445
edits
New Zealand: Mining in Schedule 4: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
New Zealand: Mining in Schedule 4 (view source)
Revision as of 16:02, 24 January 2011
, 16:02, 24 January 2011no edit summary
Jana Dlouha (talk | contribs) (copy from the valid page to experiment with) |
Jana Dlouha (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
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> | 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== | |||
The [http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/Page____43174.aspx following table] chronologically lists the Cabinet Papers and Cabinet Minutes on the Schedule 4 stocktake discussion document. 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. | |||
* 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 | |||
#stocktake – review areas under Schedule 4, identify inhibitors of mineral development | |||
#Government proposed to invest in gathering more information on mineral estate | |||
#information obtained released publicly to encourage potential mining investors | |||
#information would enable to identify areas to remove from Schedule 4 | |||
#Crown land – legislative change required (addition to Schedule 4) | |||
#Preparation of the discussion paper by the Ministry of Economic Development – seek PUBLIC FEEDBACK: | |||
##proposal for removal of 7 058 ha areas from the Schedule 4 Act | |||
##proposal for adding 12 400 ha to the Schedule 4 Act | |||
#6 week PERIOD OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION | |||
#Leaders of affected iwi are notified prior to the public release | |||
#new policy proposal – new conservation fund (conservation benefits from the mining) | |||
#report back on public consultation period | |||
#review of Schedule 4 areas (incl. Coromandel Region) & restrictive measures to protect them under mining | |||
* http://www.med.govt.nz/upload/72484/3-CAB-Cabinet-Economic-Growth-and-Infrastructure-Committee-(EGI)-Minute-(10)-4_8-17-Mar-10.pdf | |||
#iwi groups have expressed number of concerns – should be contacted 24 hours before release of the paper | |||
#press release when the discussion paper is made publicly available | |||
* [http://www.med.govt.nz/upload/71967/Schedule%204%20stocktake%20-%20Discussion%20paper%20_with%20maps_.pdf Schedule 4 - Discussion paper] – 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. | |||
[http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/MultipageDocumentTOC____42792.aspx The discussion document on the Ministry of Economic Development] | |||
[http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/StandardSummary____42579.aspx Public feedback] was received till Wednesday 26 May 2010. | |||
[http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/Page____42795.aspx Questions and answers] | |||
====What is the Government consulting on?==== | |||
The Government is 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. | |||
[http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/MultipageDocumentTOC____42580.aspx | |||
submission questions] – for general public | |||
===Basis of the final decisions 20 July 2010=== | |||
Decision was based upon views of a huge number of organizations and also individuals (who were not listed in the appendix) – see [http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/MultipageDocumentTOC____44107.aspx Summary of submissions]. This document represents thorough analysis of the public opinion: quantitative AND qualitative one. | |||
As the [http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/Page____44104.aspx media release from 20 July 2010] 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.” | |||
== Final decision == | == Final decision == | ||
| Line 31: | Line 79: | ||
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> | 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> | ||
== | ==Lessons learned == | ||
What were the | Knowledge about the concrete New Zealand case brought responses to following questions: | ||
* 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 | |||
** 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 | |||
* 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) | |||
** General awareness of the mineral potential of the country was raised – areas 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 | |||
** Considerations on improvement of technical mining procedures have started | |||
===Result=== | |||
The whole process might be considered as positive – it has delivered: | |||
* more information transparently available | |||
* more trust on both sides | |||
* potential for the economic development respecting democratic dialogue – was raised | |||
==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? | |||
* 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? | |||
* Etc. | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
| Line 41: | Line 108: | ||
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]] | --[[User:Jana Dlouha|Jana Dlouha]] 15:02, 24 January 2011 (CET) | ||