participation.



Mark Sainsbury from Close Up reports on drilling on Stewart Island

The Scoop.

IEM Stewart Island Exploration Oil Drilling

Greymouth Petroleum (GP) commenced exploration oil drilling in an old quarry on Stewart Island (SI) in early July.  Stewart Island is considered a unique and beautiful area with a ‘clean green’ image, and concerned SI residents appeared on Close Up with Mark Sainsbury to express their concerns over the drilling.  It appeared that while some residents were in support of the drilling, others were against it and felt that they were not asked to give consent on the drilling.  In reply, GP said that they had gained consents from the local farms near the quarry, delivered fliers to all residents on Stewart Island prior to drilling, and that they had held a community meeting to allow all residents to have their say.  While concerned residents did attend the community meeting they said they did not feel they were able to speak out against the drilling as SI was a small community and they were afraid they might ‘fall out’ with other SI residents who were in support of the drilling.

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/stewart-island-oil-drilling-destroys-natural-beauty-4972484

Stewart Island residents concerned about drilling.

Participation in IEM

This is an interesting example of participation and consultation in IEM within the Energy sector.  It is good that GP attempted public participation with the SI community to gain consent for exploration drilling on SI, although it is clear that there are areas for improvement as not all residents feel like they have had their say.  Although the local farmers signed the consent forms that allowed GP to drill, this is not a reflection on how the community as a whole feels towards the drilling.  It is possible that the farmers had an incentive to sign, if substantial amounts of oil are found these local farms may be bought out by GP.  Greymouth Petroleum delivered fliers to every address, I think this was a good technique as SI is a small island community and it allowed time for residents in the community to make submissions against the drilling consent however if people do not live on the island full time they may not have seen the fliers. Greymouth Petroleum also held a community meeting to let residents have their say, although concerned residents did not feel that they could speak freely here; therefore this was not a good forum for communication with the community.  Perhaps a different forum where GP could have met with the concerned residents separately would have been more appropriate.

Public participation with the local community is not easy, it is costly and time consuming but it is important. Effective communication & education are key element to collaboration, as well as good co-ordination between stakeholders and interested members of the public (Margerum & Born, 1995).

Extracting fossil fuel energy is a controversial topic, although there are many benefits including new jobs, cheaper oil, and increased growth in the economy, there are also many risks to the health of the environment and this is especially felt by the concerned residents of pristine SI. I understand the frustration of the concerned resident on SI, although I wonder if they had followed the formal routes to making submissions against GP’s drilling consents when they had the chance. This will be interesting case to follow as it develops to see how GP manages the community situation. If the quarry is found to contain large amounts of oil I expect to see more residents will make submissions against further drilling, and that there will be a social divide in the SI community between those who support the drilling and those who are against drilling. 

Consultation and participation with stakeholders can be difficult, so its probably time I introduced you to the barriers of IEM and ways to overcome these barriers. So check out next weeks blog on Barriers and Recipe's for Success!


Reference

Margerum, R.D., Born, S.M. (1995).  Integrated Environmental Management: Moving from Theory to Practice.  Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 38:371-390.

problem definition.

Last week I introduced the concept of IEM as well as the IEM framework for policy development (Figure 1). Today I want to discuss the second step in the IEM framework ‘Defining the Problem’; this is a really important step in achieving an IEM outcome.
First things first! An environmental issue must be recognised as an issue by people. Once the issue is recognised we can move onto the job of ‘defining the problem’. Appropriate problem definition right from the start of the process is crucial in achieving effective IEM.  This is because the way in which the problem is defined sets the scene for the how the issue will be analysed.

Using a case study on a proposed Marine Reserves (MR) in Kaikoura, New Zealand, I will illustrate how important problem definition is when finding solutions to environmental management issues.

Figure 1. Step 2 in the IEM Framework in Problem Definition.

