• About this site|
• Site index|
• Contact us|
• Jobs

Getting Our Priorities Right

Credits and Acknowledgements

Executive Summary

Introduction

Part 1: Information for Priority Setting

Part 2: Approaches to Priority Setting for Ocean Management

Conclusion

Appendix 1: About the Maps in this Report

Appendix 2: Detailed Explanation of Draft Marine Environments Classification Maps at 4-class, 9-class and 20-class levels

References

Part 2: Approaches to Priority Setting for Ocean Management

Part 1 of this report explored the information needs that might underpin any priority setting in ocean management. This part outlines some preliminary research into approaches that could be used to set national priorities for managing New Zealand's ocean. Three potential methods that could be used, separately or in combination, are discussed, together with examples of how these have been applied in different contexts here and overseas. The three options described are:

• a map-based approach
• a risk management approach
• an expert-based approach.

2.1 Map-based priority-setting approaches

A map-based approach to setting national priorities for ocean management draws on the application of Geographic Information System (GIS) technology. GIS supports several tools that enable mapping and identification of different environment types. [This idea is discussed further in section 1.3 - see in particular the discussion on the draft Marine Environments Classification.] It also allows us to visually represent different uses and activities within different environments.

Strengths and weaknesses of the map-based approach

How the map-based approach can be applied

Figure 5 on page 27 shows how a map-based approach can be used to identify priorities for ocean management. In this example, wave activity and surface salinity have an influence on water clarity, which give a 'background' level of variation on which to evaluate the proposed activity. The model then allows expected changes resulting from the activity to be mapped, along with the spatial extent of the activity and overlaps with other activities or values in the area. This method could also be used to produce other maps showing socioeconomic values to identify areas that could serve as potential alternatives, if the activity is likely to pose an unacceptable environmental risk.

The scenario illustrated in Figure 5 shows how:

• information can be depicted in a GIS system - including physical and biological data and information, activities in the region, and sites of important educational, historical or cultural value
• existing and potential impacts from the activity can be identified as management issues arise - in this case, a proposed coastal development
• a response model can then be developed using empirical information and based on information underlying individual data layers.

The Australian National Oceans Office has applied a map-based approach during the information-gathering stage of development of the South-East Regional Marine Plan (the first in a series of plans for implementing Australia's Oceans Policy). [The South-East Regional Marine Plan was released on 21 May 2004. See http://www.oceans.gov.au/se_implementation_plan.jsp for details.] The Australian National Oceans Office also recently published a National Marine Atlas, which brings together for the first time information from a wide range of sources about the use of Australia's ocean territory. [See http://www.oceans.gov.au/Non-fish%20Atlas.jsp.]

2.2 A risk management approach to priority setting

Ocean management is largely about managing risks, and ocean research is about improving our understanding of the situations of risk. Given that zero risk is unachievable, and that resources and information are limited, the challenge for ocean management is to target effort at the highest risks where returns will be greatest.

This section describes a possible risk management approach to setting national priorities for ocean management. It outlines (at a high level) some of the governance, management and implementation components of a risk management framework that could be used to guide decision-making by all agencies involved in ocean management and research in New Zealand.

Strengths and weaknesses of the risk management approach

Current status of risk management

There are many decision-makers and decision-making agencies involved in ocean management. The integration of decision-making and allocation of funding is largely through the historical arrangements established for and between these agencies, which generally follow the processes established to carry out their core businesses. In most cases their core business is not the management of the ocean, and in some cases their core business may be in conflict with some of the values for ocean management.

While a number of agencies responsible for New Zealand's ocean management have embraced the concept of risk management, the application of risk management varies and many existing risk management processes are, for the most part, either informal or undocumented. Consequently we do not have a clear understanding of current risks in relation to the nation's ocean.

This means that it is difficult to evaluate existing and proposed management and research activities in an integrated and comprehensive way. However, there are a number of initiatives employing multi-agency risk management approaches. Examples include work relating to the National Biosecurity Strategy (currently at an early stage), and civil defence and emergency management (now in implementation). Examples of current risk management initiatives concerned with ocean management include the New Zealand Marine Oil Spill Risk Assessment (undertaken by Maritime Safety Authority) and the Ministry of Fisheries' Biosecurity Risk Management Framework.

A key overseas example is the approach being taken by the Australian National Oceans Office. Elements of this approach are further described and tested in section 1.1.

Developing an integrated risk management framework

Figure 6 on page 30 outlines an integrated risk management approach for ocean management that applies the guidelines of the Australian-New Zealand Risk Management Standard 4360. The national tools required to implement the approach are outlined below. The tools will need to be scoped in more detail at a later stage.

The draft Oceans Policy includes provision for some of the elements needed to develop and implement an ocean risk management framework. In particular, it provides guidance on a national outcome statement and a values framework for ocean management, which could provide a platform for developing a risk management framework. Such a framework would include:

• a framework for defining the risk management context
• an ocean risk management allocation model that allocates risk management roles, responsibilities and resources to other agencies
• a national ocean risk profile to provide the information for informed decision-making by all agencies involved in ocean management
• risk management guidelines to assist agencies to integrate risk information to derive the national risk profile, and to provide a platform for agencies that may not be currently conducting risk assessments.

