Latest news with #Fast-trackApprovalsAct2024
Scoop
5 days ago
- Business
- Scoop
Seabed Mining Is Becoming An Environmental Flashpoint – NZ Will Have To Pick A Side Soon
Seabed mining could become one of the defining environmental battles of 2025. Around the world, governments are weighing up whether to allow mining of the ocean floor for metal ores and minerals. New Zealand is among them. The stakes are high. Deep-sea mining is highly controversial, with evidence showing mining activity can cause lasting damage to fragile marine ecosystems. One area off the east coast of the United States, mined as an experiment 50 years ago, still bears scars and shows little sign of recovery. With the world facing competing pressures – climate action and conservation versus demand for resources – New Zealand must now decide whether to fast-track mining, regulate it tightly, or pause it entirely. Who controls international seabed mining? A major flashpoint is governance in international waters. Under international law, seabed mining beyond national jurisdiction is managed by the International Seabed Authority (ISA), created by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). But the US has never ratified UNCLOS. In April this year, President Donald Trump issued an executive order to bypass the ISA and allow companies to begin mining in international waters. The ISA has pushed back, warning unilateral action breaches international law. However, the declaration from the recently concluded UN Ocean Conference in France does not urge countries to adopt a precautionary approach, nor does it ban deep seabed mining. The declaration does 'reiterate the need to increase scientific knowledge on deep sea ecosystems' and recognises the role of the ISA in setting 'robust rules, regulations and procedures for exploitation of resources' in international waters. So, while the international community supports multilateralism and international law, deep-sea mining in the near future remains a real possibility. Fast-track approvals In the Pacific, some countries have already made up their minds about which way they will go. Nauru recently updated its agreement with Canadian-based The Metals Company to begin mining in the nearby Clarion Clipperton Zone. The deal favours the US's go-it-alone approach over the ISA model. By contrast, in 2022, New Zealand's Labour government backed the ISA's moratorium and committed to a holistic ocean management strategy. Whether that position still holds is unclear, given the current government's policies. The list of applications under the Fast-track Approvals Act 2024 – described by Regional Development Minister Shane Jones as 'arguably the most permissive regime' in Australasia – includes two controversial seabed mining proposals in Bream Bay and off the Taranaki coast: Trans-Tasman Resources' proposal to extract up to 50 million tonnes of Taranaki seabed material annually to recover heavy mineral sands that contain iron ore as well as rare metal elements titanium and vanadium. McCallum Brothers Ltd's Bream Bay proposal to dredge up to 150,000 cubic metres of sand yearly for three years, and up to 250,000 cubic metres after that. Legal landscape changing Māori and environmental groups have opposed the fast-track policy, and the Treaty of Waitangi has so far been a powerful safeguard in seabed mining cases. Provisions referencing Treaty principles appear in key laws, including the Crown Minerals Act and the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act. In 2021, the Supreme Court cited these obligations when it rejected a 2016 marine discharge application by Trans-Tasman Resources to mine the seabed in the Taranaki Bight. The court ruled Treaty clauses must be interpreted in a 'broad and generous' way, recognising tikanga Māori and customary marine rights. But that legal landscape could soon change. The Regulatory Standards Bill, now before parliament, would give priority to property rights over environmental or Indigenous protections in the formulation of new laws and regulations. The bill also allows for the review of existing legislation. In theory, if the Regulatory Standards Bill becomes law, it could result in the removal of Treaty principles clauses from legislation. This in turn could deny courts the tools they've previously used to uphold environmental and Treaty-based protections to block seabed mining applications. That would make it easier to approve fast-tracked projects such as the Bream Bay and Taranaki projects. Setting a precedent Meanwhile, Hawai'i has gone in a different direction. In 2024, the US state passed a law banning seabed mining in state waters – joining California (2022), Washington (2021) and Oregon (1991). Under the Hawai'i Seabed Mining Prevention Act, mining is banned except in rare cases such as beach restoration. The law cites the public's right to a clean and healthy environment. As global conflict brews over seabed governance, New Zealand's eventual position could set a precedent. Choosing to prohibit seabed mining in New Zealand waters, as Hawai'i has done, would send a strong message that environmental stewardship and Indigenous rights matter more than short-term resource extraction interests. If New Zealand does decide to go ahead with seabed mining, however, it could trigger a cascade of mining efforts across New Zealand and the Pacific. A crucial decision is fast approaching.
