Turning the Tide Integrated marine planning in New Zealand - NZLII
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Turning the Tide
Integrated marine planning
in New Zealand
This report explores the utility of marine spatial planning as an approach to strengthen
marine management in New Zealand. It contains an in-depth review of the Sea Change
Raewyn Peart
Tai Timu Tai Pari project undertaken in the Hauraki Gulf between 2013 and 2106. It
reviews recent international literature on marine spatial planning and investigates six
leading overseas marine plans. Finally, it contextualises the Hauraki Gulf project within
this broader body of marine spatial planning practice and draws out lessons applicable
to future marine planning exercises in New Zealand.
TURNING THE TIDE
Integrated marine planning
in New Zealand
Raewyn Peart
i
First published November 2018
Published by:
Environmental Defence Society Incorporated
P O Box 91736 Victoria St West
Auckland 1142
Phone (09) 302 2972
manager@eds.org.nz
www.eds.org.nz
www.environmentguide.org.nz
Design: Neale Wills, Wilsy Design & Production Ltd
Photographic images: Raewyn Peart
Cover image: Tahunanui Beach, Nelson
Copies can be downloaded from www.eds.org.nz
Use and copying of the information in this report is welcomed and allowed so long as the source is acknowledged.
ii TURNING THE TIDE – INTEGRATED MARINE PLANNING IN NEW ZEALAND
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Overview of key findings 1
1 .1 Development of MSP worldwide 2
1.2 Summary of lessons learned from Sea Change Tai Timu Tai Pari 3
1.3 Summary of lessons learned from international practice 7
1.4 Utility of MSP as a marine management tool in New Zealand 8
2 Lessons learned from Sea Change Tai Timu Tai Pari 9
2.1 Project configuration 10
Project initiation 10
Project resourcing and management 13
Project design 14
2.2 Co-governance 18
2.3 Collaborative plan making 19
Selection of SWG members 19
Independent Chair 21
Collaborative process 21
External relationships 24
Roundtables 25
2.4 Information flows 26
Mātauranga Māori 26
Science 28
Independent Review Panel 32
2.5 Public engagement and communications 33
2.6 Implementation 36
Content of plan 36
Implementation process 37
2.7 Conclusions 40
3 International MSP practice 41
3.1 International literature review 42
3.2 In-depth review of marine plans 49
Integrated management plan for the Barents Sea and the Sea Areas of the Lofoten Islands 2006 (revised 2011)49
Belgian North Sea Master Plan 2003 and New Belgian Maritime Spatial Plan 2014 51
Rhode Island Ocean Special Area Management Plan 2010 52
Haida Gwaii Marine Plan 2015 54
East Inshore and East Offshore Marine Plans 2014 56
The Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters Pilot Plan 2016 57
4 Key lessons from international MSP experience 61
4.1 Impetus 62
4.2 Scope and scale 62
4.3 Regulatory framework 62
4.4 Management and advisory bodies 63
4.5 Timeframes 63
4.6 Funding 64
4.7 Methodology 64
4.8 Public and stakeholder involvement 64
4.9 Role of science 65
4.10 Contents of plans 65
4.11 Provisions for traditional use and management 66
4.12 Implementation and monitoring 67
4.13 Conclusions 67
References 69
Endnotes72
TABLE OF CONTENTS iii
LIST OF FIGURES
2.1 Components of the Sea Change project assessed 10
2.2 Structure of the Sea Change project 12
2.3 Sea Change external expenditure budget estimates (2012) 13
2.4 Map of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park and catchments 15
2.5 Sea Change timeline 17
3.1 Summary of the key components of MSPs 59
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
DOC Department of Conservation
EDS Environmental Defence Society
EEZ exclusive economic zone
FTE full-time equivalent
GIS geographical information systems
IRP Independent Review Panel
MMO Marine Management Organisation
MPA marine protected area
MPI Ministry for Primary Industries
MSP marine spatial planning / marine spatial plan
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Pause Pause in the Sea Change Tai Timu Tai Pari project during mid-2015 to reconfigure the project
PSG Project Steering Group
RMA Resource Management Act 1991
Sea Change Sea Change Tai Timu Tai Pari marine spatial planning project
SWG Stakeholder Working Group
WRC Waikato Regional Council
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Environmental Defence Society (EDS) would like to acknowledge the financial support from the Department of
Conservation Community Fund which enabled this project to be undertaken. We would like to thank Brooke Cox for her
assistance with the international literature review and investigation into overseas marine spatial plans. We would also like
to thank those who generously gave up their time to be interviewed for the project and those who provided peer review
comments. However, the content of the report is solely the responsibility of the author.
iv TURNING THE TIDE – INTEGRATED MARINE PLANNING IN NEW ZEALAND
Tiritiri Matangi
1: OVERVIEW OF KEY FINDINGS
1: OVERVIEW OF KEY FINDINGS 1
This report explores the utility of marine spatial planning MSP pilots were undertaken in the Irish Sea and the
(MSP) as an approach to strengthen marine management Belgian North Sea during the early 2000s. The successful
in New Zealand. It draws on lessons distilled from the rezoning of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park in 2004
MSP project undertaken in New Zealand for the Hauraki reinforced the value of MSP. Originally described as
Gulf Marine Park and from international practice. The ‘marine zoning’, the alternative term ‘marine spatial
report undertakes a detailed examination of the Sea planning’ was developed during the mid-2000s because
Change Tai Timu Tai Pari (Sea Change) MSP project ‘zoning’ was considered to be a politically difficult concept
undertaken between 2013 and 2016 (set out in Chapter to sell. 2 In practice, few marine spatial plans (MSPs)
2). It reviews recent international literature on MSP include detailed zonings, with the Great Barrier Reef plan
and investigates six leading overseas marine plans (set being a notable outlier in this respect.
