Get documents about "Summary of Workshop 4 DRAFT
Shared by: wuyunyi
-
Stats
- views:
- 6
- posted:
- 11/15/2011
- language:
- English
- pages:
- 19
Document Sample
Summary of Workshop 4, Mediated Modelling of Tauranga Harbour, Armitage Hotel
Present + Apologies:
See Appendix A
9am Introductions + Overview:
Began with participants all introducing themselves and the sector they represent, as a few
newcomers in attendance.
Reminder about noting any issues/questions or feedback on yellow slips provided.
A handout was provided with an update of the actions that were to be done and have been done
(see Appendix B).
Went through schedule of workshops November 2010 to April 2011, what has been done in
workshops thus far and plan for remaining workshops.
A question was raised about what the outcomes of this process will be, and how the model will be
used. It was explained that the model and discussion/learning through the workshops will help
inform the Manaaki Taha Moana research team about the key issues (plus drivers, pressures) facing
the harbour, to help inform case study selection for next stages of the research. Another important
outcome is the increased understanding amongst participants about the inter-relationships within
the various processes and factors in the harbour that will help inform future actions. Additionally,
the model itself is a tool that, when complete, will be usable by participants and others to support
potentially policy development. Ideally, participants (or the MTM team in Tauranga) are able to
update the model when new information becomes available to support an on-going dialogue among
the participants.
Went through the agenda for the day.
Reviewed the Guiding Principles for the Workshop, with Tracey Ngatoko reviewing the 5 x Cultural
Principles (Wananga, Kotahitanga, Maramatanga, Kaitiakitanga, Rangatiratanga).
Reviewed Model developed since Workshop 3, in small groups led by Marjan, Aaron, Mark and
Sarah.
Morning Tea
10.30am Mel Green (NIWA) Presentation about Sedimentation Research, Southern half of
Tauranga Harbour
Ran scenarios from 2001 to 2051, examining sediment yield per unit area. Multiplying the sediment
yield for various land uses/covers provides the sediment loading.
64% runoff from pastoral land use; less than 0.5% from earthworks. Over next 50 years, it is
predicted that sedimentation will decrease 5.6% due to land use change. However, when climate
change (increased high intensity rainfall events) is taken into account, sedimentation will increase by
40.6%. The effects of climate change magnify sedimentation.
It would be interesting to compare local stories about what happened with the dam collapsed, with
how NIWA model projects sedimentation into the future.
The “sedimentation problem” is in the sub-catchments, and this is where the battle needs to be
fought. The NIWA model identified areas where sedimentation is likely to have greatest impact. Of
those areas, the ones that have the greatest potential for “mitigation/effort to address impacts” are
Waitao, Kaitemako, Waimapu. Medium potential areas are: Te Puna, Oturu, Mangawhai, Waipapa,
Apata, Wainui, Aongatete. Of course, where areas are of high cultural /ecological significance, it
may also be that they are worth putting effort into for reasons other than simply sedimentation
effects into the future.
Land cover is very important for the long term and needs to be addressed in Management Plans.
Climate change is projected to significantly impact upon the sedimentation in the harbour, but there
are things that can be done now to protect/limit damage: “Batting down the hatches for the storm
that is to come”. The possibility of planting on important sites that are subject to great
sedimentation was raised, but this has to be assessed against other considerations such as historical
places and archaeological site protocols, and the fact that for some people it is important to “see”
places of cultural significance and not to have them covered in trees. However, if such sites keep
eroding away, they are being lost anyway, so better to have them planted and stabilised, than lost
by erosion/sedimentation.
Other things that can be done include: mangrove control; replanting/seeding seagrass and shellfish
beds in estuaries (NIWA is doing studies on these things further north, and there could be lessons
learned for Tauranga harbour). It takes 5-10 years to do the replanting, and it important to do the
replanting in areas where the seagrass/shellfish can spread. Seagrass and shellfish populations
generate self-cleansing mechanisms in the harbour, which would help combat pollution. Help nature
to help itself!
Thus, key initiatives that could be implemented asap to address looming sedimentation issue
include: restoration (eg seagrass, shellfish beds); interventions (mangrove removal (or not); riparian
planting); mitigations.
Land use change needs to be addressed: something has to give. You can’t keep doing same kinds of
activities that cause high levels of sedimentation and expect that there won’t be problems down the
track.
