In a landmark ruling for the environment, the New Zealand High Court put the hammer down and nullified the Environmental Protection Authority's permission for seabed mining operations off the Patea coast, experimental or otherwise. This means that Trans-Tasman Resources is not allowed to do any operations of such a nature.
Previously, it was revealed that Trans-Tasman Resources had plans to roll up the ocean floor, dredging 8,000 tons of the seabed every hour for the next 35 years. It would be a disruptive activity, to say the least; blue whales and other marine life are at risk even while the company dredges the ocean floor. Kevin Hague of Forest and Bird revealed this in Maritime Executive's report.
The area, he said, was home to about 34 species of marine life. These include blue whale species endemic to New Zealand, Hector's and Maui dolphin species, as well as humpback whales. It would've been disastrous had the license granted by EPA went through; it was approved that about 50 million tons of material from the South Taranaki Bight seabed would be dug up.
Forest and Bird further revealed that their argument was strengthened by the argument presented by various groups concerned with the environment. Conservation, fishing, and iwi groups had been appealing for the longest time, and their petitions had been heard.
Hague continued that Forest and Bird lobbied against the decision with these various groups. At last, the High Court ruled in favor of the groups, saying that the TTR's plan was indeed harmful. It was more for the management and less about nature; furthermore, the court cited the EEZ Act, which prohibited the harmful way in which TTR wanted to conduct the experiments, as well as the way they intended to observe the animals.
The publication also revealed that the blue whale population of New Zealand was actually put in danger by the activities. Now, they have nothing to fear, so long as the ruling stands. Justice Peter Churchman of the Court said that it would almost be impossible to overturn the decision now since EPA's approval was based on a narrow interpretation of the law.
Trans-Tasman, for their part, said that the impact of the ruling wouldn't be felt in the slightest. They also explained that EPA approved their appeal because the area was small and insignificant, pointing out that the area covered wasn't in any way a crucially-endangered area.
