VCSEwiki

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

New Zealand: Mining in Schedule 4 Conflict (view source)

Revision as of 12:03, 6 May 2011

2,204 bytes added ,  12:03, 6 May 2011
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
__NOTOC__
__NOTOC__
[[File:Macraes Gold Mine - Frasers Pit.jpg|thumb|Macraes Gold Mine - Frasers Pit]]
[[File:Mount Hobson Great Barrier Island.jpg|thumb|Mount Hobson Great Barrier Island]]
[[File:Coromandel Peninsula Panorama.jpg|thumb|Coromandel Peninsula Panorama]]
== Introduction ==
== Introduction ==
In 2009, the National-led New Zealand Government announced that it would review Schedule Four of the Crown Minerals Act which prohibits mining on high conservation status land. In March 2010, the New Zealand Government began actively canvassing the idea of removing land from Schedule Four in order to carrying out prospecting for rich mineral deposits. While releasing a discussion paper proposing a number of measures to develop New Zealand's mineral potential the Minister of Energy and Resources, Gerry Brownlee, and the Minister of Conservation, Kate Wilkinson, said a preliminary stocktake of Schedule Four land showed <ref>Media statement: Time to discuss maximising our mineral potential http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1003/S00313.htm</ref>:
In 2009, the National-led New Zealand Government announced that it would review Schedule Four of the Crown Minerals Act which prohibits mining on high conservation status land. In March 2010, the New Zealand Government began actively canvassing the idea of removing land from Schedule Four in order to carrying out prospecting for rich mineral deposits. While releasing a discussion paper proposing a number of measures to develop New Zealand's mineral potential the Minister of Energy and Resources, Gerry Brownlee, and the Minister of Conservation, Kate Wilkinson, said a preliminary stocktake of Schedule Four land showed <ref>Media statement: Time to discuss maximising our mineral potential http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1003/S00313.htm</ref>:
Line 10: Line 6:
* Schedule Four lands could be mined with little direct impact
* Schedule Four lands could be mined with little direct impact
* there was inadequate information on the potential mineral deposits and the Government wanted to improve knowledge of the "mineral estate".
* there was inadequate information on the potential mineral deposits and the Government wanted to improve knowledge of the "mineral estate".
[[File:Gerry Brownlee.jpg|thumb|Gerry Brownlee, Minister of Energy and Resources]]


The reaction to the Government's proposal was swift and vociferous. Environmental and local community groups, celebrities and opposition political parties immediately lined up against the Government, the mining industry and big business interest groups to condemn any suggestion of encroaching upon land with the highest protected conservation status in the country.
The reaction to the Government's proposal was swift and vociferous. Environmental and local community groups, celebrities and opposition political parties immediately lined up against the Government, the mining industry and big business interest groups to condemn any suggestion of encroaching upon land with the highest protected conservation status in the country.


== Schedule Four - history ==
== Schedule Four - history ==
Line 41: Line 37:
Lining up against the proposal were an array of politicians (both government and opposition), environmental NGOs, political commentators and independent scientists. Their arguments concentrated on the potential damage to the environment and New Zealand’s reputation and image in the rest of the world, the alleged distorted and poorly conceived economic argument used by the government, and bad politics.
Lining up against the proposal were an array of politicians (both government and opposition), environmental NGOs, political commentators and independent scientists. Their arguments concentrated on the potential damage to the environment and New Zealand’s reputation and image in the rest of the world, the alleged distorted and poorly conceived economic argument used by the government, and bad politics.


'''Damage to the environment'''
===Damage to the environment===


“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… 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.” This is what the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand web site said about New Zealand’s unique nature in opposition to the proposal to mine on Schedule 4 land<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>.
“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… 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.” This is what the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand web site said about New Zealand’s unique nature in opposition to the proposal to mine on Schedule 4 land<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>.
Line 48: Line 44:


