Summary_of_Final_Mediated_Modelling_Workshop

Summary of Final Mediated Modelling Workshop, 9am-4pm Wed 4 May 2011, Historic Village, Tauranga Present + Apologies: See Appendix A Participants mingled and talked informally until 9.20am, also having opportunity to review the updated model that was displayed.

1) Opening: Workshop began with welcome, karakia and introductions at 9.20am 2) Overview: An overview of workshops 1-4 was given, particularly for the benefit of the new participants, including: * the iterative steps taken to develop the modules in the model, and using “causal loop diagrams” to describe how the interactions in the model were mapped: S

NATURAL CAPITAL

O

S

PRODUCTION LAND

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES O

S ACTIONS ?

S

IN KIND AND IN "$"

MARKET VALUE IN $S

S

S

POPULATION

* the “Interface” layer of the model, which provides an overview of how the main modules of the model inter-relate:

* the Land Use / Cover and Natural Capital module:

3) Simulations: Before running through some simulations from the model, Marjan explained how the model accounts for – calibration, assumptions, scenarios, sensitivity: •

Calibration (comparing the model’s trend-lines, with actual time series data where this exists).

Calibration data is available and has been used in the model for: Urban areas; Indigenous forest; Production forest; Horticulture; Wetlands (uncertain how reliable this data is); Grassland; Scrub; Seagrass; Mangroves; Tourism; GDP. e.g. Population Calibration:

•

Assumptions (information that is entered into the model, in the absence of known or reliable data). Described how assumptions have been used in the Population module, whereby it is assumed that people are attracted to Tauranga based on its GDP attractiveness, but this is to a point, and if the Ecosystem Services value of the harbour decreases to a certain point, then this will start to negatively impact on attractiveness of Tauranga and people may stop moving there.

Likewise, there could be limits placed on “urban sprawl” (or not), and this would impact on population projections, also, as does tourism numbers:

•

Scenarios (allowing the model to “run” various options whereby one factor is compared to another one, to show how they interact over time)

You can then “run” the model, using various scenarios, or moving the slidebars; e.g.: if there is no limit of for urban area/sprawl then population will more than double.

But, “sprawl” may reduce the sedimentation, under the assumption that runoff from urban areas is lower than from pasture (as per NIWA sedimentation study findings). Urban area is mainly converted pasture in this model.

•

Sensitivities (some items in the model are highly susceptible to change)

For example, in the scenario above, the Ecosystem Service value for the entire Tauranga Catchment is 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.

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.

Then sediment levels are reduced.

Scenario 5 assumptions:

The cost benefit relationship between cost of N reduction versus benefits from N reduction are not transparent.

Then an increasing percentage of the new funding is available and spent.

Then the ES value will improve a little due to wetland area increase.

Seagrass also improves when sediment is reduced.

Assumption, sediment is only 1 of 6 impacts (weighted equally, in absence of known data) and therefore it is likely to be “watered down� in the model.

GDP and Ecosystem Services:

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.

There is uncertainty about multiple impacts and assumptions made dilute a connection, as seen above in the scenario about impacts on seagrass and reduction of sedimentation.

4) Small Group Overview of Model: Spent time looking at print out of model in two small groups led by Marjan and Aaron.

During the morning session the following points were raised by the group in plenary discussion: * A recent E.U. study was published that looked at the costs vs impacts of nitrogen. This could contain useful information that may be relevant to our model. * There is a difference between sediment that is “good”, and sediment that is “bad” (mud, fine sediment). Is this in the model? Marjan said we could split “sediment” in the model to a % of each.

The question was asked as to where the “mud” sediment comes from – is it from earthworks?

Phosphate is a very fine sediment that comes from earthworks. Organic phosphate on farms also runs off into the harbour – is this where the fine sedimentation is coming from, or is it earthworks? *Need to consider Embedded Impacts: If Tauranga becomes a Knowledge Based Economy, you can then outsource environmental impacts elsewhere. At the moment, Tauranga is primary-sectorintensive so there are high levels of environmental impacts felt in the region. A move to a knowledge economy (through higher emphasis on value of Ecosystem Services) would change this. It is important to think about such things; where should Tauranga be focussing it’s growth – Primary Industry? Knowledge Economy? Technology? The model could allow us to work out the costs/benefits of various options, to determine greatest outcome that incorporates all factors (not just economic). The point was made that, particularly in the focus of this MTM research, we also need to incorporate iwi interests and values into ongoing decision-making. *Marjan discussed future potential model improvements the research team has identified: • • • • • • •

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.

