by Chantelle van vuuren

There have long been calls rejecting seabed mining in Aotearoa New Zealand, whether it be from iwi such as Ngā Rauru and Ngāti Ruanui or from environmental groups and coastal communities.[1] Such calls relate to concerns about its impact and the extent of environmental harm it could cause, prompting arguments for tighter regulations or outright prohibition.[2] The Green Party has also shown support for prioritising the prosperity of the ocean's ecosystems and habitats over international mining company profitability.[3] The cries to prohibit seabed mining have only grown louder following the International Seabed Authority's decision to open applications for deep-sea mining within the Pacific in July 2022.[4]

 

Recent Developments Concerning Seabed Mining in Aotearoa New Zealand

Current developments in this space can be illustrated by the recent debate around, and subsequent defeat of, a proposed member’s bill that would have banned the practice. The Bill’s author, Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, was prompted to take action after mining company Trans-Tasman Resources Limited made an application to mine the seabed near Patea in the South Taranaki District.[5] The persistent opposition to the application from Ngarewa-Packer and local iwi culminated in the application’s complete rejection by the Supreme Court in 2021.[6] However, the Bill saw defeat at first reading in early May 2023, with opposition from Labour, Act and National.[7] The 13 votes in favour of the Bill were comprised of Te Pāti Māori, the Green Party, and Meka Whaitiri and Elizabeth Kerekere as independent MPs.[8]

Ngarewa-Packer’s Bill served as a proposed prohibition of all seabed mining, which would see the banning of the extraction of minerals and metals from the seabed within New Zealand waters.[9] It would have prevented the authorisation of seabed mining in the country's exclusive economic zone, along with the coastal waters the Resource Management Act governs, by any future government.[10] Additionally, its success would have also enabled the revocation of existing seabed mining consents, stripped the ability to grant further consents, and would have seen the prohibition of exploration rights permitted by the Crown Minerals Act.[11] The passing of the Bill at first reading could have seen further debate at a select committee stage, bringing the significance of protecting the marine environment to the forefront, with the ability for further amendments to occur where required.[12]

Labour’s resistance to the Bill, which would ban seabed mining domestically, stemmed from concerns over its impacts on existing agreements.[13] Minister for the Environment David Parker argued that the Bill's success would see exploration rights and existing consents and permits revoked, harming the country's reputation and jeopardise its energy security; something particularly significant given the country's dependency on gas for its energy infrastructure.[14] Some illustration of National's opposition to the Bill could be seen in comments from Stuart Smith, the Party's spokesman for energy and resources. Smith viewed an outright prohibition to be unproductive due to the country’s dependency on such resources and the ability of other processes to be utilised in light of environmental issues.[15]

Previous Attempts at Addressing Seabed Mining in Aotearoa New Zealand

In late October 2022, the New Zealand Government announced support for a conditional prohibition of deep-sea mining within international waters. This aligned with calls from other nations, particularly from some of the country's Pacific neighbours such as Fiji and Tuvalu.[16] The ceasing of the existing moratorium was contingent on the implementation of stronger environmental regulations supported by scientific developments, with concerns about the impacts of seabed mining on the environment and biodiversity.[17] In this announcement, Minister of Foreign Affairs Nanaia Mahuta argued that to successfully protect both the country's and the international marine environment, there needs to be increased knowledge of the deep seabed and the ramifications of deep-sea mining.[18] Ngarewa-Packer argued that it is hypocritical for the Government to support the prohibition of seabed mining internationally but fail to take action on a domestic scale in light of the defeat of her member’s bill.[19]

 

The Future of Seabed Mining in Aotearoa New Zealand

Shortly before the Bill's defeat, David Parker brought forward suggestions for a select committee inquiry on seabed mining.[20] This would assess the benefits and risks of seabed mining and assist in determining if New Zealand's seabed mining regulations require amending.[21] The proposal of an inquiry into seabed mining aligns with the Government's support for a conditional moratorium on international seabed mining in late 2022.[22] However, this has been criticised as inadequate action taken by the Government from Te Pāti Māori, particularly in light of Labour's refusal to support Ngarewa-Packer's member's bill, with its intention to protect the marine environment now for the enjoyment of future generations.[23]

One vocal critic of the proposed inquiry is the environmental lobby group Kiwis Against Seabed Mining, which perceives the inquiry to be an inefficient use of time. They see it as delaying vital action on seabed mining prohibition through the proposal of an inquiry in light of its international position, having announced support for a conditional moratorium on seabed mining within international waters only several months prior.[24] They believe that there is sufficient public opposition to seabed mining, illustrated by a 36,000-signature petition presented to the Government calling for its prohibition.[25] Additionally, they believe that recent court cases that have opposed seabed mining indicate the need for prohibition to occur immediately.[26] One such case saw the Supreme Court revoke the consents of the Environmental Protection Authority to enable mining in the South Taranaki Bight by Trans-Tasman Resources.[27] In 2021, the Supreme Court ruled against the attempts of Trans-Tasman Resources to mine ironsands in the South Taranaki Bight.[28] Trans-Tasman Resources desired the annual extraction of up to 50 million tonnes of vanadium, iron, and titanium from the seafloor annually.[29]

