|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| __NOTOC__ | | __NOTOC__ |
| Warning! In this preliminary version of the text (notes or review of resources),
| |
| the author did not pay attention to the copyright rules.
| |
| That will be improved in further stages of writing.
| |
|
| |
| == Introduction – facts and opinions == | | == Introduction – facts and opinions == |
| | “New Zealand is blessed with magnificent landscapes, rich forests, and a unique biodiversity. We have a proud history of protecting these precious places and the species that rely on them for survival. Over many generations, New Zealanders have fought hard to protect our National Parks and other conservation areas.” says Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand web<ref name=Green>The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand Submission Guide: Mining in Schedule 4 Copyright © 1996-2010 http://www.greens.org.nz/takeaction/submissionguides/submission-guide-mining-schedule-4 |
| | </ref>. In addition to the network of protected areas, high value conservation lands (that include National Parks, wilderness areas, ecological areas and marine reserves) received special protection status under Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act according to which they are excluded from mining or exploration. (“Mining is a permitted activity on other conservation lands, but Schedule 4 lands – just 13% of New Zealand's total land mass – represent the most significant conservation lands that deserve protection from mining and exploration.” asserts the author of the web). |
|
| |
|
| New Zealand is blessed with magnificent landscapes, rich forests, and a unique biodiversity. We have a proud history of protecting these precious places and the species that rely on them for survival. Over many generations, New Zealanders have fought hard to protect our National Parks and other conservation areas.
| | However, New Zealand National Government proposed to remove 7000 ha of land from Schedule 4 and consider mining projects on a 'case-by-case' basis there. Moreover, they count on further geological investigations into Schedule 4 lands including National Parks ($4 million is to be spent over 9 months on investigating the mineral potential of Schedule 4 territories, which the Green Party considers to be a “subsidy to the mining industry”).<ref name=Green></ref> |
| And these efforts have paid off. It is these wild and natural places, protected from development, that underpin our valuable 'clean green' image and our tourism industry's '100 % Pure' brand. To put this at risk is folly in the extreme.
| |
| ===What is Schedule 4?===
| |
| Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act is a list of our most precious and high value conservation lands. They are inaccessible for mining or exploration, and include our National Parks, wilderness areas, ecological areas and marine reserves. Mining is a permitted activity on other conservation lands, but Schedule 4 lands-just 13% of New Zealand's total land mass-represent the most significant conservation lands that deserve protection from mining and exploration.
| |
| ===Discussion document===
| |
| The National Government has released its Schedule 4 stocktake discussion document, which proposes:
| |
| *The removal of 7000 ha of land from Schedule 4 so that mining can be considered on a 'case-by-case' basis
| |
| *Further taxpayer-funded geological investigations into large areas of schedule 4 lands including National Parks
| |
| *Changes to ministerial decision-making to facilitate easier minerals industry access to Crown land
| |
| *Long overdue additions to Schedule 4
| |
| *The establishment of a conservation fund paid for by mining royalties
| |
| | |
| ''The Green Party firmly believes that Schedule 4 lands are worth more to New Zealanders intact; providing recreation opportunities, tourism income, and ecosystem services; and we are opposed to any removals from Schedule 4 and any further investigations to assess their mineral potential.''
| |
| | |
| ====Section 4: Areas proposed for removal from Schedule 4====
| |
| It is proposed that 7000 ha be removed from Schedule 4 immediately, so that mining can be considered on a 'case-by-case' basis.
| |
| | |
| These areas deserve the protection of Schedule 4. They all have high conservation, tourism, recreational and cultural values, and these values outweigh their potential mineral values. Schedule 4 protection should be permanent and never removed.
| |
| ====Section 7: Specific areas proposed for removal from Schedule 4====
| |
| Te Ahumata Plateau on Great Barrier Island
| |
| *Great Barrier Island is a near-pristine gem, highly valued by the small community who live there, and by Aucklanders and tourists as a holiday and recreation retreat. Mining would do irreparable harm to the residents' quality of life, and the island's reputation & tourism industry.
