-
1 | P a g e
REFLECTIONS: STATOIL WORKSHOP, 16-17 FEBRUARY 2015
Toka Tumoana, Kaitaia Date: 25 February 2015 To: Roma marae
komiti, Ahipara Komiti Takutaimoana and Ahipara hau
kainga From: Catherine Murupaenga-Ikenn (Roma marae Delegate to
Te Rnanga o
Te Rarawa; Ahipara Komiti Takutaimoana Member)
Kua takoto te manuka (The leaves of the manuka tree have been
laid down
i)
PURPOSE
1. This reports back to affected hau kainga of Ahipara on my
observations of the Statoil Workshop held 16 and 17 February 2015
at Toka Tumoana, Kaitaia (the Workshop).
1.1. This report recommends that the Ahipara Komiti Takutaimoana
(AKT) host a report-back hui, at our earliest opportunity, at one
of our local marae to complement this written report and to seek
further direction from our affected whnau, hap, iwi and marae about
next steps.
1.2. This report is not definitive, and I encourage whnau, hap,
iwi, marae to source other perspectives to obtain a full picture. I
am happy to receive questions from the hau kainga, and will do my
best to answer them. Please keep in mind, however, my mahi
connected with this Statoil Workshop and associated Stop Statoil
campaign is voluntary. I.e., I have to fit it around all my other
whnau, marae, komiti, iwi and other priorities and commitments.
Thank you for your understanding in advance if it takes me a bit of
time to respond.
BACKGROUND
2. In late 2013, the New Zealand Government granted Norwegian
international energy company Statoil a 15-year petroleum
exploration permit over the Reinga Basin (in the deep ocean off
Northlands West Coast). The permit covers approximately 10,000 km2
and allows Statoil to explore the area for oil drilling potential.
Statoil has been collecting seismic data and undertaking sea floor
surveys. It expects that this process will take three years.
Following analysis and interpretation of the data, Statoil will
then decide on next steps (i.e. whether to drill, or not).
-
2 | P a g e
2.1. Past attempts to meet in Te Hiku and gain information from
Statoil had been disrupted by affected tangata whenua who felt
negatively about the situation. The Te Hiku Iwi Development Trust
therefore agreed to hold a Workshop in Kaitaia and ensure a safe
and effective environment for dialogue by making the meeting invite
only to iwi and local government representatives who the Trust felt
would respect a civil standard of behaviour.
WORKSHOP OVERVIEW
Logistics
3. The Workshop Agenda is attached as Appendix One,ii and
facilitated (very ably, I might add) by Rnanga Trustee, Abe Witana.
Aside from Statoil officials, participants included AKT
Chairperson, Patau Tepania, and I for our Ahipara Komiti
Takutaimoana; representatives from Te Rnanga o Te Rarawa (the
Rnanga), Te Aupuri, NgiTakoto, Ngti Kuri; Northland Regional
Council (including Northland Inc) and Far North District Council.
There were a number of individuals who were also present from time
to time, but it was unclear who they were representing.
3.1. I have attached copies of Workshop materials and/or advised
where materials may be accessed where I have that information. This
is so whnau have a better context for my reflections.
Unfortunately, most of the presentation material was unavailable at
the time of drafting this report for me to include it here.
3.2. The Rnanga recorded the entire two days of the Workshop on
video. It will take some time for the video to be edited (e.g.
mixed and matched with screen shots and such from the power point
presentations) to produce a comprehensive educative resource. I
understand that the video production will be completed in sections
which will then be made available to the Te Hiku iwi (rather than
waiting for completion of the whole two days worth, which will just
delay the release of information).
3.3. Statoil confirmed all their presentation material is free
for public release. I confirmed with Rnanga staff that there will
be a data base established within the Rnanga office to hold all
these materials (whether hard copy, or electronic).
General Impressions
3.4. Overall, I found the Workshop useful, if not hard going!
Useful, because deep sea oil drilling is highly controversial and
sensitive; theres a lot of
-
3 | P a g e
information (and often contrary or confusing information); and
all iwi wanted was a chance (uninterrupted!) to eyeball Statoil
representatives for ourselves, kanohi-ki-te-kanohi, ask them our
questions and hear their replies directly (rather than through a
moderator or gate-keeper, which is what it has felt like for a lot
of us so far if we got any answers at all!).
3.5. I found the Workshop hard going, for three reasons. First,
because my personal belief - and that also of our AKT and Roma
marae - is we must protect what we value (thats the whakapono part
of Poroas Ohaki!). Protecting what we value, in our view, by
necessity requires us in essence to oppose deep sea oil
drilling.iii So while I held as much of an open mind as possible
and was respectful to all participants (including Statoils
officials - thats the aroha part of Poroas Ohaki!), I was tough on
the issues and my line of questioning (and, as youll read below,
others were asking some very good and insightful questions also). I
was there to upload as much mramatanga as I could, to get to the
truth (insofar as that is possible) so I could draw my own informed
conclusions, and convey my thoughts to my whnau, marae and AKT.
3.6. Second, it was hard because the dialogue over the two days
unpacked (or at least touched on) some very high-level and/or
systemic issues; a cobweb of legislative, policy, scientific,
social, economic and other considerations that from a superficial
standpoint easily left one feeling overwhelmed and stuck much like
a fly caught in that sticky trap. The challenge was squarely laid
down to us all about how we could overcome these elephants in the
room. Many of these conversations we acknowledged were not for
Statoil at all, but for us to have internally as iwi, and with the
Crown.
3.7. Third, I had many questions, and I wanted to ask them and
have Statoil answer them publicly for the record. These included
the questions I prepared and brought with me (see Appendix Two).
However, there just wasnt sufficient time for that to happen. We
certainly couldve done with more question and answer time.
Outcomes
3.8. The Workshop gave hope in terms of establishing a more
transparent, inclusive pathway forward whereby affected tangata
whenua would have more opportunities to influence decision-making
to do with Statoil and other oil exploration permit holders
activities. In particular, at the end of the Workshop, the iwi
representatives emphasised that they needed to
-
4 | P a g e
go back to their respective constituencies, share all the
information, and get further instructions on how to proceed from
here.
DAY ONE
Session One - Te Ao Mori
4. After round table introductions and opening remarks, Rnanga
Chair, Haami Piripi, presented on Te Ao Mori: Our cultural history
& relationship with our environment. Naturally, I (and Im sure
many others in the room) appreciated the depth and beauty of the
information in this presentation. However, I became disturbed (and
somewhat saddened) at the irony that such hohonu mtauranga was
being shared with these strangers from the other side of the world,
while many of our own people had not even had the privilege (or was
it common courtesy?) of hearing it first for themselves.
4.1. Moreover, I remembered that as WAI 262 Flora and Fauna
claimants, Te Rarawa needed to be more careful about who we shared
our traditional knowledge with (especially when it came to
companies that might seek to exploit it!).iv And I was unsure
whether protocols for protecting this information were in place.
Prophetically, my concerns would be reinforced on Day Two, with
Statoils presentation on its Traditional Knowledge Proposal (see
para 16 below).
Session Two - Statoil Profile
5. Next, Pl Haremo, Statoils Vice President - Exploration, gave
an introductory presentation about who they were. Highlights from
that discussion are as follows (please note:
a. I only identify my questions for accountability purposes. I
have maintained the anonymity of others who asked questions
(although, youll be able to see who they were later from the video
when its released);
b. Where follow up questions/ comments relate to earlier ones, I
have done my best to cluster them together. This is because the
dialogue often jumped around on different subjects, making it
sometimes difficult to track a complete line of discussion on a
particular topic. So when the video comes out, you will notice that
the order of krero is different. None the less, its all in there;
and
c. This is not a verbatim record or transcript, but I did my
best to track the conversation (especially my own questions, as its
quite a
-
5 | P a g e
challenge to engage and record the engagement simultaneously)
for the full record, youll have to wait for the video release!:
Q: Is there scientific evidence that opposes what Statoil
intends to do?
