Setting things straight on mining plan
A proposed seabed mining operation in the South Taranaki Bight is too big a risk, Cindy Baxter and Jessica Desmond write.
As we await a landmark decision from the Supreme Court on whether a proposed seabed mining operation can proceed in the South Taranaki Bight, it is time to set a few things straight that have been said about this experimental and destructive industry.
A recent article by mining company Trans Tasman Resources (TTR) chief executive Alan Eggers beggars belief in terms of its twisting of the truth: anyone reading his article could well be left thinking that TTR has been victorious in both the High Court and the Court of Appeal (it lost both, appealed both and had to pay costs).
Readers would also be forgiven for thinking that seabed mining was a tried and tested method that is safe for the environment (it is not).
The truth is that despite the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) granting the company consent to mine in 2017, the High Court quashed that consent and the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision.
TTR wants to dig up 50 million tonnes of the seabed a year, every year for 35 years. That does not sound like ‘‘minimal’’ impact to us.
Seabed mining involves dragging huge machines across the seafloor, sucking up sediment on to a ship where large magnets separate out the 10 per cent of minerals, then dumping the remaining 90 per cent back into the ocean.
Some of that sediment goes back to the seafloor, but models show a lot drifts much further, smothering sea life, distant reefs and coral.
This proposed seabed mine would be the first of its kind anywhere in the world.
They simply don’t know the extent of the effect it would have on the ocean, whatever Eggers
may say. But his claim that there was ‘‘no evidence’’ of adverse effects on marine life is just off the wall.
It is patently obvious from the 300-plus page EPA decision that there was a huge amount of evidence of harm and potential harm to marine mammals, the sea floor, seabirds – and indeed reefs.
The research that does exist for the mining area suggests that it is home to incredible and unique wildlife. We know the Bight is home to Ma¯ ui’s dolphins, korora¯ (little penguin) and a diverse range of seabirds.
With our marine life in decline, we should be taking every opportunity to protect the wildlife we have, not allowing them to face further threats from new industries.
Researcher Dr Leigh Torres spent three years in the bight, studying the pygmy blue whales that live there. She has since concluded that Aotearoa has its very own population of these magical creatures, with a distinct genetic difference – perhaps up to 700 of them, and living in the Bight.
Kauma¯ tua from Nga¯ Rauru have described an area of the South Taranaki Bight as being known as ‘‘Mothering Bay’’ due to the number of blue whales and other species calving there.
This traditional knowledge was held long before scientists confirmed the importance of the Bight for marine mammals.
We are in the midst of a biodiversity crisis, a time when our ocean is on the brink, with many species in decline thanks to human activities. Now is the time for caution – especially when concerning a new and untested industry.
The EPA has already refused two seabed mining applications: TTR’s first attempt in 2014 and Chatham Rock Phosphate’s bid to mine phosphate in the deep, coral-rich seabed of the Chatham Rise.
In both cases, lack of scientific certainty played a huge role in them being turned down.
Eggers reasons that our arguments were not based on science, but even the EPA’s consent contained 109 conditions, the vast majority of which were around how to protect the Bight’s vulnerable species from the ravages of seabed mining.
These conditions were all very much based on the scientific evidence presented in court. Wannabe seabed miners are entitled to their own opinion, sure, but not their own facts.
New Zealand has led the world in examining this new industry. Nowhere else have three seabed mining applications been through such rigorous scrutiny.
The opposition to this project has been fierce, involving KASM and Greenpeace, Nga¯ ti Ruanui, Nga¯ Rauru, Forest & Bird, the Taranaki-Whanganui Conservation Board, Talley’s Fisheries, Te Ohu Kaimoana, other fisheries interests and many others.
A huge group of diverse interests all working together to stop this risky industry.
But mining companies are pushing back – hard – and have managed to persuade a number of Pacific Island states that they stand to make millions out of digging up their seabed.
Papua New Guinea has already lost over US$100 million in such a failed venture. Fiji’s prime minister has called for a moratorium on seabed mining on several occasions and has been supported by PNG and Vanuatu.
Across the Pacific there is a growing wave of protest and opposition to seabed mining.
A few of the governments – notably Nauru, Kiribati, Tonga and the Cook Islands – facing an uncertain future from climate change and sea level rise – have been tempted by promises of economic prosperity.
They have sponsored contractors to mine the deep seabed in international waters.
It is becoming an increasingly contentious global issue.
Meanwhile, across the ditch in Australia, after a nine-year debate in the Northern Territory, as to whether it would allow this brand-new industry to mine the seabed in their waters, in February this year the state government finally decided, after twice extending a moratorium, that it was too risky and instituted a permanent ban.
Now is the time for Aotearoa New Zealand to taihoa – wait!
If Jacinda Ardern’s Government wants to be a world leader in ocean protection, then it could take a very simple and clear step, and become the first country in the world to ban seabed mining, protect the ocean and heed the call of thousands of New Zealanders who believe it is not worth the risk.
TTR wants to dig up 50 million tonnes of the seabed a year, every year for 35 years. That does not sound like ‘‘minimal’’ impact to us.