RMA reform targets coal mines on protected land

Cutting back a “tangle of red and green tape” will “get value back into farmers’ back pockets”, according to the ministers behind Resource Management Act reforms. But it’s coal mine operators that may stand to make the biggest buck.

The Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Bill is the first of two amendment packages to be released this year. The first document, released May 23, has a major focus on freshwater management policies and Significant Natural Areas (SNAs). In particular, it puts a three-year pause on declaring new SNAs and removes restrictions on intensive winter grazing and low-slope stocking protocols, easing the regulatory burden on farmers. 

But behind the broad changes to how farmers interact with fresh water, other revisions targeted a very niche group: coal mines on protected land. The amendments would enable consenting of coal mines that would impact an SNA or a wetland, a type of mine that was specifically prohibited under past legislation. This would enable the Te Kuha coal project to go ahead, the plan at the heart of Newsroom’s coverage of Shane Jones’ undeclared dinner.

The Te Kuha coal project looks to establish a new coal mine north of Westport, an endeavour it promises will bring dozens of jobs to the area and line local pockets with millions of dollars annually. The plan, applied for by Stevenson Holdings Ltd., was nearly granted consents before being delayed in 2018 following an appeal by Forest & Bird. The previous government then implemented the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management 2020, which prevented mines like Te Kuha from getting consents.

This is one piece of legislation that the amendment bill declaws, the other being the National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity 2023 (NPSIB), which controls SNAs. With this amendment, all established SNAs will remain, but obligations to declare new SNAs will cease for a three-year period while the Government figures out what to do with the rest of the legislation. 

Currently, new coal mines are unable to lodge consent applications if they would impact an SNA or wetland. Existing coal mines can apply for an extension of their consent, but for thermal coal (used for heat) this extension scheme will wrap up at the end of 2030. For coking coal, the high-grade, cleaner-burning coal used in steel manufacturing, there is no sunset clause. These mines can extend indefinitely. 

The amendment bill does away with most of these restrictions. In its supplementary analysis report, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) said there were currently “gateway tests” to the consent pathways for a potential mine in one of these areas – unless it’s a coal mine. If it’s a coal mine, it doesn’t matter if the gateway tests are met; there is simply a prohibition on coal mines that could impact SNAs or wetlands. Josie Vidal, chief executive officer of minerals interest group Straterra, said her groups found this to be “inappropriate use of biodiversity and freshwater policy and fundamentally poor policy”. 

For other mines near either wetlands or SNAs, these gateway tests include “significant national or regional benefits”, a “functional need” for the mine and a dedication to follow the effects management hierarchy listed in the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management. This hierarchy – Te Mana o te Wai – is the essence of the policy. It means that for any activity, the considerations are to be given first to how this would impact the freshwater system, second to how it would impact the health needs of people, and third how it would impact the ability of people to provide for their current and future wellbeing. This hierarchy is circumnavigated by the amendment bill. 

But these doors were potentially already being opened by the Fast-Track Approvals Bill. In February, Billy Bragg, the deputy chairman of Stevenson Holdings, wrote a letter to Minister for RMA Reform Chris Bishop, asking that the Te Kuha project be listed in the fast-track legislation. In its current state, the Bill would override the RMA and associated legislation, giving Te Kuha another chance to start digging. 

The letter followed an undeclared dinner with Resources Minister Shane Jones, who recommended Bragg write the letter.

In it, Bragg detailed how the project would benefit the Buller District: by creating 58 full-time jobs and an injection of $13 million in yearly direct total expenditure, plus $5.8 million in yearly wages, all to be paid out over the mine’s 16-year lifespan. Because of the extensive planning process so far, Te Kuha is a ‘ready to go’ mine, one that Bragg estimated could be operational by 2025. 

Coal mining has a storied history on the West Coast, and is still a defining part of local identity. Vidal said when she visited the Coast for Jones’ announcement of the draft minerals strategy, the crowd rose to their feet to clap and cheer. It had been “a while” since Vidal had “seen a politician get a welcome like that”. These people “see the jobs created and the wealth that comes into the community”.

Bragg noted New Zealand’s coking coal was in high demand, as smelters needed less of it to produce the same amount of steel, and our good reputation for environmental and health and safety standards was attractive to buyers.

This was echoed by MBIE’s report, which said “if not mined domestically, additional coal and steel would need to be imported”, and “imported coal is currently largely sourced from Indonesia, where there are additional costs and emissions associated with transporting it to New Zealand. There is a risk that imported coal will not be subject to the same levels of environmental controls.”

Additionally, the ministry said coking coal was “a significant component of our exports and provides high-paying jobs in areas where there are currently few alternatives”.

Bragg put the dollar value of the high-grade coking coal at $1 billion, and while that billion would be earned by the New Zealand-owned resource company, the coal itself would be “exported to international steelmakers” – firing smelters in Japan, India, China, South Korea and Australia. If the goals in Jones’ draft minerals strategy are achieved, the New Zealand mineral export market could double to $2 billion over the next 10 years.

The Te Kuha project is not the only coal mine these changes could enable. MBIE tried to figure out how many, exactly, this would involve, but found “it is not possible to quantify how many new coal mines or extensions for existing coal mines would be affected by the proposed changes”. 

But for any of these mines, the ministry warned “the extraction of minerals and ancillary activities can cause significant destruction to the sites in which they occur. There is therefore a risk of irreparable damage to, and loss of, natural wetland areas if a consent pathway is to be provided.” Although, it noted these risks could be mitigated by ensuring the gateway tests were preserved. 

Bragg was not concerned about the irreparable damage to, or loss of, natural wetland areas. As he put it in his letter to Bishop, the project would come with “no negative impacts to the environment, in fact, with some benefits”. Proper environmental management would ensure that the local economy could benefit from the extraction of high-grade coal, while remediation work would restore the site as best as possible, while offsetting schemes like a mine-funded predator control initiative could actually raise the net footprint of the mine to a positive.

Forest & Bird, a longtime opponant of the Te Kuha project, did not agree. Peter Anderson, general counsel for organisation, said the amendment represented a “step backwards”. More coal mining meant more greenhouse gas emissions, and the destruction of wetlands in particular was not easily remediated. Vidal said Straterra was “not in the business of mining and walking away”, but Anderson said that while there were “some places where you can [remediate]”, wetlands are a particularly difficult one to get right. You can’t drain one wetland and offset the damage by flooding another, because swamps “aren’t all the same, funnily enough”.