submission form - epa submission form marine consent application application name: chatham rock...

www.epa.govt.nz

SUBMISSION FORM Marine Consent Application

Application Name: Chatham Rock Phosphate Ltd Proposed Mining Operation, Chatham Rise

EPA Reference: EEZ000006

Applicant: Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited

Notification Date: 12 June 2014

Submission Close: 5:00pm (New Zealand Standard Time), Thursday 10 July 2014

For information on the submission process please see

http://www.epa.govt.nz/EEZ/having_your_say/Pages/default.aspx.

This is a submission on the marine consent application lodged by Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited

to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) to mine phosphorite from the Chatham Rise.

Part A This part provides the EPA with data about you as a submitter and will be removed if your

submission is made available on the EPA website. Sections with an asterisk are mandatory.

1. Submitter Details*

PLEASE SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT IN WHICH DETAILS ARE PROVIDED ON SWAKOPMUND MATTERS

IN NAMIBIA WHICH IS SUBMITTING THIS SUBMISSION FORM

Name of organisation

(if relevant):

Title:* Mr Mrs Miss Ms Dr Other: x (Please tick the appropriate title)

Name of submitter:* SWAKOPMUND

MATTERS

(SEE ATTACHED

DOCUMENT FOR

DETAILS ON

SWAKOPMUND

MATTERS – NAMIBIA)

Primary Phone:* 00 264 81 4135789 Work Phone: SAME

Secondary Phone: N/A Fax: N/A

Physical Address: 50 WOKER STREET, SWAKOPMUND, NAMIBIA Postcode: 9000

Postal Address:* P.O. BOX 133, SWAKOPMUND, NAMIBIA Postcode: 9000

Email:* [email protected]

http://www.epa.govt.nz/EEZ/having_your_say/Pages/default.aspx

mailto:[email protected]

waldj

Text Box

110161

2

Marine Consent Application Submission Form – Chatham Rock Phosphate

July 2014

2. Authority to act*

We confirm that we have authority to sign this submission on behalf of the submitter named on

this form.

9 July 2014

Signature Date

3. Alternative contact person details (optional)

If you wish to nominate a person to be your point of contact (e.g. a friend, relative, lawyer, professional advisor or

any other person), please provide their contact details below. This person will receive all correspondence on your

behalf.

Relationship of contact person to submitter: (e.g. legal

counsel) Brother

Name of organisation

(if relevant): N/A

Title: Mr Mrs Miss Ms Dr Other: (Please tick the appropriate

title)

First name of contact

person:

Surname of

contact person:

Primary phone: Work Phone:

Secondary phone: Fax:

Physical Address: Postcode:

Postal Address: Postcode:

Email:

4. Privacy Statement

Your personal information included in this form will be held by the EPA, 215 Lambton Quay,

Wellington. It will be used by the EPA for the administration of the Chatham Rock Phosphate marine

consent application process. You have the right to access and correct personal information held by the

EPA. All information held by the EPA is subject to the Official Information Act 1982.

3


July 2014

A copy of your full submission, including all personal information, will be provided to the EPA, the

applicant, and may also be provided to other parties in the process.

Your name, organisation address for service (if applicable), the information in this form and any

attached information may be published on the EPA website, and made available to the general public

for use in processing and considering the Chatham Rock Phosphate marine consent application.

Note: If the submitter is a company then full business contact details will be made publicly available.

If the submitter is a private individual, full contact details will not be made publicly available.

Where to send your submission

Your submission must be received by the EPA no later than 5.00pm (New Zealand Standard Time)

on Thursday 10 July 2014. You also need to send a copy of your submission to the applicant. A

copy of your submission will automatically be sent to the applicant if you use the online form.

You can send your submission to the EPA either by:

Using the online form available at:

http://www.epa.govt.nz/EEZ/chatham_rock_phosphate/Pages/default.aspx

Email [email protected] (if smaller than 10MB). Please mark in the subject line:

‘Submission: (Your name), Chatham Rock Phosphate’

Post to Chatham Rock Phosphate Ltd, Environmental Protection Authority, Private Bag 63002,

Waterloo Quay, Wellington, 6140.

Deliver in person to Environmental Protection Authority, Level 10, 215 Lambton Quay,

Wellington.

Fax (04) 914 0433 Please mark in the subject line: ‘[Your name], Chatham Rock Phosphate

Submission’

You must also send a copy to Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited at the same time that you send a

submission to the EPA. You can send this by:

Using the online form. If you use the online form the applicant will automatically be sent a copy of

your submission.

Email: [email protected]

Post to: Attention: James Winchester, Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited, C/-Simpson Grierson,

PO Box 2402, Wellington 6140, New Zealand

Deliver in person to: Attention: James Winchester, Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited,

C/- Simpson Grierson, Level 24,195 Lambton Quay,Wellington 6011, New Zealand



www.epa.govt.nz

SUBMISSION FORM Marine Consent Application

Application Details

Application Name: Chatham Rock Phosphate Ltd Proposed Mining Operation, Chatham Rise

Applicant: Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited

NAME of submitter:

SWAKOPMUND MATTERS (NAMIBIA)

Organisation Name (if

submission is on behalf of an

organisation):

SWAKOPMUND MATTERS (NAMIBIA)

Part B This part asks for your position on the marine consent application.

Sections with an asterisk are mandatory.

5. What decision do you want the EPA to make and why?

Please state what decision you would like the EPA to make on the Chatham Rock Phosphate marine consent

application. Also describe why you think that decsion should be made.

You may comment on any aspect of the application and there is no restriction on the length of your submission.

You can make a general submission and/or respond specifically to any part of the application documentation.

If you require more space, please attach additional pages as necessary. Please ensure you include your name

and ‘Chatham Rock Phosphate Ltd’ on each additional document.

