Skip to main content.

Appendix Multiple use in a coastal plan area – a case study

A range of complexities and interactions apply to development of resource management tools. The assessment and design processes described in this report are best illustrated by way of a broad example. A hypothetical case study is developed below for this purpose.

A.1 Scenario: managing competing in-shore interests

The marine resource management challenge

Zone A is an area that is recognised as being of ecological significance. It extends from the low water mark to a distance offshore of 3 nautical miles and for a distance of 10 nautical miles along the coast. It supports a variety of species and seabed formations, and is also a popular destination for commercial and recreational fishermen. On weekends it supports a moderate numbers of beachgoers.

Most of Zone A is classified to IUCN Category IV (ie, a habitat / species management area), but a central area comprising 200 hectares offshore from the most popular beach is IUCN Category III (Natural monument) because of its rich abundance of sea life. This area also supports customary fishing activities.

In recent years, increased activity by the local trawler fleet has led to a decline in the fish population. Meanwhile, government has been approached by an aquaculturalist seeking to establish a floating pen covering 2 hectares adjacent to the main beach area. The supporting processing facility would discharge approximately 1.2 times the allowable level of biological residues into the ocean nearby.

A.2 Analysis

Step 1: Scope and discovery

The marine resource is supporting a number of valuable activities:

  1. commercial fishing;
  2. recreational fishing;
  3. recreational swimming; and
  4. aesthetic and environmental values shared by the wider populace.

In the current usage regime, commercial and recreational values are increasingly in conflict, and fishing activities are also beginning to be affected.

An initial ‘scoping’ study is critical to evaluating the broad magnitude of the costs and benefits of the resource use issues involved. This evaluation is required to establish the level of further investment warranted in examining options and impacts.

Subsequent levels of investigative effort should be in line with (evolving) information on potential costs and benefits, and associated risks. Policymakers would consider alternative management options with due recognition of the:

  • establishment and monitoring costs of alternatives;

  • the full set of costs imposed on those affected;

  • potential efficiency benefits;

  • need to target effective outcomes at least cost; and

  • desirability of combining particular management components into a ‘package’ that balances the costs and benefits to maximise the net return to the New Zealand community.

Project proponents would normally be required to fund research and in-depth evaluation of proposals where scoping suggested that there was significant potential for reduction in environmental or social benefits.

Identification of competing uses and externalities

Access issues (competition for resources) arise in a number of areas:

  • for fish – recreational fishers, commercial fishers, Maori fishers:
    • determine sustainable fishing level (eg, 300 tonnes per annum) and at-risk species, estimate degree of rivalry between uses, estimate value of resource access to non-commercial users (eg, via revealed preference or choice modelling techniques);
  • for shoreline – aquaculture processing facilities, beach fishers, swimmers, boaters (ramp access):
    • assess impacts on availability of space;
    • how would this detract from beach amenity values;
    • if incompatible, favour highest value use;
  • for inshore areas – aquaculture pens, eco-tourism, recreational boaters;
  • for offshore areas – commercial fishers, recreational fishers and boaters.

Negative externalities:

  • aquaculture residues (disease risk, nutrients):
    • allowable level established via scientific review;
  • damage to sea floor from commercial trawling:
    • high level risks associated with intensive use of IUCN III area (potential for rapidly rising environmental and heritage costs, in parallel with weak increase in economic benefit);
  • degraded aesthetics (aquaculture facilities and pens):
    • need to establish social costs associated with reduced beach amenity.

Potential positive externalities:

  • protected habitat areas in customary zone may be a breeding ground for fish that disperse into commercial fishing zone:
    • investigate and if so, attribute higher value to this resource;
  • aquaculture pens may enhance the environment in some way, eg, prevent beach erosion; or nutrients may increase the food supply for certain species of fish that is considered OK by recreational fishers but a poor commercial species:
    • investigate and if found, attribute a positive impact – to be assessed in an overall cost-benefit framework;
    • these dynamic effects are also important in developing a holistic management regime.

Evaluate current management regime, and potential for MBIs

What instruments are currently used to manage the commercial and recreational fishers and to promote environmental objectives?

Management options:

  • commercial fishery:

    • implement tradable quota (requiring ongoing monitoring, and market development);
    • limited-entry fishery (licences, gear restrictions, restricted fishing times etc);

  • recreational fishery:

    • unlimited entry (strong social value);
    • licences could be issued with annual fees and per trip catch limits. The annual fee could serve as a congestion tax;

OR

  • restricted entry to area (significant environmental risks);

  • auction off permits on a seasonal basis or provide permits free of charge using a ballot process;

OR

  • invite fishing clubs to participate in tradable quota arrangement (possibly with free allocation);

  • trade could be restricted to within the recreational fishing sector or inter-sector trade could be a possibility.

Externalities:

  • for a single aquaculture firm:

    • standards with penalties for violation;
    • offset arrangement;
    • tax on discharge (set at appropriate level reflecting science on costs and benefits.

[ ]