transcript of proceedings environmental ......transcript of proceedings environmental protection...
Post on 21-Jun-2020
15 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AUTHORITY
HEARING
Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited
Marine Consent Application
HEARING at
KINGSGATE HOTEL, 100 GARNETT AVENUE,
TE RAPA, HAMILTON
on 30 OCTOBER 2014
DECISION-MAKING COMMITTEE:
Neil Walter (Chairperson)
Dr Nicki Crauford (EPA Board Representative)
Dr Gregory Ryder (Committee Member)
Lennie Johns (Committee Member)
David Hill (Committee Member)
Page 1729
Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 30.10.14
[9.03 am]
CHAIRPERSON: Good morning and welcome to day 17 of the hearing. A
couple of changes to the schedule so far, there may be more. First, the
audio link hasn’t worked and so one submitter this morning and one 5
from yesterday are being invited to link up to us in Wellington during
one the sessions down there.
That leaves us with either three or four submitters this morning and at
this stage we don’t have confirmation I think of three of the four for 10
this afternoon. So we will just work our way through anyway and see
where we get to before lunch. It could be an early lunch. Is that rain
out there? But this is the Waikato, surely.
[9.05 am] 15
All right, so first on the list, Nicole Hancock, welcome and the floor is
yours.
MS HANCOCK: All right, so I have prepared a document and I am just going 20
to read it out.
All right, my name is Nicole Hancock and I have a master of sciences
in marine science from the University of Waikato and 13 years’
experience working in marine science, 10 of those years were at NIWA 25
in Hamilton doing benthic ecology and coastal sedimentation. Now, I
am an environmental consultant among other things. I also worked on
the TTR seabed mining case as an independent consultant helping my
client understand the science and prepare their submission and expert
evidence. 30
I was granted permission to act as an expert in this case specialising in
benthic science and sedimentation but due to other commitments I
chose to remove myself from the expert role and instead today I am
presenting at a general submitter. 35
Benthic ecology. As I am sure you have already heard the Chatham
Rise is an area rich in sea life with many different animal communities
living on and in the sea floor including corals, sponges, bryozoans,
brachiopods, giant isopods and bivalves to name but a few. 40
In their joint witness statement benthic scientists agree the Chatham
Rise is one of the most productive and distinctive ecosystems in the
New Zealand EEZ. It contains unique benthic communities, some of
which are protected by the Wildlife Act, and many of which are used to 45
a low sediment environment and are considered sensitive according to
Page 1730
Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 30.10.14
the EEZ Act. Additionally, 90 percent of the seafloor where proposed
mining is to occur is in fact a benthic protected area.
The Chatham Rise seafloor is connected through the food web to the
life in the water just above the seafloor where there are fish, skates, 5
rays and sharks. Higher in the water column we find other species of
fish as well as whales, dolphins, orca and other mammals. The water
column is connected in turn to the air above where we find seabirds
including several species of albatross, gull, petrel and tern so it is not
just the seafloor we are considering mining but a web of life. 10
The proposed mining would take strips out of the bottom half metre of
the seafloor and its life would be sucked up, pulverised and spat out
again. I really don’t like that idea, it upsets me. However, there is no
argument from experts from either side about the fact that this is what 15
would happen if mining were to go ahead.
Some of the largest seafloor species on the Chatham Rise are very old,
much older than any of us are and ever will be. Not only are some of
these species rare and protected many animals, such as corals but also 20
sponges, hydrozoans and bryozoans, also provide important ecosystem
services by providing a three-dimensional structure and habitat on the
seafloor so that other animals may make the seafloor their home.
Seafloor communities depend on these larger older habitat forming 25
animals in a similar way that animals of the forest rely on the trees,
shrubs and grasses. Larger seafloor animals provide shelter, refuge and
something to attach to and grow on. They slow water currents and
create microclimates generally greatly enriching the seafloor
topography. 30
Without this three-dimensional structure animals are left with a flat
two-dimensional plane with few places to shelter, hide or grow thus
reducing their chances of survival. This idea bothers me, these animals
have lived in this part of the world for much longer than us, what gives 35
us the right to destroy this?
In their joint witness statement benthic scientists agreed there are
knowledge gaps about the structure and distribution of Chatham Rise
seafloor communities. They also agree they have not been able to fully 40
consider the role of seafloor communities. They have only covered
trophic aspects and left out biodiversity, nutrient cycling and habitat
provision. They agree there is uncertainty about Chatham Rise
biodiversity due to the lack of sampling meaning they may be unaware
of rare or cryptic seafloor communities. They agree there is a lack of 45
knowledge about seabed communities in the area surrounding the
Page 1731
Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 30.10.14
mining site including the prospecting area. Benthic experts agree they
cannot predict overall mining impacts with confidence.
Sedimentation. The mining process will also cause an increase in
suspended sediment concentrations, SSCs, and deposition rates over a 5
certain distance beyond the direct mining site. I am concerned that the
animals and habitats outside the mining strips will also be negatively
affected due to indirect effects of increased SSC and deposition.
[9.10 am] 10
My main concern comes from knowing that many of the habitat and
structure providing animals living on the seafloor are suspension
feeders such as sponges, hydrozoans and corals. Suspension feeders
rely on filtering the water to get their food. They are negatively 15
affected by even small increases in SSC and deposition. This is
because they have to spend more time and energy on filtering water and
separating inedible sediment particles from food. This causes them to
lose condition and do poorly or even starve to death. In other words
their resilience is lowered and ecosystem health is negatively affected. 20
Benthic experts agree the reproduction larval settlement and early
development of coral, a suspension feeder, would be negatively
affected.
My second main concern comes from knowing all the work on 25
sediment distribution and deposition thus far is based on modelling.
There are no actual data and the models are not verified.
The benthic joint witness statement says the spatial and temporal extent
of indirect sediment impacts are uncertain and they have insufficient 30
information to assess effects of sedimentation on the seafloor. They
also say they have no information on sensitivities of animals or
communities for changes in the sediment regime. They also say mining
methods have not been finalised.
35
These issues concern me. What also concerns me is that much of the
proposed mining area is not well mapped. This creates a great deal of
uncertainty. It is not possible to determine consequences of mining if
we do not know what is there. This is a tricky environment. Two
major bodies of water one cold from the Antarctic and the other warm 40
from the Pacific of very different density, temperature and character are
converging over a large area of complex bathymetry. This is not an
easy environment to work in or understand.
How can it be? Uncertainties aside, quite frankly I am surprised this 45
case has gone as far as this hearing. How is it possible that a section of
Page 1732
Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 30.10.14
a seafloor set aside as a benthic protected area with endemic and
protected species of animals, as well as economic and cultural value,
can even be considered for seabed mining? How did the applicant even
gain a mining permit for this area?
5
The Chatham Rise has been very well known as a very biologically
productive area for a long time, important for fish, bird and mammal
species. Furthermore, while I do not condone commercial fishing
bottom trawling practices because they are also destructive of the
seafloor, I will say I know the Chatham Rise supports 60 percent of 10
commercial fishing in New Zealand. Mining in this area would clearly
put that enterprise at risk with potential negative economic
consequences.
The phosphate argument. But here we are talking about the details of 15
the consequences of seabed mining in the Chatham Rise so what is the
phosphate for? The Chatham Rock Phosphate marine consent
application and environmental impact assessment opens by saying
New Zealand needs to secure its own supply of phosphate for fertiliser
for agricultural productivity for the wellbeing of New Zealanders and 20
the New Zealand economy.
But here’s the thing, New Zealand lakes and rivers have a serious
problem caused by excess phosphate. Regional councils and scientists
have been trying to contain this phosphate problem for a number of 25
years. Not only is it costing us, taxpayers, the New Zealand economy,
a huge amount of time and money the source of the problem, which is
too much phosphate going on the land, is not even being discussed.
So why is phosphate a problem? In brief rain washes phosphate 30
fertiliser off the land and into our fresh waterways including streams,
rivers, wetlands and lakes. Phosphate attaches to sediment and settles
to the bottom of our lakes where it drives toxic algal blooms in lakes as
Rotoiti, Rotorua. Rotoehu and Lake Ellesmere to name but a few. This
causes not only environmental problems but also economic and quality 35
of life ones like not being able to swim, problems with tourism, fishing
and that kind of thing. On top of this phosphate is bound to other
bioaccumulating nasty compounds including cadmium and uranium.
Adding heavy metals to our agricultural land will not benefit the
wellbeing of our agriculture industry and economy. 40
So before I talk any more about the consequence of mining our seabed
for more phosphate, it makes sense to me to spend a moment looking at
alternatives. There are local methods both under development and
currently proven for recovering, recycling and reusing phosphate with 45
Page 1733
Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 30.10.14
positive downstream effects reaching harbours and estuaries, the
nursery ground of many of our fisheries.
Here are just a few quick examples. Bruno is a freshwater scientist for
the Waikato Regional Council. He developed a method whereby koi 5
carp, an invasive pest bottom feeding fish that naturally bioaccumulates
phosphate at it feeds, are trapped and turned into a special potting mix
which Raglan Harbour Care use for growing native seedlings. The
trees were then planted around wetlands thereby locking up phosphate,
providing shade over waterways, reducing light to prevent other 10
problem aquatic plants and thus closing the loop.
