双语|中国矿产公司因环保问题受到澳方攻击What happens when mines close in Australia?

0
分享
双语|中国矿产公司因环保问题受到澳方攻击What happens when mines close in Australia?
前言
澳大利亚有很多法律,包括联邦法、州法和地方法。有一些通过了议会的立法程序,还有一些仅仅以指令的形式存在。简而言之,法律形式很多样。在澳大利亚的法律体系中,还存在一些日落条款,规定在某个日期之前必须重新审议该法律,否则该法律将失效。在土地领域尤其如此,既有“永久所有”的土地,也有“天然”土地、“采矿租用”土地和公有土地。如今环境意识在政治中越来越明显,采矿对环境的影响越来越显著,不只是采矿活动和产品的影响,还包括由于生产方式变得不经济和矿产资源枯竭导致的矿场关闭。然后,从景观和环境的角度来看,这块区域需要恢复到之前的状态,或者被开发成一个新的功能区。

澳大利亚的矿场位置都比较偏远,自然环境也比较恶劣。因此,虽然澳大利亚制定了很多法律,试图完全修复自然环境,但很少有矿场的环境能够回到原来的状态。

中国矿产公司受到指控
在澳大利亚的政治体系中,这也导致了政治家、游说团体和其他利益相关者在媒体上表现出对外国的恐惧,比如这种内容:“西澳的一家中国控股公司没有履行环境义务,逃避了几亿澳元的成本。”澳洲EGN传媒公司的Andrew Crook表示。

报告显示,这可能是真的
Mike Slight制定的一份环境报告显示,由中国国有企业中信集团控股的Sino Iron和Korean Steel项目造成了5亿澳元的损害,按照法律必须实施环境恢复措施。Slight先生是关闭矿场管理、环境和社会责任领域的顶级专家,拥有25年的专业经验,曾经在Normandy Mining和Newmont Australia矿产公司担任过总经理。2014年,根据Mineralogy有限公司的一份协议,澳大利亚建立了环境恢复基金,所有对环境造成损害的矿产企业都必须向这个基金提交一定数目的环境保护费。Slight先生在报告中发现,Sino Iron和 Korean Steel项目本来应该向环境基金提交5.29亿澳元的环境保护费,但是却没有。

根据西澳议会2002年通过的《铁矿加工法案》,Mineralogy有限公司的协议为环境恢复基金制定了详细的计划。

据悉,Mineralogy公司的董事长、前联邦议会议员Clive Palmer称,中国政府拒绝为西澳Pilbara地区的Cape Preston项目履行义务。Mineralogy公司负责管理环境恢复基金,保证项目结束之后原址的自然环境能够得到恢复,但该公司不能直接使用基金。最近,中信集团董事长常振明表示,中信集团正在考虑撤出西澳的项目。这意味着澳大利亚要尽快敦促中信集团缴清环境保护费。Palmer先生表示,Mineralogy公司将不会继续容忍下去。

Mineralogy公司的执行董事长Nui Harris表示,根据Mike Slight的报告估计,中信集团控股的公司平均每天会造成1百万美元以上的环境损害。Harris先生表示,在缴清这些环境保护费之前,这个项目应该被暂停运营。

Clive Palmer的言论表明,在适当的时候,澳大利亚会采取紧急法律措施,禁止Sino Iron和Korean Steel项目的运营,直到中方缴清所有的环境保护费。

报告的作者Slight先生称,项目关闭之后需要完成大量的清洁和环境恢复工作。

澳大利亚的一个主要的担忧是,目前全国有5万多个废弃的矿场。除非矿产企业按规定缴清环境保护费,否则这些工作很难完成。

Harris先生表示,我们应该质疑,为什么外国政府控股的公司能够不受控制地剥削澳大利亚的财富。

辩论还在继续
这些媒体报导持续刺激着澳大利亚国内的辩论。可悲的是,很多言论似乎夸大了现实,或者仅仅是政治上的站队而已。在言论自由的环境中,不同的观点固然很重要,但持有不同观点的群体之间需要相互调和,而不是相互诋毁,比如基于宗教或者种族表达观点。很多例子都表明,这件事情在澳大利亚并不总是很容易。

在澳大利亚目前的政治环境中,目前的辩论涉及很多问题,比如最近的中国主权问题和共产主义恐惧的问题。这些问题已经开始介入矿产和农业领域。

这给外国投资者(比如中信集团)带来了很大的障碍。新的联邦立法和法案禁止外国人影响澳大利亚的政治辩论,但是他们将如何为自己辩护,维护自己的利益呢?

这场看起来像是经济倒退的辩论还会持续一段时间,因为在“特朗普时代”,所有人都在试图维护自己的利益,而不是为了共同利益而合作。

 

请留言发表你的观点!

 

 『原文』 What happens when mines close in Australia?

