INDEPENDENT NEWS

More Crafar-like Judgments Expected Unless EEZ Bill Reformed

Published: Mon 20 Feb 2012 12:44 PM
More Crafar-like Judgments Expected Unless EEZ Bill Reformed
20 February 2012
More Crafar-like court judgments can be expected unless legislation to govern use of the ocean is reformed and clarified.
The Bill to regulate activities in New Zealand’s EEZ sets up a decision-making regime that is lopsided and not specific enough.
Unless this draft legislation is reformed, the first major decision the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) makes under its provisions will be taken to court to test what is the proper way to measure economic benefit – just as with last week’s Crafar farms case, and with the same potential for upset.
New Zealand’s EEZ is a public estate. It is rational to permit use of the EEZ for activities such as oil drilling and sand mining only if there is expected to be a gain for New Zealand, overall. If there is not a net gain, New Zealand would be poorer.
Under the Bill, the EPA can apparently approve an activity simply if the gains from “economic development” are greater than “adverse effects on the environment” (s.61(2)). To compare only economic benefits against only environmental costs would bias the assessment process from the start. The Bill needs to be changed so that it compares all relevant costs and benefits.
The appropriate scope of benefits to count is just the first thing that would be tested in court. There is also no specification of the methodology to be used to assess those benefits. In particular, there is nothing to say what the EPA should take as the counterfactual to any proposed activity in order to assess the net gain to New Zealand – precisely the issue the Crafar farms case turned on. That counterfactual should be the best practicable alternative.
Cost/benefit analysis loses its utility the more there is uncertainty over the inputs – and there is a high level of uncertainty with many environmental costs. Minimum environmental standards and clear principles should therefore be used to bound the results from a cost/benefit assessment as this would reduce the risk of getting decisions badly wrong due to bad inputs.
A further important change to the Bill suggested by the Sustainability Council in its submission is removal of the caps on liability and the level of insurance a developer must hold. When liability is capped, it is the taxpayer that picks up the tab. Developers that face the full costs of their activities receive the appropriate financial incentive to protect the environment.
ENDS

Next in New Zealand politics

On The Political Donations Scandals
By: Gordon Campbell
New Zealand: Housing Crisis Requires Bold Human Rights Response, Says UN Expert
By: UN Special Rapporteur
National’s Economic Plan For 2020 And Beyond
By: New Zealand National Party
Abortion Legislation Bill Report Presented To The House
By: Abortion Legislation Committee
Auditor-General's Report Published - Reflecting On Our Work About Water Management
By: Office of the Auditor-General
Statement Of Jami-lee Ross - "Spoke Up Now Set Up"
By: Jami-Lee Ross
Foreign donation loophole still wide open
By: Jami-Lee Ross
Jacinda Ardern Tries To Soothe Virus Rift With China
By: RNZ
Coronavirus: Expert Warns More Flights Could Be Cancelled
By: RNZ
National Party Donations Case: 'I Am Now Being Painted As The Scapegoat' - Jami-Lee Ross
By: RNZ
'We Need To Apply Natural Justice' - PM On NZ First Foundation Investigation
By: RNZ
Not One, But Two $100k Donations To National In Court
By: RNZ
National Donations SFO Charge Details A Surprise - Bridges
By: RNZ
PM Jacinda Ardern Washes Hands Of NZ First Foundation Photos Saga
By: RNZ
Simon Bridges Says NZ First Foundation Investigation Should Be SFO Priority
By: RNZ
View as: DESKTOP | MOBILEWe're in BETA! Send Feedback © Scoop Media