Decision*

Grant Grant with

conditions Neutral Decline

TO BE

DECLINED

Specific

reasons

why you

seek the

decision

you have

requested

SWAKOPMUND MATTERS IS OPPOSED to this application by Chatham

Rock Phosphate Ltd (CRP) to mine phosphate nodules from the 10,192

sq. kms of the Chatham Rise on the following grounds as explained in

full detail in the attached document consisting of two sections:

For all the reasons ENUMERATED IN THE ATTACHED

DOCUMENT(Submission by Swakopmund Matters (Namibia) regarding

Chatham Rock Phospahte and its Marine Consent Application

Submission to New Zealand’s EPA – 9 July 2014) , we request that the

EPA decision makers decline this application.

5


July 2014

6. Do you have an existing interest that may be affected by what’s proposed in this application?

Tick as many boxes as appropriate. Further explanation of what an existing interest is can be found on the EPA

website http://www.epa.govt.nz/EEZ/working_eez/Pages/existing_interests.aspx.

Lawfully established existing activity, whether or not authorised by or under any Act or Regulations,

including rights of access, navigation and fishing

Any activity that may be undertaken under the authority of an existing marine consent

Activity permitted by existing resource consent

Settlement of a historical claim under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975

Settlement of a contemporary claim under the Treaty of Waitangi as provided for in an Act, including the

Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992

Protected customary right or customary marine title as recognised under the Marine and Coastal Area

(Takutai Moana ) Act 2011

PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT

What is your

existing interest

and how may it be

affected by this

application?

PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT

Submission by Swakopmund Matters (Namibia) regarding Chatham Rock Phospahte

and its Marine Consent Application Submission to New Zealand’s EPA – 9 July 2014

http://www.epa.govt.nz/EEZ/working_eez/Pages/existing_interests.aspx

6


July 2014

Part C This part provides the EPA with information to assist with administration of the hearing.

Sections with an asterisk are mandatory.

7. Electronic correspondence

Documents will be posted on the EPA website at www.epa.govt.nz.

You will receive emails notifying you of new information available on the website such as evidence, hearing

schedules, committee directions and reports.

The EPA sends correspondence via email and we usually provide links to documents on our website rather than

emailing documents.

If you cannot receive information via email, please indicate below

I cannot receive electronic copies of information and updates.

Please note if you cannot receive information via email you will receive letters notifying you of where

information can be found on the EPA website. However, it may not always be feasible for letters with

updates to be posted to you in a timely manner (for example, the hearing schedule may change daily

during the hearing).

8. Do you wish to speak to your submission at the hearing?

A hearing for the application may be held.As a submitter you may speak about your submission (and present

evidence) at the hearing. Your submission will be read and considered as part of the decision making process,

regardless of whether or not you are heard.

If you want to be heard at the hearing you must state that this is the case by ticking the box below.

If you do not indicate to the EPA that you wish to be heard, you will not receive notices about hearing locations,

starts dates, or schedules and you will not be scheduled to speak at the hearing.

Even if you do state that you wish to be heard, if there is likely to be repetition of issues at the hearing, the EPA

may limit the circumstances in which parties raising similar topics and issues are heard.

Tick as many as apply to you.

I / We do not wish to speak about my / our submission. OR

I / We wish to speak about my / our submission

If others make a similar submission, I / we will consider presenting a joint case with them at

the hearing.

I / We wish to present in Te Reo Māori.

I / We wish to present in NZ Sign Language.

I / We intend to have legal representation

I / we intend to have expert witnesses to support my / our submission.

This is the end of the form.

http://www.epa.govt.nz/

ANNEXURE to theSubmission by Swakopmund Matters (Namibia) regarding Chatham Rock Phospahte and its Marine Consent Application Submission to New Zealand’s EPA – 9 July 2014

1

SECTION A

Swakopmund Matters in Namibia (see footnote 1 below) has a direct interest in this application by CRP

since

Namibia is faced by the same threat to its marine resources,

CRP is also a company registered in Namibia with the purpose of mining phosphate off the coast

of Namibia, and

what is decided in New Zealand will have a material influence and direct consequence on

developments in Namibia on this subject.

Nowhere in the world has a mine phosphate project ever been undertaken. So realising the negatives

associated with this particular marine mining activity must any country accept being made a guinea pig by

opening up its ocean for controversial and problematic projects. After all, each nation must determine what

is in their interest and not to be forced to sacrifice neither their marine life and resources nor their healthy

fishing industry thereby jeopardising the livelihood of thousands being directly and indirectly dependant on

that industry for decades – if not centuries.

A basic fact must be faced. One that the owners of these projects refuse to understand or accept: the ocean

can’t accommodate both a viable fishing industry and a disruptive mining exercise. It is either the one or

the other to thrive – not both. To believe otherwise and use that as a lynchpin argument, illustrates the

shallowness of the case presented to advance the projects on a near could-not-care-less approach. The

inept understanding of the marine environment thus demonstrated claiming that its proponents are

concerned about sound marine environmental management is deeply worrying.

Local and internationally recognised marine biologists are all firmly of the opinion that the environmental

consequences of seabed mining are enormous. This type of mining activity will radically disturb the surface

of the seabed with the result that the supply line in the food chain is permanently destroyed.

It is an established fact that a well-managed fishing industry represents sustainable utilization of a

renewable resource, whereas seabed mining is highly destructive of the entire marine ecosystem. It

represents finite exploitation of a non-renewable resource at the expense of the renewable fishing

resources. To allow any of these projects to proceed is to gamble with a national treasure by placing its

well-being at risk and the future of all the people it employs in jeopardy.

Consequently, the Namibian Cabinet decided on 17 September 2013 to place a 36 month moratorium on

marine phosphate mining in Namibian coastal waters and that environmental clearances can only be

granted after adequate research had been conducted. The Norwegian-based Foundation for Scientific and

Industrial Research (SINTEF) and the Institute of Marine Research (IMR) have been asked to study the

impact of marine phosphate mining on the ocean environment.


