Workshop Session 3: Designing environmental standards

1. Workshop Session 3:Designing environmental standards To address the specific issues, resources and challenges in the development of environmental standards-output to feed into subsequent technical workshops Moderator: Malcolm Clark Rapporteur: Amber Cobley

2. Specific Questions • To what extent can existing environmental standards be adapted and applied? • What scientific information is needed to support the development of environmental S & G? • What are the environmental practices being developed and implemented by Industry?

3. Image NIWA-IUCN

4. Process considerations for S & G development • Used diagram to work methodically through all the different impacts. • Used words “mandatory” and “non-mandatory” instead of standards and guidelines a lot, as there is not consensus on the binding nature of these terms. It was noted these need to be agreed upon as a priority. • Agreed that there need to be environmental goals and objectives before these are devloped e.g those against which we measure harmand this was noted as a priority. • Discussion at start as to whether they should be resource specific. Agreed that start with more generic standards and guidelines and develop more resource-specific as appropriate.

5. Process considerations for S & G development • The S&G ideally cover aspects of impact assessment AND monitoring with mitigation/reduction – they should not be separate. So they should reflect An INTEGRATED approach to structure and content. • There are other processes such as the development of REMPs that relate to these environmental standards and guidelines and these need to be considered. Utilise exploration guidelines where appropriate. • Need to capture concept of flexibility as we learn more from information, so important in development of thresholds that they also remain flexible. • Consideration of this interation between development of standards and guidelines and the preparation of EIA’s. As well as link between technical standards and guidelines which can affect each other.

7. Placeholder for future development-> workshops/working groups to map standards and guidelines to this list of thresholdsand fill in what we need them.

8. Keeping in mind environmental objectives • As discussed yesterday by Amber, important to have environmental objectives as a context for preparing standards and guidelines • the “to do what” question, linking with Karsten’s “need” aspect • Environmental objectives are typically directed at two broad goals: • To maintain overall biodiversity and ecosystem health and function • To reduce, mitigate and, where possible, prevent adverse effects of mining and pollution that can affect wider habitats and ecosystems. • Not suggesting we deliberate over these, but keep them in mind and consider what each key S or G will address

9. General Discussion • WE CANT LET PERFECT GET IN THE WAY OF PROGRESS • Combination of equipment design and mine planning to meet objectives. Not mutually exclusive. • Need more consideration of how to take this information into future workshops. • Germany workshop on environmental thresholds – submitted to ISA. Outcome was at the end environmental standards should be resources specific. Also, during the debate on regulation was the proposal that we will need REMP environmental standards ang guidelines. • Need guidelines not just for contracts but also for REMPs was also suggested in DOSI consultation • Note that regulator needs to decide recourse for nn-compliance, but not for here. • Look at likelihood of business efficiency to priortise need to strong standards or guideines e.g. energy consumption will natural be lower to save money anyway. (cost-benefit analysis). Perhaps benthic plume not standards but guidelines • If technical cannot achieve environmental objectives then need to change. • Need for thresholds that are mandatory to meet but not a standardised process to get there. • Use phrasing of mandatory or not mandatory to streamline discussion. • Difference between urgency of timing between process and performance standards and guidelines. This may not suit timing of technological development and this is where specific performance thresholds can be put in and updated with adaptive management as more information e.g. from EIA’s of test mining. “Need a flexible approach for the standards where we keep the threshold levels”. Need balance between standards being locked in or easier to update needs to be considered in future workshops e.g. dealing with uncertainty and precautionary approach. There is a chance and option to decide on standards/thresholds in face of uncertainty e.g. start with higher thresholds and reduce in future if science suggests e.g. wind farms. Balance between good numbers and decisions – scientists to indicate level of certainty in threshold recommendations. CEAA – not a lot of science from Canada for sedimentation rates but took from Norway – 6.5mm sedimentation depth used as a proxy. This is an example of a judgement call. • Mandatory goals and objectives in place for contractors to measure harm against if lack of scientific data or certainty. Information from EIAs would introduce new evidence to advise more specific performance standards and thresholds in future. • Pick up also what ISA has provided, not just external input for standards and guidelines. • The S&G ideally cover aspects of impact assessment AND monitoring with mitigation/reduction. So they should adopt An INTEGRATED approach to structure and content.