My submission on the Fast-track Approvals Bill

There are some really hard-hitting submissions on the Fast-track Approvals Bill coming to light now that the select committee call for submissions has closed.

One of the best submission is from Environmental Defence Society and see their media release.

For what it's worth, here is my submission on the Fast-track Approvals Bill.

1. It is wrong immoral and unethical to cause adverse effects on the environment (damage pollution or destruction of habitats plants aninmals and ecosystems).
2. It is more unethical to damage the environment in order to make money.
3. It is even more unethical to damage the environment for money while claiming that the environment will be protected, mitigated or offset.
4. It is even a further step more unethical to damage the environment that has been legally recognised as deserving of conservation status for money while claiming that the environment will be protected, mitigated or offset.
5. It is worse again than this to also illegally downgrade and expunge the conservation status of a conservation park so a land swap could be arranged to provide for the footprint of an irrigation dam. That was the finding of the Supreme Court over the legality of the Ruataniwha project's conservation land swap proposal.
6. It is worse again to do this with no public hearing.
7. It is worse again to do this with no fact-based right of appeal.
8. It is worse again to do this when the resource exploitation is for coal - when the IEA and the IPCC say that coal reserves must be left in the ground to avoid 1.5 degrees of global warming.
9. It is worse again to destroy the habitat of endangered and threatened endemic species such as the Mt Augusta snail which was only found on the summit of Mt Augusta within the unique coal measures habitat of Buller that was destroyed by the Stockton Mine.
10. It is an order of magnitude more unethical to enact unconstitutional legislation that gives biased politicians with known funding from resource extraction industry a bundle of "Henry VIII powers" decision-making powers that allow them to bypass resource and conservation laws to approve failed resource exploitation projects that have adverse environmental effects in conservation areas.
11. This bill does not have a constitutionally valid justification. There is factually no valid "business case" for this bill.
12. It is a knee-jerk politicised reaction to the inevitable failure of highly speculative ill-advised resource exploitation that were all found to be invalid under a range of relevant statutes.
13. Going back to the John Key premiership, there were similar ridiculous projects. The tunnel to Milford under the Routeburn track, the monorail to Milford in the Snowden conservation area and the gondola to Milford via the Greenstone valley. We have a history of ridiculous resource exploitation projects.
14. Fortunately sanity and due process prevailed as the Hon Nick Smith declined approval of the first two projects.
15. The projects such as the Ruataniwha Dam, Te Kuha/Escarpment coal mine, Trans Tasman Resources marine consent, the Waitaha Morgan Gorge hydro project, all validly failed on their merits againts current statutes and policies after hearings and examination by independent decisions-makers or courts.
16. This was, as a matter of fact, not "obstruction" or "red green tape". It was not failure. It was actually proof that the suite of Aotearoa's resource laws were working as intended. To prevent adverse environmental effects on Aotearoa's special and unique environments.
17. Is it too much to ask the three Ministers that the rule of law is followed? That the relevant independent court and hearings decisions are respected?
18. Isn't the rule of law the most important attribute of a funcioning democracy?
19. Like the Trans Tasman Resources marine consent proposal for "suction mining" of the ocean floor, the bill will "suck up" the offending resource legislation blamed by the three Ministers.
20. The the relevant protective statutory considerations (which are set out in schedules to the bill) will be reduced to so much mud-like fine silt - that will then be just ignored by the three decision-making Ministers in their intemperate urgency to personally approve illegitimate and destructive projects.
21. It is just wrong and ill-liberal for the bill to give the three decision-making Ministers such direct decision-making powers in place of independent decision makers who have appropriate training and vocations.
22. The only connection the three Ministers have with resource conservation and environmental law are their links to extractive industries. That should disqualify them from being decision-makers.
23. The bill seems to have been written expressly to circumvent several resource and conservation statutes as well as the independent decision-makers.
24. It is not so much a bill, as a grab-bag of "Henry VIII powers" that allow the three Ministers to bulldoze over Aotearoa's natural resource and conservation statutes.
25. That is repugnant, abominable, egregious and morally reprehensible.
26. I request that the fast track approvals bill not be enacted.

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.

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

Solid Energy and the declining price of coal; neither unforeseen or dramatic or a crash

On Monday Don Elder the Chief Executive of New Zealand's Solid Energy confirmed that a major restructuring of the NZ coal miner would require closure of the Spring Creek underground mine and the loss of 460 jobs over the company.

This move had been signaled in advance, but it is still making most news broadcasts today. Elder attributes the need to downsize to trends in international coal prices. For example Elder told Radio New Zealand;

an unforeseen, and dramatic, global price crash had rocked the industry.
"In the second week of July the markets tanked, demand fell through the floor," he said. In up to six weeks the price plummeted 40 to 50 percent and did not show any sign of bouncing back anytime soon."

The new chair of the board of directors, Mark Ford, said in a press release;

“The price for Spring Creek’s semi-soft coking coal would need to be somewhere from NZ$180-200 a tonne for the operation to deliver a profit and pay off the investment made in it,” Mr Ford said. “International semi-soft contracts are now being made at around NZ$120 a tonne.”

New Zealand PM John Key seems to have accepted the Elder view that prices are to blame.

"The issue isn't that we're not on their side, the issue is that international coal prices aren't on their side."

"In the case of Solid Energy it's a victim of falling commodity prices."

The NZ media seem to have uncritically accepted the price explanation. In one story, Fairfax reported the reason for the mine closure and job losses as being due to a severe downturn in global coal prices

Not so, "Chalkie", of the Fairfax NZ business section. "Chalkie" took Solid Energy to task for blaming their troubles entirely on the international coal price. Chalkie also satirised Elder's cornucopian Think Big style lignite and coal-gas proposals.

