Conservationists win mining appeal

Press, 21 April 1984, Page 8

Conservationists win mining appeal

PA' Nelson Conservationists have won another appeal against a prospecting application by the 1 ' multinational mining company, Conzinc Riotinto. The Planning Tribunal on Thursday recommended that the company’s application to prospect in more than r 9575 hectares of forest near; Reefton should not be granted. The tribunal had earlier recommended that the Minister of Energy, Mr Birch, not grant Conzinc Riotinto prospecting rights over an area in Golden Bay. Both cases come after appeals by the Native Forests Action Council. The Reefton application covered mountainous country in the southern part of the Victoria Range between the Inangahua and Grey rivers which is part of the Victoria State Forest Park. Conzinc’s interest centred on the former Alexander River mine and would have involved blasting, earthmoving, drilling, and the felling of up to 8000 substantial trees in cleared lines. But its proposals — and environmental assessment — were strongly criticised by the tribunal According to the tribunal, the company showed “little

concern for the environmental effects of the proposed prospecting.” It described Conzinc’s environmental assessment as “inadequate” and said that the company showed “no willingness to minimise the environmental impact in any of the various ways adopted by them for prospecting licences in similar areas of land elsewhere in the country.” . The president of the Forests Action Council, Miss Gwenny Davis, said that the tribunal’s > recommendations set new standards for the protection of the environment and the control and supervision of mineral prospecting. “These decisions will give the public some confidence that the Government’s new mining legislation is starting to bite,” Miss Davis said. But she also expressed concern at the expense facing objectors who appeal against applications by the bigger mining companies. Fees and expenses for lawyers, scientists, and other professionals ran into thousands of dollars. "It worries me that the public interest is not being safeguarded by Government departments. There is no significant funding source for groups like ours to enable us to put our work on

to a stable and continuing basis,” she said. The tribunal said that Conzinc had shown no concern about the damage to the physical environment and ecology in the area. “The general character of many of the proposed conditions gives us no confidence that the prospecting can be so controlled to avoid any significant damage. The scope of the responsibilities of the Inspector of Mines and the extent of his district leaves us with no assurance that he would be able to make frequent rigorous inspections,” it said. “We have no basis for reaching a feeling of confidence that Forest Service officers and the Catchment Board would be able to exercise detailed control over the prospecting activities.” The tribunal did not reject all prospecting from the application area. “We contemplate that it may be possible to conduct prospecting in such a carefully limited and controlled way that little environmental damage is done,” it said. “The present applicant does not propose that. It is our judgment that the proposed activities involve such damage to the water, soil, scenic, and ecological values of the area that it ought not to be granted.”