5.2. Statoil: There is, but the evidence was both for and
against. In other words, the science is more grey than black and
white. Statoils aim in that environment is to analyse and mitigate
risk.
5.3. Catherine: I can give you the links to all the United
Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes (UN IPCC) data
and reports, and other useful information which I have collected
over the years.v
Q: Why is Statoil looking outside of Norway for other peoples
oil?
5.4. Statoil: If our company is to grow, then we must
expand.
5.5. Catherine: You cant grow ad infinitum on a Planet of finite
natural resources. That is unsustainable. Thats insane, actually
(because it goes against the laws or Physics!).
Q: So this expansion will benefit Statoil, but what about the
planet?
5.6. Statoil: Consider the other scenario if we stopped oil
production thered be unemployment, economic shut down, catastrophe.
Producing oil is the only way we can get through this.
Q: The environment is our biggest concern our ocean provides for
us. Most of us dont want you here, but if theres to be an oil
company here, we want the best one. How do we get the Scientific
Data? How do you expect us to convince our people?
5.7. Statoil: Were not here to destroy your life. We get that
Statoil has to earn your trust. We can show 40 years of activity
without destroying the environment. In some countries, we dont do
seismic surveying because the Government doesnt allow it.
Q: So you wouldnt do seismic surveying here if iwi said no?
5.8. Statoil: Wed listen to your concerns, but couldnt promise
anything.
Catherine: But Statoil could voluntarily NOT use seismic
surveying if they decide not to, right?
5.9. Statoil: Yes. We could.
-
6 | P a g e
Q: Does Statoil do fracking?
5.10. Statoil: Yes. In the USA.
Q: Does fracking fluid get out?
5.11. Statoil: Yes. But we can monitor things by capturing the
recycled water and calculating how much fluid is lost.
Q: What about the BP Horizon oil spill disaster? Isnt Te Reinga
basin deeper even than the Gulf of Mexico?
5.12. Statoil: Actually, Te Reinga (3km deep) is shallower than
the Gulf of Mexico. Statoils already drilled to comparable depths
in the North Sea in the 1970s, and to 2.5km (in Tanzania,
currently). The water column depth isnt the challenge. Its how far
into the earth you drill. However, we cant promise theres no
risk.
Q: Is there always oil spillage, and is that tolerated?
5.13. Statoil: We have a zero spill tolerance, but we cant
promise zero spill. Interestingly, fishing vessels spill more oil
than oil rigs do. Historically, there has been environmental oil
spill damage, but that damage is not long-term. Oil is toxic, but
there are natural ocean seeps leaking oil all the time, and
bacteria have evolved to feed off of that seeping oil.
Q: You talk of sustainability, but then say you have to move out
of Norway after only 40 years. That doesnt sound very
sustainable!
5.14. Statoil: We dont mean sustainable like, say, a culture
(over centuries?) might be. We mean it in the sense of jobs for
people, people having food, a decent life and for this, you need
oil and gas. In the distant future, we could do it differently, but
not today. Statoil doesnt dispute the UN scientifically-agreed 2oC
global warming temperature rise limit. Statoil has invested
significantly into renewable energy technology research and design,
but we havent solved the challenge yet of how to stay within that
2oC range. But we are trying to be the best oil company out
there.
5.15. Catherine: But the UN IPCC is saying we must take
IMMEDIATE action if were to stop a 2oC global temperature rise and
avoid the worst effects of climate change. So we cant wait for the
distant future. We must act now. vi
Catherine: Will Statoil enter into a relationship agreement with
our iwi?
-
7 | P a g e
5.16. Statoil: Our fear is that we will have to do that with
200+ groups.
5.17. Catherine: Please, could everyone read my Tangata whenua
Principles-Solutions Framework paper (see Appendix Three) for the
discussion on a proposed relationship agreement.
Q: What will Te Hiku get out of oil drilling?
5.18. Statoil: New Zealand will get 40-50% of the oil production
value which is made up of 5% royalties, taxes and (a third
component see Session Seven, para 15 below).
Q: In a worst case scenario, how would you compensate the
affected iwi?
5.19. Statoil: Before we drill, we have to give a very good
answer to Head Quarters. We have to collect more data before we can
make our recommendation to HQ whether or not to drill.
Q: How did Tersha become an iwi observer when we never met
her?
5.20. Statoil: We considered our relationship with Tersha to be
a win-win. This was the first time Statoil had ever had an iwi
observer on board the seismic surveying vessel. At our first
meeting with the Rnanga in June we realized there were a lot of
risks. The responsibility could have been on Haamis side or my side
for getting those necessary approvals, but I trusted Haami. We
financed Tersha. But Statoil needed a name ASAP or wed miss the
opportunity.
5.21. (Note: Catherine spoke in the breaks with Statoils NZ
Country Manager, Bryn Klove, and advised him that:
a. The haste over the iwi observers appointment could have been
avoided if our Rnanga Chair had taken my advice early in 2014. I
saw this kind of engagement coming, Id been warned by other
indigenous peoples through my global UN networks that opportunities
with the oil company would present themselves, and we needed
protocols in place to deal with them. This is why I drafted a
proposal for a relationship agreementvii and handed it to Haami in
February 2014. While my advice was later to be corroborated by the
Ngti Ruanui Trust,viii my advice was ignored; and
b. With 40 years of experience, Statoil should have had a check
list in place to ensure accountability for decision-making before
proceeding e.g. obtain a copy of a Rnanga resolution approving
Tershas appointment).
-
8 | P a g e
Q: Could we look at some large economic projects?
5.22. Statoil: Wed prefer to test the waters with some small
projects first. This will build trust between us. Then we go to the
Crown to spend another $35m (for example).
Q: What other countries has Statoil operated in, and were there
disasters?
5.23. Statoil: We have operated in 34 other countries, and there
have been no disasters. None.
Catherine: What about Statoils involvement in the Tar Sands in
Alberta Canada that is widely known to have major harmful
environmental impacts?
5.24. Statoil: Yes, we were involved in that, but no - we dont
count that as a major incident.
a. [Catherines note: I spoke with Bryn (Statoil) over the break
about Statoils Alberta Tar sands involvement. Bryn attempted to
correct Pls answer, and he was, in my view, evasive; he denied
Statoils involvement saying the correct term for Statoils business
there was in the oil sands project, which was something else (I
think thats the point he was trying to make). However, that evening
I emailed him a couple of media references connecting Statoil
directly with the Tar Sands project.ix Bryn also emailed me a
Statoil Oil Sands link.x]
Q: What have been some of the benefits to indigenous peoples
from Statoils activities?
5.25. Statoil: In Canada, we established a mechanism whereby
indigenous peoples could bid for transport and other contracts.
Q: Can you continue to drill without iwi consent?
5.26. Statoil: If iwi dont want us to drill, iwi can request of
your NZ Government that they stop us.