The specific long-lasting environmental hazards of mining were focused on by Dennis Teag of the Coromandel Watchdog Group NGO. He said the mining industry liked to talk about the benefits of mining but rarely alluded to the drawbacks, including the very real environmental issue of tailings dams where millions of tons of toxic waste has to be stored in a containment facility forever.<ref> Radio New Zealand interview, Kathryn Ryan Nine to Noon, Mining the conservation estate, 23 March 2010 http://static.radionz.net.nz/assets/audio_item/0005/2246495/ntn-20100323-0908-Mining_the_Conservation_Estate-m048.asx retrieved 3 May 2011</ref> The cost of cleaning up if they go wrong was incredibly large, such as the $17.5m required to remediate the damage incurred at the Tui copper, lead and zinc mine on the western slopes of Mount Te Aroha in the Kaimai Range of New Zealand and considered to be the most contaminated site in the country. It was abandoned in the 1970s but Teag claimed the remedial work would probably not be effective anyway.
The specific long-lasting environmental hazards of mining were focused on by Dennis Teag of the Coromandel Watchdog Group NGO. He said the mining industry liked to talk about the benefits of mining but rarely alluded to the drawbacks, including the very real environmental issue of tailings dams where millions of tons of toxic waste has to be stored in a containment facility forever.<ref> Radio New Zealand interview, Kathryn Ryan Nine to Noon, Mining the conservation estate, 23 March 2010 http://static.radionz.net.nz/assets/audio_item/0005/2246495/ntn-20100323-0908-Mining_the_Conservation_Estate-m048.asx retrieved 3 May 2011</ref> The cost of cleaning up if they go wrong was incredibly large, such as the $17.5m required to remediate the damage incurred at the Tui copper, lead and zinc mine on the western slopes of Mount Te Aroha in the Kaimai Range of New Zealand and considered to be the most contaminated site in the country. It was abandoned in the 1970s but Teag claimed the remedial work would probably not be effective anyway.
[[File:Coromandel Peninsula Panorama.jpg|thumb|Coromandel Peninsula Panorama]]


Auckland Central MP Nikki Kaye, representing the ruling National Party in an electorate that traditionally votes Labour,  spoke out against her own party's plan to remove Schedule 4 protected status from part of Great Barrier Island, which is part of her electorate, and open it to mining. "My personal view is that when environmental and economic factors are taken into account and given the island's status in the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park, mining on Great Barrier Island doesn't stack up," she said.<ref>Mining plans condemned by National’s Nikki Kaye, TV3 News, 23 March 2010 http://www.3news.co.nz/Mining-plans-condemned-by-Nationals-Nikki-Kaye-/tabid/419/articleID/147629/Default.aspx retrieved 4 May 2011</ref>
Auckland Central MP Nikki Kaye, representing the ruling National Party in an electorate that traditionally votes Labour,  spoke out against her own party's plan to remove Schedule 4 protected status from part of Great Barrier Island, which is part of her electorate, and open it to mining. "My personal view is that when environmental and economic factors are taken into account and given the island's status in the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park, mining on Great Barrier Island doesn't stack up," she said.<ref>Mining plans condemned by National’s Nikki Kaye, TV3 News, 23 March 2010 http://www.3news.co.nz/Mining-plans-condemned-by-Nationals-Nikki-Kaye-/tabid/419/articleID/147629/Default.aspx retrieved 4 May 2011</ref>
[[File:Mount Hobson Great Barrier Island.jpg|thumb|Mount Hobson Great Barrier Island]]


Auckland mayor and former National Party MP and cabinet minister, John Banks, agreed with Kaye. He said Great Barrier Island was “the untouched jewel in the crown of the Hauraki Maritime Park" and that mining the island would be a “serious blow to the established economy that depends on the area’s untarnished image.” <ref> Radio New Zealand interview, Kathryn Ryan Nine to Noon, Mining the conservation estate, 23 March 2010 http://static.radionz.net.nz/assets/audio_item/0005/2246495/ntn-20100323-0908-Mining_the_Conservation_Estate-m048.asx retrieved 3 May 2011</ref> Banks stated that there were more jobs in ecotourism than in open cast mining and that the infrastructure required to mine Great Barrier Island would be devastating to the local environment.
Auckland mayor and former National Party MP and cabinet minister, John Banks, agreed with Kaye. He said Great Barrier Island was “the untouched jewel in the crown of the Hauraki Maritime Park" and that mining the island would be a “serious blow to the established economy that depends on the area’s untarnished image.” <ref> Radio New Zealand interview, Kathryn Ryan Nine to Noon, Mining the conservation estate, 23 March 2010 http://static.radionz.net.nz/assets/audio_item/0005/2246495/ntn-20100323-0908-Mining_the_Conservation_Estate-m048.asx retrieved 3 May 2011</ref> Banks stated that there were more jobs in ecotourism than in open cast mining and that the infrastructure required to mine Great Barrier Island would be devastating to the local environment.
[[File:Macraes Gold Mine - Frasers Pit.jpg|thumb|Macraes Gold Mine - Frasers Pit: an example of open cast gold mining in New Zealand]]


