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/.