2020-11-03
Predicting the future is fraught with danger, but nevertheless must be attempted if long-term infrastructure investments are contemplated
By Chris Johansen, Green Issue Co-editor
Fremantle Port, the ocean gateway to WA, is reaching its capacity. There have been two main responses to this. One is to build Roe 8 and 9 so as to, supposedly, more efficiently get freight to and from the port. This was the battle leading up to the 2016 state election, with The Greens in the vanguard of the movement to stop it, and the consequent destruction of the northern Beeliar Wetlands. That battle was won, with Labor coming on board, but the Liberals are still waiting in the wings to revive that plan.
The other response is to markedly expand port facilities in Cockburn Sound, to at least take the pressure off Fremantle Port, and in some iterations even replace Fremantle Port. These options have been examined by the Westport Taskforce which released their Stage 2 Report in May of this year. Essentially, the Report favours various options for expanding port facilities in Cockburn Sound, and the Labor Government seems favourable to this.
But, wait a minute! As port developments are likely to be in service for many decades, their sound planning requires at least some attempt to look into the future, at least to 50 years hence. This has not been done, or if done not reported, by the Westport Taskforce. Asking questions like will Perth metro just keep on expanding at about the rate it has over the last 50 years; to what extent will regional development, requiring local ports, occur; what goods will need to transported; etc.
OK, but predicting the future, especially to decades hence, is a dodgy exercise. For example, who last January would have reasonably accurately predicted how 2020 would unfold? Nevertheless, some people do get things right. C.Y. O’Connor correctly predicted that Kalgoorlie would still be needing fresh water from the coast a century later, and designed and built a pipeline accordingly.
To their credit, the WA Government has attempted to do some forward planning in relation to infrastructure development, through Infrastructure WA. They released their State Infrastructure Strategy Discussion Paper in June 2020, attempting to predict 20 years into the future as a guide to infrastructure needs, and requesting public feedback. I went through this document particularly with Westport in mind. My feedback could be perceived as not very flattering, my main criticisms being:
1) A 20-year time frame is too short for most infrastructure projects as projects such as roads, rail, airports, ports, water supply, etc. are meant to be in service much longer than 20 years, often beyond 50 years. Thus, however speculative, there should have been some attempt to imagine the future beyond 20 years.
2) Their predictions over the next 20 years were essentially straight line extrapolations beyond the previous 50 years. This straight line has already been bent by COVID-19 and is likely to be further bent by accelerating climate change, and other global factors, well within 20 years.
3) The focus is on consequences for the “economy” rather than the “people”. A continuation of neoliberal approaches is assumed, which favours infrastructure development for the prime benefit of corporations rather than the well-being of the general population.
4) It is Perth-centric and lacking any coherent regional development plan.
5) While giving some lip service to climate change it fails to recognize how increasingly disruptive this will be, and of the need and opportunities for rapid conversion to renewable energy (implying a rapid phase-out of fossil fuel extraction and use).
But rather than just criticizing the attempts of others to predict the future it becomes incumbent upon me to try to do better. So, notwithstanding the danger of ending up a failed oracle, I attempt to look at factors that could determine how the future might unfold over the next 50 years or so, in relation to investing in expanded port facilities in Cockburn Sound.
Population growth
The human population of WA is currently 2.8 million, with 80% living in Perth metro. A low population density for the jurisdiction of WA (about 1 person per square kilometre), comparable with Greenland or Siberia, but understandable as WA is mostly, and increasingly, desert. Population growth rate has fluctuated between 1 and 3% per annum over the last 20 years, with the high rates of increase attributable to immigration as internal reproduction rates have been declining over a long period.
Thus future population growth will largely depend on rates of immigration and refugee influx. The pandemic has at least temporarily halted this but it is unlikely to rapidly resume due to prevailing negative attitudes towards refugees and widespread indifference to further immigration. Although the Australian Government is hostile to refugees, to the extent of torturing them to discourage others, this attitude will inevitably have to change. My sad prognosis is that global refugee numbers will multiply in coming years – traditional refugees from a likely increase in conflict zones and climate refugees. There will be increasing international pressure for Australia to accept a reasonable share of them, that not even conservative governments will be able to resist. Indeed there are now moves afoot to create Pacific Access Visas for Pacific Islanders whose homes are sinking below the ocean.
It is already current policy to send accepted refugees and immigrants to regional areas. Thus with low internal reproduction rates my prediction is that future population growth will be in regional areas rather than Perth Metro.