2

These projects will have serious implications if they were to be allowed without proper and in depth

research. A wider audience must become aware of these consequences to the already threatened oceans –

its marine life and its fishing industry in particular.

These projects will make a mockery of the UN's slogan of

"the oceans are the very foundations of human life".

On 27 August 2012 an open letter was addressed to the U.N. Secretary-General.( See footnote 2). It was

sent following his launch of the U.N. Oceans Compact at the Law of the Sea commemorative conference in

Yeosu, Republic of Korea, on 12 August 2012.

What the Global Ocean Commission said in its statement on 30 April 2014 must be echoed by all

concerned:

“We are hopeful that under the leadership of the Holy Father, the Church will step up its reflection

and action to contribute to a wiser use of marine resources”.

The Holy Father has inspired more than only his followers when he announced that he had taken his name

after St. Francis of Assisi because the latter "teaches us profound respect for the whole of creation and the

protection of our environment, which all too often, instead of using for the good, we exploit greedily, to

one another's detriment”.

Proponents of these projects expect countries to turn a blind eye to all evidence and testimony so far by

internationally recognised marine biologists amply being quoted and in which they raise red flags about

these projects. These experts are on record for their opposition to marine phosphate mining in all its

aspects because of the inevitable and irreversible consequences of such an industry. They have done so

through scientific research and conclusions. They are backed by substantive arguments, supportive facts

and scientific evidence – not emotional sensationalism. They are all firmly of the opinion that the

environmental consequences of seabed mining are enormous. This type of mining activity will radically

disturb the surface of the seabed with the result that the supply line in the food chain is permanently

destroyed.

It is worth noting the comments by the following marine experts and scientists:

A. Dr. Allan Heydorn (See footnote 3)

His concerns about such marine mining can be summarised as follows:

1. The environmental implications of seabed mining are enormous.


3

2. The likelihood that such mining will be deleterious to the fishing industry, especially for the

important demersal fisheries.

3. The principle of mining of the seabed needs to be subjected to a detailed EIA with proper public

participation. This must include implications to other economically important activities such as

commercial and recreational fishing and the tourist industry.

4. Similarly, infrastructural requirements, such as harbour facilities for offloading large volumes of

messy sediments and road and/or rail services for transport on land, need to be fully disclosed.

5. The establishment of an industrial port has huge implications in terms of its location, technical

feasibility, infrastructural requirements, visual impacts and impacts on other industries and these

need to be spelt out clearly.

Dr. Heydorn's conclusions are equally relevant:

Aspects of mine mining have the potential of negative environmental impacts of such magnitude as to

render the entire initiative unacceptable. This includes the danger of construction beginning and then

being halted due to insurmountable problems, leaving a permanently scarred and damaged environment

in its wake.

The whole issue has such serious implications that it requires intensive attention at both national and

international levels.

B. Prof. Michael Orren (See footnote 4)

He holds the same views and standpoints. As an eminent marine authority he is equally highly qualified to

voice substantive perspectives on this all important matter. He is on record by stating unequivocally:

1. The offshore mining of phosphate-rich sediments poses enormous environmental challenges, with

the release of reduced toxic matter, both gases and toxic soluble matter, like the very dangerous

hydrogen sulphide but also reduced phosphorous compounds like lethal PH3 (phosphine, a killer

gas used in warfare) and other very "nasty" organic (carbon) compounds.

2. The offshore currents off a particular coast may be weak and reversing and dispersion slow so

anything put in the sea tends to stay there. Gypsum does slightly dissolve in seawater but very

slowly and there is a risk of a mound of solidifying gypsum near the end of the outfall. The waste

contains fluoride and other elements.

C. Mrs. Bronwen Currie (See footnote 5)

In a public lecture in Swakopmund, Namibia, in December 2011 she discussed the “consequences of the

proposed coastal industrial development to the marine environment”.


4

“Looking at the marine food chain, especially at the base, it is obvious that any imbalance in

chemical substances can impact the whole ecosystem –initially affecting the growth and

composition of the phytoplankton. Uptake of the wrong ratios of chemical building blocks could not

only pass to the next food level but there could be increases in blooms and toxic species. Even very

slightly contaminated seawater can affect small zooplankton - including larvae (babies) of fish and

other animals such as oysters, to either kill them or result in abnormal or weak development. In the

next link of the food chain where filter-feeding mussels, oysters and sardines directly eat the

phytoplankton, they will concentrate unwanted substances such as heavy metals in their bodies. As

one works up the food chain to larger fish (such as kabeljou) and predators such as hake, to top

predators such as sharks, it is known that “bioaccumulation” of unwanted substances occurs and

this could affect us humans as consumers –we are well aware that food-safety levels are imposed

for human health reasons. Namibia is one of the few countries in the world that does not have its

seafood products rejected on global markets because of pollution contamination”.

She is also on record explaining the HUGE differences in the way a marine living system works as compared

to a land-based system:

1. Liquid water has no boundaries. The ocean is constantly moving liquid, 3-dimensional, and all

connected. It is not at all like a land dam. Water currents are constantly transporting and mixing

water, in different directions at different depths and they change seasonally.

2. Most marine animals live and breed in totally different ways to land animals. Most marine fish

simply release millions of eggs and sperm into the water, the eggs and baby fish are carried around

by the ocean currents; and they feed on tiny plants and animals in the water known as plankton.

Just as grass is the basic food on land, so plankton is the basic food in the sea and found in all

seawater.

3. As they grow bigger many fish eat other fish; for example hake eat a lot of small fish - sardines or

gobies. Therefore it is important that there is a balance in the system so that food is enough.

4. Fish may exist as babies in one area, as juveniles in another area and be found in totally another

area as adults, e.g hake.