Group asked: What happens when a region decides it wants to change the land use in it’s area from
a certain type, to something else? Who pays to facilitate this change? Possible solutions: look at
things like carbon sequestration aspects, have mechanisms in place so there are incentives/tools to
encourage land owners to change their practices and uses of land in ways that are required in the
long term.
The NIWA model did not take into account the effect of riparian margin planting on sedimentation,
but it was acknowledged this is an important consideration. Other NIWA studies are looking into this
factor, and Mal can help with information about this.
Actions – Mal to help our team with data/estimates from other NIWA work that has been done
on:
*Effect on run-off/sedimentation from different types of farms, management practices, stock rates,
riparian planting on margins etc. How much do such factors lower/increase sedimentation
rates/loads?
*Effect on sedimentation yield/rate from forest quality eg good canopy cover limits rain drop impact
on steep land. By how much?
The group thanked Mal Green (and his parents who also attended, taking time out from their
holiday) for taking the time to present to our group, and for answering our many questions. It was
very interesting and very insightful. Thanks also to Rob Donald, BoPRC, for organising this with Mal.
11.45am Model Simulations (Aaron)
Aaron ran some simulations to show how the model is progressing, and examples of the types of
things that it can now depict; rate of growth/loss of mangroves/wetlands/seagrass over time, and
different future projections based on different scenarios.
Actions – Future scenarios that the group would like the model to be able to run:
*What economic benefit/cost would result from various land use changes, eg if changed all land in
the region to indigenous forest, how much would be the economic loss/gain as a result? (We will set
up the model to allow for this scenario, but we will not have the researched cost benefit information
to support such decisions beyond the qualitative argument.)
*Incorporate land use capability data (and economic return data, if available). (We cannot do spatial
depictions in our model but can present trends and inter-linkages on a non-spatial basis).
*Add in climate change function to sedimentation modelling, as per NIWA estimate of 40% increase.
*Include data from MAF or Western Bay Council re economic impact of agricultural/beef and
sheep/cropping sectors.
*Include data on impacts of fertilizers (Nigel Sadlier to help with this; also consider MAF Farm
Monitoring Reports).
* Include data on Nutrient input numbers into the catchment. It is estimated that 60% of end output
lost off farms is from urine on dairy farms – is this correct)?
Reviewed Questions we want the Model to Answer, and Draft Answers (from Workshop 3) – See
Appendix B. It was reiterated that the draft answers we have come up with so far were the result of
group discussion in prior workshops. No further updates were made at this time.
Marjan reviewed the “Drivers-Pressures Responses”
Pressures-State-Impacts-Responses” (DPSIR) framework, ex explaining
how this framework helps to consider all the “levels” that require consideration when thinking about
socio-economic
indicators and measures of how a complex, integrated socio economic and ecological system is
doing.
we
It was noted that in the above framework, we are missing the activities associated with ‘people’, ie
the social factors, such as noise, lack of recreational opportunities, etc. Marjan encouraged
participants to consider such details in the small groups (next phase of workshop).
Indicators, Targets (or Goals), and Scenarios
Marjan went over the need for indicators and measures of the things that are deemed to be
important, so we can gauge how well the system is doing, and whether it is on track to the ‘goals’
is
that we want for it, or whether action is required to bring about an improvement in the system. A
“performance” indicator is reliant upon having a good understanding of what is important. 'What is
important' often depends on who is measuring the performance. An indicator may be chemical,
ical
biological or activity oriented. It can be a “state” or “ratio” or simply a direction. In small groups, we
were asked to consider: What is being monitored currently? Is current monitoring done only to
’ water?
establish ‘State’ conditions such as the ‘state’ of the water? If so, does that help us link to ‘Pressures’
and ‘Impacts’? ie does what is monitored help us know whether the causes of decline in ‘state’
indicators (eg excessive nutrient runoff) are continuing to occur at high levels? OR does current
monitoring not actually help us understand whether the drivers/pressures are being adequately
addressed to then being about the desired “state” we want. Thus: What should be monitored and
i.e. Achievable, Relevant and Time-Bound = SMART)?
targeted (i.e. Specific, Measurable, Achi
Marjan summarised the “Drifting Goals” concept, whereby the delay in corrective actions puts a
pressure on lowing goals. Over time, while corrective actions are being implemented, the goals are
also lowered.