| |
| | |
| Sections of conservation land on the Coromandel peninsula
| |
| *The Coromandel is a diverse region with high conservation values, containing significant tracts of intact forest and threatened species. The Coromandel also has huge value as a wild and natural region close to major population centres, providing scenic and recreation opportunities. Conservation lands in the Coromandel deserve to stay in Schedule 4 to protect the ecological, tourism and recreational values of this unique peninsula.
| |
| | |
| Otahu & Parakawai Ecological Areas in the Coromandel
| |
| *As above. These areas are home to North Island brown kiwi, long-tailed bats, Hochstetter's frogs, longfin eels and banded kokopu.
| |
| | |
| The Inangahua sector of Paparoa National Park on the South Island's West Coast
| |
| *Paparoa National Park has outstanding ecological and landscape values. The Government has not ruled out open-cast mining in this area. Mining for coal is irresponsible as the climate change emissions will be significant.
| |
| ====Section 5: Further investigation programme====
| |
| $4 million is to be spent over the next 9 months on investigating the mineral potential of huge tracts of Schedule 4 land, including the remainder of Paparoa National Park & Rakiura National Park. | |
| This tax-payer funded investigation amounts to a $4 million subsidy to the mining industry, as they are the beneficiaries of the information the Government seeks to uncover. This investigation can only lead to more proposals for mining on conservation land, including Schedule 4 areas.
| |
| | |
| ''Conservation land is for protection, not exploitation.''
| |
| | |
| ====Section 6.1: Joint Ministerial approval====
| |
| It is proposed that any decision about mineral-related access applications to Crown land would require the joint approval of the Energy and Resources Minister as well as the land-owning Minister (for example the Conservation Minister).
| |
| | |
| ''This proposal would hand decision-making power over activities on conservation land to a development-focussed Minister. This is inappropriate.''
| |
| | |
| ====Section 8: Areas proposed for addition to Schedule 4====
| |
| 12,500 ha are proposed for addition to Schedule 4, meaning they are protected from mining.
| |
| While this is a positive step, these additions would have occurred anyway, and are long overdue. They do not 'offset' the removals. Furthermore, these additions should be automatic each time new lands are gazetted into National Parks and the other land classification types listed in Schedule 4.
| |
| | |
| ====Section 9: Establishment of a contestable conservation fund====
| |
| The section calls for the establishment of a conservation fund (valued at $2-10 million annually) from a portion of future mining royalties.
| |
| | |
| Conservation management of public land should be funded from DOC's core budget, which was cut by $54 million last year. We want to see that funding reinstated. In addition, the Government has not ruled out the possibility of mining companies receiving funding to carry out remediation on mined land, work they should have to do anyway.
| |
| | |
| ''Recommendation: Abandon contestable conservation fund, restore the Greens' $4 million p/a Community Conservation fund (cut in 2009), and reinstate DOC's 2009 budget cut of $54 million.''
| |
| | |
| ===Resources===
| |
| Copied from: The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand Submission Guide: Mining in Schedule 4 Copyright © 1996-2010 http://www.greens.org.nz/takeaction/submissionguides/submission-guide-mining-schedule-4
| |
| | |
| Schedule 4 Review. New Zealand Mineral Exploration Association. Available from http://www.minerals.co.nz/html/main_topics/whats_new_sched4.html
| |
|
| |
|
| Natural Riches Lie Untapped. New Zealand Mineral Exploration Association. Available from http://www.minerals.co.nz/html/main_topics/whats_new_untapped.html
| | There are some positive steps associated with this decision: some other areas have been proposed for addition to Schedule 4 (concretely to protect from mining other 12,500 ha - however, these additions would have occurred anyway). Establishment of a contestable conservation fund is planned (valued at $2-10 million annually) from a portion of future mining payments.<ref name=Green></ref> |
|
| |
|
| == Conflict == | | == Conflict == |
| There are opposing views from the side of mining companies & government,
| | There are opposing views from the side of mining companies & government, and the local people, general public and nature protecting organizations. |
| and the local people, general public and nature protecting organizations.
