Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Do you really want to delete this prezi?
Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.
Make your likes visible on Facebook?
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
PNG/NZ Licensing & Participation: a comparative legal analysis
Transcript of PNG/NZ Licensing & Participation: a comparative legal analysis
1. Offshore mining laws in NZ/PNG
- Permitting process
- Participatory mechanisms
2. Potential threats and impacts
- Hypothesis & Research Qs
3. Comparative analysis
NZ: licensing requirements
Proposed seabed mining sites
NZ - South Taranaki Basin, North Island
PNG - Solwara 1 - Bismarck Solomon Sea
Both jurisdictions are at advanced stages of seabed mining development
Potential damage to species/habitats (violation of national/international laws)
PNG Mining Act 1992
PNG Environment Act 2000
NZ - EEZ-CS (Env. Effects) Act 2012
Crown Minerals Act 2013
Resource Management Act 1991
Mining Act 1992
- 2 permits for offshore mining
* Exploration License -2yrs (renewable 2yr terms)
* Special Mining License - 40yrs (renewable 20yr(terms)
* EIA required - Environment Act 2000
Applications lodged with Mining Registrar
MR confers with Warden, sets dates/venues for hearings
MR notifies applicant, Minister, provincial government/s, general public re:
- proposal advertised via media
- placed at ministry HQ for public viewing
- 3 to 4mths process for non-controversial proposals
- 6mths for SML (depends on several factors)
Permitting procedures - PNG
Solwara 1 project
- by invitation only - applicant reps, provincial govts and others the Minister believes will likely be affected. Discussions on key points for negotiation of Mining Development Contract between state and mining company.
- general public - warden must be satisfied that those attending represent the interest of affected community/ies
South Taranaki Basin
Location and special features ...
Mining Permit - CMA 2013 (issued to TTR early May)
Marine Consent - NZ EEZ-CS (Env.Effects) Act 2012
Resource consent -cross-boundary activities - RMA
Impact Statement required
Hearings (for notifiable activities only)
EIA stakeholder consultations
Anyone can make written/oral submission-En/Maori
Potential Threats & Impacts
Participatory mechanisms can significantly improve decision
making if, in soliciting public opinion, there was to be an overarching principle brought to
bear on all participants. This is the principle of
redefined, and given legal form.
1. Perceived distrust in government-industry partnerships as shown in hearing submissions (99% rejected TTR) >24,000 petitioned Nautilus in 2012; new petition to date: 8,000 signatures (ref:ActNow). KASM to date 7,000 signatures...Are these "appropriate levels of public interest" and pass for democratic legitimacy?
3. Seabed mining laws have superceded science; to some extent surpassed social license. "National and int'l policies for conservation have not kept pace with mineral exploration and plans for extraction." (van Dover,C.2011)
Consultation - (debatable) best for public input to permitting procedures. But there are limits in its current application. (ref. previous slides).
* Neglects deep structural factors e.g economic pressures leading to rushed legislation, tokenism in public involvement, compromises
focus on "particular ways of 'talking' about a problem and particular policy responses determine which issues are discussed and which are not." (Bacchi,C.1999).
"there are deficits in how government obtains and uses knowledge and evidence which affects the quality of policy formation." (Gluckman, 2011).
"legislation should give guidance about
to consult in the preparation of an application for consent." (MoE Summary of submissions on EEZ-CS Act, p.27)
are people to talk about issues in a consultative framework? What form, manner, or procedure is conducive to maximising public potential for deliberating and contributing to the consensus of opinion.
1. Do permitting procedures address threats to the seabed - is it adequate?
2. Has public participation so far contributed effectively to meaningful outcomes for safeguarding the seafloor?
3. In the light of a redefined consultation framework - how might its implementation impact on current participatory mechanisms across different jurisdictions? (future work?)
Potential threats to seafloor
- habitat destruction
- species extinction
- other associated effects of sediment
- potential discharge of waste from
Tighten regulations on deep sea mining through (2yr deadline!)
* craft & enforce procedures for
consultation as overarching guiding principle for participatory mechanisms
* increase/strengthen marine
reserves - esp.VMEs (vents)
* adopt EU approach (Habitat
Purpose of consultation:
The object must be to establish the facts and build consensus. Opinions should be given as contributions to the pool of views/ideas to be deliberated upon in a distinctively non-coercive, non-adversarial process.
Prime requisites for participation - purity of motive, frank & honest discussions, spirit of service and detachment.
NZ features: project site -
South Taranaki Basin
Tighten seabed mining regulations -by strengthening participatory mechanisms
- consultation framework procedures (beyond current technical approach to engender attitudinal change).
TANK YU TUMAS!