Small Groups
We split into 3 groups to consider the impact of that factor in relation to the health of the harbour
(economic activity, ecology, social and cultural health), in terms of indicators, targets and scenarios.
• model:
Evaluate the list of parameters (or indicators) currently in the model
Tauranga Harbour Indicators
Households 2001
Ecoystem services
Land degragation
Bio div ersity Index
Eco system Value of Ecosystem value of
tauranga Harbour in NZD Tauranga harbour catchment
weighted personal Total annual v alue
consumption per person business and industry in $
Soil loss Local GDP
Economic Indicators
Economic sustainability Index
Socio-Demographics
TW Health Cost of Unemploy ment Cost of Crime
Recreation Value of tauranga Harbour
RV of tauranga Harbour index bathing quality Harbour Margin access in KM
Pollutant
TOTAL sediment in tonnes Total Ecoli Loadi in MM3 total N loading in M M3
total P Loading Tauranga total toxin loading Tauranga
harbour Catchm ent Harbour catchm ent
Viral & Bacterial Indicators
Sewage Discharges Septic Tank Leakages Boats
*Economic activities/funds indicators currently in the model. eg “economic activities” currently in
the model include: Potential New Harbour Restoration Funding relative to Contribution of Industrial
Sector; Direct Tauranga Harbour Environmental Spending by Agencies relative to total spending;
Value of Tourism to Harbour catchment relative to total value; Total introduced Forest Value relative
to total value; Ecosystem value of the Tauranga harbour and catchment
*Ecology-related indicators currently in the model. Eg Wetlands in ha, Seagrasses in ha, Mangroves
in ha, Total Forest in ha; Microbial and Viral quality of shellfish: length of period harvest ban; Various
species (species composition and abundance): Cockels, Oysters, Pipi, Greenlipped Mussels, Tua Tua,
Scallops, Eels, White Bait, Snapper, leading toward a biodiversity index; Total ecosystem service
value; Boating, Trawling and dredging: number of events per year; Total loading (non-spatial) of
Sediment, Ecoli, N, P, Toxins.
*Social and Cultural factors currently in the model. Eg Food: number of days and places that people
shouldn’t harvest kai from harbour; Swimmability: number of days and places when people can’t
swim); Social and Cultural wellbeing (measured how?); Population and number of Households,
Unemployment, Crime, Gap between poor and rich (gini co-efficient).
Each group was asked to:
• Recognising the limitations of model building, what indicators can be meaningfully included
by the next workshop?
• What indicators remain useful in “real life” outside the modelling framework?
• What indicators could be included and monitored in the future?
• Describe the pathway toward inclusion of such indicators and monitoring requirements.
• Does what is monitored include targets?
• If yes, are those targets SMART (Specific, Measureable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-
bound)?
• Could such targets be useful in scenario building in this model?
• List 1-5 indicators for this model that you are most interested in.
• List the 1-5 alternative scenarios you like to see explored
Small Group Reports:
Group 1 Summary – Economic Activities and Funds
Indicators:
*Per capita income (separate retirees from non-retirees).
*Productivity (+ using technology improvements and efficiency, eco-efficiency ($/environmental
impact, litres of water used to produce one apple, etc).
*GDP, balanced by other (social, cultural, ecological) factors in the model – GDP not to be used in
isolation.
*Tourists to region (measured by night stays), should include cruise ships.
*% of $ return to farmers/business, capturing more $ income in product than is currently the case.
*Need indicators on: getting economics right in terms of the harbour. A trading system on sediments
+ nitrogen, perhaps? (with capped limits). Needs to be economic benefit to farmers if this is to work
and be supported in practice. Eco-tax, who might pay it?
*% of total Council spend on harbour/coast;
*% of total Council spend on any activity that might impact on the harbour/coast.
*Business start ups, employment numbers, house prices.
Targets:
*To be the best in NZ for all of the above indicators (or at least in the top quartile) – not sure where
Tauranga is at the moment in terms of these indicators?
