Conclusion
This report has scoped a number of tools and approaches for future national priority setting for adaptive ocean management. It has been developed to contribute to the Ocean Survey 20/20 project and to provide a platform for future work on priority setting under an Oceans Policy.
The key conclusions reached through this study are presented here as a series of possible steps along a pathway to making the best use of existing and new information in setting national priorities for ocean management. The five steps are:
- Refine our information needs for setting national ocean priorities.
- Build a comprehensive index of what we already know.
- Begin work to address key information gaps and barriers.
- Further evaluate information-based tools and models that can assist with setting national ocean priorities.
- Design a preferred approach to identifying national ocean priorities (based on the information, tools and models identified above), and develop a strategy for implementing it.
Step 1: Refine our information needs for setting national ocean priorities
To set national priorities for ocean management we need information about:
- the range of marine environments and habitats, the human uses and activities within them, and the types of change occurring within them ('empirical information')
- society's preferred uses and values for the ocean ('values-based information').
Some analysis of empirical information needs has been carried out in developing systems such as the National Aquatic Biodiversity Information System and the proposed Coastal Resources Atlas. Significantly, the Ocean Survey 20/20 project is now embarking on the ambitious task of developing a comprehensive set of empirical data about our marine environment. The initial work programme for this project is being identified by seeking expert advice from people working in this area on the key areas of knowledge that need to be filled now. However, a comprehensive statement of empirical information needs is still required.
Over time, as Oceans Policy priorities are developed, we would anticipate that the needs driven by Oceans Policy would begin to inform the Ocean Survey 20/20 work programme and that the two projects will be linked more closely.
A significant amount of values-based information has already been identified through Oceans Policy consultation processes to date. The potential scope is reflected in the high-level objectives contained in the draft Oceans Policy. Over time these values may need to be reviewed as people change their preferred uses and values. There may also be a need for more detailed values-based information in relation to specific ocean management issues.
Step 2: Build a comprehensive index of what we already know
This report has summarised the sources of a wide variety of existing information about New Zealand's ocean. A tiny subset of this information is illustrated in the maps contained in this report (see section 1.2). Previous summaries of existing information include the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology survey of marine research (Chapman and Lough, 2003); Marlin; the report from the experts workshop convened by WWF-New Zealand in 2003 (WWF-New Zealand, 2004); and for development of the proposed National Coastal Atlas (Tortell, 2001). Also, a number of tools are being developed that draw together some key data layers (eg, the National Aquatic Biodiversity Information System and the Marine Environments Classification system).
Despite this work, and due mainly to the lack of any co-ordinating agency, a comprehensive overview of the actual information held by all relevant agencies remains to be compiled. To ensure that effort is not duplicated, a full summary of the data contained in these different sources - and elsewhere - needs to be developed.
Step 3: Begin work to address key information gaps and barriers
Building on work under steps 1 and 2 above, a gap analysis is needed to analyse the 'fit' between existing empirical information and our information needs.
In some cases gaps in information and knowledge exist simply because the information does not yet exist; for example, in the preparation of this report we were unable to source comprehensive data on the type and distribution of introduced marine species.
In these cases, the gaps in information can be addressed through the Ocean Survey 20/20 and other complementary projects over time. However, in our compilation of data for this report we also identified a number of barriers to accessing existing information, which would need to be addressed as part of an overall strategy to collect a full data set on the ocean environment and the resources and activities within it. These barriers include:
- some information cannot be accessed because of intellectual property issues, making the costs prohibitive, even though in many cases the data was collected with Crown funding in the first instance (eg, bathymetry data)
- some of the data is available but there is no means yet to easily access it in electronic geospacial format (eg, submarine cables and mining exploration permits)
- there is no standard definition to inform particular data sets (eg, there are 15 different data sets on the position of the coastline)
- data is distributed among diverse research agencies, from Crown to private, and a means to collate and depict data already collected needs to be developed (eg, marine research activities, marine pollution data and sediment loads from rivers)
- responsibility for the collection of the data is unclear (eg, data on recreational uses)
- the right technology is not available, or required, to collect the information (eg, vessel-tracking technology for shipping is not required in New Zealand, though it is in other countries)
- an agency is collecting the information but is not resourced adequately to maintain a comprehensive data set (eg, the New Zealand Water and Waste Association is keen to develop and keep up a national data base on sewage outfalls)
- sensitivities relating to how the information could be used (eg, defence activities).
