Intervention:

Proposed regulation of jettisoned material from

space launch vehicles under the Exclusive
Economic Zone and Continental Shelf
(Environmental Effects) Act 2012
Date: 2 September 2017

To: Ministry for the Environment, c/o slvconsultation@mfe.govt.nz.

From: [Insert name/organization].
Email: [Insert]
Phone: [Insert]

INTRODUCTION
1. Space vehicle launches are a new activity in New Zealand and are expected to result in
seabed pollution in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The Ministry for the
Environment (MfE) is currently leading the Governments consideration on how best to
manage this activity. The Government proposes (in its document Proposed regulation
of jettisoned material from space launch vehicles under the Exclusive Economic Zone
and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012 1 - the Proposal Document)
to allow the deposit (pollution) of jettisoned material from space vehicle launches in
a wider area of the EEZ and extended continental shelf to the north, east, and south of
New Zealand2 by classifying it as a permitted activity under EEZ Act regulations.

1.1. This intervention responds to that Proposal.

OVERVIEW
2. We appreciate the many different considerations must be weighed when developing
this proposal. The Proposal document (p7) states that The way the activity is
regulated should be proportionate to the level of these effects, and allow for the
consideration of non-environmental impacts. Despite disagreeing with the idea that
there exists such things as non-environmental impacts,3 our priority is similarly to
ensure that, all things taken into account (both at a micro and macro level), the right
values-based balance is struck. Some of the values weve factored in (which well go
into in more detail below) include:

2.1. On the upside, relatively speaking, jettisoned material from space would not be as
polluting as other more abominably damaging industrial activities. However, it is still
a polluting activity. The Proposal also suggests that there is potential for significant
value to humanity from the proposed activity. However, many have encountered
Page | 1
 promises before of benefits from the corporate use of our natural resources and
territories which have failed to deliver. Again, we struggle to see what direct and/or
tangible benefits will accrue to communities and people on the ground, and in what
time-frame.
2.2. Other matters to consider include
a. Tikanga Mori (which the Government is obliged to recognize and respect under
s12 of the EEZ in so far as giving effect to the Treaty of Waitangi principles is
concerned4), in particular:
i. Tangata whenua kaitiaki rights and responsibilities - especially regarding
protection of Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwas/ our Pacific oceans critical role in
sustaining human life; and
ii. Recognition that working with natures laws (not against them) is best; and
b. The imperative to undertake a comprehensive spiritual, environmental, social,
cultural and economic cost-benefit audit to ensure (to the best of our ability) the
realization of net benefits in any and every endeavour, including consideration of
factors such as:
i. The need to take a more holistic view and give greater weight to the dangers
of cumulative harmful environmental effects, including pollution; and
ii. Climate crisis shows that the sustainability benchmark (including legislative
expressions of sustainability and implementation of such legislation like the
EEZ Act5) has failed to protect Earths life-support systems. Therefore, urgent
action at least avoidance of further environmental harm, but ideally active
restoration of our environment must be our top priority.

2.3. All things considered, the Proposal is problematic, and not straightforward. Given such
a high values-based threshold, while we support the opportunity in principle, we
cannot support the proposed permitted activity classification status.

2.4. We recommend as follows:

2.5. Recommendation: That the proposed activity (depositing on the seabed of jettisoned
material from space launch vehicles) be classified as prohibited - OR failing that,
discretionary (requiring a fully notified marine consent that sets out conditions to
manage the way the activity is undertaken which, to the fullest extent possible,
addresses our concerns contained in this intervention).

GENERAL COMMENTS
Need for holistic decision-making

3. MfE states (Proposal document, p8) that this consultation:

only considers how the EEZ Act can best promote the sustainable management
of the natural resources of the EEZ and continental shelf. It does not address
effects on land, the coastal marine area, or the high seas. Effects in these areas
are managed under other legislation, including the Civil Aviation Act 1990,
Maritime Transport Act 1994, and Resource Management Act 1991.
Page | 2
3.1. Recommendation: Clarify how the proposal will, in a holistic manner, be audited
against all applicable management legislation and an integrated decision made
regarding the proposal.

The polluting activity

4. Human history, ancient spiritual teachings, indigenous peoples wisdom and more
recently science have taught us about the harmful effects of man-made pollution for
our land, waters, atmosphere, biodiversity, ecosystems and human health. Whether
its pollution from 10 launches or 10,000, its all degrees of unacceptability.