out in Chapter 3). Finally, it distils lessons learnt from
international MSP practice and contextualises Sea In their step-by-step MSP guide published by UNESCO
Change within this broader body of MSP experience (set in 2009, Ehler and Douvere describe MSP as ‘a public
out on Chapter 4). process of analysing and allocating the spatial and
temporal distribution of human activities in marine areas
In this chapter, we bring together the key lessons from to achieve ecological, economic, and social objectives that
these three research endeavours and apply them to are usually specified through a political process’. 3 It is a
the broader New Zealand context. First, we chart the deliberative, forward-looking and cross-sectoral exercise
evolution of MSP as a concept and practice worldwide. that seeks to reconcile competing considerations. 4
Secondly, we provide an overview of the lessons from the Merrie and Olsson describe MSP as innovative because
Sea Change project. Thirdly, we summarise the lessons ‘it enables the recognition that the oceans are no longer
from international practice. Finally, we seek to answer the being a free-for-all commons and rather a space where
question: What is the utility of MSP as a tool for marine
human interests and responsibilities (established and
management in New Zealand?
emerging) and ecosystems interact’. 5
More recently, the underlying concept underpinning
1.1 Development of MSP worldwide MSP has transitioned from ‘sustainable development’
Marine spatial planning is an approach that has to ‘ecosystem-based management’. When applied to
increasingly been applied in countries around the world the marine area, ecosystem-based management aims
to better manage the pressures and conflicts arising from to ‘maintain marine ecosystems in a healthy, productive
human use of the sea. In 2014, it was described as ‘an and resilient condition so that they can sustain human
idea whose time has come’.1 The beginnings of MSP stem uses of the oceans and provide goods and services’. 6 An
back to the first zoning of the Australian Great Barrier Reef ecosystems approach considers all the known interactions
Marine Park in 1981, which drew on terrestrial land-use within a marine ecosystem, including those of humans,
and conservation planning approaches. The resultant rather than taking a single species or sector focus. It
plan provided a practical demonstration of how ocean recognises the interdependence between ecological,
space could be spatially delineated. Supported by the social, economic, and institutional systems.7 MSP provides
subsequent growth of marine science and development an integrated, place-based planning approach which can
of geographical information systems (GIS), promising be used to address ecosystem considerations. 8
Islington Bay, Rangitoto Island
2 TURNING THE TIDE – INTEGRATED MARINE PLANNING IN NEW ZEALAND
MSP has become increasingly popular with marine how to address them. The plan itself sets out a roadmap
planners, with UNESCO identifying such planning for action to reverse this decline, while providing for
initiatives in 65 countries. 9 Kyvelou and Pothitaki describe current and future uses. What Sea Change has also
the application of MSP in regions as diverse as Africa provided is a rich learning ground which future projects
(Angola, Namibia, Madagascar, Mauritius, Seychelles can benefit from, by building on the project’s strengths and
and South Africa), Asia (Cambodia, Philippines, Vietnam, putting in place mechanisms to address its weaknesses.
Indonesia, Thailand and China), America (Canada, Costa
Several book chapters and articles have been published
Rica, Mexico, United States) and Europe.10 All member
which describe the Sea Change project and its
states of the European Union are now required to
outcomes.17 In addition, the Office of the Auditor General
establish MSP by 2021.11 This has been associated with a
is currently undertaking a performance audit looking at
growing ‘blue growth’ dialogue in Europe, where MSP is
how effective the process was to develop and implement
linked with the development of marine economies.12
the first attempt at a MSP in New Zealand, with a report
MSP is increasingly seen as a ‘key political tool both for due out in late 2018. A detailed description and analysis
the implementation of development goals related to the of the Sea Change project is presented in Chapter 2. This
sea and oceans and the sustainability and ecosystem is based on a review of relevant documents, a case study
management approaches’. However, a key remaining prepared as part of the Sustainable Seas National Science
challenge is how to ‘translate its principles into concrete Challenge which investigated the role of mātauranga
action’.13 Despite its challenges, the popularity of MSP Māori and science in the Sea Change process, and 37
is continuing unabated, with the Intergovernmental in-depth interviews undertaken with a wide variety of
Oceanographic Commission predicting that by 2025 MSP people directly involved in the Sea Change project.
could cover just under one-third (44 million km2) of the
world’s exclusive economic zones (EEZs).14 Impetus
MSP has been applied in varying ways at different The impetus for Sea Change was growing concern about
locations. Many of the processes fail to live up to the the ecological decline of the Hauraki Gulf, as highlighted
ambition of undertaking fully integrated, participatory and by the Hauraki Gulf Forum’s State of Our Gulf reports, as
ecosystem-based planning exercises. This divergence well as growing conflicts over its use. Efforts to obtain new
of approach may reflect the reality of different localities water space for both marine protection and aquaculture
and political contexts. As Kidd and Ellis observe, had been stymied by strong opposition. The Hauraki
‘Planning styles geared more towards trial-and-error Gulf Forum and staff at both Auckland Council and the
experimentation, controlled risk-taking, long-term Waikato Regional Council (WRC), supported by EDS,
adaptation and the realpolitik of governance may be more strongly championed the idea of developing a MSP for the
appropriate in such an “age of uncertainty”.’15 Sea Change Gulf. There was a strong constituency for change.
can be seen in this light, as an experiment and exercise in The willingness to embark on such a project at that time,
adaptive management which we can learn from and build however, was not as strong in the political realm. It took a
on in the future. year for Auckland Council to approve the project, and with
councillors evenly divided on the matter, the project only
proceeded on a casting vote by the then chair. There were
1.2 Summary of lessons learnt from also competing agendas at central government level, with
Sea Change Tai Timu Tai Pari the launch of a proposal to establish a recreational fishing
Sea Change was the first fully-integrated MSP project park in the Hauraki Gulf not long after Sea Change got
in New Zealand. In the context of international MSP under way.
practice, Sea Change was ground-breaking. It built on an This experience highlights the importance of strong
international review of MSP commissioned by the Hauraki champions for a MSP project in order to bring on board
Gulf Forum in 2011,16 but very much adapted international all the relevant players. Support is more likely if there
practice to the local context. It brought together several are serious and well-articulated problems which current
strands of evolving natural resource management practice management efforts are failing to address and clear
in New Zealand, including the establishment of Crown- opportunities to achieve positive change. As discussed
iwi partnership co-governance and co-management further below, it is also important that strong agency and
structures, the use of multi-stakeholder collaborative political champions are retained and engaged throughout
processes, and the integration of mātauranga Māori and the planning process and into the implementation phase.
scientific approaches.