Morning Tea

5) Hands on Trial of the Model: Spent time going through the model and running scenarios as outlined above, so that all participants had a “hands on” opportunity to see how to operate the model, and how to change the assumptions or check where the data comes from.

6)

Additional Desired Action Points Identified by the Group, for the Model Development:

* Beef and sheep intensification in the region is declining (moving into lifestyle blocks) – this was immediately added to the model. *We could split dairying in the model into different ‘types’, eg high intensity dairying on steep slopes vs on flat land, to show impact that this has on the harbour. Use Land Classification data. *Impacts of dredging could be included in the model, although this is difficult to model. Dredging is mainly done for benefit of cargo ships (to allow much bigger ones), not tourism. If no dredging, there would be a decrease in economic activity, but an increase in Ecosystem Services (and vice versa). We do not know the science about what dredging will do, e.g., grain turbidity and where it resettles, etc.

Dredging also impacts on recreation, including shellfish gathering. This was summarised in a causal loop as follows: ?

Shellfish +

Dredging

Recreation

Turbidity *What is the limit of socially acceptable change in relation to the harbour; i.e., we need to assess where people’s limits are for a scenario of, eg, dredging vs shellfish. At what point is the loss of shellfish too much, despite ongoing economic gain from ongoing dredging? It would be good to put such limits into the mode -> set predetermined goals, and then work backwards to see how those limits impact on what can be done. *GDP per capita is an important indicator as it helps people understand the impact of themselves as an individual. Include in the model. People come to Tauranga for “lifestyle” factors; but the harbour needs to be in a certain state of health to keep attracting people, before attraction to live in the region starts to decline. This is already modelled, in the GDP vs Value of ES scenario.

Lunch 12.15-1pm

7) Findings about the Mediated Modelling Process, as Identified by Participants During the Workshop, in Plenary Session: Before looking at the findings that the Research Team had identified (that were on the PPT presentation), the group identified the following findings are the use of mediated modelling itself: *Great networking opportunity *From a “farming POV”, good to see everyone around the table, and get a better understanding of what is happening out there. Commend EBOP on “sticking with it” and understanding everyone’s position. *Being able to put across ideas without being held down, criticised or having your ideas dismissed as inconsequential, which often happens. In the workshops, could give your opinion freely without barrage from people who disagree. The workshops were a “safe” space for everybody. *It is a good model for multi-stakeholder discussion. *Good to see that there is a common agreement to value the harbour from different perspectives. *The question was asked: Is the “vision” of the group agreed upon? Response: partially. There is still something of a gap amongst members of the group in what the vision is for the harbour; eg between economics vs ecosystem services, and where the balance should be. *”Local optimisation”, where people focus on the own interests, was especially evident at the first workshop. But over the workshops, people moved towards “global optimisation”, where you get win-win situations for everyone. The workshops shifted people closer towards group optimisation, organised community/stakeholder view of the harbour. *This process has given the group a framework to use going forward. *The model is a solid platform to continue with. *There is value in having participants engage with model developments in each workshop. *The good thing about the model is how it links the socio-cultural values with science and industry. *Builds on areas of common good, instead of areas of opposition. *The model and the project gives participants one place to access information, and a focus for coordination, which saves time and money by having so much diverse information in one place on the MTM website (economic saving, plus ability for people to actually be able to access that information). *Most people know very little about the harbour, but it is good to have what IS known in one place (in the model). *Gaps in information about the harbour – identifying where those gaps are is important to help identify where most important future work should be done, and to prioritise “plugging” of important gaps. *There are alot of “divisions” in Tauranga – e.g., rich and poor, old and new, Maori and non-Maori, etc. This process forces people to look at the common good through evidence-based sources, instead of just opinion and self-interest. *The question was asked as to why more academics hadn’t been involved in the workshops, and it was explained that a cross section of groups from all stakeholder groups was important, and that the process was not meant to be ‘academic’-led. The original stakeholder list was developed by the MTM Research Team, with original aim to have wider Maori focus, but then deciding to include cross section of stakeholders from all key sectors. The intention of the workshops was for the ‘community’ to come together as a stakeholder group to decide on issues etc; then these community findings can be related back to academia to work on answers/solutions to things that are unknown. Now that

