'Offsetting' loss due to development dubious

Bathurst Resources is offering to offset the residual impacts of its planned opencast coal mine on the Denniston Plateau. PHOTO/FILE

Is there ever a "win-win" outcome for conservation and economic development? In the case of large-scale use of natural resources such as water, minerals and soil, the answer must be "seldom, if ever".

Economic development of natural resources almost always results in some fundamental change to how these systems function.

Because conservation involves trying to maintain the status quo, conservationists generally resist attempts to exploit the resources of an area, citing disturbance to the natural systems and threats to biodiversity. Sometimes they win, as in the case of the Mokihinui River in Westland, where Meridian Energy withdrew its proposal to build a hydroelectric dam. Often they lose: the development goes ahead, and native biodiversity declines.

Does this mean that conservationists and developers must then always be locked into "win-lose" outcomes? Not necessarily, depending on the willingness of both sides to compromise and look for ways to avoid, remediate or mitigate damage. In many cases, however, even after these measures have been implemented, there are still some residual losses. Are there ways to compensate for these?

One option, signalled by the Government in its proposed National Policy Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity, is "offsetting".

This involves undertaking conservation activities elsewhere that will compensate for the residual losses incurred by a particular development. To take one controversial example, let's consider what Bathurst Resources is offering to offset the residual impacts of its planned opencast coal mine on the Denniston Plateau. According to the Department of Conservation, Bathurst will pay almost $22 million over at least 35 years to offset the loss of conservation values on the plateau. Most will be used to fund pest and predator control, and monitoring, over 4500ha on and around the Denniston Plateau and across 25,000ha of the Kahurangi National Park. Species such as the greater spotted kiwi, South Island kaka and Powelliphanta land snails should benefit. Will it work?

Opponents of offsetting argue that some areas are so unique that their loss cannot be offset. That is the essence of the argument advanced by opponents to Escarpment Mine. It is a debatable point, but highlights the difficulty of deciding in such cases which are genuine "no-go" areas for development. Others contend that offsetting is a slippery slope, setting a precedent for future applications. Some question whether we have the knowledge to anticipate the scope and scale of residual losses, and the means to properly offset them.

There are other uncertainties. Will those charged with delivering the benefits actually deliver, and how will we know, given the timeframes involved? Will cash-strapped regulatory agencies be able to resist the temptation to negotiate a favourable deal? Where is the evidence that offsetting works, and under what conditions? Caveat emptor - buyer beware - would be appropriate.

Peter Frost is a local environmental scientist with an interest in integrated resource management