4.1. Describing the activity as rocket launches innocuously depositing materials is

disingenuous and is an active attempt to mask what this is: pollution, by corporates
that externalize their polluting and other costs onto our environment and our society.

4.2. Recommendation: The proposed activity be called what it is: i.e. pollution.

4.3. MfE confirms6 that fragments from the proposed stage one activity are expected to
range in size from <0.01 m2 to 6.5 m2 and weigh from 0.03 kg to 360 kg and two
stage-two batteries which are likely (but not guaranteed) to burn up in the
atmosphere (Proposal document, p12). Although MfE adds that Rocket Labs Electron
launch vehicle carries no toxic materials (including the lithium batteries which are
said to contain no lead, acid, mercury, cadmium, or other toxic heavy metals), we are
aware that there still exist environmental concerns about lithium,7 indicating
somewhat contradictory information.

4.4. Recommendation: Reconcile the apparent contradictory information regarding no

toxic materials in the launch vehicle, and concerns re environmental effects of lithium
batteries.

4.5. MfE goes on to explain that the launch vehicle includes components made of a
polymer reinforced with carbon fibres. While highlighting the materials positive
attributes of being efficient, lightweight, high strength and chemically inert and do
not react with seawater, it is also known that polymers un-reactivity is a major
pollution problem8 due to the fact that they are notoriously difficult to break down
naturally (i.e. they last for long periods of time in the environment, which is why
plastics in our oceans have reached such crisis proportions).

4.6. In this regard, it is somewhat unsettling (although consistent with much past
experience) that the Government has seen fit to promote the positives of the
proposed activity, but avoid full disclosure of the negatives. This undermines our trust
and confidence in the integrity of MfEs and the Ministers decision-making process
overall.

4.7. Recommendation: That in its decision-making, MfE is more honest, open and
transparent about the negatives/risks of the proposed activity as well as the positives.

Falling space junk

Page | 3
5. It may/may not be true that no one has ever been injured by space debris or
jettisoned material, but there have definitely been recorded incidences of space junk
falling on or near populated areas and people.9 NASA and other reports also tell us
that there is already a serious danger from the considerable and growing number of
space junk and structures falling to earth.10 So it seems its just a matter of time before
an injury to humans (or worse) will occur.

5.1. Advocates for increased rocket launch activity may argue that we need this activity to
determine modern solutions to our worlds problems. However, when simultaneously
those seeking to solve the problem are also causing the problem, and the solutions
are left for future generations to find,11 such an argument is seriously undermined.

5.2. Recommendation: That in deciding how to regulate jettisoned material from space
launch vehicles, MfE takes into serious consideration data concerning the total current
and forecasted amount of space junk in our oceans.

Polluting harm compounded by converging crises

6. The accumulation of sea bed and ocean junk adds to the already mountainous
volumes of plastic garbage,12 toxins, radioactive13 and other wastes which our Pacific
ocean is absorbing daily. This is mirroring what is happening both on land and in our
atmosphere with space junk already a major problem.14 Our situation has reached
crisis levels. Other climate crisis proposed responses, potentially such as:
a. Geoengineering and weather modification;15 and
b. More space launch activity16:-

are only likely to worsen planetary pollution unless we take disruptive action and
consciously, with all due haste, move in the opposite direction.

6.2. We recognize that, all things being equal, our environment can sustain a degree of
such abuse. However, in our climate crisis era all things are demonstrably not equal.
The sixth mass extinction of biodiversity on Earth is well underway 17 (including the
disintegration of several fisheries and marine species18), including unprecedented
habitat collapse.19 Our past transgressions have finally caught up with us, and we need
to learn from our mis-management mistakes.

6.3. Speculation about what might reasonably occur in the future (the Proposal
document, p9) is becoming an increasingly unreliable tool on a planet with
exponentially increased uncertainty due to climate, economic and other converging
crises. Rather than an over-reliance on the unreliable, our Government would do
better to:
a. Take a precautionary approach to decision-making that has environmental
implications;
b. Build on our world-leading reputation for punching above our weight; and
c. Encourage other countries to value all climate crisis mitigation actions
especially the seemingly relatively subtle actions that send a loud message, as
we know how in the aggregate they can lead to significant shifts in the bigger
scheme of things.
Page | 4
6.4. From a moral and human survival standpoint, our catastrophic environmental state
now demands the strictest standards to be imposed on activities which would cause
further environmental harm. We can no longer plead ignorance about our deeply
corrupted situation. The depressingly prevalent mentality that humans have the right
to use our lands, skies and oceans as bottomless waste dumping grounds has got to
stop. It seems quite insane, suicidal and the height of arrogance that we would
knowingly continue such destructive practices particularly if the benefit to be gained
creates, on balance a net loss.

