By Maggie Tait of NZPA

Wellington, March 24 NZPA - The Economist magazine has criticised the Government's decision to mine on protected land in part of an article lashing the country's green credentials.

Labour leader Phil Goff said the article, in the London-based international magazine, showed the negative impact the decision was having and that if returned to government Labour would reverse it, while the Green Party and Greenpeace said it was a pointer to international fallout over the country's green image.

The Government has proposed removing 7058 hectares from the protected status of schedule four of the Crown Minerals Act including Great Barrier Island, parts of the Coromandel and in Paparoa National Park on the West Coast.

The online article said opening up conservation land to mining was something the dwarves in the Hobbit might like but "is not popular with more elvish sensibilities".

The article listed the move as one of several detrimental steps the Government was taking.

It picked up on remarks in an earlier Guardian column criticising New Zealand over its "100 percent pure" marketing claims, while it continued to increase greenhouse gas emissions.

The Economist article acknowledged there had been improvements in some areas and saw the emissions trading scheme and global initiative on reducing agricultural greenhouse-gas emissions as positives.

"From an environmentalist's perspective, though, these positives are outweighed by much larger negatives."

Asked for his response, Energy and Resources Minister Gerry Brownlee said the Government would not allow anything "to compromise its commitment to maintaining a balance between building a viable and prosperous nation and the responsible protection of the environment".

Mr Goff visited Great Barrier Island today to talk to the people there about their concerns over mining proposals.

He told NZPA mining would have a negative impact on New Zealand's reputation internationally as the article showed. The Tourism Research Institute had already highlighted that problem and most of the tourism industry opposed the idea.

"The plan is likely to be picked up by international media and there will be fallout... It may already have damaged New Zealand's reputation."

Mr Goff said Prime Minister John Key was happy with less than 100 percent pure.

"I'm not. If he takes these sensitive and important environmental areas that are currently protected out of schedule four we will put them back in."

The Green Party said there had been similar articles in the Guardian and the New York Times.

"Previous research has shown that New Zealand's clean green branding is worth billions to our exporters," party co-leader Russel Norman said.

"And every move to degrade our environment will result in damage to our $21 billion tourism industry and all our primary produce exporters."

Greenpeace said the article demonstrated an international backlash that was putting the economy at risk.

"Many Kiwis have jobs today that directly benefit from New Zealand's clean, green brand. To threaten the brand by returning to 19th century industrial policies is to risk economic suicide," said Greenpace campaigner Simon Boxer.

Mr Key yesterday said there would be no open cast mining on Great Barrier Island or in the Coromandel.