Intervention Rueben Taipari and Heeni Porter
6. At about 12:30pm Rueben and Heeni entered the meeting.
Without getting involved, I simply sat and observed what ensued. My
main highlights (I dont know if the workshop video was still
running to capture this incident):
-
9 | P a g e
a. Heeni immediately proceeded to move around the room taking
footage on her phone camera. She did not ask anyone for permission
to do so.
b. Rueben (mostly Heeni pitched in from time to time) began
talking loudly over the top of the speakers. Among other things, he
claimed lack of transparency, lack of opportunity for affected
whnau, hap to participate in the meeting, and that there should
have been a hui with the affected tangata whenua first before
engaging with Statoil.
c. Kaumtua Tommy Kahiti Murray attempted to calm Rueben down.
Rueben refused. Other participants attempted to do the same,
reminding Rueben of the reason why he wasnt invited (e.g. his
pattern of disruptive behaviour). Several participants expressed
deep offense at (what they perceived to be) Ruebens attempts to
assert his mana over theirs (and their respective communities who
supported them to be there). Arguments and shouting from both sides
ensued.
d. Te Aupuri workshop participants said theyd come to get
information and report back to their iwi. They said the real fight
was with the Government who permitted Statoil to be here, not with
Statoil per se.
e. Being totally disrupted at that point, the workshop was
adjourned for lunch, and most people left the room. A few,
including our workshop Facilitator, kaumtua Dixon Motu, and the two
Te Aupuri wahine participants stayed to help diffuse the conflict.
Rueben and Heeni declined the invitation from the hui to join us
for lunch, and eventually left.
6.1. My personal reflections:
a. Rueben had some legitimate points to make. They are actually
the same issues that I and others have been lobbying our Rnanga
Chairperson and our Trustees about for at least a year or more. Its
unfortunate that Ruebens aggressive delivery style makes his
intended audience feel unsafe, and alienates them. He has also
himself violated the very principles he was advocating to the iwi
representatives there present (ref his lack of consultation with
affected hau kainga and other locals over attacking the historical
artefact at Te Kohangaxi). This created resistance to his
message,
-
10 | P a g e
thereby increasing the chances of the affected parties talking
past each other.
b. Decisions imposed on whnau, hap, iwi by Government without
the affected tangata whenuas free, prior and informed consent
inherently create conflict both internally among the iwi, and
externally (e.g. with any third parties like Statoil who happen to
be involved). The risk of conflict is exacerbated especially when
such decisions involve taonga of high value to us, or any kind of
potential benefit. We need to (i) anticipate this risk; (ii) have
in place tikanga, policies and procedures to mitigate it; and (iii)
ensure implementation and enforcement of those tikanga, policies
and procedures. I believe, from the start, Te Rarawa had (i) and
(ii) in order. However, we fell short on (iii).
c. Te Hiku iwi must make it a priority to meaningfully recognise
the underlying hurt that Rueben and others have expressed (Im
including myself in that category, now!), and take proactive,
timely steps to create a more open, transparent, accountable,
inclusive decision-making environment for all our whnau, hap,
marae, iwi moving forward. In that regard, I note that our Rnanga
has already endorsed the Tiaki Taonga Working Group (see terms of
reference, Appendix Four). I would encourage Te Rarawa at least to
use mechanisms that are already in place.
Session Three Alaskan Statoil-Indigenous Peoples Case Study
7. Main points from Ella Ede (Statoil)s presentation:
a. Statoil unders-tands that theres a lot of mistrust between
indigenous peoples, Governments and oil companies. The Alaskan
tangata whenua the Inupiaq - negotiated a Settlement Act and got
some land back admin-istered under 12 region-al corporations.
Inupiaq
have surface rights around their villages and such. The oil
drilling is on shore, and also in the Chukchi sea:
-
11 | P a g e
b. The challenge isnt the water column depth (shallow, at 140m),
its getting rigs to function safely with the ice freeze conditions.
Theres no benefit sharing with indigenous peoples for sea drilling
(although Inupiaq are seeking a law change to enable benefit
sharing with respect to sea drilling).
c. 70% of Inupiaqs food comes from the land and the water.
Inupiaq are very staunch about protecting their environment, and
their spiritual connection with the animals.
d. Statoil wants to consider indigenous peoples concerns early
on. I (Ella) was very sceptical about Statoil talking about values.
I can say Statoil has been respectful of Inupiaqs values.
e. Its hard to talk about training and environment needs. Todays
children will be the workforce 20 years from now when oil
production is expected to actually start (and with the right
education, Inupiaq can have the technical and scientific
qualifications for Statoil to employ them).
8. Questions were left for the following day. Day One ended with
a karakia.
DAY TWO
9. Day Two opened with a karakia.
Briefing Possible Protest Action
10. The hui spent the first few minutes discussing how to deal
with incidents like Ruebens intervention the previous day, should
it happen again. While there were diverse opinions about a tika
response, there was a consensus that underneath Ruebens
disrespectful behaviour and anger was basically a core message
about more inclusive iwi engagement that iwi needed to hear and
accept moving forward. It was also a strong signal to Statoil that
our iwi still had many internal discussions to have before we could
move too far forward in terms of a relationship with them.
Session Three (Continued) Questions carried over from
yesterday
11. Questions were carried over from yesterdays final
session:
11.1. Catherine: In terms of geographical profile and risk, how
similar is the Alaskan drilling situation to the Te Reinga
situation?
-
12 | P a g e
11.2. Statoil: The ice aside, its about the same. There isnt an
Alaskan deepwater port. The closest is Denmark. But they are
looking at establishing one in the Arctic.
11.3. Catherine: What kinds of employment do the Inupiaq
actually get from the oil industry?
11.4. Statoil: It wasnt great at the start. But weve developed
science, maths and other related programs for schools and
Universities that will enable Inupiaq to apply for more
highly-qualified jobs.xii But its always a challenge, particularly
considering the areas remoteness and the wider educational
infrastructure that must be in place first to progress shared
aspirations.
a. [Catherines note: I asked this intending to lead to items 6
and 7 in my prepared Questions for Statoilxiii especially the one
around prostitution doubling in Taranaki soon after the oil
industry arrived there but we were moved onto the next
session].
11.5. Q: Was there Inupiaq protest?
11.6. Statoil: In the early days, yes. There was a lot of it.
And some continues today. However, the view seems to be, While
youre here, we may as well get from you what we can. Its about how
oil companies and indigenous peoples can co-exist. But the Inupiaq
have become very dependent on the money now.
11.7. Q: From your experience, do indigenous peoples have any
regrets?
11.8. Statoil: Some communities can have multiple oil companies
coming in. So for the indigenous peoples it can be a real burden
dealing with them. In some communities there is employment for
indigenous peoples, and in other communities not.
11.9. Q: As Kaitiaki, do the Inupiaqs values get integrated
meaningfully into Statoils business, or not?
11.10. Statoil: For onshore drilling, the Inupiaq must give
their permission. Its different offshore, however. There is an
Alaskan Whaling Commission and other marine mammal protection
agencies that work with the Federal Government and industry. The
Arctic is a big focus in terms of the imperative to protect it,
moreso than other parts of the world. For example, scientists are
working on the knowledge of ice, and Inupiaq have knowledge no-one
else has.
-
13 | P a g e
11.11. Q: What is the situation with Inupiaq ownership of the
surface, and below the surface?
11.12. Statoil: Inupiaq ownership doesnt extend to the ocean.
There is a three mile limit beyond which Inupiaq dont have
authority beyond.
11.13. Q: What is the state of drilling technology and
advancements?
11.14. Statoil: We are investigating the BP oil spill disaster
in the Gulf of Mexico. We believe that the technology to improve
that situation exists its just that the technology wasnt used.
However, we mustnt get overconfident, and Im proud to be working
for Statoil because of such values. Risk is a number one concern
for us.
