831
edits
New Zealand: Mining in Schedule 4 Conflict: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
New Zealand: Mining in Schedule 4 Conflict (view source)
Revision as of 20:12, 30 August 2017
, 20:12, 30 August 2017no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 113: | Line 113: | ||
==The Commissioner for the Environment delivers her opinion== | ==The Commissioner for the Environment delivers her opinion== | ||
[[File:PCE 20 Forum Dr Jan Wright.jpg|left|thumb|Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Dr Jan Wright]] | |||
Not long before New Zealanders took to the streets in force in Auckland on 1 May 2010 to protest the Government’s proposal – an estimated 40,000 people took part in the protest, which “in a country with an estimated population of 4.4 million…was an overwhelming display of public sentiment”<ref>Rudzitis, G., & Bird, K. (2011). The Myth and Reality of Sustainable New Zealand: Mining in a Pristine Land. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 53(6), 16-28</ref> – the country’s politically independent Commissioner for the Environment, Jan Wright, publicly opined that the Government had failed to make a case for opening Schedule Four land to mining. Her official submission on the Government’s discussion document criticised the lack of information available about the conservation value of the land and the benefit to New Zealanders of mining it: “These areas have been set aside as some of our most precious conservation land and before we can even begin to discuss mining it in any rational manner we need a lot of good information which simply hasn’t been made available” said Wright<ref>Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. (2010). Mining plans don’t pass firth hurdle – Environment Commissioner. Retrieved from [http://www.pce.parliament.nz/media/media-releases/mining-plans-don-t-pass-first-hurdle-environment-commissioner]</ref> “The onus … is on the Government to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the mineral values below the land justify the risk to the conservation values above the land. The information contained in the [Ministry of Economic Development] discussion document does not meet this test.” | Not long before New Zealanders took to the streets in force in Auckland on 1 May 2010 to protest the Government’s proposal – an estimated 40,000 people took part in the protest, which “in a country with an estimated population of 4.4 million…was an overwhelming display of public sentiment”<ref>Rudzitis, G., & Bird, K. (2011). The Myth and Reality of Sustainable New Zealand: Mining in a Pristine Land. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 53(6), 16-28</ref> – the country’s politically independent Commissioner for the Environment, Jan Wright, publicly opined that the Government had failed to make a case for opening Schedule Four land to mining. Her official submission on the Government’s discussion document criticised the lack of information available about the conservation value of the land and the benefit to New Zealanders of mining it: “These areas have been set aside as some of our most precious conservation land and before we can even begin to discuss mining it in any rational manner we need a lot of good information which simply hasn’t been made available” said Wright<ref>Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. (2010). Mining plans don’t pass firth hurdle – Environment Commissioner. Retrieved from [http://www.pce.parliament.nz/media/media-releases/mining-plans-don-t-pass-first-hurdle-environment-commissioner]</ref> “The onus … is on the Government to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the mineral values below the land justify the risk to the conservation values above the land. The information contained in the [Ministry of Economic Development] discussion document does not meet this test.” | ||
| Line 199: | Line 200: | ||
==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 involved in 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, an appropriate breakdown of mining data at the aggregate level, and the interlinking of the mining industry with other sectors, e.g. recreation, tourism, agriculture, viniculture), and the number, diversity, and value orientation of the responses in the Summary of Submissions?<ref> | * The communication process could be investigated in more detail: what are the links between the most important factors involved in 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, an appropriate breakdown of mining data at the aggregate level, and the interlinking of the mining industry with other sectors, e.g. recreation, tourism, agriculture, viniculture), and the number, diversity, and value orientation of the responses in the Summary of Submissions?<ref>Ministry of Economic Development. (2010). Maximising our Mineral Potential: Stocktake of Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act and beyond. Retrieved from [http://www.med.govt.nz/sectors-industries/natural-resources/pdf-docs-library/minerals/summary-of-schedule-4-submissions-july-2010.pdf]</ref> | ||
* What are the subjective values of the environment? How could they be used as a counter-weight to economic values? | * What are the subjective values of the environment? How could they be used as a counter-weight to economic values? | ||
* What are the economic counter-factuals to the primary economic argument for mining? What is the opportunity cost? | * What are the economic counter-factuals to the primary economic argument for mining? What is the opportunity cost? | ||
| Line 205: | Line 206: | ||
* Does New Zealand have an advantage or disadvantage in comparison to other democratic societies in these types of public participatory consultation processes because of its small size? Is New Zealand unique in its desire to protect its landscape at the cost of potentially enhanced economic benefit from exploitation of such natural resources? | * Does New Zealand have an advantage or disadvantage in comparison to other democratic societies in these types of public participatory consultation processes because of its small size? Is New Zealand unique in its desire to protect its landscape at the cost of potentially enhanced economic benefit from exploitation of such natural resources? | ||
* Did the proposed removal of Schedule Four status from some lands represent “a significant challenge to the prevailing conservation paradigm” in the face of wider global challenges to protected areas from increasing “global commodity demands and local land pressures”? Is this the thin end of the wedge in terms of moving away from protected conservation status?<ref>Mascia, M. B., & Pailler, S. (2011). Protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement (PADDD) and its conservation implications. Conservation Letters, 4(1), 9-20.</ref> | * Did the proposed removal of Schedule Four status from some lands represent “a significant challenge to the prevailing conservation paradigm” in the face of wider global challenges to protected areas from increasing “global commodity demands and local land pressures”? Is this the thin end of the wedge in terms of moving away from protected conservation status?<ref>Mascia, M. B., & Pailler, S. (2011). Protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement (PADDD) and its conservation implications. Conservation Letters, 4(1), 9-20.</ref> | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
| Line 234: | Line 233: | ||
{{License cc|Andrew George Barton, Jana Dlouhá}} | {{License cc|Andrew George Barton, Jana Dlouhá}} | ||
{{MOSUR}} | {{MOSUR}} | ||
[[Category:Case studies]] | |||