What does a 'sustainable' Motueka mean?

July 25th, 2012
by David Armstrong

I've been rather heavily involved with the starting of an exciting initiative called Vision Motueka (www.visionmotueka.org.nz), in which a group of us are involved in some long-term visioning and strategic planning for our town.

On most of the core issues and goals we are pretty much unified, but one facet of our mission statement (which of course also underlies many of our objectives) is the use of the word "sustainability" (and its adjectival form "sustainable"). I'm hoping that some readers may wish to comment and tell me what they understand the word to mean, particularly in the many contexts so often used these days.

Now the use of the word "sustainable" is becoming looser and more distorted as awareness of environmental issues grow. Sometimes this misuse is coming from commercial interests (the latest marketing tick) and from people with a barrow to push.

I've been trying for months to reconcile in my head the varying interpretations of this word, and have been largely unsuccessful. As is common among today's town planners and strategists, we state that we want Motueka to be, amongst other things, a sustainable town. But when we try to work out what that means, we tend to bump into a range of ambiguities and variations of opinion.

The Vision Motueka group comprises environmental specialists as well as business people (tourism and retail) and people whose passion lies in social services, health and cultural aspects. What does "sustainability" mean to each of these?

The dominant use of the term over the past decade has clearly been in relationship to the environment. You can't keep digging ever more stuff out of the ground, or putting chemicals onto plant life, or extracting more water from rivers, or pumping more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, etc, without eventually reaching a point of 'no more possible'. You cannot sustain those activities forever, nor can you sustain the things that are being affected and damaged by these agents of "productivity" and "growth".

I think this use of the word is coherent to a point, until you take a longer view, when in some cases it doesn't make sense or even matter. Some activities which cannot be sustained indefinitely may be allowed to run out by which time an alternative will surely be available.

For example, the current, affordable supply of petrol for cars cannot be sustained forever, but it doesn't mean we must stop using cars right now. Petrol has no intrinsic value (like endangered birds do) so its loss over time is no big deal in itself. By the time it's too expensive to use, an alternative power source for transportation will be available at a price set by the market, and we'll switch gradually to sources which are hopefully more sustainable.

To me, then, a sustainable town does not mean no use of petrol in it, although in the long term this may be a result brought about by market forces, not policy. The town would be unsustainable only if it relied on the availability of cheap petrol. There are many activities in a thriving town which may use up non-renewable or finite resources (land area is one obvious one), but which are vital to keep the town running while it transitions to a different future.

Also, too often when practices and products labelled "sustainable" are traced back to source, there are significant trade-offs with unsustainable resource use to make them. Obvious ones are the manufacture of electric cars and their subsequent use of electricity generated by non-renewable fuels, and the use of concrete and environmental damage involved in making wind farms. I'm not saying these should be disqualified from use of the "sustainable" label, but rather that it's not as simple as it first looks.

So I see a goal of environmental sustainability as a guideline to follow over a long transition, not a prescription for immediately banning certain activities and usages. However, I also see that activities which lead to unsustainable environmental outcomes in the near term - such as allowing industry to pollute waterways - should be banned as soon as possible and included in any "sustainability" policy goal.

Returning to my earlier point about the use of "sustainability" in colloquial communications, I fear it's being used too often to mean some simpler thing like "does its best to minimise the carbon footprint", or "is less damaging to the environment than other products or practices". Which is nice, but not all that helpful when planning the future of a town.

But of equal concern to me in envisioning a sustainable town such as Motueka is also business, cultural and social sustainability. If a town is just focused on being environmentally sustainable (ie, looking after its immediate environmental quality) then it may still die. In this real world - the only one that most of us want to live in - people trade in local and broader economies in order to satisfy core needs, be creative and live useful lives.

If a town is to thrive into the future (and here I'm talking up to about 50 years - a couple of generations) then its social, cultural and economic life must be as strong as its environmental policies. Otherwise its members have no stake in remaining and the town withers.

In cultural terms, this clearly means building a social and "spiritual" fabric which makes all residents feel at home and engaged in the life of the community to whatever extent they wish. It means welcoming newcomers no matter what their cultural roots are, and particularly treating the tangata whenua and later settlers as truly equal partners.

Similar understanding and respect of each other also underlie sustainable social and health aspects of a town. This probably has many facets, but I see the care of all people as we would treat our neighbours as core to this. And of course, in population terms a town can only be sustainable across generations if the young ones are nurtured with at least as much attention as the aging generations. A town focused too much on the needs and comforts of its elderly members will indeed eventually be a dying town.

It is the meaning of sustainability to businesses and the economy that perplexes me most. Businesses come and go, but without useful and evolving businesses a town will wither. But what sorts of businesses would satisfy the description "sustainable"?

I try to start out by asking which may well be unsustainable. Go through the list.

Tourism? Being the gateway to the world-famous Abel Tasman National Park, Motueka depends heavily on tourists for dollars, especially through the warmer months. Is this sustainable? Probably 'yes' in the short to medium term - kayaks and walking in the park are very eco-friendly anyhow. But as petrol and aviation fuel become less plentiful and more expensive, there will be fewer tourists passing through, although those who do may bring lots of money. So should Motueka rely on tourism for a sustainable economy? Probably yes, but with a great deal of care and forethought.

Retail? We have a good mix of shops with mainly locally owned specialist stores as well as branches of a few larger retail chains. But apart from good dollars during the tourist season, most are just getting by as the global economy hits home.

Some sell goods that we do all need - food, clothing, home maintenance products - while others sell stuff that is quickly obsolete and many of us could well do without anyhow. Retail in the latter category of shops may well be non-sustainable in tough times, so encouraging more low-end retailers in order to provide local employment may be counter-productive.

The other side of this coin is the scenario that if the town's retail sector and local service businesses shrink, more of our population will either drive to Nelson, shop online or leave town. This then produces a downward spiral exacerbated by fewer people being able to afford to drive to Nelson for their shopping anyway.

Another example of a dubious business, sustainability wise, is the local aerodrome which is working to attract more air-orientated businesses (helicopters, sky diving, etc) and in particular the growth of the aviation school. Proponents cite the extra dollars and jobs this brings into the local economy, but many residents complain about the extra noise above them. And again, for how long will air travel in these parts be commonplace? Can these businesses be sustained and for how long?

I hope you get the picture emerging from my ramblings. If I'm to envisage a town with a sustainable environment, culture and economy, how far into the future should I be looking? Should I accept some unsustainable activities in order to travel a path toward greater sustainability? Or should I just stop using the 'S' word and substitute some other verbal construct that allows for a less black-and-white scenario?

Any comments gratefully received.

>> , to be added to the page. [If this link doesn't work, use this form instead]

[ Return ]