Step 4: Further evaluate information-based tools and models that can assist with setting national ocean priorities
A number of information-based tools are needed in setting national priorities for ocean management:
- 'access tools', which allow decision-makers to directly access key information and data layers
- 'sourcing tools', which provide an overview of the range of available data and information sources throughout the country, and information such as where they are held, by whom and in what format
- 'interpretive tools', which can be used to evaluate and extrapolate from existing information.
Key access tools already under development include the National Aquatic Biodiversity Information System. Key sourcing tools that have already been developed, or are under development, include the Ministry of Fisheries' Marlin meta-database, the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology's recent survey of marine research (Chapman and Lough, 2003), and reports compiled for the development of environmental performance indicators (eg, Froude, 1998 and Froude, 2000) and for the proposed Coastal Resources Atlas (Tortell, 2001). Key interpretive tools include the Marine Environments Classification system and draft environmental performance indicators.
Despite these developments, many data and information sources remain to be indexed, most are fragmented and difficult to access, and tools for their analysis have been developed on an ad hoc basis.
There is therefore a need for:
- a means for informing people about the range of data and information held throughout the country - such as an ocean meta-database
- a means for co-ordinating access to important publicly held data sets - such as a web portal
- further development of useful tools for interpreting information and trends relating to the marine environment - such as NABIS or other GIS-based systems.
Step 5: Design a preferred approach to identifying national ocean priorities and develop a strategy for implementing it
An approach for applying the best available information and tools for setting national ocean priorities needs to be developed for New Zealand. A number of priority-setting approaches have been, or are being, tested in different priority-setting contexts both here and overseas. This report presents an initial evaluation of three approaches: map-based priority setting, risk management and an expert-based approach.
All three have been found to offer a useful way forward and could be used in combination to develop national ocean priorities. A preferred approach that draws on some or all of these needs to be agreed before we can begin on the path of setting national priorities for ocean management.
Recommendations
As discussed above, this paper has been prepared as a think-piece to explore:
- ways to improve New Zealand's marine information base - especially as an input into the Ocean Survey 20/20 project
- methods for setting national priorities for future ocean management.
The following actions could be initiated to address the issues raised in this report.
- Ensure there are effective linkages between the Ocean Survey 20/20 project and the Oceans Policy project, so that priorities set under each can inform the other and a truly adaptive approach to ocean management can be instigated.
- Develop a full list of data that currently exists to ensure there is no duplication in effort, and, as part of this exercise, address the range of barriers to accessing and using existing information, including:
- intellectual property issues
- limited availability of data in electronic geospatial format
- lack of a consistent definition or standard for particular data sets
- wide distribution of data among diverse agencies
- unclear responsibility for the collection of data
- lack of technology to collect the information
- lack of resourcing to collate and manage data
- lack of protocols for the use of information.
- To ensure that any data collected or collated can be used effectively, assess the viability and costs and benefits of:
- a comprehensive database of information and data about New Zealand's ocean (it is anticipated that any database developed would draw from distributed information available from existing key tools already being developed, particularly the Marine Environments Classification, the National Aquatic Biodiversity Information System and the Marlin meta-database; Australia is already developing a similar system and we would initially investigate whether this could be transposed to the New Zealand situation)
- a 'portal' for providing public access to marine data and information held in the public domain.
- Agree on a preferred approach to identifying national ocean priorities and develop a strategy for implementing it.
