Manaaki Taha Moana (MTM) Mediated Modelling of Tauranga Coastal Ecosystem Services 4 May 2011 Marjan van den Belt
Mediated Modelling : Agenda 4 May 2011 • • • • • • • • • •
9.00 Opening Welcome, apologies Presentation of updated model and running scenarios 10.30 Coffee break 10.45 Scenarios, hands-on experience, Findings 12.30 Lunch 1.15 Findings, Recommendations 14.30 Coffee break 14.45 Action Plan, Dissemination, Final Report and Model 16.00 Closing
Apologies for Workshop 5 •Jane Groves, TCC •Eila Lawton, Royal Forest and Bird Society •Noel Peterson, Tauranga Environment Centre •Kate Akers, NZ Landcare Trust •Nigel Sadlier, Ballance Agri-Nutrients •Arthur Tsitsiras, Balance Fertilizer •Pim de Monchy (available from 2-4 PM)
Workshop schedule Date
Event
17 Nov
Workshop 1 – Intro, overview, model sectors and land use
15 Dec
Workshop 2 – Ecosystem Services
19 Jan
Workshop 3 – Economic drivers; Values of Ecosystem Services
16 Feb
Workshop 4 – Indicators, Targets , Scenarios and Timelines
4 May
Workshop 5 – Simulation, Findings, Recommendations and Dissemination Final report and model
29 May
Causal map S NATURAL CAPITAL
O
S
PRODUCTION LAND
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES O
ACTIONS ?
S
S
IN KIND AND IN "$"
MARKET VALUE IN $S
S
S
POPULATION
GDP and ES
Land use / cover and natural capital
Simulation • • • •
Calibration Assumptions Scenarios Sensitivities
Population calibration
Calibration “available” • • • • • • • • • • •
Urban areas Indigenous forest Production forest Horticulture Wetlands???? Grassland Scrubs Seagrass Mangroves Tourism GDP
Assumptions
Assumptions
Scenario 1 – what if there is no limit of for urban area/sprawl?
Then population will more than double.
Scenario 1
Sprawl may reduce the sedimentation, under the assumption that runoff from urban areas are lower than from pasture. Urban area is mainly converted pasture in this model.
Sensitivities
Ecosystem service value very sensitive to assumed “ES values�. Blue line: base setting, mainly based on generic values. Red line: maximum values. Recommendation: continue investigation in ES for Tauranga
Scenario 2 – What if ES values are higher than currently visible?
Then ES values are in the same ball park as GDP values. ES values are declining. Assumption: The model has not progressed to the point where economic activities are feeling the feedback from reduced ES, other than a lower attractiveness for population growth.
Scenario 3 – What if the harbour can carry more international tourists?
Then the value of tourism can increase. Assumption: there is currently no feedback to ES values other than population attractiveness.
Scenario 4 – What if water restrictions reduce the carrying capacity of tourists?
Then the value of tourism levels off in the future. Assumption: the model doesn’t have a feedback to other water users yet.
Scenario 4
Then, with economics sectors (such as tourism) limited by water allocation, the GDP may be reduced. Assumption; all else equal.
Scenario 5 - What if new funding is coordinated into various actions?
Then Nitrogen run-off is expected to be reduced. Assumption: New potential funding is available and the cost benefit relation is understood and politically acceptable.
Scenario 5
Then sediment levels are reduced.
Scenario 5 - assumption
The cost benefit relationship between cost of N reduction versus benefits from N reduction are not transparent.
Scenario 5 – assumption
Then an increasing percentage of the new funding is available and spend.
Scenario 5
Then the ES value will improve a little due to wetland area increase.
Scenario 5
Seagrass also improves when sediment is reduced. Assumption, sediment is only 1 of 6 impacts and therefore “watered down� in the model
Sensitivities • When working with large numbers (e.g. The Tauranga Harbour area and its ES value) smaller numbers (e.g. Indigenous forest, wetlands, seagrass and their values) may look less significant. • Uncertainty about multiple impacts and assumptions made dilute a connection.
Future model improvements • Shellfish and seafood population changes and their causes. • Cultural Health indicator. • Dynamic economic sector and interconnection with ecosystems. • Ecosystem service “production curves” • Solution “production curves”. • Link in water demand and water allocation threshold into all relevant sectors. • Insert delays of responses to actions.