| |
| | |
| Energy and Resources Minister Gerry Brownlee and Conservation Minister Kate Wilkinson today released a discussion paper containing a suite of measures to facilitate the environmentally responsible development of New Zealand’s extensive mineral estate.
| |
| | |
| Minister Gerry Brownlee supports the mining project by 4 principal arguments (see http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1003/S00313.htm the Press Release). Moreover, he says: “7,058 hectares is just 0.2 per cent of Schedule Four land. Moreover, if that land subsequently saw mining development, only around five per cent of the land might actually be mined – as little as 500 hectares. This is nothing like the vast tracts of land suggested to date by the environmental lobby.
| |
| | |
| “It’s also worth noting that in productivity terms, workers in the mining sector return an average of $360,000 of GDP per worker, nearly six times the national average.”
| |
| | |
| '''Resource''': Time to discuss maximising our mineral potential Monday, 22 March 2010, 2:50 pm Press Release: New Zealand Government. Available from http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1003/S00313.htm
| |
| | |
| “We know that New Zealanders value our unique natural environment extremely highly. We also know that New Zealanders want good jobs and a high standard of living. Smart well-managed use of our natural resources, combined with a conservation fund to create long-term environmental gain will allow us to have both.”
| |
| | |
| '''Resource''': Media Release Government’s consultation on maximising New Zealand’s mineral potential. Statement by Dr Don Elder, Chief Executive Officer, Solid Energy. Solid Energy, a major New Zealand resources company web page. Available from http://www.coalnz.com/index.cfm/1,127,0,49,html 22 March 2010
| |
| | |
| ...government is indeed planning to take 7,058 hectares of land currently under Schedule 4 protection (because it had been judged to be crucial to the conservation estate) and to hand it over to mining companies.
| |
| | |
| Energy Minister Gerry Brownlee estimated potential mineral value of the 7,058 hectares in question. “Something in the vicinity of $60 billion,” but he, added : “Until you have someone recovering that resource you just don’t know...”
| |
| | |
| ''The critique is based on totally speculative character of economic benefits (weighted against environmental negatives) of the case''
| |
| | |
| '''Resource''': Campbell, Gordon. On the Government’s Greenlight to the Mining Industry. March 23rd, 2010 Accessible from http://gordoncampbell.scoop.co.nz/2010/03/23/campbell-the-government%E2%80%99s-greenlight-to-mining/
| |
|
| |
|
| ''This opinion is supported by'' the Press Wanaka-based consultant geologist Stephen Leary, who has worked in New Zealand, Australia, Europe, Canada and South America, said he had read two of the Government's geological reports, which were "desktop" studies.
| | Energy and Resources Minister Gerry Brownlee supported the mining project: “...7,058 hectares is just 0.2 per cent of Schedule Four land. Moreover, if that land subsequently saw mining development, only around five per cent of the land might actually be mined – as little as 500 hectares. This is nothing like the vast tracts of land suggested to date by the environmental lobby.” He also mentioned 4 principal arguments that speak for the mining (see [http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1003/S00313.htm the Minister’s Press Release]). The mining activities would be extremely efficient from the economic point of view (“an average of $360,000 of GDP per worker, nearly six times the national average”).<ref>Time to discuss maximising our mineral potential Monday, 22 March 2010, 2:50 pm Press Release: New Zealand Government. Available from http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1003/S00313.htm </ref> |
|
| |
|
| The Stewart Island figure was "misleading" because it was "wildly optimistic" and had not been backed by exploration, he said. "The numbers they're throwing around, the value of the mineral wealth in Stewart Island and Great Barrier Island – it's basically just made up," Leary said.
