No mining on conservation land promise broken - mining greenwashed and greenlighted for 30% of conservation estate

No mining on conservation land promise broken - mining greenwashed and greenlighted for 30% of conservation estate.

Have you seen this?

An announcement by Acting Minister of Conservation Verrall "Government speeds up stewardship land reclassification".

It seems bureaucratic and innocuous. "National panels of independent experts will assess stewardship land areas and provide recommendations on land classification to the Minister of Conservation."

I am really appalled by it.

Verrall states:

“It’s vital that land with high conservation value is classified correctly to ensure it is protected for its natural and cultural heritage and safeguarded for the future."

“Reclassification fits with the Government’s manifesto commitment to protect, preserve and restore our natural heritage and biodiversity and is one of the Department of Conservation’s (DOC) core roles and responsibilities.

Both these statements are unequivocally false.

First, reclassification is not a means to the end of protecting all stewardship conservation areas. It is allocating the stewardship areas to mining - except the exceptions that make it through a bureaucratic RMA-style hearing panel process. This is like making existing protected conservation areas get resource consent - i.e. go through a tortuous resource consent process run by a hearing panel - just to have the status they already have - protected conservation land.

Secondly, breaking a clear and repeated promise "There will be no new mines on conservation land." (in the Speech from the Throne when Parliament convened on 8 November 2017 and confirmed by Minister of Conservation Eugenie Sage) can never be consistent with a Government's manifesto commitment.

Some background.

The Department of Conservation has a web page on Stewardship land which completely omits the fact that mining access can be approved on it.

The "backdoor" for access is under the Crown Minerals Act 1991. Under Section 61, mining companies can obtain mining access to any crown land after applying to the relevant Minister. That includes the conservation estate and the Minister of Conservation.

However, under Section 61A, a Minister "must not accept any application" for mining access for any area described in Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991.

Stewardship conservation land is not included in Schedule 4. The Minister may grant mining access agreements to stewardship areas in spite of the statutory purpose of management is conservation. This acts as a "back door" access route outside of the Conservation Act 1987. Pike River Coal Company is an example of a company that has (or had obtained) an access agreement.

I am appalled at the substance of this - confirming the minerals sector's ability to get mining access to stewardship land - and the PR spin given - that some conservation areas will be better protected when the opposite is true - a complete capitulation to the minerals sector that of today they are invited back to apply for mining access to 30% of the conservation estate.

I have a thought experiment/counterfactual to show how devious I think this is.

Say the Government had announced a process to allocate some stewardship land to mining. That panels of independent experts will provide recommendations on land parcels to be allocated to mining. That would go down with the ENGOs and the public like a cup of cold sick. That would be 40,000 people marching down Queen Street against Gerry Brownlee's 2009 proposal to allow more mining in other conservation areas. At least Brownlee had the honesty to back down in 2010.

But this counterfactual will have exactly the same overall result as Verrall's proposal. Mining access will be allocated to conservation areas. Except that in the counterfactual, the burden of proof is on mining and not conservation.

In the reclassification option, the burden of proof is on establishing conservation values. As of today, the mining industry is returned to the policy settings prior to Jacinda's promise "Mining on conservation land will be ended" - mining can have a go at mining access for all stewardship land - 30% of the conservation estate - with no risk of policy change. The burden of proof has been reversed and is now on conservation.

This is politically a classic trick of natural resource exploiters - reframe the narrative and reverse the burden of proof that applies. And then spin this as protection and promotion of conservation when it is destruction. That's why I am calling this egregious greenwashing and greenlighting of mining access to conservation areas.

The 'worthys' who have been nominated to these mining allocation panels, like the former PCE Dr Jan Wright, should resign from these panels, rather than be complicit in allocating conservation areas to mining all the while greenwashing that result as protection of conservation.

Challenging New Zealand's '100 percent pure' reputation

TV3's Campbell Live has started a series of quick (what else but quick can you say about one fifth of a current affairs news show?) investigations into the state of New Zealand's environment. TV3 are calling it 'Challenging New Zealand's '100 percent pure' reputation' and the first segment, which went to air today, featured Massey freshwater ecologist Mike Joy Massey, Dr Jonathan Garden, Simon Kingham, Alan Palmer, James Renwick and Diane Brunton from Massey.

Each scientist was asked for a realistic alternative percentage of pure to the much-hyped "100% Pure"

I am refusing to go with percentages. So I will note the scores out of a total of ten. Just like school essays of yesteryear.

The lowest score was 1.5 out of 10 for biodiversity, awarded by Diane Brunton from Massey. Climate change was next lowest at 4.5 out of 10. Former NIWA climate scientist James Renwick, now at Victoria University of Wellington, gave NZ 4.5/10 for NZ's high agricultural emissions, high car ownership, and opting out of the Kyoto Protocol.

The gimmick was for the reporter to conclude the series of 60 second interviews bt averaging all the scores. The final average for NZ was 5.66/10.