Sea Change was the most ambitious marine planning Project structure and resourcing
exercise to be undertaken in the country. It took place The project design was complex, reflecting the multi-
in the most contested marine space in New Zealand. agency, co-governance and collaborative nature of
Completing the plan through a consensus process was the plan making process. Overseeing the project was
a major achievement and something that has yet to be a Project Steering Group (PSG) consisting of council
attempted in MSP overseas. The integrated planning politicians, central government agency officials and mana
process enabled a strong focus to be placed on strategic whenua. It was advised by an Independent Review Panel
drivers of environmental decline in the Hauraki Gulf and (IRP) consisting of national and international experts
1: OVERVIEW OF KEY FINDINGS 3
whose role was to assess the Sea Change project against rarely achieved in practice, and so in this respect Sea
the UNESCO framework and report to the PSG. A Project Change can be described as world-leading.
Board consisting largely of agency staff oversaw the nuts
From the outset, there was a range of views as to how
and bolts of the project including budgets, resourcing
much leeway should be given to the SWG to develop the
and timeframes. A Project Manager was tasked with
plan. One view, which ultimately prevailed, was that there
day-to-day management of these aspects. There were
should be minimal constraints on the process so that the
also ‘business owners’ in each participating agency.
collaborative group could innovate to develop solutions to
The actual plan making process was undertaken by the
the complex problems facing the Gulf. An alternative view
Stakeholder Working Group (SWG) under the guidance of
was that the project scope and deliverables should be
the Independent Chair. The Independent Chair was tasked
more tightly defined so that the final outputs were more
with the challenging role of shepherding the SWG through
predictable and could align well with agency functions,
a collaborative process to deliver a plan within a tight
funding cycles and support initiatives already under way.
timeframe, as well as to provide a conduit between the
SWG and the other project groupings. The broad brief given to the SWG did enable innovation,
and parts of the plan have been challenging for
Problems were encountered with this somewhat complex implementing agencies. Arguably innovation was
structure. At times, accountabilities became opaque to required in this case if the intractable issues affecting
those involved in the project. Partway through the project, the Gulf were to be resolved. But one of the downsides
relationships became strained between the PSG and of such a fluid approach was that there remained a
SWG, between the SWG and agencies, and between wide variation in expectations amongst implementing
mana whenua, the Independent Chair and the project agencies commissioning the plan and others as to what
team. This generated a partial restructure which improved the project would deliver. Inevitably, not all of these
matters considerably. expectations were met. More effort needs to be put into
Substantial resources were made available to the project. managing expectations in future MSP projects. Where
However, Sea Change did not have dedicated project possible, these should be explicit and agreed amongst the
staffing, with most staff being seconded from agencies, sponsoring agencies.
and additional expertise being provided through short-term The project was given a short timeframe of 18 months
external contracts from time to time. Some staff were to deliver a plan. In hindsight, producing a meaningful
seconded full time but others had only a small proportion of plan for a such large and well-utilised area which was
their time assigned to the project. The skills of the seconded experiencing complex problems – using a collaborative
staff did not always match the project’s requirements. process and by integrating mātauranga Māori – was very
Auckland Council was undergoing several rounds of ambitious. Although setting a tight timeframe helps to
restructuring which resulted in an uncertain environment for focus attention, it does create more stress. In the case of
its staff. Auckland Council was developing its Unitary Plan Sea Change, the initial tight timeframe contributed to a
and WRC was undertaking a major planning exercise in weakening of relationships and the project was paused
the Waipā and Waikato River catchments which absorbed for several months (hereafter referred to as ‘the Pause’)
much political and staff attention. All these factors hindered before continuing in a reconfigured form. The final plan
the development of a strong core project team. was delivered after 3 years. A project timeframe of 3–4
There are lessons from this experience for future MSP years is more the norm for international MSP projects and
projects. Multi-agency projects are complex with multiple we would suggest that a 3-year timeframe would likely
lines of accountability and reporting, various budgetary be appropriate for future MSP projects in New Zealand
cycles and the like. However, to the extent possible, the (depending on scope), particularly if it was preceded by a
project structure needs to be streamlined. There should period of baseline data gathering.
be a dedicated project team carefully selected to meet
the skills required to deliver the project. Strong working
Co-governance
relationships need to be built between all the different As already described, the governance body for Sea
elements of the project, and the more streamlined the Change (the PSG) was a mix of local government
structure, the easier this task will be. politicians, central government officials and mana whenua.
This usefully brought together all the different agency
Project design sponsors of the plan in partnership with mana whenua.
The PSG’s role was to provide overall leadership and high
The project encompassed the entire Hauraki Gulf Marine
level oversight of the plan making process, to approve
Park, as well as its catchment areas to the extent these
the plan on completion by the SWG and to advocate
impacted on the Park. This broadly coincided with coastal
implementation by their respective agencies.
marine ecosystems. It also included all functions and
activities within the Park including fisheries and marine The Mātauranga Māori Roundtable (which was established
protection. This broad geographical and functional scope in around October 2014 and renamed the Mātauranga
enabled the development of an integrated and ecosystem- Māori Representative Group in September 2015) brought
based plan and it reflected the approach in the Hauraki together the mana whenua members of the PSG and
Gulf Marine Park Act 2000. Such an integrated approach SWG, thereby breaching the structural governance/
is also identified as desirable in MSP literature, but it is operational divide between the two bodies. This was of
4 TURNING THE TIDE – INTEGRATED MARINE PLANNING IN NEW ZEALANDconcern to some interviewees. On the positive side, this enabling agreements to be reached. The collaborative
arrangement proved effective in supporting the mana process was very time-consuming for participants, but
whenua members of the SWG, and it helped to embed individuals were positive about the personal benefits they
mātauranga Māori into the plan. However, the short project gained in return. Future MSP projects would do well to
timeframe made effective dissemination of material to the consider incorporating collaboration into the plan making
wider Hauraki Gulf iwi and hapū groups challenging. process as part of broader engagement.