Newsroom
04-06-2025
- Business
- Newsroom
Gold standard: fast-track mining project must pass environmental audit
Comment: There's been a great deal of noise about the Fast-track Approvals Act 2024. Widely panned for lowering environmental standards, here's how it might roll for one big project. Though the scale of this gold mine is very large, the process will be very similar for all substantive applications under the act. The Clutha River runs south through the Tarras Valley into Lake Dunstan near Cromwell. It's a wine and fruit-growing area boarded to the east by Bendigo Station, part of the South Island high country, notable for its wild, undeveloped landscapes. In those hills lies the site of the proposed Santana Minerals Ltd Bendigo Ophir project, an open-cast gold mine. Santana is an Australian company. The mine's open pit would be very large and deep. Some underground extraction is also proposed. A tailings pond would store toxic processing waste on site behind a dam. For ever. Santana says it will be lodging its formal application this month for various consents under the fast-track process. These will include approvals under the Resource Management Act and under various conservation laws. The process is complicated and fast. Before even lodging its application, Santana must consult with entities listed in the act, including relevant local councils and iwi and hapū. That must be meaningful, which the Environmental Defence Society considers requires Santana to provide a full draft of its assessment of environmental effects. It can then apply to the Environmental Protection Authority, which must publish the application without delay on the fast-track website. At this point the authority undertakes a 'completeness' assessment. Inadequate consultation or incomplete technical assessments would render an application incomplete and therefore should be returned to the applicant. If complete, the authority passes the application to the Panel Convenors to set up an expert panel. The panel then takes over the process and acts independently from the Environmental Protection Authority. It has broad discretion over how the application is considered and who will be heard. The Environmental Defence Society considers itself an affected party with respect to Santana's application given that it represents a relevant aspect of the public interest and has independent technical evidence to bring to bear. Key local community groups may also be heard. Given the scale and complexity of Santana's project, and its highly sensitive ecological and landscape location, EDS expects that the panel would opt to hold a formal hearing with expert witnesses, cross-examination and expert conferencing. It should also commission its own independent peer reviews of key aspects of the proposal. Each procedural decision made by the authority, panel convenors and panels, including the completeness assessment, the membership of the panel and who the panel asks to provide feedback, can be judicially reviewed in the High Court if there are valid grounds. The key statutory test that the panel will undertake boils down to a proportionality assessment set out in section 85 of the act: are the adverse impacts of the mine sufficiently significant to be out of proportion to the project's regional or national benefits? It's novel wording, and the way it is interpreted by panels will undoubtedly be tested by the courts on appeal or review or both. The starting point therefore requires an economic cost-benefit analysis and an assessment of environmental effects. No fast-track application should pass the completeness test without both included. An economic analysis is quite different from an assessment of the financial returns of a project. And under the act, those benefits must be found in New Zealand, not overseas. The Environmental Defence Society engaged the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research to advise which questions should be addressed in Santana's economic analysis. Based on its advice, the list includes: What are the direct and indirect economics impacts of the project on the local, regional and national economy? What is the method used for the analysis? What are the GDP, consumer spending, and employment impacts? How will the workforce requirements of the project affect Central Otago, considering direct and indirect workers? Where will they be sourced? What are the expected impacts on businesses, wages, housing, infrastructure, healthcare, schools, and recreational amenities in Central Otago? What are the competitive advantages of the project that make it the 'lowest cost gold mine' in Australasia, in comparison with other gold mines or a 'typical' Australasian gold mine? What potential changes might Santana make to the project if projected profits fall to levels indicated in the sensitivity analysis, such as below $1 billion or below $500 million? What are the economic valuations of the various environmental impacts (terrestrial ecology, freshwater ecology, freshwater availability, landscape, etc)? How has the assessment accounted for the project's end-of-life costs? What activities will be entailed in finishing the project, restoration and leaving the area? If Santana were required to set aside a substantial contingency fund or long-term bond to fund long-term restoration of the site, what would be the effect on the economics of the project? Specifically, what would be the effect of a substantial bond on total profits, the benefit-cost ratio, and the net benefit? The second part of the assessment relates to