Protection or over-protection?

There is a fine line between doing the right thing by protecting a vulnerable or important area and doing the wrong thing by protecting it at the expense of any future economic development.

Indeed, there has been a glut of examples of both approaches in recent months.

Australia, in particular, has taken the heavy handed approach, having so far this year announced that it will create national heritage sites in Arkaroola in South Australia and West Kimberley in Western Australia, as well as a policy in Queensland to ban mining within 2km of urban areas.

These policies have been labelled as 'broad-brushed', and anti-development, by resource councils around the country, many of whom fear it will further degrade Australia’s standing as an investment destination.

There is no question that areas of natural or cultural significance should be preserved for future generations as well as to protect vulnerable biodiversity, but sustainability means enough for all, forever, and this should include economic wellbeing.

There are, however, ways that industry and government can work together to protect culturally or environmentally significant sites.

This month, Coal of Africa Ltd announced a memorandum of understanding with the South African Department of Environmental Affairs and the South African National Parks to conserve the Mapungubwe Cultural Landscape World Heritage Site.

Under the terms of the agreement, the parties have committed to ten joint undertakings, including “developing detailed biodiversity offset programmes and action plans and providing adequate financial, human and other resources for their effective implementation”.

This is a clear example of how partnership with industry can create a positive outcome for all.