Chalkie says he doesn't believe Elder has credibility when he says current coal prices in NZ$ are 20% lower than at the bottom of the 2008 global financial crisis. Chalkie points out that Elder's quoting of a coal price of $330 USD per tonne, as the top of the price mountain that the price has now fallen off, is just unrealistic.

In June 2011, a record price of $US330 a tonne for Australian hard coking coal, was reached because of supply shortages following the January 2011 Queensland floods which drowned most of Queensland's coal mines.

Chalkie also notes that a coking coal price of $USD126 a tonne is still well above the norm before the GFC. I have complied some prices for Australian hard coking coal. Data at Google Docs. Coking or metallurgical coal is used in steel making, and usually trades at a premium price above 'thermal' coal supplied to power stations. I prepared a chart of prices per tonne in $USD from 2006 to 2012. Spring Creek Mine coal is 'semi-soft' coking coal, which I think means its price is not quite the same as coking coal, but still more than thermal coal.

The post Queensland flood price of $USD330 a tonne sticks out as a spike or outlier as does the 2008 high of $USD250 tonne, which also followed a La Nina mine flooding event. Coal producers might not want to know about global warming, but global warming certainly knows about Queensland's coal mines.

And here is a chart of 2012 monthly hard coking prices in $USD. The data.

The price for Aussie had coking coal has fallen consistently in 2012. However,there is no cliff the price has fallen off in July 2012. The hard coking coal price did not plummet 40 to 50 percent in 6 weeks as Dr Elder says. The price trend is neither "unforeseen" nor "dramatic" and nor is it a "crash".

It's not hard to find reasons for the decline in the price. of coal. Reuters reports a number of reasons. Demand for coal is down in China. While the floods stopped the Aussie supply, steel makers looked to substitute other suppliers. Mongolia is increasingly eating into Australia's share of coal exports to China.

Chalkie also notes that the Huntly East underground mine has had some safety issues. Work to install a $NZ40 million ventilation tunnel, the sort of thing Dr Elder criticised Pike River Coal for not having, stopped in August 2012. Could it be that Solid Energy is using the international coal price as an excuse to avoid spending the money needed to make its underground mines as safe as the public now expect in a post-Pike River Coal disaster world?

Chalkie also notes a "field of dreams" approach to the Taupo wood pellet plant, (later written down in value by $NZ30 million) and delays in the Mataura lignite briquette plant. Given the execution of these smaller projects, Chalkie questions Solid Energy's ability to deliver on the grander lignite conversion plans.

I will leave the last word to Chalkie.

Every day at 8.30am sharp, management at Solid Energy would gather for morning prayers at the company shrine.
The small room was dominated by a huge gleaming slab of coking coal, etched with phrases from an early foreign exchange hedge contract. The dozens of executives stood facing it, arms by their sides, palms turned towards the slab in unison.
It was always a brief, uplifting affair. The CEO would begin with a chant: "Every day in every way, we expect coal prices to rise."
The executives would respond: "And rise they shall."
CEO: "With wood pellets and lignite we will rule."
Response: "Nothing bad will happen."
CEO: "Our big ideas are worth squillions."
Response: "Yes, probably more."
CEO: "Gentlemen, make it so."
And with that they would shuffle out shiny-cheeked into the morn.

Neil Armstrong coal mines carbon dioxide and global warming the High Court moon walks us to a very hot place

On the same day as the death of Neil Armstrong, the first astronaut to step onto the Moon, became public, the New Zealand High Court moon-walked its way to it's own off-the-world moment. It decided that greenhouse gas emissions and global warming are off-limits in the planning for an open cast coal mine. That's as just as 'out of this world' as denying that the Moon landings ever happened.

On Saturday, two bits of news struck home to me very strongly. The first was the death of moon-landing astronaut Neil Armstrong. The second was the decision of the New Zealand High Court that for new open-cast coal mines, their carbon dioxide emissions and global warming are legally and jurisdictionally unrelated in the Resource Management Act.

The moon landing. I remember very well as a seven year old listening attentively to the 'one small step' broadcast in 1969. The whole class was silent under the spell of our teacher's scratchy transistor radio.

It's one of my most strongly held memories of my childhood. I guess that reflects well on that class of seven-year olds. They stopped playing bullrush, sniffing with colds, and fighting over play-lunchs to listen attentively to the unfolding of one of humanity's most historic moments.

While I was still fondly remembering the Moon landing, the next news item struck.

It was the New Zealand High Court decision barring discussion of carbon dioxide emissions when coal mines seek Resource Management Act consents (see Radio NZ, NBR and TV3 and the Otago Daily Times).

Of course this is about the Perth coal company Bathurst Resources and their Escarpment Mine Project.

Bryan Walker of Hot Topic has posted that this project represents New Zealand doing a Pontius Pilate and washing its hands of the emissions.

I have previously posted that the decisions by councils and the Environment Court to date reflect the zombie ETS infecting the Resource Management Act with climate madness.

My Saturday morning reverie of the Moon landing was rudely stopped and I sort of grumbled to myself;

"Open-cast coal mines and global warming are unrelated!! Thats about as sensible as saying the Moon landings were faked by NASA. Neil Armstrong would just have smacked someone in the face!"

From small half-asleep reactions, blog posts do grow. With the wee footnote that it was actually Buzz Aldrin who punched the Moon landing denier.

