coordination.

Today I’m going to introduce two important principles of IEM and these are co-ordination and collaboration.  Coordination in IEM is so important and a trend that is emerging and growing rapidly in New Zealand is Community Based Environmental Management C(B)EM.  New Zealanders have a reputation in history for ‘doing it themselves’, and prior to the Conservation Act 1987 this was the case.  People formed their own organisations to protect local interests.  With the introduction of the Conservation Act, departments such as the Department of Conservation were formed and powers were taken from the community groups in a more top down centralised government approach.

Coordination can happen horizontally and vertically on many levels, from small rural communities, to larger issues that span several communities, to local and regional government, national government departments as well as international groups (Boston, 1991).  It is a complex task to balance all opinions and views and to end up with a successful outcome.  There is an argument that environmental problems can be addressed better by those who live locally as they have local knowledge and can action changes on the ground, as well as adjust their own behaviour and educate others locally.  So while problems occur on an international scale (e.g. over fishing) actions taken by local people can have a positive effect at the local level.  While C(B)ME has many positives, it is apparent that it can be difficult to be successful in C(B)ME without formal guidelines.

Some of the issues associated with C(B)EM include;

• Equity in groups
• Monitoring and feedback
• Leadership and commitment of group members
• Knowledge
• Influence – whose view prevails?
• Support from local, regional or national government

Customary Fisheries Management

In New Zealand a bottom up approach to managing local fisheries is becoming more common in the Māori community with iwi taking opportunities to protect their mahinga kai rights by establishing customary fishing reserves.  These reserves known as Taiāpure, Mātaitai, and Rāhui offer iwi the opportunity to put in place varying levels of protection for their local fishery (Meredith, 2009).  This allows Māori to have input into their own fisheries management, although they do consult with all local stakeholders affected and approval for all fishing restrictions must come from the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI).  These reserves are recognised by the government who provide support via the MPI by assisting in the election of committees and individuals to manage each reserve (MPI, 2009).  The MPI provide information online, as well as educational signage in reserve areas, fisheries officers patrol these areas and fine poachers where appropriate. 

One of the biggest issues with these customary fisheries management reserves is the lack of monitoring and reviewing of the effectiveness of the fishing restrictions put in place by the fisheries management.  Without current data on the health of the fishery it is difficult to determine if the health of the fishery is improving, or if the current fishing restrictions are adequate to prevent the local fishery from exploitation.  It is important to monitor the health of the fishery to ensure the customary fisheries management is having a positive effect, this is one point that must be addressed.  A second point is that currently the only information that can find on customary management of fisheries in New Zealand is through the Ministry of Primary Industries, although they do have a lot of information on customary management, it is difficult to sort through and find.  Communication on the success of customary fisheries management could be improved through a purpose built website and educational programme.  One that allows each iwi to communicate their successes and help the flow of knowledge between like minded communities.

One of the positive spin offs from a customary managed resource is that the community becomes aware of how their actions affect their environment.  Since Tāngata Whenua were given the opportunity to manage their own mahinga kai areas the number of taiāpure and mātaitai reserve areas has increased as well as the amount of education available on how to develop your own reserve areas (TMK, n.d.).  In an interesting article by Maxwell & Penetito (2007) on the Kaikoura-Wakatu Quay Rāhui it was reported that the wider community gained a sense of responsibility towards the rāhui and the community became the primary surveillance of the rāhui.  When suspicious activities were spotted the community reported it to the Fisheries Officers who issued fines to the offenders breaching the rāhui, and in six years this has amounted to three.  The involvement of the community lowered costs to the government of having to employ more fisheries officers, it provided a better quality rāhui with fewer breaches, and it allowed an interesting lesson for the younger generation of Māori as well as people from outside of the region on the fishery and on Māori values, while creating a greater sense of community.

Kaikoura Rahui

Community based environmental management is an exciting path forward for New Zealand and I think in the case of customary fisheries management it is especially important for Māori in passing on traditional knowledge to younger tribe members, building a greater sense of community and maintaining the health and life of our local fisheries.  Is it an IEM approach to management? In this case I say it’s pretty darn close! With improvements in monitoring and review of current reserve areas I believe that customary fisheries management in New Zealand is an integrative approach to environmental management.

Coordination vertically and horizontally helps improve integration between different tiers of government and is important for balancing the needs of the community with government policy.  Next week I will investigate what the New Zealand government has been up to of late and discuss how integrative some of their recent policy has been.

