445
edits
New Zealand: Mining in Schedule 4: Difference between revisions
New Zealand: Mining in Schedule 4 (view source)
Revision as of 17:12, 24 January 2011
, 17:12, 24 January 2011no edit summary
Jana Dlouha (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Jana Dlouha (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
#Press release was made publicly available when the discussion paper was launched | #Press release was made publicly available when the discussion paper was launched | ||
#iwi groups have expressed number of concerns – should be contacted 24 hours before release of the paper<ref>Cabinet Economic Growth and Infrastructure Committee: Minute of decision. Stocktake of Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991: Release of the Discussion Document. March 2010. Online www: http://www.med.govt.nz/upload/72484/3-CAB-Cabinet-Economic-Growth-and-Infrastructure-Committee-(EGI)-Minute-(10)-4_8-17-Mar-10.pdf </ref> | #iwi groups have expressed number of concerns – should be contacted 24 hours before release of the paper<ref>Cabinet Economic Growth and Infrastructure Committee: Minute of decision. Stocktake of Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991: Release of the Discussion Document. March 2010. Online www: http://www.med.govt.nz/upload/72484/3-CAB-Cabinet-Economic-Growth-and-Infrastructure-Committee-(EGI)-Minute-(10)-4_8-17-Mar-10.pdf </ref> | ||
== Communication process == | |||
* Schedule 4 - Discussion paper<ref>Ministry of Economic Development, Department of Conservation: Maximising our Mineral Potential: Stocktake of Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act and beyond. Discussion paper. March 2010. Online. WWW: http://www.med.govt.nz/upload/71967/Schedule%204%20stocktake%20-%20Discussion%20paper%20_with%20maps_.pdf </ref> claimed that the Ministry of Economic Development and the Department of Conservation: „…are now seeking input from the community before making decisions about … policy initiatives set out in this paper. These actions aim to make the most of New Zealand’s mineral resources in an efficient and environmentally responsible way. | * Schedule 4 - Discussion paper<ref>Ministry of Economic Development, Department of Conservation: Maximising our Mineral Potential: Stocktake of Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act and beyond. Discussion paper. March 2010. Online. WWW: http://www.med.govt.nz/upload/71967/Schedule%204%20stocktake%20-%20Discussion%20paper%20_with%20maps_.pdf </ref> claimed that the Ministry of Economic Development and the Department of Conservation: „…are now seeking input from the community before making decisions about … policy initiatives set out in this paper. These actions aim to make the most of New Zealand’s mineral resources in an efficient and environmentally responsible way. | ||
| Line 47: | Line 49: | ||
[http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/StandardSummary____42579.aspx Public feedback] was received till Wednesday 26 May 2010. What was the Government consulting on? | [http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/StandardSummary____42579.aspx Public feedback] was received till Wednesday 26 May 2010. What was the Government consulting on? | ||
*The Government | *The Government was seeking feedback from the public on a number of areas proposed for removal from and addition to Schedule: | ||
**"No decisions have yet been made. The results of the stocktake are presented in a discussion paper, on which public feedback is being sought. After receiving and considering submissions on the discussion paper, Cabinet will decide on any changes to Schedule 4 in the third quarter of 2010 ... The Government is also seeking feedback on proposals for a new contestable conservation fund, a proposal to further investigate New Zealand’s mineral potential, and changes to Crown land access arrangements." | **"No decisions have yet been made. The results of the stocktake are presented in a discussion paper, on which public feedback is being sought. After receiving and considering submissions on the discussion paper, Cabinet will decide on any changes to Schedule 4 in the third quarter of 2010 ... The Government is also seeking feedback on proposals for a new contestable conservation fund, a proposal to further investigate New Zealand’s mineral potential, and changes to Crown land access arrangements." | ||
All of the questions and answers<ref>Ministry of Economic Development: Questions and answers. May, 2010. Online. WWW: http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/Page____42795.aspx</ref> were available in a form and language that was understandable to everybody | All of the questions and answers<ref>Ministry of Economic Development: Questions and answers. May, 2010. Online. WWW: http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/Page____42795.aspx</ref> were available in a form and language that was understandable to everybody | ||
Submission questions for general public<ref>Ministry of Economic Development: Word document of submission questions. 13 March 2010. Online. WWW: http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/MultipageDocumentTOC____42580.aspx </ref> were | Submission questions for general public<ref>Ministry of Economic Development: Word document of submission questions. 13 March 2010. Online. WWW: http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/MultipageDocumentTOC____42580.aspx </ref> were clear, simple, and structured the answers so that they could be analysed quantitatively. | ||
== Final decision == | |||
