Posts

Posted on

To Wrap Up

Kia ora koutou,

This blog post isn’t going to look at any more IEM literature or analyse contemporary media. It’s the end of the road! Reflecting on my first blog, I surmised that IEM is “an approach that involves different actors and stakeholders all attempting to address complex environmental issues”. Which to be honest, wasn’t a bad first thought. Now I realise it is not quite so definable within one sentence.

This blog has reflected on some theoretical elements of IEM. I have looked at problem definition, IEM frameworks, barriers to IEM, and gifting and gaining. I then reflected on these elements in practice, where it has and has not been seen.

Writing blogs was a new concept for me. Historically, my assessments have encompassed academic reports and essays so blog writing was a new technique to learn. I have enjoyed the freedom (within reason) to choose what I can write about. Clearly I have had a mostly water-based theme, so hopefully, I am setting myself up well for future endeavours!

IEM popped up in one of my other papers this semester. I was fortunate to have to lead the class discussion on Integrated Water Resource Management, and with the resources provided by this paper, was able to confidently challenge my classmates. Perhaps IEM is everywhere if we just look hard enough.

I was hoping to analyse the audience I attracted to my blog, but unfortunately selected a domain that doesn’t give me that information. I’m sure if it did, I would be overloaded with engagement. Although weirdly enough no one left any comments…

Over the past 12 weeks, I have developed my understanding of IEM further, respecting the complexities of the process. IEM in theory sounds relatively straightforward, but in practice is not that simple. This paper has broadened my horizons, encouraging me to step back and first of all, define the problem before rushing to do anything else.

 

Thanks for taking the time to read. There is always more to learn.

Ngā mihi,

Charlotte

Posted on

NZETS vs Farmers: The Battle of a Generation

Gidday team,

The Stuff news article “Beef and sheep farmers call for limits to carbon farming” came to my attention as part of preliminary research for my group project this semester. Having since undertaken further research of published material, grey literature and contemporary media, I have learned more about this complex issue.

The Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is Aotearoa New Zealand’s main tool for reducing carbon emissions. The country has domestic and international climate change targets (Ministry for the Environment, n.d.) but the activities to reach these goals are having unanticipated effects. The primary reduction plan is through afforestation.

Massive land use change off the back of afforestation is predicted to negatively affect rural communities socially, culturally, economically and environmentally. The social impacts include reduced employment (BDO New Zealand Limited, 2021), loss of communities, fire risk and schools (Flaws, 2020). Cultural concerns include loss of indigenous biodiversity and challenges in finding ways to maximise return on marginal land, without compromising Māori values (EDS, 2021; Mercer, 2021). The economic impacts include loss of employment in the area and environmental concerns surrounding the alterations to indigenous ecosystems (Bellingham et al., 2022; Rundel et al., 2014), wilding pines, pests, and changes to catchment hydrology risk downstream from sedimentation loss and erosion when felling trees (New Zealand National Film Unit, 1976).

Sheep and beef lobby group Beef & Lamb NZ commissioned a report to validate the amount of land that has been or will be planted into exotic plantation species in the near future that is likely to make land out of pastoral production. This report identified that “a significant amount of productive sheep and beef farmland has been converted to forestry over recent years, reinforcing the need for limits on carbon farming” (Morrison, 2021). The large shift of productive land to exotic forestry has implications for other parts of the industry, such as processing companies and those supplying services. Beef & Lamb NZ are asking for the Government to work with the sector to introduce limits on forestry offsets.

There appears as though there is a disconnect between the policy space and the institutions at play. The discussion about what action Aotearoa should take, changes depending on who one engages with. Carbon farming is a complex issue that must be investigated using an IEM approach that takes a holistic view of the problem. Those partaking must appropriately define the environmental management problem (Bardwell, 1991), before setting adaptive goals with key stakeholders as it is important to critically analyse the issue from an interdisciplinary perspective. Those partaking must identify key process steps which will lead to IEM. Following an IEM-based process promotes effective outcomes.

Aotearoa’s carbon emissions and proposed solutions are complex. It will take a lot of collaborative, considerate, holistic and productive discussion and action to ensure future solutions are the best they can be for all involved.