 

Reference

Boston, J.  1991.  The problems of Policy Coordination: The New Zealand Experience.  Governance: An international Journal of Policy and Administration.  5 pp. 88-103.

Maxwell, K.H. & Penetito, W.  (2007). How the use of rāhui for protecting Taonga has evolved over time.  Mai Review, 2, pp. 1-15.

Meredith, P. (2009, March). 'Te hī ika – Māori fishing - Tangaroa, god of the sea', Te Ara - the Encyclopaedia of New Zealand.  Retrieved from URL: http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/te-hi-ika-māori-fishing/1

MPI. (2009, April). Māori Customary Management.  Retireved from http://www.fish.govt.nz/en-nz/Māori/Management/default.htm?wbc_purpose=bas

IEM a maui's dolphin case study.

The plight of the Maui’s dolphin presents a complex and interesting case study for IEM.  The dolphins are threatened with extinction and this has reflected badly on the New Zealand governments management of the issue.  At a time when the government must take immediate action I present a scenario where the interests of stakeholders may be having an influence on the management strategy the government has taken.

Figure 1 - Hector's dolphin and baby

History

The Maui’s dolphin is a very rare dolphin found of the North East Coast of the North Island of New Zealand.  In 2002 it was discovered to be genetically separate from the Hector’s dolphin and since their discovery their population has reduced from 111 individuals down to just 55.  Since 2008 both Hector’s and Maui’s populations have been under a Threat Management Plan (TMP) to manage the risk of dolphin capture in set nets from both commercial and local fishermen.  However, the TMP has not adequately managed this issue and the Maui’s population is under the very real threat of extinction.  This has caused a stir both nationally and internationally.  The Maui’s are slow to mature, with a short life span and low reproduction rate; losing one more individual to a set net fatality could be the catalyst that spirals the population towards extinction.  The threat of extinction and the pressure from international organisations (WWF, IWC) has led to government action, in July 2012 the Ministry of Primary Industries implemented an Interim Set Net Measures (ISNM) Plan to protect Maui’s dolphin which included an extension of the current set net bans south along the Taranaki Coastline out to 2nm offshore and, with a requirement for an observer to be on board from 2-7nm offshore (Figure 2).  The government has also brought forward a review of the Threat Management Plan to 2012 which was scheduled for 2013.  

Figure 2 - Current set net bans according to the ISNM Plan

Stakeholders

The extension of set net bans along the Taranaki coastline has resulted in the closure of several fisheries.  There is a call from DOC to extend the set net fishing ban out to 7nm offshore to reflect the range of the Maui’s dolphin, however the government has allowed set net fishing within 2-7nm offshore and is calling the ISNM Plan “a balance between sustainability and utilisation” (MPI, 2012).  Is this reaction from the government too soft considering a species is threatened with extinction?  There is another more powerful stakeholder affected by the Maui’s; offshore oil companies currently extract from the Taranaki basin and pose a huge threat to the survival of the dolphins if a catastrophic oil event were to occur.  At present the ISNM Plan does not conflict with the permit to mine areas allocated to TAG oil extraction company (Figure 3).  According to TAGs map, there is a large oil and gas area within the Maui’s Marine Mammal Sanctuary.

Figure 3 - Oil and gas in the Taranaki Basin (Tag Oil, 2012)

The government is faced with several issues.  A responsibility to protect an endangered dolphin from extinction with the international community watching; a responsibility to fishers to ensure their science on the Maui’s dolphins range is correct so as not to ban fishing in areas where the dolphins do not live; this is balanced against what the government wants which is to further oil exploration and extraction to help the NZ economy.

Stakeholder & Government Interest Conflict

The range of the Maui’s dolphin must be known as accurately as possible to ensure that the fishers are only allowed to fish where the Maui’s do not live.  The presence of offshore oil needs to be readdressed.  There are some really tough questions that need to be asked of the government.

If the Maui’s dolphins become extinct and offshore oil exploration goes ahead – will this appear to have been deliberate on the government’s behalf?  The fishers will take the flak for the extinction, and as there will be no more Maui’s dolphins the marine mammal sanctuary will no longer have a purpose and the oil companies will be able to start exploration on the reserves within the marine mammal sanctuary.