Economic model followed
Continuation of current neoliberal model will favour growth of Perth metro due to developers favouring activity in Perth due to greater profitability, support of FIFO for mining enterprises and little action on the receding agricultural area due to climate change. A socialist model could also favour increased population density in Perth. However, it would be better able than neoliberals to mandate future development in regions. Indeed, a glance through the Greens (WA) policies suggests a general favouring of regional development over further expansion of Perth metro.
Climate change
As it has been doing for the last 50 years climate change will continue to result in contraction of arable land and water supplies in South West WA, leading to further regional contraction. Declining water resources, including in aquifers, will also constrain Perth’s expansion. However, this could be to some extent compensated by increased agricultural opportunities in the Kimberley, due to increasing rainfall in the tropics, but this will be constrained by rising temperatures testing human endurance. However, the predicted influx of climate and conflict refugees would favour regional growth.
Sector expansion
Expansion is most likely in tourism, mining, mineral processing, manufacturing based on mineral extraction (e.g. batteries), which would favour regional growth.
World trade
A global free trade regime would favour regional expansion, due mainly to the export of primary produce. However, we seem to be now entering a protectionism phase, which favours a shrinkage back to Perth.
Energy and communication
Decentralized models of renewable energy and improved telecommunications systems will make life in regional areas much more viable and attractive than it is now, and thus will facilitate regional expansion.
Global conflict
The current lack of global leadership, and declining influence of the UN, portends increasing global conflict over the next decade or two. Resultant conflicts would cause an initial shrinkage back to Perth but the inevitable increasing refugee influx would favour movement to the regions.
Regional development prospects
This, admittedly cursory, analysis would suggest, on balance, a greater likelihood of population growth and development activity in regional WA relative to Perth metro. A major driver of this would be tourism, despite the current situation of cruise ships being dismantled and few international flights. WA is one of the few places in the world with at least pockets of unique ecology relatively undisturbed by humans, which will be of increasing interest to people around the world into the future. Of particular interest would be the South-west corner, the entire coast, the deserts and the tropics.
Demand for minerals will likely increase, along with opportunities for their processing closer to the locations where they are mined (e.g. lithium). Existing gas and oil enterprises will be replaced by green hydrogen and solar energy for export (undersea cable). There will be increased agricultural production opportunities in the Kimberley (with increasing tropical rainfall) and in the deep South-west (where there will still be adequate rainfall).
In view of these development prospects, the following towns are likely to need improved port facilities:
Bunbury and Albany – due to fresh water adequacy, expanding tourism and agricultural opportunities in the deep South-west.
Broome, Carnarvon and Kalbari ‒ due to tourism.
Port Hedland or Karratha – mining ports, with mineral processing, and renewable energy servicing.
Derby and Wyndham ‒ agricultural exports, tourism.
Infrastructure priorities
Rather than further port development in Cockburn Sound, I would think that the following infrastructure builds would be of greater priority:
- Regional railway development (and rehabilitation of some closed rail connections), including express trains between Perth and the South West.
- Decentralization of renewable energy (e.g. regional self-contained microgrids) and telecommunications.
- Securing fresh water, including sustainable use of surface and ground water and desalination using renewable energy.
- Facilitation of emerging industries where WA has a comparative advantage, e.g. renewable energy export via green hydrogen and undersea cable.
- Infrastructure development in regional towns with growth prospects (e.g. as listed above), including their port facilities.
As has been advocated by the City of Fremantle, there is scope for improving Fremantle port operations so that they can meet Perth metro needs for many years to come. Improvements such as maximizing rail freight and using electric trucks at night. Thereby keeping Fremantle as a vibrant working port city.
However, as already admitted, the above is a cursory analysis. I believe that it is incumbent upon government departments responsible for major infrastructure developments to extend their projections of how the future may evolve to the intended lifespan of those developments, certainly beyond 20 years. Only then can the economic and social viability of such expenditures be reasonably assessed. However, imaginings of the future very much depend on political perspectives. Neoliberal approaches focus mainly on the “economy” and how individuals can accumulate wealth therein. More socialist perspectives put people’s welfare to the fore and would focus on infrastructure spends that would maximize that.
Header photo: Fremantle Port panorama. Credit: Zidane Hartono, Wikimedia Commons
[Opinions expressed are those of the author and not official policy of Greens WA]