Meridian’s secret Mokihinui report
Minister Steve Chadwick said in response to Metiria’s question in Parliament this afternoon that the Department of Conservation will be making a submission in on Meridian Energy’s proposal to build a hydro dam on the Mokihinui River and it will be advocating for the protection of the river. Metiria then asked her about Meridian’s suppressed report on the hydro dam:
Metiria Turei: Is the Minister concerned that Meridian has suppressed a report that it commissioned from Landcare Research entitled Calculating Biodiversity Offsets for the Mokihinui Hydro Proposal, which basically states that there is no way that Meridian can mitigate the destructive effects of the dam on the river, the biodiversity loss, and the elimination of native species?
Hon STEVE CHADWICK: I am aware of the reports that Meridian commissioned, and that it did commission that research. However, I have not seen that research, so it is inappropriate for me to comment, at this stage…
Metiria Turei: Does the Minister agree that the protected wilderness rivers are not renewable, that species in decline are not recoverable, as her Government continues to destroy their habitat, and that New Zealanders who appreciate the outdoors and our unique native species-
Rt Hon Winston Peters: That’s not right!
Metiria Turei: - even ones like that member - will not accept large hydro dams like that proposed on the MĹ?kihinui River?
Hon STEVE CHADWICK: I agree that the Mokihinui is a river gorge ecosystem of regional and national importance. The department is preparing an assessment of the specific values and the impact of that river.
The report that Metiria uncovered says:
Several major management actions that would be required to offset the residual impacts on biodiversity appear unattainable, reflecting the high biodiversity value of the impacted area, [and] the absence of realistic alternative riverine systems that could be restored to offset the significant residual biodiversity loss.
April 16th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Boy, where to start with this one! Talk about basing everything on a flawed initial premise….
Several major management*
ah, let’s “manage” the environment, just the way we “manage” companies
actions that would be required to offset*
I hate this word. “offset” it is another of those lovely theoretical business/economic weasel words that doesn’t work the instant you try to use it for anything that does not have a monetary value.
the residual impacts on biodiversity*
either there is an impact or not, what on earth is a residual impact?
appear unattainable, reflecting the high biodiversity value*
ah ha, the key to the matter
of the impacted area, [and] the absence of realistic alternative*
this in pretty direct conflict with the previous line…if an area is highly biodiverse, then there will be species that are simply NOT found elesewhere. Even suggesting that one river can be “swapped” for another is utter toss
riverine systems that could be restored*
so messing one system up is okay as long as “fix” another one..never mind that neither should be “broken” in the first place
to offset the significant residual biodiversity loss*
as near as I can tell, this mean there won’t be little bits of any particular species left after the dam, there will simply be none.