|
Editorial
This issue
of Nature and Society celebrates the tenth anniversary of the incorporation
of the Nature and Society Forum. So how are we getting on? Some critics
claim that NSF is simply a group of well-intentioned people, who like
to talk about issues but do nothing. There is a little truth in this,
but indeed we do do more.
From the
beginning there have been divergent views amongst members as to the relative
value of actions and words. This is natural and healthy; it reflects the
wide range inherent in a human population. Without the thinking and talking
we would not be human. After all most of life is involved with being whatever
the organism is, doing whatever is necessary to be that organism, in that
particular niche. It is only with humans that reflecting on what they
have done, or thinking about what they will do, has been vitally important.
This ability has put humankind into an immensely powerful position, in
which our actions impinge on everything else on the globe. And it is because
too many people do not think enough about what they do - or, from an environmental
point of view, do not think enough about matters beyond their own immediate
comfort, and give no thought to connections - that the world is in such
a pickle.
The Nature
and Society Forum was established to make people more conscious of the
links between the health and happiness of the environment and the health
and happiness of humans. From the beginning some members thought it was
more important to change people’s behaviour than to talk about it,
for instance the way they deal with rubbish, or how they travel. This
practical approach made one member organise a bike parking area at an
environmental fair, to try to winkle people out of their cars. Another
practical effort was to provide reusable plastic plates and mugs for sale
at the National Folk Festival, plus a washing up place, to encourage festival
goers to turn away from throw-aways. After a couple of years, this approach
was changed to getting the festival to purchase a large number of crockery
and plastic mugs, and to provide a washing up service, hiring out the
mugs to stall holders. At the same time recycling services were organised
for paper, glass, cans and compost. This all worked, most stall holders
cooperated, but of course it was really hard work.
Nevertheless
a seed had been sown, and the washing up service continued after the NSF
organisers pulled out. It is very heartening to know that a much bigger
effort is now being made to introduce No Waste to Landfill festivals.
There is still a long way to go, as you will see from Gerry Gillespie’s
report in this issue. This is what you would expect when you see what
the general public does, even with the household rubbish and recycling
bins that have been standard in the ACT for years. Many householders do
not use their bins properly, and some do not even understand that overfull
bins are difficult or impossible for the collecting trucks to manage.
This brings us back to education and understanding. The main thrust of
NSF activities has been to educate through discussion, courses, conferences
and publications, with a trial run on providing speakers on energy conservation
to other community groups.
In addition
there is a strong group working to establish a National Biocentre, an
actual physical place where this type of education could continue, but
with an emphasis on displays and practical demonstrations. The aim is
to show people the links between humans and the rest of nature, along
with practical things individuals and businesses can do to green their
lifestyle, reducing their harmful effects on the environment.
On looking at human impact on the earth, it is obvious that one of our
major impacts is our built environment. Someone pointed out that for most
humans our preferred habitat is cleared land. We could add, cleared land
with human structures built on it. So one of our best moves would be to
improve the built environment by making it use less in the way of natural
resources. To this end NSF has entered dialogue with builders and the
housing industry. In fact it is becoming obvious that one of the best
ways to achieve anything like sustainability is to work with the people
who make and build things. This does not remove the need to continue trying
to get everyone else to understand the connections. Just as everyone needs
more knowledge to make recycling work, so too does it take knowledge and
will to live properly in a solar efficient house. A passive solar house
needs an active occupant!
Humans are
a funny lot, with myriad vices and virtues. No one is wholly wise or totally
stupid, and all are different, There is no one way to educate everyone,
no one way to change behaviour. We have to try all manner of approaches;
practical actions, theory and discussion. We need displays, videos, books,
radio, meetings, humour and drama. We need to lead by personal example.
Trying to
get people to see and understand connections is of prime importance. When
you can see links everywhere it is hard to believe they are not obvious
to everyone else. When you know a debate is raging about genetic modification
of crops it is a shock to find that many people are barely aware of it,
or think it only matters if crops are for food. When you are painfully
aware of the wide range of effects of climate change, it beggars belief
to find that others think it only means they’ll have warmer winters.