I could do a review of the legal issues, but that would be just more legal-climate yadda yadda. I will just note that back in the early 1990s, the Bolger National Government not only considered that greenhouse gas emissions were an adverse effect under the Resource Management Act; they also considered the RMA to be one of the main tools to deal with global warming.

As for the science of it, I will just point to a couple James Hansen charts from his The Case for Young People paper.

The first is cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide. Approving new coal mines adds to cumulative global emissions of carbon dioxide. The second chart shows likely scenarios for temperature. The more carbon dioxide accumulates, the higher the likely temperature.

The facts are that each time a new coal mine is approved, we are just adding to the temperature overshoot above two degrees.

Why is it that the High Court can't apply this simple logic? Why are we even in a position where the High Court can sever the undeniable link between new coal mines, the volumes of carbon dioxide accumulating globally, and the inevitable temperature rise? What has has happened to our legal and planning systems to make this sort of decision possible?

To me this outcome - where the global effects of more GHG emissions are legally severed from approval of a new coal mine - is just as 'out of this world' as denying that the Moon landings even happened.

The zombie ETS infects the RMA with climate insanity

The Environment Court won't consider James Hansen evidence on coal and climate change in the appeal against the Escarpment opencast coal mine consents

The New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme ("NZETS") has become living-dead "zombie" legislation that infects other statutes with its own virulent climate change insanity. The example is a recent decision by the Environment Court that it can't consider climate change impacts of coal mining as described by James Hansen in the Forest and Bird appeal of the resource consents for the opencast 'Escarpment' coal mine.

The other week I saw the zombie genre film 28 Weeks Later on tv. The turning point in the film was when British actor Robert Carlyle kissed his wife and was instantly infected with the 'Rage Virus', which of course meant he had to turn into a homicidal-virus spreading-living-dead zombie who would then infect the rest of the surviving population of post-Rage Virus London. A great zombie movie movement!

For me, another much less amusing zombie moment, was last week's news from TVNZ, Radio NZ, the Otago Daily Times, and the Dominion Post, that the Environment Court had declared that climate change effects from coal mining will not be considered in Forest and Bird's appeal of the consents for the opencast coal mine the Escarpment_Mine_Project.

For background to the Escarpment Mine Project, including James Hansen's videotaped climate change evidence given to Jeanette Fitzsimons, and the conservation and biodiversity issues, see Claire Brownings Pundit post. And there is wildlife photographer Rod Morris' view that the mine proposal is simply ecological destruction on a massive scale. Botanist Alan Mark reminds us that the coal measure landscape of the Denniston Plateau is the only one left as Solid Energy have destroyed the other one - the Stockton Plateau.

According to the Dominion Post, Judge Newhook's decision was "that regulatory activity on the important topic of climate change is taken firmly away from regional government and made the subject of appropriate attention from time to time by central government by way of activity at a national level".

If we are at all unclear what that means, coal apologist and Stratera boss Chris Baker explains that this means the NZETS; "We have an emissions trading scheme, we are well ahead of our obligation internationally...".

The utter ill-logic of the "we have an ETS, more coal mining and exporting is okay" argument is that although the NZETS applies to all coal mined within New Zealand, all coal exported is exempted. Bathhurst Resources intends to export all the coal from the Escarpment Mine. So the application of the zombie NZETS to coal mining means that there will be no carbon price on the coal from the Escarpment Mine.

And this zombie effect of the NZETS in making coal "alive but dead" to a carbon price, then infects the application of our great sustainability-promoting externality-internalising Resource Management Act. The coal exports are "regulated" (in reality protected) by the NZETS. Therefore the RMA doesn't apply.

The consequence will be that the Environment Court will not be considering the effects of the Escarpment Mine on a level playing field. They will attempt to reach a broad overall judgement of what is sustainable. They will balance the economic effects of more export dollars and jobs on the West Coast against the many adverse environmental impacts on a unique coal measure ecosystem full of rare and endangered endemic species. But the scales of justice won't be fairly weighted, as the adverse impact and the externality of the greenhouse effect of the coal have already been taken off the adverse effects side of the ledger.

The NZETS is truly a ZOMBIE.

The Ministry has fallen

Is the Environment Court a bulwark against emissions-intensive projects such as open-cast coal mines that will provide the coal that will exacerbate climate change? You would think it would be wouldn't you?

You would think that our great history-making sustainability-promoting Resource Management Act would give a fair shake of the stick to the idea of considering climate change as some of the possible adverse effects of a proposal.

Especially if the proposal is an opencast export-oriented coal mine on protected conservation land, where adverse effects on biodiversity and on rare natural landforms would obviously be an issue.

Apparently not.

Bathhurst Resources Limited are a relatively new coal mining company in New Zealand. Bathhurst Resources would like to construct an open cast mine on an area of 200 hectares of conservation land on the southern Denniston Plateau, on the West Coast near Westport. Bathhurst would extract and export between one and four million tonnes of coal a year. Bathhurst call it the Buller Coal Project. Wikipedia calls it the Escarpment Mine Project. The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society calls it the wipe out of the ecology of the Denniston Plateau. Bathhurst Resources and Solid Energy have successfully made a pre-emptive strike against the appeals of the council decisions to grant resource consents to Bathhurst Resources for their proposed open cast coal mine in the Mt Rochfort Conservation Area on the West Coast's Denniston Plateau - the Escarpment Mine Project.

Bathhurst Resources and Solid Energy have successfully obtained a declaration from the Environment Court that climate change effects from the combustion of the coal cannot be considered in the appeal of the resource consents.

Dominion Post - Miner eyes fast-track option for Denniston

TVNZ Climate change ruling irresponsible

Forest and Bird - Court decision ignores serious threats of climate change

Otago Daily Times - Court will not consider climate change.