Scenarios:
1. Impact of global recession
2. Natural disasters, eg Kaimai tunnel collapse + earthquakes
3. Double port size by 2025 – tonnage
4. Replant catchments in natives
5. Climate change – Mal’s scenario
6. 50% increase in horticultural land use by 2025, from pastural land
7. Agricultural sector in Carbon emissions trading scheme by 2015
8. Development of Aquaculture industry ($400 M industry) by 2025
Actions:
Include Primary Sector land-use type values (other than forestry) e.g. dairy, sheep & beef, cropping,
horticulture - Information should be requested from various sector representatives such as Dairy NZ,
Meat & Wool, HortNZ etc.
Include Total Nutrient Loads per catchment - Information should be requested from Bay of Plenty
Regional Council.
Group 2 Summary – Cultural and Social
Indicators:
This was difficult because there are many things that could be incorporated into the model to assess
social and cultural targets and indicators, but there is very little (if any) actual data available as these
things have not been measured. We are missing base line information on social/cultural health in
relation to the harbour.
Indicators that were identified include:
*Shellfish: abundance, take, health, cost of harvest (or cost of purchasing in supermarket if can no
longer harvest through customary take).
*Tonnes of seafood required for tangata whenua needs (eg major events at each marae).
*Customary take figures (but not sure how accurate they are).
*Cultural Health Index that assesses health and wellbeing of the people, and sense of pride/mana in
the harbour (or lack thereof) – perception of the health of the harbour could be used as an indicator
(but how well do people understand what the state of the harbour actually is?). There is a Toi Te
Ora wellbeing indicator (scale of 1-10), but it doesn’t tell you why people rate their wellbeing at less
than 10 or what the targets are.
* The abundance and quality of seafood is a direct indicator of wellbeing for tangata whenua in
Tauranga.
It was noted that indicators are required that address Maori and non-Maori needs.
*Social indicators: index that measures the sense of well-being people have – such studies haven’t
been conducted.
*EBOP has recently conducted a survey on recreational use of harbour, and high value was placed on
recreational use of the harbour.
It is clear that we need much more monitoring of shellfish bed health/abundance. The Customary
Fisheries Committee has data on what is harvested through permits issued by kaitiaki, but their
mandate is not to monitor the health or state of the kaimoana. They have no resourcing to do this.
Group 2 Summary – Ecology
Indicators:
Took a ‘mountain to sea’ approach in selection of indicators; looked at science-based AND
community-based perspectives on the health of the harbour.
*Water quality measures – suspended solids; ecoli; nutrients; temperature; turbidity; etc.
*White bait
*Cockle health index
* Use of community-based observations through established toolkits, eg NIWA’s Cultural Health
Index for estuaries.
*Forest Health Index – links forest quality, diversity of bird and invertebrates species, carbon
sequestration.
In summary, biotic indices for streams (whitebait); cockles for the sea; keruru for the forests.
Action:
*Andrew at BoP Polytechnic said they have done studies and collected data on the some of the
above indicators and we are welcome to contact him between workshops for further
information/data for the model.
*Look up the Miranda Shorebird Website.
Targets:
*By 2020, all class 6+7 land appropriately managed/used.
*All riparian margins planted and fenced – class 1 streams
*Wetland restoration to point that they can function adequately.
*Cockles – no further degradation between now and 2020.
Scenarios:
1. Business As Usual
2. Conversion of all/some pastural land.
3. Clear all forest
Action: Braden (BOPRC) to provide data on what is required to do full riparian planting on all Class 1
streams, or to reach currently targeted levels.
NEXT STEPS:
Finalise the development of the model.
Write report including recommendations/future actions that have come out of the workshops.
Think through gaps in the model, and seek data to fill those gaps.
A key outcome of the model is answering the 4 x key questions related to the ecological, economic,
social and cultural health of the harbour, and what is driving the degradation. Main pressures are:
sedimentation; eutrophication; loss of kaimoana.
March workshop is cancelled, as there is more than enough work for the research team to do
between now and the next workshop to address all of the issues and questions that the group has
identified and the scenarios they would like to see from the model.
Team will complete the Model Description and Draft Report before the next workshop on 21 April
2011.
How the Group would like to use the Information/Model going forward:
* Group to commit to thinking about how they want to use the model.
*Annual Planning Budgets for Councils are coming up - the participants may consider a joint
application to the Council(s) to instigate research programme on isues of most concern about the
harbour.
*How to implement, measure AND fund key initiatives?
