Collaborated Approach
We have all heard or maybe even said, 'It is not the outcome or solution that is important it is the process by which took place to arrive to the outcome or solution.' In this case the legislation is the outcome and the activities of the Environmental activists and Government are the process.
Education is essential, we wouldn't be where we are today without education, education in a lot of cases is essential for Socialisation. Education widens our perceptions and raises our perceptions and awareness to different levels. This discussion question is all about perception and how we see what is being asked. We don't all see eye to eye which causes conflict, we all operate within different environments. Environments is in the broadest sense of the word, the government and activist environments. This discussion question is one example, we are all to discuss the same question, most have common areas of study yet we all perceive this question with a difference and express our opinions differently.
If a lot of us are right in saying 'Environmental activists are the driving force behind change', this would mean they have been more effective in achieving gains for the environment? Environmental activists are, by far, more then a small voice within the community, the Government hears this and does what they can to benefit themselves and those they have to please. It is not a situation in who is more effective, it is a cycle relationship that depends on each other for change. It is an integrated approach to an outcome or equilibrium.
The short answer is the Environmental Activist need the Government as much as the Government needs the activists when it comes down to achieving gains in the Environmental sector.
Is Government regulation and the tireless effort of the Activists enough? More than 500,000 ha of bush land is cleared each year in Queensland (over last 4 years), despite the introduction and enforcement of the QLD Vegetation Management Act 1999 and numerous anti-logging/land clearing demonstrates by various environmental activists groups around Australia. The wider community and the government know how much bushland is being logged each year, but is this reducing the rate of land clearing. According to the Department of Natural Resources and Mines it isn't. Maybe something like Environmental cops need to be introduced which represent both government regulations and the views of the community (this could incorporate education to land managers-as mentioned in other responses). A stronger unity between Government, Environmental activists, land managers, non-government environmental groups and the wider community needs to occur. How is this done (a lot easier to say than for it to actually occur), time, money and collaborated efforts of the Australia public as you mentioned in your response. As a nation our priorities toward the environment are changing (more greener and clearer) maybe the key is TIME, which unfortunately we'll just have to wait for. Bring in the environmental cops!
The question is how would the Government be induced to collaborate? Let us have a look at the QLD Vegetation Management Act 1999. Sherwin (2000) summarizes some of the flaws and inadequacies of the Vegetation Management Act 1999 as a means to control land clearing in Queensland as follows. Even labelled as ‘draconian' and `unreasonable', the 1999 Vegetation Management Act only protects areas of bushland that are 70%% cleared from its original context. The extent of the vegetation types from these areas only makes up about 3.5%% of the native vegetation of Queensland. Worse, lots of vegetation types are classified as ‘not of concern’ ecosystems that receive only weak and poorly defined levels of protection under the new controls (Sherwin 2000). Indeed, about one-third of the land clearing problem will be under the control of the Act. However, this protective rate is still not large enough to bring most of the environmental problems associated with land clearing into control. In other words, as a key measure to rectify the environment impacts resulted from land clearing, the Vegetation Management Act 1999 is too weak and inadequate to address the environmental issues. This implies there was a lack of sheer determinations in the government to rectify this issue.
Furthermore, both the Queensland Government and the Federal Government are very reluctant to budget the issue. Thus, the whole campaign has become political rhetoric so far. What are the reasons behind? Is Australia compromising its natural wealth before economic development? So desperate that (sorry to say), Australia does not mind to compromise its international green image!
It is a bit worrying really. Two of the main sources of income in Australia are now from education provided to overseas students and tourism. If things keep going in this way, people would stop to come. In fact, what can tourists see when they come if environmental degradation is becoming severe here. No kidding, your Great Barrier Reef has started to be deteriorated for quite a while. So, is there any more time to wait?
Rangers (EPA) have enforcement powers under legislation. What is so interesting though is how the government is slashing funding to important organizations like the EPA (QPWS) as well as DNR and DPI. This can tend to give the view that these people are not doing their jobs or are not being proactive enough to solve major issues. This simply isn't true - their simply not given the funding to do it! These rangers have an operational budget so measly it doesn't come close to covering costs of travel, fuel, materials to fix fences, amenities or do surveys for rare and threatened species etc,etc.. What is happening here? Here we have a situation of environmental issues increasing and environmental funding decreasing??? Why?
Now this doesn't make any sense! We are all very aware of the multitude of environmental issues that surround us and also of the government becoming more and more active in at least acknowledging these issues through legislative change. Why then, every year are they cutting budgets to these departments that are so crucial in correcting and addressing these environmental problems? The exception is, there are some large grants/funding provided to some particular issues or projects (which is great) but I think this glorifies the government just a little by making them appear to be 'doing so much' while at the same time they are cutting the throat of the environmental agencies behind our backs!
Maybe there are no environmental solutions, only economic, political and social ones?
A future where a policing force dedicated to environment issues are formed who are totally dedicated to enforcing environmental legislation full-time. Think that will happen?
The government and green groups are not enough of a driving force to enforce environmental change. You used the example of vegetation clearing in Queensland and the associated Vegetation Management Act. There are many reasons why this Act is not working and a lot of that has to do with the government and green groups. The construction of the Vegetation Management Act was not handled correctly. There was little or no consultation with landholders. This instilled fear into the landholders as those that did the right thing and had not cleared all of their land were going to be disadvantaged. This encouraged broad scale clearing in Queensland, exacerbating the current situation.
Green groups and the government can be blamed for this situation. The government was seeking green votes and the greenies were in a non compromising position. The majority of landholders realize the benefits of retaining vegetation on their properties and it is an insult to landholders that they are not able to manage their properties accordingly. Another point is the fact that compensation was initially not going to be paid for people to retain trees on their property. Why should landholders retain trees at the expense of potential profits for the “betterment” of the community, especially when we live in huge resource wasting cities!
However, there was some reconciliation between the government, greenies and the landholders with the establishment of the regional vegetation management plans. This was a collaborative approach, where all parties had to compromise. However, the landholders were once again disadvantaged. Every other party involved in this process apart from landholders was paid for their time. On top of this, Premier Beattie put a memorandum of tree clearing which effectively meant that these plans were null and void.
With all of these points in mind it is no wonder that clearing is still continuing and all faith in the government (and even the green groups) has been lost.
For commercial quality wholesale hospitality products view this great resource.