Outcomes – Indicators – Action Progress Measurements for Harbour Health Assessment Mauri
Cultural, Social, Economic Outcomes
Matauranga, Science Indicators
Leadership and Action Progress
Traditional Food Sources Swimmable, accessible & safe
Natural Capital : Seagrasses, wetlands
Biological and Cultural Indicators: Cultural Health Index, Macroinvertebrate Community Index Physicochemical 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) Action Progress Related Measurements Restoration of Natural Capital, Point source reductions, Stock exclusion and riparian planting, Land use and cover changes, etc.,
Findings 1 – see handout • Is the model at a point where it can be communicated usefully? • There continues to be a need for land use and data translation and compilation and understanding from an integrated systems perspective. • The benefits of the aggregated systems approach is that it allows several separate conversations to come together and identify the need for leadership in the absence of “data and certainty”. • The disadvantage of the aggregated approach is the lack of spatial explicitness, the on-going wish for more data to increase the understanding of the system. •
Findings 2 – see handout • The “neutral” space fostered a constructive dialogue among stakeholders whom are often involved in more formal (and adversarial) processes. • Learning among the stakeholders occurred. • Participants showed an interest in the modelling during the process and the dialogue was structured due to the modelling process. However, participants want to experiment hands-on with the model only when it is complete.
Findings 3 – see handout • Findings can be found in Outcomes, Knowledge and Science Indicators and Leadership/Action Progress. An implicit consensus on the desirability of the outcomes seemed to exist; enough to pursue a dialogue for understanding. 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 integrated and interrelated to support an adaptive dialogue; it remains a challenge to overcome a fragmented approach. Leadership and actions in a desirable direction can be acknowledged, promoted and more coordinated.
Recommendations 1 – see handout • 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 MTM. • An ‘offset rates system’ is required to help pay for the maintainance of important ecosystems in Tauranga harbour. 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. This observation included the idea to explore payment for ecosystem services.
Recommendations 2 – see handout • 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 coordination of other restoration efforts beyond wetlands. • Targeted application of the ‘Port Infrastructure Fund’ in restoration of ecosystems in Tauranga harbour and in so doing, view natural capital as a valued infrastructure of Tauranga.
Recommendation 3 – see handout • 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 and its time line (and delays) is the key.
Recommendation 4 – see handout • Apply to Central Government for funds to restore local ecosystems, similar to the Rotorua Lakes Restoration and Waikato River projects. How can model be used to identify/communicate key areas for restoration, and coordination of efforts on the ground, that may then increase likelihood of attracting external restoration funding? • 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. • This group could put forward a case for the “value added” to the region by “investing” in ecosystems, and ecosystem services.
Recommendation 5 – see handout • 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. • Clear goals are required; e.g., the harbour should be swimmable and all shellfish edible; Ensure water quality meets predetermined standards as per 19??. • The mediated modelling group will be used to harness the momentum and enthusiasm for Harbour Restoration generated within the workshops thus far.
Recommendation 6 – see handout • 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? • 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.
Recommendation 7 – see handout • 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.
Recommendation 8 – see handout • What would future MTM case studies be able to contribute to this model, going forward? (see PPT) • Test the effectiveness of (which) indicators we have identified during the MM process.
Dissemination - see handout • Extending the involvement of the workshop group beyond these workshops? • How can the MTM team work in with the needs/goals of group participants. Could have ongoing hui? • Need to realistically 'substantiate' the model, then 'sell' it -- decide how to do this at the next workshop. • Could run a workshop on the use of the model for the group – if enough interest. • Should present the completed model to Councils - with support of entire team. • Have a generic PPT presentation for anyone to use.
MTM aims to do: • Develop and implement a Cultural Health Index. • Broad scale surveying of the harbour to understand the role of various anthropogenic stressors on biodiversity. This will include: • Sample flora and fauna sampling, with associated sediment samples to quantify sedimentation, nutrients and pollutants. • Macro invertebrates assessments including quantification of the presence of flora including macroalgae, seagrasses and sea lettuce.
MTM continued • Physical data measures such as grain size, organic content, chlorophyll a and heavy metal sediment concentrations. • Mapping the distribution of key species and environmental variables • Develop community health models, which can be used for future monitoring to assess whether sites are improving or degrading over time. • Determine the current extent of shellfish beds and identify the factors that affect intertidal and subtidal species distribution
MTM continued • Determine the relative effects of sediments and nutrients on seagrass beds (possibly). • Continue work on valuation of coastal ecosystem services • Spatial modelling of key ecosystems and ecosystem services • Further analysis and modelling of the economic activity in Tauranga and its environmental impact on the coast.
What parts of the model do the MTM case studies hope to improve in next 2 years?
Closing • • • • •
Follow up interviews Final report and model Future activities Updates published on www.mtm.ac.nz Karakia