6.5. Recommendation: That all decision-making be viewed through a climate crisis

mitigation/adaptation lens, including that active environmental restoration be New
Zealands top priority.

What benefits, and to whom?

7. It might help take the sting out of some minor pollution of our oceans imposed by the
Government if:
a. There was an obvious meaningful net gain that would accrue to our affected
citizens, whnau, hap, iwi and kinga (communities); and
b. The permit required the permit holder to offset the pollution.

7.2. However, while MfE reports a range of potential benefits 20 from the proposed activity,
MfE admits that the immediate economic benefits (an estimated $30-80m p/year) are
only likely to accrue to the company owners and investors, those employed in New
Zealand by Rocket Lab, and key New Zealand-based component suppliers. The majority
of the economic impacts in New Zealand are likely to accrue to a small number of
related companies. This just adds more salt to the wound.

7.3. We fail to see how, when balanced against the environmental, spiritual and cultural
harm, such a proposition provides a net gain for our people on the ground. Indeed, it
is disturbing that commercial interests relentlessly seek certainty about their privileges
to conduct business activities, while correspondingly wider society is repeatedly called
upon to suffer the uncertainty about environmental and human rights effects and
consequences of those same activities.

Corporate vs Environmental and Human Rights

7.4. This perverse externalizing costs of commercial production equates to the

environment and citizens subsidising corporate welfare. Little wonder calls for
entrenched protection of the environment and natural persons human rights as
superior to legal persons and corporate entities privileges are being made more loudly
in national dialogues regarding the urgent need for constitutional transformation. 21

7.5. Until the net benefit for our people is made demonstrably clear, we are compelled to
take a precautionary approach in favour of protection of our ocean, and to avoid other
risks (e.g. regarding local fishing, tourism, transport or other industry that provides
more value to the wellbeing of our people).

7.6. Recommendation: That the Government:

Page | 5
 a. Clarifies the net benefits to iwi Mori and citizens generally from the proposal;
and
b. Effectively enables and ensures a more appropriate legislative, policy and
regulatory balance as between environmental, human rights and corporate
welfare and subsidization - with greater affirmative support and precautionary
approach protections accorded to environmental and natural persons human
rights.

7.7. Moreover, the proposal should be acknowledged as symptomatic of a perverse

corporate welfare system that maintains the illusion of corporations as profitable.
They are not: practically every major corporation, if audited on a comprehensive and
fully transparent basis (with all environmental, spiritual, cultural and social costs taken
into account), would be found to be NON-profitable.22 And, given that our entire
economy is based on unsustainable corporate activity of one form or another, this
means our whole economy is a demonstrably failed construct incapable of sustaining
itself. MfEs proposal (which puts profit and pollution above the environment and
human rights) is merely one of a multiplicity of warning signs of a larger, deeper crisis
that must be fixed before the economy inevitably23 implodes altogether (as it has done
since antiquity24).

7.8. Recommendation: The Government actively and urgently advances an honest,

inclusive, conversation with New Zealanders about our economic crisis (and its nexus
with climate crisis), with a commitment to identifying practical solutions to help buffer
citizens and communities against inevitable economic melt-down.

Trans Pacific Partnership

7.9. On the point of the over-reach of protections for corporate rights, privileges and
agendas, great concern was raised across civil society about the reported implications
of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) in regards to the protection of hap,
iwi, State and wider society rights, interests and responsibilities. 25 TPPA
implementation is forecast to create a chilling effect on domestic regulation of
corporate activities, especially when it comes to USA companies (of which Rocket Lab
is one) who can be very litigious. This is yet another reason to implement the highest
possible standard now in New Zealand to protect our oceans biodiversity, New
Zealands marine heritage and indigenous human rights. Policy and regulatory gains
and protections for our environment (including our moana) and human rights risk
being undone by the TPPA.