I am left wondering if the judge concerned bothered to attend one of James Hansen's talks last year.

It seems that the Environment Court is a bit like the Ministry of Magic in the Harry Potter novels. It denied that Voldemort had returned. It then weakly opposed him and then "The Ministry has fallen" under control of the Deatheaters.

PCE Jan Wright mining still an issue

Dr Jan Wright, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment explains that mining within the conservation estate is still a live political issue, in spite of the Government withdrawing the proposal to allow more mining in the Schedule 4 areas (40% of the total).



Wright is against the Minister of Energy having any role in granting access to the conservation estate for mining.

Brownlee's Mining Backdown?

It looks as though our submissions were successful! The Government has announced the decision decided not to allow mining by removing 7,000 hectares from Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991. It is great that as many people marched and submitted as they have. It's great that Brownlee and co have backed down on mining in Schedule 4 conservation areas.

BUT there is a sting in the tail of the Government's announcement at Scoop. Its going to be much easier for mines to be approved in the other 60% of the conservation estate not in Schedule 4.

Scroll down to bullet point 12. 'What has the government agreed to, and why?' "Decisions regarding access to land for mineral-related activity are to be made jointly by the landholding minister and the Minister of Energy and Resources." That is by Kate Wilkinson AND Gerry Brownlee. So pro-mining Gerry gets to jointly decide mining access to conservation land. Gerry as disinterested impartial decision maker?? It's just gobsmacking.

Have a look at the decision making matters in Section 61(2) of the Crown Minerals Act 1991 , that Gerry (and Kate W) will operate under. They are:
"*(a) The objectives of any Act under which the land is administered; and
*(b) Any purpose for which the land is held by the Crown; and
*(c) Any policy statement or management plan of the Crown in relation to the land; and
*(d) The safeguards against any potential adverse effects of carrying out the proposed programme of work; and
*(e) Such other matters as the appropriate Minister considers relevant."

For a conservation area proposed for mining, considering a) through to e) will involve conservation purposes, not mining purposes. It's just so wrong for Gerry to have any role.

Even an allegedly more conservationist Minister twists these matters and approves mines. Here's an example; back on 12 March 2004 Chris Carter as Minister of Conservation agonised in deciding to approve Pike River Coal's application
but he still approved it.

Think how much quicker Gerry and Kate would have approved Pike River Coal Mine's access. This isn't good for conservation.

Photos of Auckland No Mining March

Have a look at some photos of the Auckland No Mining march.

Brownlee's reverse Midas touch on Mining

John Armstrong, the New Zealand Herald's chief political commentator, is hardly out on the extreme left.

Today he has written a scathing column about Minister of Energy and Resources Gerry Brownlee's plan to lift the prohibition on mining in 7,000 hectares from national parks and some other high-value conservation areas which would otherwise be protected by their inclusion in Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991.

Armstrong says the idea "is turning to custard", that his search for a mining Eldorado is "King Midas in reverse".

Armstrong writes that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Dr Jan Wright, has "slammed the document as inadequate in assessing the real ecological impact of mining in specific localities, deficient in the way it measures the value of minerals claimed to be underground and unacceptable in recommending additions to Schedule Four as some kind of quid pro quo for taking other land out of that protection."

Armstrong considers Brownlee's poor "salesmanship" is a symptom of a wider problem of the National Government. Ministers seeking policy advice from outside of the core public service. That's consistent with Rod Oram's view that Brownlee only takes advice from mining industry insiders.

Mining submissions deadline extended

Ministers Brownlee and Wilkinson have changed the closing date for submissions on their proposal to remove 7,000 hectares of conservation land from Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991 so that they are not protected from mining.

Submissions can be made until 5.00pm Wednesday 26 May 2010.

Kate Wilkinson notes that 14,000 submissions have been received.

Short on time in your busy life? Copy and paste my handy template submissions into an email addressed to schedule4@med.govt.nz.

Shorter submission 642 words.

Longer submission 2080 words.

Short No Mining Submission

As I was saying the other day, I felt my submission opposing mining in the high-quality Schedule 4 conservation areas, was too long.

Here is my shorter version, weighing in at 642 words.

Schedule 4 stock-take (Email: schedule4@med.govt.nz) Ministry of Economic Development PO Box 1473 Wellington 6140

Submission on Schedule 4 stock-take discussion document

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please accept this submission in response to your notice of 22 March 2010.

Q1 On the areas proposed for removal from Schedule 4:

I oppose the proposal to remove the suggested conservation areas from Schedule 4 and therefore remove their protection from mining because:

1.Mining will harm biodiversity. It will reduce the habitats of New Zealand's endemic species, many of which are endangered, and make range contraction and species decline more likely.

2.Mining will involve removal of mature native forest. This deforestation and further coal mining will release additional volumes of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

3.Mining will increase the pollution of freshwater environments caused by acid mine drainage.

4.Mining involves significant earthworks and roading and tailings dams. These are frequently not adequately managed to prevent excess nutrient-rich sedimentation running off into streams and other natural freshwater ecosystems. This will impose further adverse cumulative effects (in conjunction with intensive agricultural run-off) on the already declining water quality in New Zealand's rivers, streams, lakes and estuaries.

5.Mining will conflict with recreational use and scenic values of the conservation areas.

6.Mining is a destructive, damaging and exploitative land use that is completely inconsistent with the statutory conservation purpose for which these conservation areas are held.

7.Allowing additional mining in conservation areas detracts from New Zealand's international image and makes our marketing of tourism and our exports appear hypocritical, especially in the eyes of our competitors and in the view of environmentally conscious consumers in the OECD countries.