Or that they do not understand that their own life styles are contributing
to climate change. This is why every possible approach to environmental
education has to be tried.
Action-oriented
environmental organisations need their theoretical and educational side.
Theoretical concerns need to show practical possibilities for the future.
From the Wilderness Society, to the Master Plumbers’ association,
to large corporations, to political parties, all have a part to play.
NSF is in there, doing its bit.
Back
to Top
Forthcoming
NSF meetings
17 July
A
response to health inequalities - The Peoples Health Movement and
a Peoples Health Charter — Prue Borrman, Coordinator, Health
Care Consumers Association ACT
My talk
will discuss the vision of the movement , begun in Savar Bangladesh
in December 2000. I will talk about the impulse behind the movement,
what happened at the Assembly and how it continues. I would like to
explore with those present ways of working toward this vision using
the charter and the idea of People Health Movement circles to share
information and to support the basic ideas expressed in the Charter.
Vision
Equity, ecologically-sustainable development and peace are at the
heart of our vision of a better world - a world in which a healthy
life for all is a reality; a world that respects, appreciates and
celebrates all life and diversity; a world that enables the flowering
of people's talents and abilities to enrich each other; a world in
which people’s voices guide the decisions that shape our lives.
There are more than enough resources to go around.
The Peoples Health Movement is a broad movement encompassing grass
roots, academic, research and campaign groups across a range of areas.
e.g Dag Hammersskjold Foundation, Physicians for Social Responsibility,
Consumer International, Health Action International. I work for a
grass roots health consumer organisation. I attended the first Peoples
Health Assembly in Bangladesh in 2000.
21 August
The
Double-Edged Sword - Interactions of nature and society in response
to serrated tussock in Monaro
— Alice Thompson
This
presentation is based on a study examining nature and society interactions
in Monaro, South-east NSW, in response to the introduction and spread
of the pasture weed Serrated Tussock (Nasella trichotoma). Serrated
tussock is considered to be amongst the most important weed species
in Monaro, providing a significant threat to the social, economic
and ecological sustainability of many landholders throughout the region,
and grazing properties of South-east NSW.
On a
local scale, this presentation will explore broader patterns of change
over time, in the context of the biophysical, social and institutional
settings of the Anembo/Jerangle region, using serrated tussock as
an indicator. The relative nature, timing and scale of these changes
will be discussed, in order to gain an understanding of the complex
interplay of human and environmental factors leading to the spread
of serrated tussock, and subsequent difficulties faced by many landholders
in managing the weed. Through taking an historical and integrated
perspective, this study, and presentation, provides insights into
the conditions where the control of serrated tussock is possible.
18 September
NSF
AGM
16 October
Report
on World Summit on Sustainable Development
Back
to Top
Interview
with Stephen Boyden
Daniel
Connell, former Social History Unit journalist with the ABC, talked
with Stephen Boyden about his past and present roles in Nature and Society
Forum
Daniel:
How was the Nature and Society Forum established? What were the circumstances
that caused it to come together?
Stephen:
It all goes back to around the middle of 1991, when a small group of us
got together to talk about some common interests. We found we shared the
view that there is an urgent need for better understanding, throughout
the community, of the processes of life, the human place in nature and
the ecological and health issues facing our society today. We believed
that understanding of this kind is an essential prerequisite for our society’s
transition to ecological sustainability.
We recognised
that there had been some improvement in the situation in recent times.
There had certainly been an increase in environmental awareness in some
sections of the community. But we also recognised that, as far as the
community as a whole is concerned, this learning process had a long way
to go - it was in need of a big boost.
