994
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 10:08, 30 March 2015
, 10:08, 30 March 2015→Arguments against
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
Commenting after the final decision was made about mining on Schedule Four land, Chris Baker, the chief executive of Straterra, the industry lobby group representing the mining and resource sector in New Zealand, took up the refrain first used by Murray Stevens that the mining today is green and could actually enhance the country’s clean and green image: “Done properly, the net environmental or conservation effect of mining can be and should be positive.”<ref> Baker, C. (2011). A mining industry view. Policy Quarterly, 7(1), 26-30</ref> Warming to this theme, Baker argued that the real threats facing Schedule Four land are pests and weeds, the eradication of which mining can contribute to. “Done properly, a by-product of mining could be much more conservation than can be afforded by government. It’s already happening. Seen this way, mining is more likely to enhance the New Zealand brand than detract from it.” The real problems on Schedule Four land inferred that New Zealanders were somehow confused over its true value; Baker stated that New Zealand did not know the “intrinsic” value of such land, although it appears from his comments that he was using the term in its financial rather than ethical or philosophical definition. A rigorous test of the economics involved in mining would demonstrate the benefit of opening up more protected areas for mineral extraction. | Commenting after the final decision was made about mining on Schedule Four land, Chris Baker, the chief executive of Straterra, the industry lobby group representing the mining and resource sector in New Zealand, took up the refrain first used by Murray Stevens that the mining today is green and could actually enhance the country’s clean and green image: “Done properly, the net environmental or conservation effect of mining can be and should be positive.”<ref> Baker, C. (2011). A mining industry view. Policy Quarterly, 7(1), 26-30</ref> Warming to this theme, Baker argued that the real threats facing Schedule Four land are pests and weeds, the eradication of which mining can contribute to. “Done properly, a by-product of mining could be much more conservation than can be afforded by government. It’s already happening. Seen this way, mining is more likely to enhance the New Zealand brand than detract from it.” The real problems on Schedule Four land inferred that New Zealanders were somehow confused over its true value; Baker stated that New Zealand did not know the “intrinsic” value of such land, although it appears from his comments that he was using the term in its financial rather than ethical or philosophical definition. A rigorous test of the economics involved in mining would demonstrate the benefit of opening up more protected areas for mineral extraction. | ||
== Arguments against == | == Arguments against mining on Schedule Four land== | ||
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 | Lining up against the proposal were an array of politicians (both government and opposition), environmental NGOs, political commentators and bloggers, 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 its clumsy political management of the issue. | ||
[[File:Mining Protest-4.jpg|thumb|left|Mining Protest-4]] | [[File:Mining Protest-4.jpg|thumb|left|Mining Protest-4]] | ||
===Damage to the environment=== | ===Damage to the environment=== | ||
| Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
[[File:Macraes Gold Mine - Frasers Pit.jpg|thumb|Macraes Gold Mine - Frasers Pit: an example of open cast gold mining in New Zealand]] | [[File:Macraes Gold Mine - Frasers Pit.jpg|thumb|Macraes Gold Mine - Frasers Pit: an example of open cast gold mining in New Zealand]] | ||
The potential damage to New Zeland’s ‘clean, green’ reputation 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> | |||
Kevin Hackwell, Forest and Bird Advocacy Manager, told Radio New Zealand’s Kathryn Ryan that economic analysis showed that mining Schedule Four 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, such as the wine, horticulture, agriculture industries, 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> | |||
Forest and Bird had previously said that leaked information demonstrated that the Government had originally intended to remove up to half-a-million hectares from Schedule Four, but had pared this figure back to just over 7,000 hectares for fear of a massive backlash from the New Zealand public. Even the sweetener offered by the Government to add an extra 12,400 hectares to Schedule Four in compensation was denounced by Hackwell. He said the additional land had been proposed for protection back in 2008 (i.e. before the National Government came to power) and had simply been awaiting official designation. “They should not be seen as trade-offs for high-value conservation land being removed from Schedule 4 because none of the expected 12,000 hectares has significant mining potential”.<ref>Gay, E. (2010). Government hopes to open 7000h of conservation land to mining. New Zealand Herald. Retrieved from [http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10633629]</ref> | |||
Hackwell also attacked the Government’s proposal to set up a contestable environment fund to include 50% of the royalty revenues from minerals, to be capped at NZ$10m a year, when NZ$53m had been cut from the Department of Conservation’s budget over the previous four years. “The proposal is proof that the Government fails to see the value of conservation land – for tourism, for recreation and for the unique plants and animals it protects”.<ref>Forest & Bird. (2010). Mining proposals worse than Forest and Bird feared. Retrieved from [http://www.forestandbird.org.nz/what-we-do/publications/media-releases/mining-proposals-worse-forest-bird-feared]</ref> | |||
=== | ===Questionable figures=== | ||
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 | 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>Williams, D. (2010). Government figures misleading – geologist. The Press. Retrieved from [http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/3509110/Govt-figures-misleading-geologist]</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." | ||
[[File:Gold mine and mill, Macraes Flat, 2007.jpg|thumb|Gold mine and mill, Macraes Flat, 2007]] | [[File:Gold mine and mill, Macraes Flat, 2007.jpg|thumb|Gold mine and mill, Macraes Flat, 2007]] | ||