Q2 On the areas proposed for addition to Schedule 4:

I support the addition of the listed protected areas to Schedule 4.

I also request that all places that match the land classifications listed in Schedule 4 should be automatically added to Schedule 4 when gazetted to ensure protection from mining.

Q3 On the assessment of areas:

For all areas I consider that the environmental and conservation values (biodiversity, native species habitat, wildlife, cultural, recreational, amenity, scenic, carbon sequestration) outweigh the highly speculative economic values ascribed to the minerals that these areas are alleged to have.

Q4 On the proposal to further investigate the mineral potential of some areas: I oppose this proposal. I oppose subsidising the minerals industry with $4 million of taxpayers’ money to investigate the mineral potential in New Zealand's conservation areas.

Q5 On a new contestable conservation fund:

I completely oppose forming this fund. Conservation of biodiversity is an important enough matter to have adequate funding without having to be “in debt” to mining within conservation areas. Conservation outcomes can be best enhanced by reversing the $50million cut (over three years) in the Department of Conservation’s budget.

The tying of conservation funding to mining and the “greenwashing” of this proposal would further undermine New Zealand's current international reputation for excellent management of biodiversity and conservation areas.

Q6 On approval of access arrangements:

I oppose adding the approval of the Minister of Energy and Resources to the access decisions of the Minister of Conservation because this would introduce energy, economic and mineral considerations into the Ministerial decision on granting mining access arrangements to conservation areas.

I support the status quo where the Minister of Conservation must consider the statutory land management purposes and land management plans and the potential adverse effects of access against conservation purposes.

In summary, I remain unconvinced by the assertion that mining in conservation areas can be environmentally responsible.

Yours faithfully

My submission on Schedule 4 stock-take discussion document

Here is my submission on the Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act stock-take discussion document. It is quite long. I may prepare a shorter version too.

Schedule 4 stock-take (Email: schedule4@med.govt.nz) Ministry of Economic Development PO Box 1473 Wellington 6140

Submission on Schedule 4 stock-take discussion document

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please accept this submission in response to your notice of 22 March 2010.

Q1 On the areas proposed for removal from Schedule 4:

Section 7 of the discussion paper sets out the areas proposed for removal from Schedule 4. Do you think these areas should be removed from Schedule 4 so that applications for exploration and mining activity can be considered on a case-by-case basis? Yes or No? And why? (Your response may be in relation to any one or more of the areas discussed. Please clearly identify the area(s) to which your response relates.)

No

I oppose the proposal to remove the conservation areas from Schedule 4 and therefore from protection from mining. I oppose the proposals to remove the suggested areas from Schedule 4 because:

1.Mining will harm biodiversity. It will reduce the habitats of New Zealand's endemic species, many of which are endangered, and make range contraction and species decline more likely.

2.Mining will involve removal of mature native forest which will release additional volumes of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. 3.Mining will increase the pollution of freshwater environments caused by acid mine drainage.

4.Mining involves significant earthworks and roading and tailings dams. These are frequently not adequately managed to prevent excess nutrient-rich sedimentation running off into streams and other natural freshwater ecosystems. This will impose further adverse cumulative effects (in conjunction with intensive agricultural run-off) on the already declining water quality in New Zealand's rivers, streams, lakes and estuaries. 5.Mining will conflict with recreational use and scenic values of the conservation areas.

6.Mining is a destructive, damaging and exploitative land use that is completely inconsistent with the statutory conservation purpose for which these conservation areas are held.

7.Allowing additional mining in conservation areas detracts from New Zealand's international image and makes our marketing of tourism and our exports appear hypocritical, especially in the eyes of our competitors and in the view of environmentally conscious consumers in the OECD countries.

The Inangahua sector of Paparoa National Park

The proposal includes taking 3,000 hectares of native lowland forest near Inangahua out of north-eastern Paparua National Park to allow coal mining. According to the Ministry of Economic Development, 83% of NZ's coal production in 2008 came from opencast mines. It appears highly likely that any new Inangahua coal mine would be opencast. Opencast mining is associated with the most severe adverse environmental effects. Mr Brownlee has stated that opencast mines cannot be ruled out in areas removed from Schedule 4.

Such coal mining is the worst possible reason to justify removing this lowland forest classified as national park from Schedule 4. James Hansen of NASA has let us all know that atmospheric science is absolutely clear that the world needs to urgently stop mining and burning coal if we are to stop the warming effect of more carbon dioxide getting in the atmosphere.

New Zealand has obligations under the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol to actively reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. It is completely contrary to these goals to be proposing removal of protection from mining from the Inangahua sector of Paparoa National Park when the prospective mineral is coal, the most carbon-emission-intensive fossil fuel.

I also oppose removal of this area because of the adverse effects on biodiversity.

o Otahu Ecological Area and Parakawai Geological Area in the Coromandel

o The other seven areas in the Coromandel Peninsula totalling 2,574 hectares

o Te Ahumata Plateau on Great Barrier Island

I oppose removal of these areas from Schedule 4 because of the adverse effects on biodiversity and native species and habitats.

Q2 On the areas proposed for addition to Schedule 4: Section 8 of the discussion paper sets out the areas proposed for addition to Schedule 4. Do you agree with the proposal to add these areas to Schedule 4? Yes or No? And why? (Your response may be in relation to any one or more of the areas discussed. Please clearly identify the area(s) to which your response relates.)

Yes. I support the addition of the listed protected areas to Schedule 4.