In addition, a process will be required to ensure that agency and industry knowledge and learning are fed back to improve policy, refine values and establish viable performance measures.

The failure of many integrated risk management programmes can be attributed to confused roles and responsibilities, and abstract performance measures that are not verifiable or accountable. Hence, effective liaison that passes information between the agencies is fundamental to the successful management of risk to our ocean, and should result in:

• consistency and transparency, to the extent practicable, in risk management within and between agencies
• levels of ocean management and research activity appropriate to the situation of risk
• effective policy formulation, priority setting and resource allocation
• harmonisation of New Zealand's risk management processes, practices and standards with international obligations to the maximum extent practicable
• opportunities for active contribution by interested and affected parties at appropriate stages.

2.3 An expert-based approach to setting priorities

Setting environmental priorities often draws on the knowledge and experience of a group of experts. The expert-based approach can be linked to the risk management approach and the map-based approach. For example, experts may be called upon to participate in a risk assessment, or the outcomes of their deliberations may be represented on maps. The results of an expert process will be influenced by how 'expert' is defined - as scientists with formal qualifications, as a group of local people with traditional knowledge, or as a combination of various expertise. Expert processes are not a substitute for the painstaking collection of empirical data and research, but do provide a way to summarise and prioritise both published and unpublished information for uptake by expert and non-expert audiences.

Expert input to environmental priority setting can be sought in various ways. One way is to construct a questionnaire comprising unstructured and structured questions that allow for the collection of qualitative and quantitative responses. The surveys can be followed up with interviews that allow experts to elaborate on or clarify their input. The advantage of such an approach is that it can provide respondents with anonymity, which may result in more candid responses. The survey format also assures each expert an equal opportunity for participation and expression.

Dynamic group processes, such as an expert workshop, can also be used to elicit information for priority setting. For this method experts are generally bought together in a facilitated workshop environment, during which consensus is sought on one or more environmental issues. [The technique usually provides for divergent views to be recorded, where a consensus view cannot be achieved.] Workshops are interactive and may yield results that are superior to single-step surveys in terms of the quantity and quality of ideas produced. A potential flow-on benefit of workshops is the dialogue and knowledge sharing they can foster among expert participants. Combining the survey and workshop methods can strengthen the approach. For example, a survey could be circulated among experts to establish priority-setting criteria, which would later be applied at a workshop.

Strengths and weaknesses of the expert-based approach

Many of the perceived weaknesses associated with the expert-based approach can be addressed through ensuring the process is well designed and facilitated, and by providing for transparent reporting of the process and results, including an indication of which experts were (or were not) involved in generating the information. [Government guidelines for expert group establishment and operation can be found in Ministry of Research, Science, and Technology, 1998.]

WWF-New Zealand's use of the expert workshop approach

WWF uses expert workshops in ecoregions around the world to identify priority areas for terrestrial and marine conservation. WWF-New Zealand employed an expert-based approach in 2003, whereby experts with formal qualifications in marine science were invited to attend a facilitated workshop to identify key areas for marine biodiversity in the New Zealand region. Stakeholders with other forms of knowledge were involved through subsequent rounds of consultation on the workshop output.

A total of 22 marine scientists from New Zealand and Australia attended the workshop over two days at WWF-New Zealand's offices in Wellington. Most participants worked for institutions with marine science capacity, including NIWA, Te Papa, the Department of Conservation and universities, but others were independent. Participants were asked to represent their own expertise, and not the views of the institution for which they worked. Not all taxonomic groups and habitats were represented at the workshop (eg, squid, echinoderms, bivalves, polychaetes, and hydrothermal vent communities were not the specialist areas of any of the workshop participants). Also, some experts chose not to be involved or were unable to attend.

At the workshop a list of criteria was developed and used to determine whether a location was a key area for biodiversity. Criteria included species richness, endemism, and other biological attributes. The experts opted to divide into three groups according to their broad area of expertise (ie, fish, marine mammals and seabirds, and benthic invertebrates and plants). Having been supplied with maps and standardised reporting forms, they delineated areas that are known to be key areas of marine biodiversity and recorded the physical and biological attributes of the areas and habitats.

The three resulting maps were then superimposed to reveal which areas had been commonly identified as key biodiversity locations. However, participants ultimately decided that the maps had more value when left as distinct representations of fish, marine mammals and seabirds, and benthic invertebrates and plants.

After the workshop the outputs were circulated among the participants and peer reviewers for verification and revision. The tangible result of the workshop is a report that identifies key biodiversity areas, habitats and features in New Zealand's marine environment in a form that is accessible to a broad audience (WWF-New Zealand, 2004). The less tangible outcomes of the workshop were the new biodiversity insights and information-sharing derived from the forum.

2.4 Choosing a preferred approach

As we have seen, there are strengths and weaknesses associated with each of the three approaches described above. These are summarised in Table 5 below.

Table 5: Summary of the strengths and weaknesses of different priority-setting approaches

Further work is needed to assess how these approaches and the tools they comprise could be adapted - separately or in combination - into an approach best suited to setting national priorities for managing New Zealand's ocean.