The PSG was disestablished after adopting the plan One of the challenges with collaborative plan making
and handing it over to the sponsoring agencies, so it is the interface between the collaborative body (in this
was not able to undertake the later role of advocating case the SWG) and the agencies which both sponsor
implementation. This role was also compromised by the the process and are the implementing bodies. In Sea
local government elections, which were held just prior to Change, the agencies were largely kept outside of the
the plan’s release, where several key members of the PSG collaborative process. This is in contrast to the approach
lost their seats. These events highlight a weakness in the taken in other similar processes, such as the Land and
Sea Change project structure, which saw all the project Water Forum, where agency staff participated as ‘active
entities (including the PSG, SWG, Independent Chair, observers’. ‘Agency conduits’ were established in the later
project team and communications lead) disestablished stages of the Sea Change project which went someway
once the plan was publicly launched. No formal multi- down this path. The uneasy relationship between the
agency or stakeholder structure was retained, or put agencies and the SWG caused some difficulties and plan
in place, to oversee implementation, monitoring and implementation challenges. Future MSP projects will
review of the plan (although informal liaison between need to design in a more effective interface between the
agencies has occurred). No specific budgetary two groupings, which could consist of agency staff being
provision or resourcing was made available for the around the SWG table as ‘Active Observers’, having long-
implementation stage. International experience indicates term secondments into the project team, or being more
that implementation is one of the most challenging closely integrated as members of working groups (such as
phases of MSP. It needs considered thought and design the Roundtables).
during the plan making process and dedicated resource
once the plan is completed. Future MSP projects in New A further challenge is the relationship with members of
Zealand need to consider implementation structures the public and local communities, who can feel alienated
and processes (including monitoring and reporting on from the process. They can also be uncomfortable
effectiveness) at the outset of the project. with a planning process which is novel and different to
statutory plan making. This is why well-constructed and
Selection of SWG members communicated community engagement mechanisms are
an important part of collaborative planning processes.
It was broadly recognised that getting the right people
onto the SWG was critical to the success of the project.
Roundtables
Selecting 10 people to represent the myriad of stakeholder
interests in the Hauraki Gulf was never going to be Six Roundtables were established to focus on specific
easy. The selection process came under some criticism, aspects of the plan and to involve a broader range
including that it was only those who turned up to the of stakeholders in the plan development work. The
selection meeting that were chosen. But it did enable Roundtables met monthly for six months and then
sectors to identify their own representatives (which meant reported back to the SWG, after which they were
that SWG members were to some extent mandated by disestablished. Overall, the Roundtables were seen as
their sectors), and it also included a screening mechanism a very positive element of the project. They should be
to exclude potentially disruptive people. An additional four considered for incorporation into future MSP projects.
mana whenua members were selected through a hui-ā-iwi They could be improved through bringing all the groups
process. The members of the Sea Change SWG were high together from time to time to discuss overlaps and
calibre, constructive and able to effectively collaborate. synergies. The groups could also be retained to act
However, some sectors were not well represented. Future as sounding boards later on in the project, as the plan
MSP projects will need to further refine processes to provisions are developed, and could review draft output.
ensure that good representation is obtained on the SWG.
Mātauranga Māori
Collaborative process It was agreed from the outset that mātauranga Māori
Although the collaborative process proved challenging, it would be incorporated into the plan, but this was not well
was also one of the notable strengths of the Sea Change defined and did not prove easy to achieve in practice.
process. Stakeholders with a myriad of different interests There are around 26 iwi and hapū groups with an interest
and worldviews came together with mana whenua, and all in the Hauraki Gulf and it was difficult for the four mana
agreed on a package of measures for the Hauraki Gulf. A whenua members of the SWG to fully represent them.
close relationship developed between the SWG members, It took some time for an effective mātauranga Māori
and this social capital has beneficially flowed into other support structure to be put in place, and with the tight
Gulf initiatives since the plan was completed. People initial timeframe for the completion of the plan, this made
shifted their positions considerably during the process, effective integration challenging.
1: OVERVIEW OF KEY FINDINGS 5The establishment of the Mātauranga Māori Roundtable scientist could also be included on the SWG, although
with specialist technical support was a positive step, as this may unhelpfully blur the line between independent
was engaging a Māori writer, designer and GIS expert science and sectoral representation.
to assist the plan writing and production team. Overall,
interviewees thought that mātauranga Māori had Public engagement and communication
strengthened the plan considerably and that Sea Change Much effort was put into the engagement and
had made more progress in this area than other planning communications effort during the early phases of the
exercises in New Zealand. Future MSP projects would project with ‘Listening Posts’ (see section 2.5), surveys,
benefit from designing in a mātauranga Māori support outreach to public events, an active website and public
structure from the outset and should consider resourcing meetings. The effort wound down during the later stages
the development of mātauranga Māori material prior to and the communications function was disestablished
the formal plan making process commencing. after the plan was publicly launched. Several interviewees
identified the Listening Posts as being particularly valuable.