 

 

References

Bardwell, L.V.  (1991). Problem-framing: A perspective on Environmental Problem-Solving. Environmental Management, 15:603-612.

BDO New Zealand Limited. (2021). Report on the impacts of permanent carbon farming in

the Te Tairāwhiti region. Tairāwhiti Economic Action Plan Operations Group. https://trusttairawhiti.nz/assets/Uploads/Impacts-of-permanent-carbon-farming-on-the-Tairawhiti-region-July-2021.pdf

Bellingham, P. J., Arnst, E. A., Clarkson, B. D., Etherington, T. R., Forester, L. J., Shaw, W. B.,

Sprague, R., Wiser, S. K., & Peltzer, D. A. (2022). The right tree in the right place? A major economic tree species poses major ecological threats. Biological Invasions. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-022-02892-6

EDS. (2021, September 16). Carbon farming with pines bad for the environment. EDS.

https://eds.org.nz/resources/documents/media-releases/2021/carbon-farming-with-pines-bad-for-the-environment/

Flaws, B. (2020, June 14). Rural communities under threat from carbon offsetting, farmers say. Stuff. https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/121720901/rural-communities-under-threat-from-carbon-offsetting-farmers-say

Mercer, L. (2021). Beyond the dollar: Carbon farming and its alternatives for Tairāwhiti Māori landowners. https://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10063/9443/thesis_access.pdf?sequence=1

Ministry for the Environment. (n.d.). New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme. Ministry for the Environment. https://environment.govt.nz/what-government-is-doing/areas-of-work/climate-change/ets/

Morrison, T. (2021). Beef and sheep farmers call for limits to carbon farming. Stuff. https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/agribusiness/125958601/beef-and-sheep-farmers-call-for-limits-to-carbon-farming

New Zealand National Film Unit. (1976). The Erosion of Our Land. www.Youtube.com. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjXJhQuPQfU

Rundel, P. W., Dickie, I. A., & Richardson, D. M. (2014). Tree invasions into treeless areas: Mechanisms and ecosystem processes. Biological Invasions, 16(3), 663–675. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-013-0614-9

Posted on

The Burning of Sugar Cane

Kia ora koutou,

Right now that we have spent some time discussing the theory of IEM, let’s look at the application of this to a real-world issue. This post will encompass a brief summary of the issue, identification of the environmental management problem, weakness in the management approach and a possible IEM approach to management.

It is common for sugar cane farmers in Queensland, Australia to burn sugarcane crops before harvest. But as concerns about environmental pollution and public health grow, the days of cane field burning may be numbered. The practice has come under fire in other parts of the world for its effect on the environment (Al Khawaldeh, 2022).

Burning of excess crops before harvest produces a hot, fast-burning fire with large ash particles, whereas burning afterwards produces a hot, slow-burning fire with smaller particles that can cause visibility issues and aggravate respiratory conditions (NSW EPA, 2022). Those with underlying health issues such as asthma or lung disease can suffer to a greater extent. The practice also increases soil erosion and reduces cane quality by reducing sucrose content (WWF, 2005).

However, there is a social and economic highlight to the burning. The activity has a three-day festival celebrating the first fire of the season. Thousands of turn out to watch what has become one of the biggest tourist attractions in Townsville (Kelly, 2016).

Despite health and environmental concerns, the practice is lawful. It is regulated by the Protection of the Environment Operations (Clean Air) Regulation 2021 (Clean Air Regulation). The Clean Air Regulation establishes a general obligation for those undertaking cane burning to take all practicable measures to minimise or prevent air pollution (NSW EPA, 2022). Local councils are responsible for environmental follow-up regarding cane burn smoke and ash fallout. Lobby groups such as the Cane Grower Association (CGA) advocate for its growers, collating all the relevant cane firing guidelines to assist growers with the permits, approvals and notifications required before the cane is burned. As the CGA works with their growers to ensure their sugarcane businesses are productive and profitable, they advocate on behalf, for government policy that facilitates this.

