State fails biodiversity: High Court decision on snails
Press Release: Save Happy Valley Coalition
30/4/07
FOR IMMEDIATE USE

Powelliphanta Augustus Incorporated is highlighting the inadequacy of New Zealand's law after the High Court today found against their appeal.

"This simply signals the inadequacy of New Zealand's law in this area"said Frances Mountier, spokesperson for Powelliphanta Augustus Inc. "Solid Energy, a state owned enterprise, does not have resource consent for what it's doing and the Environment Court made it quite clear that Solid Energy were having a noxious impact on the environment. The country's biggest coal mine should not be exempt from the Resource Management Act.

"94% of the habitat of this so-called 'absolutely protected' species' habitat is being destroyed. Solid Energy is the Government's single biggest climate polluter yet it is given free reign. This company represents both state sponsored species extinction and state sponsored climate pollution It is time this rogue state owned enterprise was pulled into line," said Ms Mountier.

ENDS

Notes
The Environment Court's findings in October 2006 were:

[24] There is nothing in the evidence before us which leads us to any
conclusion other than that Solid Energy gave no serious consideration to
avoidance of the snail habitat in its mining programme.

[46] To paraphrase Mr Buckingham, Powelliphanta "Augustus" is a small,
isolated population at risk from catastrophic events. A catastrophic
event has now arrived in the form of Solid Energy's bulldozers which
will destroy much of the snail's known habitat.

[47] … We are convinced by the evidence of Ms Walker and Professor New
that in the present state of knowledge translocation is high risk. There
is the possibility of failure of the process and that failure will take
place in the background of most of the snails' existing habitat having
been destroyed along with an unknown number of the snails themselves. We
again refer to the provisions of s6(c) RMA and note that the destruction
of this significant habitat of a rare native animal appears directly
contrary to that provision.

[51] … It is our considered view that the destruction of a substantial
portion of the habitat of the Powelliphanta "Augustus" in a situation
which might possibly lead to extinction of that species is an action
which is noxious, dangerous, offensive or objectionable to such an
extent that it is likely to have an adverse effect on the environment.

© Scoop Media