I also request that all places that match the land classifications listed in Schedule 4 should be automatically added to Schedule 4 when gazetted to ensure protection from mining. In that way all new marine reserves, national parks, nature reserves, scientific reserves, wilderness areas, wildlife sanctuaries, internationally significant wetlands and any additions to these areas will be protected from mining.

I also request that all conservation areas and areas such as national reserves such as Lewis Pass; all of our World Heritage areas (Te Wahipounamu, Tongariro and the Sub-Antarctic islands), and all ecological areas are added to Schedule 4.

Q3 On the assessment of areas:

The assessment of areas covered by Schedule 4 and those proposed for addition is outlined in sections 7 and 8 of this document and Appendices 1 and 2.

(a) What are your views on the assessment of the various values (conservation, cultural, tourism and recreation, mineral, other) of the land areas discussed?

For all areas I consider that the environmental and conservation values (biodiversity, native species habitat, wildlife, cultural, recreational, amenity, scenic, carbon sequestration) outweigh the highly speculative economic values ascribed to the minerals that these areas are alleged to have. (b) Do you have any additional information that may be important for Ministers to make their decisions? The Ministers need to be more aware of how unacceptable their proposal is to the New Zealand ethic of conservation and recreation.

Q4 On the proposal to further investigate the mineral potential of some areas:

The Government is carrying out a research and investigation programme on the mineral potential of areas with significant mineral potential over the next nine months. Areas include the Coromandel, parts of Paparoa National Park and Rakiura National Park, and a number of non-Schedule 4 areas.

I oppose this proposal. I oppose subsidising the minerals industry with $4 million of taxpayers’ money to investigate the mineral potential in New Zealand's conservation areas. Public conservation lands, especially Schedule 4 areas such as National Parks, belong to the people of Aotearoa and for conservation of indigenous biodiversity, recreation and tourism, not mining. Conservation areas should remain protected now and for future generations.

Q4(a) Do you have any comments on the type of information that would be the most useful to mineral investors?

I suggest the most useful information for mineral investors would be anything that informs them about the importance of the conservation of New Zealand's indigenous biodiversity and the enjoyment thousands of New Zealanders get from conservation areas. I also suggest a copy of James Hansen's book on the science of anthropogenic global warming “The Storms of my Grandchildren”.

Q5 On a new contestable conservation fund:

Section 9 describes a proposed contestable conservation fund the Government proposes to establish, which would be made up of a percentage of the money the Crown receives from minerals (except petroleum) from public conservation areas.

(a) A broad objective, to enhance conservation outcomes for New Zealand, is proposed for the fund. Do you agree with the proposed objective?

No

I completely oppose forming this fund. Conservation of biodiversity is an important enough matter to have adequate funding without having to be “in debt” to mining within conservation areas. Conservation outcomes can be best enhanced by reversing the $50million cut (over three years) in the Department of Conservation’s budget.

This fund if established would create perverse incentives. It would have the effect of being a “moral hazard” for the Minister of Conservation which may inappropriately influence her decisions on mining access.

It would give the minerals industry excellent public relations opportunities for “greenwashing” their environmentally harmful activities. The tying of conservation funding to mining and the “greenwashing” aspect of this proposal would further undermine New Zealand's current international reputation for excellent management of biodiversity and conservation areas.

(e) Do you have any other comments that might help the Government to make decisions on a new conservation fund?

Yes, please do not proceed with this inappropriate idea.

Q6 On approval of access arrangements:

In section 6 it is proposed that the joint approval of the land-holding Minister and the Minister of Energy and Resources be required for an access arrangement on Crown land for mineral exploration or development. Do you think this is appropriate? Why or why not?

No.

I oppose this idea because this would introduce energy, economic and mineral considerations into the Ministerial decision on granting mining access arrangements to conservation areas.

I support the status quo where the Minister of Conservation must consider the statutory land management purposes and land management plans and the potential adverse effects of access under Section 61(2)(a) to (e) of the Crown Mineral Act 1991.

The statutory land management purpose of conservation land is of course conservation: “the preservation and protection of natural and historic resources for the purpose of maintaining their intrinsic values, providing for their appreciation and recreational enjoyment by the public, and safeguarding the options of future generations.”

That purpose should be the primary consideration of the Minister of Conservation in deciding an access agreement. A Minister with a focus on energy and resource development is a completely inappropriate decision-maker for mining access to areas managed for the purpose of conservation.

Q7 On any other issues:

Do you have any further suggestions or comments on what has been said in this document?

Credibility of the 'rational' debate on 'environmentally-responsible' mining

Rod Oram has recently written on the mining issue in the Sunday Star Times of 28 March 2010 (http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/business/3512763/New-Zealand-stuck-between-rocky-riches-and-hard-truths).

I recall Mr Oram telling National Radio some months ago that he was in favour of doing a stocktake of mineral-rich conservation areas and having a reasoned debate on environmentally-responsible mining and value-added processing in NZ of the minerals. Oram says he used to think:

"We could be leaders in environmentally responsible mining, the science around it and the high-value downstream products and services flowing from it. Then we could prove that the economy and environment, treated well, can enhance each other."

However, Oram now says he has changed his mind because of the divisive and adversarial way Government Ministers have pushed the proposal and the poorly researched sound-bite analysis they have provided in support of the proposal.

For example, Oram considers that the National Party could have transparently started the debate at the 2008 election by outlining the proposal then. Instead it was deliberately vague about its mining intentions. So there is no real electoral mandate for the proposal.

Also, Oram considers the sum of $194 billion, the estimated total mineral value, is so 'back of the envelope' that it is not a rational basis for any debate on weighing up the costs, risk and benefits of additional mining. Oram considers this is because the Minister of Energy and Resources only takes advice from mining industry insiders.