Therefore the CGA currently opposes the current Queensland Government regulatory approach to achieving environmental stewardship. They believe their voluntary programme “Smartcane BMP” is the best pathway to meeting the expectations of the community and consumers. The growers are under pressure as they grow cane next to the World Heritage-listed Great Barrier Reef, within some of the most variable climatic conditions in the world (Canegrowers, n.d.). Due to the delicacy of this environment, the Queensland Government has introduced regulations that the CGA believe should be repealed as it “reduces a grower’s capacity and motivation to adapt and innovate” and could cost the industry $1.3 billion over the next ten years (Canegrowers, n.d.). The CGA advocated for a review of the proposed regulation, to which the Government agreed. At the very least the CGA is calling for targets for the industry that match best practice and do not require growers’ businesses to become economically unviable (Canegrowers, n.d.).

The current situation is fraught. There are social, economic and environmental implications (and benefits) to this practice. Regulation coming down the pipeline from the Government gets strong pushback from lobby groups and crop growers. Those creating policies have to consider the effects on the community and the environment. (The sources I reviewed didn’t mention any cultural effects on local indigenous individuals or communities – an important oversight?).

It appears as though there is a disconnect between those making decisions, those implementing it, those regulating it and those at the face of it. An opportunity exists for a more integrated approach.

 

 

References

Al Khawaldeh, K. (2022, September 23). Between burns and biofuel: Burdekin cane growers seek environmental sweet spot. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/sep/24/between-burns-and-biofuel-burdekin-canegrowers-seek-environmental-sweet-spot

Canegrowers. (n.d.). Environment. Canegrowers. https://www.canegrowers.com.au/page/advocacy/key-issues/environment

Kelly, B. (2016). Burdekin cane fires to become largest tourist attraction in region. Townsville Bulletin. https://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/news/townsville/regional/burdekin-cane-fires-to-become-largest-tourist-attraction-in-region/news-story/b46eb29e1b7a63beada11d229e29e9f3

New South Wales Environmental Protection Authority (NSW EPA) 2002, September 13. Sugar Cane Burning. NSW EPA. https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/your-environment/air/open-burning-reducing-pollution/sugar-cane-burning

WWF, 2005. WWF Action for Sustainable Sugar: making it sweeter for nature. https://wwfeu.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/sustainablesugar.pdf

 

Posted on

Gifting & Gaining

Hello friends!

We’re back with another instalment of IEM theory. This week, we are going to discuss the concept of Gifting and Gaining (G&G) and an example of it in practice.

G&G is a concept that reframes ‘losses’ for stakeholders as ‘gifts’ and defines ‘gains’ as positives that can be enjoyed and shared by stakeholders and the environment. The concept frames trade-offs as acceptable losses for the greater good. It demonstrates the importance of framing and the impact it can have on environmental management.

The concept of G&G has been a part of several environmental management projects, such as the development of the Kaikōura Marine Reserve. The Kaikōura Marine Reserve was first proposed off the back of a nationwide campaign encouraging the increase of marine reserves in Aotearoa New Zealand’s waters. The aim of the campaign was (and still is) to have 10% of the country’s coastal-marine environment in reserves. A marine reserve operates as a conservation tool, protecting all components of a marine ecosystem, helping to conserve biodiversity and allowing ecosystems to return to a more natural state (DOC, n.d.).

Forest & Bird submitted a proposal for a marine reserve on the Kaikōura Peninsula in 1992 (which did not eventuate). The proposal generated debate amongst stakeholders in the area – commercial and recreational fishers, iwi, local authorities, and the community. The significance of the area, overfishing issues and the appropriateness of the proposal were at the forefront of discussions. As there was no coordinated institutional or policy response to these concerns, there was no process to develop a problem-solving framework. A lack of exploration into other options resulted in people falling into a ‘goal trap’.

G&G was applied to address the environmental problems through the consideration and understanding of multiple stakeholder perspectives. This problem framing (Bardwell, 1991) considered social, cultural, economic and environmental concerns (TKTTM, 2011). This process facilitated the collaborative environment for discussions that generated consensus amongst stakeholders to work towards a common goal (Margerum and Born, 1995).

Eventually, a marine reserve was established in Kaikōura. With the framework of G&G, the impasse between stakeholders and iwi was addressed. G&G became a part of every discussion and other barriers (Cairns, 1991) such as non-statutory plans for Kaikōura’s coastal resources were developed.