*The participants would like the research team to identify tools that have been developed
elsewhere for use in assessing the health of coastal systems such as Tauranga harbour and it’s
catchment; eg Cultural Health Index tools used elsewhere, Forest Health Index; etc.
*There are various monitoring/restoration projects that could be followed up on - linked to funding
sources. There are resources that this group can apply for.
*Should present the completed model to Councils - with support of entire team.
*Have a generic PPT presentation for anyone to use.
*Need to realistically 'substantiate' the model, then 'sell' it -- decide how to do this at the next
workshop.
*What would future MTM case studies be able to contribute to this model, going forward?
* Extending the involvement of the workshop group beyond these workshops?? How can the MTM
team work in with the needs/goals of group participants. Could have ongoing hui?
*Continue to liaise with the group throughout rest of the MTM programme.
*Possible case study – testing the effectiveness of indicators we have identified.
*Could run a workshop on the use of the model for the group – if enough interest.
Seems that people do want to experiment with the model, but only when it is complete.
Closed with Karakai at 4.15pm
Appendix A – List of Participants + Apologies Received
Organisation Member Position
BoPRC Stephen Park Snr Envir Scientist
BoPRC Braden Rowson (Land Management Officer)
Western BOP DC Glenn Ao Environmental Officer
Forest and Bird Al Fleming Bay Of Plenty Rep; Cent Nth Is Field
Officer & Kaimai Mamaku Campaign
Ctee
Forest and Bird Eila Lawton Kaimai Mamaku Campaign Committee
Also Ornithological Soc of NZ Rep.
DOC Chris Clark Biodiversity Manager
Zespri Alistair Mowat Innovation Leader – Sustainability
Federated Farmers Barry Roberts BOP Fed Farmers Tauranga/Katikati
branch
Fed Farmers Jay Weeks BOP Fed Farmers
Tangata Whenua Kevin Haua Ngati Pukenga Customary Fisheries
Ctee; Manaaki Taiao
BOP Polytechnic Tim Lowe Head of School, Applied Science
BOP Polytechnic Andrew Morgan Marine Department
Port of Tauranga Rowan Johnstone Port Engineer
Tangata Whenua (research team) Sarah Wairepo Ngati Tapu, Matapihi
Tangata Whenua (research team) Tracey Ngatoko Ngai Tamarawaho, Tamawhariua ki Te
Rereatukahia
Tangata whenua (research team) Carlton Bidois Tamawhariua ki Te Rereatukahia
Tangata whenua (research team) Paula Werohia Waka Taiao
NZ Landcare Trust Kate Akers BOP Regional Coordinator; Kaimai
Catchments Project Coordinator
Ballance Agri-Nutrients Nigel Sadlier Environmental Manager
Ballance Fertilizers Arthur Tsitsiras Operations Manager, Mount Site
Research Team Members at Mediated Modelling Workshop 4, as observers/researchers only:
Massey: Marjan van den Belt (facilitator); Derrylea Hardy, Murray Patterson
Waka Taiao: Lydia Hale (+ others listed in participant list)
WakaDigital: Aaron McCallion and Mark Berry
Presenter: Mal Green, NIWA attending 10am to noon – presentation about Sedimentation Study,
Southern end of harbour (Thanks to Rob Donald, BoPRC, for organising this).
Apologies received from:
Graeme Dohnt and Jane Grove, Tauranga City Council (unable to attend due to other commitment)
Rob Donald, BoPRC (other commitments)
Pim de Monchy & Robyn Skelton, BoPRC Coastcare (replaced by Braden Rowson)
Archie Grant, tangata whenua, Manaaki Taiao Trust (other commitments)
Dean Tully, BOP Polytechnic (two others from BoP Polytechnic will attend instead)
Lisette Collins, Wildlands Consultants (other commitments)
Glenn Ao, Western BoP District Council (am only)
Max Mason, Chamber of Commerce (mix up due to location)
Sean Marsh, Tourism Bay of Plenty (other commitments)
Noel Petersen, Tauranga Environment Centre (other commitments)
Appendix B – Action Points from Workshops 1, 2 and 3 + What Done About Them by 4th Workshop
N.B.: The MTM team has a “Model Description” detailing sources/commentary for all data used in
the model. This will be available for viewing.