Australia has lots of laws, federal, state and local. Some of these are legislated others take the form of directives, in short there is lots of variety. In the system there are also sunset clauses and provisions to challenge or have laws reviewed. This is especially the case around property, land titles where “freehold” land coexist with “native” land or a “mining lease” land then there is “crown-land”.At a time when environmental awareness is making its presence felt in politics the issues of environmental impacts of mines has come to the fore, not just for the mining activity and product produced but also for the inevitable closure or mothballing of a mine should it become uneconomic or its resource is exhausted. Then it needs to rehabilitate to something new or something close to its prior state from a landscape and environmental perspective.

Given the remoteness and harsh conditions in Australia, few mines can ever be more than taken back to a “natural environment” despite ambitious laws that try to achieve complete remediation.

Environment and populist causes?

In the political system of Australia this also leads to a lot of xenophobic grandstanding via press-release by political participants, lobby groups and other stakeholders, with headlines like:

Chinese-owned companies fail to meet hundreds of millions of dollars of environmental obligations in WA – According to Andrew Crook, EGN Media.

The argument then usually is backed by some sort of report!

An environmental report by senior mining executive Mike Slight claims to have confirmed that the Sino Iron and Korean Steel projects owned by Chinese state-owned company CITIC Limited have exceeded more than $500 million in damage which will be required to be rehabilitated.

In his report, Mr. Slight, a leading expert in mine closure management, environment and social responsibility with more than 25 years’ experience including General Manager at Normandy Mining and Newmont Australia, found that Sino Iron and Korean Steel have failed to pay a total of $529,378,207 into the rehabilitation fund established in 2014 under an agreement with Mineralogy Pty Ltd.

The agreement provided a detailed schedule of financial contribution as per the Iron Processing Mineral Act 2002 passed by the WA parliament.

It is claimed, Chairman of Mineralogy and previous Member of Federal Parliament, Clive Palmer, confirmed the Chinese government refused to meet its obligations for the Cape Preston project in WA’s Pilbara region. Mineralogy acts as a trustee for these funds to ensure the site can be rehabilitated at completion of mining. The company has no access to these funds however it wants to ensure the land can be properly rehabilitated when the project concludes. Such funds are set up so these important obligations can be met. Mr. Palmer reportedly further said recent statements by the chairman of CITIC Group, Chang Zhenming, that CITIC was considering leaving the project meant that the funds owing was now pressing and urgent. As a result of these obligations not being met, Mineralogy can’t allow this situation to continue, Mr. Palmer is suggested to have said.

According to a press-release, Operations Executive for Mineralogy, Nui Harris, estimated that the CITIC-owned companies were accumulating more than $1 million dollars environmental damage per day of operation, based on the report. This project shouldn’t be allowed to continue until these outstanding funds have been paid by CITIC into the trust fund, Mr. Harris said.

When pressed, by whom is not clear, Clive Palmer apparently foreshadowed urgent legal action for an injunction in the WA Supreme Court against Sino Iron and Korean Steel to stop mining operations until the full environmental obligations were met.

Report author Mr. Slight said there was major decommission, clean-up and rehabilitation work required.

A major Australian concern is that there are over 50,000 abandoned mines across the country. It’s a real risk unless agreed contributions are made.

Mr. Harris said, serious questions must be asked why foreign government owned companies are being allowed to exploit the wealth of Australia unchecked.

Getting exited or angry?

So much for press-releases to stimulate debate and take positions on topics in a current affairs environment. Sadly, many claims can just be ambit claims or political grand standing.

In a freedom of speech environment, it is important that there are many different views on the issues, but they need to be tempered and not vilify, for example on religious or racial grounds. In Australia that is not always easy, as many past cases have shown.

In the present political environment in Australia debates entangle may issues, as recent exchanges for example on Sovereignty and China, Communist Party phobia have shown. A debate that is starting to intrude in the areas of mining and agriculture.

This creates a clear problem for foreign investors like CITIC, as new federal legislation, proposed laws, prohibits foreigners to try to influence the political debate in Australia, but how do they make their case and defend their interests?

It looks like this economically regressive debate will continue for some time as in the “Trump-era” everyone is out get the better of each other, rather than to cooperate for the common good.

How do you see these issues and debates?

A.    Healthy democratic?

B.    Dangerous populist?

C.    Just noise?

We care about your comments, please leave one!

作者Author:Roger Hausmann/Federal Parliamentary Journalist澳洲联邦记者本文翻译Translator:周吉吉Julie

本文编辑Editor:周吉吉Julie

往期相关回顾
金融|投资|联邦政府为保护投资者,查漏补缺,金融投资安全再升级金融|投资|如何避免投资的“伪逻辑”?个人的投资成功经验可信吗?

双语|电子商务将促进澳大利亚经济增长Australia benefits from growth on and off line

大咖谈|干货!如何投资澳大利亚的农业产业 Investing in Australian agriculture

别忘了积极留言互动,您的点赞和转发是我们坚持下去的动力!有任何建议,

请多多留言告诉我们!

祝各位读者 一周顺利~