7.10. Recommendation: That the Government ensures, by nation-wide referendum or other

appropriate mechanism, that it has necessary social licence of New Zealand citizens
before ratifying and implementing the TPPA.

MESSAGE FROM THE MINISTER

8. Our general responses to the Message from the Minister, Dr Nick Smith (the
Proposal document, p5) are as follows.

Industry first, environment second

Page | 6
8.1. The Ministers opening paragraph sets the tone for his proposal. That paragraph
focuses on the priorities of the space industry, with no mention of the environment at
all. In an era of high speculation about corporate agenda infiltration into Government
decision-making, this sends the wrong message, and is a major concern for a Minister
supposedly for the environment.

8.2. Recommendation: Ensure, in both form and function, that environmental protection
and restoration, and human rights protections, are clearly the first and underpinning
priorities throughout this proposal (not protection of corporate privilege).

A peaceful space industry

8.3. The Government wishes to help develop a peaceful space industry. However, there
are many ways in which rocket launches could be a delivery mechanism for
exacerbating conflict in Aotearoa and/or the world (and therefore makes the space
industry less peaceful). For example, launches have the potential to:
a. Violate tangata whenua te Tiriti o Waitangi rights and kaitiaki obligations;
b. Advance a harmful kaupapa /purpose, e.g.:
i. Furthering militarist agendas which are increasingly likely in a climate crisis
world26 (it is known that Rocket Lab have working relationships with military
organizations27);
ii. Conducting scientific experiments (e.g. geoengineering 28), for innovating mass
population surveillance technologies29 or any other agenda for which there
are profound environmental, human health or human rights implications but
no social license30; or
c. Create damaging pollution-related effects for commercial interests in transport,
tourism, fisheries or other industries (despite mitigation measures included in
the regulations).

8.4. Any of these unacceptable risks worsens conflict in the world (and for the space
industry). They dont increase the prospect of peace.

A safe and secure space industry

8.5. The Minister seeks to help develop a safe and secure space industry. However, the
risk (mentioned above) for generating conflict by definition risks making the industry
and Aotearoa less safe and secure. In addition, however, increasing environmental
pollution damages our natural habitat and Life-support systems, and is therefore a
direct attack on biodiversity and human life itself (the US military, with whom Rocket
Lab is known to have working relationships with, are widely acknowledged as one of if
not the biggest polluter in the world31). Such a proposal is the antithesis of where
Aotearoa needs to be heading (let alone leading the world on), particularly in a climate
crisis world where reduction of Greenhouse gas emissions and the restoration of
habitats (not more pollution or destruction of them) ought to be our first priority.

A responsible space industry

Page | 7
8.6. The Minister seeks to help develop a responsible space industry. However, given the
points throughout this intervention, any proposal to confer a lightweight permitted
status on rocket launch activity arguably indicates a careless disregard for core
environmental, spiritual, cultural and social values, especially when we consider that:
a. Corporates are known for at best evading full disclosure and transparency, and at
worst outright fraudulent and corrupt dealings; and
b. Increasingly, public trust in Government agencies to properly and
dispassionately32 monitor33 and enforce permit and licensing compliance
(regardless of the activity) has been seriously eroded.34

8.7. The upshot is a distinct risk that many corporations will succeed at violating their
permit conditions undetected. But even if corporate violations (with harmful
consequences) are discovered, we doubt that the harmful effects will be sufficiently
remedied (again if history of evasive and resistant corporate conduct is anything to go
by), including financial reparations that appropriately reflect the nature and degree of
the violation and its harmful effects.

8.8. The Minister states that [t]his is similar to the approach [the Ministry takes] to
regulating the environmental effects of seismic surveying, marine scientific research,
and prospecting and exploration for petroleum. However, this assurance only
exacerbates our concerns, given that many Mori are decidedly disenchanted with the
Governments prioritizing and subsidizing of corporate profit-making interests over
tangata whenua kaitiaki rights and obligations to protect our territories and natural
resources from seismic surveying and other extractive industry harmful activities.

8.9. In general, therefore, with respect to the Ministers Message we recommend as

follows:

8.10. Recommendation: That any proposal must be demonstrably fit to deliver on, and fully
comply with, all the Ministers intentions as officially stated.

PROPOSED PERMITTED ACTIVITY CLASSIFICATION

9. We consider MfEs arguments in support of its proposal are unpersuasive.

Sustainable Management

9.1. MfE states that:

a. The purpose of the EEZ Act is, inter alia, to promote sustainable management of
natural resources and protect the environment from pollution; and
b. MfEs proposal complies with that EEZ purpose.