Existing
institutions universities, schools, the media and so on were
not achieving this necessary surge in new understanding. So we felt there
was a need to introduce a new element into the system a new kind
of community-based organisation which would focus on life and the
health of people and the natural environment, and which would provide
a framework for interested people to come together, learn, discuss and
debate the practical meaning of what they learn, and pass on what they
have learned to others. Since no such organisation existed in our society,
we decided to get one going – and after a lot of discussion we decided
to call it the Nature and Society Forum – perhaps a bit of an awkward
name, but it well described what we had in mind. It’s about nature,
its about society and it is a forum for learning, debating and communicating.
Daniel:
One of the projects I understand you are involved with is the Australian
National Biocentre. Now what is that and how is that different from
some of the other national projects that we have got around Canberra?
Stephen:
I can best begin answering that by saying a little bit about the background
to the Biocentre proposal. A few years ago, the Management Committee of
the Nature and Society Forum decided it was time to undertake an exercise
in self-examination – an assessment of the Forum’s performance,
in terms of our original aims and objectives. A working group was therefore
set up to do this. This group met over several weeks, and it came up with
certain conclusions. One was that, while what NSF had been doing over
the years was entirely consistent with its aims and objectives (that is,
of improving our own understanding, and the understanding of others, of
ecological and health issues), it was having no real impact on the system
as a whole.
So we had
to ask ourselves whether it was worth going on whether we should
close down, because we were not really achieving what we set out to achieve.
The group eventually decided to recommend that the Forum does continue
to operate, but that it should find ways of improving its performance.
It suggested that NSF could better achieve its aims and objectives
of communicating this understanding to the public at large if its
activities were based on what we came to call a ‘Biocentre’
that is, a place a series of buildings and some land somewhere
in the ACT a physical entity which the public could identify with
our theme, or slogan Healthy people on a healthy planet.
It would
be a place where the NSF activities, like interactive courses, workshops,
conferences, the preparation of publications and the managing of the website
- a place where these activities could take place, probably more systematically
and on a larger scale than at present. But it would also be a place open
to the public where there would be displays and exhibitions on important
and interesting ecological and health issues and themes. That was the
origin of the proposal for the National Biocentre.
The working
group also decided to recommend that we incorporate another proposal in
the Biocentre project. At that time there was also a group in the ACT
which called themselves the Australian Centre for Ecologically Sustainable
Systems. Some of the members of this group were also members of NSF. They
had put together a proposal for a centre where community groups - say
permaculture groups, organic farming groups, as well as commercial business
organizations, could showcase the various ecologically beneficial techniques
or technologies that they had developed. Success stories, if you like.
It would be a vehicle for encouraging industries and businesses with ecologically
sustainable products to showcase them, and these demonstrations would
serve as an effective marketing tool for the businesses concerned.
So NSF eventually
decided to propose the establishment of a Biocentre incorporating both
the education or learning component of the NSF, including courses, conferences
and educational displays on important ecological and health themes, and
the showcasing of ecologically beneficial technologies.
You asked
how the ANB differs from certain existing organizations in ACT, such as
the National Science and Technology Centre and the National Museum. In
fact, the Biocentre is very different in important ways, from any existing
institution in our society.
First, there
is the very fact that it will focus on the processes of life and health
of people and the natural environment. We have no major national institutions
for the public with this orientation despite the fact that everything
that goes on in society is entirely dependent on the health of these underlying
processes of life.
Second, the
Biocentre is different from most other institutions for the public in
its emphasis on learning and thinking– and then on linking this with
practice. It is also different in its emphasis on both the past and the
future – asking the questions: Where have we come from? Where do
we seem to be going? Where do we want to go? How do we get there?
Another difference
is the involvement of the business sector, reflecting appreciation of
the key role it will be playing in the transition to ecological sustainability.
In fact, we see the Biocentre as providing a new framework for constructive
collaboration, in the environment and health arena, between community
groups, scientific and professional bodies, businesses, schools, government
departments and other organizations.