Science
Despite the considerable effort and expenditure of
The science underpinning Sea Change was generally
resource, many interviewees thought that engagement
regarded to be of very high quality. Many scientists,
and communications was one of the weaker parts of the
who were senior experts in their field, presented their
project. There are several likely reasons for this. There
work directly to the SWG and Roundtables. The science
was no communications plan or lead when the project
needs of the project were largely identified by the SWG
began and the role was occupied by various people during
with assistance from the project team. At times, the
the duration of the project, making continuity difficult.
scientific information was gathered on request between
The connection between the communications team and
monthly SWG and Roundtable meetings, rather than
the SWG could have been stronger, so that information
a coherent science programme being constructed in
gathered through surveys was better utilised. There was
advance. However, the science drawn on was broad and
a paucity of public information during the last year or
fairly comprehensive.
so of plan development, creating uncertainty amongst
At times, some of the SWG and Roundtable members the public as to what was happening. Insufficient time
felt swamped with science, and they had too little time was provided to prepare for an effective public launch
to digest it adequately. On the other hand, several SWG of the plan when it emerged. There was also a lack of
and Roundtable members commented very positively on clarity as to whether the draft plan would go out to public
what they had learnt from the scientific presentations, consultation, with a decision not to include this step only
and these learnings were one of the highlights of their made by the PSG during the latter stages of the project.
involvement in the process. Later on in the project, two
Communications and public engagement is a crucial part
science conduits were engaged to assist the SWG in the
of any future MSP project. It needs to be carefully planned
plan writing stage, and this worked well. Many overseas ahead of time, be consistent throughout the entire project,
MSP projects establish a technical advisory body to help and continue through into the important implementation
manage the technical input into the plan and provide phase. A senior communications person should be a
quality assurance, and this was the approach taken in the dedicated part of the project team from the outset and
Land and Water Forum. Such a body could include senior could liaise with the SWG and the Independent Chair
scientists, mātauranga Māori experts, economists and through a communications subgroup. The process for
policy advisors. engaging sectoral groups and members of the public in
The Department of Conservation (DOC) put considerable the project should be decided and communicated upfront,
resource into developing the web-based mapping software including when consultation will take place and whether
SeaSketch and populating it with data sets. Auckland draft plan material will be made available for comment.
Council and WRC staff also spent much time on this task,
assembling data sets and sending them through to DOC The plan and implementation
for uploading. Most interviewees considered SeaSketch Interviewees were generally very positive about the final
to be helpful, but it could have been more fully utilised plan that emerged from the process. It was described by
in the planning process. Initially, SWG members were some interviewees as balanced, future-looking, ambitious,
expected to use SeaSketch directly after a short training and an excellent start. It includes new initiatives for
session, but the software proved more complex to use than biodiversity and habitat restoration, sediment reduction,
anticipated. Later on in the process a dedicated technician and co-governance of local marine areas. It provides
was provided by DOC to use SeaSketch during SWG for the expansion aquaculture and marine protection. It
discussions and this worked well. proposes new management settings for fish stocks and a
strategy to transition commercial fishing to a higher value
The key lesson from the use of science in the Sea
and less environmentally damaging model, amongst many
Change project is that future MSP projects could benefit
other things.
from including a strong science lead to help curate and
interpret the science for SWG members. This could be However, no MSP is perfect and some interviewees
in the form of a Chief Scientist, one or more science identified weaknesses in coverage in areas such as
conduits, or a hands-on scientific advisory body. A infrastructure, biosecurity and climate change. Others
6 TURNING THE TIDE – INTEGRATED MARINE PLANNING IN NEW ZEALANDthought that the plan lacked detail and could have been from the Sea Change process. Our research indicates
more spatially referenced. Yet others felt that some that there is no one best way to undertake MSP, and very
of the recommendations were impractical, unfeasible different approaches have been successfully applied
or technically unachievable. A consensus process in various settings. The local context is important. In
necessarily generates compromise solutions which do not countries where the role of government in society is
find favour with everyone. Internationally, MSPs are often relatively strong (such as in Europe) the planning process
seen as a work in progress, to be further developed over has been more top down, and the implementation more
time as experience is built up. Several plans developed in directive. In other places, where the governmental context
other countries are now into their second generation and is more complex, stakeholders can play a much stronger
have become more fully fleshed out over time. role in decision-making. Some of the key findings from the
Implementation is one of the most important phases of review, and their relevance to the New Zealand context,
a MSP project and there is broad consensus that Sea are summarised below. The full international literature
Change has encountered difficulties in this area. Nearly review and more detailed examination of six marine plans
two years after the plan was finalised, only a patchy is set out in Chapter 3.
implementation effort is evident. In hindsight, there are a
More and more countries are formalising MSP within
number of factors that have contributed to this situation
regulatory frameworks, sometimes after undertaking non-
and that will need to be addressed in future MSP projects.
regulatory pilot projects. In this context, the Sea Change
They include:
project could be seen as a pilot which can inform the
• Insufficient time to fully test draft plan provisions with framing of future MSP regulatory provisions. The projects
agencies, key stakeholder sectors and the general are typically led by government agencies and take
public prior to plan finalisation around 3–4 years. The planning processes differ between
• Lack of prioritisation of actions countries but all include a mix of scientific assessments
and stakeholder engagement. Science is always a key
• Lack of specific budgetary provision for the part of the plan, and most processes undertake an initial
implementation of the plan
stocktake of available information. Many seek to fill key
• Local government elections being help just prior to the gaps during the planning process by commissioning new
plan’s release with central government elections the research. Science advisory groups are often used to help
following year manage scientific input. Stakeholder advisory groups are
frequently established to engage with key interest groups.
• The disestablishment of the PSG and SWG on
No MSP project examined went so far as to include a full
plan completion with no formal multi-agency
implementation mechanism put in place stakeholder-driven collaborative process, so Sea Change
is world-leading in this respect.
• Poor communications when the plan was publicly
released and subsequent discontinuance of that Most of the plans did not include hard zoning, but many
function identified important ecological areas that required
protection and areas suitable for new activities. This
• No one agency or Minister being given overarching very much aligns with the spatial content of the Sea
responsibility for the implementation of the plan
Change plan.