9.2. However, as commented above, climate crisis demonstrates that the sustainability
benchmark is no longer fit for purpose to protect Earths life-support systems. Active
restoration of our environment, not sustainability must now be our top priority.

Consistency

9.3. MfE states that a permitted classification is consistent with the:

Page | 8
 a. permitted status the activity already has in some areas; and
b. classification afforded to other activities with effects of a similar or greater
scale.

9.4. However, an effective environmental protection system must respond to changing

circumstances such as the Governments receipt and integration of critical data into its
policy-making processes. It is especially important to acknowledge that lags in this
process have implications for the effective responsiveness of that environmental
protection mechanism. Put a different way, straight-jacketing ourselves to past
outdated decisions risk current decision-making being contradictory to the very
legislative purposes that the decision is intended to comply with.

9.5. In other words, climate crisis is such a game changer that the Governments priorities
need to be radically improved in favour of active environmental protection and
restoration.

9.6. Therefore, we repeat our recommendation above:

9.7. Recommendation: That the proposed activity (depositing on the seabed of jettisoned
material from space launch vehicles) be classified as discretionary requiring a fully
notified marine consent that sets out conditions to manage the way the activity is
undertaken which, to the fullest extent possible, addresses our concerns contained in
this intervention.

ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT

10. Following its environmental risk assessment of the proposed pollution from rocket
launches (as applies to the whole area of the EEZ and continental shelf where it would
be feasible), the Government has concluded that adverse effects for the proposed
level of material would be minor or less than minor.

Relative impact

10.1. However, from a tangata whenua perspective, the impact of the so-called minor
effects is greater relative to the significance of the affected area. The assessment area
includes sites and territories which are environmentally, culturally and/or spiritually
significant to the affiliated mana whenua, for example:
a. The expanse between Te Rerenga Wairua (at the top of the North Island) and
Manawatawhi (Three Kings Islands) which is part of the spiritual pathway of Te
Ao Mori (for which Ngti Kuri hold kaitiaki rights and responsibilities); and
b. Rangithua (the Kermadec Islands) around which a marine sanctuary will be
established (Ngti Kuri are also the mana whenua there).

10.2. Therefore, these places35 must be excluded from any proposed activity area.

10.3. Recommendation: That the Government:

Page | 9
 a. Engage with tangata whenua to determine sites and territories of environmental,
cultural and/or spiritual significance to the mana whenua within the proposed
activity area; and
b. Prohibit the proposed activity in those sites and territories.

Accumulative effects

10.4. In its risk assessment, the Governments panel of experts 36 studied the way effects
could accumulate with repeated launches and the effects of other activities. The
expert panel concluded that it was likely that 50 deposits of 40 tonne of debris could
be made in the same general area without increasing the environmental risk above the
risk resulting from fishing alone.

10.5. In our General Comments section above, we raise the risk of accumulative pollution
effects. To reinforce this point, and the need for New Zealand to do our bit and reduce
pollution of Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa, we recommend the following:

10.6. Recommendation: Recognizing the significant and unsustainable harmful

accumulative effects of pollution on our ocean, that the proposed activity be classified
as discretionary requiring a fully notified marine consent (as recommended above).

10.7. Should the Government allow the activity (without our free, prior and informed
consent or our social license), we can only hope to expect that the most stringent
environmental protection conditions will be imposed and enforced.

Human rights risk assessment

10.8. While NIWA (National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research) has produced
the Governments environmental assessment, New Zealand should be taking further
steps to ensure enforcement of environmental and human rights standards in relation
to the proposed activity.

10.9. Recommendation: That the Government:

a. With the meaningful engagement of tangata whenua and civil society, ensures
an open, comprehensive, transparent investigation is completed into the
environmental compliance and human rights reputation and trustworthiness of
Rocket Lab and any other parties who seek to undertake the activity; and

b. Gives due consideration to that investigations findings when assessing that party
(or parties) suitability to undertake the proposed activity.