And, at least
as I see it, the ANB, unlike the other institutions, but like NSF, it
will be characterised by a great deal of active community involvement,
and it will encourage musical events, artistic displays, theatrical performances,
photographic exhibitions and other activities that are in keeping with
its aims and philosophy.
We believe
that the Biocentre will fill a serious gap in the institutional structure
of society, and that it will make an important contribution to the achievement
of ecological sustainability.
Daniel:
Given the things you have been talking about, there are a number
of major themes that I think are coming out. What, for you, are the
key ideas that you think we should be thinking about as we think about
the general very daunting challenge of how do we achieve sustainability?
Stephen:
In trying to answer that question I must go back to some things I said
at the beginning of our discussion.
My work over
the years has led me to appreciate the extraordinary power of human culture
as a force in the biosphere. It can, of course, have some very desirable
consequences. But often in the past it has also led to very undesirable
situations. And I am convinced that there are aspects of our dominant
culture today which are simply not consistent with the achievement of
ecological sustainability. In other words, we are not going to achieve
ecological sustainability until the dominant culture changes in a fairly
significant way in terms of its world view, its assumptions and
its priorities. And this of course, is a very serious matter, because
if a society is not sustainable ecologically, it can’t be sustainable
in any other way.
So, I am
convinced the deficiencies, or weaknesses, of our dominant culture lie
at the root of the ecological predicament, and until they are overcome,
or corrected, there is little likelihood of a healthy and prosperous future
for our society.
Now this
is a key issue, but it is a difficult one to talk about publicly. I don’t
think one will achieve anything by standing up in society and saying the
dominant culture is all wrong, by telling people that their behaviours,
or their values, are inappropriate.
The only
hope, I believe, lies in the improvement in understanding – right
across the community – of the human place in the living world –
so that, on the basis of this understanding, people decide for themselves
whether their world view, assumptions and priorities are appropriate.
I believe this is by far the most urgent issue at the present time. And
this is where I see NSF’s and ANB’s biggest potential contribution
– to play a catalytic role, in promoting /encouraging a snowballing
growth in what I call ‘biounderstanding’, leading, hopefully,
to changes in the dominant culture, and so to changes in patterns of human
activity
To sum up:
I am a moderate optimist, in that I think a transition to ecological sustainability
is possible. It is within our capabilities to make this shift given
the motivation. But this motivation will not come about until there is
a big change in the dominant culture. And this, in turn, will not happen
until there is much better understanding in all sections of society, of
the human place in the living world.
Back to Top
NSF
people
First there
was Stephen Boyden, passionate about getting people to understand their
place in nature, their ecology, and to get them to respect the whole of
nature and live in peace with it.
Then there
were numerous other people, keen to spread that message. Any attempt to
enumerate them is bound to have omissions; I am not going to try to mention
them all. Some I particularly remember are Robyn Manley, keen to use her
artistic talents and Stephanie Williams who put her editorial skills to
work. Kate Mossop enlivened the newsletter/journal with her delightful
sketches for several years. Phillida Hartley was strong on practical,
on the ground projects and leading by example. Marie Jamieson brought
forward her empathy and community health skills.
Henry Leveson-Gower kept our financial system in order for several years.
Gösta Lyngå helped in many ways and still does. He is about
to represent NSF at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg.
I, in particular, have reason to thank him for his willingness and skill
in keying my handwritten work for the journal. Speaking of which, Peter
Farrelly gave much time and expertise to computer work and layout of magazines,
papers and newsletters.
Bryan Furnass
has had ideas that he turned into conferences and resultant publications.
Derek Wrigley has spent much effort and thought on design, on living sustainably,
on campaigns to encourage sustainability and on suggesting interesting
speakers for our meetings. John Schoonevelt has held many roles, and originated
various ambitious schemes, some of which are now reaching fruition.
Some of these
people have since left Canberra and we have lost touch. Some have left
Canberra but remain members, more or less active. Others continue to be
very active.
This list
could go on and on. Indeed the amount of work done has been remarkable.