[9.15 am]
Three weeks ago Bruno won the Kudos award in recognition of his 15
work. With support his work can be turned into a non-commercial
venture that not only removes pest fish from our waterways but also
gives an environmentally friendly phosphate recycling opportunity and
provides jobs supporting the New Zealand economy and people.
20
Rebecca Evers is a PhD student in the final stages of her research at the
University of Waikato. She has been investigating how constructed
wetlands and silt traps can capture and recycle phosphorus enriched
sediment from dairy farm runoff. One of the dairy farmers Rebecca is
working with, Andrew Hayes, is already underway with reducing his 25
farm’s environmental footprint by following a whole farm management
plan created by Alison Dewes, owner of Headlands Agribusiness
Consultants.
Recent analysis of Andrew’s silt trap found an average of 2,000 30
milligrams of total recoverable phosphorus per kilo of dry matter.
Andrew has now been spreading sediment from his silt trap back on his
fields for the last five years reducing the need for additional phosphate
fertiliser and reducing his costs. Before Rebecca’s research Andrew
wouldn’t have considered the sludge accumulating in the silt traps to be 35
a resource. Andrew is one of the top 10 most profitable farmers in the
Waikato region.
Charlie is investigating a way to treat dairy farm effluent using a series
of ponds and constructed wetlands to not only clean the water and 40
recycle phosphate and other nutrients but to actually harness the
nutrients to grow a certain species of algae in a controlled manner that
will then be used as food for an already successful aquaculture venture
to grow whitebait and eels. This venture has been successful in
securing initial funding of about $50,000 from both the Bay of Plenty 45
Regional Council and the Sustainable Farming Fund to start up his first
Page 1734
Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 30.10.14
trial. If successful his venture would provide another method of
cleaning water of phosphate and other nutrients and contribute to the
local economy by creating a saleable product and a number of jobs.
AgResearch and Landcare. I wish I had another good story to tell 5
about these guys and their research, however their recent application to
investigate phosphate recycling in Waikato peat soils was declined,
perhaps that needs to be reconsidered.
At the moment New Zealand’s agriculture fertiliser approach is a bit 10
like bucket chemistry, dumping large amounts of fertiliser all over the
land with very little prior analysis of what is required. If we look
overseas we can find examples of precision farming. In the USA and
Japan they are using aerial footage from robotic craft or drones with
normal and infrared cameras to find and target areas of pasture that 15
need nutrients or water. Could this be the future of farming in
New Zealand? Perhaps so. Already in Raglan, New Zealand, we have
Aeronavics, a small business employing almost a dozen staff, who
specialist in robotic craft with the technology to survey our farms. This
technology is here and it is growing fast. 20
If the justification for mining the seafloor with its certain damage and
uncertain risks is to secure New Zealand’s supply of phosphate
fertiliser, but we already have an excess of phosphate in our fresh
waterways that is causing problems plus phosphate carries other nasty 25
compounds onto the land with it. And we already have proven
methods for changing the fertiliser approach and we already have
proven New Zealand based examples of how to recycle excess
phosphate, cleaning up our fresh waterways and providing jobs. Plus
we have more ideas on phosphate recycling if there were funding and 30
the capability to move towards precision farming, why would we dig
up our biologically, economically, culturally, productive, protected and
treasured seafloor? Our planet’s resources are finite, we need to use
them sparingly, thoughtfully and carefully.
35
In summary I think the seabed mining case has given us an opportunity
to look closely not just at the issues around mining the seabed but for
alternatives to our phosphate problem which is far inland and may
require a change in thinking.
40
I think my work in benthic ecology and marine sciences has given me a
different perspective when it comes to understanding and feeling
connected to the seabed. I have observed it for many years through low
tide walks, snorkelling, driving and hour upon hour of underwater
video footage so I have grown fond of the seafloor. 45
Page 1735
Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 30.10.14
[9.20 am]
Now when I look out at sea I don’t just see the water surface, I see
seafloor landscapes and communities, shoals of fish and seabirds, a
web of sea life, in the way that someone hiking through the forest or a 5
farm sees familiar trees and hears familiar birds and feels a sense of
connection. I see rocky ridges the size of houses covered in a dozen
kinds of seaweed with starfish, crabs, sponges, crayfish, stingrays,
sharks and the flash of a shoal of 1,000 small fish.
10
I see a sandstone channel covered with sponges and a loan great white
shark. I see inquisitive baby snapper the size of a milk bottle top
hovering above a sandy seafloor.
Like a gardener who is fond of the work of her earthworms, so I am 15
fond of the work of the critters of the seafloor who form the foundation
of the food web reaching all the way to the seabirds. That is their home
and they do good work.
So when I hear about an application to remove the top metre or so of 20
the seafloor I feel distressed, there is no doubt, it has been clearly said,
the seafloor and what lives in it and on it would be destroyed.
I think New Zealand needs to look carefully at opportunities to reduce,
reuse and recycle phosphate. Cultural benefits of recycling phosphate 25
would include reparation to Māori or to its taonga, and the wider
community. Many non-Māori people in New Zealand are also
developing a connection to the environment.
Much of the seafloor where proposed mining is to occur is a benthic 30
protected area for a reason. Experts agree the Chatham Rise is one of
the most productive and distinctive ecosystems in the New Zealand
EEZ, it contains animals protected by the Wildlife Act and has unique
benthic communities that are used to low sediment environment and are
considered sensitive according to the EEZ Act. 35
Benthic experts agree there is a great deal of information about the
seafloor and its contribution to our ecosystem that is not sampled, not
known or not considered in this case.
40
The mining process will also cause an increase in SEC and deposition
rates beyond the direct mining site.
My question to the DMC is from what you have heard about SEC and
deposition modelling, can you be sure you know what the sediment 45
Page 1736
Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 30.10.14
effects of the mining would be and do you know for sure how far the
plume will spread?
While I understand this trial has to run within a short timeframe,
preparation time prior to lodging the application was not short, yet CRP 5
have not even finalised their mining methods. There is no excuse for
this lack of data resulting in large uncertainties, making it impossible
for experts to predict potential mining impacts with confidence.
In the expert joint witness statement there is discussion of adaptive 10
management approach methods in the face of uncertainty. However,
considering we are talking about possible effects on our most
productive and distinctive marine ecosystem in New Zealand’s EEZ, I
do not think experimenting is a good idea. More data is required.
15
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Ms Hancock. That’s a very
thoughtful and very well presented statement. Much appreciated.
MS HANCOCK: Thank you.
20
CHAIRPERSON: And although we won’t respond to the question you pose to
us, because we’re not meant to, I hope you will be prepared to respond
to questions we might pose to you.
MS HANCOCK: All right. 25
CHAIRPERSON: David, do you have any?
MR HILL: Yes, thank you, Ms Hancock, nicely put.
30
Can I just ask you or can I pose, I guess, a rhetorical question to you, I
guess on the basis of what you’ve told us I’m not persuaded that
anymore additional data would make any difference to your conclusion.
MS HANCOCK: I think it really would. Like, from my experience of 35
working at NIWA, we did lots of habitat mapping and there’s a certain
process that you follow when you do habitat mapping, you start out by
getting a broad sweep of the whole area with the most basic form of –
you know, you get the bathymetry, which I think they have, and then
you’d go back and you’d target areas with side scan sonar and 40
multibeam, and I get the feeling from what I’ve looked at – and then
you’d go back again and you’d sample the seafloor, and I realise it’s
very deep water and that’s hard to do, like it’s hard to do in 50 metres,
it’s hard to do in 30 metres, so in 300 metres I can understand it is
really hard to do, but it’s possible. 45
Page 1737
Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 30.10.14
MR HILL: That is possible, how would that then give you any comfort about
the project going ahead? It’s simply going to provide more information
about the sort of seafloor that you seem to be opposed to any mining
on.
5
[9.25 am]
MS HANCOCK: I am not opposed to mining entirely, I’m opposed to mining
that can’t be proven to be sustainable and I’m concerned about mining
areas where we haven’t mapped it properly and we’re not sure what’s 10
there, like in the joint witness statement, the benthic scientists agreed
that there could be rare and cryptic species that haven’t been
discovered because not enough mapping has been done and I’m of the
same opinion that there could be things there because there isn’t yet
enough data to be able to rule out that they’re not. 15
MR HILL: Yes, all right. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Good of you to answer a rhetorical question. Someone
once said where would the world be without rhetorical questions. 20
Greg?
DR RYDER: Yes, thanks. I had a similar question to Mr Hill really, so he’s
stolen my thunder to some degree, but I presume your concerns about
the mining would remain regardless or not of whether the benthic 25
protection area is present, so if there was no BPA in that area, your
concerns about mining the seabed would remain? It wouldn’t change
your view at all?