11.15. Q: How large was the Inupiaq kaumtua kuia group that you
worked with?
11.16. Statoil: It takes a lot of time to meet directly with
each of the several communities, and theyre so remote. The Alaskans
number only about 750,000 and the Inupiaq are 15% of the total
population. So theres only a 2o separation between people. In other
words, practically everyone is somehow connected with everyone. So
for the Inupiaq, and for Statoil, its about relationships
first.
11.17. Q: Who determines what information is shared, and
how?
11.18. Statoil: We are very open. Certain business information,
of course, is confidential. We are the most transparent of all oil
companies.
a. [Catherines note: I found this somewhat contradictory to my
experience of trying to get information from Statoil (ref personal
email record). Still today, I have several questions Statoil and
related parties have refused to answer. I will continue to ask
Statoil to answer them!
b. I spoke with Statoil over the lunch break, and emphasized how
difficult it is to get information not just from Statoil, but from
related parties as well who keep re-directing me to others, or
simply refuse to answer. I suggested that there be one super portal
through which all questions can be submitted, and answered, rather
than whnau having to chase up multiple parties who themselves are
sometimes unsure if its within their jurisdiction to answer].
11.19. Q: Does Statoil have a Heads of Agreement with indigenous
peoples that we could have a copy of?
-
14 | P a g e
11.20. Statoil: Yes. Statoil doesnt really have many
confidentiality issues around releasing those, but the
stakeholders/ indigenous peoples themselves might. We would need to
check before releasing it.
a. [Catherines note: Interesting that successive Rnanga
directives to our Chairperson, complemented by my direct email
requests to Statoil for the same, did not result in obtaining this
relationship agreement template. But in a public meeting easy!
Done! One wonders what that is about? Very frustrating, not to
mention a waste of many peoples time and efforts].
Session Four Sound and Marine Life
12. This was presented by Statoils Jurgen Weissenberger (PhD
water scientist who has also done much research in the
Antarctic):
12.1. Jurgen: You can go to Wikipedia and see all the mistakes
Statoils made. We have lots of collected scientific data to share
with indigenous peoples. We conducted the first ever Acoustic
disturbance study. This took a lot of preparatory consultations
with the affected indigenous peoples and Government. We built in
conrol mechanisms to ensure the use of the information gathered was
appropriately accessed and used. We give back those resources in a
way those communities, including children, can use according to
their needs. We consulted with diverse groups, and especially
sought out people with credibility. When designing projects, we
encourage free flow of thoughts rather than having too structured a
dialogue. You tend to get more creative, better ideas that way.
12.2. Catherine: Governments and Oil companies often use lack of
decisive scientific evidence of harm to say, Well, it cant be
proven, so well just continue on with what we want to do. Does
Statoil do oil spill modelling, and may we see it?
12.3. Statoil: We do, but its just modelling (i.e. not
necessarily reality, because theres so many variables, you can
never be certain).
12.4. Q: If ambient / normal everyday noise affects marine life,
then what about seismic surveying and drilling?
12.5. Statoil: We have a bit more knowledge about those noises
now, and the marine mammals (where they swim, how deeply the dive,
etc). Its known that seismic surveying is noisey, and marine
mammals are a concern throughout the world right now. Statoil
doesnt think the direct effects
-
15 | P a g e
are very dangerous to them (e.g. damage to parts of whale
biology used for navigating), but you have to think beyond those
effects.
12.6. Q: Could mammals be attracted to the noise?
12.7. Statoil: Male humpbacks actually come in closer, often
mistaking noise for a breaching whale. We follow the Department of
Conservation (DOC) Code of Conduct.
12.8. Catherine: With all this uncertainty about harm, shouldnt
everyone be taking a precautionary approach, especially with so
much of our marine life already under so much stress?
12.9. Statoil: We acknowledge absolutely that there is a risk to
marine life. The effect depends on the context (feeding, breeding,
resting, migrating...). A sound from a canoe paddle in the water
can make animals swim away. Sound is the biggest form of
communication for marine mammals. This is why best industry
practice is to use a soft start with seismic surveying vessels
starting with a lower volume and then graduating to a higher blast
volume so the animals have a chance to swim away.
12.10. Q: How do you know animals wont come back into the area
after a soft start?
12.11. Statoil: You look out to see if marine mammals are there
or not. But if the waters rough, or its night time, were dependent
on technology like Passive Acoustic Monitoring.
12.12. Q: We need strategies for invertebrates and smaller sea
creatures.
12.13. Statoil : Fish stocks are important for Norways economy.
There are 30,000 different species of known fish and only 120
species of marine mammals. Fish dont depend so much on hearing like
mammals do. But fish can die immediately if too close to the
seismic zone.
12.14. Q: What about the long term noise effects of oil
drilling?
12.15. Statoil: Windfarms make continuous noise in the ocean as
well. But species can get used to noise just like humans are known
to do. Statoil does not do seismic surveying in Norway where
animals are known to breed. Some species in Norway are actually
recovering.
12.16. Q: With strandings up here, Scientists have requested
inner ear bones of whales to help determine cause of death.
-
16 | P a g e
12.17. Statoil: Trauma in the ears is not very likely. Mass
strandings have puzzled scientists for a long time. We make much of
forensic evidence, but truly, its very tricky. Behavioural change
is the real indicator we should be watching to answer what the
effects are on animals.
a. [Catherines note: Our AKT have a relationship with scientists
at Otago for this forensic follow-up research. Scientists tell us
that marine mammals are more likely to die from the bends. Samples
of certain soft tissues are required to determine if that was a
cause, but the tissue has to be in good condition for it to be of
any scientific value. Securing usable tissue samples is a practical
challenge our Kaitiaki and the scientists have not yet been able to
address].
Session Five Case Study on Seismic Data
13. This was presented by Statoils New Zealand Exploration
Manager, and geophysicist, Camilla Vatne.
13.1. Camilla: There are 15 New Zealand ocean basins with water
depths around 1,000-2,000m. Statoil has 15 years to explore Te
Reinga. If its not interesting enough we will leave. If the data
looks promising, well move to the next stage. Year seven is the
earliest we expect to drill.
13.2. Catherine: Can you give us your worst case scenario oil
spill modelling?
13.3. Statoil: We have one example of a model, ut we need to
ensure that doesnt go public unless and until both parties agree to
information protocols.
13.4. Catherine: This is why we needed that relationship
agreement in place last year.
13.5. Q: Youre here only for petroleum?
13.6. Statoil: Yes. The permit is very specific. We must stay
within that Terms of Reference.
13.7. Camilla: However, the data were getting back is
interesting. There are indicators of natural oil seeps.
13.8. Catherine: Theres bacteria that has evolved to eat oil,
but in a worst case oil spill scenario what is the gap (what real
difference do they make)?
13.9. Statoil: Eventually it all gets eaten. Its just a matter
of time.
-
17 | P a g e
13.10. Camilla: TGS-Nopec is a company we trust to do the
seismic surveying. Around 3,000m below the sea floor, there are
remnants of the Cretaceous period.
13.11. Catherine: So thats 2,000m of water, then 3,000m below
the surface (thats a potential 5,000m drill depth) whats the
pressure like down there?
13.12. Statoil: We think the pressures OK, and that we can deal
with it. But we will only know when we put an exploration well down
what the pressure (and therefore the risk) actually is.
13.13. Catherine: Can we get TGS tracking data before and after
the iwi observer boarded the vessel?
