Note the reports required under a petroleum or minerals permit for each calendar year - particularly for Prospecting and exploration activities and Iwi and hapū engagement. I encourage everyone to demand of Statoil that iwi are able to meaningfully participate in that reporting process. My conversation with Statoil reps on this matter is as follows (feel free to use my wording if you like; note how much energy it takes to get a straight answer - but I encourage you to persist!!): 3 December 2014: Catherine writes to Pal Haremo (Vice President Exploration, EXP INT EAST) Statoil: d. We understand all oil companies have annual reporting obligations to the New Zealand Government re iwi engagement. If so: i. Does Statoil intend fulfilling this reporting requirement; and ii. If so, would Statoil agree to hapū and iwi having sufficient opportunity to provide input into that report before it is finalised and delivered to the Government? 10 December Pal Haremo, Statoil, replies: Statoil complies with reporting requirements in the countries where we operate, and we will provide a report to the New Zealand Government on our engagement with iwi. We also report about our activities through our annual reporting as well as our sustainability report which are openly available. 10 December, Catherine replies: 5. In regards to “reporting requirements”, my specific question for answer was: “...would Statoil agree to hapū and iwi having sufficient opportunity to provide input into that report before it is finalised and delivered to the Government?” 14 December: When Pal didnt reply specifically, I emailed the newly-appointed Statoil Country Manager, Brynjulv Kløve, at nzoffice@statoil and ccd Pal in: Pending reply to our latest queries, we would like to know if Statoil is interested in entering a relationship agreement (or similar instrument) with the local affected communities, in particular the affected indigenous peoples. If so, does Statoil have a template instrument that we may consider as a starting point for discussion. That was to indicate I was still waiting on answers from Statoil to some of my questions. 17 December: Brynjulv Kløve, Statoil, replies: We believe we have addressed many of your points already. Statoil is committed to engaging with communities, including iwi. As mentioned, we have an established a dialogue with Te Rarawa through the Rūnanga chairman Haami Piripi and are doing the same with other iwi leaders in Te Tai Tokerau. We have carried out several meetings in Northland, and will continue to engage in the future, as we progress our plans. We are still in an early phase of our activities. 17 December: Catherine replies: As a Rūnanga Trustee, I am aware of Statoil’s line of communication and engagement via our Rūnanga chairperson. However, company engagement should extend beyond just a direct line with iwi authorities. Companies should augment that line of communication with other mechanisms that accommodate affected whānau, hapū and tangata whenua who for whatever reason can’t access or influence that Rūnanga direct line of communication. This is especially because iwi authority communication capacity is more often than not less than 100% reliable given that those authorities often lack the engagement capacity necessary for effective internal and external communication (a capacity issue which I’d like to think the companies would help address). E.g. these days, email and internet is convenient for the many whānau who want to ask questions and have them answered, but can’t attend in person the several meetings held. I’m certain that if companies have the time and resources to host iwi representatives for face-to-face engagement (twice now), those companies must surely have the resources to create a simple webpage with their local (NZ) contact details on it, and have the staffing capacity to respond in a timely and helpful manner to any reasonable and sincere information requests put to them. This improves the company’s transparency and public accountability. It might help you to understand also a bit of background for Māori peoples that includes a history of colonization which systematically stripped our peoples’ land and natural resources. One of the mechanisms by which this occurred was the Crown agents and others creating a single line of communication with a particular individual or individuals within the affected community, such that the wider affected community was powerless to influence the alienation of those lands and resources. You can therefore appreciate how a sense of déjà vu might be descending on many of our people right now. Some added engagement mechanisms on the company’s behalf would go a long way to building trust. 29 December: Having not heard back, Catherine emails Bryn (ccing in TGS consultant, AMy-Jane Milward, at ajmillward@slrconsulting): A kindly reminder that I am still waiting on specific answer to my questions to Pål Haremo (dated 3 December 2014): “5. In regards to “reporting requirements”, my specific question for answer was: “...would Statoil agree to hapū and iwi having sufficient opportunity to provide input into that report before it is finalised and delivered to the Government?” Pål’s partial reply (10 December) was: Statoil complies with reporting requirements in the countries where we operate, and we will provide a report to the New Zealand Government on our engagement with iwi. We also report about our activities through our annual reporting as well as our sustainability report which are openly available. Im waiting for my next reply from Statoil.
Posted on: Thu, 01 Jan 2015 23:11:17 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015