stakeholder discussions have occurred through this process, academia can be pulled in more in a coordinated manner. Although there were possibly hundreds of people who could potentially have been invited by the Research Team to participate in these workshops, some groups were invited by were not interested in attending or were unable to attend due to work pressures etc. The people who have a passion for the harbour and really want to be involved are the ones who came along.

The Research Team acknowledged that it was quite an ask for people to attend for 5 x whole day workshops. The Research Team will make an effort to continue to liaise with the groups who are not here. *The model is a good interface between ‘stakeholders’ in the community, and ‘technical people’ in academia, etc. *BOPRC noted that they hope to coordinate research groups to help bring them together more to focus on research gaps, plus better coordination of research efforts, so that all key research groups are aware of what is being done (eg there is a shellfish study being lead by MFish that nobody at the group knew about until this week).

Thus, BOPRC is looking to set up an External Liaison Group, which this Mediated Modelling participant group could form the basis of, in addition to others. This would be in addition to a Technical Group, which could also include people from this participant group. The formulation and ongoing running of these 2 x groups could be incorporated into the 2012-2022 BOPRC 10-year Plan.

By June-July this year, Councillors need an overall idea of priorities and proposed actions. They are not yet in the formal consultation stage, however.

It was acknowledged that this mediated modelling process has involved a great variety of people in coming up with findings about the harbour; this will add weight when putting in submissions to Councillors, then if a finding/recommendation was only arrived out by a few academics in isolation to the views of the local community.

8) MM Participant Group Agreement about the Research Team’s “Draft Conclusions, Findings, Recommendations and Dissemination Ideas”, which were distributed at the workshop: Marjan then circulated the Notes on Draft Findings, Recommendations and Dissemination ideas that the Research Team had compiled for the workshop participants to discuss. The following changes to the Notes were agreed upon by the group: 8a) CONCLUSION: Based on the model building, scenario development and the dialogue during the workshops that was not modelled, several “findings” were observed1.

FINDINGS: The model is as 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

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

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

2. The benefit of the aggregated systems approach2 used in this study is that it allows several separate conversations to come together and identify the need for leadership in the absence of “data and certainty”.

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”.

(It was noted, however, that this could be done in the future, adjusting values for subcatchments).

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.

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 (multistakeholder dialogues) and policy coordination (Regional and Territorial Authorities).

Leadership and actions in a desirable direction benefit from acknowledgement, promotion and more coordination.

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

Outcomes – Indicators – Action Progress Measurements for Harbour Health Assessment

8b)

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.

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. Explore options for an ‘offset rates system’ to help pay for the maintenance of important ecosystems in Tauranga harbour, such as impact fees/dispensations for ecosystem damage/restoration initiatives, payment for ecosystem services.

3. a) While acknowledging the current efforts of BOPRC with regard to better coordination of environmental initiatives (including research) for the Harbour, the group recommends expanding support for harbour protection and restoration. It is recommended that this be done through a Centralised Hub to deal with issues about the Harbour and its ecosystems, with all Councils working together alongside key community representatives, to enable greater synergies of ideas and effort in the currently fragmented efforts to restore ecosystems in the harbour.

4

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

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

b) A formalised group, such as the Mediated Modelling Participant Group, be established to provide ongoing advice to researcher, Council, policy makers, etc in the Bay of Plenty regarding the Harbour (see Action Point (1) below). This aligns well with BOPRCs intention to implement “Stakeholder” and a “Technical” Groups as part of their coordination and planning for Tauranga harbour.

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.