Oram also thinks that claims of 'surgical' mining have not been credibly backed up by real examples. So he concludes that the assertions that environmental impacts will be minimal and tourism will not be harmed are not credible.

If you cannot convince Rod Oram that you can credibly conduct a reasoned debate on environmentally-responsible mining and value-added mineral processing, then you certainly can't convince me.

Credibility of mining licences without resource consents

On 27 October 2009 the Parliamentary Commissioner Dr Jan Wright released the report “Stockton revisited: The mine and regulatory minefield”. In that report she notes there are 111 old mining licences that operate legally without resource consents as they were issued before the commencement of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Dr Wright made a recommendation to the Government that some action was needed to ensure these 111 old mining licences are required to obtain resource consents that have up to date environmental monitoring and mitigation conditions.

As far as I am aware, the Government's mining plans do not include any response to Dr Wright's recommendation. The Government and Ministry of Economic Development appear to have ignored her report.

If the Government was genuinely concerned about ensuring that mining was conducted with environmental responsibility, the Government would have acted on Dr Wright’s recommendation. The lack of action further undermines the Government's environmental credibility in the Schedule 4 stocktake exercise. I remain unconvinced by the assertion that mining in conservation areas can be environmentally responsible.

Wilderness asks Should we mine?

I usually enjoy having a look through a copy of the outdoor recreation-oriented magazine Wilderness.

The March 2010 edition included an article titled 'Should we mine?' by one Paul Hersey.

That title is fairly indicative. I found it to be verbose "middle-way" waffle tentatively suggesting that trampers and climbers could compromise on mining within National Parks. Hersey starts this in his second sentence: "Maybe MP Gerry Brownlee has it right when he states that mining can be done efficiently and with a minimal environmental impact on protected lands."

I hate this sort of contrarian concern troll compromise approach bullshit. As Gary Taylor of the Environmental Defence Society said recently, 'compromise' with mining is pretty useless for conservation, as "Victories are temporary and defeats are permanent".

So I wrote a letter to the Editor of Wilderness.

Dear Sir,
In response to Paul Hersey's article 'Should we mine?' in the March 2010 edition, I will try not to assassinate him and I will try to debate rationally whether there is some middle way where "mining can be done efficiently with a minimum enironmental impact".
However, to look at the middle ground, I will borrow someone else's ideas - those of business commentator, Rod Oram, not someone we are likely to meet in a tramping hut or handing out anti-mining postcards.

Rod Oram has recently written on the mining issue in the Sunday Star Times of 28 March 2010 (http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/business/3512763/New-Zealand-stuck-between-rocky-riches-and-hard-truths).

I recall Oram telling National Radio some months ago that he was in favour of doing a stocktake of mineral-rich conservation areas and having a reasoned debate on environmentally-responsible mining and value-added processing in NZ of the minerals.

Oram says he used to think:
"We could be leaders in environmentally responsible mining, the science around it and the high-value downstream products and services flowing from it. Then we could prove that the economy and environment, treated well, can enhance each other."

However, Oram now says he has changed his mind because of the divisive and adversarial way Government Ministers have pushed the proposal and the poorly researched sound-bite analysis they have provided in support of the proposal.

For example, Oram considers that National could have transparently started the debate at the 2008 election by outlining the proposal then. Instead it was deliberately vague about its mining intentions. So there is no real electoral mandate for the proposal.

Also, the estimated total mineral value, $194 billion, is so 'back of the envelope' that it is not a rational basis for any debate on weighing up the costs, risk and benefits of additional mining. Oram considers this is because Brownlee only takes advice from mining industry insiders.

Oram also thinks that claims of 'surgical' mining have not been credibly backed up by real examples. So he concludes that the assertions that environmental impacts will be minimal and tourism will not be harmed are not credible.

So the middle ground on the mining issue has already gone.

So that really only leaves the 'greener' than middle view espoused by Paul Hersey's postcard-carrying friend. This is New Zealand's traditional conservation politics favouring protection of conservation areas and opposition to threats to conservation areas. After all, it is such conservation advocacy that achieved legal protection for our national parks in the first place.

Ultimately, the protection of native species and their habitats (and the ecosystem services provided to us such as water quality) should drive the decision on allowing more mining in conservation areas. And so should climate change.

The proposal includes taking 3,000 hectares of native lowland forest near Inangahua out of north-eastern Paparua National Park to allow coal mining. According to the Ministry of Economic Development, 83% of NZ's coal production in 2008 came from open-cast mines. It is therefore highly likely that any new Inangahua coal mine would be open-cast.
And remember, James Hansen of NASA says we need to leave coal in the ground to stop the warming effect of more carbon dioxide getting in the atmosphere.

I think we need to be very clear about this issue. There is no middle way on the Government's proposal for more mining in conservation areas. It needs to be strongly opposed. I encourage all Wilderness readers to send a brief submission to the Ministry of Economic Development opposing the mining proposal.

Submission guides for 'No Mining' in Schedule 4 conservation areas

The Government's conservation mining proposal, released on 22 March 2010, is to remove absolute protection from mining from 7,058 hectares of conservation areas listed in Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991.

So that the Minister of Conservation may (or more likely will) approve mining on a case-by-case basis under Section 61(2) of the Crown Minerals Act. Just like Chris Carter did with Pike River Coal.

The various ENGOs have web forms and guides to help making a submission. And submissions close on 5.00pm on Tuesday 4 May 2010.

The Greens have a good guide on how to make a submission opposing further mining in the 'Schedule 4' conservation areas.

There is also a PDF guide.