There are many more people currently working on the Biocentre project,
the Sustainability Science team, the Metabolism of Canberra and Region,
the nomination of Canberra as a UNESCO world Biosphere Reserve. To name
these people would make the list too long, but you can read about their
work in this issue of Nature and Society.
A special mention should be made of our benefactor and patron, Frank Fenner.
Both as Director of the John Curtin School of Medical Research and as
foundation Director of the Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies
at ANU, Frank was a colleague and supporter of Stephen Boyden’s ideas.
He has been particularly active in the Biocentre project and has also
given generous financial support to NSF, enabling us to employ our invaluable
office manager, Sue Gilbert.
Oh, and a
final mention of Robert MacArthur, early secretary of NSF, who said to
me “I’ve joined an organisation that may interest you.”
So, here I am. Thank you Robert for enabling me to fulfil the only ambition
I ever had as a child, to be an essayist, and to spend a decade working
with such an interesting bunch of people.1
— Jenny Wanless
1
And from Jenny Wanless we have got all those thought-provoking
editorials, those “Farrago” snippets of relevant issues and
numerous reports from meetings over the years. Thank you Jenny! (typist’s
comment).
Back to Top
Education
and the Australian National Biocentre
contributed
by the ANB Education sub-committee
During 2001–2002,
the ANB Education Committee developed a set of educational principles
and inaugurated four programs demonstrating the principles: Canberra World
Heritage Biosphere Reserve; the bioregion as an educational tool; the
national environmental curriculum, and the Earth Charter Learning Exchange.
Members have taken part in activities connected with Bushcare, the Murray
Darling Basin Committee, the National State-of-the-Environment Report
2001, the Earth Charter, and the World Summit on Sustainable Development.
EDUCATION
PRINCIPLES
Sharing
the Journey: Australians’ Transition to Sustainability
To promote the ANB Vision of an 'equitable, healthy and sustainable world,'
the ANB Education Committee has developed educational principles for everyone
involved in ANB activities, as follows:
• Everyone is both a learner and a teacher - This is about
sharing in the learning process, and respecting all knowledges. It allows
for valuing local knowledge, as well as specialist knowledge.
• Education means sharing power - Participatory learning involves
mutual respect for each other’s learning, exchanging stories, working
together on a project, listening to each other, and enjoying the learning.
• Education brings social change and transforms understanding
of the world - To make the transition to more ecologically sustainable
living, people and their communities can share their knowledge of what
works, and what are practical social changes. The ANB can give support
and resources to enable the exchange of such learning.
• Learning brings personal growth and understanding of one’s
potential in the world - The ANB can provide mentors, peer support
and co-counselling networks, to value people’s capacities for imagination,
creativity, courage and initiative in making changes for an ecologically
sustainable world.
• Education takes place in a learning community which is inter-generational
and inter-cultural, and integrates the perspectives of community, specialists,
government and industry - In this global information era, we can construct
knowledge by sharing local community experience with specialised knowledge
from research, from professions and industry, and with the strategic processes
of politics and administration.
By a more holistic focus, we can initiate more effective ways to a sustainable
future.
• Co-learning generates new knowledge through: inspiration
and adventure, passion and contemplation, thinking and doing, challenge
and security.
EDUCATION
CONTENT
Where
are we going and how can we get there?
In sharing the journey, and exploring the options for advancing towards
sustainable development, our building structures and educational programs
are designed as successive interactive experiences along themes:
• Our only home: the Biohistory in each of us; evolution;
the beauty and fragility of life. Who are we now?
• Where are we now? How did we get to here? Every ecological
act has ecological consequences. Our place in the world: Bioregions and
our identity; regional metabolism; Sustainabilty Science; Food, nutrition
and disease. Healthy people and a healthy environment
• Where could we go? How low energy lifestyles work and are
attractive. Solar technologies. Waste minimisation ideas. Sustainably
built structures and designs. Fuel cell cars and eco-friendly transport.
