CRP
21/11/2014 14:24
GENERAL
REL: 1424 HRS Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited
GENERAL: CRP: Chatham issues 21 November Update
Update
21 November 2014
Hearings finished - hopefully
After 26 days over seven weeks and three locations, the team had a welcome
debrief over a relaxed lunch and a glass of wine.
James Winchester and Hamish Harwood from Simpson Grierson took nearly four
hours to present the compelling arguments of our closing statement on
Wednesday to the Decision-Making Committee with a public gallery of
shareholders, and industry and government participants.
At the end of our submission DMC chair Neil Walter said the committee would
now consider whether it has sufficient information to formally close the
hearing. It then has 20 working days to consider its decision, currently
scheduled to be made around 18 December.
Mr Walter said the committee adjourned rather than closed the hearing so they
could decide if there were any outstanding issues - particularly related to
our updated proposed conditions for consent. He said the committee will
decide on the closing in the next couple of weeks and will then advise the
date of the decision.
(Note these are detailed conditions CRP has drafted, based on feedback from
expert witnesses. If you have noted some late submissions on the EPA website
on the topic, don't read too much in to them - they are simply opinions from
members of the public.)
We, along with other submitters, were also asked to nominate which of four
options the DMC should choose, being three levels of grant or a decline. We
argued there was ample evidence to approve the full consent sought by CRP,
being mining for up to 35 years across the marine consent area.
Asked whether an option to grant consent for the smaller mining permit area
for 15 years was workable, we said it was not our preference (because of
future consenting costs and process - but it would be obviously better than
trial mining or a decline). We noted the option would involve legal and
practical issues such as undertaking monitoring in a wider area, and
providing for mining exclusion zones.
Which means?
We remain hopeful a decision can be delivered before Christmas but indicated
in our submission if the committee needs more time we're ok with that.
We remain very confident we will get a positive decision - the focus seems
very much on how we can get across the line, rather than why we should not.
Time delays add cost though...so you can see where I'm going. The process
has meant CRP commissioning further reports and late witnesses to ensure we
presented the strongest case possible. We think it was money well spent but
it was additional to our budgets.
In addition the EPA's costs are higher than their budgets. We're
scrutinising them line-by-line but it looks like we'll still be in for costs
higher than planned.
So we're still looking for more cash. If you would like to support the cause
further, please talk to me this week as this is a limited opportunity at a
discount to current market.
Closing submission
Our submission focused on the project's merits but also made some
observations about:
- Serious problems relating to the staff reports
- Possible improvements to the Crown's involvement in our hearing process;
its focus was limited to conservation issues rather than considering broader
economic impacts or those related to farming or fishing.
- Submitters either misrepresenting or failing to understand the key issues
and not approaching the hearing in a constructive manner.
Our closing submission said our proposal involves very limited environmental
risks in a small area. Put simply it's a good project worthy of consent, with
economic, strategic and environmental benefits and is an opportunity for New
Zealand that shouldn't be missed.
Even the opposing experts agreed that it will not harm any other industry or
resource user in New Zealand's economy. There are effects on the environment
(primarily benthic habitats and organisms), but not of a scale significant in
the Chatham Rise or EEZ, nor of such significance in terms of the intrinsic
conservation value. The few material risks are all manageable under the
framework of conditions CRP proposes and risks should be the focus of the
DMC's consideration.
Fishing and Existing Interests
The areas mined will be small compared to the marine consent area - just 0.6%
year or 8.6% over 15 years or 20% over 35 years, with proposed mining
exclusion areas covering 19% of the marine consent area, almost equivalent to
the maximum area that could be mined.
That's miniscule on an EEZ-wide scale. In contrast fishing activities cause
significant environmental effects on the Chatham Rise through dragging heavy
trawling equipment over extensive areas, damaging sensitive benthic organisms
(including corals) and generating sediment plumes in areas where commercial
fish species accumulate. The annual average trawl footprint over recent
fishing years on the Chatham Rise has been 17,791 km2.
The effects of fishing activities must be considered when assessing the
nature, scale, and significance of the effects of CRP's proposal. Despite
widespread destruction, damage and removal of fauna such as sponges and
corals, there are no reported significant ecosystem effects from this habitat
loss - fishermen catch their quota from the same places year after year.
Cultural Interests
We also said the EEZ Act does not, except in limited circumstances, provide
for a cultural interest to be an existing interest. The location of the
proposal must also be relevant.
What is the basis for an existing interest from a cultural perspective being
claimed for an area of seabed 450km from the mainland and 250km from the
Chatham Islands? What is the lawfully established existing activity that
takes place there or would otherwise be affected by the proposal if it is not
fishing?
Because social and cultural factors are absent from the EEZ Act definition of
"sustainable management" the focus of the DMC's decision must be on economic
and environmental considerations. This view is supported
By legal advice provided last week by the DMC's own lawyer.
Sufficient Information
The models used in evidence are based on significant data which we've always
accepted would need some final validation. Given the significant input data
there should be no difficulty for the DMC concluding the information provided
met the EEZ Act's definition of best available information.
Regarding Benthic Protection Areas, we said there would be benefits if a more
refined series of protected areas was created. CRP's proposed non-mining
areas and its best endeavours to achieve full legal protection for them could
be an important first step and an initiative that CRP would take great pride
in pioneering. Given the vacuum of national ocean management policy that is
all that can realistically be done at this time.
EPA Staff Reports
We continue to be concerned about the staff reports regarding issues of bias,
fairness, natural justice, lack of expertise, timeliness, relevance, and the
level of assistance they provide to the DMC.
The EPA staff's answers to questions when under cross examination also raised
many concerns including their failures to have read or understood relevant
documents, their ability to assess CRP's effects and issues in context or
even to appropriately interpret the Act and to arrive at a correct legal
view.
They couldn't explain how and why the organisation had made decisions or
reached a view as to how the Act should be applied and had either
misunderstood or were ignorant of the expert evidence presented and which was
not now in dispute.
They did not understand even basic scientific issues and were unwilling to
advise the DMC about possible conditions or how it should approach various
evidential issues. Instead they adopted an unduly negative and conservative
assessment, falling back on "uncertainty" without putting it into any
context.
For all those reasons we don't think the DMC should place weight on any staff
findings and we certainly don't think we should be expected to pay for work
which has added no value to the process and provided no material assistance
to the DMC.
Further, staff reports are not required under the EEZ Act at all and are
merely a practice the EPA staff have
adopted for some reason best known to themselves. However, it's obvious that
staff reports are at best a complication and at worst a hindrance to the
marine consent process.
Project Summary
To sum up, the project offers new environmental benefits for New Zealand's
farming industry, by using a low cadmium, low carbon footprint, low run-off,
potentially organic product. It will create a new industry with strong ties
to agriculture, New Zealand's most important export earner. CRP's product
will enhance security of supply and reduce exposure to politically risky
sources of a critical input to New Zealand's biggest industry.
Last Thought
If you need another reason why this project is important consider the comment
from Rabobank board member Berry Martin to the F20 (the farmers global
meeting held to coincide with the G20 in Australia).
"We need to double world food production by 2050 but with half the resources.
We are already using more than one planet's resources so we need to be more
efficient."
If you want to read the whole submission go to:
http://www.epa.govt.nz/EEZ/chatham_rock_phosphate/hearing/daily_transcripts_p
roceedings/Pages/Hearing-Day-26.aspx
Chris Castle, Managing Director
[email protected] or +64 21 55 81 85
End CA:00257965 For:CRP Type:GENERAL Time:2014-11-21 14:24:18
