by Catherine Delahunty
The pulp and paper mills of Kawerau are once again applying for a licence to pollute! After 53 years of maintaining a river in a state of semi blackness and invisible degradation they now want to apply for new consents for thirty five years of business as usual. Business as usual in this community means 150,000 tonnes of polluted mill waste water being pumped into the Tarawera River every day. This has been going on since 1954 and although the effluent is somewhat cleaner and the air discharges less toxic the river is still a drain for up to 5 tonnes of organochlorine chemicals per day. I think it’s time it got cleaned up.
The pulp mills have changed hands a few times but the contamination of the waters, sediments, wild foods, fisheries and ultimately human health remains an issue of deep concern to manawhenua and other local residents.
Up until now the companies have used Section 107(exceptional circumstances) of the RMA to pollute the river. “Exceptional circumstances” usually means something highly unusual and of a temporary nature as opposed to 53 years and then another 35 years. I would like to get Section 107 defined in law as 4 years maximum but given the direction of current Government reforms on the RMA this is not looking hopeful.
Possibly the most disturbing aspect of the new applications from the pulp mills is the statement that the effluent cannot be significantly improved so they want consent for the status quo.
It is said in many rohe “ko au te awa, ko awa ko au”. The manawhenua are the river in terms of whakapapa and identity. This continued abuse of their identity, food sources and rights is a breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The black drain has been a stain on the Bay of Plenty since the 1950s and another 35 years is not acceptable when far cleaner technology exists for pulp and paper production.
Paper can be bleached without the use of chlorine (e.g. enzymes and oxygen) and waste from mills can be re-used. But it costs money to change and corporates need regulation. The river cannot wait forever to regain its well being. See you in court.
Published in Environment & Resource Management by Catherine Delahunty on Thu, April 30th, 2009
Tags: Catherine Delahunty, paper, Pollution, tarawera river, tasman
More posts by Catherine Delahunty | more about Catherine Delahunty
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
I would like to get Section 107 defined in law as 4 years maximum
Member’s bill!
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
It’s frustrating to look at what a decent reivew of the RMA could have achieved…..
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Catherine
just exactly how many people is it you want to put out of work?
Please include the associated jobs (suppliers to the factory, transport drivers, etc.,) in your determination.
Thank you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Strings – Catherine’s point is that the factory could clean up its act and stay open, it if gave a damn and if it didn’t have a stupid loop-hole in the RMA to exploit.
I assume your post means that you would advocate for the complete removal of all enviornmental protections in the name of “preserving jobs” now?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Jarbury
please don’t make an ass out of u and me. What I asked was a real question as there will be economic consequences of spending sufficient capital to make the factory clean up its act. One is that the product becomes unviable and the factory closes, another is that production is significantly reduced and the workforce downsized.
Perhaps a more meaningful suggestion would be to extend the current permit for two years, so that any economic upswing can be identified and any employment downside delayed?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Strings. Nobody is advocating closing the factory down. In fact refitting the factory so that it can run without chlorine and in an open loop system should create employment, and lead to more jobs. Or is your real concern not for the workers but for the reduction in profits the company would make if it was actually required to clean up its own mess.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Who owns the river? The owner should decide. Given the factory has been there a while, ownership in the river should be vested in the adjoining landowners, who can set terms and conditions for discharge (if any).
There may be value in having grandparent rights for the plant given it has been there a while, and any changes in property rights of the river would not be reasonably foreseeable, but that would be transitional (maybe allow
a transition period, and cap what can be charged by property owners to discharge during that time).
Of course it could mean the plant becomes unviable (not worth retrofitting) then the tangata whenua who work there can return to living off the land. However, a transition to property rights on all rivers would mean some serious tradeoffs being made between value of the river to owners and value to those wishing to discharge (or take) to/from it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
CHH’s submission on the proposed NPS for Freshwater Management tends to agree with Catherine’s view and that the current right to pollute is a subsidy and a barrier to competitors entering the market.
The summary on page 6 explains the economic reasons why CHH shouldn’t be given grandfather rights.
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/rma/central/nps/consultation/submissions-freshwater-management/148-carter-holt-harvey-submission.pdf
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
can i reprise my (rejected) suggestion ..made to rod ‘n jeanette..
that they don waders…
..and be photographed/vided..