NEW ZEALANDS INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS

11. The Minister37 seeks to help develop a space industry that meets New Zealands
international obligations and mentions a range of international obligations that our
Government must comply with and/or otherwise give due consideration to in respect
to its proposals. However, the proposal omits mention of the following:

Convention on Biological Diversity

Page | 10
11.1. While MfE mentions the CBD, MfE ought also to acknowledge Article 8(j), which
states38:

Each contracting Party shall, as far as possible and as appropriate:

Subject to national legislation, respect, preserve and maintain knowledge,

innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities embodying
traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological
diversity and promote their wider application with the approval and involvement of
the holders of such knowledge, innovations and practices and encourage the
equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of such knowledge,
innovations and practices.

11.2. Recommendation: That the Government ensures the equitable sharing with tangata
whenua of any benefits arising from the utilization of tangata whenua knowledge,
innovations and practices in connection with the activity.

11.3. Furthermore, MfE omitted mention of at least three (possibly more) particularly
relevant United Nations standard setting instruments:

The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

11.4. UNDRIP39 Articles the proposal puts at risk include the following:
a. Article 18, concerning Indigenous peoples participation in decision-making on
matters that affect their rights;
b. Article 19, concerning indigenous peoples right to free, prior and informed
consent regarding adoption and implementation of legislative or administrative
measures that may affect them;
c. Article 25 regarding traditional territories, waters and other resources;
d. Article 32 regarding free, prior and informed consent for any project affecting
indigenous peoples lands or territories and other resources, particularly in
connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of resources; and
redress for any adverse environmental, economic, social, cultural or spiritual
impact;
e. Article 29 regarding the right to the conservation and protection of the
environment and the productive capacity of their territories and resources,
including the State obligations concerning disposal hazardous materials; and
f. Article 30 regarding military activities being undertaken in the territories of
indigenous peoples.40

Business and Human Rights Guidelines 2011

11.5. Achievement of BHRG41 standards that the proposal puts at risk include:
a. The States obligation to respect, protect and fulfil human rights and
fundamental freedoms;
b. The obligation of business to comply with all applicable laws and to respect
human rights; and
Page | 11
 c. The need for appropriate and effective remedies when these obligations are
violated.

2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

11.6. The 2030 Agenda42 contains 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). To the extent
the kaupapa of the rocket launches will be unknown, the proposal potentially puts at
risk achievement of several SDGs, including:
a. SDG 1 - End poverty in all its forms everywhere: There is a real risk that the
proposed regulations could enable a dubious agenda like militarisation (in
natural resource-rich, or already war-stricken, parts of the world) or scientific
research or activities (e.g. geoengineering, which could empower weather
manipulation having profound implications for the stability or instability, as the
case may be of economies the world over). It is easy to connect these agenda
to the exacerbation of poverty;
b. SDG 3 Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages,
especially SDG 3.9, By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and
illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and
contamination. There is a real risk that the proposed regulations could enable
an agenda that facilitates the use of hazardous substances (whether for military,
geoengineering, scientific or other purposes);
c. SDG 6 Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and
sanitation for all, especially improve water quality by reducing pollution,
eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and
materials;
d. SDG 12 Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns (i.e. using
our ocean as a rubbish dump is not a sustainable practice); and
e. SDG 14 Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources
for sustainable development. This goal is also consistent with the 193 Nations
who earlier this year committed to urgent action to protect our oceans,43
including New Zealand Conservation Minister Maggie Barry who stated that New
Zealand has made clear our long-term commitment to protecting, conserving
and sustainably using oceans and marine resources and is committed to
[reversing] the degradation of our marine spaces.44

11.7. Clearly, in addition to te Tiriti (an internationally binding Treaty), the proposal either
violates or facilitates the violation of several United Nations international standards
and the Governments obligations associated with protecting and implementing those
standards.

11.8. Recommendation: the Government ensures it fully complies, in good faith, with all its
international obligations.

IWI/MORI INTERESTS
Mori industry groups

Page | 12
12. It is known that Mori fishing groups have voiced Treaty-based concern about the
impact of legitimate marine protection mechanisms (such as the Rangitahua /
Kermadec marine sanctuary) on their commercial fishing interests. We expect,
therefore, that such groups will have concerns about the effects of rocket launch
activities on their fishing rights also. As mentioned, other industry groups such as
tourism, transport and others may also feel inconvenienced or at risk.

12.1. Recommendation: That the Government ensures:

a. The value of fishing, tourism, transport or other industry interests (whether
Mori or Pkeh/ mainstream) will be protected against any reasonable risks
associated with the proposal; or if not
b. Appropriate redress will be made to the affected parties.