13.14. Statoil: Yes. We had Passive Acoustic Monitorng on the
ship. We work with GNS New Zealand who will release a study in
October. We will do a 2015 Met-Ocean study along with some
modelling which will deliver to the Crown in October. We are
working with the University of Auckland as well.
a. [Catherines note: Since I first emailed my query to Auckland
University on 11 January 2015, Ive been through three different
personnel and still not received an answer to my query:
I have just read some information about a Statoil-Auckland
University scholarship program here
http://www.env.auckland.ac.nz/en/about/notices/notices-2014/2014/08/statoil-university-of-auckland-msc-studentships-2015.html.
Could you please tell me: How this scholarship research will help
protect our oceans,
including in relation to the current petroleum exploration
process and any potential deep sea oil drilling that may
eventuate?
Whether the University submits to the Governments Block Offer
and petroleum exploration permit processes, and if so may we have a
copy of your submissions?
Session Six Iwi observer on the Aquila Explorer
14. This was presented by Statoil employee and Te Rarawa uri,
Tersha Perry.
14.1. Tersha: An iwi observer needs resources. You need your
health and safety tickets. Statoil gave me steel capped boots,
sunglasses, binoculars.
-
18 | P a g e
My iwi gave me a tablet, but a laptop wouldve been better. I set
up a Facebook blog for transparency, to help understand what was
happening, for people to ask questions, and so I could communicate
with my tamariki at home. It was lonely sometimes on board. It
wasnt a flash vessel. I had to fit in. The Marine Mammal Observers
(MMO) on board are very passionate and took their work very
seriously. But I spotted more marine mammals than all of them put
together! I was on the boat for five weeks.
a. [Catherines note: I spoke with Statoil over the lunch break.
The reason Tersha sighted more mammals was because the weather
conditions were rough prior to her boarding the vessel. Its very
hard to spot anything above the water in rough weather].
14.2. Tersha: I received a lot of patai re seismic surveying
harm. Some animals hung around, and some swam away. My other job on
board was to study DoCs seimic surveying Code of Conduct. If an
animal came within 1km, we shut the boat down. But theres no
definitive data that seismic surveying harms marine mammals so its
hard to know for sure.
14.3. The Aquila had a rescue boat whose purpose was to protect
the streamer of surveying equipment (that the vessel was
dragging).
a. [Catherines note: Intel from the Pacific traditional
navigating waka, Haunui (which was sailing from Australia to New
Zealand with three other Pacific Island waka involved in a voyage
calling for global action on oceans and climate change), was that
TGS rescue boat also behaved inappropriately out in the ocean. For
example, one report from early December 2014 states:xiv
Yesterday, 165km West of Cape Reinga, crew of the New Zealand
sailing waka Haunui intercepted Statoil's seismic surveying ship
Aquila Explorer, to protest against deep sea oil exploration off
the coast of Northland. The crew stayed outside the exclusion zone
and radioed the bridge of the Aquila to communicate their mission
to bring awareness on the catastrophic effects of climate change -
particularly to the Pacific nations - caused by the burning of
fossil fuels like oil.
However, we are told that the rescue boat wrongly attempted to
use marine ocean rules/ convention to ensure Haunui moved out of
the Aquilas way. As one Facebook observer put it:
The Aquila was Not ' restricted in it's ability to manouver',
was not in a shipping lane and did not have any right to make
this
-
19 | P a g e
request. This is an indication of the arrogance these people
have and the mentality we are up against.]
14.4. Tersha: the Captain had to approve my blogs before they
went out. I had to explain to him why Three Kings/ Manawatawhi and
Te Ara Wairua is so significant, because he didnt understand. One
morning, everything stopped working we were close to Manawatawhi.
So the tohu was to stop. However, the Captain wouldnt let me post
about that because it implied technical difficulties. But I will
include that in my report.
14.5. Catherine: How did your lack of iwi mandate affect you on
the boat?
14.6. Workshop Facilitator: (Thats not for discussion here).
14.7. Tersha: It didnt, because I was appointed by the iwi.
a. [Catherines note: Tershas assertion is patently untrue. It
was disturbing to see her continue to make that statement
unreservedly even though when she came to my home for advice prior
to accepting the job, I told her the Rnanga Trustees did not
support our Chair putting an iwi person on board the vessel,
therefore she would not have the support of the iwi for it. I also
repeated that advice to her on her Facebook blog].
14.8. Statoil: There were no Statoil representatives on the
boat. TGS own all the commercial rights to the data collected.
14.9. Q: What skill set do you think the job requires?
14.10. Tersha: They should be a full MMO. The DoC Code of
Conduct is the only thing we have for protecting our marine
mammals.
14.11. Q: What value did we get from being on the boat (other
than educating non-Mori)?
14.12. Tersha: My whnau, hap have a baseline stock take of
tohoraha (whales) out there.
14.13. Q: How does the iwi observer report feed into the client
report?
14.14. Tersha: Statoil has no say over my report. I couldnt give
away the Aquilas GPS position in real time. No-one wanted me to
have a blog.
14.15. Catherine: Towards the end of your time on the Aquila,
there was good question and answer flow; but at the start of your
Facebook Blog, you
-
20 | P a g e
were quite resistant to answering questions. When you got
questions, what was your process for answering them ...-?
a. [Catherines note: somewhere around this point, Tersha
interrupted me abruptly. I asked her to let me finish asking my
question, and then continued].
14.16. Catherine: What challenges did you have? Could you have
used some land-based support to help you?
14.17. Tersha: Some questions felt like personal attacks. I did
my best to answer them. You are right about the land-based support,
though (that would have been helpful).
a. [Catherines note: this display of Tershas defensive behaviour
typified our engagement for the better part of her time on the
Aquila. At one point, Tersha threatened to have be block from her
blog. I kept a personal copy of my record of my questions to Tersha
and associated conversations, and emailed them to our Rnanga
Trustees ahead of this Statoil Workshop].
14.18. Q: You did a good job. Anything else is irrelevant. We
should not question at all what Tersha did. There should be five
more people on the vessel next time.
14.19. Catherine: The DoC MMO code is going to be reviewed this
year, and experts were talking to believe it needs improvement. Do
you think it is sufficient to protect marine mammals?
14.20. Tersha: The Code needs some work. I will be making
submissions to that review, and I hope the iwi will work with me. A
barrier is needed around Three Kings islands. It needs more
protection. Catherine helped me research the standards around that,
and we should tighten up the Environmental Impact Assessment. Then,
how do we police all that? Catherine also asked about the Automatic
Identification System (A.I.S.) tracking device. I discovered that
theres beacons at different locations, so we couldnt track the
Aquila in real time.
14.21. There were two other Mori on board, the rubbish burner
and the cleaner. They asked if my iwi sent me here, and I said
Yes.
Session Seven Statoil Royalties and Tax payments
15. This was a quick, unplanned presentation in response to
queries around tax and royalties. The presenter was Statoils Pl
Haremo.
-
21 | P a g e
15.1. Pl: In Norway, the Government pays for more than half the
industry expenses up front. Depending on the stage of the project,
the New Zealand Government takes between 5%-40%, and ultimately at
the very end, 100% of the profits. But Statoils activity in New
Zealand is 100% funded by us.
15.2. Q: How long do you think the cheap oil prices will
continue?
15.3. Statoil: Its very uncertain. With world population
increase, oil demand will just keep increasing because the speed of
renewable production and uptake is too slow.
15.4. Q: Where does the oil go if we get to drilling?
15.5. Statoil: Probably tankered away. But a decision will be
made on what is the best choice for stakeholders.