• The lack of champions for the plan amongst
Only the British Columbian plan made provision for
implementation agencies (with many of the initial
traditional use and management, with the plan being
champions having moved on and a failure to effectively
developed by a provincial government and Haida Nation
develop new champions)
partnership body. Dedicated resource was put into
Conclusions identifying relevant indigenous knowledge ahead of the
formal planning process. The plan included a protection
The completion of the Sea Change project is a major
for customary and treaty rights. There are strong parallels
milestone for the management of marine space in New
between this plan and the incorporation of mātauranga
Zealand. The project achieved a lot, not least that mana
Māori in Sea Change.
whenua and stakeholders agreed on a common action
plan for the Hauraki Gulf. The project was ambitious, Implementation has been achieved in several ways.
charting new ground, and the process provides very Some plans have statutory effect through being directly
rich lessons. Sea Change provides a solid base to build applied to permitting decisions. Others are formally
on and an indication of what can be improved in future identified as ‘matters to be considered’ when decisions
MSP projects. are made. Yet other non-statutory plans are implemented
by various government agencies through strong political
leadership and multi-agency groupings. Most of the plans
1.3 Summary of lessons learned
included monitoring provisions, and several plans have
from international practice been reviewed and are now into their second generation.
There is a wealth of practical MSP experience to draw on Several plans also undertook reviews after the plan
internationally, in addition to what can be learned locally making process was completed, similar to this exercise.
1: OVERVIEW OF KEY FINDINGS 7International practice will continue to evolve and New mechanism to harness scientific, local and indigenous
Zealand could usefully link into this growing body of knowledge in order to implement ecosystems-based
MSP practice through regular literature/web reviews and management. It enables focus to be placed on protecting
engagement with international groupings of practitioners. the underlying productivity of the marine environment,
which is becoming increasingly urgent, given the serious
and ongoing degradation of some of New Zealand’s
1.4 Utility of MSP as a marine coastal marine areas.18 It provides greater certainty for
management tool in New Zealand marine users and the marine environment. It enables the
expression of kaitiakitanga (guardianship). And it helps
There is now a wealth of international experience and
to build social capital and trust, which enables complex
practice on MSP to draw on. MSP is no longer on the
issues to be better addressed.
cutting edge of marine management but is mainstream.
A growing number of countries now have regulatory MSP can be tailored to the circumstances. It can be
frameworks in place that formalise MSP. Several plans applied at different scales and at different levels of detail.
are into their second generation. New Zealand has been Plans can be non-statutory or have direct or indirect legal
a laggard in this area, but the successful development of effect. However, MSP is not something to be embarked on
the Sea Change plan has put the country at the forefront lightly. These are complex projects that require significant
of MSP practice in several respects. This includes by investment and commitment towards mobilising science,
developing a fully integrated plan including all important mātauranga Māori, stakeholders and the general public.
activities within catchments and the sea, embedding There should be a pressing need, complex issues or
mātauranga Māori into the planning process, and using conflicts to resolve, and an appetite for change.
a stakeholder-led collaborative process for the plan’s
The Sea Change project has demonstrated that MSP can
development. New Zealand can now build on these
be successfully undertaken in New Zealand, and lessons
leading elements.
from it show how such planning can be done better in the
MSP has a lot to offer a country like New Zealand, future. If MSP is to be progressed in New Zealand, ideally
an island nation with a long coastline that has a such planning should become institutionalised within
fragmented institutional and planning structure for New Zealand’s marine management system. How this
marine management. It enables integration across might be achieved is an issue which will be explored in a
jurisdictional boundaries. It provides an effective subsequent EDS publication.
Firth of Thames
8 TURNING THE TIDE – INTEGRATED MARINE PLANNING IN NEW ZEALANDHarataonga, Aotea
2: LESSONS LEARNED FROM SEA
CHANGE TAI TIMU TAI PARI
2: LESSONS LEARNED FROM SEA CHANGE TAI TIMU TAI PARI 9This chapter sets out results of an assessment of the Sea able to draw on firsthand experience of the project. A draft
Change process. It draws on several data sources. First, report was circulated to all interviewees and others with
documents produced during the Sea Change process an interest in the project for comment prior to finalisation.
were reviewed. Secondly, material produced for a case Not surprisingly, interviewees and reviewers expressed a
study prepared by the author as part of the Sustainable range of views on the project, some of them conflicting.
Seas National Science Challenge, which investigated the The material below seeks to reflect this.
role of mātauranga Māori and Western science in the Sea
The analysis below is structured around the components
Change process, has been drawn on.19 This included 10
of the project shown in Figure 2.1. These include project
in-depth interviews with people closely involved in these
configuration, co-governance, collaborative plan making,
two elements of the project. Thirdly, between April and May
information flows, and implementation.
2018, 37 in-depth interviews were undertaken with a wide
range of people directly involved in the Sea Change project.
The interviews took between 30 and 90 minutes each. They 2.1 Project configuration
were broadly based on a set of pre-circulated questions
This section investigates the initiation of the project, how it
and all covered the following four key topics areas:
was resourced and managed, and its scoping and design.
