New Zealand: Mining in Schedule 4: Difference between revisions

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 reckoned 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 (specifically, to protect another 12,500 ha from mining, although these additions would have happened anyway). The establishment of a contestable conservation fund was 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 the mining companies & government, and the local people, the general public and nature protection 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 support mining (see [http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1003/S00313.htm the Minister’s Press Release]). The mining activities would be extremely efficient from an 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 resource company, declares: 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 resource company web page. Available from http://www.coalnz.com/index.cfm/1,127,0,49,html 22 March 2010 </ref>

On the other hand, journalist and commentator Gordon Campbell argues that the potential mineral value of the 7,058 hectares in question is highly unpredictable until the specific resource is extracted. 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 up 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 the Government 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>

The Government 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, it will focus its efforts on exploiting New Zealand's mineral wealth in areas that fall outside conservation areas. The reason for this decision was that the Government received nearly 40,0000 submissions after launching a discussion document in spring, resulting in public protest actions (street marches). The Government had been “forced to drop the plans because of the public outcry”. New areas were to be added to Schedule 4 by October 2010 as originally planned.

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>

Not everything has been resolved despite the government decision. For example, Coromandel conservation land is still threatened by mining. The Newmont Waihi Gold company “...is actively drilling for gold in high-conservation value Conservation Park land in southern Coromandel, near Whangamata.” The affected area is regarded as “a special place – the only land with this status in southern Coromandel” because of its high conservation, biodiversity, recreational and landscape 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 over whether New Zealand should preserve all of its natural beauty or be somehow willing to make a 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 they need 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 were the mechanisms of democratic dialogue held on different levels in this case - how was it related to the success of public pressure? What are the principles of governance within a region or state? What are the communication channels and rules of dialogue?

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

--[[User:Jana Dlouha|Jana Dlouha]] 16:14, 7 January 2011 (CET)