Forest and Bird have a quick email submission form

Greenpeace Aotearoa also have a quick email submission form

The Ministry of Economic Development also have a web-based submission form

However, the Ministry's form is structured as a list of questions, some of which are a bit leading. For example,
"Q4(a) Do you have any comments on the type of information that would be the most useful to mineral investors?
Yeah, read a book about getting a life!

Q4(b) Are there any particular areas that the Government should consider including in its investigation programme?".
Yeah, the rest of New Zealand that isn't conservation land!

I have started my submission. I usually wonder for these sort of processes whether I should just keep it short and brief and to the point. I really do doubt the Government's intention to take much notice of them. In that case, it's just a numbers game and we should just fire off the Greenpeace web form email. We will see.

Rod Oram on Brownlee's conservation mining

Rod Oram has a good column in today's Sunday Star Times on the Government's proposal for mining in Schedule 4 conservation areas .

A while ago, I was a bit surprised to hear Oram saying to Catherine Ryan on Nine to Noon that he supported a stocktake of the mineral value in conservation areas that are off-limits to mining under Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991.

However, Oram's logic is roughly;
We could be leaders in environmentally responsible mining, the science around it and the high-value downstream products and services flowing from it. Then we could prove that the economy and environment, treated well, can enhance each other.

But Oram considers that this will never happen under the Key National Government because;

• National was vague about its mining intentions at the 2008 election.


• Brownlee only takes advice from mining industry insiders.


• The estimated mineral value, $194 billion, is not credible.


• 'Surgical' mining is not credible.


• Neither is the royalties-funded conservation compensation.


• Nor are the assertions that tourism will not be harmed.

Oram concludes:
..Key and Brownlee are determined to use old-style adversarial politics to bulldoze through their high-risk low-value plans..

I couldn't agree more with that last point though I will point out that Oram leaves out the two important reasons for not going ahead with more mining in conservation areas (whether listed in Schedule 4 or not.

1. Its bad for biodiversity to remove or further fragment indigenous habitats.
2. Its bad for global warming as deforestation of forest for mine sites releases stored carbon.

Gerry Brownlee and Kate Wilkinson's conservation mining proposal

I have posted three letters about Gerry Brownlee and Kate Wilkinson's conservation mining proposal. Here is the letter I sent John Key.

"Dear Mr Key,

I have just read the joint statement of Gerry Brownlee and Kate Wilkinson, “Time to discuss maximising our mineral potential”, released yesterday, 22 March 2010.

I am very disappointed that your Government intends to increase potential mining within conservation areas by removing 7,058 hectares of Crown-owned conservation land from Schedule Four of the Crown Minerals Act. This idea is completely contrary to the statutory conservation management purposes of those areas.

This decision will damage 'Brand New Zealand', our clean and green image that exporters and the tourism industry rely on.

I am also completely unconvinced by the assertion that such mining will be environmentally responsible. If your Government were genuinely concerned about ensuring that mining was conducted with environmental responsibility, you would have acted on the PCE Dr Jan Wright's recommendation of 27 October 2009 to do something about the holders of 111 old mining licences that operate without resource consents.

Dr Wright's report is Stockton revisited: The mine and regulatory minefield. She recommends that the 111 old mining licences should be supplemented with adequate resource consents that have up to date monitoring and mitigation conditions.

I am not convinced that the likely mining impacts of the additional mining can be either mitigated or compensated for. Given your Government has reduced the Department of Conservation's budget by $15million per annum for the next three years, the proposed $10million per annum compensation fund does not even return DOC to square one."

I still have not received a reply from my last letter to Key, or even an answer from the hon Anne Tolley.

The property rights of mining conservation areas

For any new Government policy, Robin would probably have asked "what property rights are involved? Who holds them? Who is trying to change them?"

So looking at Brownlee's conservation-mining proposal through a property-rights lense, I note that:
1. The property rights are initially held by the Crown as the land is public conservation land. Conservation areas are 'public common goods'.
2. That initial allocation does not change if a conservation area is mined. The miner never has full freehold title. The asset, and any liabilities, remain with the Crown, when mining ceases. For example, the Crown has ended up with a $NZ10 million liability for the Tui mine.
2. The Crown's property rights are restricted by statutes such as the National Parks Act 1980 and the Conservation Act 1987 which provide generally that such public land is to be managed for conservation purposes.
3. However, Section 61 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991 provides the exception; a statutory access process for mining within conservation areas.
4. Section 61(2) provides the specific matters that the Minister (of Conservation) must consider.
5. Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991 prohibits mining access via the Section 61 to certain high value conservation areas.

So, the 'property right' to mine in a conservation area is a privilege to be applied for, not an exclusive right. And it is 'prohibited' from even a case-by-case assessment under S 61 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991 in some conservation areas by Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991.

So Schedule 4 and Section 61 act as an 'allocation plan' for a restricted subset of property rights, the right or permission for a private company to mine, subject to conditions, within a conservation area.

But miners don't need exclusive property rights to mine and will want to avoid ownership liabilities such as orphan mines like Tui mine. Also, the relevant case law, the Buller Electricity case says that the Minister of conservation cannot dispose of conservation areas for social or economic reasons.

So the Crown Minerals Act provides a Crown guarantee for mining Crown land, as well as providing a process that gets round the obvious inconsistence of mining with 'management for conservation purposes' statutory objective.

National is proposing to change this 'allocation plan' by increasing the conservation areas allocated to 'access-on-application'. The minerals, once mined, are certainly private goods owned by the miner.

The Brownlee conservation-area-mining plan is therefore a transfer of property rights from the public to private interests.