• How can we get where we want to go? Fair go for future
generations. Decision making for alternative futures; personal, communal,
industrial, and governmental, sustainable practices.
EDUCATION
PROJECTS
Canberra
Biosphere Reserve proposal
Biosphere Reserves are internationally recognised UNESCO designated areas
conserving ecosystems. Australia has 12 such Reserves, at present, and
the NSF is proposing that Canberra be another Biosphere Reserve.
This is as
a true Bush Capital, symbolising our country’s spirit, and based
on biophysical attributes together with its links to the local community
and the whole country. Also, its links through being the Capital of Australia
to and from the World.
The idea is a synthesis of ecosystem, economics and society, providing
for all sections of the community to play a role and take on-going responsibilities
for more effective and integrated use of our existing environmental knowledges,
and for creative problem solving.
The proposal is to shift perceptions about Canberra as much more than
just a political capital, and as a Bush Capital it represents and honours
our 'Spirit of Place' as a collective identity, and our heritage links
to the Australian landscape. It can promote the connection of specialist
knowledges with community knowledge and strengthen community engagement
in making changes needed for a sustainable future.
Bioregions,
our needs and our identity
Australia
can be seen as a series of biogeographical regions, or bioregions, which
can form a more meaningful way that people relate to, and understand,
their particular place along with other living things. We all know that
as humans, like other creatures, we need to breathe clean air, drink safe
water, eat good food, be sheltered, and feel we belong.
Bioregions
provide a way to focus on the characteristics of where we live, our home
bases whether in towns and cities or country areas, valuing each unique
environment for why we like living there, and knowing the stories of the
places - ours, our families’, our friends' and our neighbours’
stories and those of our workplaces. They are where we earn a living and
can look after each other. They are where we understand that we are in
a changing universe, and live among generations of living things. By valuing
the environment in which we live, we can take actions that are sustainable
for a healthy future.
These concepts
and the questions arising about concerns for a healthy future, are the
basis for designing a Visitors Centre and a range of outreach activities
around the country.
National
Environmental Curriculum
The ANB Education committee has examined the relevance of the ANB Education
policy to the National Curricula of Australia. In a prepared paper, we
have shown the many important and relevant outcome statements for various
key learning areas, like Studies of Society and Environment, Health, Technology
(Design), Science, English, and the Arts. These statements are requirements
for Australian Schools, and profile over the School Years Kinder to Year
12.
For example,
the English and The Arts Curricula provide for the expression of values
we hold about people and the environment. These can give powerful connections
in their expression, and promote changes.
The Studies
of Society and Environment Curriculum gives outcomes for skills in investigating,
communicating and participating, as well as concepts which include natural
and social systems, resources and place and space. Each of these has detailed
statements for groups of years during Primary and Secondary Education.
We are opening dialogue with environmental educational avenues to link
ANB activities with educational innovation in Australian environmental
education.
|
Earth
Charter Learning Exchange
The Earth Charter Learning Exchange will have its inaugural node
at the Australian National Biocentre, host to the Australian chapter
of the Earth Charter. The Learning Exchange is designed to be a
global on-line place-based network of learning communities supporting
the educational elements of practical applications of the Earth
Charter (eg change agencies, formal and informal courses, community
development, advocacy, research applications, etc).
The
project is based on the social learning processes of open space
dialogue and inquiry-based adult learning, within a framework for
action developed with Australian communities. The vehicle for communication
is the interactive learning community software developed by EarthTIES,
a non-profit organisation teaching a Master of Integrative Studies
for Endicott College, Massachusetts.
