1

Mediated Modelling Final Workshop (4 May 2011) Notes for Distribution to the Group for Discussion and Update

Draft Conclusion Based on the model building, scenario development and the dialogue during the workshops that was not modelled, several “findings”1 were observed.

Draft Findings The model is a tool for understanding the interconnections and broad drivers of change and trends in Tauranga Harbour. Thus, the process of modelling the broad Tauranga harbour system has helped us uncover the following insights and general conclusions about the use of mediated modelling:

1. There continues to be a need for consistent compilation and translation of land use data to enhance understanding from an integrated systems perspective.

2. The benefit of the aggregated systems approach2 used in this study is that it allows several separate conversations the ideas of different groups or people, who don’t normally have opportunity to share their idea, to come together and increase collective understanding about Tauranga harbour, how it functions, and what the main issues are.

3. Modelling the “big picture” in this way has identified the need for leadership amongst groups in the community to take positive action towards the restoration of the harbour, even in the absence of complete “data and certainty”.

4. The disadvantages of the aggregated approach are: the lack of spatial explicitness3, and the on-going wish for more data to increase the understanding of the system with “certainty”.

5. The “neutral” space within workshops fostered a constructive dialogue between stakeholders, many of whom are often involved in more formal (and sometimes adversarial) processes about the harbour.

6. Learning among the stakeholders occurred, as they were able to hear concerns of other groups, and contribute their own knowledge to the group.

7. Throughout the mediated modelling workshops, participants showed an interest in the modelling and the dialogue remained structured due to the modelling process. However, participants preferred to experiment hands-on with the model after its completion.

1 A finding is defined as “a conclusion reached after examination”.

2 An “aggregated systems approach” refers to a synthesis at regional level (aggregating sub catchments) and a

systems approach refers to changes over time , 3 i.e., a systems dynamics model such as the one used in this study does not allow us to separate out individual

suburbs or locations within the Tauranga harbour or catchment, but considers the system as a whole.

2

8. Recommendations can be found in the “Outcomes, Knowledge and Science Indicators and Leadership/Action Progress” section (following the DPSIR framework). An implicit consensus on the desirability of the outcomes (seafood, swimmability, mauri) seemed to exist, enough to pursue a dialogue for understanding how progress is measured and what leadership can be provided (and actions taken) . However, a consensus of the balance at an Outcome level with Economic (traditional or new instruments) is not evident. Various indicators are measured but are currently not yet integrated and interrelated to support an adaptive dialogue; it remains a challenge to overcome a fragmented approach both in research (e.g. synthesis in addition to analysis of research questions), community building (multi-stakeholder dialogues) and policy coordination (Regional and Territorial Authorities). Leadership and actions in a desirable direction benefit from acknowledgement, promotion and more coordination.

Outcomes – Indicators – Action Progress Measurements for Harbour Health Assessment

Mauri

Swimmable, accessible &

safe

Traditional Food Sources

Natural Capital : Seagrasses,

wetlands

Biological and Cultural Indicators : Cultural Health Index, Macroinvertebrate Community IndexPhysicochemical Measurements :Dissolved Oxygen (Metabolism), physical habitat, ecosystem functioning, sediment analysis, turbidity, hydrology. nutrients, toxins, bacteria, temperature. Economic Measurements: traditional (GDP) and new indicators (ES value)

Cultural,Social,EconomicOutcomes

Matauranga,Science Indicators

Leadership and Action Progress

Action Progress Related MeasurementsRestoration of Natural Capital, Point source reductions, Stock exclusion and riparian planting, Land use and cover changes, etc.,

Draft Recommendations Recommendations can be in the form of proposed investigations, joint fact-finding or research, initiation of a focused collaboration, or policy advice. The following recommendations have already been identified during previous workshops (notes from each workshop are on the website, www.mtm.ac.nz) as potential future courses of action that participants could undertake, in light of the model and workshop findings thus far.

3

During the last workshop (May 2011), we will aim to develop SMART4 recommendations:

1. It was clearly very important to consider the cultural “voice” during workshop discussions. However, we didn’t attempt to model this. A future adapted version of the model could include the results of the on-going Cultural Health Indicator study that is proposed for the next phase of the Manaaki Taha Moana programme.

