NZ EPA refuses marine consent to Chatham Rock Phosphate

Swakopmund Matters 3 – 2015

New Zealand’s EPA refuses marine consent to Chatham Rock Phosphate

The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) has refused an application by Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited (CRP) for a marine consent to mine phosphorite nodules on the Chatham Rise.

The decision was made by a Decision-making Committee (DMC) appointed by the EPA Board and was released this morning.

The complete decision of more than 300 pages can be accessed with this web link:

http://www.epa.govt.nz/eez/EEZ000006/EEZ000006_CRP%20Final%20Version%20of%20Decision.pdf

This is a profound decision. It is of monumental importance.

The DMC hammered home vital truths. It made incisive observations and pronouncements.

The significance of this decision will not be realised immediately. Once it has been carefully read and digested, especially by those who still want to continue venturing into this unknown activity, all concerned will be struck by the thoroughness of this comprehensive analysis of all the issues at hand.

Its impact will be felt far beyond New Zealand. For all involved with this issue it will give much food for thought.

In Namibia decision makers will now face the inevitable fact clearly illustrated by the conclusion of the DMC that phosphate mining “would cause significant and permanent adverse effects on the existing benthic environment” and its “rare and vulnerable ecosystems”.

One crucial point in the decision that is of the utmost importance to Namibians and which they and all decision makers especially must note and recognise. It is the DMC’s conclusion that the project was

“… unlikely to generate more than a modest economic benefit to New Zealand and that the quantum and distribution of that benefit were uncertain. As against this, there would be significant and permanent adverse effects to the benthic environment and other potential environmental adverse effects. The DMC finds the economic benefits of the proposal to New Zealand to be insubstantial relative to potential adverse environmental effects of the proposal”.

Despite CRP’s efforts to research and substantiate its case, the DMC was left with a lack of certainty about the receiving environment and the adverse effects of the proposal on the environment and existing interests. In these circumstances the DMC was required by the legislation to “favour caution and environmental protection” when making its decision.

The decision makers do shy away from criticising CRP, its approach, its documentation and its scientific presentations. The DMC does not mince its words when it highlights in many paragraphs the “uncertainty and inadequacy” of information made available. At one point in the decision that information was described as “manifestly incomplete”.

The following pertinent quotes from the decision will give some indication of the devastating indictment the DMC has levelled against CRP:

• The behaviour of suspended sediment deposition contains a good deal of residual uncertainty in terms of the likely environmental outcomes.

• Given the importance of fish commercially as well as their role in the trophic web, the DMC find that the levels of knowledge and scale of impacts are uncertain and that the proposed conditions do not appropriately alleviate this concern.

• On the evidence it heard, the DMC was not persuaded that the potential impact on fishing interest would be more than moderate.

• The DMC acknowledges the concerns of existing interest holders regarding the mining proposal which they see as involving a number of uncertainties and posing risks to their livelihood and wellbeing.

• The DMC was not persuaded that the analysis took sufficient account of the proposal’s possible adverse impact on existing interests, primarily the commercial fishing industry. These risks (to commercial fish stocks), however small, do exist, and in our view the possible economic impacts of the proposal in those areas were deserving of more careful analysis by the applicant. Similarly, the consequences for existing interests of the proposal’s adverse impacts on the environment should have been considered more closely. While such uncertainty surrounds these issues, the overall net economic impact of the proposal cannot be predicted with confidence.

• Criticism relating to the uncertainty and inadequacy of information on the application were particularly strong in respect of the broader marine consent area, where fewer surveys had been conducted, less data was available, no mining plan had been provided and the economic analysis extended to only the first 15 years of mining.

• There was also criticism that not enough was known about the applicant’s company structure.

• Insufficient research had been done into the possible effects of the proposal on the benthic environment and wider marine environment.

• Scientific knowledge of the ecosystem is manifestly incomplete and the DMC does need to have sufficient, and sufficiently certain, information to identify and evaluate the risks involved in a proposal such as this.

• There was a large measure of agreement among experts in a range of fields that more, and more certain, information was needed on which to base assessments of the impact of the proposal on the environment and existing interests, which the DMC found persuasive.

• The DMC concludes that there would be significant and permanent adverse effects on the existing benthic environment.

• The mining would result in a long term change in habitat from a mixed phosphorite nodule/sediment habitat to a graded soft sediment habitat.

• The DMC is convinced that the proposal would create significant and permanent adverse effects on the environment which are incapable of being avoided, remedied or mitigated, and that this aspect of sustainable management is of paramount concern in this instance.

After weighing all the material before it, taking into account the matters listed in the relevant legislation and applying the information principles, the DMC concluded that the application “could not be approved either in part or in whole and therefore the application was refused”.

There is a 15-working day period for CRP to lodge any appeals to the New Zealand High Court which can be made only on points of law.

It is no wonder that following the news of the refusal the share price of CRP crashed on the New Zealand stock exchange from 20 c to 3 c.

With this refusal the claim by CRP that it was “assisting” Namibia (see Swakopmund Matters 2 – 2015 of 9 February 2015) can be placed in proper perspective. A class act of opportunism to offer its assistance to another country while its reputation and what it stands for are in tatters. With the baggage CRP now carries all in Namibia will be even more apprehensive about its involvement in Namibia and its intentions.

CRP must thus rest assured that there will be no scope for it in Namibia to try and recover lost ground.

Swakopmund Matters

11 February 2015

(For Swakopmund Matters the environment of the Namibian coastline and its ocean matters)

© Scoop Media