The Environment Commissioner at work

Press, 29 August 1977, Page 16

The Environment Commissioner at work

By

OLIVER RIDDELL

in Wellington

Many people do not understand the role of the Commission for the Environment, and this is worrying its Commissioner (Mr I. L. Baumgart). Because its purpose has not been explicity or closely defined, the commission has been able to develop considerably during four complete years of operation. It can now initiate projects, as well as accepting responsibilities under the impact assessment and reporting procedures, by which it reports on the proposals of others. However, there is still a common belief that the commission is an obstruction in the way of necessary and thoughtful development, and is concerned solely with environmental protection in

the “hands off” sense. Mr Baumgart avers that the commission’s record belies this.

By the very nature of its role, he says, the commission must have the ability and independence to move across a wide area of environmental concern. “But the environment cannot be parcelled up as a self-contained entity and become the responsibility of any one agency. Statutory responsibility for management of various sectors of the environment is vested in a large number of central and local government agencies. The commission’s role is to influence the attitude and policies of such agencies — not to partici-

pate in their management functions.” Mr Baumgart says that in this situation there will always be some debate concerning the legitimate sphere of operations of the commission. But sometimes this debate is confused with a simplistic reaction that the commission is meddling in affairs that are none of its business. In other words, a fundamental object of an environmental movement (including the commission) should be to work towards having economic, social and environmental concerns in harmony. Concern about short and long-term environmental effects of developments should be seen in this context.

Such an attitude implies a concern that options should not be foreclosed by today’s decisions. This attitude is characterised by a sense of uneasiness about what may be in store in a world of accelerating change and increasing complexity. This itself is an issue of major environmental importance, and is by no means a monopoly of the environmentalists. The establishment of the Commission for the Future and of the Planning Council, as well as in the work of the Task Force for Economic and Social Planning — ail this year —■ shows this concern. It is now over to the Commission for the Environment to involve itself more closely with planning — the alternatives and options — in all its aspects.

The commission is examining its involvement with planning and the way in which it should seek to work with other agencies. Greater concentration on this would give the environmental movement impetus away from the “rescue” and “fire brigade” operations it has largely been mounting.

About one-third of the environmental impact reports audited by the commission have dealt directly with energy projects: some others have been concerned with the energy aspects of other projects. Over a very short period there has been a fundamental change in outlook on energy questions by the commission. In its first years it appraisals accepted that a high energy growth rate was essential for econ-

omic sun. ival and social well-being; now it has become clear that some of the material and human satisfactions which the ready availability of energy was thought to nourish are being diminished by the rapid growth in the demand for that energy. The commission’s former outlook is no longer tenable, says Mr Baumgart. This dilemma has led the commission to question whether the predicted rate of growth in energy demand — given the high economic, social and environmental costs it entails — is necessary or desirable. Recent cuts in forecasts of power requirements for the next 20 years by the Electricity Department bear out the doubts held by the commission.