environmental impacts. Santana's published material about the project lists some of its likely and potential impacts. The matters needing focused expert evidence include: Mine design: has the pond and tailings dam design been peer reviewed by an independent international expert (common practice offshore)? has the pond and tailings dam design been peer reviewed by an independent international expert (common practice offshore)? Terrestrial ecology: what indigenous plant and animal species inhabit the project site and are any threatened or at-risk; what habitats are located within the site and are any of significance; how will the RMA hierarchy (avoid, remedy, mitigate etc) be applied; are consents required to destroy protected wildlife; and what is the overall significance of the impacts on the ecological values in a regional and national context? what indigenous plant and animal species inhabit the project site and are any threatened or at-risk; what habitats are located within the site and are any of significance; how will the RMA hierarchy (avoid, remedy, mitigate etc) be applied; are consents required to destroy protected wildlife; and what is the overall significance of the impacts on the ecological values in a regional and national context? Freshwater ecology (including streams, wetlands and aquifers ): what is the baseline state for freshwater health on, around and downstream of the site; what impacts are there on freshwater ecology and how will they be addressed; how will leakage from the tailings dam (if any) be prevented; and what effects cannot be avoided? ): what is the baseline state for freshwater health on, around and downstream of the site; what impacts are there on freshwater ecology and how will they be addressed; how will leakage from the tailings dam (if any) be prevented; and what effects cannot be avoided? Environmental hydrology and geochemistry: what will be the impact on ecosystems and groundwater users from groundwater drawdown related to the open pit and mine dewatering? what will be the impact on ecosystems and groundwater users from groundwater drawdown related to the open pit and mine dewatering? Water use: what volumes of takes are required; where will the abstraction come from; what effects will that have on existing users and ecosystems; where will discharges be made; what are the chemical parameters of the discharges? what volumes of takes are required; where will the abstraction come from; what effects will that have on existing users and ecosystems; where will discharges be made; what are the chemical parameters of the discharges? Landscape: what are the landscape values of the site; what are the likely effects; are any effects unable to be avoided; will there be remote view impacts; what about light impacts offsite and night; and are simulations provided? what are the landscape values of the site; what are the likely effects; are any effects unable to be avoided; will there be remote view impacts; what about light impacts offsite and night; and are simulations provided? Cultural and heritage: what are the impacts and are they positive or negative? what are the impacts and are they positive or negative? Local effects: what are the traffic, noise, dust, recreational use, amenity and energy impacts? what are the traffic, noise, dust, recreational use, amenity and energy impacts? Performance bond: is there a long-term bond proposed to guarantee post-closure maintenance of the site that also covers any catastrophic failure of the tailings dam and if so is the quantum adequate? is there a long-term bond proposed to guarantee post-closure maintenance of the site that also covers any catastrophic failure of the tailings dam and if so is the quantum adequate? Conservation covenants: what are the implications on the existing conservation covenants present over the subject property? When the panel has completed its assessment, it must decide whether to decline or approve the application. If the latter, it would propose conditions, and there would be a chance for participants to comment on them. After the decision is made, there are limited opportunities for an appeal and wider ones for judicial review which must be filed within 20 working days. EDS is engaging substantively in fast-track projects but is putting significant effort into Santana's application given its imminence, and potential environmental effects. We are waiting to see the full application and evaluate its merits with our experts. Because input is time-limited, that means we must invest resources well in advance of the full application being available. Notably, Santana has indicated it will not share its assessment of environmental effects before filing (after earlier indicating it would do so). EDS believes this project needs rigorous testing through the limited opportunities available under the Fast-track Approvals Act 2024. This is a statutory process which must be conducted independently, fairly and reasonably and follow the legal pathway. Hyperbolic cheerleading by ministers about the alleged benefits of mining have no place here. Whether Santana passes the section 85 test remains to be seen. There are many fast-track applications pending and communities and councils will be watching with concern. Some projects will be positive, others not. This analysis will hopefully assist in better understanding the way the legislation is likely to operate. To further assist people to engage in other fast-track proposals, EDS has published a peer-reviewed, plain-language guide to the Fast-track Approvals Act 2024.