===Basis of the final decisions 20 July 2010=== | ===Basis of the final decisions 20 July 2010=== | ||
| Line 63: | Line 67: | ||
Most of those submissions said we should not remove any land from Schedule 4. We heard that message loud and clear.” | Most of those submissions said we should not remove any land from Schedule 4. We heard that message loud and clear.” | ||
== | === Outline of the final decision === | ||
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. | 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. | ||
| Line 77: | Line 81: | ||
* What were “success” factors in rejection of the former purely economically oriented political strategy under concrete New Zealand conditions? These factors were folowing: | * What were “success” factors in rejection of the former purely economically oriented political strategy under concrete New Zealand conditions? These factors were folowing: | ||
** Accountability: importance of the precise assessment of the country’s economic potential (from the mineral point of view) , called “stocktake”, on one hand – and precise analysis of public views on the other | ** Accountability: importance of the precise assessment of the country’s economic potential (from the mineral point of view) , called “stocktake”, on one hand – and precise analysis of public views on the other | ||
** Transparency: importance of the democratic consultation process – “hard data” from the stocktake (mostly on economic value of minerals) were supplemented by “soft data” on the value of culture, environment (conservation), tourism, recreation – which finally appeared to be more beneficial for communities from their point of view (see http://www.med.govt.nz/upload/73974/Summary%20of%20Schedule%204%20submissions%20July%202010.pdf Summary of Submissions). | ** Transparency: importance of the democratic consultation process – “hard data” from the stocktake (mostly on economic value of minerals) were supplemented by “soft data” on the value of culture, environment (conservation), tourism, recreation – which finally appeared to be more beneficial for communities from their point of view (see [http://www.med.govt.nz/upload/73974/Summary%20of%20Schedule%204%20submissions%20July%202010.pdf Summary of Submissions]). | ||
** Openness: importance of having wide variety of NGOs in the country – which resulted in diversity of viewpoints in this case | ** Openness: importance of having wide variety of NGOs in the country – which resulted in diversity of viewpoints in this case. Communication process is of particular interest in this case study and should be further analyzed. | ||
* Was this result based on radical ideology? Were there any general benefits of the consultation process? | * Was this result based on radical ideology? Were there any general benefits of the consultation process? | ||
** Rather than insoluble conflict generated, more detailed “map” of the country’s economic potential was received: including the value of environmental “services” (sometimes subjectively perceived) | ** Rather than insoluble conflict generated, more detailed “map” of the country’s economic potential was received: including the value of environmental “services” (sometimes subjectively perceived) | ||
| Line 90: | Line 94: | ||
* potential for the economic development respecting democratic dialogue – was raised | * potential for the economic development respecting democratic dialogue – was raised | ||
==Questions and proposed methods for further research== | ==Questions and proposed methods for further research== | ||
* Communication process could be investigated in more detail: what are the links between most important factors of economic development (which is not mining itself, but rather technological progress in mining industry, the process of collection and utilization of data, and interlinking of the mining industry with other sectors, e.g. recreation), and number, diversity, and value orientation of the responses in the http://www.med.govt.nz/upload/73974/Summary%20of%20Schedule%204%20submissions%20July%202010.pdf Summary of Submissions? | * Communication process could be investigated in more detail: what are the links between most important factors of economic development (which is not mining itself, but rather technological progress in mining industry, the process of collection and utilization of data, and interlinking of the mining industry with other sectors, e.g. recreation), and number, diversity, and value orientation of the responses in the [http://www.med.govt.nz/upload/73974/Summary%20of%20Schedule%204%20submissions%20July%202010.pdf Summary of Submissions]? | ||
* What are subjectively perceived values of environment? How could they be counter-weighted against economic values? | * What are subjectively perceived values of environment? How could they be counter-weighted against economic values? | ||
* Institutional decision-making process (what was going on in the ministries and other institutions concerned?) versus democratic process (what was going on in the civic society?). Were there any correlations? | * Institutional decision-making process (what was going on in the ministries and other institutions concerned?) versus democratic process (what was going on in the civic society?). Were there any correlations? | ||
| Line 102: | Line 106: | ||
Natural Riches Lie Untapped. New Zealand Mineral Exploration Association. Available from http://www.minerals.co.nz/html/main_topics/whats_new_untapped.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]] 17: | --[[User:Jana Dlouha|Jana Dlouha]] 17:12, 24 January 2011 (CET) | ||