5. What happens in one area spreads over vast distances, and in different directions depending on the

currents. Problems in the sea may disperse but they do not disappear and are difficult to impossible

to control or rectify once they have happened.

D. Mr. Jock Currie (See footnote 6)

He made these telling points in his Open Letter to the Namibian Minister of Fisheries and Marine Resources

on 3 October 2011:


5

“I want to focus here only on aspects which I perceive as very real threats to the health and

sustainability of our marine environment and thereby its renewable fisheries and aquaculture

resources:

Dredging the soft-sediments of diatomaceous mud offshore, in order to extract phosphate

deposits, will have severe detrimental impacts on marine life. If this dredging takes place in muds

that are charged with methane and hydrogen sulphide gases, I am convinced that serious impacts

will extend throughout the surrounding water column and could have wide-ranging consequences.

Recent research has shown that extensive areas of the biogenic mud off the coast of Namibia

contain substantial gas 'pockets' of methane and toxic hydrogen sulphide (which are formed by

unique groups of bacteria that decompose the biogenic material). Occasionally the build-up of

gases will erupt from the mud and cause a 'sulphur eruption', which anyone that lives at the coast

will be well-acquainted with, and which causes wide-spread milky-turquoise water that contains

almost no oxygen. As a result, fish and other organisms that are able to escape fast enough will

swim away to distant unaffected waters, while slower moving organisms and those that get

trapped against the shore will usually die or seek oxygen in the breaking waves, as is commonly

witnessed by rock lobster 'walk-outs' and mass mortalities of juvenile fish and other animals. These

multi-day events can be disastrous for the surrounding marine ecosystem. If the foreseen

phosphate mining is allowed to take place in sediments that contain these gases, as looks likely by

comparisons of awarded EPLs and maps of predicted gas-charged sediments in published scientific

surveys, then I have no doubt that such activities will release the trapped gases, driving similar

'sulphur eruption' events around the dredging activities.

I appeal to you to consider these outlined dangers to the marine environment and to represent the

interest of Namibia's marine resources, their conservation and sustainable use for the benefit of

future generations. I feel strongly that potentially sustainable activities, including fisheries,

aquaculture and tourism would be compromised by the threats above, which are in the interest of

unsustainable enrichment of a few wealthy individuals, many of whom are not Namibian citizens”.

In a Report he prepared in August 2012 for WWF South Africa on “Seabed Mining – Overview of potential

impacts” Jock Currie dealt with the lack of “necessary detail to assess the potential extent and severity of

the impacts on the marine ecosystem”.

In addition, he pointed out the following:

1. As bulk mining of the sea floor and large-scale dredging at these substantial depths has not taken

place before, there is an urgent requirement to understand the impacts of such proposed activities

on the surrounding ecosystems, which encompass unique biodiversity and sustain valuable natural

resources.

2. From the scale of the heavy machinery involved, the violence of a mechanical 'cutter' and the depth

of sediment removal (on the order of 0.5 m), it is clear that bulk dredging will result in effective

destruction and removal of the benthic ecosystem from within a mined area.


6

3. … bulk sediment mining of the deep sea floor … will have severe impacts on the benthic habitats

that are dredged. Benthic and demersal organisms in adjacent areas will suffer direct and knock-on

effects, the extent, intensity and duration of which will depend on many factors related to the

mining strategy and site-specific sediment, biogeochemical and ecosystem properties. While

pelagic waters will be affected locally, dilution with downstream waters will likely reduce the direct

ecological impact to a large degree. The most likely identified impacts of foreseen mining methods

in these deep ecosystems are briefly touched on above. Whether there are synergistic effects, what

the cumulative and knock-on effects might be, and the overall implications to biodiversity,

ecosystem functioning and fishery resources, will require far more attention. In-depth and site-

specific studies with detailed input on the mining methods and tools, resource target, local geology,

oceanography, biogeochemistry, ecosystems and life-cycles of fishery resources, will be required to

estimate the ecological and economic impacts from specific mining projects. Certain of these

impacts could be partly mitigated, although the destruction, and in many instances, permanent

alteration of sea floor habitat seems inevitable with dredging of deep sea environments.

4. As the mining can result in a permanently altered community, conservation of unique habitat types

and their assemblage of biodiversity is not compatible with bulk sediment mining of the same area.

Due to extraction of a renewable resource, fisheries are by their nature sustainable if managed

correctly. Mining of valuable minerals or other geological materials is generally not sustainable, as

the formation rate of target minerals (and surrounding disturbed sediments) is far outpaced by the

rate of resource extraction. Namibia is a signatory to the Reykjavik Declaration, prescribing an

Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries management, which requires the holistic approach of maintaining

a healthy ecosystem in support of managing fishery resources sustainably. The damage to benthic

habitats and surrounding ecosystems has the potential to impact on fishery resources, hence the

location of proposed mining activity should be assessed with careful consideration of existing

fishery footprints, as well as habitats or ecosystems that are critical to various life-stages of the

fishery species.

5. If bulk mining of the sea floor is to be considered, the financial gains and job creation for local

communities need to be weighed up against the economic, social and ethical implications of

permanent alteration of mined habitats, loss of biodiversity, and potential ecological knock-on

effects and disturbance to fishery resources. There is growing recognition globally that the loss of

ecosystem services and costs to future resource users need to be taken into consideration, and

compensated by the proponents, prior to development of industries that impact on the 'natural

capital' of biodiversity and ecosystems.