Iwi and the EEZ

13. Several iwi are now pursuing protection under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai
Moana) Act 2011.

13.1. Recommendation: That the Government safeguard the value of the MaCA Act 2011 by
ensuring that the effect of that legislations provisions will not be diminished or
undermined by implemented regulation of jettisoned material from space launch
vehicles.

Nku noa/ sincerely,

[Insert name/ organization]

Page | 13
Page | 14
1
Downloadable at http://www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/media/Extra%20downloads/Source%20file/WiderEEZ-space-
launch-vehicle-discussion-doc-final-16%20Aug_0.docx.
2
See Figure 1 in the Proposal document, p6.
3
Everything is reliant on nature, the laws of physics and other natural laws (like Newtons Third Law of Physics, that every
action has an equal and opposite reaction). To say actions have environmental and non-environmental effects is in truth a
misnomer.
4
Ref also the Proposal document, p14.
5
The purpose of the EEZ Act is, inter alia, to promote sustainable management of natural resources and protect the
environment from pollution.
6
Proposal document, page 12.
7
E.g. see Tech Metals Insider, How Green is Lithium? (16 December 2014), at
http://www.kitco.com/ind/Albrecht/2014-12-16-How-Green-is-Lithium.html.
8
See Bitesize (BBC), Problems with polymers, at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/aqa_pre_2011/oils/polymersrev7.shtml.
9
See for example http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2011/09/21/woman-gets-hit-by-space-junk-lives-to-tell-tale.html.
10
Air Force space junk surveillance currently tracks 21,000 pieces of space debris greater than 10cm: see
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33782943.
11
See Trouble in orbit: the growing problem of space junk (5 August 2015), at http://www.bbc.com/news/science-
environment-33782943.
12
See Graeme Wearden (The Guardian), More plastic than fish in the sea by 2050, says Ellen MacArthur (19 January
2016), at https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/19/more-plastic-than-fish-in-the-sea-by-2050-warns-ellen-
macarthur.
13
See Dahr Jamail (Truthout), Fukushima Plant Is Releasing 770,000 Tons of Radioactive Water Into the Pacific Ocean (18
August 2017), at http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/41564-fukushima-plant-is-releasing-tons-of-radioactive-water-into-
the-pacific-ocean.
14
The Conversation, Space junk and the environment: its a very dark picture indeed (6 July 2011), at
http://theconversation.com/space-junk-and-the-environment-its-a-very-dark-picture-indeed-2187.
15
Catherine Murupaenga-Ikenn, Geoengineering experimentation NOT the first time (31 March 2017), at
https://www.catherinemikenn.com/single-post/2017/04/10/Geoengineering-experimentation-NOT-the-first-time.
16
MfE has admitted (Proposal document, p8) that The space launch industry is new to New Zealand and in an early phase
of developmentbut as it matures it is likely that operators will want to launch rockets on other flight paths that could
deposit material outside the current authorised areas.
17
Jeremy Hance (The Guardian), How humans are driving the sixth mass extinction (20 October 2015), at
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/radical-conservation/2015/oct/20/the-four-horsemen-of-the-sixth-mass-
extinction.
18
See Azua (Zizhan) Luo (New Security Beat), Ocean Fish Stocks on Verge of Collapse, Says IRIN Report (28 February
2017), at https://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2017/02/ocean-fish-stocks-on-verge-collapse-irin-report/.
19
See Chris Mooney (The Washington Post), As coral reefs die, huge swaths of the seafloor are deteriorating along with
them (2017), at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/04/20/as-coral-reefs-die-huge-
swaths-of-the-ocean-floor-are-vanishing-with-them/?utm_term=.599cfc983259.
20
Proposal document, p21.
21
See HE WHAKAARO HERE WHAKAUMU M AOTEAROA - THE REPORT OF MATIKE MAI AOTEAROA, THE INDEPENDENT
WORKING GROUP ON CONSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION (January 2016), at
http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/MatikeMaiAotearoaReport.pdf.
22
Michael Thomas, New UN report finds almost no industry profitable if environmental costs were included (9 April
2015), at https://www.exposingtruth.com/new-un-report-finds-almost-no-industry-profitable-if-environmental-costs-were-
included/.
23
Nicole Foss Interview on Peak Oil, Financial Crisis, Resilience, and More (18 July 2015), at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdNvmIfyQPY.
24