Issues in Problem Definition

When it comes to problem definition in environmental management it is important to maintain a view of the ‘bigger picture’ at hand.  Too often people jump to the solution of a problem before they have adequately defined the problem.  You might be thinking that finding a solution quickly isn't a bad thing, if the solution seems obvious – why not move straight to it!? Well, being hasty without adequate problem definition can and has lead many a policy maker in to even more complex problems.  The following are four key points to be aware of for successful problem definition:

·     Environmental problem are rarely simple, they are complex issues with many interconnections that are difficult to resolve, and sometimes they are referred to as ‘wicked’ problems (Bardwell, 1991).

·        There can be multiple interpretations of the problem, we need to understand the problem solver as well as understanding the problem, this is because people are not value free, and values can be embedded in their environmental definition (Bardwell, 1991).

·        We must be aware of the language used in problem definition as it can be used as a powerful tool to muster emotion and interest and push the issue in a certain direction (Cairns & Crawford, 1991).

·         Metaphors can be helpful for understanding complex issues, however they can over-simplify issues to a point where the definition does not adequately emphasise the importance of the issue (Swaffield, 1998).

Case Study: Marine Reserve in Kaikoura

Background

This case study has a long history but it all started back in the late 1980’s when Barry Dunnett, a local teacher and representative for Forest & Bird (F&B) put forth a proposal for a Marine Reserve (MR) on the Kaikoura Peninsula.  The Kaikoura Peninsula is a unique and beautiful location that boasts diverse marine flora and fauna, rich in marine mammals, birds, plants and fish. Preserving the marine environment is important for Kaikoura’s tourist ventures as well as for recreational and cultural values.

There was support from local stakeholders (iwi, businesses & organisations) to ensure that at least part of the coastline was protected from localised fishing and Barry presented the idea of protecting half of the peninsular as a MR.  Consultation with stakeholders occurred but there was much debate about the appropriateness of the MR, in 1997 local MP Doug Kidd announced he would run the mediation process to resolve this issue, however this ended in an impasse; no consensus was ever reached on a MR in Kaikoura.

What went wrong?

There were several wrong turns that lead to the demise of the MR proposal, but if we trace back to the origins of the issue we find that the idea of a MR became a “Goal Trap” where stakeholders became focused on the solution - a MR, without properly defining the issue in the first place.  At the time F&B had issued a national MR goal that 10% of NZ’s coastlines be protected as MR’s, this in-turn led Dunnett to believe that a MR was the BEST solution for Kaikoura. Instead of stakeholders focusing on the issue as a whole, they focused on "how do we get everyone to agree to this MR on the Kaikoura peninsula?".  It was an incredibly narrow focus and if the actors had stopped, taken a step back and viewed the bigger picture, they may have realised that a MR was not their only option. A more communicative and collaborative approach might have brought forth new ideas such as moving the MR north or south of the peninsula to areas with high diversity and low human interaction, or that maybe that an iwi managed Rahui (temporary closure), Mataitai or Taiapure (locally managed) area may have been a better management tool for this situation. However, these ideas were not considered by this group as they were in a "Goal Trap" and wanted to contribute to F&B's national MR goal.

How to improve problem definition so we do not repeat our mistakes?

Make sure you have clearly defined your problem before you focus on solutions!!!

Bardwell (1991) suggests that instead of viewing problem definition as one step in the IEM framework, break it down in to smaller steps to help tease out the main problem (Table 1).

Step 1	Building an understanding of the problem: defining the problem-space
Step 2	Establishing some initial criteria for the goal
Step 3	Searching for solutions
Step 4	Deciding among solutions
Step 5	Evaluating progress: comparing initial goals to and monitoring the solution

Table 1. Organising the problem in problem definition.

When the problem is clearly defined, finding the correct solution will be easier.

What about the Kaikoura Peninsula??!

The Kaikoura Peninsular has since been protected by a Rahui (iwi managed temporary closure) and plans are (still) underway for MR's to the North and the South of the Peninsula. The Rahui was first instated in 2002, and has been renewed every 2 years since - until a more permanent management plan is decided on for the area so watch this space...!
http://www.stuff.co.nz/marlborough-express/news/kaikoura/7489840/Rahui-extended-for-two-years 

Today was an introduction to problem definition in IEM, drop in next week to learn more about barriers to integration and a recipe for success for IEM in policy development.