Marine biologists will substantiate the fact which must be clearly understood, namely that proposed seabed

mining and dredging operations will not just impact on individual bottom-living fish species of commercial

value, but upon the entire intricate, interacting marine ecosystem of the oceanic realm concerned. This

ecosystem consists of an infinite spectrum of physical and biological parameters. Damage to individual

components of such an ecosystem inevitably has a cascading effect upon other components which is

eventually destructive of the ecosystem as a whole. It is clear therefore, that any major incursion into one


7

component of the ecosystem – in this case the proposed mining and dredging – will not just affect that part

of the seabed being mined and dredged, but the entire oceanic realm of the area, i.e. the ecological

integrity of both the benthic (seabed) and pelagic (water column) components. In reality the entire benthic

and aquatic ecosystem of the targeted area will be placed at risk.

Destruction of the fishing industry is precisely what it says. Not a little bit here and a little bit there. Do

these companies really know what goes on in the ocean and the interaction between species and their

habitat? Obviously not, that’s why they continue to promote the fallacy that the fishing industry and marine

phosphate mining can co-exist. This view is so misconceived. Fact is that the ocean can’t accommodate

both. The one is viable. The other one is highly disruptive of the whole marine ecosystem.

To believe otherwise and use that as a lynchpin argument, illustrates the shallowness and inept

understanding of the marine environment thus demonstrated by companies claiming that they are

concerned about sound environmental management is deeply worrying. The countries concerned are

perfectly aware of the fact that a well-managed fishing industry represents sustainable utilization of a

renewable resource, whereas seabed mining is highly destructive of the entire marine ecosystem. It

represents finite exploitation of a non-renewable resource at the expense of the renewable fishing

resources which are of cardinal importance to the entire nations’ economies.

Another major concern is of what depth of the seabed will actually be dredging. Is it 3 m, 6 m or even

more? It would prefer that the stakeholders and, especially, decision makers remain in the dark and

assume 0.75 m because it said so at one of its presentation meetings. So many numbers are being thrown

around, which leaves all very concerned. The fact that 6 m is actually disclosed in its report reinforces the

suspicion that the depth will be even deeper and nobody will be able to check.

Dr. Helen Rosenbaum is the campaign coordinator for the Deep Sea Mining campaign for the Australian

based orginisation “Deepsea Mining”.

She authored a significant and well researched report on marine mining in Papua New Guinea’s coastal

waters entitled “Out of our Depth – Mining the Ocean Floor in Papua New Guinea”. (See footnote )

Some of its conclusions are:

1. The mining company cannot be considered to have achieved a social license to operate until the

information gaps on environmental and socio-economic impacts are filled and independently

endorsed mitigation strategies are developed. In addition, due to the lack of good governance and

accountability demonstrated to date, independent monitoring by a team of experts and civil society

representatives should continue throughout the life of the project and any subsequent projects.

2. Due to the high level of uncertainty associated with deep sea mining (DSM), it is not possible to

predict the impacts of any individual DSM project, let alone the cumulative impacts of the many

potential DSM projects.


8

3. It is particularly of concern in national waters where governments do not have

environmental regulatory systems specific to DSM, or the capacity to enforce regulations and

conduct independent monitoring. In international waters, no authority is empowered to ensure the

protection and conservation of the biological resources of the seabed.

On 6 November 2012 a significant Report was released in respect of DSM in PNG. It is entitled “Physical

Oceanographic Assessment of the Nautilus EIS for the Solwara 1 Project” in PNG.

This Report can be accessed on the same website link as in footnote (7).

It is authored by oceanographic expert, Dr. John Luick (8) who has over twenty years of experience in

projects related to ocean monitoring, tidal analysis, and hydrodynamic modelling. He has numerous

publications and technical reports as well as wide experience in teaching, consulting, and shipboard

observations. Most of his work has been in “marginal seas” similar to the Bismarck Sea, as well as in the

deep Pacific Ocean and on the shallower waters of the continental shelf.

The media release when the Report was issued attention draws attention to the fact that

“… much of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is simply too general in nature to determine

impacts, and many of the mitigations proposed rely upon Environmental Management Plans and

procedures that have yet to be developed by Nautilus, and thus the effectiveness of these cannot

be judged at present. It is likely that the project would result in severe, prolonged, and perhaps

region-wide impacts to a globally rare and poorly understood biological community, and it is clear

that the EIS does not adequately assess many of these impacts. Further, the benefits to local

people or the economy of PNG seem disproportionately low compared to the scale and risk of the

project”.

It added this significant declaration about the Report’s conclusions about the EIS:

“It seriously downplays the risks facing local communities and the marine environment. … The

oceanographic aspects of the EIS suffer from a lack of rigour. There are many errors and omissions

in the modelling, presentation and analysis of data”.

The Report reviews the oceanographic elements of the EIS for the project in PNG. Its focus is on currents

and upwelling that may bring pollutants into contact with local populations and marine species. The risk,

with the possibility of upwelling and currents carrying mine-derived metals towards the coastline.

Dr Luick said:

“The physical oceanography and hydrodynamic components of the EIS are second-rate. The

shortcomings in these elements of the Solwara 1 EIS are so basic that I could have written the same

review 27 years ago while still a student. The modeling is completely unacceptable by scientific

standards. The People of PNG deserve better. They should be able to feel confident that the

approvals process is open and based on the best available science.”


9

Dr. Helen Rosenbaum voiced this opinion:

“As such it demands extremely careful attention to scientific detail and transparency in decision

making. This new report indicates that both of these elements have been lacking. Important next

steps are to make available the full data set behind the EIS”.

In the Foreword to the report it is observed that

“The EIS should provide a clear and rigorous assessment of potential hazards and impacts. It should

provide the groundwork for comprehensive risk analysis and the development of mitigation

strategies. Most importantly the EIS should have provided a solid basis for the Government of PNG

to decide whether to approve this project and if so, under what conditions. Tis review

demonstrates that the EIS fails to provide solid ground for informed decision-making”.