| | Solid Energy, a major New Zealand resources company, declares: that New Zealanders want “...good jobs and a high standard of living. Smart well-managed use of our natural resources, combined with a conservation fund to create long-term environmental gain will allow us to have both.”<ref>Media Release Government’s consultation on maximising New Zealand’s mineral potential. Statement by Dr Don Elder, Chief Executive Officer, Solid Energy. Solid Energy, a major New Zealand resources company web page. Available from http://www.coalnz.com/index.cfm/1,127,0,49,html 22 March 2010 </ref> |
|
| |
|
| '''Resource''': WILLIAMS, D. Govt figures 'misleading' - geologist 26/03/2010. Available from http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/3509110/Govt-figures-misleading-geologist | | On the other hand, Gordon Campbell argues that the potential mineral value of the 7,058 hectares in question is vague. Government estimation is “...something in the vicinity of $60 billion...” but it is highly unpredictable until recovering the concrete resource. As no specific numbers are available, the decision ''...is based on totally speculative character of economic benefits (weighted against environmental negatives) of the case'' he concludes.<ref>Campbell, Gordon. On the Government’s Greenlight to the Mining Industry. March 23rd, 2010 Accessible from http://gordoncampbell.scoop.co.nz/2010/03/23/campbell-the-government%E2%80%99s-greenlight-to-mining/ </ref> |
|
| |
|
| The actual “mineral wealth” in the conservation areas that wanted to be opened up is not so much rare elements, but predominantly gold and silver (also coal, gemstones, peat): “The problem is that all the reports estimate the value of gold reserves based on current prices. Why is this a problem? Because the real price of gold is currently hovering around a 27-year high...” argues Keith Ng.
| | This opinion is supported by the Press Wanaka-based consultant geologist Stephen Leary, who read two of the Government's geological reports. The figures presented there were "misleading" and "wildly optimistic" – they had not been backed by exploration, he said. "The numbers they're throwing around, the value of the mineral wealth in Stewart Island and Great Barrier Island – it's basically just made up," Leary said.<ref> Williams, D. Govt figures 'misleading' - geologist 26/03/2010. Available from http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/3509110/Govt-figures-misleading-geologist </ref> |
|
| |
|
| '''Resource''': Keith Ng Rational, then. Public Address, A community of blogs. Available from http://publicaddress.net/6536#post6536
| | Moreover, the actual “mineral wealth” in the conservation areas that wanted to be opened up is not so much rare elements, but predominantly gold and silver (also coal, gemstones, peat). Keith Ng argues that from this point of view “…the problem is that all the reports estimate the value of gold reserves based on current prices. Why is this a problem? Because the real price of gold is currently hovering around a 27-year high...”.<ref> Keith Ng Rational, then. Public Address, A community of blogs. Available from http://publicaddress.net/6536#post6536 </ref> |
|
| |
|
| == Final decision == | | == Final decision == |
| Government has confirmed it no longer plans to remove any land from schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act for the purposes of further mineral exploration or extraction and will instead focus its efforts to exploit New Zealand's mineral wealth on areas that fell outside of conservation areas. It was swamped with nearly 40,0000 submissions after launching a discussion document earlier this year and there were street marches in protest at the move. Government had been forced to drop the plans because of the public outcry. | | Government has confirmed it no longer plans to remove any land from schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act for the purposes of further mineral exploration or extraction in May 2010. Instead of that, it will focus its efforts to exploit New Zealand's mineral wealth on areas that fell outside of conservation areas. Reason for this decision was that the Government received nearly 40,0000 submissions after launching a discussion document in spring, and there were public protest actions (street marches). Actually, the Government had been “forced to drop the plans because of the public outcry”. New areas have been added to Schedule 4 by October 2010 as planned before. |
| Moreover, there are new areas to be added to Schedule 4 by October 2010.
| |
| | |
| However, the Energy Minister Gerry Brownlee said: “I suspect few New Zealanders knew the country had such considerable mineral potential before we undertook this process and I get a sense that New Zealanders are now much more aware of that potential and how it might contribute to economic growth.”
| |
|
| |
|
| '''Resource''': WATKINS, T. Government back-down on mining. Fairfax Media, 20/07/2010. Available from http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/south-island/3935789/Government-back-down-on-mining
| | However, the Energy Minister Gerry Brownlee said: “I suspect few New Zealanders knew the country had such considerable mineral potential before we undertook this process and I get a sense that New Zealanders are now much more aware of that potential and how it might contribute to economic growth.”<ref> Watkins, T. Government back-down on mining. Fairfax Media, 20/07/2010. Available from http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/south-island/3935789/Government-back-down-on-mining </ref> |
|
| |
|
| == Discussion == | | == Discussion == |
| Not everything is being solved despite of government decision.