• How did you get involved and what was the nature of
your involvement in the Sea Change process? Project initiation
• From your perspective what worked well in the The beginnings of the Sea Change project stem back
process? to 2010 when the Hauraki Gulf Forum commissioned
a review of international experience of MSP and its
• From your perspective what didn’t work so well in the
applicability to the Gulf. The report investigated MSP
process?
projects in Australia (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
• If we were to undertake another MSP process in New Zoning Plan and Federal Government bioregional plans),
Zealand, what changes would you recommend? the United States (Florida Keys Marine Sanctuary
Comprehensive Management Plan, Massachusetts Ocean
Interviewees were promised confidentiality to encourage
Plan and Rhode Island Ocean Special Area Management
frankness. A simultaneous rough transcription was made
Plan), Canada (Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Oceans
of the interviews and the transcripts were subsequently
Management Plan) and Norway (Barents Sea-Lofoten
analysed for key insights on the various aspects of the
Islands Integrated Management Plan). 20
project. These were then integrated into the analysis, and
this is set out below with direct quotes from interviewees The resulting report, titled Spatial Planning for the Gulf,
shown italicised and indented. The author of this report was released in March 2011, and concluded that ‘marine
was a member of the Sea Change SWG so has also been spatial planning is a well-accepted strategic planning
PROJECT COLLABORATIVE INFORMATION FLOWS
CONFIGURATION PLAN MAKING Mātauranga Māori
Project initiation Selection of SWG
Science
Project resourcing and Independent Chair
Independent Review Panel
management
Collaborative process
Public engagement and
Project design
Roundtables communications
External relationships
IMPLEMENTATION
CO-GOVERNANCE Contents of Plan
Implementation process
Figure 2.1: Components of the Sea Change Project assessed
10 TURNING THE TIDE – INTEGRATED MARINE PLANNING IN NEW ZEALANDprocess which could help achieve the purposes of additional marine space in the Gulf (in addition to the 1710
the HGMPA [Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act] including hectares of consented green-lipped mussel and Pacific
integrated management and the protection and oyster farming space) in order to facilitate the expansion
enhancement of the life-supporting capacity of the of the aquaculture industry. As well as expanding these
Gulf’. 21 The report served to communicate what MSP shellfish species, there was also a desire to diversify
was, how it had been applied overseas, and what it might into the farming of finfish species such as kingfish. 24
contribute to addressing the challenges faced by the Gulf. Attempts to obtain more space through traditional
It helped generate greater understanding and support for Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) processes had
establishing a MSP project in the area. run up against considerable public opposition, so a new
approach was being sought. The Ministry for Primary
The report’s release was shortly followed by the Hauraki
Industries (MPI), which was charged with supporting the
Gulf Forum’s third State of Our Gulf report, which was
development of New Zealand’s aquaculture industry, was
released in August 2011. Unlike the previous two reports,
a co-sponsor of the Sea Change project along with the
which had adopted a pressure-state-response framework,
WRC, which has jurisdiction over the marine area where
the 2011 report adopted a historical ecological baseline
the bulk of the industry is currently located.
set prior to human settlement (around 800 years ago)
as a base from which to measure the current ecological Another impetus was frustrated Māori aspirations. The
state. This resulted in the conclusion that ‘the Gulf Hauraki Gulf was one of the earliest places settled by
is experiencing ongoing environmental degradation, Māori and there are multiple and overlapping tribal
and resources are continuing to be lost or supressed interests in the area, spanning some 26 groupings. As
at environmental low levels’. 22 The report received well as losing ownership of, and access to, much of their
considerable media attention, thereby raising public land, waterways and marine space in the Gulf, Māori have
awareness of the issues, with the New Zealand Herald been largely excluded from decision-making for the area,
carrying the headline ‘Hauraki Gulf: Toxic paradise?’23 frustrating both cultural and economic aspirations. At the
time the project was proposed, many Treaty claims were
The Hauraki Gulf Forum then sought to persuade key
under negotiation but had yet to be settled, including
agencies to initiate a MSP process for the Gulf. As part
those for Hauraki tribes. Māori have a kinship relationship
of this effort, it brought international MSP expert Charles
with the natural environment, and as kaitiaki (guardians)
Ehler to New Zealand to run several MSP seminars and
they have an obligation to enhance and sustain life
to impart his wisdom on the topic. EDS, whose Policy
support systems. 25 The significant and ongoing ecological
Director had authored the international review in her
decline of the Gulf was therefore a cultural affront. The
private consultancy capacity, also helped to promote the
Sea Change process provided an opportunity for Māori
project more widely.
oversight and more active involvement in strategic
We had to find a better way of doing things than planning for the Hauraki Gulf.
we were at that moment. Although we were raising
A further motivation was the difficulty experienced in
awareness, we weren’t getting any change.
expanding the marine protected area (MPA) network
As well as a general concern about ecological decline, within the Hauraki Gulf. Although New Zealand’s first
there were several other factors in play which saw the idea marine reserve was created within the Hauraki Gulf at
of a MSP project land in fertile ground. There had been Cape Rodney-Ōkakari Point in 1975, more recent progress
a long-standing joint intention by central government, had been slow. Only 0.3 per cent of the Hauraki Gulf’s
the WRC and the aquaculture industry to gain access to marine area was protected by no-take marine reserves,
Umupuia Marae
2: LESSONS LEARNED FROM SEA CHANGE TAI TIMU TAI PARI 11with the last reserve created some 13 years ago in 2005. 26 with the final vote being evenly split and only won due to
More recent attempts to provide for meaningful marine the chair casting her vote in support of the project.
protection in the area have foundered on high levels of
The [Auckland] Council had to come to grips
opposition and conflict. 27 DOC was looking for more
with the collaborative model and co-governance.
effective ways to progress marine conservation and MSP
Councillors had to be prepared to give away
provided a potential way forward.
some of their power in the sense of trusting the
The idea of initiating a MSP project for the Gulf was collaborative body to come up with a good answer.
strongly backed by the Chief Planning Officer at Auckland It took a lot of persuading of the councillors that it
Council and subsequently the Chief Executive Officer at was a good idea.
the WRC. Work was undertaken by key staff members
in each respective agency to scope up the potential My experience of co-governance arrangements is
structure of the project. Models considered during these that they are really beneficial. You have iwi at the
early stages included a collaborative model, a consultative table and they make a really valuable contribution
model and a hybrid between the two. A multi-stakeholder to the process.
collaborative model was ultimately adopted, where the
DOC and MPI subsequently became project partners and
plan was to be developed by an iwi and multi-stakeholder
were each asked to nominate a person for the PSG. The
group engaging in a consensus-building process, rather
Thames Coromandel District Council also provided a PSG
than by the statutory agencies. The concept drew on the
member to represent territorial authorities.