Follow-up Actions Noted During Workshops 1 and 2 What Done About It / How
Suggestion Used or Accommodated
in the Model.
Reports with important data we need to utilise: *Used Kaimai Catchment Report
*State of Environment Report by DoC et al; (DOC/Wildlands).
*TEEB; *Used TEEB report in workshop 2 +
Costanza et al study.
*Wildlands report on Ecosystem Services in harbour;
*TCC Stormwater report (draft for us in Dec); * TCC report not yet received.
However, they have over reports we
could use such as: State of the
Receiving Environment Report
(includes reticulation, and freshwater
quality data – but not loadings). They
also have an “Overflows” report; also
an application for Stormwater
Consent.
*NIWA reports on Climate Change and Sedimentation; *??
*Land Use Capability reports (Landcare and Wildlands). *??
Clarify how spills counted in TCC stormwater data. *Awaiting TCC report.
Include “pulses” for climatic events, and resultant impact on Climatic Events such as drought
forest quality. Tsunami/Earthquake are in Major
external factors – This module will be
looked at in future workshops
Forest Quality ( Pest Control) was in
Eco Systems has been temporarily
removed until further discussion had
to where it fits in best and how best
to measure this.
Consider level of detail needed re eradication policies. Kaimai Catchment forest quality has
not been addressed yet.
Mangroves research: Environment Waikato may have data. We have:
*Schwarz, A. M. (2002). The role of nutrients in
contributing to mangrove expansion, EW and DOC.
*Schwarz, A. M., et al. (2004). Guidelines for
Community-Focused Ecological Monitoring of
Mangrove Habitats in Estuaries. Water &
Atmosphere, E.W., 31.
*Singleton, P. (2007). "Draft Whangamata Harbour
plan: looking forward to a healthier harbour. E.W.
Internal Report 2007/14.".
*Swales, A., R. Bell, et al. (2007). Mangrove-Habitat
Expansion in the Southern Firth of Thames:
Sedimentation Processes and Coastal-Hazards
Mitigation. E.W. Technical Report 2008/13.
We know of but don’t have:
*Riddell, D. (2005) Whangamata Mangrove
Clearance. Kessels & Associates Ltd. Report
prepared for E.W., 16pp.
*Wildland Consultants (2005) Extent and effects of
mangrove clearance in the Whangamata Harbour,
November 2005. 12pp.
*Felsing, M. (2006) Benthic impacts of mangrove
removal Whangamata Harbour - analysis of Nov 05
samples. E.W. memo, 10pp.
Mangroves research: consider role in habitat/protection for *Done.
kaimoana; distinguish between new and old mangroves; *Difficult to distinguish in non-spatial
aerial photography 1948-2000s from TCC/EBOP. model.
*TCC provided photography.
Economic and Social/Cultural Impacts: look at median *Used Statistics NZ median income
income levels plus gaps in socio-economic status and how levels in model.
changed over time, and impact of declines in access to *Further analysis to be done on
changes over time and impact on
kaimoana and associated mana/social status impacts.
social status etc.
Consider: How do we account for biodiversity changes on Decided not to do this in the model.
private land?
Goodwill is important – how to account for it in “solutions” During “Action and Solutions”
box? sessions this can be addressed
Consider impact of infrastructure changes: Port, Transit, *Have included “box” for the Port.
roads, bridges, urban development, landscape change. *Have used urban dvpt quantity data
from Kaimai Catchment report, but
not impacts of this (yet).
* Still to include others.
Land Uses: Look at Council plans, zones, policies. *Accounted for in Land Use model,
except for degradation in coastal
margins of the coast, eg cliff faces
eroding into the sea.
Bio-Security Risks: consider impact throughout system. We have a Major External Factors
Module; when other modules
completed, these risks can have
feedback loops to ecosystems-
economic-water dynamics and
recreational value modules. May
have to account for these risks in
“actions and solutions” (preventative
measures?)
Wetlands/Riparian vegetation: include in model. *”Wetlands” is in the model, and we
do have alot of data on this.
*Riparian margins and other
“solutions” oriented factors to be
examined further.
Invite other participants to next workshops to maximise *Some participants have been
positive outcomes and uptake of action plans. actively encouraging other sectors to
attend.
*MTM team also invited additional
groups after 1st Workshop.
