The wish of a local area to rein in population growth is not new.

Transcription

1 The wish of a local area to rein in population growth is not new. THE POPULATION CAP However, in 1995 Noel Playford, chairman of Noosa Shire, stunned the then Queensland State Government by announcing that the Planning Scheme for Noosa Shire, had in it a population cap of 60,000 people and that was it! Much derision and cries of foul where heard about the land. However, when Noel launched the population cap idea, it was gladly accepted by the Noosa residents, dismissed by the rest of the country and was a very clever ploy (or spin). However, in reality every modern Planning Scheme has a population cap until it is reviewed every 7 to 10 years. So why was Noosa different? Because Noel made it sound finite. The State Government could not challenge this notion as the planning scheme complied with the State Government Interest checks in every way (a cap was not mentioned). What it did do was to sow a seed in the resident s minds. They now believed in an ultimate population for Noosa and supported Council s efforts to reign in growth. More and more, new development was questioned as to what it did or did not do to support this idea of a cap. CARRYING CAPACITY We now have a Sunshine Coast Council that has a new spin the notion of carrying capacity. This has been accepted by the media and Council as trying to capture the idea of sustainability. The Council s vision for the Sunshine Coast is to be Australia s most sustainable region vibrant, green and diverse.

2 What is really happening is that we are all struggling with what is a sustainable population The concept of carrying capacity is appealing. For example, a farmer can work out what is the carrying capacity for cows in a paddock. Fodder in and waste out If the farmer improves the pasture and provides more water he can increase the number of cows. However, there comes a point where he can t provide enough fodder or improve the pasture enough and get rid of the waste in an environmentally sound way. This would then be the population cattle cap for this paddock in terms of cows. The farmer can then work out how many m 2 of a good pasture will support one cow. This then becomes the carrying capacity. So can we then apply this carrying capacity notion to work out how many m 2 of land is needed to support a human (or a population of 500,000)? The answer is NO. Why? Because the carrying capacity notion does not deal with a society that relies on a national and global economy to grow and prosper. If we were to grow all our own food, provide and process all our own resources, manufacture all of our own materials so that we imported nothing, THEN we could use the notion of carrying capacity. But we don t. We probably passed the point of self sufficiency 70 years ago ( a wild guess). We now know that each household has an ecological footprint. We know how to reduce that footprint. What we don t know is what is the total number (in m 2) of footprints that the coast can sustain before it ceases to be a good place to live? GROWTH IS GOOD We have long been brought up on the mantras of populate or perish, growth is good for the economy, more people, more jobs, more prosperity. Politicians look good in hard hats (or so they think) opening a new highway, power station, coal mine etc. It is all good for our continued prosperity.

3 However, a nasty phrase has crept in called sustainable development whatever that means. And it has become a popular phrase amongst politicians, the population and the media. This notion of sustainability certainly challenges the growth is good concept by throwing a spanner into the works. Even the State Government is using the term and in my opinion does not have a clue what it means or how to measure it. A diagram of the growth is good mantra, may look like this: Economic Development Employment Growth Better Lifestyle More Prosperity

4 What happens if you insert the word sustainable into the circle: Sustainable Economic Development Employment? Sustainable Growth Better Or Different Lifestyle? Prosperity or Wellbeing? The first thing it does is that it raises question marks over the future way in which we live, work and play. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT So what is sustainable development? Sustainable in terms of what? Feeding ourselves (self sufficiency)? Breathing clean air? Swimming in clean water? Being able to walk or ride a bike to all services and facilities (not being affected by peak oil)? Being able to enjoy the wonderful beaches, mountains, forests, wetlands and rivers of the Sunshine Coast?

5 It is probably all of these things. But where is the science behind determining sustainability? This is what the population cap and carrying capacity is all about trying to determine what population can be sustained without loss of lifestyle and damage to the environment. LETS TAKE A BREAK AND REGROUP If we could take a break and try and bench mark where we are now in terms of: Air quality Water quality Congestion (traffic)/parking/alternative transport Biodiversity Erosion and sediment Vegetation Rural production Health and well being Affordable accommodation Natural resources Social networks/community facilities Natural hazards Management of waste Level of self containment/employment And so on Then once we had benchmarked where we are now we would need to decide what needs to be done to each of the above issues to restore them to full health. Do what is necessary to correct. Then consider the tests that need to be applied to future development to maintain full health of all of the above systems, NO WORSE RESULT Once we have restored all of our systems to full health we can then provide for further development on the basis of a no worsening effect on any of the restored healthy systems. This methodology could develop into a science of measurement of sustainable new and infill development.

6 A POSSIBLE MODEL To determine what is sustainable development it is suggested that the following steps should be taken: STEP 1 Recognise the Sunshine Coast s natural water catchments as the primary organising element. STEP 2 Select a catchment to be a trial area. The area selected should contain most or all of the typical rural, conservation and urban areas with moderate new and infill development occurring. STEP 3 Determine where we are now:- Air quality Water quality both streams and wetlands Biodiversity and vegetation Erosion and sediment Rural production (local and export) Employment - level of self containment Level of affordable accommodation Available material resources Impact of natural hazards Tourist activities Community facilities Traffic congestion and car parking Others? It is estimated that this could take up to 5 years depending on resources provided and the level of detail required to set a benchmark. Meanwhile we could assess all new or infill development on the basis of no worsening of the current situation and improvement would be good. This would be an educated best guess at this point, but it is a start. STEP 4 Once we know where we are now we need to find out where we want to be. e.g. zero pollution, more food production, more affordable living, more self containment etc. (Measureable targets need to be set and this is a hard task).

7 This then would indicate what the benchmark is that all new and infill development should be measured against. If this proves to be an acceptable way of benchmarking we could put in place interim benchmarks at that time. STEP 5 Expand measurements to cover all catchments and test results against findings from the trial Meanwhile new (and infill) development would be assessed against the interim benchmarks or proof of a no worsening impact (improvement would be good) could hold the line. This is an improvement on step 3 getting better all the time. STEP 6 Apply the new benchmark to all new (and infill) development. This would then be the basis of determining a sustainable population. The impact of the assessment of all new development against the benchmark for the whole coast could be either:- (a) a halt to all development and a program of rehabilitation to be started and paid for through grants and levies; or (b) only accept development that meets the benchmarks in every way. In any case it is obvious that there will be a finite population at the time when the benchmarks cannot be met. This would apply to visitors as well as they are part of the sustainable population. SUMMING UP No shrinking violets here!!! People in power will have to learn to say no. The method I have described obviously does not fit any economic model and nor would it fit in with the State s ambitions of growth is good! However, if it worked, I believe that the Coast would become Triple A rated a great place: to invest in; to visit because it still maintained its current lifestyle; and that has maintained it s world class natural landscape and attractions. Ironically, such a method as I have proposed would produce a natural population cap and we would also be able to define our carrying capacity. John Winsbury F P I A CPP