WHEN it was established in 1997, the National Heritage Trust (NHT) was
heralded by the Howard government as the biggest environmental repair programme
in Australia鈥檚 history. The allocation of A$1.25 billion to thousands of
projects was the political sugar used to coat the pill of selling 49 per cent of
Telstra.
Now a mid-term review of the Trust has been released, and it paints a
depressing picture. It suggests the programme has made little impact. One reason
is lack of scientific advice, but there is also evidence that political
considerations have led to the money being spread too thinly to be
effective.
For its review, the government commissioned 29 reports from consultants. I
focused my attention on those reviews which looked at the big issues: urban
environment, inland waterways, dryland salinity and vegetation management.
Advertisement
The Virtual Consulting Group from Albury reported on salinity. The allocation
of A$38 million to this problem seems inadequate, the group said, given
that dryland salinity is estimated to cost the community about A$270
million a year. And although the programme has been successful in changing the
attitudes of farmers to the problem and in catalysing community action, the
group鈥檚 overall judgement was that 鈥渢he projects involve too few people, too
little of the landscape and represent too little change in attitudes or
practices to make a real difference鈥�. The Australian Conservation Foundation
made a similar point, contrasting 150 000 hectares of land saved or re-vegetated
by the programme with more than a million hectares cleared in the same
period.
PPK Environment & Infrastructure Pty Ltd were equally strong in their
review of the projects aimed at repairing inland rivers. Criticising the
inadequate scientific basis for the programme, they said, 鈥淭he level of analysis
is so poor we do not know if the level of investment is even in the right order
of magnitude鈥�. Even so, the consultants said their research 鈥渃onfirmed that the
NHT investment and project outputs are insufficient to stop the serious risks to
Australian aquatic systems鈥�. The first of their 50 recommendations was that the
NHT鈥檚 efforts need to be accompanied by 鈥渃oherent policy reform from all spheres
of government鈥�.
The review of urban problems concluded that money had been spread too thinly
over too many projects, many of which had been state initiatives already under
way before receiving NHT support. Again, the consultants called for a systemic
approach and strategic planning, rather than ad hoc project funding.
In the face of all this criticism, the two ministers responsible for the
programme, Warren Truss and Robert Hill, bravely issued a media release saying
the review of the NHT 鈥渃onfirmed its outstanding contribution to conservation,
sustainable use and repair of Australia鈥檚 environment鈥�. That鈥檚 certainly not the
message that came through to me. But as the ministers have provided the full
text of the reports on the Web at www.hht.gov.au/review/index.html, Australians
can check for themselves whether selling Telstra was worth the return.
HEAT and air pollution are killing people in Christchurch, according to a
study published in the latest issue of the Australian and New Zealand Journal of
Public Health.
Simon Hales, of the Wellington School of Medicine, together with four
co-researchers assembled daily data for the period from June 1988 to the end of
1993. They found that air pollution is a significant health risk in Christchurch
in winter. In cold weather, temperature inversions allow the accumulation of
pollutants from household fires. Each increase in airborne particulates of 10
micrograms a cubic metre results in a four per cent increase in mortality from
respiratory problems and a one per cent increase in overall mortality.
In summer, the temperature can rise to more than 35掳C in Christchurch.
These hot days cause heat stress. In fact, for every degree over 21掳C,
mortality goes up about one per cent and deaths due to respiratory problems by
about three per cent.
The researchers say their findings are consistent with studies in other
countries, and that there is every reason to suspect that the impacts found in
Christchurch are also happening in other antipodean cities.