MTM research team to continue to develop model, based Ongoing.
on group discussions in Workshops 1-2, to find data, and to
get the model “runnable”.
Massey to email participants: “Summary of Workshop” and Ongoing
any “Small Group reports” for participants feedback, prior to
it being put on the website, along with Workshop
Participant lists, and updated versions of the Systems
Dynamics model so that the group can familiarise
themselves with it more (www.mtm.ac.nz).
Participants to come to 3rd Workshop mentally prepared at
to discuss things that can be potentially contentious, to
consider things from another angle, to engage
constructively, not to “blame”. Be innovative in ideas to
achieve positive outcomes.
Bring rates bill to see where it all goes.
Description of Maori principles for workshops to be emailed Done
to participants for their information.
Check accuracy/source for: (Sec 7, Workshop 2 Summary):
“New Zealand is a major global food producer – currently
producing food for approximately 80 million people”.
Workshops to focus on Ecosystem Services of the harbour, Ongoing
but in doing so, we will also work back to the catchment
that impacts on the harbour (so we will still see the linkages
back to the catchment). The Wildlands/DOC report does
have information on the land-based ecosystem services that
we can refer to outside the workshops if we want more data
on them.
During each workshop, have opportunity to go through the Ongoing
model and look at data, discuss whether the data sources
used were appropriate or questionable, and offer up other
sources of data.
Participants (and others) to contact the MTM team or to go Ongoing
to the offices in 12 Elizabeth Street between workshops to
go over any aspect of the model in more detail if they wish.
Workshop participants to offer up sources of data that they Ongoing
are aware of, to raise concerns about the model or the data
if they have any, and to speak up during the workshops
themselves where discussion is encouraged.
Environmental Programme has: Biodiversity; and Riparian
Mgmt Prog (enhancing new wetlands). Very few new
estuarine wetlands. Will be some information in TCC report
coming out soon on plans for Wetland Restoration, and
protected areas.
Seagrass - ASSOCIATED SOLUTIONS/ACTIONS: offset rates Actions and solutions module could
system required to help pay cost of maintaining natural account for eco taxes such as the
state). Impact fees/ dispensations for ecosystem tourism tax in population module
damage/restoration initiatives.
Check figure: An application for 15 million square metres of Figure correct; Port representative
capital dredging for the Port expansion is in process. bringing data to show the amounts
per year and maintenance dredging
figures to next workshop as well as
updated economic impact of port
report 2010.
Look at local government consents/processes, and impact To do.
this has on the system; 99% of consents go through.
Possible Actions:
*Infrastructure Fund used to restore ecosystems and Eco Tourism Levy – Population
ecosystem services; Module
*Eco-Tourism model - payment for Ecosystem Services Infrastructure Fund – Regional
(protection and restoration of them) could be introduced, Council has $200 Million dollar fund
eg cruise tourists pay a certain levy. raised thru sale of some port shares
* Utilise the economic/political system to help us address Workshop 3 Economics and actions
the erosion of our natural capital; eg central govt $$. solutions moduels to incorporate
* System to be better integrated, so that all Councils etc
work together on environmental strategies; have more
Maori input into such processes.
Raise peoples’ consciousness of the services they ARE Is in the Ecosystems Module
getting from ecosystems.
How to fund/support the ongoing maintenance of Ecotaxes/Auction system discussed
restoration initiatives – eg riparian planting.
Link benefits accrued back to, eg farmers, from riparian Feedback loop needs to be
planting. Benefit to natural environment, but also incorporated when riparian planting
“economic activities”. discussed
Understand/clarify definition of “bare earth” in Wildlands
Report.
Calibrate Wildlands report data with NIWA sedimentation Mel Green, NIWA to present findings
data. at Workshop 4
Check time lags on land use and sedimentation data in
harbour.
Mangroves: trap sediment vs accelerating sedimentation BOPRC asked for thoughts on this.
rates. Sediment is either: flushed through the system via
current rates; suspended in the system and deposited on
seagreass etc; or trapped in mangroves. Account for this.
Account for impact on seagrass from changing hydrological
flows, resulting in new seagrass.
Salt marshes to be separated from wetlands. Stephen Park BOPRC asked for this data – they
can assist with data for this. referred us to report: “2000 21-Bay
of Plenty Maritime Wetlands
Database”.