In the Overview section of the Report it is stated:

“In summary, there are serious omissions and flaws in information presented in the EIS about

surface currents, the speed and direction of currents at different depths, and about tides. These

deficiencies mean that several important risks to the marine environment and to local communities

cannot be determined. These include the risks of pollution from spills from vessels at the surface,

leakage from the riser or discharge pipes, and of upwelling dispersing metals from the mining

activity or from the discharge water. The implications of these risks – especially for the people of

New Ireland and possibly also East New Britain Province – demands that a thorough and

independently verified analysis of currents be conducted as a basis for a comprehensive risk

assessment”.

The Report concludes:

“The authors of the EIS had access to excellent physical oceanographic data sets and modeling

capacity. The EIS should have presented a clear and comprehensive picture of the physical ocean

environment as a basis for environmental risk assessment and management. It has failed to do so”.

“Seabed Mining: Lessons from the Namibian Experience” by Alex Benkenstein was published by the SAIIA

(South Africa Institute of International Affairs) as a Policy Briefing No 87, April 2014.

In his Executive Summary the author mentions that “this briefing provides some detail on the Namibian

experience, where opposition by environmental groups and the country’s fishing industry has led to a

moratorium on the proposed seabed mining of phosphates”.

His concluding paragraph reads as follows:

Namibia’s experience in responding to proposed seabed mining activities highlights the need for

“… national ocean governance policies, planning frameworks such as marine spatial planning, and

institutional structures that would facilitate the inter-departmental co-operation needed to


10

respond to the divergent and increasingly complex demands placed on the marine environments of

African states. The Namibian experience further illustrates the need for well-governed,

comprehensive and credible EIA processes”.

The full report can be accessed with this link:

http://www.saiia.org.za/policy-briefings/seabed-mining-lessons-from-the-namibian-experience

Of all the threats looming over the planet today, one of the most alarming is the seemingly inexorable

descent of the world’s oceans into ecological perdition as human activities have so altered the basic

chemistry of the seas.

Action is now required to avoid future generations blaming us for our apathy in the face of well-reasoned

warnings about the potential destruction of their heritage.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++:++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

FOOTNOTES

1. INTRODUCING SWAKOPMUND MATTERS

For Swakopmund Matters the environment of the Namibian coastline and its ocean matters

Swakopmund Matters started out towards the end of 2011 because of the concern for the negative

effects a planned Industrial Complex north of Swakopmund would have on the town’s environment

and its inhabitants. Apart from its land-based facilities, this project wants to mine phosphates off

the coast of Namibia. This is in addition to five others separate projects also planning such marine

activities and wanting to establish land based operations to process their phosphate harvest form

the ocean .

Marine and terrestrial activities go hand in hand. Together they form the whole project. They can’t

be separated. They are indivisible. The one depends on the other one – one can’t exist without the

other. One of the two can’t be viewed and assessed on its own - in isolation. Both must be dealt

with at the same time. One environmental clearance certificate must cover both.

They have become the subject of real concern to all those who are anxious about the negative

effects to be brought about by such mining in the marine environment of Namibia and its fishing

industry in particular. But also to residents living in the areas where the land based operations will

take place.

http://www.saiia.org.za/policy-briefings/seabed-mining-lessons-from-the-namibian-experience


11

Consequently, Swakopmund Matters has concerned itself now with these projects because of its

overall commitment to the protection of Namibia’s coastal and marine environment and

disseminating information to a wider audience about what these projects will cause to the

environment in all its many facets.

In doing so it has become a voice informing the concerned public as well as interested and affected

parties to raise awareness of the potential damage these projects to mine phosphates off the coast

of Namibia could cause. Thus highlighting the threat marine phosphate mining holds. And to draw

attention to the concern for all the negative effects these mining operations would have on the

environment - not only the marine ecosystems and their rich fishery resource, but also on land.

These projects will cause as much disaster on land as it is bound to cause to the ocean. The

production, storage and transportation by whatever means - including the impact of proposed

pipelines - on land will have grave consequences

The threat that that type of mining poses is not only a concern for local residents, but for all

Namibians and many international institutions and citizens. Similar mining projects are also

contemplated in Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, Jamaica, South Africa and in the Pacific Ocean.

Swakopmund Matters has over the past three years circulated 36 circular e-mails to each of its

15,450 contacts national and internationally conveying relevant information relating to these

projects, including opinions stated by internationally recognized marine scientist who have had

years of hands on experience and practical knowledge about this subject. These local and

internationally marine biologists and others in their field of expertise are all firmly of the opinion

that the environmental consequences of seabed mining are enormous, particularly in an area

characterised by the powerful Benguela Current System along the Namibia coast. This type of

mining activity will radically disturb the surface of the seabed with the result that the supply line in

the food chain is permanently destroyed.

Internationally renowned authorities are on record voicing their opposition to phosphate mining in

all its aspects. Similarly have international studies and academics drawn attention to the inevitable

and irreversible consequences of such an industry. They have done so with substantive arguments

and supportive facts and scientific evidence.

We are so concerned about harm to be done to Namibia’s marine life and consequently its fishing

industry when such phosphate mining is allowed in Namibia’s coastal waters. We believe that all

dedication to the environment will understand and appreciate our dedication to the marine life of

Namibia and its sustainable utilisation.

2. OPEN LETTER TO THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE UN ON 27 AUGUST 2014

Dear Mr. Secretary-General,

New Threat to Oceans and Marine Life: Marine Phosphate Mining


12

We, as Swakopmund Matters in Namibia, are greatly encouraged by your timeous remarks during

the launch of the U.N. Oceans Compact at the Law of the Sea commemorative conference in Yeosu,

Republic of Korea, on 12 August 2012.

Your remark that “the seas and oceans host some of the most vulnerable and important

ecosystems on Earth” is particularly fitting to the case of Namibia.

Equally true for Namibia is your warning that “the diversity of life they host is under ever-increasing

strain”.