When implementing policies to encourage sustainable use of the harbour and its ecosystem services, use “guidelines”, “requirements”, and “rewards” systems. There is merit to all approaches, but ideally it is good to use a “guidelines” or “reward” 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. The intent is to make Ecosystem Services more “visible” so that when individuals do things to enhance them, they get rewarded and are thus motivated to change behaviour to act sustainably. a) To best utilise the economic/political system in addressing the erosion of valued ecosystems in the harbour, seek Central Government funds to restore local ecosystems, similar to the Rotorua and Taupo Lakes Restoration projects, and the Waikato River project? This could be matched by increased funding and coordination of effort underway at the local/regional level. b) Further, the group supports local iwi in their endeavours to restore the harbour in their negotiations with the central government, similar to Taupo, Rotorua and Waikato. a) This group supports and will work with BoPRC on their new funded programme for “Tauranga Harbour”, proposed in their next 10-year plan. b) This group will work towards a submission to the BOPRC 10-year Plan for funding to support the ongoing operations of the “stakeholder group” (i.e., the ongoing self-organising group that will include Mediated Modelling participants and others described in (3) above), for “value added” research and initiatives in the Tauranga region by “investing” in ecosystems and ecosystem services.

To help gain widespread support for, and understanding of, the need for efforts to protect and restore ecosystems in Tauranga harbour, community education and comprehensive reporting of monitoring programmes are needed, including the translation AND communication of existing science/information about the harbour to the community in easily understandable form.

Instil a vision for the Bay of Plenty as a “centre of excellence” in integrating ecology and economics (also cultural and social dimensions), by placing a value on ecosystem services so that they can be sustained. BoP could be a global model for how to successfully apply this approach. It makes good “business logic” for alignment with New Zealand’s “clean green” brand.

BoP to be a global “solutions” leader by developing and applying sustainable models that balance ecosystem services and economic return. In so doing, BoP will enhance its image as a sustainable region, which will add value to the “bottom line” value of industries/companies (such as Zespri, eg, for whom “public image” is approximately 50% of the value of the company).

11. To ensure better protection for Ecosystems in the Harbour, policies are required that better align “environmental impacters/polluters/users” (i.e. those industries/groups/individuals who have significant impact on the harbour) with “resourcing and implementation of restoration activities.

12. This group recommends support for pro-active initiatives to solve problems that are identified, e g. through monitoring programmes. It is not good enough for monitoring programmes to identify there is a problem, but not implement actions to fix those problems in the harbour.

13. Implement adaptive management approaches to the Tauranga harbour.

14. Investigate new models for efficient and sustainable resource management and allocation.

15. Clarify the link between impact and mitigation in anticipated topics (e.g. dredging and restoration) in order to provide guidance to decision makers and stakeholders (eg. TA’s, RC, environment court, farmers, other sectors). The MTM team could work with this group to seek funding for such ongoing research.

16. Research on shellfish to be better coordinated and prioritised, and a clear agreement on what needs to be done to help protect them. Future research is required for: pipi, mussels, starfish, seasnails.

17. Clear goals are required around what “levels” are sought for restoration of ecosystems and ecosystem services in Tauranga harbour; as well as clear plans for how to go about restoring them (i.e., “SMART” action plans).

18. One participant recommended removal of mangroves from areas in the harbour that were traditionally important for customary take or recreational use, but are now are difficult to access due to mangrove growth.

19. Refine and improve the model.

General discussion about the above recommendations included the following points: * Marjan described a trading scheme for the efficient allocation of water that she would like to see piloted/implemented, if resourcing could be found to investigate it further: Efficient Allocation

Water allocation Trading $

$ +

Ecosystem Services / Natural Capital

Community Asset Trust

*

*

$ 10%

Threshold (Ecological)

Fair Distribution

An option used at the moment with the Rotorua Lakes is the Council “purchasing” an area of land where the landowner has to reduce their percentage of nitrogen run-off in perpetuity.

Council has done this already, after being approached with the idea by a landowner. Such schemes could be implemented more widely, subject to resourcing availability.

The issue of food security is an increasing global issue. The ability to guarantee food security in the future (as an Ecosystem Service) is very important. We need to consider the Environmental Impact vs proportion of Economic Value attributed to various sectors/stakeholders. There is an opportunity with the model to show how loss of Ecosystem Services/natural capital depletes our ability to, eg, supply food into the future.