Bacterial contaminant indicators, and number of breaches BOPRC asked for data
per year. Include data in model. – provided report: “96-12 Farm Dairy
Discharges, Tauranga Harbour and
Account for BoPRC “safe” levels for various indicators and Opotiki - Eastern Coastal
number of breaches (using bacterial guidelines, eg). We can Catchments”.
get this data from BoPRC. - The nutrient reduction work is only
measured and accounted for on a
BoPRC has data on this. detailed level in the Rotorua Lakes
catchments.
Data on riparian margins fenced/planted and associated Pim at BoPRC stated: “can provide
cost. figures on the lengths of streams cf
lengths protected from grazing and
the lengths included in formal
programmes. This is currently being
collated by our GIS analysts and we’ll
get it to you as soon as it is ready.
$45/m will buy an 8 wire fence on
both sides of the waterway, 4 shrubs,
the planting and maintenance of
those shrubs. Sometimes there is no
planting, which reduces the cost to
$25-30/m for a fence both sides.
Sometimes only one side needs a
fence. ”
Riparian margins completed vs guidelines. Pim (BOPRC) stated approximately
78% complete.
Source of pollutants – can we estimate this?
Direct discharge levels – how have the rates of such direct BOPRC asked for data.
discharges changed over time? Eg from changed practice of
dumping effluent directly into streams, to irrigating it in
summer months. Stephen Park can assist with this data.
Likely to be 80-90% improvement, but run-off issue remains.
Land Use Change – there has been a decrease in dairy
farming and conversion to horticulture/beef and sheep.
Note resultant change in sediment/nutrient loading rates
into harbour.
Account for groundwater flow rates – leaching time lags.
Flounder toxins? Cause of shellfish decline – what is it due
to? Harvesting vs fishing?
Consider herd housing in wettest months as an option to
reduce run-off.
Seafood bed / kaimoana declines – due to overharvesting,
or black sludge, or trawlers, or other??
BoPRC to invite Mel Green from NIWA to present a short Done.
summary of their sedimentation study at our next workshop
(and for him to have a 10-15 min pre-workshop discussion
with Marjan so he is clear about our processes and goals).
Initiatives/solutions identified re sourcing funds:
*Community Trust to administer funds from taxes/levies;
*carbon sequestration and off-setting of cost of
environment initiatives;
*iwi settlement funding for harbour restoration +
sustainable business;
*differential rating system to increase funds for ecosystem
services;
*national government funds to match local funds;
*incentives schemes to target public good initiatives;
*coordination amongst council on environmental initiatives
will find efficiencies that can be used for harbour
restoration and maintenance;
*education and awareness campaigns to increase “care”
levels for ecosystem services.
Appendix C:
Preliminary Answers to the Key Model Questions (as updated at Workshop 3)
Q1) What are the 3 processes or factors that most threaten the health of the harbour (causes of
the 3 most worrisome symptoms?)
Draft A1)
Root causes: Current linear, extractive economic model without feedback to environment;
inappropriate management of urban growth; unsustainable land use; not valuing ES.
Symptoms: sedimentation, nutrient runoff, toxics, loss of natural capital
Q2) What are the desired outcomes (indicators) of a sustainable harbour with respect to 4 aspects
of wellbeing?
Draft A2):
Ecological (natural): high water quality in harbour catchment – ie un-polluted, sustains life.
Social: Valued uses of harbour can still occur, eg kaimoana collection; fishing.
Cultural: Mauri of harbour is restored, recognized, sustained.
Economic: The value of ecosystem services is accounted for (incl feedback loop) in the economic
system, use of natural resources is sustainable & does not erode natural capital base upon which
economy depends.
Q3) What solutions (ecosystem restoration what, when, who, how?) to identified root causes can
make an impact, and how much?
Draft A3) “Users” of ecosystems contribute to the cost of maintenance/ restoration of those
ecosystems.
Q4) What social values can we modify?
A4) We want society to be conscious of the services they ARE getting from ecosystems, that they
have value – so society will WANT to support them and ensure sustainable natural capital levels.
Thus, people to better understanding the whole system, interactions between parts of the system,
how economic/social activities impact on environment and how environment provides “services” to
humans that are not necessarily “free” forever.