MS HANCOCK: Well, it would probably would, I mean I think the benthic 30
protected area is really there for a reason, you know, it’s a heavily
fished area, and it’s a highly productive area and they’ve set that aside
since, I think it was 2007, for no fishing. When they do the bottom
trawling they’ve got really, like weights as tall as me rolling along the
seafloor and that also breaks the structure of the seafloor and rips it up 35
and knocks it over, and so they’ve set that aside for a reason, because
they know that there’s, you know, important communities there, and in
order to be able to continue fishing they need sort of like a bit of a park
where things can remain the same. I can’t really wrap my head around
the idea of if it wasn’t there. 40
DR RYDER: I mean the seabed would still be destroyed by the mining
process that’s being proposed. When I mean destroyed, up to half a
metre or so of the bed is going to be removed, along with everything in
it. 45
Page 1738
Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 30.10.14
MS HANCOCK: That would be destroyed, yes.
DR RYDER: So given the way you’ve written your submission here about
your concerns about the seabed and protection of it, it seems to me that
whether or not the BPA is there wouldn’t make much difference to 5
your views on that.
MS HANCOCK: Well, I think it’s a matter of scale. Like, if you have a huge
area which you’ve mapped and you know what’s there and you know
that there’s repetition of the communities over a large area, thousands 10
of square kilometres, and you want to take some of that, I’m actually
okay with that because I can understand, you know, like it’s the same
as farming, you have lots of forest, you understand what’s there, you
don’t go in willy nilly and rip it out and then go “oh, woops, that was
actually really unique”, you go in, you map it, you know what’s there, 15
which is easy to do on the land.
DR RYDER: Yes, well, that’s interesting about the scale issue. So in terms of
mapping, what area of seabed, in your view, would be required to be
mapped before you had confidence of what is present within the 20
proposed mining area is either representative or found elsewhere quite
extensively or not?
MS HANCOCK: Yes, well, I know it’s a big ask because it’s a really difficult
area to work in because of the depth, but I think – well, for a start I 25
think the benthic protected area needs to be really well mapped and the
whole prospecting area really needs to be well mapped. It’s a lot, which
I can understand, and you can’t – I know that when we did our
mapping you don’t sample every single spot, but you do do the broad
scale stuff, you do the sonar and the multibeam because it gives you an 30
idea of where to go next with your more intensive sampling, your grab
samples, your ROV samples or your video samples.
But, you know, ROV and video, you can only look at what’s on the
surface, you can’t see what’s in the seafloor, and you know all the 35
critters in the seafloor are also providing important information, so you
do, you need samples, and I know it’s a hard place to work, but if
you’re going to rip parts of it out, you need to be pretty sure that it’s
living somewhere else so that it can be kept alive somewhere.
40
DR RYDER: Okay.
MS HANCOCK: Does that make sense?
DR RYDER: Yes, thank you. 45
Page 1739
Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 30.10.14
DR CRAUFORD: I’m interested in what you’ve put here regarding reusing
phosphate and phosphate recycling, can you tell me a little bit about the
AgResearch and Land Care application that was declined?
[9.30 am] 5
MS HANCOCK: Not a lot really because I was aware that I was going a little
bit beyond the scope when I started talking about phosphate recycling, I
am a marine scientist not a freshwater scientist, so I kept it pretty short
and really I only put that example in there just to show that there are 10
people who would really like to work on this and that people are
thinking about it and that we do have options to do that kind of work.
So what I know is that was pretty recent I think and they wanted to
look at phosphate recycling in peat soils because I think peat has 15
particular issues with phosphate. I am not a soil scientist so I do not
really know sorry, yeah. I could find out for you.
DR CRAUFORD: Well no I am just interested because I mean it would
impact say the market for phosphate over the next 25 years. 20
MS HANCOCK: Yeah, I think these are all affected.
DR CRAUFORD: The other comment you make in fact in the last sentence,
you refer to Chatham Rise as the most productive and distinctive 25
marine ecosystem within New Zealand’s EEZ. Can you just explain
the evidence you have for that?
MS HANCOCK: That is taken from the Benthic Expert Joint Witness
Statement. 30
DR CRAUFORD: Okay.
MS HANCOCK: Yeah.
35
DR CRAUFORD: Thank you.
MR JOHNS: Thank you Chair. Hello Ms Hancock.
MS HANCOCK: Hello. 40
MR JOHNS: I am interested in your statement on page 7 and I will just read it
because it just caught my attention, just if you would like to offer any
sort of detail around it. Cultural benefits of phosphate recycling would
include reparation to Māori etcetera, so what do you actually mean by 45
that?
Page 1740
Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 30.10.14
MS HANCOCK: My understanding is that water is taonga to Māori and it is
an area that is pretty new to me because I have been really focussed on
being a very databased scientist for a really long time, and now I am
starting to enjoy working more in science communication with Māori 5
in the wider community. So it is still new to me but I am getting the
sense that keeping the water clean isn’t just about ecology and science
for Māori – correct me if I am wrong but this is my understanding – it
is also quite a culturally important treasure to keep water clean.
10
Yeah my understanding is still pretty rudimentary but that is what I was
trying to get across there.
MR JOHNS: Okay, thanks very much.
15
CHAIRPERSON: Any questions from the floor? If not, thank you very much
Ms Hancock, much appreciated.
MS HANCOCK: Thank you.
20
CHAIRPERSON: Next on the list is Tui Allen, is possibly here in spirit but
not – you are, okay, oh yes.
MS ALLEN: Excuse me, I am a bit flabbergasted, I expecting to be the first
one after morning tea, but I will cope. 25
CHAIRPERSON: Just take your time and we will be listening.
MS ALLEN: Okay, I am Tui Allen and I am speaking on behalf of the
ultimate indigenous people of our planet, the cetaceans. My friend 30
Geoff Phillips invented that term, ultimate indigenous people, for his
marine themed film that he made. In this talk I am hoping to convince
you to begin to think of cetaceans as just that, the ultimate indigenous
people of planet ocean. I will mention some other special marine
beings also. 35
[9.35 am]
I am coming at this from a very different angle from your previous
speaker because I am a fiction author, here is my dolphin book Ripple.
It sells all over the world and has been translated for sale in Europe 40
quite recently. It is very relevant to this whole consent application. I
am here to ask you to consider not just all the facts about dolphins that
you would already have heard from scientists like Liz Slooten and so
on, but also to think way beyond them. I want you to think about all
the many, many facts that we don’t yet know about these beings and 45
Page 1741
Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 30.10.14
their environment. It is those facts, the ones we do not yet know about
that are my business as a fiction author.
I promise you there is far more to know than what we already do. We
discover new facts every day and there are no signs of that process 5
slowing down. We did not know about the effects possums would have
on our forests when we introduced them but we stupid humans
introduced them anyway. It was only ignorance – only – think of the
damage that one piece of ignorance caused. And our human ignorance
of the oceans is huge – why? – because we are land animals, the ocean 10
is not our patch.
Consider this, an old family has lived in harmony during centuries of
residence, sharing the produce of their orchards and gardens fairly
among many neighbours. A new family moves into the street and sets 15
up camp in the orchard belonging to the old family. The new family
has no idea of the importance of this produce to the old family and its
surrounding community so they steal all the fruit and sell it without
permission from the owners. They then decide the old family may
have treasure buried in their backyard so they start digging up the vege 20
garden, destroying its delicate balances in the process, and poisoning
everything growing there. The old family and all its neighbours must
starve because of the ignorance and blind greed of the new arrivals.
This is exactly what any kind of seabed mining may do in our oceans. 25
We humans are the new neighbours on ocean street and we do not give
a damn about the ones who were there before us and who own the
whole place. It makes me ashamed to be human.
Digging up the sea floor makes a lot of noise. Dolphins and other 30
cetaceans depend on hearing for their very lives. They have ten times
the human brain capacity for processing sound. They literally see with
their hearing. For a dolphin to be forced to listen to loud unnatural
noises is the exact equivalent of forcing a human to stare open-eyed
into the sun. But they cannot close their hearing the way we can close 35
our eyes. Noise is a strongly suspected cause of many cetaceans
strandings.
As a fiction author I put myself into the mind of a cetacean victim of
unnatural undersea noise and describe it this way – there came a great 40
noise like a clap of thunder, but not from the sky, it struck us from
under water so there was no escape. We scattered at the first terrific
blast, shocked into disarray and isolated in the void created in the
aftermath, our equilibrium shattered, hearing gone, navigation lost. It
was a kind of death. To lose sound was to lose the sea itself, to drift 45
Page 1742
Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 30.10.14
loose among stars. There was no time to recover before the second hit
and then too many more. We lost all reason in that hour.
[9.40 am]
5
We fiction authors often concern ourselves with the what-ifs of the
world. I have concerned myself for years with what if the dolphins are
smarter than we are, so here are the facts that we do know – three, three
facts – cetaceans have brains the size of ours or bigger. Cetaceans
evolved 50 million years before humans stopped squabbling over 10
bananas in the treetops. Thirdly, those cetacean brains have whole
zones inside them that scientists admit to being mystified by. Fifty
million years before we evolved – what has been going on in those
great brains all this time? We do not have a clue. Ought we not to give
these beings the benefit of the doubt? 15
Humans dream of one day finding company in the universe. We
wonder if out there in the stars somewhere there is someone else
perhaps even smarter than we are. We look through great telescopes,
we include messages to aliens in our spaceships, we read stories, watch 20
TV programmes and movies about what it will be like when we finally
discover intelligence out there. Meanwhile we may be missing
something right here on planet earth as we call it – earth! – why ever
did we give it such a name? Doesn’t earth mean soil or dirt? Is that
how we treat it? But perhaps we humans can forgive ourselves this 25
naming error. This is a marine planet and we are only land animals.