References

Bardwell, L.V.  (1991). Problem-framing: A perspective on Environmental Problem-Solving. Environmental Management, 15:603-612.

Cairns, J. Jr. & Crawford, T.V.  (1991). Integrated Environmental Management. Chelsea, Michigan: Lewis Publishers.

Swaffield, S.  (1998). Frames of Reference: A metaphor for Analysing and Interpreting Attitudes of Environmental Policy Makers and Policy Influences.  Environmental Management 22:495-504.

hello world.

Welcome to my very first blog! I’m Liza, a postgraduate Environment student from Lincoln University, Christchurch, New Zealand.  Over the next few months I am going to be providing regular blog entries on the topic of Integrated Environmental Management (IEM) as part of my environmental policy studies at Lincoln University.

IEM - we hold the world in our hands

Defining IEM

It’s week 1 of course, and I am going to attempt to define IEM for the first time.  Some of the different definitions used to describe IEM are seen below;

•          “... an approach to the management of the environment that takes into account its complex, multi- facetted, & interconnected nature.” (Bührs 1995)

•          “Coordinated control, direction or influence of all human activities in a defined environmental system to achieve & balance the broadest possible range of short- & long-term objectives.” (Cairns & Crawford 1991)

•          “A process of formulating & implementing a course of action involving natural & human resources in an ecosystem, taking into account the social, political, economic, & institutional factors operating within the ecosystems in order to achieve specific societal objectives.” (modified after Dixon & Easter 1986; cited in Margerum & Born 1995)

Is this enough?

While all three definitions are a broad attempt at defining IEM they all tend to look at the environment from a human focused perspective, on what the environment can do for us. 

Bührs (1991) suggests that we should take into account all of the complex connections in nature - A "Look at the Bigger Picture" approach, to ensure all aspects of the problem are taken into account. Cairns & Crawford (1991) highlight the importance of short & long term objectives in achieving balance, while Dixon & Easter (1986) mention the need for considering institutional factors as well as social, political and economic in achieving societies objectives. All of these points are crucial to the success of IEM but are these definitions enough?

Cairns & Crawford (1991) tell us that IEM is NOT fragemented decision making so that only one use is considered at a time, nor is it short-range goals that benefit a single group.

Further studies published by Bührs (2009) highlight IEM as a challenge to humans on two levels:

• To make a cognitive readjustment as an individual in our thinking as well as our decision making behaviour.
• To integrate these action and ideas through all areas of life in a coherent and consistent manner especially through our policies and institutions.

As each of the above definitions states or implies, there is a need for some form of framework to guide cohesive and consistent environmental management.

IEM requires a FRAMEWORK to progress!

Frameworks are good! They are essential supporting systems that help the policy process. This flow chart describes a process or framework for progressing with IEM.  It is an iterative process, that can be continually improved over time through monitoring and feedback.  It is important for users to focus on the "Bigger Picture" as it helps to improve agreement between stakeholders and it is a good place to start when using the framework.  Defining the problem in the broadest sense ensures that all factors are taken into account at the start of the process and can improve the success of IEM.

Thanks for reading my first blog, this was an introduction to IEM providing some of the common definitions and outlining the importance of using a framework to progress IEM.  Keep following my blog to learn more about the wonderful world of IEM in environmental policy. Next week i will investigate step 2 of IEM framework- defining the problem...

References

Bührs, T (1995).  Integrated Environmental Management: towards a framework for application.  Unpublished paper, Environmental Management and Design Division, Lincoln University.

Bührs, T.  (2009). Environmental Integration: our common challenge.  SUNY Press, Albany. Chapter 1:7-39.

Cairns, J. Jr. & Crawford, T.V.  (1991). Integrated Environmental Management. Chelsea, Michigan: Lewis Publishers.