and teach others to do the same, we
can all make this world a much better place.
Stacia Nordin,
RD
HIV/AIDS Crisis Corps Coordinator
PO Box 208, Lilongwe, Malawi, Africa
nordin@eomw.net
Back to Top
What
Canberra Needs to Do to Become Sustainable
Janis Birkeland
and John Schooneveldt, members of Nature and Society Forum’s Sustainability
Science Team, spoke on the work they are doing for the ACT Government’s
Planning and Land Management (PALM) at the February Meeting.
The ACT Government,
like all governments in Australia, has a commitment to “sustainable
development” but is having difficulty (which they would never admit)
in translating this commitment into appropriate policies and action. Nature
and Society Forum was commissioned by PALM to look specifically at a technique
known as “materials flows analysis” (MFA) and what it can do
to assist urban planners in making the built environment more ecologically
sustainable.
Janis and
John illustrated their talk with a power point presentation that Janis
uses in her teaching. The result of their work was to propose three criteria/indicators
which are both design criteria (ie future-looking decision making tools)
and performance indicators (ie past assessment/ research tools). Combining
these two conceptually different ideas into a single tool is a novel feature
of their approach.
The three
criteria/indicators are:
Resource
autonomy: where individual buildings (or small clusters of them)
are designed to be self sufficient in temperature maintenance, air quality,
ventilation, rainwater, lighting and energy requirements and general
operational performance.
Material
renewability/reusability: where only materials are used that are
reusable or renewable, but not recyclable (recycling involves reprocessing
and high embodied energy).
Ecosystem
services maintenance: where the building and its immediate surrounds
are designed to maintain the same level of ecosystem services after
development as was available before development. This might involve
restricting the building’s footprint and other impervious surfaces,
including roof top and/or balcony gardens, conservatories and other
plantings or combinations of these. Where this is not possible on a
specific site, additional rates should be paid to meet the cost of providing
the equivalent level of eco-system services elsewhere.
More work
is needed on ways of applying these criteria/indicators in practice, but
Janis and John argued that they were a start and if implemented fully
would ensure the sustainability of the built environment as such. It would
not address the unsustainable things some people choose to carry on within
that sustainable infrastructure, but that is a topic for another occasion.
Back to Top
Going
for Zero - The Majors Creek Music Festival
Gerry Gillespie,
President Canberra and South East Region Environment Centre
Majors Creek
is a small former gold mining community located on the very edge of the
escarpment south of Braidwood in NSW. Every year the community holds “Music
at the Creek”, a music festival which attracts an audience from the
surrounding community of Braidwood in Tallaganda Shire, the adjacent Canberra
region and a legion of festival followers from all over Australia.
This years
the organisers of the event decided to attempt something which had never
been achieved before – they were attempting to have no waste go to
landfill. The outcome? They achieved it. During this year's annual Majors
Creek Music Festival, not one piece of waste went to landfill. All recyclable
materials produced at the event were sent off to recycling markets, all
food waste and packaging was placed in a windrow to be composted and used
around trees in the town's recreation grounds, and the remaining mixed
plastics and foils were used as aggregate in a concrete slab in a wet
area, outside the hall.
The festival
attendance this year was around 4,000 with approximately 3,000 people
camping on the site. Campers were provided with a small bin for their
organic waste which was taken after meals to larger bins placed around
the site.
The express
purpose was to demonstrate that achieving a Zero Waste target at such
an event was achievable. Zero Waste to Landfill can be achieved at any
event through the modification of a basic system that caters for all waste
materials, despite the fact that differences exist between the various
factors in effect at any given event. There may be a need to change packaging,
information, processing and handling to suit the event but the principal
change needs to occur in the minds of those conducting the event. The
creation of a Zero Waste to Landfill event required all those involved
to stretch both their abilities and imaginations to achieve the desired
outcome.
Research
showed that notable levels of recycling have been achieved at previous
public events. It was also found that at some events in other areas, in
order to attend the event, organisers required stallholders to use only
recyclable products as packaging for their foods and beverages.
This had
not been the case previously at Majors Creek Festivals, so a considerable
mind shift was required of the organisers, the recyclers, the stallholders
and all in attendance to deliver the desired outcome.
In addition
to making this year’s “Music at the Creek” a Zero Waste
to Landfill event, Resource NSW, who managed the Zero Waste system, also
wanted to create a rural model, packaged so as to be readily transferred
to any similar event in the area. To do this required accurate recording
of all the positive and negative outcomes and the development of a full
equipment ‘kit’. It was important to identify any potential
or transferable faults and their potential to sidetrack any future application
of the ‘kit’ as it moved from community to community.
The next
event ‘going for zero’ will be the Cobargo Music Festival to
be held February, then the Braidwood Show, the Back to Earth Fair in Cooma
and the National Folk Festival in Canberra.
With the
correct sponsor for the Recycling Lids used for collection of materials,
going for zero may well become the norm at public events.
Editor's
note: Now the National Folk Festival is over, The Canberra Times reported
(1/4/02) that the amount of material sent for recycling this year was
about double the nine tonnes recycled last year.
Back to Top
|