experience of the Land and Water Forum, which in turn
was inspired by the Scandinavian approach. 28 The project was formally approved by WRC and the
Auckland Council in February 2013 and an interim project
As the Sea Change model evolved around a collaborative
framework, a co-governance element was incorporated manager appointed. Sea Change was officially launched
(see Figure 2.2). The PSG, which was established to in September that year, and an initial meeting of the SWG
oversee the project, consisted of equal numbers of iwi was held in December.
and government representatives. This approach was The desire to engage the public to look innovatively
readily accepted by councillors at the WRC who were at new approaches and to think outside existing
familiar with co-governance approaches, including institutions was really positive – to step outside and
through the Crown/iwi Waikato River Authority, which
collectively look differently at problems.
had been established in their region in 2010. But it proved
more controversial amongst some Auckland councillors, I felt really proud of being involved in the initiation
who were reluctant to hand over their power as elected of the project in the early days. How exciting for the
representatives to a co-governance grouping. It took over first time to have a collective conversation around
a year to secure the Auckland Council’s political support, the Hauraki Gulf!
Project Steering Group
8 mana whenua and 8 statutory Project Board
agency representative Project management and
support
Independent
Review Panel Independent Chair
5 members
Mātauranga Māori
Stakeholder Working Group Representative Table
PSG and SWG mana
4 mana whenua and 10 sector
whenua members
representatives
Roundtables Independent
Water Quality and Catchments, Scientists
Fish Stocks, Biodiversity and As required
Biosecurity, Gulf Infrastructure,
Aquaculture, Accessible Gulf
Figure 2.2: Structure of the Sea Change project
12 TURNING THE TIDE – INTEGRATED MARINE PLANNING IN NEW ZEALANDLessons learned No payment was made for time spent attending subgroup
• It can take considerable time and effort to build meetings or other work carried out on the project.
sufficient support to initiate a MSP project.
The budget did not include the time of in-house agency
• A clear articulation of the problems and the potential staff. Across the two councils this was estimated as being
of MSP to help solve them is important. 8.2 full-time equivalent (FTE) technical staff, 0.4 FTE
administrative staff and 2.7 FTE information systems/GIS
• Bringing in outside expertise can help give people staff. 31 DOC also provided significant in-kind technical and
confidence in MSP. scientific resource to the project. These in-house costs
• Champions within organisations are essential to help were not directly accounted for and were borne by the
secure political support. agency concerned. This practical approach was adopted
because with four agencies running different budgeting
• Early adopting lead organisations can play a powerful systems, it would have been difficult to reconcile them.
role in encouraging other agencies to come on board. Reconciling cash payments across the two budgetary
and financial approval systems of the WRC and Auckland
Project resourcing and management Council proved complex on its own. Costs were generally
An initial budget for direct project costs was put together split between the two councils 50/50. Most costs were
based on a ‘best guess’ of the timeframe, number of raised against the Auckland Council cost centre and
meetings and effort required to complete the plan. This reimbursed by WRC. District councils made no direct
was initially estimated (in 2012) at around $2.2 million financial contribution and central government agencies
and was largely shared between Auckland Council and offered particular supporting activities and funding pools.
the WRC (see Figure 2.2). MPI did not directly contribute Next time I would set it up so that all the agencies
funds to the project but encouraged the councils to contributed money into a separate entity and that
apply to the Aquaculture Planning Fund, and they were would manage the budget.
successful in securing $550,000. 29 DOC supported
Each agency appointed a ‘business owner’ and it was his
the development of the SeaSketch web-based spatial
or her role to provide the agency resources to the project,
planning tool along with funding from the Tindall as discussed through the Project Board where necessary.
Foundation. The initial budget itself was exceeded but no Where resources were not available in-house they were
final project budgetary breakdown is available. sourced externally. Business owners met regularly to
discuss resourcing. In the latter stages of the project,
Expenditure item Project total
when the original budgetary provision became exhausted,
Governance Group (PSG) $44,928 money had to be sourced from other council programmes.
The Independent Chair had no ability to direct staff
Stakeholder Facilitator (Independent $240,000
but worked through the Project Manager, who then
Chair)
negotiated with agencies for the required resources.
Mana Whenua Facilitator $150,000
Several interviewees reported difficulties in resourcing the
Stakeholder Plenary Group (SWG) $338,000 project from its inception. Many of the in-house resources
were assigned to the project part time, with some people
Stakeholder Working Groups $81,360
only having 0.1 or 0.2 of their FTE dedicated. This small
(Roundtables)
amount of time did not facilitate active contribution.
Expert Advisory Group (external $105,000
We were often resource-short. When we made
scientists)
changes such as creating Roundtables we were
Mātauranga Māori Roundtable $150,000 struggling to resource them.
(Mātauranga Māori Representative
While Sea Change was under way, Auckland Council
Group)
restructured staff twice. Some staff were unsure about
Expert Oversight Group (IRP) $297,000 their job security and found working in such an uncertain
environment difficult. There were several staff changes
Research and Investigations $250,000
on the Sea Change project itself, and it took effort to
SeaSketch $550,000 bring new people up to speed. As the project evolved,
the support team structure became more complex. After
Total $2,207,488
the Pause, the support structure was streamlined and
Figure 2.3: Sea Change external expenditure budget operated more effectively.
estimates (2012)30 I was told by a SWG member that there were 20
SWG members had travel costs covered but there was officials in the room and no one knew what they
initially no payment for time spent on the project. After the were there for.
project was paused in mid-2015, a per diem rate of $250 You would be better with three key dedicated
was provided to SWG members for attendance at SWG people from agencies rather than 10 people making
meetings, with an additional $250 for meeting preparation. up FTEs.
2: LESSONS LEARNED FROM SEA CHANGE TAI TIMU TAI PARI 13You can also read
