TTR’s analysis of the impact of its proposals on commercial fishing was simplistic and inadequate, Fisheries Inshore New Zealand chief executive Dr Jeremy Helson submitted.
The hearing before the Environmental Protection Authority began in Wellington yesterday to consider a proposal to mine 50 million tonnes of sands each year for up to 35 years from shallow waters 25 kilometers offshore.
About five million tonnes of concentrated iron ore would be separated out, with the remaining 45 million tonnes of dredged sediment returned to the mining site.
The proposal has united environmental groups and fishing interests in opposition.
“Clean water, sustainable harvest, world-leading management, the highest quality seafood and a light environmental foorprint are amongst important factors relied on to gain access into the most discerning seafood markets,” Dr Helson said.
“Large-scale seabed mining is not consistent with these attributes. I am concerned that the potential reputational damage arising from iron sand mining will have collateral negative economic consequences for the seafood industry.”
He was also submitting on behalf of the New Zealand Federation of Commercial Fishermen, Talley’s Group, Southern Inshore Fisheries Management Company and Cloudy Bay Clams.
“The evidence consistently assesses biological impacts,” he said. “While biological impacts are part of any analysis of the effects on fisheries, the analysis fails to appreciate that fisheries are an economic activity that is conducted subject to a complex legal regime.
“Consequently, there is no adequate assessment of the effects of the proposed mining activity on existing commercial fishing interests.
“The uncertainty associated with the density and spatial extent of the sediment plume influences secondary effects such as light penetration and primary production, both of which are in turn uncertain.
“The reductions of these important parameters are reported as averages over the sediment modelling domain, an area of 13,300 square kilometres. There is no analysis of local-scale effects that may have a negative influence on commercial fish species and/or fisheries.”
Dr Helson outlined the importance and extent of the commercial fisheries sector – 1356 quota owners, 1170 registered fishing vessels, 203 licensed fish receivers – and the high regard with which the Quota Management System was held internationally and queried why that good reputation should be put at risk.
“New Zealand trades on its reputation as a clean and unspoilt environment in marketing collateral for both tourism and primary industries. This is evident from major government initiatives such as the New Zealand Story. The applicant’s proposal is directly counter to the New Zealand brand upon which the seafood industry trades.”
Committee chairman Alick Shaw, a former Wellington deputy mayor, Labour Party candidate and Island Bay restaurateur, said the EPA would not be swayed by the volume of submissions, the majority of which are opposed to the project.
It was not a popularity contest and it was the information provided and the applicability of the law that would drive the decision.
TTR’s initial application was rejected by the EPA in 2014 because of concerns about its impact on the marine environment.
TTR legal counsel Mike Holm said the modified proposal “will have some impact on the environment” but the potential effects would be “very small to negligible”.
The Wellington hearings will be followed by a further round in New Plymouth in March, with no date set for a decision.