Scoop
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Fast-Track Fury: Councillor Urges United Front Against Taranaki Seabed Mining
A Whanganui councillor is condemning a decision to move a mining company's South Taranaki seabed application into the next stage of the fast-track approvals process. First-term councillor Charlotte Melser is urging affected councils and iwi to unite in opposition to the proposal by Trans-Tasman Resources (TTR) to mine 50 million tonnes of iron sand per year for 35 years over 66km2 of the South Taranaki Bight. 'At what point is enough enough?' Melser said, speaking to Local Democracy Reporting. 'Despite significant opposition from all coastal communities, multiple declined consents and massive gaps in the application in terms of environmental mitigation, the Government has rolled out the red carpet to the back door through the fast-track process and brought this application back from the dead.' The process was established by the Fast-track Approvals Act 2024 to streamline infrastructure and development projects deemed to have significant regional or national benefits. TTR's application passed the first hurdle last week when the Environmental Protection Authority marked it as complete. In the next step, the authority has 10 days to check for any competing applications and existing consents before the application moves to a panel convener to appoint an expert panel and set a timeframe for it to make a decision. If no timeframe is set, the panel must make a decision within 30 working days of the deadline for receiving comments from invited parties. On Tuesday morning, Melser delivered a petition against the seabed mining application to Whanganui District Council and planned to present the same petition – signed by more than 3000 people – to New Plymouth District Council's strategy and operations committee in the afternoon. She says local councils could be the only bodies invited to make submissions to the expert panel. 'In the past, lots of individuals have been able to give evidence in the hearings but that's not possible under fast-track. Only invited parties can make submissions. 'What I'm angling for is a united voice from all of the affected district councils and regional councils.' Melser said the fast-track process cuts out the voices of individuals such as divers and recreational users who know the marine area best. 'So it's up to councils and iwi and affected parties to speak for their communities and make strong submissions to the EPA. 'At this stage, it's really important for individuals to contact their elected members, their iwi representatives and their MPs to show sustained opposition.' The petition from Concerned Communities of Taranaki and Manawatu Against Seabed Mining calls on all impacted councils to seek independent advice and review of economic and environmental assessments to ensure all relevant information is provided to the decision-making panel. 'When weighing up the benefits of any project of any development, you need to consider all of the costs including social and environmental," Melser said. 'It's important to ask ourselves what is our bottom line, what are we willing to lose? 'When you look at all the evidence, that coastal marine area is just thriving with abundance and it's a taonga that is worth preserving.' Concerned Communities said in its petition that this type of seabed mining had not been carried out anywhere else in the world and was 'experimental'. The proposal to return 45 million tonnes per year of processed sand to the seabed would create sediment plumes that could significantly impact rich but delicate ecosystems and precious marine life, the petition said. Trans-Tasman Resources executive chairman Alan Eggers said he was pleased the application is moving forward in the fast-track process. 'We believe we have proposed a set of operating conditions and management plans to generate much-needed growth, create high-paying jobs and minimise any environmental impacts in the STB [South Taranaki Bight],' he said in a statement. In a recent Local Democracy Reporting article, Eggers said de-ored sands will be returned immediately to the seafloor in a controlled process to minimise suspended sediment in the water. An economic impact assessment by New Zealand Institute of Economic Research said the project would generate $850 million in annual export earnings and more than 1350 jobs, including 300 in Taranaki and Whanganui. 'Those numbers are overinflated,' Melser said. 'There are a number of gaps in their report.' She told her council that Whanganui would see none of the economic benefit. 'But we will see all of the environmental impact because of the travel of sediment plume.' In December, the Whanganui council unanimously backed a motion from Melser to formally oppose the seabed mining application. Whanganui mayor Andrew Tripe agreed last week to have the petition added to the council meeting agenda as a late item. Usually, petitions have to be received five working days in advance of the meeting but Tripe used mayoral discretion to waive the rule. The council agreed to receive the petition, with all votes in favour. Melser abstained as she presented the petition. TTR's application is expected to be made public on the Government's fast-track website next month.