'''Damage to reputation'''
===Damage to reputation===


The potential damage to New Zeland’s ‘clean, green’ was highlighted by The Economist. “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.”<ref>It’s not easy seeming green: A backlash to NZ’s vow of purity, The Economist, 23 March 2010 http://www.economist.com/node/15763381?story_id=15763381 retrieved 5 May 2011</ref>
The potential damage to New Zeland’s ‘clean, green’ was highlighted by The Economist. “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.”<ref>It’s not easy seeming green: A backlash to NZ’s vow of purity, The Economist, 23 March 2010 http://www.economist.com/node/15763381?story_id=15763381 retrieved 5 May 2011</ref>


'''Bad numbers'''
Economic analysis showed that mining Schedule 4 land could have had an impact on the 100% pure image to the extent that it would lower GDP by 1%, as the rest of the economy like wine, horticulture, agriculture etc leverage off the 100% pure brand [http://10yearsyoung.tourismnewzealand.com/].<ref> Kevin Hackwell, Forest and Bird Advocacy Manager, Is mining on conservation land really off the agenda,  interview with Kathryn Ryan on Nine to Noon,  Radio New Zealand, 20 July 2010 http://static.radionz.net.nz/assets/audio_item/0003/2353683/ntn-20100720-0908-Is_mining_on_conservation_land_really_off_the_agenda_-m048.asx retrieved 3 May 2011</ref>
 
===Bad numbers===


The numbers touted by the Government in relation to expected income from mining were subjected to intense scrutiny by independent scientists, journalists and commentators. Wanaka-based consultant geologist Stephen Leary, who has worked in New Zealand, Australia, Europe, Canada and South America, said some of the figures proffered for individual conservation areas in the Government's geological reports were "misleading" because they were "wildly optimistic" and had not been backed by exploration.<ref>Government figures misleading - geologist, Stuff news website, 26 March 2010 http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/3509110/Govt-figures-misleading-geologist retrieved 5 May 2011</ref> "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. "People might go, `Well, maybe it's worth mining Stewart Island because $7b is a lot of money', whereas in fact there's basically no way there's $7b worth [of minerals] there. What it's doing is misleading the public."  
The numbers touted by the Government in relation to expected income from mining were subjected to intense scrutiny by independent scientists, journalists and commentators. Wanaka-based consultant geologist Stephen Leary, who has worked in New Zealand, Australia, Europe, Canada and South America, said some of the figures proffered for individual conservation areas in the Government's geological reports were "misleading" because they were "wildly optimistic" and had not been backed by exploration.<ref>Government figures misleading - geologist, Stuff news website, 26 March 2010 http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/3509110/Govt-figures-misleading-geologist retrieved 5 May 2011</ref> "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. "People might go, `Well, maybe it's worth mining Stewart Island because $7b is a lot of money', whereas in fact there's basically no way there's $7b worth [of minerals] there. What it's doing is misleading the public."  
Line 80: Line 81:
While Oram was generally in favour of mining because New Zealand could not morally accept the benefits of other countries mining when it did not mine its own land, he expressed incredulity that the Government wished to pick a fight over land that might produce NZ$18 billion of income (as a proportion of conservation land potentially earmarked by the Government, i.e. 500 hectares out of 7,058 hectares) when it could mine other land that did not have any of the pitfalls of Schedule 4.
While Oram was generally in favour of mining because New Zealand could not morally accept the benefits of other countries mining when it did not mine its own land, he expressed incredulity that the Government wished to pick a fight over land that might produce NZ$18 billion of income (as a proportion of conservation land potentially earmarked by the Government, i.e. 500 hectares out of 7,058 hectares) when it could mine other land that did not have any of the pitfalls of Schedule 4.


While Oram was generally in favour of mining because New Zealand could not morally accept the benefits of other countries mining when it did not mine its own land, he expressed incredulity that the Government wished to pick a fight over land that might produce NZ$18 billion of income (as a proportion of conservation land potentially earmarked by the Government, i.e. 500 hectares out of 7,058 hectares) when it could mine other land that did not have any of the pitfalls of Schedule 4.