Ocean is surely a more appropriate name. Perhaps here in the waters of
planet ocean there is intelligent life more fascinating than anything we
might never find out there. For 50 million years the great whales ruled 30
our pristine prehistoric oceans and since oceans cover most of our
planet you could argue that they rule the world. Down all those
millennia their huge brains have been working, thinking, creating,
perhaps even calculating and rationalising, but always evolving in
directions unguessed by humanity. 35
Have you ever considered how much we expend our human intellect on
matters material? Cetaceans evolve their intellects without this vast
distraction because they have no hands. No hands, no handicap. So
whatever they are thinking of other than food must be beyond the 40
material. No need either to waste brain power on fine motor control of
complicated limbs like legs, arms, fingers and toes. All that brain
power freed up for the consideration of matters perhaps social, abstract,
romantic, mathematical or even spiritual. No written language, thus
memory must be vital. Yet we were all so surprised to discover 45
Page 1743
Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 30.10.14
recently that dolphins recognise old friends and relations even after 20
years of separation.
Goodness even we newly evolved humans have been known to
recognise people after longer spans than that. Why should we be 5
surprised? We could try to be like them. Prepare ourselves beforehand
for days, hours, weeks, by thinking non-materially, watch film of them,
study their different breeds and incarnations until we have soaked up
all human knowledge of these beings. Then travelling in imagination
only – I can help you with that because I am a fiction author – go into 10
the silence of the ocean and feel their world until we start to live it –
and this is how I write. Feel their water on our skin, dream our minds
and bodies into theirs, feel their presences and return the love and
respect they give to us, drift, relax and allow the ocean to support and
caress us as it does them. 15
[9.45 am]
When we have done all this often in mind we may be ready to meet
them in person, go out on the real ocean to a place they inhabit. In time 20
there may be a great flowering of understanding and they may teach us
to escape our human rigidity to let our intellect float into the universe,
exploring beyond all our previous abilities.
Visit their world at night. I have crossed oceans under sail, in the little 25
wooden boat that was my first marital home. This is what gives me my
link to the ocean. On the night sea the near silence is beautiful and the
stars can feel close enough to touch. Do cetaceans have intellectual
links to those stars perhaps beyond our understanding?
30
Thinking we can understand cetaceans might be like some newly
evolved small rodent thinking it can understand human thought
processes. Perhaps one day we could learn from the cetaceans how to
transcend the limits of our materialistic lives and discover spiritual
wonders that send all our technologies to the trash can. Or, we could be 35
like the new family in neighbourhood ocean and just barge out there
into their home and rip it all up with our big noisy machines and just let
the old family starve.
One other thing, I have been told about the tiny octopus that is at risk 40
from this particular mining operation. There is a scene in my book
where a tiny rare octopus found somewhere in the oceans near New
Zealand saves a life because chemicals in its ink have healing
properties. We do not know enough about what we are about to
destroy to just barge ahead and destroy it just for money. If it means 45
the world must have less fertiliser that might mean we must eat less
Page 1744
Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 30.10.14
meat and dairy and that will only help human health and save
thousands of innocent land animal lives. Not only that, octopuses are
another highly intelligent species about whom too little is known, and
there may be a million other marine species we know even less about.
We risk it all for bad fertiliser and money. 5
Please, in respect for the ultimate indigenous people of this marine
planet, I beg you to decline this consent application. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much Ms Allen, it is a most interesting and 10
thought provoking and refreshing approach to the matters under
consideration. We have heard from a wide range of scientists,
economists, lawyers, many of them with quite polarised different
views, they cannot all be right, but you are the first person to have
confessed to being an author of fiction, congratulations on that. And I 15
will check whether the committee has any fictional questions to address
to you.
MR HILL: Yes, thank you Ms Allen, a very evocative submission, thank you
very much. 20
MS ALLEN: Thank you.
DR RYDER: No, no questions but I agree about the intelligence of octopus.
25
MS ALLEN: Oh good, thank you.
DR CRAUFORD: Thank you Ms Allen I have no questions but I like the idea
of calling the earth ocean, I think that is good.
30
MS ALLEN: Thank you.
MR JOHNS: Thank you very much, I enjoyed that.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thanks very much Ms Allen. Next on my list, Linda 35
Sylvester. Just to clarify, Linda is - - -
MS PENN: I am not Linda.
CHAIRPERSON: No, so you are presenting for her? 40
MS PENN: Yes, she asked me, she emailed Gen and said could I please just
read for her.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay, see how much of this you can pack into the allocated 45
time. Go for it.
Page 1745
Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 30.10.14
MS PENN: Mine and Linda’s you mean?
CHAIRPERSON: Yeah, do you want to do the two in sequence and then be
open to questions? 5
MS PENN: Yes, good as gold.
CHAIRPERSON: That is fine, okay.
10
[9.50 am]
MS PENN: Okay, so my name is June Penn, I am reading on behalf of Linda
Silvester.
15
Linda says, “I oppose the application for the following reasons. Since
my original submission which spoke of concerns around the
uncertainty of effects of the proposed activity on the receiving
environment nothing much as has changed. If anything the
uncertainties have been further highlighted during the expert evidence. 20
My view is supported by the recent EPA Staff Report.
“These concerns are in the areas of trace metal concentration and
sediment in the water column; potential toxicity of mine tailings and
benthic fauna; the levels of uranium and other radionuclides in the 25
water column; radiological risk associated with the release of uranium
and radionuclides; current state of the area with respect to oxygen
concentrations; the effects of noise generation from the mining vessel
and equipment on marine mammals; impacts on seabirds from vessel
lighting and mining equipment; information about microbial groups 30
and the biogeochemical cycles they regulate; validity of the sediment
plume model, particularly with respects to inputs into the model; rate
and recovery of benthic habitats, economic impacts on fisheries; effects
on Māori and Moriori existing interests and effects on human health.
35
“Too many of the effects cannot be adequately if at all mitigated. The
negative effects this open cast seabed mining operation will have on the
Chatham Rise is expected to leave an irreparable dead zone in the total
area mined with further destructive consequences to the adjacent areas.
Even the stage 1 part of the operation of 820 square kilometres of our 40
seabed would be too much to put at risk. Consenting this application
would be at cost to our healthy marine ecosystems to the point where it
would, among other implications, have disastrous impact on our
valuable renewable fishing resource, potentially drive endangered bird
species to extinction, cause the loss of rare corals and perhaps move 45
marine mammals out of their migratory patterns permanently.
Page 1746
Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 30.10.14
“This has consequences to obligations under the Treaty and our
responsibility to protect the marine environment in accordance with the
EEZ and CS Act 2012. The applicant has not provided guarantee or
proof that their proposal is safe for the marine environment and poses 5
no threat to future viability. I ask the DMC to decline the application in
its entirety”. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
10
MS PENN: So my name is June Penn, I have a bachelor of science but in
organisational psychology not in marine science. I have a 30 year
career coming from business from a corporate environment. Until
December of last year I was the general manager of human resources
on an executive team in a significant New Zealand company which was 15
close to the mining sector. So, from that background, in February 2014
I moved from Christchurch to Raglan and have been on a steep learning
curve ever since.
I first became aware, being a city dweller I had absolutely no 20
awareness of seabed mining, none at all. Since coming to Raglan I
have been exposed to this industry basically because it’s the heartland
of KASM and I have volunteered recently with the KASM crew with
Phil McCabe and his team. So I just wanted to point that out because it
is very pertinent here in terms of the major part of the population, 25
myself included, being entirely ignorant of this and the more I become
aware of this new industry that’s coming the more genuinely concerned
I become.
So moving to my verbal submission. First of all I want to thank you 30
very much genuinely, gentlemen and madam, for taking the time to
come to Hamilton. This wouldn’t have been possible for us to address
you in Wellington or the Chathams so we really appreciate that.
I wish to expand on some points I made in my submission, in light of 35
the evidence that has been presented subsequent to the initial public
consultation process, and raise some genuine concerns I have. Since
this application was first notified there has been a high volume of EPA
notifications, questions and a large amount of documentation
generated. As I regularly reflect on the data and opinions and, 40
notwithstanding that we are in a legal process here, common sense
keeps bringing me back to a couple of underlying questions. Why are
we in New Zealand even considering this application? How has this
proposal been allowed to get this far?
45
Page 1747
Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 30.10.14
The reasons for my concerns will become clear by a consideration of
the following topics and I will be as brief as I can, gentlemen. The
BPA, the Wildlife Act, respect for New Zealand values, incomplete
economics, consideration of conditions, lessons from Pike River,
uncertainties, common sense conclusions and accountability and 5
decision making.
[9.55 am]
We have heard a lot about the BPA, I won’t go too far into it, 10
everybody knows, it is well understood. The experts, the EPA, the
DMC and pretty much everybody knows that the mining area in
question is smack bang in the middle of a BPA. This in my mind
means it is equivalent to – I know it doesn’t have the same legal
standing – but it is equivalent to a marine conservation area under the 15
sea, that’s my common sense understanding of this area.
