Source: Ministry for the Environment (1997)

Source: Ministry for the Environment (1997)

Energy intensity is expected to continue to decrease at approximately 1.5 percent per annum over the next 25 years (Ministry for the Environment, 1997). Whether this eventuates will be highly dependent on energy pricing strategies. At present most of the New Zealand policy initiatives appear to be aimed at reducing the cost of energy, not at increasing its efficiency of use. This may not deliver good environmental outcomes in the longer term, nor position New Zealand well strategically in a world where real energy prices are highly likely to increase in the coming decades. In short, our current energy use patterns and policies may not serve future populations well.

Continued population growth and economic growth, together with low energy prices, will result in continuing growth in energy usage and consequential increases in the size of our Ecological Footprint, unless there are significant improvements in energy use efficiency, or radical changes toward low-input, low-emissions, energy sources.

Biodiversity

The maintenance of biological diversity (biodiversity) is one of the greatest challenges facing mankind. The world's biodiversity is declining for the first time in 65 million years - the time of the events that wiped out dinosaurs and half of the Earth's other species. The current species loss is a direct consequence of human use of resources and destruction of habitats (Ministry for the Environment, 1997).

New Zealand's biodiversity is more primitive in character (ie, has many species that are of ancient origins) than is the case for most other countries, and many species are endemic, ie found only in New Zealand. In a mere 700-800 years - about 30 generations- human actions have contributed to the elimination of 32 percent of the endemic land and freshwater birds, 18 percent of the endemic seabirds, three of seven frog species, possibly three of 64 reptile species and at least 12 invertebrate species such as snails and insects. The numbers of many surviving species have been heavily reduced. Today nearly 1000 species - animals, plants and fungi - have been identified as threatened (Figure 9). One of the worst groups is our endemic land and freshwater birds, 75 percent of which are now threatened. In total New Zealand has 11% of the worlds threatened species.

New Zealand's resource based industries: agriculture, forestry, fishing, mining and energy production, plus our urban systems and attendant waste streams, all continue to put substantial pressure on our biodiversity, despite many legislative initiatives (Acts, and regulations), substantial reservation of habitats (public and private conservation areas), and significant investments in protection (control of pests, predators, and competitors). The current efforts to develop a Biological Diversity Strategy for New Zealand are critical to reversing the pattern of the last 800 years of declining species numbers.

But why should a conference on population specifically consider biodiversity? Firstly because it is such a valuable strategic asset. This is true for any nation - but particularly it is true for New Zealand. The genetic diversity of our endemic species is potentially one of New Zealand's most valuable assets as a resource to be tapped in the future. The need to protect these resources in physical and intellectual property terms is the basis of the current Treaty of Waitangi Claim number 262. In addition, the physical existence of our unique landscapes, forests and species, is a tangible asset in its own right. Over a million visitors now come to New Zealand per year, in addition to our domestic tourism numbers. Over 55 percent visit a national park. The two most popular outdoor activities of tourists are short bush walks and scenic boat cruises. The 'product' is the natural experience; the combination of plants, animals, clear water and skies - priceless assets which many communities world-wide are rapidly despoiling, and which New Zealand communities clearly wish to maintain for our personal benefit, for intrinsic reasons, and to ensure visitors continue to be attracted to New Zealand.

While New Zealanders have had great foresight in terms of the extent of land area that has been designated for conservation of habitats and species, the representativeness of the areas is poor. For example, there are few lowland forest or grassland ecosystems in the protected areas. In addition, the areas set aside for marine conservation are totoally adequate. However, having made this commitment, there has been only belated realisation that the maintenance of biodiversity will require major continuing investments. While 30 percent of New Zealand's land area has been assigned to the Department of Conservation for management, the resources provided to mitigate or even reverse the effects of invasive pests and weeds, are inadequate for those tasks. The results are continuing deterioration and fragmentation of habitats with a loss of the critical mass necessary to maintain viable populations of some species. In addition, even protected areas can be insidiously degraded by the provision of roads and tracks which allow weed and pest invasion to occur, or by sedimentation of coastal waters from land runoff.

