Chatham Rock Phosphate spent more than $33 million over seven years developing its proposal to suction dredge phosphate chips from the Chatham Rise seabed, but, subject to appeal, its hopes were dashed yesterday when the EPA rejected its application, largely on environmental effects.
While Chatham Rock considers its options, which could include walking away from the project, Business New Zealand chief executive Phil O'Reilly said the permitting and consent situation was ''absurd''.
''The EPA has, no doubt, carried out its mandate in good faith, but the framework itself is flawed,'' he said in a statement.
As happened with separate seabed applicant Trans-Tasman Resources, and now Chatham Rock, mining permits were issued by
government agency New Zealand Petroleum and Mining, but both projects were refused marine consent by the independent but government-funded EPA.
''One part of government has issued a mining consent, while another part of government has declined access to the resource. The whole issue of permitting and consenting needs reform,'' Mr O'Reilly said in a statement.
However, Labour and the Green Party welcomed the scrutiny directed at Chatham Rock's proposal.
Labour's environment spokeswoman Megan Woods, said the EPA decision was ''the only one possible in the circumstances'', given the unknown effect on the fisheries and an otherwise ''unique marine environment''.
''I think the EPA has got it right saying `the destructive effects of the extractive process could not be mitigated by any set of conditions that could be imposed'.''
Ms Woods said it was ''especially satisfying'' that science and evidence had won out, given the Government had allocated government research and development funds to Chatham Rock last year, which Labour had questioned, given the investment was made before any permit decision.
Green Party energy spokesman Gareth Hughes said the EPA decision was ''fantastic news'' for New Zealand's environment, oceans and fisheries.
''It's fantastic the EPA has made a decision that protects our oceans and listened to the scientifically strong case of the community groups, scientists and fishing industry who came together to oppose this destructive activity,'' he said.
The Chatham Rise was home to deep-sea corals and other unique marine life that sea bed mining would have destroyed, Mr Hughes said.
''The decision should be a wake-up call to the National Government that it should drop its failing and environmentally destructive mining agenda and instead pursue a smart, green economy that benefits all New Zealanders,'' Mr Hughes said.
Mr O'Reilly said the laws governing resource permits and consents offshore and the law governing consents onshore, were standing seriously in the way of economic growth.
''There is a critical need for improvement of these laws governing resource development.''
Forest and Bird's group manager for campaigns and advocacy, Kevin Hackwell, said the EPA was right to take a cautionary approach to Chatham Rock's proposal.
''This [suction dredging at depth] was radical new technology, which had never been tried anywhere else in the world and the risks were too great,'' Mr Hackwell said.
He applauded the EPA's decision ''consistency'', given its rejection of Trans-Tasman's application to mine ironsands off Taranaki's coast last year, similarly ''due to the uncertainties about the environmental impacts''.