Otago Daily Times
21-05-2025
- Business
- Otago Daily Times
Contact makes little headway on appeal
More than two months after they were turned down from building a large wind farm at Slopedown, any progress Contact Energy have made in moving the project back on the agenda and getting it built appears to be glacial. The power giant was turned down by a panel set up under Covid-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020 and run by the Environment Protection Authority. The 55-turbine wind farm, on a remote but prominent range of hills near Wyndham, was expected to create up to 240 jobs during construction, and power 150,000 homes when operational. Contact was "gutted" with the decision which was released in the middle of March and immediately said it would appeal. It said it had spent $20 million in developing the project and would be prepared to spend more to get the project approved. The project was turned down because of concerns over the project's adverse effects on indigenous plants and animals — including the critically endangered New Zealand long-tailed bat. The panel questioned whether the impact could be "properly mitigated" during and after the project. Under the Act, the only way to appeal was on points of law. Contact said last week it had filed an appeal to the High Court in April but no date had been set for a hearing. When the proposal was turned down, the power company said the wind farm was a good project for the district and for New Zealand. Contact made the decision to re-apply for consent under the updated Fast-track Approvals Act 2024. It said last week its application was still being assessed. Contact had been aggressive in wanting to build the wind farm, saying it was one of many renewable projects which the country needed as it strived to help reach the aspirational target set by the Government of 100% renewable electricity by 2030. The Electricity Authority in a memo last week said hydro storage was likely to remain low, which will push wholesale spot prices up. However, fuel supply and generation capacity will be sufficient to meet national demand this winter. Transpower, the national grid operator warned last week there was a higher risk of electricity outages starting in winter 2026. The national grid operator's draft security of supply assessment predicted an elevated risk of shortages will arrive four years earlier than thought as recently as a year ago. It found solar, wind and battery storage is not coming online fast enough to make up for dwindling supplies in the country's gas fields. The assessment found, if every electricity generation project in the pipeline was built, supply would be much more reliable, but Transpower said there was a risk of some proposed solar, wind and battery projects falling over.
NZ Herald
20-05-2025
- Politics
- NZ Herald
Fast-track fury: Councillor urges united front against Taranaki seabed mining
The process was established by the Fast-track Approvals Act 2024 to streamline infrastructure and development projects deemed to have significant regional or national benefits. TTR's application passed the first hurdle last week when the Environmental Protection Authority marked it as complete. In the next step, the authority has 10 days to check for any competing applications and existing consents before the application moves to a panel convener to appoint an expert panel and set a timeframe for it to make a decision. If no timeframe is set, the panel must make a decision within 30 working days of the deadline for receiving comments from invited parties. On Tuesday morning, Melser delivered a petition against the seabed mining application to Whanganui District Council and planned to present the same petition – signed by more than 3000 people – to New Plymouth District Council's strategy and operations committee in the afternoon. She said local councils could be the only bodies invited to make submissions to the expert panel. 'In the past, lots of individuals have been able to give evidence in the hearings but that's not possible under fast-track. Only invited parties can make submissions. 'What I'm angling for is a united voice from all of the affected district councils and regional councils.' Melser said the fast-track process cut out the voices of individuals such as divers and recreational users who knew the marine area best. 'So it's up to councils and iwi and affected parties to speak for their communities and make strong submissions to the EPA. 'At this stage, it's really important for individuals to contact their elected members, their iwi representatives and their MPs to show sustained opposition.' The petition from Concerned Communities of Taranaki and Manawatu Against Seabed Mining calls on all impacted councils to seek independent advice and review of economic and environmental assessments to ensure all relevant information is provided to the decision-making panel. 'When weighing up the benefits of any project of any development, you need to consider all of the costs, including social and environmental,' Melser said. 'It's important to ask ourselves what is our bottom line, what are we willing to lose? Advertise with NZME. 'When you look at all the evidence, that coastal marine area is just thriving with abundance and it's a taonga that is worth preserving.' Concerned Communities said in its petition that this type of seabed mining had not been carried out anywhere else in the world and was 'experimental'. The proposal to return 45 million tonnes a year of processed sand to the seabed would create sediment plumes that could significantly impact rich but delicate ecosystems and precious marine life, the petition said. Trans-Tasman Resources executive chairman Alan Eggers said he was pleased the application was moving forward in the fast-track process. 'We believe we have proposed a set of operating conditions and management plans to generate much-needed growth, create high-paying jobs and minimise any environmental impacts in the STB [South Taranaki Bight],' he said in a statement. Eggers recently told Local Democracy Reporting de-ored sands would be returned immediately to the seafloor in a controlled process to minimise suspended sediment in the water. An economic impact assessment by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research said the project would generate $850 million in annual export earnings and more than 1350 jobs, including 300 in Taranaki and Whanganui. 'Those numbers are overinflated,' Melser said. 'There are a number of gaps in their report.' She told her council that Whanganui would see none of the economic benefit. 'But we will see all of the environmental impact because of the travel of sediment plume.' In December, the Whanganui council unanimously backed a motion from Melser to formally oppose the seabed mining application. Whanganui Mayor Andrew Tripe agreed last week to have the petition added to the council meeting agenda as a late item. Usually, petitions have to be received five working days in advance of the meeting, but Tripe used mayoral discretion to waive the rule. The council agreed to receive the petition, with 12 votes in favour and one abstention. TTR's application is expected to be made public on the Government's fast-track website next month.