The latest strain which our country’s marine life is facing is the mining of phosphate sediments in its

shelf waters.

We believe that a wider audience should be informed of these projects. It is our view that these

projects will have serious consequences for Namibia’s rich marine ecosystems, their biodiversity

and the fishing industries which they support. The same holds true for other countries where such

projects and other deep sea mining activities are being planned – Papua New Guinea, Solomon

Islands, Jamaica, South Africa and New Zealand.

Renowned local and international marine scientists, who have spent many years studying the

unique Namibian offshore ecosystems, have been raising their voices in concern of the destructive

nature and the long-term or permanent impacts these proposed mining projects could have on sea

floor communities and the surrounding environment. Such unsustainable mining ventures threaten

the health of the marine ecosystems and the productive fisheries that depend on them. These

concerns are based on supportive facts and well-reasoned arguments by the scientists who

understand this system better than anyone else, and not on emotional sensationalism as the

proponents like to claim. The scientists who have studied these ecosystems are warning of

potentially serious consequences that require in-depth study before any mining is allowed to take

place and are rightly calling for the precautionary approach to be followed.

Nowhere in the world have similar marine phosphate projects been undertaken before. These

projects are the antithesis of what you described as the need “to create new momentum for ocean

sustainability”. They will not only halt such momentum, but will promote unsustainable and

damaging industry in our healthy oceans for the sake of quick profits to foreign based companies. If

these projects go ahead, they will make a mockery of the U.N. slogan that “the oceans are the very

foundation of human life”.

Such mining projects are in direct opposition to the fundamental tenets of the Ocean Compact you

described as being there to improve “the health of the oceans” and for “protecting, recovering and


13

sustaining the oceans’ environment and natural resources, and restoring their full food production

and livelihoods services”.

We agree wholeheartedly with your call that the governance of oceans and coastal habitats must

be improved by developing an institutional and legal framework for the protection of ocean

biodiversity.

Furthermore, we welcome your announcement that in order to realise these objectives of the

Oceans Compact an Action Plan will have to be formulated by the Ocean Advisory Group you intend

to establish.

Our sincere request is that you will ensure that this eminent advisory group does place marine

mining – and, in particular, marine phosphate mining - firmly on its agenda. That will ensure that

the consequences can be further explored by internationally recognised and independent marine

scientists. An authoritative stance by this group is imperative and urgent, as there is rapidly growing

interest globally to exploit seabed minerals. We are sincerely hopeful that the efforts of such an

advisory group will provide tangible results towards the responsible management of our oceans.

We thank you for your intervention with this advisory group and for alerting its members to the

necessity of paying due consideration to marine phosphate mining during its deliberation. We hope

that your group will manage to formulate policy guidelines that will help prevent this marine

activity from becoming a scourge to marine life, its unique biodiversity and rich fishery resources.

We need to act now to avoid future generations blaming us for our apathy in the face of well-

reasoned warnings about the potential destruction of their heritage.

With highest esteem,

Swakopmund Matters, Namibia

(For Swakopmund Matters the environment of the Namibian coastline and its ocean matters)

3. Dr. Allan Heydorn was from 1968-1978 Director: Oceanographic Research Institute and South

African Association for Marine Biological Research and Professor at the University of Natal;979 to

1988 Head of the Estuarine and Coastal Research Unit and Director of Marine Sciences at the South

African Council for Scientific and Industrial Research at Stellenbosch. From 1989 to 1991 he was

CEO of WWF-SA. Since 2008 he is a Trustee of WWF-SA.

4. Professor Michael Orren tenured professorial posts at the National University of Ireland, Galway

(Oceanography) and University of Cape Town (Analytical Science), taught at five other international

universities, and researched at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, USA. He was Head of the

Marine Chemistry & Biology Division, National Research Institute for Oceanology, Stellenbosch,


14

South Africa from 1974-1980. While Founder Director of the Board of the Irish National Marine

Institute, he helped for eight years to guide Ireland's Marine R&D and was Irish delegate to 6

International scientific bodies. An EU Programme Assessor for 13 years. A consultant to the World

Bank/Germany/Norway sponsored BENEFIT programme to build oceanographic capacity in Namibia

and Angola. A member of the American Association for Advancement of Science (AAAS) since 1970.

He published 77 scientific papers in the international literature.

5. Mrs. Bronwen Currie is an eminent Namibian marine biologist resident in Swakopmund.

6. Mr. Jock Currie (MSc Zoology) at the University of Cape Town.

7. www.deepseaminingoutofourdepth.org

8. Dr. John Luick, Austides Consulting, has over twenty years of experience in projects related to

ocean monitoring, tidal analysis, and hydrodynamic modelling. He has numerous publications and

technical reports as well as wide experience in teaching, consulting, and shipboard observations.

Most of his work has been in “marginal seas” similar to the Bismarck Sea, as well as in the deep

Pacific Ocean and on the shallower waters of the continental shelf.

SECTION B

Legislation

The CRP application for a marine consent to mine on the Chatham Rise does not satisfy the requirements

of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf Act (EEZ/CS) 2012 as it does not promote the

sustainable management of the natural resources of the exclusive economic zone, because it based on

incomplete scientific research. Additionally, it fails to satisfy the legislative tests set out in Section 10, 11,

12 of that Act.

The application does not meet NZ’s obligations under international law, for example the United Nations

Convention on the law of the Sea 1982 and the Convention on Biological Diversity 1992. it will not enable

NZ to protect and preserve the marine environment, and is not in accordance with NZ’s duty to protect

and preserve the marine environment. A precautionary approach should be taken on this application.

The Chatham Rise

http://www.deepseaminingoutofourdepth.org/


15

The Chatham Rise covers is a rich pristine area of ocean floor to the east of the South Island stretching for

some 1,000 kilometers. It is a highly productive marine environment home to a rich biodiversity of life,

some of which is unique to the area. It is recognised as NZ’s most productive and important fishing

ground, providing 60% of NZ’s fish catch. NIWA acknowledge that there is inadequate knowledge of the

extent of the biodiversity there and recommend additional analysis.

