Presentation slides

Public Policy in the Sea:
Spatial Planning in the Hauraki Gulf
(With a photo tour around the Hauraki Gulf)
Raewyn Peart
Policy Director
Environmental Defence Society
The Oceans Policy challenge:
Physical issues
Much larger area to manage than
land (15 times larger)
Marine environment fluid and
very interconnected: greater
cumulative impacts
Ulitmate repository of what
comes off the land
Environmental impacts less visible
and harder to detect
But less scientific information
available and much more
expensive to obtain
The Oceans Policy challenge:
Institutional issues
A commons with some partial private
property rights
Treaty settlements largely outstanding
Fragmented legislative and
administrative framework
No clear funding model
Undeveloped statutory protection
Deep seated cultural views: reserves
much more acceptable on land than in
the sea
But important to get it right!
Significant marine activities reliant
on ecosystem health:
• Commercial fishing
• Recreational fishing, diving etc
• Aquaculture
• Tourism
Much of NZ’s biodiversity reservoir
is in the sea: an estimated 80% of
NZ’s total
Marine spatial planning could help with
these challenges. But what it is?
One of numerous definitions
“An integrated planning framework that informs the
spatial distribution of activities in and on the ocean in
order to support current and future uses of ocean
ecosystems and maintain the delivery of valuable
ecosystem services for future generations in a way that
meets ecological, economic, and social objectives.”
Definition proposed by 21 scientists in Foley et al “Guiding ecological principles for marine
spatial planning”, Marine Policy 2010
Marine Spatial Planning:
Some of the claimed benefits
Enables an ecosystems
approach to be applied to
marine management
Provides a strategic,
integrated and forward
looking approach taking into
account multiple objectives
Enables identification,
conservation and/or
restoration of important
components of ecosystems
Marine Spatial Planning might assist:
more claimed benefits
Allocates space in a rational
manner which minimises
conflicts of interest and
maximises synergies across
Manages cumulative
impacts over time and
Provides greater certainty
for marine users
MSP well-established overseas:
But what might it look like in
New Zealand and what can it
First MSP being developed in
the Hauraki Gulf 2013-2015
Seachange Project Structure
Project Steering Group
Mana Whenua and statutory
Review Panel
Independent Chair
Plus Executive Facilitator
Project Board
Technical support
5 members
Stakeholder Working
14 members chosen by
sector groups
7 Roundtables
Water quality and catchments,
Fish stocks, Biodiversity and
biosecurity, Infrastructure,
Aquaculture, Accessible Gulf,
Mātauranga Māori
As required
Role of Mana Whenua
Project Steering Group: 50% Mana Whenua
50% statutory agencies
Stakeholder Working Group: 4 Mana
Whenua members (out of 14)
Mātauranga Māori Roundtable: Mana
Whenua members of PSG and SWG with
specialist technical support
Plan Writing Team: 2 Mana Whenua
technical support people
Slow start but now working well
Complicated by ongoing Treaty settlements
Public engagement
Hauraki 100+ meetings
25 Listening Posts
‘Love our Gulf’ message boards
2 web-based surveys
Very tight timeframe:
Particularly for consensus processes
December 2013: SWG first meets
July 2014: Roundtables start meeting (7 months later)
December 2014: Roundtables complete work (6 months later)
February 2015: Formal handover of Roundtable work to SWG
June 2015: Final plan to be delivered by SWG (5 months later)
August 2015?: Plan adopted by the PSG
Generally took 6 months for members of each group to start to trust each
other. But Roundtables only operated for 6 months!
Project structure and processes evolved throughout the process. This
took more time as we were working out what to do and then trying to do
What is the project trying to
Purpose of the project in SWG Terms of
“To develop a spatial plan that will achieve a
Hauraki Gulf that is vibrant with life and healthy
mauri, is increasingly productive and supports
healthy and prosperous communities”
Much more than just spatial allocation!
