New Zealand: Mining in Schedule 4 Conflict: Difference between revisions

“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).

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>

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>

There are opposing views from the side of mining companies & government, and the local people, general public and nature protecting organizations.  

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>

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>

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>

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>

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>

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.

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>

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>

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?