Session Eight Traditional Knowledge Study
16. Statoil gave a presentation on the kinds of collaborative
projects the company could assist indigenous peoples with, in this
case a traditional knowledge-based one. For example, the collection
of traditional knowledge around marine mammal Kaitiakitanga and
protection. The preference would be to have one traditional
knowledge study, not multiple ones. Pl Haremo emphasized that the
project need not have anything to do with the Government. A project
Facilitator would be needed, although Statoil doesnt have the money
to pay salaries outside of Statoil employees.
16.1. Catherine: I take the sceptical scientist view we
definitely should NOT not ask questions. We should test everything
not frivolously, but to be transparent. The PR around any such a
project like this would be a real challenge. As we saw around the
iwi observer appointment, you get communications wrong and it just
creates more conflict. There must be no more shoulder tapping: all
appointments need to be made transparently; we need to know what
the clear outcomes are for the affected people first before the
company. Also, Te Rarawa is a Wai 262 Flora and Fauna claimant iwi
so protection of traditional knowledge is a highly sensitive
subject.
Session Nine Where to from here?
17. The main points raised were:
-
22 | P a g e
17.1. The Rnanga Chair announced that he had raised this
workshop at the last Te Hiku Chairs Forum meeting. An iwi mandate
is required to advance iwi-Statoil engagement to a relationship
agreement.
17.2. One participant reinforced that she would be consulting
with other groups (e.g. Greenpeace) before going back to her own
people with a recommendation.
17.3. Catherine: Were engaging because of Statoils (legal and
business) obligations, not ours; we didnt ask Statoil to come here,
so we should not fund /subsidise Statoil to meet those obligations.
In other words, its not fair that iwi must spend our money for this
process. Statoil needs to think about the contribution they should
make to this iwi engagement it might be 1% or 100%, but it has to
be something.
17.4. Many emphasized that communications and transparency need
to be strengthened going forward. Our Rnanga staff are being
accused of being complicit with Statoil, and two iwi industry trips
to Wellington/ Taranaki saw it being called the Kevin and Haami
show. So we appreciate Statoil coming here so the people can see
them in person. The Terms of Engagement will be important moving
forward: with integrity, values, high trust.
17.5. Pl replied that he considered this to be a very top level
discussion that Statoil doesnt always get. Statoil hopes that in
the future it can recruit/ employ a lot of Mori. Statoil is ready
to enter into a relationship now with Mori, because now it can see
that Mori can deliver quality engagement. However, Statoil has yet
to see any reciprocal high level commitments from Mori. Statoil can
produce relationship agreements and such, but starting with a small
project to build trust is important. Statoil respects the opinions
expressed about the conflict the iwi observer appointment created,
but from Statoils view there was no harm done.
Karakia whakamutunga WORKSHOP ENDS.
Nku noa,
Catherine Murupaenga-Ikenn Roma marae Delegate to Te Rnanga o Te
Rarawa Ahipara Komiti Takutaimoana Member United Nations of the
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
Indigenous Fellow, 2005
-
23 | P a g e
Appendix One: IWI & STATOIL WORKSHOP AGENDA
Monday February 16 Tuesday February 17 Toka Tumoana, Kaitaia
10.00 am 11.00 am Mihi Whakatau 11.00 am 11.30 am Whanaungatanga
& tikanga o te hui Abe Witana 11.30 am 12.30 pm Te Ao Maori:
Our cultural history &
relationship with our environment Haami Piripi
12.30 pm 1.15 pm Lunch 1.15 pm 2.00 pm StatOil: Ko wai matau Pal
2.00 pm 3.00 pm Perspectives, Influences & positons held
by Maori on the oil & gas industry Haami Piripi / all
3.00 pm 3.30 pm Afternoon tea 3.30 pm 4.05 pm Engagement with
indigenous peoples of
Alaska Case Study Ella Ede
4.05 pm 4.40 pm Iwi observer onboard the Aquilla Explorer Tersha
Perry 4.40 pm 5.00 pm Wrap up of day Abe Witana 5.00 pm Karakia
MONDAY
10.00 am 11.00 am Mihi Whakatau 11.00 am 11.30 am Whanaungatanga
& tikanga o te hui 11.30 am 12.30 pm Te Ao Maori: Our cultural
history &
relationship with our environment
12.30 pm 1.15 pm Lunch 1.15 pm 2.00 pm StatOil: Ko wai matau
2.00 pm 3.00 pm Perspectives, Influences & positons held
by Maori on the oil & gas industry
3.00 pm 3.30 pm 3.30 pm 4.05 pm Engagement with indigenous
peoples of
Alaska Case Study
4.05 pm 4.40 pm Iwi observer onboard the Aquilla Explorer 4.40
pm 5.00 pm Wrap up of day 5.00 pm Karakia
TUESDAY
9.30 am 9.45 am Opening remarks for the day 9.45 am 10.45 am A
presentation on sound and marine life Jurgen
Weissenberger
10.45 am 11.15am Morning tea 11.15 am 12.15 pm Seismic Data A
case study Camilla Vatne
Aamondt Pal Heremo
12.15 pm 1.00 pm Lunch 1.00 pm 1.45 pm Traditional Knowledge
Proposal Jan
Troningsdall
1.45 pm 2.30 pm Where to from here Facilitated Workshop
3.30 pm 4.00 pm Afternoon tea 4.00 pm 4.30 pm Where to from here
cont. Facilitated
Workshop
4.30 pm 4.50 pm Concluding remarks from Iwi and StatOil Haami
Piripi Pal Heremo
5.00 pm
-
24 | P a g e
Appendix Two: DEEP SEA OIL DRILLING QUESTIONS FOR STATOIL
1. We understand that the deepest New Zealand production well is
125 metres. Data from oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico tells us
that, at that depth, there is approximately a 2.5% predicted
probability of a reported incident. However, that probability
greatly increases the deeper you drill: for example, at 1,500
metres (the depth of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill) the
probability jumps to around a 30% chance of an incident occurring;
and at 2,000 metres (a possible depth for Statoil drilling in the
Te Reinga Basin) that chance rockets to around 50%! Does Statoil
think these odds are an acceptable level of industry risk, and does
Statoil think that it is acceptable that our environment and New
Zealanders should have to bear that risk (which is, as weve seen in
the Gulf of Mexico, essentially what will happen)?
2. The 2011 Rena shipwreck incident showed that New Zealand
doesnt have the capacity to competently handle a small oil spill
disaster (let alone of one
of the magnitude of the Gulf tragedy). And, according to the
Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, plugging a blowout
would take six or seven days to fly in a capping stack, then three
weeks to get a vessel that would be able to manoeuvre the cap into
place.xv Does Statoil honestly believe that a serious spill in our
Te Reinga Basin could be effectively contained? If
-
25 | P a g e
serious spill in our Te Reinga Basin could be effectively
contained? If so, how does Statoil propose that would happen way
down here at the bottom of the Pacific?
3. It is common practice that any major project requires due
diligence to be completed before proceeding even with preliminary
stages of the project. Has Statoil (the Government, or anyone else)
produced a full due diligence report on the social, cultural,
environmental and economic benefits and costs of oil drilling in Te
Reinga, and has it been independently reviewed?xvi If not, why not
and does Statoil think that is an acceptable situation?
4. Recognising that climate change is the most serious threat
humanitys ever faced, and that oil consumption makes climate change
worse, does Statoil have an urgent corporate business response? If
so, what is it? And, how does Statoil reconcile (a) undertaking
MORE oil drilling with (b) the urgent need to keep as much fossil
fuel as possible in the ground if were to stay under a 2 degree
Celsius average rise in global temperature (which is what the
scientific consensus is saying we must achieve to avoid the worst
effects of climate change)?