Consensus model for decision-making:
“Consensus for this purpose means that every
member either supports or does not actively
oppose (can live with) the decision”
The key issue which emerged:
Loss of habitat to support juvenile fish
Based on snapper science:
• Lots of eggs produced
• Lots of food for adult snapper – which eat almost anything
• But life cycle bottleneck at juvenile stage – lack of suitable juvenile
habitat providing a good food source and refuge from predation
Widescale historical loss of suitable habitat for juveniles due to:
• Dredging and destruction of large scale mussel beds
• Trawling of much of the Gulf – widescale destruction of horse
mussel, coral and sponge beds
• High levels of sediment blanketing estuaries, embayments and
most of inner Gulf – loss of subtidal seagrass, bivalves etc
Historical dense mussel beds: all gone
Restoration will
reduction in
sediment and
active provision
of hard
Revive Our Gulf
Most of Hauraki Gulf trawled
at some stage and most outer
area still trawled
Bottom trawls 2011-2014
Blue: untrawled
Green: low trawl nos
Orange and red: high number of
eg Dark orange: 80-160 trawls in area
during 3 year period
If trawling stops recovery may still be
slow and require active intervention
Sediment discharge
Major sources:
• Waihou/Piako Rivers
• Wairoa – estuary filled up
• Mahurangi River
Also much historical sediment
from early land clearances
being resuspended
Another significant issue was loss of
vulnerable reef species
Depletion accelerated over past 20
years or so
Accessible inter-tidal reefs being
Offshore reef systems fished much
more often
Largely function of:
• Growing Auckland population
• New ethnicities
• Improved technology (larger recreational
vessels and GPS chart plotters/fish finders)
Content of Spatial Plan
Will identify what it will take to reverse the
degradation of the past 175 years during the
next generation
Focus is on big Gulf-wide moves (strategies
and actions)
Spatial element likely to include location of
priority areas for action, areas requiring more
fine-grained management, and provision for
aquaculture and marine-related infrastructure
Will contain a package of statutory and nonstatutory measures
How will the Plan be implemented?
Key question we’ve been grappling with:
“If stakeholders develop a non-statutory
Gulf-wide plan, and then hand
implementation over to agencies which
didn’t develop the plan, and which still
operate within a fragmented institutional
framework, will it work?”
Concluded PROBABLY NOT. So the plan will
potentially drive institutional change
Institutional arrangements
1967- 1990: Hauraki Gulf Maritime Park Board (27 years)
• Managed parks land and advocated for the protection of the Gulf
• Pioneered island restoration and effective advocate
2000-present: Hauraki Gulf Forum (15 years)
• Consists of representatives of statutory agencies and iwi
• Provides opportunity for members to exchange information and ideas
• Prepares SOE reports, public awareness, annual seminar etc
• But lacks teeth to bring about real change
• Hauraki Gulf Forum version 2?
• Future roles of Mana Whenua, Stakeholders and Agencies
Collaboration = Power shift?
Seachange: statutory agencies have stepped back and tasked SWG with
preparing plan
SWG members briefed with the best science and now significantly
upskilled on issues and solutions
Significant social capital built up between members
These skills and social capital important for the successful
implementation of the plan
So SWG likely to continue in some form to oversee implementation
Land and Water Forum: established in 2008 and in 2015 still developing
national freshwater policy
STRATEGIC – Focus on big picture issues and what really
matters to the area as a whole
INTEGRATED – Considers catchment issues, key marine
activities such as fishing and marine protection at same time
COLLABORATIVE – Mana whenua and stakeholders working
together and driving plan development
SOLUTIONS-FOCUSED – Focus on finding solutions not
reiterating problems or blaming sectors
RESTORATION GOAL – Accepts as a given that ongoing
degradation not an option. Identifies ways to restore mauri,
ecological productivity, diversity and abundance of marine life
Application to rest of NZ?
Collaborative planning process not to be undertaken lightly
Very resource intensive and personally very sapping (but exciting)!
Best deployed where there are tricky, complex issues that other
approaches can’t address
A lot can be learned from the Seachange process to feed into future
processes (EDS is planning a review)
Rolling out wall-to-wall MSPs (as being done in the UK) probably waste of
But some obvious candidate areas where there are significant
conflicts/lost opportunities, eg:
• Northland/Bay of Islands
• Marlborough Sounds
• Chatham Rise/EEZ