| | Not everything is being solved despite of the government decision. For example Coromandel conservation land is still threatened by mining. Newmont Waihi Gold company “...is actively drilling for gold in high-conservation value Conservation Park land in southern Coromandel, near Whangamata.” Affected area has been ranked as “special place – the only land with this status in southern Coromandel” because of its high conservation, biodiversity, recreational and landscapes values.<ref> Mining threat to southern Coromandel remains - Newmont drilling for gold in Conservation Park near Whangamata Coromandel Watchdog of HaurakiMay 26, 2010. Available from http://watchdog.org.nz/ </ref> |
| But there is a question whether New Zealand should preserve all of its natural beauties or be somehow willing to do compromise.
| |
|
| |
|
| Despite great win in May 2010 when the government backed-down on it’s plans to mine Schedule 4 Conservation land, Coromandel conservation land is still threatened by mining. Newmont Waihi Gold is actively drilling for gold in high-conservation value Conservation Park land in southern Coromandel, near Whangamata. Newmont’s target for mining is within a Conservation Department designated “special place” – the only land with this status in southern Coromandel. DoC gave the land this status because of its high conservation, biodiversity, recreational and landscapes values.
| | On the other hand, there is a question whether New Zealand should preserve all of its natural beauties or be somehow willing to do compromise. The conflict in New Zealand is “…no different to that of other rich countries—how to balance economic growth with the need to address environmental degradation. But it is particularly acute in a country so dependent on the export of commodities and landscape-driven tourism. The difference between New Zealand and other places is that New Zealand has actively sold itself as “100% Pure”. Many people think that it is needed to acknowledge “the gap between the claim and reality”, to risk the loss of reputation, because the country should “…find itself a more sustainable brand, and soon”.<ref>It’s not easy seeming green. A backlash to New Zealand’s vow of purity. Green.view, March 23rd 2010 Available from http://www.economist.com/node/15763381?story_id=15763381</ref> |
|
| |
|
| On the website, there are some maps and photos from the area.
| | == Potential research questions == |
| | What are machanisms of democratic dialogue held on different levels in this case - how is it related to the success of public pressure? What are principles of governance within the region or state? Communication channels and rules of dialogue? |
|
| |
|
| '''Resource''': Mining threat to southern Coromandel remains - Newmont drilling for gold in Conservation Park near Whangamata Coromandel Watchdog of HaurakiMay 26, 2010. Available from http://watchdog.org.nz/
| | ==References== |
| | <references/> |
| | ===Other resources=== |
| | Schedule 4 Review. New Zealand Mineral Exploration Association. Available from http://www.minerals.co.nz/html/main_topics/whats_new_sched4.html |
|
| |
|
| In many ways, the dilemma New Zealand faces is no different to that of other rich countries—how to balance economic growth with the need to address environmental degradation. But it is particularly acute in a country so dependent on the export of commodities and landscape-driven tourism. The difference between New Zealand and other places is that New Zealand has actively sold itself as “100% Pure”. Now that New Zealanders themselves are acknowledging the gap between the claim and reality, and the risk to their reputation this poses, it is time for the country to find itself a more sustainable brand, and soon.
| | Natural Riches Lie Untapped. New Zealand Mineral Exploration Association. Available from http://www.minerals.co.nz/html/main_topics/whats_new_untapped.html |
| | |
| '''Resource''': It’s not easy seeming green. A backlash to New Zealand’s vow of purity. Green.view, March 23rd 2010 Available from http://www.economist.com/node/15763381?story_id=15763381
| |
|
| |
|
| --[[User:Jana Dlouha|Jana Dlouha]] 20:58, 6 January 2011 (CET) | | --[[User:Jana Dlouha|Jana Dlouha]] 16:14, 7 January 2011 (CET) |