The phoshorite nodules that CRP wants to extract in the mining process provide the hard substrate

habitat that is necessary for this unique life to survive. The result of mining will be large dead zones in

this area of the ocean, and potentially further into our ocean.

Removing the phosphorite nodules will result in significant irreversible negative effects to the entire

marine ecosystem on the Rise. CRP has failed to provide information on the long term impact of this

significant disturbance to the organisms living on the sea floor on the overall health and productivity to

the ecosystem. This lack of information should result in a refusal of consent.

The Mining Operation

The mining equipment is destructive and has never been used by any other mining company in the world.

The seabed will be blasted with high pressure jets of water before being sucked up the vessel where 85%

of the seabed material will be discharged back the seafloor. The sediment will spread for many

kilometres and rise to the surface and the plume will create impacts on zooplankton and other marine

life by reducing light availability.

The Benthic Protected Area (BPA) – Marine Conservation Area

The BPA’s are areas of the ocean established in order to protect the benthic (life on the sea floor)

biodiversity and a conservation area in the sea. More than 80% of the area that CRP wants to mine is in

a marine conservation area. That will destroy some of the rare corals found in this part of the Chatham

Rise which are protected species as per the Wildlife Act. The BPA areas are significant enough to be set

aside for conservation and CRP should not be allowed to mine those areas.

Dredge mining in this area would kill the entire benthic life in the mining area and permanently destroy

some marine communities that are only found in this area. This is an unacceptable impact for NZ’s

marine environment.

Critically, in the extensive area planned to be mined, removal of the phosphorite means that the recovery

of the benthic life in the area will not be possible. So these parts of the ocean may never recover.

Impacts on Marine Life

All life in the ocean is interconnected – so destroying life on the seafloor impacts the entire food chain.

85% of the material extracted by mining will be dumped back into the seafloor, it will be dead material,

biochemically altered, and it will create a damaging sediment plume (tail of fine material) that may float


16

in the ocean and impact much further than the direct mine site. Marine life the way of the sediment

plume will suffocate or starve to death.

This discharged material will likely indirectly kill the marine life in the higher food chain – phytoplankton,

zooplankton, and fish. This destruction will mean less food for the higher marine mammals such as

endangered whales, dolphins, sharks and unique seabirds some of which are only found on the Chatham

Islands. For example the impact on the 119 Orca could be devastating due to their slow growing and late

maturity rates.

The total impact on the collective food web is unknown and high risk and should not be allowed

Threats to Fisheries

There will be a significant detrimental impact on commercial fisheries, threatening one of NZ’s most

important economic inputs, and directly impacting on the Chatham Islanders primary economy.

Impacts on the commercial fishing industry have not been adequately addressed or mitigated; their

existing use rights will be impacted by the large scale open cast strip seabed mining over large areas for

several decades with high probability to sever the bottom of the food chain, creating adverse effects

throughout the food web.

Tangata Whenua

CRP has not properly considered the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, nor sought a peer review of the

application regarding how it is intending to avoid, remedy, or mitigate Maori cultural matters. Thus the

application fails to actively protect Maori interests in the use of their lands and waters.

Economic Concerns

CRP has failed to take into account in their economic argument the costs for environmental damage or

the ecosystem in situ that should be balanced against the mining take. CRP, have listed only the short

term monetary benefits without accurately identifying the adverse costs to the environment.

The largest part of the profits from the mining would go offshore – the short term monetary gain for NZ is

not worth the immediate and long term destruction. The company would make its millions and leave NZ

Chatham Rise with a trashed marine environment.

The negative impact on the Chatham Islands economy is potentially severe – it could destroy their

economy.

There is no insurance in the event of a disaster like an oil spill – so we could end up with another Rena

situation, with inadequate monetary protection should an unplanned event occur in these wild pristine

waters.

Consent Conditions and Monitoring Plan


17

CRP’s approach to consent conditions is inadequate in that they plan to monitor the impacts as they go

and adapt as environmental problems occur rather than plan to avoid, remedy or mitigate before they

start mining.

This is the wrong way round, and is inadequate because the baseline environmental information

provided lacks enough robust scientific information against which to monitor. So this adaptive

management approach will not work.

CRP intends to mine for 35 years. The mitigation planned for is only 5 years and is clearly insufficient.

There is an absence of good baseline data, so monitoring, adapting to and fixing the damage isn’t

practically achievable and CRP has failed to avoid, remedy and mitigate the adverse effects adequately

This project is fundamentally experimental – mining the ocean at these depths is new in the world, so the

impacts are more than uncertain. By CRP’s own admission, this is an ambitious project.

Scientific Uncertainty

Most of the scientific reports were based on, assumptions, flawed methodology and numerical modelling

with minimal site specific data..

The scientific reports provided by CRP highlights uncertainties and most state more modelling and

research for baseline information still needs to be done

There is an acknowledged absence of robust scientific information about the extent of the biodiversity in

the Chatham Rise along with a lack of robust information on the adverse effects from the CRP mining

operation.

Uranium and Other Concerns

The phosphate CRP is planning to extract contains uranium, cadimium, arsenic and heavy metals which

will be released into the marine ecosystem, with detrimental impact.

CRP has applied for the consent to last for 35 years that will impact on future generations.

NZ should be looking at smarter, greener alternatives to phosphate fertiliser for use in our farming

industry – phosphate is not good for the land and waterways.

In keeping with international law and conventions, we are supposed to be protecting our ocean for

present and future generations.

For all the reasons above, I request that the EPA

decision makers decline this application.


18

SWAKOPMUND MATTERS

9 July 2014