8c)

ACTIONS: 1) Tauranga Moana Stakeholder Group: There was widespread support amongst the group for the continuation of the energy and passion for harbour restoration that was evident in the Mediated Modelling workshops.

Such a formalized group could provide advice in relation to Tauranga Harbour for: the many different research entities operating within the Harbour, industry, Councils, etc.

Thus, it was agreed that the Mediated Modelling participants from these workshops will continue to meet beyond this final workshop, as an “autonomous self-organising” group.

It was suggested that greater involvement of additional participants would be desired, including wider representation from TCC and WBoPDC, and from Industry (eg Trustpower said they would be very keen to be involved; Port (who did attend some of the earlier MM workshops), etc). BOPRC has the ability to call together key stakeholders to participate in such meetings.

Ongoing resourcing would be needed to sustain such a group into the future, for administration/organisation of the group, costs of holding meetings, and for any ongoing research that the group may want to have undertaken. BOPRC intends to set up a Stakeholder Group for Tauranga Harbour, and it was agreed that this worked in well with the above recommendation and associated action point. However, it was noted that it is important that there is a degree of separation between Council(s) and the local community/stakeholders, and that there will be times when Council may need to step aside (or act as an observer, not a “member”), e.g., if the group decides to collectively put a submission to BOPRC. As an autonomous, self-organising group (at least initially), this group could have multiple roles, including: submissions to Council (in which case Council staff would not participate); as a forum to discuss ideas/concerns/strategies about the Harbour in an open, safe space; a mechanism for key people across the region to plan for harbour restoration and sustainable management; to act as an “end user advisory group” and accordingly to give advice to researchers, Council, etc about the Harbour and its Catchments. The current BOPRC process, in preparation for its 10-year plan (2012-2022) could maintain momentum in keeping this group functioning beyond the Mediated Modelling workshops.

The group will continue to be informed about updates to the Mediated Model by the MTM team, and to use the model to help inform their own discussions and planning for the Harbour, by running scenarios etc. As the group becomes aware of new data, it can provide this to the MTM team so that the centralised model held by the MTM team until September 2015 can be continually updated.

Specific Actions: The first meeting (post the Mediated Modelling workshops) will be facilitated by members of the MTM team (Carlton Bidois and Derrylea Hardy) and Bruce Gardner from BOPRC, who will set up a meeting in July 2011 and email details to all MM participants. On an ongoing basis, the group will need to formalize a structure and secure some resourcing to enable it to function – this will be addressed at the July 2011 meeting. Taupo Lakes Restoration group will present. MTM team will present updated model and Draft Mediated Modelling Report.

2) Presentation from Taupo Lakes Restoration Group: To investigate new models for restoration, have the Taupo Lakes Restoration Group do a presentation to this group in July (at same time as their first “autonomous” meeting, about their restoration efforts. Rob Donald will organise this, and circulate details to the group.

3) Presentations to External Groups: This group to do a presentation to the external groups including Councils and the NZ Planning Institute, about the concepts in our model and interactions between ecosystem services and economic activity. Further, individual members can feed back key findings to their own sectors/organisations. A “template” presentation will be prepared by the MTM Team and posted on the MTM website that people can use.

4) Publications & Outputs: -Alistair and Marjan will prepare a draft article by July 2011.

- MTM Team will finalise the Draft Mediated Modelling Report by July 2011, to present at July hui.

- MTM Team will finalise updates to the model by June 2011, to present at July hui. Update will also be posted on the MTM website.

5) Kaitiaki-led Possum Control As time was running out and “SMART” action planning wasn’t possible, the approach was used as a demonstration and a quick (5 minute) “SMART” Action Plan was developed for Al Fleming to develop a Business Case for kaitiaki-led possum control, that scopes the change in Ecosystem Services functioning of the forested areas from possum eradication, as well as investigating the socio-economic benefits associated with the sale of fur/skins. Al Fleming is to develop a Business Case for this initiative by July, to present at July hui. He could also do the same for a Goat Eradication initiative if he wishes  6) Thank You Letters will be sent out by the MTM team to Manager of each person who has participated in these MM workshops, in appreciation for the time, enthusiasm and contribution each participant has made.