2. An ‘offset rates system’ is required to help pay for the maintainence of important ecosystems in Tauranga harbour. It was proposed to initiate impact fees/dispensations for ecosystem damage/restoration initiatives. A Centralised Hub to deal with all issues, with all councils working together alongside key community representatives, was also proposed and seemingly endorsed by all workshop participants. This observation included the idea to explore payment for ecosystem services.

3. Create a coordinated hub for wetland restoration, to enable greater synergies of ideas and effort in the currently fragmented efforts to restore wetlands. In time, this “Hub” could be expanded to include co-ordination of other restoration efforts beyond wetlands.

4. Targetted application of the ‘Port Infrastructure Fund’ in restoration of ecosystems in Tauranga harbourand in so doing, view natural capital as a valued infrastructure of Tauranga.

5. The question of “guidelines” vs “requirements” to ensure more sustainable use of the harbour and it’s ecosystem services was discussed. There is merit to both approaches, but ideally it is good to use a guidelines approach first and then use the “stick” approach on the remaining small proportion of the population who will not change practice voluntarily. Transparency of process is the key.

6. The questions were asked: How can we utilise the economic/political system to help us address the erosion of our valued ecosystems in the harbour? Can we go to Central Government for funds to restore local ecosystems, similar to the Rotorua Lakes Restoration and Waikato River projects? The point was made that building a model as we are doing in these mediated modelling workshops will help to identify key areas for restoration, and coordination of efforts on the ground, that may then increase likelihood of attracting external restoration funding.

7. BoPRC stated that they do have a new fund for “Tauranga Harbour” proposed in their next 10-year plan. If this does go ahead, all groups represented in the mediated modelling process need to get in behind and support it. There is nothing like having the full support and backing of a group of people such as this group, who represent divergent sectors, for a new Council initiative. This group could put forward a case for the “value added” to the region by “investing” in ecosystems, and ecosystem services.

8. Setting clear goals and visions for Tauranga Harbour needs to be at a similar level of importance as it is for the Rotorua Lakes, including having similar levels of monitoring in the harbour to check progress towards predetermined goals. For example, the nutrient

4 SMART refers to actions that are: Specific, Measureble, Achievable, Relevant and have a Timeline

4

reduction work is only measured and accounted for on a detailed level in the Rotorua Lakes catchments by BoPRC, and the same level of detailed monitoring needs to be implemented in the harbour as soon as possible

9. To help gain widespread support for, and understanding of, the need for efforts to protect and restore ecosystems in Tauranga harbour, we need community education and comprehensive reporting of monitoring programmes.

10. Clear goals are required; e.g., the harbour should be swimmable and all shellfish edible; Ensure water quality meets predetermined standards as per 19??.

11. The mediated modelling group needs to commit to thinking about how they want to use the model, to harness the momentum and enthusiasm for Harbour Restoration generated within the workshops thus far.

12. There are various monitoring/restoration projects that could be followed up on - linked to specific funding sources, that this group can apply for. Ongoing thought is required to determine how to implement, measure AND fund key initiatives?

13. Council Annual Planning Budgets are coming up - a joint application by workshop participants to the Council(s) to instigate a research or conservation programme on issues of most concern about the harbour is recommended.

14. As requested by workshop participants, the MTM research team has identified 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; These can be found on the MTM website). Throughout subsequent stages of this research, additional tools will be developed, and will be made available for use by the local community.

15. What would future MTM case studies be able to contribute to this model, going forward? (see PPT)

16. Test the effectiveness of (which) indicators we have identified during the MM process.

Draft Dissemination After the workshops, what part of the outputs from the mediated modelling should be made available to wider audiences? Options include:

1. Extending the ‘membership’ of ongoing forums beyond the representation at these workshops.

2. Consider ways that tthe MTM research team work in with the needs/goals of group participants, including through ongoing hui?

3. Go through a post-workshops phase of dedicated work on the model to realistically 'substantiate', and then 'sell' the model to key ‘players’ who impact on the harbour -- decide how to do this at the May workshop. This could including a presentation of the completed model to Councils - with the support of the entire mediated modelling participant group.

4. Run a workshop on the use of the model for the group – if enough interest.

5

5. Have a generic PPT presentation for anyone to use in communicating the model and the key findings to their ‘sector’, to help increase understanding and bring about positive change in the use of the harbour

Questions framed in the process To summarize the findings and recommendations, we revisit the four broad questions asked at throughout the workshop process.

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.