5. Our Department of Conservation (DoC) administers a Seismic
Survey Code of Conductxvii (the Code). The Code is a precautionary
measure against adverse impacts on marine mammalsxviii (DoC
acknowledges that several cases of marine mammal injuries have been
documented and linked to naval sonar). In other words, while DoC
notes an absence of documented data on such harm linked to seismic
surveying, DoC nonetheless recognises that the potential for such
harm definitely exists (including marine mammal injury or death
from the bends - that is, injury from swimming too fast to the
surface to escape seismic surveying blasts). Does Statoil find this
lack of decisive evidence of harm to marine mammals acceptable
(especially as it enables oil companies seismic surveying)? If not,
why not? And if so, what does Statoil propose be done to create
more certainty in this area?
6. Weve heard that all Statoils activities will be serviced out
of Taranaki,xix and even if there are jobs, these will be filled by
skilled people imported from overseas specifically for the
project.xx So what employment specifically will there be for whnau
in Te Hiku o Te Ika should Statoils deep sea oil drilling go
ahead?
7. How true are the reports that prostitution more than doubled
in Taranaki within a few years of the oil industry getting
established in the region? (Comment from Catherine Healy, national
co-ordinator of the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective, referring
specifically to the number of brothels in Taranaki: See Distant
prospects (Otago Daily Times, 2 February 2014).
-
26 | P a g e
8. Many industry sectors and jobs are dependent on marine
environmental wellbeing, like fisheries and tourism. Even nearby
land-based industry like agriculture and horticulture are affected
as we rely on our clean green image with our export markets. Does
Statoil believe that the benefits to Te Hiku (or even New Zealand)
of deep sea oil drilling in Te Reinga outweigh the possible 30-50%
chance of an oil spill, and the devastation it would create for our
jobs and our economy?
9. We understand New Zealand charges 5% royalties on the net
revenues of oil production, and that this is much lower than many
other countries.xxi Does Statoil think this is a fair royalty rate
for New Zealanders to receive, particularly in comparison to what
Norways royalty rate is?
10. Aside from the low royalty rate, is Statoil receiving any
other New Zealand subsidies or tax write-offs? If so, what is the
value of those?
11. Will more oil be available to New Zealanders if Statoil
drills for it in our Te Reinga Basin? If not, why not (e.g. where
does the oil go once its extracted?)?
-
27 | P a g e
Appendix Three:
TANGATA WHENUA PRINCIPLES-SOLUTIONS
FRAMEWORK Statoil Workshop, Kaitaia, 16-17 February 2015
(due to length of the document, see separately enclosed pdf,
also available for Roma marae Facebook members at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/415365805221581/762044877220337/)
-
28 | P a g e
Appendix Four:
TERMS OF REFERENCE [AMENDED] Te Rnanga o Te Rarawa Tiaki
Moana
Working Group
INTRODUCTION
1. At its 17 September Rnanga meeting, the Trustees agreed to
establish a Te Rarawa Statoil Working Group ("The Working Group"),
including a Terms
of Reference. A Te Rarawa hap hui on 17 October, Roma marae,
Ahipara, called for the inaugural meeting of the Working Group to
be held on 31
October 2014, and a name change to Tiaki Moana Working Group.
The hui also proposed confirmation of the Working Groups Terms of
Reference.
2. Below is the Terms of Reference as agreed by Trustees on 17
September,
with a number of tracked proposed additions/ amendments (in
underlined italics) for our Working Group Members comments. It is
proposed that any changes to the Terms of Reference be submitted to
the Rnanga for endorsement.
TERMS OF REFERENCE
Background
2.1. At the August monthly meeting, the Rnanga Trustees agreed
that better internal engagement with marae/whnau/hap was required
regarding our Rnanga response to the activities of petroleum
company, Statoil, in the Te Reinga Basin. At its 17 September
Rnanga meeting, the Trustees agreed to establish a Te Rarawa
Statoil Working Group ("The Working Group"), including a Terms of
Reference. A Te Rarawa hap hui on 17 October, Roma marae, Ahipara,
subsequently proposed a change of name to Tiaki Moana Working Group
to better reflect the wider kaupapa of the Working Group (i.e.
beyond just Statoil).
Purpose
3. The purpose of the Working Group in relation to all Statoil
deep sea oil drilling activities in the Te Reinga Basin is to
protect Te Rarawa taonga (traditional lands, territories and
natural resources, and all associated Te
Tiriti and indigenous human responsibilities and rights1 -
environmental, social, cultural and economic).
Tikanga
4. The following are proposed as the Working Groups guiding
tikanga/values:
1 This includes the exercise of kaitiakitanga.
-
29 | P a g e
4.1. Wairuatanga (recognising our essence, obligations and power
as spiritual
beings first and foremost).
4.2. Mauri (acknowledging the energetic life force that flows
through and
connects everything).
4.3. Whakapapa (genealogy) and whanaungatanga (acknowledging
our
connectivity through our kinship ties, including to the natural
world).
4.4. Tapu (respecting the sacredness of that which we
value).
4.5. Kaitiakitanga (exercising our guardianship responsibilities
and rights).
4.6. Tika (fairness).
4.7. Pono (integrity).
4.8. Aroha (showing tolerance, compassion, grace and
understanding).
4.9. Whakatau Tika (accountability).
4.10. Mana / mana motuhake (recognising and respecting each
others inherent and independent authority).
4.11. Whakatptanga (working collaboratively).
4.12. Whakapuakitanga (sharing information).
4.13. Tino Rangatira (striving to realise our inherent
sovereignty and right to self-determination).
Membership
5. The Working Group shall for the time being operate on a
voluntary (i.e. no remuneration) basis, and shall comprise:
5.1. The Rnanga Chairperson; and
5.2. Up to eight hap members.
6. A proxy may participate if a Member tenders their apology for
any meeting.
The Rnanga Chairperson shall make best efforts to ensure he/she
attends or is represented by a proxy at Working Group meetings.
7. Appointment and termination of hap memberhip is to be
regulated by the Members respective hap/marae constituencies.
Co-opted members
8. The Working Group may co-opt expertise as required.
Declarations of Interest
9. All Members shall declare any interests they may have, or
which may arise,
concerning the business of the Working Group.
Chairperson
10. The Working Group may by consensus either appoint a Member
as:
10.1. Chair at each meeting; or
-
30 | P a g e
10.2. Standing Chair for a period of time as deemed appropriate
by the
Members.
Frequency of Meetings
11. The Working Group shall meet at least quarterly, but
otherwise determine the frequency of their meetings.
Quorum
12. The quorum for the Working Group shall be a majority of the
appointed Members.
Objectives/ Priorities
13. The Working Groups objectives shall be to include:
13.1. Develop and implement a Te Rarawa Statoil deep sea oil
drilling compliance strategy re protection of Te Rarawa taonga;
law, regulations and policy; and industry best practice2; and
13.2. Maintain excellent communications with whnau, hap, iwi;
key stakeholders; and the wider public.
Goals
14. The Working Groups goals shall include:
14.1. Confirm clear hap/ marae priorities and instructions to
the Rnanga.
14.2. Engage with key enforcement Agencies to ensure they are
fulfilling their
Te Tiriti, indigenous human rights, legislative and regulatory
responsibilities.
14.3. Identify gaps in the oil drilling regulatory and
compliance regime, and develop strategy to plug the gaps.