Albeit introduced for protection from a different threat of bottom
trawling the intention is clearly to protect the seafloor and marine life
from dredging. As you know the DMC is required to take into account 20
that 90 percent of this proposed mining activity is in a BPA. It is
certain that mining will irreversibly destroy all life in the marined (ph
0.57) areas and under sections 11 and 59 of the EEZ the DMC has a
definite responsibility to protect this area.
25
This area is also recognised as a marine protected area, an MPA, in the
international arena. The EPA itself recommends against mining here.
We should not be allowing a company backed by international
corporates to bullishly override the protective mechanisms currently in
place. Despite the overt acknowledgement from all parties that this is a 30
protected sensitive marine environment we are still entertaining this
proposal.
I put it to the Committee that if this situation were to be replicated on
land where people could see it, where the public were aware of both the 35
definite and potential destruction, the unquestionably high risk
associated with the project, the public outcry would be formidable and
we would have not got this far in this process. This area is supposed to
be protected so let’s protect it.
40
I want to just comment on the question before about the movement of
the BPA because I understand that that is part of what CRP have
alluded to as part of their solution. If we move the area of that BPA it
still doesn’t make sense to me because this area in particular is where
the thickets of G. dumosa are most predominant on The Rise, which 45
means that’s the primary habitat for the life that is supported there
Page 1748
Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 30.10.14
including some (INDISTINCT 2.26) species. It’s a rich part of the
productive total area on The Rise. The corals that live there support all
of that higher life in ways that we don’t understand on the broader
ecosystem. It is also, regardless of where the BPA is on The Rise,
remember it is 5,000 square kilometres. That’s an area the size of 5
Northland and all of the life and the higher food chain that that
supports. If that is permanently turned into a wasteland it doesn’t
matter where the BPA is, even if it is moved you still remove that
thicket of life and you are still creating a wasteland the size of
Northland. Do we want to do that? So it’s protected. 10
Protected species under the Wildlife Act it is similarly well understood
that the cold water coral Goniocorella dumosa or G. dumosa is listed as
a protected coral in the Wildlife Act 1953 schedule 7A. This is
particularly important as it is also acknowledged that G. dumosa is 15
abundant in the area due to the presence of phosphorite nodules. Not as
abundant anywhere else on The Rise nor in New Zealand waters,
probably responsible for some of the unique and endemic biodiversity
on The Rise as it creates an important habitat for the rest of the benthic
life. It takes hundreds of years to grow to full size - not decades, 20
hundreds and would be absolutely destroyed in all areas mined and
perhaps in areas close to the mine site from the sediment plume.
Further, this destruction will be irreversible, there is no known
mitigation available for recolonisation. I see CRP have made an 25
application to DOC for an authorisation to kill these corals. DOC point
out that “It is an offence to kill wildlife that is protected under the Act
without an authorisation from the Director-General of Conservation”.
That it can grant or decline the application, that it will seek scientific
advice and that there is no statutory timeframe to make this decision as 30
per section 44 of your documentation from the Department of
Conservation.
The process to date has shown that with respect to the protected corals
the scientific advice is certain, this dredging will kill these coral 35
thickets, have a morbid impact on all species that rely on the habitat
they provide and that this morbidity will be permanent and irreversible.
Further, that these corals are most prevalent in the mining areas in
question.
40
[10.00 am]
Despite this overt acknowledgement from all parties, still we are
entertaining this proposal. I put it to the Committee, that if this situation
were to be replicated on land, with any more visible protected species 45
Page 1749
Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 30.10.14
and the life that was dependent on the habitat provided by that species,
we would not have got this far in the process.
This coral is supposed to be protected, so let us protect it. The Wildlife
Act is internationally recognised and the DMC must take into account 5
both the EEZ legislation and the internationally recognised Wildlife
Act, which is a high hurdle.
Respect for New Zealand values. As I have been watching events
unfold on the EPA website and in the media I have developed an 10
unshakeable sense that the applicant has a disregard for accepted
practice in this country that is disrespectful to New Zealand cultural
norms. Right from the start, with the submission of the application so
close on the heels on the Trans-Tasman Resources case, CRP chose to
lodge their application even though it was lacking in information and 15
robust data.
There has since been over a hundred information requests to CRP for
further information and data. Leading in to and throughout the hearing
process CRP’s witnesses and representatives who were supposed to be 20
at the hearing and meet deadlines sometimes failed to meet these
deadlines, meaning that inadequate time was practically available for
others. This has made it extremely difficult for submitters to read,
digest, comment on, and prepare for this hearing.
25
This is a democracy and we are accustomed in New Zealand, in our
young history, to being able to debate matters of such import. This way
that this is playing out is a breach of our natural justice and our ability
to participate and to present a solid response. The partnering with a
global corporate giant, Boskalis, enabled CRP to bring this foreign 30
company in as a major shareholder in their business, thus securing both
their evidential and financial support.
The continual capital raising has enabled the applicant to buy as much
opinion as possible to tip the scales in their favour. Boskalis has no 35
direct experience of the way we do things in New Zealand: the
importance we place on the Treaty of Waitangi; the concept of tangata
whenua, who regard water as treasure; the interconnectedness and
stewardship New Zealanders feel for our land, our water, and the
animals that live there, amongst many other cultural concerns. 40
Boskalis may not be expected to understand this, as they are foreigners,
but the New Zealand based CRP people should. This lack of respect is
evident in the scant regard the applicant has shown for the care of our
environment. The apparent efforts at mitigating the serious 45
environmental impact seem to me to be shallow, like trialling the
Page 1750
Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 30.10.14
dumping of some other, unidentified hard substrate onto the seafloor as
a feeble experiment to recolonise the mined areas.
CRP compares the dredging and removal of the entire seafloor to,
quote, “a large vacuum cleaner on the end of a hose”, unquote, and 5
publically state that, quote, “impacts on the seabed would be far less
than those fishing trawlers regularly inflict”, unquote. This is deflecting
from the fact that CRP proposes to use a giant machine to dig up the
entire seabed and spit out the plume. It is belittling the impact of the
mining process and dodges their environmental responsibilities. This 10
without any proper consideration of the cumulative effects of mining
on top of existing fishing practices.
Committee, this is not care for our environment. This is a blatant and
arrogant lack of respect for the values that we hold in this country. The 15
applicant’s aggressive request to withdraw the initial EPA Staff Report,
including a personal attack on a staff member, qualifies as bullying
behaviour.
Further, the EPA has forced via the DMC, at CRP’s bullish request, to 20
not include a conclusion or recommendation in the supplementary EPA
Staff Report released last week. I defined bullying in a corporate
environment, Committee, and that, that behaviour definitely fits in the
definition.
25
I am shocked to see this undermining of accepted practice in New
Zealand. This type of behaviour empowers our government agencies
from, disempowers our government agencies from doing their job.
Large corporates might get away with this elsewhere in the world but if
you are coming to do business in New Zealand please bring respect for 30
our small but proud nation with you.
[10.05 am]
This is, quite frankly, unacceptable practice here. With very little 35
investment in environmental impacts, this applicant is only focused on
their profit. These disrespectful tactics show no regard for New
Zealand values and deflect attention away from the serious
environmental risks.
40
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Penn, can I just for a second, it gives you a break
anyway, but just to make a comment for the record: CRP did make a
request that the supplementary Staff Report not include
recommendations or conclusions. Our Committee looked at the issue
and we decided, of our own volition and for our own reasons, that it 45
was not appropriate for the supplementary report to contain conclusions
Page 1751
Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 30.10.14
or overall recommendations. I did see a media release which
misrepresented our position on that but I do want to assure you that we
were not pressured or forced in anyway. Just for the record.
MS PENN: Thank you. Thank you chairmen, I appreciate that that 5
clarification. The way it looks, without understanding your internal
processes, is that that recommendation came from the company, not
from the esteemed Committee.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, the recommendation or request did come from the 10
company but the decision was certainly the Committee’s own decision,
and not taken under duress.
MS PENN: Good, thank you. That is a relief. Incomplete economics. The
economics in this case are incomplete, highly questionable, skewed, 15
and account for only part of the total economic picture. If the stated
input via royalties and taxes will really, and I think optimistically, be
24 million dollars a year; note first that this amount is miniscule in
terms of the total New Zealand budget of 72.5 billion, there is an
attachment that you have with that amount in it. The input to our total 20
New Zealand revenue would be, only, 0.33 percent.
Potential jobs insinuated but not named nor quantified are not a
panacea to local economies compared to the widespread destruction,
therefore they are not a reality. There is no definition of that anywhere. 25
The stated royalties and taxes, even if they pan out in an economic
environment of apparent decreasing global prices, will not make any
noticeable difference to us living here in New Zealand.
Missing from the discussion on economics however, is: the impact of 30
this mining on the billion dollar natural capital value of the Chatham
Rise environment; the impact on existing New Zealand industries,
primarily commercial fishing and ocean-based tourism; and the impact
of the pending Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. There were some
questions about that yesterday, I am not sure how familiar, there is a 35
handout if you want to understand what I am referring to in that regard.