== Conflict ==
==Public submissions process==
There are opposing views from the side of the mining companies & government, and the local people, the general public and nature protection organizations.
The vigorous public debate over the rationale behind the Government’s proposal to undertake further investigation of New Zealand’s mineral wealth and its economic potential on Schedule 4 land mirrored the submissions made to the Government as part of the formal public feedback procedure.
 
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. 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>
==Conflict resolution==
As there were opposing views concerning the problem, and also because nature protection was high on the political agenda in New Zealand, process of public debate on the issue was launched. This was started by the so called "stocktake" - careful analysis of existing mineral wealth and its economic potential, and continued with approximate estimation of environmental, cultural etc. potential. Negotiation process followed:
===Steps in the negotiation process===
The New Zealand Cabinet Papers and Cabinet Minutes <ref>Ministry of Economic Development: Cabinet Papers. 23 April 2010. Online WWW http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/Page____43174.aspx</ref>  
The New Zealand Cabinet Papers and Cabinet Minutes <ref>Ministry of Economic Development: Cabinet Papers. 23 April 2010. Online WWW http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/Page____43174.aspx</ref>  
chronologically list the Schedule 4 stocktake discussion documents. (Interesting: certain sections were withheld to protect the privacy of natural persons or to enable Ministers and/or any Departments or organisations to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations.)
chronologically listed the Schedule 4 stocktake discussion documents.  
 
* In the release of the Discussion Paper<ref>The Chair of the Cabinet Economic Growth and Infrastructure Committee: Release of the Discussion Paper on the Stocktake of Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991. Online www: http://www.med.govt.nz/upload/72484/2-CAB-Cabinet-Paper-Release-of-a-Discussion-Paper-on-the-Stocktake-Schedule-4-of-the-Crown-Minerals-1991.pdf </ref>, the following procedure can be tracked:
* In the Release of a Discussion Paper<ref>The Chair of the Cabinet Economic Growth and Infrastructure Committee: Release of the Discussion Paper on the Stocktake of Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991. Online www: http://www.med.govt.nz/upload/72484/2-CAB-Cabinet-Paper-Release-of-a-Discussion-Paper-on-the-Stocktake-Schedule-4-of-the-Crown-Minerals-1991.pdf </ref>, following procedure could be traced:
#Stocktake = review of the areas under Schedule 4 was undertaken, inhibitors of mineral development identified
#Stocktake = review of the areas under Schedule 4 was undertaken, inhibitors of mineral development identified
#Government proposed to invest in gathering more information on mineral estate
#Government proposed to invest in gathering more information on the mineral estate
#Information obtained was released publicly to encourage potential mining investors
#Information obtained was released publicly to encourage potential mining investors
#This information should above all enable to identify areas to remove from Schedule 4
#This information was above all enable to identify areas to remove from Schedule 4
#Crown land<ref>Crown-owned minerals: gold, silver, petroleum</ref>  – concerning this category, legislative change was required (addition to Schedule 4)
#Crown land<ref>Crown-owned minerals: gold, silver, petroleum</ref>  – concerning this category, legislative change was required (addition to Schedule 4)
#Discussion paper by the Ministry of Economic Development was prepared – seeked PUBLIC FEEDBACK:
#Discussion paper by the Ministry of Economic Development was prepared – public feedback sought:
##proposed for removal of 7 058 ha areas from the Schedule 4 Act
##proposed 7,058 ha for removal from Schedule 4  
##proposed for adding 12 400 ha to the Schedule 4 Act
##proposed addition of 12,400 ha to Schedule 4  
#Six week PERIOD OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION started
#an eight week period of public consultation started
#Leaders of affected iwi were notified prior to the public release
#leaders of affected iwi (local Maori tribes) were notified prior to the public release
#New policy proposal was released for new conservation fund (conservation benefits from the mining)
#a new policy proposal was released for a new conservation fund (conservation to benefit NZ$2 – 10 million from the mining)
#Required reporting back on public consultation period
#required report back on public consultation period
#Schedule 4 areas (incl. Coromandel Region) & restrictive measures to protect them under mining were reviewed
#Schedule 4 areas and restrictive measures to protect them from mining were reviewed
#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 expressed a number of concerns and 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>
 
== Transparency of information and discussion process ==
== 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> stated that the Ministry of Economic Development and the Department of Conservation were “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."
 