The
Earth Charter Learning Exchange will have the capacity to generate
self-directed learning communities in every country working on the
Earth Charter, to train their qualified volunteer tutors, and to
monitor continuing commitment and quality control through a team
networked through the contributing countries. The aim is for the
ANB node to develop a prototype, for world-wide recruitment of groups
who are willing to accept dialogue-based rules for engagement, are
committed to self-generated activities which further the aims of
the Earth Charter’s aims, and able to nominate a volunteer
tutor willing to join the support network.
|
 |
Back to Top
Biological
treatment of waste water
Peter Young,
managing director of Pryme Waste Water Treatment, was the speaker at our
May discussion meeting. Like most of our speakers he came across as an
energetic person dedicated to doing something positive for the environment.
Peter’s concern is with waste water and its impact on natural landscapes.
Of course he does not believe that any water is waste, but he is very
conscious that too much water, or water carrying the wrong substances,
can have deleterious effects on natural systems.
Some time
ago Peter met an old bushman who showed him how nature purifies the water
in a creek by the combination of plant growth, aeration and sunlight,
as the creek flows over rocks or rests in pools. From there on Peter worked
at developing a system that uses similar methods to clean up used water.
In Pryme’s
system used water is collected in an influent tank, which feeds water
into two trains of biological tubes. A variety of plants is massed, suspended
in baskets in the tubes, and these plants harbour colonies of bacteria
and algae which are the main purifiers of the water. These living systems
need light, so the tubes are made of strong, transparent plastic held
in wire frames. Aerators at the bottom provide air and ensure water circulation
within each tube. Water at the top flows on through a pipe to the next
tube. At the end of the train is a sand filter, a UV disinfection chamber
and a sludge process chamber.
One advantage
of this system is that a new train can be added if an extra capacity is
needed later, so the whole cost does not need to be financed at the beginning.
Another advantage of the system is that (without the use of chlorine)
it can deliver a zero E coli count, as required by health authorities,
something nature does not achieve.
The system
has also proven its adaptability, coping with freezing water, and with
very variable use. A Pryme treatment system was installed for the Tidbinbilla
Visitors’ Centre three years ago. It functions well despite large
visitor numbers at weekends, interspersed with almost no visitors during
the week.
Water treatment
plants have been or are being installed at a school and at a couple of
rural residential developments near Canberra. Yanchep National Park in
Western Australia is installing a system, and much further afield, the
Chinese are interested.
The success of such biological waste water treatment depends to a certain
extent on the education of the users. People must not pour hazardous chemicals
into the system: they would kill the plants. They need to moderate their
use of chemical cleaners, they need to learn what the system can and cannot
do, they need to treat the system with respect. Then it will serve them
well.
— Jenny
Wanless
Back to Top
Science
at the Shine Dome: transition to sustainability
symposium
report by Bryan Furnass
In 1992 the
Rio Conference on the Environment, and the birth of Nature and Society
Forum exemplified increasing awareness at the global and community levels
of the impact of human activities on the natural world. One decade later,
a public symposium on Transition to Sustainability has been held at the
Australian Academy of Science as a preliminary to the proposed Rio+10
conference in Johannesburg.
The Academy
of Science has traditionally been mainly concerned with promoting the
specialist disciplines of its membership. By way of contrast, this symposium
recognised the urgent need to develop a trans-disciplinary approach between
the bio-physical and social sciences if sustainability is to be achieved.
This will require a ‘triple bottom line’ of trade-offs between
the economy, society and the environment, with efficient governance to
conserve non-renewable resources and minimise pollution.
Symposium
contributors were drawn from disciplines in the biological, geophysical,
environmental, engineering and social sciences and economics. The topics
covered included social, environmental and economic aspects of sustainability,
and integrated systems related to renewable energy and water supplies.
Many of the problems which were cited are familiar to NSF members —
fragile ecosystems, human population increase, resource inequalities,
rising atmospheric CO2 levels (the highest for 20 million years), dry
land salinity, precarious water supplies and loss of biodiversity, in
Australia and globally.
Economic
development has hitherto tended to ignore ‘externalities’ such
as resource depletion, pollution, land and water degradation and particularly
inter-generational inequities. There is a need to ‘internalise the
externalities’ to achieve sustainability and equity for both the
industrialised and developing world, yet ESD is not yet readily embraced
either by government or industry. The Natural Step and other NGOs were
cited as potential contributors to long term solutions.