What this does, this is pending this new contract, that this does is opens
up the potential for a global corporate, such as a silent US investor,
such as I understand is here in this case, to sue the New Zealand 40
government for loss of value in an investment dispute in a situation
where the EPA or the New Zealand government try to stop this mining,
or impose new conditions that impact company profit. This is very real
and imminent and there are examples currently alive in overseas
environments where this happening. To Germany, and to Canada, and 45
to Brazil, those governments are being sued.
Page 1752
Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 30.10.14
These are serious economic oversights and if included in the economic
modelling it would be abundantly clear that the economic benefit to
New Zealand, in fact, opens up the New Zealand taxpayer to a gaping
vulnerability. This project has the potential to cost us millions. 5
Consideration of conditions. In the reading of documents, especially
latterly the joint witness statements, EPA Staff Reports and DMC
requests for consideration of parameters for mitigating conditions,
around triggers and smart performance measures. It strikes me that all 10
these attempts to define conditions for which adaptive management
may be entertained is nonsense. These attempts are so impractical in
this case.
[10.10 am] 15
It is hard enough attempting to define these parameters for a land based
mine but this one is hundreds of kilometres out to sea. More
importantly, the repeated acknowledgement that there are significant
gaps in baseline data makes this entire discussion flawed. If there are 20
major gaps in the baseline data and a lack of understanding about the
potential effects how are we supposed to measure the impact?
I put it to the Committee for consideration that setting adequate smart
monitoring data is not possible in this circumstance. The scientists 25
don’t have enough information about the communities in the areas
surrounding the mine sites to be able to predict the impact on these
communities, nor the broader ecosystems on the Chatham Rise.
Experts don’t have information on the trace metals and sediments
outside the mining permit area. The ambient oxygen levels in the area 30
are not certain. Nor they know what impact of depositing organic
carbon on the sea floor will be on oxygen availability. And importantly
the addition of nutrients from the organic matter will alter the marine
environment and transfer of energy through the food web with actually
unknown results. 35
The extent of the biodiversity on The Rise is unknown. We don’t know
how many unidentified species there are. We don’t know the trophic
impact on the more poorly known fish and benthic groups. We don’t
know if a key species spawns in or close to the mining area. So 40
impacts on biodiversity and actual impacts on fisheries catch in the
short, medium and longterm cannot be properly predicted nor
monitored.
There is clearly a lack of knowledge regarding how many mammals 45
feed on the Chatham Rise and how frequently, and what the trophic
Page 1753
Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 30.10.14
impact will be on these mammals. There seems to be a lack of expert
agreement regarding the makeup, extent and impact of the sediment
plume. There is a fundamental lack of knowledge regarding what
levels of toxicity are acceptable and what quantities of uranium will
result in the marine and land based food supply, and it can’t be assessed 5
how this will impact on New Zealand’s ability to sustain its industry.
It is not even certain that Boskalis will be doing the mining. It could be
a subcontractor. It’s definitely not known how much pollution will
result from the mining activity cumulative over time. The issues of 10
mining, of missing baseline data are significant for trying to establish
condition triggers and smart data. Without reliable baseline data it does
not make sense to try to articulate consent conditions in many critical
areas.
15
Lessons from Pike River. I understand that several of you sit on
directorships and have probably read and probably are familiar with the
Commissioner’s report from Pike River. You probably as part of the
Institute directors have read that and are familiar with it. I’d like to
refer to it. 20
Pike River mine had serious but unknown and unquantified risks. The
failings in that tragic case have led to a total overhaul of our health and
safety legislation. The health and safety reform bill will become
effective in April 2015 with some important changes in it. Some of the 25
lessons from Pike River and what is emerging in this case need to be
considered here.
The Pike River CEO was focussed on meeting productivity targets and
it’s all over the references in the Royal Commission’s report. There’s a 30
reference here to a matter of direction, quote “the Royal Commission
made particular reference to a culture of production at Pike River
where financial objectives were given pre-eminence over health and
safety considerations”. The analogy here is very clearly that financial –
a culture of productivity and profits and the very real need for CRP to 35
show its shareholders a return on their investment will drive a culture in
CRP and Boskalis operations.
That is akin to a culture of production and money over other issues.
And this profit production focussed and despite an onsite observer who 40
was their safety manager who was onsite at Pike River the
government’s team, that board, did not know that methane levels and
safety systems were in such a high-risk state. They had good quality
safety documentation on paper, Committee. It looked okay.
45
Page 1754
Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 30.10.14
Management allowed operations to continue whilst awaiting
information from technical experts despite the reports that were there
that were highlighting it. After the disaster happened the chairman of
the board was questioned. His defence in short was that he was not
aware of the true risks at the mine ie he didn’t know was his legal 5
defence.
[10.15 am]
The information that was critical that showed those reports from the 10
couple of reports that had been in previous 12 months that information
did not get to that chairman. That analogy here is alive. The result of
this mining disaster in New Zealand is the pending health and safety
law change. No longer will it be acceptable for a person or persons in a
senior oversight role to avoid health and safety accountability simply 15
because they did not know.
The penalties will be severe, up to and including manslaughter charges.
The families of the 29 miners that were lost are adamant that we should
take these lessons into our current business practices. I personally 20
listened to the QC report after that was done. I personally listened to
Bernie Monk plead that we take as a business community the lessons
from those 29 miners lost into our business practices.
Note that this applicant, CRP Boskalis, whoever is accountable here for 25
the environmental note that these applicants assurance of good safety
and environmental processes, I heard them say that in the transcripts.
In particular note the response of Boskalis senior management, Dr
Steenbrink, when questioned during this hearing process on the
company’s recent environmental performance ie failure, “I am not 30
aware of that”. It just struck red flags for me.
If this executive is not aware of the Boskalis environmental failures at
the moment I ask the DMC to consider how well are they placed, that
management team, to provide assurances of environmental safety in a 35
project that has never been conducted at these depths before?
In the CRP case the people who may be held accountable for
monitoring any consent conditions can’t see the operation because it’s
so far out to sea. The levels of uranium and other radio nuclides in the 40
water column are uncertain. The potential for workers, and I’m talking
at sea on the ship and at land – if this comes into LPC this rock and it’s
got some kind of radioactivity potential. What about the workers at our
ports?
45
Page 1755
Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 30.10.14
The potential there for them to be exposed to some radiation is present.
The effects on human health are uncertain. That raises red flags for
me. I’ve managed health and safety across a workforce. I would not
let that happen. This introduces a potentially high risk. I have a
question because I understand from the documents that Maritime 5
New Zealand are taking accountability for the health and safety matters
around this particular project.
And I ask you if Maritime New Zealand are responsible for the health
and safety of the workers both at sea and in the ports how will that 10
work? How will they know? And it’s not – the new legislation the
health and safety reform bill that’s coming clearly redefines workers to
include contractors. So regardless of whether or not those people on
the boat are New Zealand employees or contractors or subcontractors
somebody at the top of that chain with the primary duty of care takes 15
accountability for their health. Who is that person?
Uncertainty. There is so much we don’t know in relation to this marine
environment and the impact of the mining operation proposed. I know
the DMC is well aware of the stated uncertainties including the fact that 20
this type of mining hasn’t been done at these depths before. So in the
interests of time please see the summary of joint witnesses’
uncertainties appendix 1. That was me trying to get my head around
the uncertainties. That is 11 and a half pages of uncertainty.
Summarised in a nice easy to read format for you. 25
What is critical is that the experts agree that there is considerable
uncertainty surrounding the environmental safety of this project,
especially in relation to the benthic ecology, trace metal concentrations
in sediment in the water column, the levels of uranium in the water 30
column and radiological risk, oxygen concentrations, effective noise
and trophic impacts to marine mammals, validity of the settlement
plume model, whether the Chatham petrel will survive, the impact on
commercial fisheries, ecosystem and food source impacts across the
entire Chatham Rise, the unlikely ability of mining and commercial 35
fisheries to coexist, the unworkably of attempts to monitor the damage,
the effects on human health.
[10.20 am]
40
The joint expert statement on trophic dynamics concludes that the
direct and indirect effects of mining on groups through habitat
modification might affect the overall Chatham Rise food web, and
therefore the impact to the entire Chatham Rise productivity is
unknown. These are big problems. 45
Page 1756
Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 30.10.14
The broad range and number of uncertainties in knowledge gaps make
this application effectively a live and irreversible experiment in New
Zealand waters. It will result in a definite but unquantifiable scale of
pollution.
5
As a layperson my common sense conclusions. It does not make sense
to undertake this project. The relatively small economic gain to the
New Zealand economy per year is a drop in the bucket of the national
budget. It is not a silver bullet to our economic challenges. It will not
get New Zealand out of debt. It exposes us to considerable future 10
economic costs. It will put at serious risk a significant chunk of our
most valuable and productive fishing grounds, a critical national food
resource, an existing important economic earner, and our reputation as
a clean provider of food to the world.
15
It puts at risk rare and endemic, and as yet undiscovered unique life
found nowhere else on the planet. It threatens our country’s
biodiversity that we are supposed to be protecting.
It risks the very livelihoods of Chatham Islanders, and ocean-based 20
tourism industries like Kaikoura Whale Watch. It will decimate a
plethora of marine life, just the first victims here.