All of the discussion documents were published on the [http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/MultipageDocumentTOC____42792.aspx Ministry of Economic Development website]  
All of the discussion documents were published on the [http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/MultipageDocumentTOC____42792.aspx Ministry of Economic Development website]  
 
[http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/StandardSummary____42579.aspx Public feedback] was received in the 6 week period beginning from the date of publication (March 2010) up until Wednesday 26 May 2010. The consultation process started by the Government sought feedback from the public on a number of areas proposed for removal from and addition to Schedule. The Government stated:  
[http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/StandardSummary____42579.aspx Public feedback] was received in the 6 week period beginning with the date of publication (March 2010) till Wednesday 26 May 2010. The consultation process started by the Government was seeking feedback from the public on a number of areas proposed for removal from and addition to Schedule. The Government stated:  
*"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."
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>  
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.
were clear, simple, and structured the answers so that they could be analysed quantitatively.
All of the potential questions to any relevant problem, and answers formulated by the Ministry of Economic Development<ref>Ministry of Economic Development: Questions and answers. May, 2010. Online. WWW: http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/Page____42795.aspx</ref>  
All of the potential questions to any relevant problem, and answers formulated by the Ministry of Economic Development<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.
were available in a form and language that was understandable to everybody.
== Final decision ==
== Final decision ==


===Basis of the final decisions 20 July 2010===
===Results of the public feedback process 20 July 2010===
[http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/StandardSummary____44101.aspx Final decision] was based upon outcomes of the consultation process: reflected views of a huge number of organizations and also individuals (who were not listed in the appendix) – see the Summary of submissions<ref>Ministry of Economic Development, Department of Conservation: Maximising our Mineral Potential: Stocktake of Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act and beyond. Summary of Submissions. July 2010. Online. WWW: http://www.med.govt.nz/upload/73974/Summary%20of%20Schedule%204%20submissions%20July%202010.pdf </ref>.


[http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/StandardSummary____44101.aspx Final decision] was based upon outcomes of the consultation process: reflected views of a huge number of organizations and also individuals (who were not listed in the appendix) – see the Summary of submissions<ref>Ministry of Economic Development, Department of Conservation: Maximising our Mineral Potential: Stocktake of Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act and beyond. Summary of Submissions. July 2010. Online. WWW: http://www.med.govt.nz/upload/73974/Summary%20of%20Schedule%204%20submissions%20July%202010.pdf </ref>.  
This document represents a thorough analysis of public opinion and presents both quantitative and qualitative results.
This document represents thorough analysis of the public opinion: presents quantitative AND qualitative results.
As a Government media release from 20 July 2010<ref>Ministry of Economic Development: Ministers' media release 20 July 2010 Hon Gerry Brownlee, Minister of Energy and Resources, Hon Kate Wilkinson, Minister of Conservation. 20 July 2010 Online. WWW: http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/Page____44104.aspx</ref>  
stated: “Government was undertaking a genuine consultation process and had not made up its mind on any of the matters prior to the eight week discussion period which began on March 22. ... The government received 37,552 submissions … and the vast majority of submissions were focused on the proposal to remove 0.2 per cent of land from Schedule 4 to allow for wider mineral prospecting on those sites.


As the media release from 20 July 2010<ref>Ministry of Economic Development: Ministers' media release 20 July 2010 Hon Gerry Brownlee, Minister of Energy and Resources, Hon Kate Wilkinson, Minister of Conservation. 20 July 2010 Online. WWW: http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/Page____44104.aspx</ref>
says: “Government was undertaking a genuine consultation process and had not made up its mind on any of the matters prior to the eight week discussion period which began on March 22. ... The government received 37,552 submissions … and the vast majority of submissions were focused on the proposal to remove 0.2 per cent of land from Schedule 4 to allow for wider mineral prospecting on those sites.
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 ===
=== Outline of the final decision ===
In May 2010, the New Zealand 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. 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.
In July 2010, the Government confirmed it no longer planned to remove any land from Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act for the purposes of further mineral exploration or extraction. 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, resulting in public protest actions, including street demonstrations. The Government was “forced to drop the plans because of the public outcry” as “New Zealanders did not want to see their pristine conservation estates and their national parks dug up for mines”.<ref>Labour Party leader Phil Goff quoted in Tracey Watkins, Government back-down on mining, The Press, 20 July 2011 http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/south-island/3935789/Government-back-down-on-mining  retrieved 6 May 2011</ref> New areas were to be added to Schedule 4 by October 2010 as originally planned.
 