14.4. Develop and implement a deep sea oil Monitoring Mechanism,
including
resourcing for meaningful iwi engagement with oil drilling
companies and with the wider community.
14.5. Implement a communications strategy.
Workplan
15. The Working Groups workplan shall include the following
tasks:
15.1. Convene a Te Rarawa hui-a-iwi on a Statoil deep sea oil
drilling response strategy.
15.2. Identify all compliance and enforcement Agencies and
mechanisms, and
all oil companies associated compliance obligations.
15.3. Maintain an open (publicly-accessible) database on key
scientific, technical
and policy information re oil companies activities and effects
of those activities.
2 This includes a funding and resourcing strategy. It is
recognized that for optimal effectiveness, Te Rarawas
efforts on this kaupapa must be properly resourced.
-
31 | P a g e
15.4. Secure advice and assistance as required from scientific,
strategic, cultural
and other experts.
15.5. Lobby critical influential parties (e.g. Norwegian
Government, Norwegian
public; fishing, tourism and other industry sectors and groups)
to support our iwi priorities.
Operations
16. The Working Group shall:
16.1. Provide regular progress reports to the Rnanga; and
16.2. Review its operations annually.
17. The Rnanga shall provide secretariat (including
administrative) support for the Working Group.
Disputes
18. All reasonable steps shall be taken by the parties involved
to settle any and all disputes which may arise concerning the
Working Group. If resolution cannot be achieved, a majority of the
Working Group may request the
Rnanga Trustees to assist to resolve the dispute.
Review
19. The Working Group may review its Terms of Reference at any
time. However, all changes to the Terms of Reference shall be
subject to the approval the Rnanga.
RECOMMENDATIONS
20. It is recommended that all agreed changes to the Terms of
Reference be
submitted to the Rnanga for endorsement.
Nku,
Catherine Murupaenga-Ikenn
(Hap member, Te Rokeka, Ahipara; Whnau of Roma and Wainui
marae)
-
32 | P a g e
ENDNOTES:
i This is a form of wero, or challenge, that is preformed in
very formal situations on the Marae. It is when you are challenged
and you answer that challenge depending on how pick up the leaves.
The wero is to see whether you come in peace or as an enemy. This
proverb is used when being challenged, or you have a challenge
ahead of you. ii Note that a new agenda was issued in hard copy
only on Day Two, but the substantive kaupapa of the
Workshop remained the same. iii See the AKT declaration included
as an attachment to Appendix Three.
iv See the WAI 262 websites at http://wai262.weebly.com/; and
the Te Rarawa iwi website at
http://terarawa.co.nz/ (go to the mahi tab, Te Tiriti o Waitangi
in the drop down menu, click on the claims website graphic on the
right, go to the links tab, and select Wai 262 Flora and Fauna
claim). v For example, see this website: http://www.ipcc.ch/. See
also my discussion paper which I used for lobbying
purposes at the 4-5 February National Iwi Chairs meeting,
Kerikeri, titled Economic & Climate Justice at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/253451951483352/384391931722686/.
vi See, in particular, Part One (especially re the Arctic Methane
Emergency) in my abovementioned discussion
paper Economic & Climate Justice at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/253451951483352/384391931722686/.
vii
Copy included as an attachment in Appendix Three. viii
See Ngti Ruanui Trusts Best Practice Guidelines for Engagement
with Mori (August 2014), viewable from
http://www.ruanui.co.nz/environmental.aspx. ix Norways
environmental groups are lobbying hard to get the peoples money out
of dirty energy, including
industries that mine or burn coal, and Albertas oilsands, the
fastest-growing source of greenhouse gases in Canada. Their
state-owned Statoil bought Calgary-based North American Oil Sands
for $2.2 billion in 2007, acquiring 1,110 square kilometres of
oilsands leases in northern Albertas Athabasca region. See
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2014/09/14/for_oilrich_norway_its_not_easy_being_green.print.html.
x See
http://www.statoil.com/en/About/Worldwide/NorthAmerica/canada/OilSands/Pages/default.aspx.
xi See Activist could face charges after vandalising shipwreck
(Stuff.co.nz, 14 January 2015), at
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/64904642/Activist-could-face-charges-after-vandalising-shipwreck.
xii
As an example, see http://www.ansep.net/. xiii
See Appendix Two. xiv
See Greenpeace New Zealands Facebook page, at
https://www.facebook.com/greenpeace.nz/photos/a.417987320774.213959.11870725774/10152890829200775/?type=1.
xv
New Zealand Listener, Oil and gas exploration: New Zealands
future (28 November 2013):
http://www.listener.co.nz/current-affairs/oil-and-gas-exploration-new-zealands-future/.
xvi
Shockingly, neither central or local Government have completed
full due diligence on deep sea oil drilling activity, including
quantifying the economic impact of an oil spill for NZ: see
Greenpeace Aotearoa submissions to Regional Strategy & Policy
Committee, Auckland City Council, 5 February 2015, at 26:20 mins
into the video feed viewable and downloadable from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQCIxka-JEM. xvii
The full name is the Code of Conduct for Minimising Acoustic
Disturbance to Marine Mammals from Seismic Survey Operations. See
http://www.doc.govt.nz/conservation/marine-and-coastal/seismic-surveys-code-of-conduct/.
xviii See DoC Seismic Survey Code of Conduct Overview, at
http://www.doc.govt.nz/conservation/marine-and-coastal/seismic-surveys-code-of-conduct/overview/.
For more on the harm of seismic surveying on marine life, see for
example Oil search puts dolphins at
risk,http://www.odt.co.nz/opinion/opinion/330803/oil-search-puts-dolphins-risk;
New Zealand Listener, Oil and gas exploration: New Zealands future
(28 November 2013):
http://www.listener.co.nz/current-affairs/oil-and-gas-exploration-new-zealands-future/;
United Nations Environment Programs Expert Workshop on Underwater
Noise and its Impacts on Marine and Coastal Biodiversity (22 April
2014), http://www.cbd.int/doc/?meeting=MCBEM-2014-01; A Deaf Whale
is A Dead Whale: Seismic Airgun Testing for Oil and Gas Threatens
Marine Life and Coastal Economies (April 2013),
http://oceana.org/sites/default/files/reports/Seismic_Airgun_Testing_Report_FINAL.pdf.
xix
See Oil Industry Fact Sheet (December 2014):
https://attachment.fbsbx.com/file_download.php?id=633221793472325&eid=ASvGDXw7G2_-8uPpkXEqjMoFg0gNDNdpJesuKqKjKCT2Osy2y1_kY-6kPJj5lp-hGwg&inline=1&ext=1422677695&hash=AStYNNar3oweyCNm.
-
33 | P a g e
xx For example, Trans-Tasman Resources admitted that it wouldnt
provide jobs for local unemployed, rather bringing in skilled
workers: ref comments by Kiwis Against Seabed Mining (KASM)
chairperson, Phil McCabe, regarding the New Zealand Environmental
Protection Authoritys decision to decline a proposal to mine black
sand from the seabed of the South Taranaki Bight see Slap Down to
Seabed Mining "Victory for common sense" (18 June 2014),
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1406/S00274/slap-down-to-seabed-mining-victory-for-common-sense.htm.
xxi
Ref Petroleum Exploration and Production Association (Pepanz)
Chief Executive, David Robinsons, quote that major operators are
attracted to New Zealand in part due to the low royalties of 5% of
net revenues: New Zealand Listener, Oil and gas exploration: New
Zealands future (28 November 2013):
http://www.listener.co.nz/current-affairs/oil-and-gas-exploration-new-zealands-future/.