The draft plan does set out to protect 'iconic' natural assets such as the Cataract Gorge, parklands and recreational spaces. That said it is relatively silent in regard to issues such as water management, the city’s ‘carbon storage’ capacity, resource recovery, agricultural land management or eco-environments.
It is not within the scope of this paper to discuss this issue(s) in any detail. Nonetheless, beyond the ‘iconic’ – features in the landscape, Tassie devils and tigers, etc. – within the municipality there is need to more appropriately – overtly and proactively – address the issue of ‘Natural Capital’ from a planning perspective.
A case in point is the way that stormwater is imagined in the city. By-and-large , in Launceston, it is regarded as either a threat or a nuisance – or as waste ... something in need of expedient disposal. A more profitable and environmentally appropriate way to understand it would be to regard this water as a resource to be managed for the benefit of the residents, the landscape and the environment.
Doing so would simply be a matter of catching up with Local Govts elsewhere – places that see and understand the value in managing water with 21st C sensibilities in play.
Rather that piping stormwater to the nearest river, stream or watercourse replete with the dross of urban life – animal excrement, motor oil, chemical spills and other waste matter – it needs to be fed into the landscape as near as possible to where it falls and returned to the ecosystems that depend upon it – and in as good a condition as possible.
Alternatively, stormwater might be captured, stored and used on site as a replacement for reticulated water albeit that might not include drinking water. There is a compelling case to be put that wherever a landscape has been modified there is a need to slow water’s flow across it and return as much as possible to the landscape – and do so without putting the built environment and civic infrastructures at risk.
The notion that in ‘engineering terms’ this is too difficult, too expensive, too onerous, whatever, is no longer an acceptable response. Indeed, it is a lazy response given that the technology for achieving the outcomes described here is relatively well understood. Moreover, these technologies are well within the reach of anyone seriously concerned with achieving the kind of target outcomes implied here.
What is true for water is true for other issues in natural capital management. Moreover there are profits – tangible & intangible – to be won by being proactive in regard to natural capital management.
It is timely that Local Govt. planning begins to proactively address natural capital in their planning schemes, and less simplistically, and in ways that deliver more holistic outcomes for the Communities of Ownership and Interest (COI) they serve.
It is not within the scope of this paper to discuss this issue(s) in any detail. Nonetheless, beyond the ‘iconic’ – features in the landscape, Tassie devils and tigers, etc. – within the municipality there is need to more appropriately – overtly and proactively – address the issue of ‘Natural Capital’ from a planning perspective.
A case in point is the way that stormwater is imagined in the city. By-and-large , in Launceston, it is regarded as either a threat or a nuisance – or as waste ... something in need of expedient disposal. A more profitable and environmentally appropriate way to understand it would be to regard this water as a resource to be managed for the benefit of the residents, the landscape and the environment.
Doing so would simply be a matter of catching up with Local Govts elsewhere – places that see and understand the value in managing water with 21st C sensibilities in play.
Rather that piping stormwater to the nearest river, stream or watercourse replete with the dross of urban life – animal excrement, motor oil, chemical spills and other waste matter – it needs to be fed into the landscape as near as possible to where it falls and returned to the ecosystems that depend upon it – and in as good a condition as possible.
Alternatively, stormwater might be captured, stored and used on site as a replacement for reticulated water albeit that might not include drinking water. There is a compelling case to be put that wherever a landscape has been modified there is a need to slow water’s flow across it and return as much as possible to the landscape – and do so without putting the built environment and civic infrastructures at risk.
The notion that in ‘engineering terms’ this is too difficult, too expensive, too onerous, whatever, is no longer an acceptable response. Indeed, it is a lazy response given that the technology for achieving the outcomes described here is relatively well understood. Moreover, these technologies are well within the reach of anyone seriously concerned with achieving the kind of target outcomes implied here.
What is true for water is true for other issues in natural capital management. Moreover there are profits – tangible & intangible – to be won by being proactive in regard to natural capital management.
It is timely that Local Govt. planning begins to proactively address natural capital in their planning schemes, and less simplistically, and in ways that deliver more holistic outcomes for the Communities of Ownership and Interest (COI) they serve.
No comments:
Post a Comment