However, the Government still saw a silver lining to the outcome, as Energy Minister 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> Tracey Watkins, Government back-down on mining, The Press, 20 July 2010. Available from http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/south-island/3935789/Government-back-down-on-mining </ref>


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>
==Government management of the argument for mining on Schedule 4==
Whatever the relevant merits of the arguments put by the opposing camps, observers from both sides of the political spectrum were united in their criticism of the Government’s mishandling of the issue. While there was general agreement that the state of New Zealand’s finances were dire and required innovative solutions, there was a general consensus that the Government had picked the wrong fight to advocate increasing mining of mineral reserves and had communicated its intent poorly. Left wing commentator Andrew Campbell said the Government had failed on its communications, its groundwork on the issue and its overall policy, which was opposed by the majority of New Zealanders,<ref>Andrew Campbell interviewed by Kathryn Ryan, Politics with Matthew Hooton and Andrew Campbell, Nine to Noon, Radio New Zealand, 29 March 2010, http://static.radionz.net.nz/assets/audio_item/0008/2252186/ntn-20100329-1106-Politics-m048.asx retrieved 3 May 2011</ref> while right-wing commentator Matthew Hooton expressed frustration that by pushing for an increase in traditional mining production the National Party had not lived up to its election campaign promise to deliver innovative change to the economy.<ref>Matthew Hooton interviewed by Kathryn Ryan, Politics with Matthew Hooton and Andrew Campbell, Nine to Noon, Radio New Zealand, 3 May 2010 http://static.radionz.net.nz/assets/audio_item/0007/2283811/ntn-20100503-1107-Politics-m048.asx retrieved 3 May 2011</ref>
Echoing Hooton’s comments, Keith Ng said the Government’s proposal was “a giant leap backwards.”


== Discussion ==
“We’ve spent so many years talking about the knowledge economy, moving up the value chain, selling ideas and knowhow rather than soil nutrients… and now the vision for a more productive New Zealand is digging shit up and cashing it in?
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 Hauraki. May 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>
“We know exactly why we can’t rely on the primary sector in the long-term. The more you squeeze out of the land, the harder you need to squeeze to get the next dollar out. It means that growth becomes harder, and we’ve said for years that moving up the value chain – agriscience, biotech, etc. – was the way forward,” said Ng.<ref>Keith Ng, Rational, then, OnPoint, Public Address news blog http://publicaddress.net/onpoint/rational-then/ retrieved 5 May 2011</ref>