9) Questions (and Answers) as Framed in the Mediated Modelling Process: There was not time for the participant group to go through the following section during the workshop (as was listed in the Handout Distributed to the group). However, the group had agreed to the following at an earlier workshop: 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.

10) Tools to Assess Health of Coastal Systems: 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.

11)

Closing:

•

Marjan circulated a schedule for participants to select times for follow-up interviews.

•

In closing the workshop, and acknowledging it was the final one for this phase of the MTM research, a “round up” was conducted to give participants the opportunity to share their final thoughts with the group. Feedback included: *All participants were thanked on behalf of iwi and the MTM team for their valuable input and contributions (including special thanks to those who provided data and reports, information; and also including people who had attended previous workshops but were unable to attend this final one), energy, and passion for the harbour. The MTM team expressed their great thanks to all participants for the opportunity to conduct MM with them, and their thankfulness that the group will continue on, beyond this “research phase”. The contributions of everyone was valued, no matter if they were the CEO of an organisation or not. Everyone had experience and knowledge to bring to the table. *Many participants were thankful to the MTM team for the opportunity to be involved. *Impressed with what was seen at this workshop (first time in attendance); information from the workshop and the model will be very valuable in own workplace. Look forward to working side by side with MTM team, and this “stakeholder group” going forward. *The group has shown a common goal in valuing the harbour. *Good to be able to put a name to faces of people who are working on the harbour. *Workshops have helped to focus thinking on cultural areas that need to be worked on in the future, for later implementation in the model. A Cultural Health Index will be useful for tangata whenua and other groups. *Good to have updates on the MTM project. *Thankful that “the group” is continuing and look forward to the next meeting in July. *Mediated Modelling approach is fascinating from a science perspective; is a very valuable tool.

Great research ideas were identified at the workshop that hopefully get funded. *Interested in not killing the “golden goose” motivating people’s choices to live in Tauranga to begin with, ie the natural environment. So, increasing our understanding of how to balance ecosystem restoration and socio-economic activity is very valuable. Congrats to the MTM team. *Have been able to see the whole “system” – really enjoyed this perspective. *Glad that people came to these workshops with the health of the harbour in mind. Looking forward to promoting the model amongst iwi. *Thanks to Bruce Gardner for the ongoing role he will play keeping the group going beyond this research.

Carlton closed with a Karakia at 4.15pm.

Appendix A: Participants: BoPRC BoPRC BoPRC Royal Forest and Bird Department of Conservation Zespri Federated Farmers Federated Farmers BOP Polytechnic Tangata Whenua, Waka Taiao* Tangata Whenua, Waka Taiao* Tangata whenua, Waka Taiao* Tangata whenua, Waka Taiao*/ Manaaki Taiao Tauranga Environment Centre Kaimai Mamaku Campaign Committee Chamber of Commerce TrustPower Postgrad Student

Rob Donald Stephen Park Bruce Gardner Al Fleming Chris Clark Alistair Mowat Barry Roberts Jay Weeks Andrew Morgan Sarah Wairepo Tracey Ngatoko Carlton Bidois Paula Werohia Noel Peterson (part of day) Warwick Buckman Max Mason Kerry Watson Julien Huteau

MTM Researchers: Massey University Massey University WakaTaiao (also those indicated with * above) Cawthron Institute WakaDigital Ltd WakaDigital Ltd

Marjan van den Belt Derrylea Hardy Lydia Hale Joanne Ellis Aaron McCallion Mark Berry

Apologies Received: • Graeme Dohnt, TCC (will try to attend part of day) • Jane Groves, TCC • Eila Lawton, Royal Forest and Bird Society • Noel Peterson, Tauranga Environment Centre (will try to attend part of day) • Kate Akers, NZ Landcare Trust (other commitments) • Nigel Sadlier, Ballance Agri-Nutrients (other commitments) • Arthur Tsitsiras, Balance Fertilizer (other commitments) • Pim de Monchy (other commitments) • Kevin Haua (other commitments)