..standing thigh-deep in ‘the black river’..
(i still think it is an image that would help convey a powerful/urgent imperative..)
of course..the modern/contemporay/relevant variant would be ‘russ’ wadered-up ..
.. in the toxic brew that is the meola creek..
..that just so happens to run through the mt albert electorate..
..over to you..
..’russ’..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
..eh..?
..that runs right through
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kiore
Something along those lines, but not quite.
When the return on capital (ROC) is less than that available from an alternative investment, the money goes to the alternative. In a situation where sunk capital requires further and significant investment to continue to be productive, and that productivity (ROC) is lower than it was before, and less than an alternative, the factory closes. Sadly, that’s the way investment decisions are made, and that is what must be considered when determining the renewal of the resource consent.
The bottom line for the adjudicators must be about the overall value of the consent. If not granting it would take away the livelihood of a significant portion of the community, with the consequence of lowering the size of the community, the amount of common funding (taxes) available for communal facilities and services, and the overall prosperity of the community, does that ‘lost benefit’ outweigh the “reduced cost” of the pollution it avoids?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I don’t see there is actually much connection between the profitability of a company and the number of people it employs. There often seem to be reports of companies making record profits and at the same time shedding lots of workers. Companies are there to make money, for their shareholders, not their staff. Consequently they will employ as few people as possible to achieve this, and pay them as little as they can get away with.
If they are forced to employ more staff, because the government wants them to clean up their own mess, or ensure the safety of their staff, or do something else that most people consider reasonable behaviour once they are out of kindergarten, then they will employ more staff because they have to. Their profits will be less than before the regulations came into effect, but more than zero, which is what they will make if they close down.
That is assuming of course that the regulator has some teeth, and actually enforces the regulations with realistic sanctions. Otherwise, rational behaviour for the companies will be to either ignore the regulations totally, knowing the regulator will do nothing but wring its hands, which is happening with Norske Skog/CHH at Kawerau, or just pay the pathetically small fines, and consider them a business expense.
The Tasman pulp and paper mill also did not come into existence through some idealistic free market capitalistic, fair competition, Ayn Rand science fiction scenario. It survives because of an Enabling Act, essentially Nanny State giving it a license to pollute. Because they are a big company, they can get away with polluting. Joe the painter on the other hand, will be chased up by the local council and fined for tipping paint down a drain.
It seems some people are selective with who they want Nanny State to support. Corporate welfare in the form of enabling acts to do what you like is okay, but only if you are very rich.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Kiore,
And then there is this thing called marginal cost and marginal benefit.
If the price of opperating goes up for a unit then the marginal cost goes up also for that unit. Increasing the marginal cost without increasing the marginal benefit means less profit and it also means that the most profitable point of production, the point where marginal cost and benefit approximate equality, is lowered. This results in less productivity and less workers to create that productivity simply becasue being that productive is no longer profitable.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Perhaps it’s time we took the approach that some European countries take with speeding fines. Make them a percentage of the offender’s taxable income.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient
So if they really are so incompetent they cannot profitably produce paper in a way that does not produce dioxin, something that Scandinavian paper companies have no problem doing, then they should go out of business. It is not the function of government to prop up inefficient businesses that cannot or will not comply with the standards the public finds acceptable. But I actually don’t believe they will need to close down. they will just need to get used to making less money at the expense of the environment.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Kiore,
Not what I said.
The point is that the margnal cost will increase relative to the marginal profit which means that the point at which the marginal profit is largist comparitive to the marginal cost (the point of highest profitability) will decrease which means that it is no longer maximally profitable to employ the same number of workers. The factory would still function and would probally still be compeditive but the point is that workers will loose jobs.
You know how little empathy i show; i dont care if the workers loose their jobs, infact i think the mill should have to account for those externalities, i am mearly confirming what strings said: internalisation of costs will result in unemployment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If they are less competitive because the regulations are tightened, resulting in a fall in production, then the demand will be met elsewhere. This may mean another New Zealand company can meet that demand resulting in a shift of employment rather than a reduction. Hopefully the second company is less polluting, rather than being better at bending the regulations!
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)