The 7 Signs Of An Empire In Decline (26 September 2015), at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7Gc1bv-
Mj4&index=10&t=334s&list=LL-tO2hSPVFwFZSKwhj502JA.
25
See statement downloadable at http://www.ngatikuri.iwi.nz/trust-board-opposes-the-tppa/.
26
See Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, NATO joins the Pentagon in deeming climate change a threat multiplier (25 May
2017), accessible at http://thebulletin.org/nato-joins-pentagon-deeming-climate-change-threat-multiplier10790.
27
For more on the risk of militarist agendas, see The Pacific Institute of Resource Management, Submission to the Ministry
for the Environment on Regulation of jettisoned material from space launch vehicles (16 September 2016), at
https://medium.com/@pirm/submission-to-the-ministry-for-the-environment-on-regulation-of-jettisoned-material-from-
space-3aea2f2a9f2b.
28
See C Murupaenga-Ikenn, Geoengineering experimentation NOT the first time (31 March 2017), accessible at
https://www.catherinemikenn.com/single-post/2017/04/10/Geoengineering-experimentation-NOT-the-first-time.
29
See The Intercept, New Zealand Launched Mass Surveillance Project While Publicly Denying It (15 September 2014),
accessible at https://theintercept.com/2014/09/15/new-zealand-gcsb-speargun-mass-surveillance/.
30
The Sustainable Business Council states that having a social licence to operate is the ability of an organisation to
carry out its business because of the confidence society has that it will behave legitimately, with accountability and in a
socially and environmentally responsible way and that transparency and accountability are no longer optional for
business as they are an increasingly essential component of brand resilience. See Social Licence to Operate Paper
(2013) accessible at http://www.sbc.org.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/99437/Social-Licence-to-Operate-
Paper.pdf.
31
See Global Research, Environmentalists are Ignoring the Elephant in the Room: U.S. Military is the Worlds Largest
Polluter (22 May 2017), at http://www.globalresearch.ca/environmentalists-are-ignoring-the-elephant-in-the-room-u-s-
military-is-the-worlds-largest-polluter/5591596; Eco Watch, U.S. Military Is Worlds Biggest Polluter (15 May 2017), at
https://www.ecowatch.com/military-largest-polluter-2408760609.html.
32
See Greenpeace, If the crackdown on protest at sea is so popular, why the shady meetings? (10 July 2013), at
http://www.greenpeace.org/new-zealand/en/blog/if-the-crackdown-on-protest-at-sea-is-so-popu/blog/45881/.
33
See for example Leaked report shows public misled over snapper policing (6 June 2017), at
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1706/S00080/leaked-report-shows-public-misled-over-snapper-policing.htm.
34
See Jamie Morton (New Zealand Herald): as an OECD report noted this year, our economy is becoming increasingly at
odds with our environmentAfter more than 25 years and 20 amendments, the RMA has doubled in size, and parties on all
sides of the spectrum argue it has lost coherence. (Election Policy Series: Passions high over natural assets (24 August
2017), at http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11907764).
35
This is consistent with repeated tangata whenua calls directed at different Government agencies, for example concerning
the New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals Block offer 2015 (accessible at
https://www.scribd.com/document/290695702/2015-Block-Offer-Submission-AKT-8feb15), and the tangata whenua
meeting with the Ministry of Economic Development (6 November 2008 accessible at
https://www.scribd.com/document/78566371/Ministry-of-Economic-Development-Prospecting-Application-Meeting-
6nov08).
36
Ref the Proposal document, p9.
37
Proposal document, p5.
38
Ref https://www.cbd.int/traditional/.
39
Downloadable at http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf.
40
This relates to the concern that the traditional kaitiaki of the areas affected by this proposal are prevented from knowing
the reasons for the launch and (e.g. in the case of avaricious, military or otherwise immoral agendas) have no ability to
veto let alone influence the activity.
41
Accessible at http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf.
42
Accessible at https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdgs.
43
See Inquirer.net, 193 nations urge action to protect oceanswith US protest (June 2017), at
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/904254/193-nations-urge-action-to-protect-oceans-with-us-protest.
44
New Zealand's Ocean conference commitments (10 June 2017), at
https://www.national.org.nz/new_zealand_s_ocean_conference_commitments.