New York Times on the 100% Pure NZ Myth

If you read nothing else online today, read this feature in the New York Times.

New Zealand’s Green Tourism Push Clashes With Realities

Mike Joy and Eugenie Sage are quoted on water quality problems

.

According to new research, New Zealand is, per capita, 18th worst out of 189 nations when it came to preserving its natural surroundings.

"Dr. Joy said that for a country purporting to be so pure, New Zealand seemed to be failing by many international environmental benchmarks."

Last month, the New Zealand Ministry for the Environment released a survey showing that more than half of the country’s freshwater recreational sites were unsafe to swim in. Fecal contamination of waterways, caused largely by dairy farming — the source of 13.9 billion New Zealand dollars, or $10 billion, in annual exports, nearly a quarter of New Zealand’s total — was widespread.

How to write a submission on the Crown Minerals Permitting and Crown Land Bill 2012

Or part two of A mining stealth bomber attack on six tenths of the conservation estate

Here is my submission.

You could also check out Forest and Bird or the Green Party for their suggestions on submissions.

Submission on the Crown Minerals Permitting and Crown Land Bill 2012

I oppose this bill in it's entirety.

I especially oppose:

1) changing the purpose of the CMA is to "promote prospecting for, exploration for, and mining of Crown owned minerals for the benefit of New Zealand"

I consider the present wording of the CMA to be suitable and consistent with providing an impartial and economically efficient regulatory framework for minerals. If a purpose is to be adopted, it should be 'promoting sustainable management of resources', consistent with the RMA and EEZ legislation.

2) changing the Minister's function to include "(a) to attract permit applications".

This function looks like it has been copied from an insurance salespersons job description. Attracting applications is not the role of the Minister as an impartial statutory decision-maker. It is to impartially and fairly apply the law to applications. The new role suggests that the Minister will be partial rather than impartial towards applications that he/she has "attracted". It is also economically inefficient for the Minister to be "picking winners" which is what an attracting applications role suggests. The economically most efficient approach is complete impartiality of the Minister and the Ministry towards all applications.

3) Clause 31(6) which would add an economic benefits test when Crown land access is decided by the relevant Minister to section 61(2) of the CMA.

I am very opposed to this amendment. The consequence will be to undermine the legal conservation status of the 60% of the conservation estate which is not listed in Schedule 4 of the CMA. If passed, the conservation status will be effectively voided as soon as the two Ministers will decide on the grounds of the economics benefits that mining may proceed.

4) Clause 32 which would make conservation access decisions joint decisions of the Minister of Energy and Conservation.

I am very opposed to this amendment.

The consequence will be to undermine the legal conservation status of the 60% of the conservation estate which is not listed in Schedule 4 of the CMA. If passed, the Minister of Energy is unlikely to be neutral and objective. The present Government and its Ministers are unashamedly prioritising economic development over environmental issues.

For example, Minister of Economic Development Steven Joyce has deliberately breached the 'sub judice' rule in his enthusiasm to promote the cause of miner Bathurst Resources in undecided resource consent appeals for the proposed Denniston Escarpment Mine on conservation land (Steven Joyce, 25 September, 2012, 'Minister calls on Bathurst objectors to pull appeals', New Zealand Goverment Media Release http://beehive.govt.nz/release/minister-calls-bathurst-objectors-pull-appeals").

The Minister of Energy Phil Heatley suggested changing the RMA to favour Bathurst in an interview with TV3 (TV3, 28 July 2012, 'Taranaki model for oil & gas exploration – Heatley', http://www.3news.co.nz/Taranaki-model-for-oil--gas-exploration--Heatley/tabid/1356/articleID/262986/Default.aspx).

So I have no confidence that these Ministers can impartially and objectively weigh conservation and economic factors. If the two changes to mining access decisions are implemented, you might as well remove the conservation status of 60% of New Zealand's conservation areas and reclassify them as 'Crown land open for mining', for that is the Government's clear intention in respect of mining. This is completely unacceptable.

The status quo in the CMA should not be changed.

5) I am opposed to changes in how areas are added to Schedule 4 of the CMA. It should remain on the recommendation of the Minister of Conservation. Cabinet and the Minister and the Ministry of Energy and Resources should have no role.

6) I am opposed to the replacement of Schedule 4 and the transfer of it to the Conservation and other acts.

A mining stealth bomber attack on six tenths of the conservation estate

Or How to write a submission on the Crown Minerals Permitting and Crown Land Bill 2012 (the "CMPCB" for short)

Submissions can be made on the Crown Minerals Permitting and Crown Land Bill 2012 until midnight, 2 November 2012. This public service notice was brought to you by Robin Johnson's Economics Web Page.

The Crown Minerals Permitting and Crown Land bill sounds completely eye-wateringly BORING, doesn't it? Yet this bill, if it is passed in it's current form, will have the same effect as re-classifying some 60% of New Zealand's conservation areas from protection to exploitation. The bill is really a sneaky mining stealth attack on conservation areas, after the Government's failure with it's Schedule 4 frontal assault back in 2010.