This application presents an unacceptable risk to the wellbeing of
future generations of New Zealanders. The risk assessment in the EPA 25
staff report, page 119, shows six extreme and 27 uncertain risks, most
of which still to date have not been adequately explained. This makes
the consequences on that analysis catastrophic.
As you know, the management of risk with a risk assessment like this 30
produced if you were running a company, what risk management plan
would you put in place to make sure that these risks were addressed?
Personally I would not press go on that project with that kind of data.
The risks clearly far outweigh the benefits. Common sense dictates 35
that on balance approval of this application would be a mistake.
Accountability and decision making. If the DMC grants this consent,
making the EPA responsible for monitoring the project, the public
don’t get to see how it’s going, so New Zealanders will not know that it 40
is going wrong until it’s much too late. Respectfully, I ask the DMC
who will be held accountable for the impact of this mining mistake in
years to come? Who are we going to take to Court for the loss of the
Chatham Rise fishing grounds?
45
Page 1757
Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 30.10.14
Like Pike River, like Christchurch in the earthquake aftermath, if it
goes wrong the hunt for the person or persons actually accountable will
begin. Will Boskalis senior management or the CRP managing director
be able to be held fully accountable under the law? Is that even
possible? Already Boskalis is ducking that question. 5
In making the decision, it is clear that CRP have failed to provide
adequate baseline information. If it’s too expensive to get this
information then we are not in a position to commence deep sea
mining. Starting and then monitoring the impacts is an extremely 10
flawed methodology, it is an experiment. Boskalis would love that
experiment here because they can sell it worldwide.
The consequences are unknown, it is much too uncertain. I submit that
common sense and on balance expert sense align here to agree, the 15
short term financial gain is not worth the considerable immediate
devastation and the extreme ongoing risk to our environment. The
companies who profit will walk away and we have this trashed marine
environment, is that what we want?
20
[10.25 am]
Whoever is held accountable in the future, today, here in this room, we
are all responsible. What story do you want to tell your grandchildren
about this decision? About why there are dead zones and why there is 25
so much pollution in our ocean, about why we didn’t stop it?
We do have an opportunity to stop it. The DMC has the power to. You,
and only you. A handful of learned citizens charged with an enormous
responsibility to balance the evidence and the good of our future. 30
As an ordinary citizen without any power I urge you, I implore you to
recognise this application for what it is, it’s incomplete, it’s extremely
risky, it’s uncertain, it’s flawed, it’s selfish. It’s not in our nation’s
long-term interests. 35
I have no other motive here other than a heartfelt desire to do the right
thing for my country, for this land and this water that I love, for the
generations of New Zealander’s still to come. Look into the future,
recognise the gravity of this decision. Understand our collective role in 40
the protection of our country, protect our unique asset, our precious
environment that sustains us all. Please do the right thing, decline this
application in full.
Thank you for listening. 45
Page 1758
Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 30.10.14
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Ms Penn, for a very comprehensive,
very clear and very powerfully expressed submission. I don’t have any
particular question myself, Lennie do you?
DR CRAUFORD: I don’t have any questions but I do want to assure you that 5
we will be considering all of the submissions and we will be exercising
our independent minds to this.
MS PENN: Thank you.
10
DR RYDER: I have got one question under your point nine on accountability,
and in your first paragraph, I’m not quite sure I understand the
emphasis I should be taking out of that, but you’ve got there if the
DMC grants this consent, making the EPA responsible for monitoring
the project, the public don’t get to see how it’s going. 15
MS PENN: How it’s going, yes.
DR RYDER: Okay, I’m just wondering if you can elaborate on that?
20
MS PENN: Yes, I struggled really hard – because I understand, coming from
business, accountability really matters and I’ve asked lots of questions
from people “who’s accountable here, where does the buck stop”, and
my understanding, I might be wrong, my understanding that the EPA
would be responsible for monitoring any consent conditions and that 25
once that happens then that data goes offline, so it’s not available on an
EPA website, the public wouldn’t be able to see how many breaches of
conditions, for example, there were with that data. I haven’t even talked
about the behavioural side of the safety stuff that I know about when a
company is driven by a culture of production. Good managers and 30
workers will hide data because of the consequences personally to them,
so this issue of the information getting to where it needs to go, I know
from experience, is a very real one.
So what I mean by that, is that the public will be totally divorced from 35
any knowledge of that, but what worries me more is that the EPA or
whoever is monitoring it, might be divorced from that information.
Does that answer the question?
DR RYDER: The EPA are monitoring it but might be divorced from it, I 40
don’t quite understand what you just said.
MS PENN: What I mean is Pike River teaches us that good managers and
good workers will not report data, so think about this case and what
could happen here, it’s the middle of the night, a bird flies into a 45
greenlight, “right, nobodies watching, toss it over the side”, “oh, that
Page 1759
Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 30.10.14
bump”, if there’s an observer on board, “oh, that was a bump, no, that’s
just the nature of the waves out here, no, don’t worry about it”,
something got killed, got hit, “oh, yes, never mind, we’ll just”, “oh, that
report, nah, that might be a bit damaging, will that affect my job, right,
I’m just going to not report that”. 5
[10.30 am]
It’s a very real possibility, I know it happens because I’ve worked with
men in industry for a lot of years and how they’re driven is in this kind 10
of culture, where profit and finance mean everything, unless you do
something that makes it okay for them to report, then they won’t.
DR RYDER: Okay. I understand what you’re getting at now, thanks.
15
MR HILL: The questions you are raising are questions that we are obviously
raising as well, we may come to different conclusion, we might come
to the same conclusions, but you can certainly be assured, as Nicki said
earlier, that we’re taking these issues seriously.
20
MS PENN: Good, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Johns?
MR JOHNS: Yes, thank you, Chairman. Thank you very much for your 25
presentation.
I am just referring to your appendix 1, the list of expert witness
uncertainties. I don’t suppose this is a – this is not a copy of the recent
expert joint statement? 30
MS PENN: Yes.
MR JOHNS: You haven’t added anything to it?
35
MS PENN: I promise I haven’t doctored it at all.
MR JOHNS: Okay.
MS PENN: What I did was I cut and pasted it to try and get my own head 40
around it, it’s verbatim from the joint witness statements.
MR JOHNS: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for making it digestible to us. Okay, thanks very 45
much, Ms Penn.
Page 1760
Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 30.10.14
MS PENN: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: My understanding, and correct me if I’m wrong, is that we
have one further submitter speeding towards Hamilton at the moment 5
from the Far North. My suggestion is that we take a break for coffee
early in the hope that she might be here by then. So let’s adjourn for
15 minutes and we’ll keep in touch as to how things are going at that
point. Thank you.
10
ADJOURNED [10.32 am]
RESUMED [11.42 am]
CHAIRPERSON: Okay, Ms Rose, I think will have the honour of being our 15
last presenter here, and I now give her the floor.
MS ROSE: Thank you very much, kia ora tatou.
Thanks for the opportunity to speak to my submission opposing the 20
Chatham Rock Phosphate application. Sorry to have kept you waiting
and for any delay or loose ends that you had while you were waiting for
me to arrive.
I am Christine Rose, as you know, I’m a dolphin campaigner for over 25
15 years. I have a BA with first class Honours in political studies and
philosophy and environmental management qualifications. I also have
15 years’ experience in local and regional government. I’ve been a
qualified resource consent commissioner, deputy mayor of Rodney
District Council, deputy chair of the Auckland Regional Council, and I 30
have had 15 years’ experience in resource and coastal management.
I am not a scientist, but I am academically trained. I keep abreast of
science and take a science based approach to marine mammal
conservation. 35
These days one of my roles is as a marine mammal advocate, I run
workshops and forum regarding marine conservation and support
community conservation efforts, write submissions and keep up with
science, including abundance and threats to marine mammals that share 40
our waters.
I also support various online avenues for dissemination of information
relating to marine mammal conservation, including Facebook pages
and websites. As such, I know that there is significant interest and 45
concern about our resident and migratory marine mammals, that’s
Page 1761
Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 30.10.14
reflected in my submission and in general opposition to activities that
may impact upon cetaceans, such as the Chatham Rock Phosphate
application.
My opposition is based on cultural and environmental grounds. 5
Cultural because of the importance of the marine environment and
cetaceans to the public, and environmental on the grounds which I will
move onto now.
Environmental concerns relate to both direct and indirect mining 10
effects. These impacts can be both behavioural and physiological and
direct impacts include noise and shock from seismic testing.
[11.45 am]
15
We know that seismic testing has been implicated in the premature and
painful deaths of cetaceans around the world. Even where seismic
testing doesn’t cause direct mortality, it can lead to reduced individual
and species health, including adverse effects from altered behaviours
affecting not just foraging, but also pod behaviour and cohesion, 20
negative effects on pod communication, reproductive impacts and
changes to spatial distribution and habitat use.
Other impacts can include avoidance of important traditional foraging
areas for whales and dolphins, habitat and prey species displacement, 25
and benthic impacts such as increased turbidity and sediment, both
within the water column and upon sediment settlement.