Prominent political commentator and blogger, Russell Brown, criticised the Government for not undertaking a robust cost-benefit analysis and Minister of Energy Brownlee in particular for propagating estimates of mineral reserves with little scientific foundation. He referred to fellow blogger Keith Ng’s critique of gold prices – on the basis that gold was the most commonly cited mineral in the Government’s discussion paper – whose value fluctuates greatly depending on prevailing economic conditions, and Brownlee’s allusion to the overall productivity of the mining sector. | Prominent political commentator and blogger, Russell Brown, criticised the Government for not undertaking a robust cost-benefit analysis and Minister of Energy Brownlee in particular for propagating estimates of mineral reserves with little scientific foundation.<ref name="Brown">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> He referred to fellow blogger Keith Ng’s critique of gold prices – on the basis that gold was the most commonly cited mineral in the Government’s discussion paper – whose value fluctuates greatly depending on prevailing economic conditions, and Brownlee’s allusion to the overall productivity of the mining sector. | ||
“Here’s what Gerry did. He took the total worth of the mining sector, then divided it by the number of people it employed. It does not mean that more mining = higher productivity. It just means that mining is very capital-intensive and employs relatively few people, which are fairly obvious facts.”<ref>Keith Ng, Ration, then, OnPoint, Public Address news blog http://publicaddress.net/onpoint/rational-then/ retrieved 5 May 2011</ref> | Ng had written: “Here’s what Gerry did. He took the total worth of the mining sector, then divided it by the number of people it employed. It does not mean that more mining = higher productivity. It just means that mining is very capital-intensive and employs relatively few people, which are fairly obvious facts.”<ref>Keith Ng, Ration, then, OnPoint, Public Address news blog http://publicaddress.net/onpoint/rational-then/ retrieved 5 May 2011</ref> | ||
Brown remained realistic about the need to pay off public debt and reduce the Government’s fiscal deficits, as well as the hypocrisy of using mineral resources mined in other countries, “[b]ut if I’m to be asked to swallow a proposal whose implications stretch out for tens or hundreds of years, I expect far better than to be told by a minister that he is totting up that future on the back of a bloody envelope.”<ref | Brown remained realistic about the need to pay off public debt and reduce the Government’s fiscal deficits, as well as the hypocrisy of using mineral resources mined in other countries, “[b]ut if I’m to be asked to swallow a proposal whose implications stretch out for tens or hundreds of years, I expect far better than to be told by a minister that he is totting up that future on the back of a bloody envelope.” <ref name="Brown" /> | ||
Another prominent political commentator, Gordon Campbell, was also highly critical of the indicative figures used by Brownlee, arguing that it encourages mining companies to exaggerate estimates in order to get government backing for drilling in sensitive ecological areas to find out whether said estimates were correct or not. “Does that sound responsible – or does it sound more like the government is playing Russian roulette with the conservation estate?” asked Campbell.<ref name="Campbell">Gordon Campbell, Greenlight to Mining, Scoop news website, 23 March 2010 http://gordoncampbell.scoop.co.nz/2010/03/23/campbell-the-government%E2%80%99s-greenlight-to-mining/ retrieved 5 May 2011</ref> | Another prominent political commentator, Gordon Campbell, was also highly critical of the indicative figures used by Brownlee, arguing that it encourages mining companies to exaggerate estimates in order to get government backing for drilling in sensitive ecological areas to find out whether said estimates were correct or not. “Does that sound responsible – or does it sound more like the government is playing Russian roulette with the conservation estate?” asked Campbell.<ref name="Campbell">Gordon Campbell, Greenlight to Mining, Scoop news website, 23 March 2010 http://gordoncampbell.scoop.co.nz/2010/03/23/campbell-the-government%E2%80%99s-greenlight-to-mining/ retrieved 5 May 2011</ref> | ||
He also criticised the estimated value of the tiny area of Schedule 4 land (NZ$60 billion on 7,058 hectares) compared to the estimate of NZ$194 billion for New Zealand a whole. “It doesn’t make sense. Either these estimates are completely cockeyed – or else some very heavily intensive mining of these areas is being contemplated.” | |||
The problem as Campbell saw it was that the Government relied exclusively on the work of a single mining industry consultant who had admitted that his figures represented a ‘back of the envelope exercise’.<ref name="Campbell" /> “Even then, this figure [$NZ194 billion] is for gross worth. It bears no relation to the figure that would actually accrue to New Zealand, once foreign-owned mining companies have extracted the mineral wealth, and taken the lion’s share of the profits offshore.” | The problem as Campbell saw it was that the Government relied exclusively on the work of a single mining industry consultant who had admitted that his figures represented a ‘back of the envelope exercise’.<ref name="Campbell" /> “Even then, this figure [$NZ194 billion] is for gross worth. It bears no relation to the figure that would actually accrue to New Zealand, once foreign-owned mining companies have extracted the mineral wealth, and taken the lion’s share of the profits offshore.” | ||
| Line 92: | Line 94: | ||
Oram was critical of the Government for not outlining a plan for dealing with a potentially substantial flow of money into the NZ economy. He noted that the United Kingdom had not been sensible enough to ring-fence income from its North Sea oil and gas deposits and use it as a fund to invest elsewhere in the economy. Norway, on the other hand, had invested its oil profits wisely. | Oram was critical of the Government for not outlining a plan for dealing with a potentially substantial flow of money into the NZ economy. He noted that the United Kingdom had not been sensible enough to ring-fence income from its North Sea oil and gas deposits and use it as a fund to invest elsewhere in the economy. Norway, on the other hand, had invested its oil profits wisely. | ||
==Public submissions process== | ==Public submissions process== | ||