There were concerns that this mining would have severe repercussions and negatively impact biodiversity and the marine environment not only in Taranaki, the main site of the extraction, but also as far as Wellington, with unwanted sediment discarded in the ocean.[30] Executive chairman Alan Eggers argued that the environmental impacts of the company's extraction were designed to be minimal, with the operation occurring over many years to allow for the restoration of the impacted seabed.[31] For their plans to come to fruition, the company needed marine consents beneath the Exclusive Economic Zone through the Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012.[32] This was granted by the Environmental Protection Agency in 2017, but saw significant and successful opposition from the likes of Greenpeace, Kiwis Against Seabed Mining, Nga Rauru, and Ngāti Ruanui, and ultimately resulted in an unfavourable Supreme Court ruling.[33] The Supreme Court's decision emphasised environmental protection, particularly to the marine environment and biodiversity.[34] Additionally, the Supreme Court's decision upheld earlier rulings from the High Court and Court of Appeal revoking authorisation for seabed mining to be conducted by the company. This ruling holds great significance for the future of seabed mining in Aotearoa New Zealand due to its precedent-setting nature, giving some indication of judicial resistance to the controversial practice, particularly where material environmental damage will no doubt ensue.[35]

Alan Eggers voiced support for the Government's announcement of an inquiry. He claimed that this would enable them to present the perceived advantages of seabed mining as economically sustainable, supporting a shift to a green economy and with minimal environmental impacts.[36] Eggers also believed that the successful application of Trans-Tasman Resources to conduct seabed mining by Patea would establish a lucrative export industry for mineral recovery.[37] However, complaints that the Government is wasting time and delaying real action on preventing the detrimental impacts of seabed mining have continued and been echoed by Ngarewa-Packer. They insist that such an inquiry is unnecessary, with vocal public opposition often emphasising the harm it would cause to our oceans and marine environment.[38]

[1] “Inquiry into seabed mining a ‘government cop-out’” (5 May 2023) RNZ <www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/489322/inquiry-into-seabed-mining-a-government-cop-out>.

[2] Karoline Tuckey “Bid to ban deep sea mining defeated: ‘Our community don’t want it. The public doesn’t want it’” (10 May 2023) RNZ <www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/489658/bid-to-ban-deep-sea-mining-defeated-our-community-don-t-want-it-the-public-doesn-t-want-it.>

[3] RNZ, above n 1.

[4] Tuckey, above n 3.

[5] Tuckey, above n 3.

[6] Debbie Ngarewa-Packer “Anti-seabed mining bill chance to stop destruction before it starts” The New Zealand Herald (online ed, Auckland, 10 May 2023).

[7] Tuckey, above n 3.

[8] Tuckey, above n 3.

[9] Michael Neilson “Māori Party, Greens pressure Labour over seabed mining ban” The New Zealand Herald (online ed, Auckland, 4 August, 2022).

[10] Tuckey, above n 3.

[11] Tuckey, above n 3.

[12] RNZ, above n 1.

[13] RNZ, above n 1.

[14] Tuckey, above n 3.

[15] Tuckey, above n 3.

[16] “New Zealand opposes seabed mining in international waters” (28 October 2022) RNZ <www.rnz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/477510/new-zealand-opposes-seabed-mining-in-international-waters>.

[17] Robin Martin “Miners, environmentalists at odds over government’s seabed inquiry” (6 May 2023) RNZ <https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/489366/miners-environmentalists-at-odds-over-government-s-seabed-inquiry>.

[18] Nanaia Mahuta “NZ backs conditional moratorium on seabed mining in international waters” (press release, 27 October 2022).

[19] Ngarewa-Packer, above n 6.

[20] RNZ, above n 1.

[21] David Parker “Government proposes select committee inquiry into seabed mining” (press release, 5 May 2023).

[22] Mahuta, above n 18.

[23] RNZ, above n 1.

[24] Martin, above n 18.

[25] Ngarewa-Packer, above n 6.

[26] Martin, above n 18.

[27] Trans-Tasman Resources Ltd v Taranaki-Whanganui Conservation Board [2021] NZSC 127.

[28] Robin Martin and Craig Ashworth “Taranaki ironsands mining appeal fails at Supreme Court” (30 September 2021) RNZ < https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/452642/taranaki-ironsands-mining-appeal-fails-at-supreme-court>.

[29] Martin and Ashworth, above n 28.

[30] Tuckey, above n 3.

[31] Alan Eggers “Seabed mining ban could deny unparalleled economic opportunity” The New Zealand Herald (online ed, Auckland, 15 August, 2022).

[32] Martin and Ashworth, above n 28.

[33] Martin and Ashworth, above n 28.

[34] Trans-Tasman Resources Ltd v Taranaki-Whanganui Conservation Board, above n 27.

[35] Martin, above n 18.

[36] Martin, above n 18.

[37] Tuckey, above n 3.

[38] Tuckey, above n 3.

The views expressed in the posts and comments of this blog do not necessarily reflect those of the Equal Justice Project. They should be understood as the personal opinions of the author. No information on this blog will be understood as official. The Equal Justice Project makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link on this site. The Equal Justice Project will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information.

Featured image source: Geograph