==Lessons learned ==
For Russell Brown, the Government’s approach to process was “feckless”, reflecting its proclivity not to think issues through thoroughly before promoting a policy publicly.<ref>Russell Brown, The Back of a Bloody Envelope, Hard News, Public Address news blog, 23 March 2010 http://publicaddress.net/hardnews/the-back-of-a-bloody-envelope/ retrieved 5 May 2011</ref>
The New Zealand case brought interesting experience, and responses to following questions:
== The future of mining in New Zealand ==
* What were “success” factors in rejection of the former purely economically oriented political strategy under concrete New Zealand conditions? These factors were folowing:
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 Hauraki. May 26, 2010. Available from http://watchdog.org.nz/</ref>
** '''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.
According to Energy Minister Brownlee, the advantage of the discussion process was that it identified where the mining industry could and could not go. “As many people have pointed, around 85 of the country is not protected by Schedule 4 and a great deal of that land has mineral potential.”<ref>Minister of Energy Gerry Brownlee quoted in Tracey Watkins, Government back-down on mining, The Press, 20 July 2011 http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/south-island/3935789/Government-back-down-on-mining  retrieved 6 May 2011</ref>
** '''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]).
"New Zealanders have given the miners sector [sic] a clear mandate to go and explore that land and, where appropriate, within the constraints of the resource consent process, utilise its mineral resources for everyone's benefit," Brownlee said.
** '''Openness''': importance of having dialogue with wide variety of civic associations and NGOs in the country – which resulted in diversity of viewpoints on the problem. Communication process is of particular interest in this case study and should be further analyzed.
The Government would conduct a significant aeromagnetic survey of non-Schedule 4 land in Northland and on the West Coast of the South Island to learn more about which areas have the highest concentrations of valuable minerals.
* Was this result based on radical ideology? Were there any general benefits of the consultation process?
==Issues from a global perspective ==
** In this case, rather than insoluble conflict was generated, more detailed “map” of the country’s economic potential was received: including the value of environmental “services” (sometimes subjectively perceived).
This New Zealand case study provides an example of issues that are writ large on a global scale:  how to sustainably benefit economically from the exploitation of non-renewable natural resources, at what cost to the natural environment should mineral extraction take place, and how to engage civil society and all relevant stakeholders in a discussion over the efficacy of mining.
* What were “success” factors that led to the rejection of the purely economically justified political strategy under specific New Zealand conditions? These factors were following:
** '''Accountability''': the importance of a precise assessment of the country’s economic potential (from a mineral resource point of view) , called “stocktake” on the one hand,  and a thorough examination of public views on the other.
** '''Transparency''': the importance of a democratic consultation process – “hard data” from the stocktake (mostly relating to the economic value of minerals) were supplemented by “soft data” on the value of culture, the environment (conservation), tourism, recreation – which finally appeared to be more beneficial to 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''': the importance of having a dialogue with wide range of civic associations and NGOs in the country, which resulted in a diversity of viewpoints on the issue. The communication process is of particular interest in this case study and could be analysed further from the perspective of applying it to less or newly democratic societies.
* Was the final result based on radical ideology? Were there any general benefits of the consultation process?
** In this case, rather than generating an insoluble conflict, a more detailed “map” of the country’s economic potential was produced: including the value of environmental “services” (sometimes subjectively perceived).
** General awareness of the mineral potential of the country was raised – areas inside and outside protected zones (Schedule 4) were more carefully examined (with respect to the constraints).
** General awareness of the mineral potential of the country was raised – areas inside and outside protected zones (Schedule 4) were more carefully examined (with respect to the constraints).
** Along with precising of the data (mapping both mineral and environmental potential of regions), also decision-making procedures were elaborated in more detail.
** Along with enhancing the data (mapping both the mineral and environmental potential of regions), decision-making procedures were also made wholly transparent, particularly for outside observers.
** Considerations on improvement of technical mining procedures have started.
** Considerations on the improvement of technical mining procedures were started.
===Result===
*Was the philosophical debate over the efficacy of mining for minerals in general resolved?
The whole process might be considered as positive – it has delivered:
** Mining the conservation estate in New Zealand was emphatically rejected on both environmental and economic grounds, i.e. the damage to New Zealand’s image would have serious ramifications for one of its main income earners – tourism
** The economic argument for mining more non-conservation areas became more readily accepted
** There was growing awareness of the moral gap between rejection of mining in New Zealand and acceptance of products derived from mining in other countries
** The stirrings of a debate over how to best use future potential income from mineral resource exploitation began
===Positive outcomes to be learned from===
The whole process might be considered as positive – it delivered:
* more information transparently available
* more information transparently available
* more trust on both sides
* more trust on both sides, although not necessarily by every party
* potential for the economic development - that respects democratic dialogue – was raised
* the potential for the economic development - that respects democratic dialogue – was raised
 
==Questions and proposed methods for further research==
==Questions and proposed methods for further research==
* The communication process could be investigated in more detail: what are the links between the most important factors of economic development ("economic development" could not be considered ''mining'' itself, but rather ''technological progress'' in the mining industry, the process of collation and utilisation of geological data, and the interlinking of the mining industry with other sectors, e.g. recreation), and the 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]?
* The communication process could be investigated in more detail: what are the links between the most important factors of economic development ("economic development" should not be considered ''mining'' itself, but rather ''technological progress'' in the mining industry, the process of collation and utilisation of geological data, and the interlinking of the mining industry with other sectors, e.g. recreation), and the 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 the subjective values of the environment? How could they be used as a counter-weight to the economic values?
* What are the subjective values of the environment? How could they be used as a counter-weight to the economic values?
* What are the economic counter-factuals to the primary economic argument for mining? What is the opportunity cost?
* Institutional procedures and official decision-making processes (going on in the ministries and other institutions concerned) versus the democratic process (on the part of civic society) - what were the differences? Were there any correlations?
* Institutional procedures and official decision-making processes (going on in the ministries and other institutions concerned) versus the democratic process (on the part of civic society) - what were the differences? Were there any correlations?
* Etc. - many others.
* Etc. - many others.
Line 183: Line 179:
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]] 22:02, 24 January 2011 (CET)
--[[User: Andrew Barton|Andrew Barton]] & [[User:Jana Dlouha|Jana Dlouha]] 12:40, 6 May 2011 (CET)
Andrew
994

edits

Retrieved from "https://vcsewiki.czp.cuni.cz/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1895"