The Maui’s dolphin only numbered 111 individuals when it was discovered as a new species.  With the information that we already had on the reproduction rate of Hector’s dolphins it is difficult to understand why management of the Maui’s dolphins was not more comprehensive from day one.  It is possible that the Maui’s are already below a minimum viable population and will not recover. The Hector’s and Maui’s dolphins look the same.  Has the government been too complacent because the Maui’s dolphin has a cousin that looks so similar? Whether the Maui’s and Hector’s look the same or not they are still defined as separate species and the extinction will have a CATASTROPHIC impact on New Zealand’s “Clean & Green” image.  I also wonder how this issue will impact on people willing to announce the discovery of new species in the future?

 

                                          Figure 4 - Hectors dolphin drowned in a set net

References

Carter, D., Wilkinson, K. (2012, March 13^th). Government moves to further protect dolphins.  Retrieved from http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/government-moves-further-protect-dolphins

Ministry for Primary Industries. (2012, June). Interim set net measures to protect Maui’s dolphins: Final Advice Paper.  Retrieved from http://www.fish.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/376CB0EB-CBA6-4427-8662-08D3A69E3A88/0/FinalAdviceMauiPart1of2.pdf

Tag Oil. 2012. Retrieved from http://www.tagoil.com/taranaki-basin.asp 

barriers to success.

Today I want to talk more about using IEM frameworks so that they suit your current needs and learn how to identify some of the issues that may prevent an IEM outcome to your policy development.
In the policy process there are certain barriers which will have an effect on progress and certain pressure points which will act as catalysts for disaster or success, it is important to be aware of these issues and have plans in place to mitigate any potential negative effects.

Figure 1 - Step 3 in the IEM Framework, Identification of Pressure Points

Barriers of IEM

Ineffective IEM occurs when there is a breakdown in the IEM framework.  Using a framework helps plan for the future and helps identify potential barriers to an integrative approach.  Once you know what these barriers are, it is easier to  understand how to prevent them from occurring.  Cairns & Crawford (1991) put forth a list of 24 Barriers to IEM.

1	Institutions are highly reductionist
2	IEM takes time & money
3	Turf battles run rampant within & between organisations
4	Job insecurity
5	Many are unwilling to compromise
6	Short term profits are too enticing
7	What has posterity done for me?
8	Issues are not simple – IEM is hard work!
9	Often, uncertainty is unacceptably high
10	Developing countries aspire to the same material benefits that developed countries enjoy
11	Changes in lifestyle are strongly resisted
12	Specialists feel more comfortable working with their own kind
13	Fear that the general public will not have the same value system
14	Present use of resource is considered a right
15	Society is oriented towards growth
16	Change is only acceptable in a crisis
17	Fear the management authority will be abused
18	Fear peer criticism of oversimplification
19	All systems are too complex for prescriptive legislation
20	People turn off when they are faced with complex issues
21	Technical information is inadequate
22	Issues determining evidence is credible
23	The number of professional skilled in IEM is inadequate
24	Political process is polarized to ward issues rather than IEM

 Table 1. Barriers to IEM (Cairns & Crawford, 1991)

Some of these barriers involve interaction with people, others are political, knowledge based, or related to institutions. Integration and consultation between different agencies, people and institutions will help mitigate some of these issues however they are often interconnected and complex.

Making a Recipe for Success!

By creating your own framework or criteria to use as a guideline for IEM you can create a recipe for success.  A broad criteria is useful for identifying failings within your approach to an environmental issue.  Frameworks are helpful as they help the user to think in a broader or 'bigger picture' context; they can reveal areas that need more attention, or areas that were completely missed all together during the problem definition stage.

Bührs (1995) put forth a model for developing an IEM framework through the IEM Matrix.  The Matrix takes a holistic approach of incorporating all aspects of the environment at each level of integration through interpretation of the issue, to how institutions, policy address the issue and eventually how integrated the management of the issue is.

The IEM Matrix
Management
The Environment		Interpretation	Institution	Policy	IEM
	Land
	Water
	Air
	Plants
	Animals
	Resources
	People
	Techniques/ issues

                Table 2.  The IEM Matrix for developing an IEM Framework (Buhrs, 1995)

Think Politically!

Often as an analyst in the policy process you have to wear many hats and try and think from different perspectives. Another aspect of the IEM process that is important for success, is that you must be able to think politically!!  All of your actions will have an affect on people and the environment that we live in and you must think about the implications of these effects throughout the development of your IEM framework. 

Figure 2 - Think Politically (Buhrs, 1995)

Now that you have a grounded understanding of IEM in the policy process, check out next weeks blog on the Maui's dolphin saga, the survival of a species hangs in the balance, will IEM save this beautiful dolphin from extinction??  Check in and find out next week.

References

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

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