If maintenance of biodiversity is under pressure from 3.6 million people plus 1 million overseas tourists, then pressures on habitats and species will certainly increase as population and consumption levels increase, and as tourist numbers increase. The effects will be slow and cumulative with sudden collaapses being a feature as critical thresholds are reached. Current legislation and political time horizons do not cope well with the incremental impacts of economic growth and population growth, be it in association with the extension of cities, the intensification of housing in cities, the environmental effects of our mobility, or on the impacts upon biodiversity. It seems highly likely that at a population conference 20 years from now we will still be reporting the losses of species and noting the root causes: pressure on habitats, the effects of pests and invasive weeds, and the inadequate levels of funding provided to reverse those trends.

A country's record on biodiversity protection is likely to be negatively related to the size of its Ecological Footprint. Growth in the size of a country's EF is likely to accurately indicate a country's reduced ability to maintain habitats and hence biodiversity.

Resource use trends in some key areas (housing, mobility (cars), waste generation, energy consumption and maintenance of biodiversity) indicate that New Zealand in making few gains in terms of resource use efficiencies or reduced environmental impact. Overall resource demands per capita have risen in close correlation with economic growth, and the size of our Ecological Footprint may also have increased. If New Zealand is to sustain its unique land, landscapes, species and qualities of life, much closer attention will need to be paid to the input side of the environmental equation. Sustainable development necessitates greater efficiencies in resource use and ultimately a reduction in total resource flows. The focus of our economy has to shift from quantities produced to services delivered; from quantity to quality.

Ehrlich, P. 1994. Population and Sustainable Development. Environmental Awareness. 17 (2): 53-58.

Ministry for the Environment 1997. The State of Our Environment 1997. Ministry for the Environment: Wellington.

Statistics New Zealand. 1995. New Zealand Official Yearbook 95. Statistics New Zealand: Wellington.

Statistics New Zealand. 1997. New Zealand Official Yearbook 97. Statistics New Zealand: Wellington.

Thompson, J and Waller-Hunter, J. Sustainable Consumption and Production; Clarifying the Concepts. OECD Proceedings, Paris. 20 pp and Annexes.

Wackernagel M and Rees, W, 1996. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing human impact on the Earth. New Society Publishers: Gabriola Island, BC.

• Looking at population change and the implications for outdoor recreation.

• Changes in age structure of the population will mean that any activities participated in by middle aged or older people, are likely to experience significant increased demand (for example, golf, passive tramping).

• The increasing demands placed on New Zealand's outdoors can be anticipated and quantified in order to ensure it is incorporated into environment policy.

• Survey has shown that there is crowding in New Zealand National Parks and back country.

• A range of actions are being taken to avoid it, for example, people going in alternative seasons and in less familiar places. This could put people at risk.

• Due to overcrowding, tourists are becoming less satisfied with New Zealand wilderness experience.

• It's important to think about how tourism develops in the future and to plan for it.

Dr J. Morgan Williams, Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCFE)

• Looking at environmental implications of meeting New Zealand's needs in the 21st century.

• The impact on the environment is a function of population, affluence and technology.

• All through the conference there has been reference to GDP as an indicator. However, there needs to be measures of the effects of population growth by using ecological indicators as well (for example, the ecological footprint).

• Need indicators which help to determine the capacity of the environment and the sustainability - not just GDP.

• To sustain New Zealand's quality of life there needs to be more efficient use of resources. An increase in population will put more pressure on resources.

• Concern that environmental issues have been marginalised at the conference.

• Lack of recognition of the importance of the environment in policy.

• New Zealand lacks indicators besides GDP.

• New Zealand misleads visitors and deludes ourselves how environmentally aware we are.

Kwame Mfodwo, Environment and Management Programme, Department of Accounting, University of Waikato

• Conference should be held every two years. It is important because it is the first time people have come together from different backgrounds.

• Important to look at biculturalism and multiculturalism together, immigrants, Maori etc reflect on how they fit in. Cross group communication.

Discussion

• It is no good looking at population growth without current considerations of the cost of growth. The conference is very pro growth but has not addressed the costs.

• Marginalisation of the environmental issues at the conference. People were concerned that the PCFE was only speaking in a panel and discussion session and not addressing the whole conference.

• Environmental issues were considered unfinished business at the conference and participants have put this in writing.