The Schedule 4 debate in 2010 was over a Government proposal for more mining in some 8,000 hectares of conservation land. The particular conservation areas were all listed in Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act.

Were you surprised to find out that only some 40% of New Zealand's conservation areas have absolute protection from mining? And that protection was not because of the National Parks Act or the Conservation Act. It was through a section of the Crown Minerals Act and a schedule listing of National Parks and other areas in 'Schedule 4' of the Crown Minerals Act - the Act that provides for extraction of minerals.

In March 2010, Gerry Brownlee proposed (on behalf of the 'National Growth Agenda' and the minerals and mining industries) to remove some conservation areas from this Schedule 4. The legal status - conservation park, reserve, or national park - would not change. But the areas would then be legally open for mining access via the Minister of Conservation's approval given under the Crown Minerals Act.

Which is the (rat shit) status quo for the 60% of conservation areas managed by the Department of Conservation (including all conservation stewardship areas)

A mining company can apply at anytime to the Minister of Conservation (currently Kate Wilkinson) for mining access. The Minister cannot accept an application for access to areas listed on Schedule 4. But all other conservation areas, 60% of the total, are fair game. Ostensibly the Minister, in deciding on mining access, must only consider conservation objectives, plans, policies, effects and mitigation and "other matters" (S 61B of the CMA 1991). However, my prime example of how this works in practice is the Labour Government's Chris Carter approving the Pike River Coal Mine in 2004.

After 40,000 people marched down Queens Street in protest and 37,000 people submitted against the idea, the Government said it was backing down and no areas would be removed from Schedule 4 list.

However, the Government thinks that the 2010 Schedule 4 debate is long enough ago to re-interpret the wishes of the thousands of marchers and submitters as supporting a quicker faster streamlined and simplified easier-for-miners access to the other 60% of conservation areas. That is what the Crown Minerals Permitting and Crown Land Bill is all about.

The main way the bill makes it easier for miners is to stop having the Minister of Conservation making the mine access by decision herself. And to stop the decision being mainly on conservation grounds. Instead the bill proposes that mining access will be a joint decision of the Ministers of Energy and Conservation. And the joint decision is to be guided by a new economic benefit test, as well as the land-holding objectives.

How might this change pan out? National always say they are into striking a 'balance' between economic and environmental objectives. And the conservation objectives are still there. To that I say "Get real!"

National and their Ministers are plainly biased towards development. For example, Steven Joyce used a Government press release and a TV ONE Breakfast appearance to breach the 'sub judice' rule when he strongly took the side of miner Bathurst Resources over the Escarpment Mine consents court cases.

Alternatively, lets look and listen to the present Minister of Energy, Craig Heatley on TV3 being egged on by Rachel Smalley, Alex Tarrant John Hartevelt to again take the side of Bathurst Resources. Smalley seems to be choking up when she says "Does the Resource Management Act essentially allow environmentalists to delay delay delay something like this going forward?"

This proposal sucks so much. We charge the Minister of Conservation and the Department of Conservation with managing these areas for their conservation and protection under an act called the Conservation Act (as well as a few other acts). The whole point of conservation areas is that they are legally protected from economic development because it usually harms the native plants and animals and their habitats and landforms. They are to come first. Thats what conservation means. With mining, the native plants and animals and their habitats and landforms are completely destroyed. There is no economic activity as absolutely in conflict with the conservation of nature as mining.

So what is the point of having the majority of conservation areas legally protected for conservation purposes when that protection allows mining to be permitted on the grounds of economic benefit, as jointly assessed by the 'Minister of Mines'?

So I suggest you make a submission opposing this bill via Parliament's website

Meridian misjudged millions on the Mokihinui hydro dam

Gareth Hughes blogs that energy company Meridian's persistent advocacy for Mokihinui River hydro dam proposal, including obtaining resource consents, has now been proven to be a waste of 18 million dollars now that Meridian has withdrawn the proposal and the consents.

Gareth is bang on to describe the Mokihinui Dam proposal as ‘far-fetched’ and ‘unconsentable’. It’s the Conservation Act not the the Resource Management Act that makes the dam proposal ‘unpermit-able’ (if thats even a word!).

The Mokihinui River is conservation land. The Minister of Conservation can’t just give away conservation areas for non-conservation purposes.

The case law is a 1995 High Court declaration Buller Electricity Ltd v Attorney-General [1995] 3 NZLR 344 that said that the Minister of Conservation was correct to decline to give away the Ngakawau River for a hydro dam as it wasn’t a conservation purpose.

Meridian and its advisors have only themselves to blame for the $18m dead-loss (and also DOC’s costs). When they initially scoped out the feasibility of the proposal, they should have realised that the Buller Electricity precedent was a very high hurdle to cross.

I can only presume that their initial scoping suffered from ‘optimism bias’. It was also their choice to pursue resource consents before receiving formal access to the conservation land from the Minister of Conservation.