Concerns also include pollution from disturbance of a seabed during
mineral extraction, which runs the risk of distributing potentially 30
harmful elements such as polonium back into the environment. There is
a significant concern that these effects are multiplicative to an extent
that our whales and dolphins can’t sustain. So the threats are overlaid
and affect the viability of these populations.
35
The proposed observer regime provides no security against threats to
cetaceans. Relying on observers doesn’t provide the certainty required
to avoid or mitigate risks of seismic testing and other mineral activities
on whales and dolphins.
40
Whales and dolphins, especially cryptic species, can spend a significant
part of their time below the surface beyond the gaze of observers. The
ability of observers to spot and respond to marine mammal presence is
limited and no way corresponds with the extent of impacts.
45
Page 1762
Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 30.10.14
Seismic blasts, in particular, travel further than the human eye can see
even in ideal conditions, meaning the tests for risks to marine mammals
based on their perceived presence doesn’t go far enough.
In order to protect resident and migratory whales and dolphins and the 5
habitat they live in, we seek that the application be declined.
Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, you’ve travelled a long way for a 10
very succinct statement, but it is much appreciated, particularly with
your experience of resource management and local government.
MS ROSE: Thank you.
15
CHAIRPERSON: David, do you have questions?
MR HILL: Ms Rose, nice to see you again.
MS ROSE: Nice to see you. 20
MR HILL: The issue of seismic blasts, why are you bringing that to our
attention? What do you see that, in terms of the application, how do
you see seismic blasts being related to that?
25
MS ROSE: In terms of mapping the seafloor, testing geomorphology
densities, so I understand that seismic testing is precursor to many of
these activities, but as such, it is quite significant and the cumulative
effects of seismic testing on top of more active mining processes – I
think it is important that you look at it as a whole picture, and so we 30
probably know a bit more about seismic testing than we do, although
there’s plenty of modelling about sediment and impacts of habitat
displacement and those sort of things, but I think when you’re looking
at an application – because these effects are multiplicative and they
overlay each other, it’s important to look at the whole range of 35
activities that can impact on these little creatures.
MR HILL: So if seismic surveying was required, if it was part of the
requirement, is there anything you can advise us as to sort of – I guess
precursor or precautionary measures to be taken to, if you like, to alert 40
species in the danger zone about that?
MS ROSE: I think looking at the voluntary code of conduct for seismic
testing and reports that have been commissioned, not specifically for
the cetaceans that are in this habitat, but I’m thinking about some work 45
that the University of Auckland did for DOC into the impacts of
Page 1763
Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 30.10.14
seismic testing on Maui dolphins, which are obviously not in this area,
but those impacts are similar across cetacean species and so with the
Maui dolphin case, for example, the research advised that the threats
were significant and untenable, and there have been a lot of questions
raised in the science about the ability of observers, even the best 5
intentioned observers to identify the presence of whales and dolphins
given that they’re a marine dolphin and that we’re mainly looking at
the surface, so that there are clear limits to that, and given – I mean I’ve
spent a lot of my time watching whales and dolphins with considerable
success both here and overseas, and, in fact, you need ideal conditions 10
to see whales and dolphins.
[11.50 am]
And so if, you know, the evidence shows that if you are carrying out 15
seismic testing, you know, relying on observers on top of a boat has
real limits and that gets to the heart of our concerns about those
impacts, that we know seismic impacts go much further than the ability
of the human eye to be able to detect the presence of whales and
dolphins. And even if they don’t see them, it doesn’t mean that they are 20
not there. And given the very low numbers of many of our whales and
dolphins inhabiting, even on a seasonal basis, our marine environment,
those risks are too great to bear.
MR HILL: Okay, thank you. 25
DR CRAUFORD: Did you get an opportunity to look at the evidence from
the experts on this? Because we heard from a large number of experts
on marine mammals, seven of them I think, very eminent people. Did
you get a chance to look at that? 30
MS ROSE: I did, yes.
DR CRAUFORD: And their joint witness statement?
35
MS ROSE: Yes.
DR CRAUFORD: Okay, so are you pretty much in agreement with what they
said?
40
MS ROSE: I noted that there were concerns expressed by some of the
scientists and I have had followup conversations with Dr Liz Slooten,
for example, and I have read, you know, not being a marine mammal
scientist myself but more a political scientist, you know, I have been
able to digest the information and I do keep abreast with it. And so I 45
did read that information and noted that there were some residual
Page 1764
Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 30.10.14
concerns and, while there was some agreement about the minimal risk
of threats from things such as boat strike that there was not consensus
on other elements of the threats to the whales and dolphins in the area.
DR CRAUFORD: But you would agree with them, the biggest issue is 5
potentially noise?
MS ROSE: Yes, and so that is a significant risk and does have impacts on,
again, all those things about habitat, occupation, reproductive success,
foraging, prey species, so I certainly wouldn’t argue with the scientists 10
but I do acknowledge that there isn’t always agreement on the scale of
those effects.
DR CRAUFORD: Okay, thank you very much.
15
MS V VAN DER VOORDEN: I am sorry if I spill my ignorance over but we
are talking about seismic testing and sonar effects but one of the things
I haven’t really understood in the process and I would like to ask the
question of you, is that this machine that is going to blast the seabed to
suck up the nodules is actually going to have the effect of blasting and 20
sending ripple and wave, and have a wave effect on the, you know,
ocean. And so, would you expect that blasting effect to also have a
sonic ripple effect on, you know, you can’t really call it noise, but it has
got a wave effect of a blasting, you know like soldiers in a war get hit
by the blast, so it does have a ripple effect into and through the wave, 25
the water. So my question to you is, in a long way round, would that be
expected to also have effect on the acoustics and receptors of the
marine mammal species? Thank you.
MS ROSE: Thanks for allowing me to answer that question. I think the 30
concern that we have about seismic testing, and this is widespread
across the public community, and it may well be a perception but it is
certainly present in the science as well, that those impacts, so the
seismic testing blast, the physical impact of that but also any sort of
loud marine acoustic pulses or blasts, they certainly have been 35
implicated in cetacean deaths and behavioral impacts elsewhere
overseas.
[11.55 am]
40
So, I think, you know, when I talk about seismic testing, you know, we
have talked about noise, they are a package so a range of activities that
do release significant impulses in the marine environment that do affect
– we know how the cetacean brains operate and orientation based on
pretty sensitive parts of the brain and so those concerns are all wrapped 45
up in a package and implicated, and have been proven to be implicated,
Page 1765
Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 30.10.14
in strandings and random deaths at sea even in New Zealand and
elsewhere. So they are a package of impacts that we’re concerned
about.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thanks. And I’ll just add as a footnote as Nicki 5
suggested, there’s a wealth of information. One thing this application
has done has been to flush out expertise around the world on marine
mammals and the effects of sound particles and noise. Thank you.
Can I just check? There is no other of the possibilities has appeared so 10
– yes, perhaps make this one last question. It’s slightly departing from
the good book.
MR ……….: I respect the fact that there has been a great deal of evidence
provided about noise and its impact on cetaceans. I note that CRP’s 15
chief expert, Dr Ketten, is also an adviser to the US Military and I’m
wondering if that compromises her scientific insights because they’re
not famous for their sensitivity to collateral damage.
CHAIRPERSON: I would take that as a rhetorical question and perhaps we’ll 20
leave it to hang there. Okay so that brings us to the conclusion of the
Hamilton session of the hearing. It’s been both an interesting and a
very useful session for our Committee.
We’ve been reminded of the challenges faced by individuals and by 25
voluntary organisations in participating in this kind of exercise and
we’ll certainly be registering that point back in Wellington.
As I said in my opening statement public participation is a very key
element in environmental decision-making and we want to encourage 30
that. We’ve also listened carefully to the views and the concerns
expressed by submitters here and we’ll stay mindful of them as we
proceed with the rest of our hearing and move into decision-making
mode.
35
On behalf of the Committee I want to express our sincere thanks, first
to our support team both local and imported for keeping things running
so smoothly despite the variabilities and people’s availability and so
on. Second to CRP for coming here, for providing that overview of the
project and for listening with great patience and courtesy as they heard 40
a number of representations, not all of which would have been music to
your ears, but it’s great that you were here for this session. And third
to all of you who have made submissions and representations. It does
take time and it takes effort and I know it’s not easy for you, but
certainly it’s valuable for the Committee and it has added value to the 45
Page 1766
Kingsgate Hotel, Hamilton 30.10.14
information that we’ve been able to get in Wellington from around
New Zealand and also around the world.
So we now have a further week of hearing in Wellington followed by a
session in the Chatham Islands and then a final week and a half in 5
Wellington, and on current scheduling our decision will be issued in or
around the third week of December.
So with a reiteration of our appreciation to all of you I would ask
Lennie Johns to bring the proceedings to a formal close. Lennie. 10
MR JOHNS: We began with a prayer so I guess it’s appropriate to conclude
with a prayer. But I phoned the local kaumatua that were here
yesterday and reminded them that my grandchildren are Ngāti
Mahanga so I’ve got a right to stand up and conclude their prayers for 15
them. So if you’d like to stand please.
Te inoi tātou, let us pray. [Māori Content].
MATTER ADJOURNED AT 12.01 PM UNTIL 20
MONDAY, 3 NOVEMBER 2014
top related