There is
no reliable energy supply for one third of the world’s population
and oil supplies are expected to plateau in 10 years time. Yet electricity
demand is predicted to rise by 50% by 2020, and greenhouse gas emissions
continue to increase. Hence the urgent need for a partnership between
science and industry to develop large-scale renewable energy systems with
low carbon emissions. Solar energy, wind power, coal liquefaction, CO2
entrapment, a hybrid car using half the fuel and producing 10% of emissions
of current vehicles, with the potential development of hydrogen/fuel cell
cars, were envisaged as feasible alternatives to the present high carbon
fuels.
Some small
scale gains in human responses to the environmental crisis were reported.
These included a rise in the whale population, improvement of city air
quality following the introduction of lead-free petrol, reduction in use
of CFCs, and a return of native species when cats and foxes are removed
from the environment. But major global problems remain unresolved.
Although
no long-term goals have been formulated, symposium contributors agreed
that Australia has the intellectual and material capacity to become a
world leader in the transition to sustainability, in parallel with the
chance to develop new opportunities for business, employment and economic
growth. Much will depend on community education in applied sustainability
science, and promotion of the three Rs — 're-cycle, replace, refrain'.
As NGOs, NSF and ANB could support the Academy of Science in these educational
initiatives, following the dictum 'when people lead, their leaders follow'.
Back to Top
World
Summit on Sustainable Development
At the end of August and early September, delegates from the whole world
will meet at Johannesburg to discuss and hopefully agree on ways to make
our civilisation and our planet more sustainable. This meeting comes 10
years after the Rio Conference, in which similar issues were discussed
and some decisions made. According to most environmentalists the results
of that conference did not meet expectations and the world is not in a
better shape environmentally and socially now than before Rio.
Johannesburg
will host two conferences, one intergovernmental and one of civil society,
Aug 19–Sep 4. An NGO conference will be held, presumably as part
of the civil society conference Aug 19–25.
The Intergovernmental
Conference
From the Johannesburg intergovernmental conference there are three expected
outcomes:
(1) political declarations from world leaders on principles
(2) intergovernmental programs of action; the draft of this part has been
the focus of considerable activity
(3) voluntary agreements and partnerships, ie. coalitions of those countries
and organisations that are willing to take part.
Outcomes
(1) and (2) are of type I meaning that they may be carefully worded but
they are binding on all parties. Outcomes (3) are of type II, ie. they
can be quite far reaching and do not need negotiations but are only valid
for the countries and organisations that are part of the agreements.
The issues
singled out for priority attention have been:
• sustainable management of the oceans;
• national level governance; this deals with combating poverty, corruption
and such issues; and
• sustainable land management
The Civil
Society Conference
This conference is held simultaneously but at a different venue. Organisations
accredited by the UN are entitled to send delegates. NSF has achieved
accreditation as one of about 700 organisations, of which around a dozen
are from Australia. It is expected that about 60,000 delegates will meet
at this conference of civil societies from all over the world.
NSF being
the Australian host of the Earth Charter, Brendan Mackey will be working
towards its endorsement.
I have taken
on to represent the Forum on three other issues:
• A treaty to protect and share the global water commons
• A treaty to share the genetic commons
• Eco-labelling
What actually
will happen depends very much on the agenda which is still being set,
but obviously the NGOs can only expect to be part of type II outcomes,
ie. agreements that are voluntary and not binding on the governments.
However, there is expected to be some degree of interaction between the
two conferences, so that declarations from the civil society meetings
would be presented at the intergovernmental conference.
It is a great
opportunity for me to represent the Forum at this conference and I hope
to be able to present my impressions from it at the monthly meeting of
NSF on October 16th.
— Gösta Lyngå
Back to Top
Population
policy
—
John Schooneveldt
|