G&G is most effective in the solution space of the IEM process, as it can guide the identification and implementation of resolutions to environmental problems. While G&G is beneficial, it is still faced with several barriers to widespread implementation (Borrie et al., 2020).

 

References

Bardwell, L.V.  (1991). Problem-framing: A perspective on Environmental Problem-Solving. Environmental Management, 15:603-612.

Borrie, A., Brown, I., Butterfield, K., Driver, T., Gear, S., Nevin, S., Shirley, L., & Wijesinghe, R. (2020). Gifting and Gaining: Theory, Application, and Linkages with Integrated Environmental Management. https://www.learn.lincoln.ac.nz

Cairns, J. (1991). The Need for Integrated Environmental Systems Management [book chapter]. In Cairns, J. and Crawford, T.V. (ed.), Integrated Environmental Management. Lewis Publishers

Department of Conservation (DOC). (n.d.). Type 1 Marine Protected Areas – Marine reserves. Department of Conservation. https://www.doc.govt.nz/nature/habitats/marine/type-1-marine-protected-areas-marine-reserves/purpose-and-benefits/

Te Korowai o Te Tai ō Marokura (TKTTM) (2011). Te Korowai: Strategy.  http://www.manu-ao.ac.nz/massey/fms/manu-ao/documents/Te%20Korowai%20Strategy%20- %20JPirker.pdf?0706724C78B9E36CF719A3C36253FFD7.

Margerum, R.D. and Born, S.M. (1995). Integrated Environmental Management: Moving from theory to practice. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 38(3).

Posted on

Barriers to the Application of IEM

Hello friends!

To build on our understanding of IEM, we can lean into Cairns’ (1991) definition of “coordinated control, direction, or influence of all human activities in a defined environmental system to achieve and balance the broadest possible range of short and long term objectives”. He then goes on further to explain that IEM is not fragmented decision-making and does not prefer short-term or single-focused goals.

So far we have discussed the theory behind the application of IEM. In reality, IEM is not always easily implemented. Barriers can hinder the planning and implementation of environmental projects. Today, we will focus on Cairns’ (1991) Barriers to Integrated Environmental Management. A brief summary of the 24 barriers he identified are as follows

  1. Institutions of higher education are primarily reductionist
  2. IEM requires time and money resources
  3. Organisations withhold information from each other – turf battles run rampant
  4. Risk of job security
  5. Many are unwilling to compromise
  6. Short-term profits are enticing
  7. Lack of consideration for future generations
  8. Complexity of IEM
  9. Outcome uncertainty
  10. Developing countries aspire to the lifestyles of developed countries
  11. Resistance to lifestyle changes by society
  12. Specialists working in silos
  13. Fears the general public does not have the same value system
  14. The present use of a resource is considered a right
  15. Society is structured toward growth
  16. Change is only accepted in a crisis
  17. Fear management authority will be abused
  18. Fear of peer criticism of oversimplification
  19. The belief that systems are too complex for prescriptive legislation
  20. People disconnect when faced with complex issues
  21. Inadequate technical information
  22. Difficulty determining credible evidence
  23. Inadequate IEM professionals
  24. Current political processes orient toward polarized issues over IEM

The barriers above can be classified as capacity or resource-based, societal attitudes, economic factors, political processes and institutional arrangements. It is important to be aware of barriers and how they can affect the implementation of IEM so plans can be created to mitigate effects.

 

References

Cairns, Jr, J. (1991). The Need for Integrated Environmental Systems Management. In J. Cairns, Jr & T. V. Crawford (Eds), Integrated Environmental Management (pp. 5-20). Chelsea, Michigan: Lewis Publishers.

Posted on

The Environmental Cost of Fish & Chips

Good morning all,

When I think of fish & chips, I think of summer evenings, beach cricket and ciders. What I don’t think of is the more than 400 seabirds, 27 fur seals, and 9500kg of coral that were killed as bycatch over a six-month period from October 2021 – March 2022. Stuff article “The death toll from our appetite for fish and chips” by Vance (2022) highlights the destruction of current commercial methods. The Government has a zero bycatch target in domestic waters, yet new data from the Ministry for Primary Industries shows the commercial fishing industry is failing to reduce the number of creatures killed by longline and trawling vessels (Vance, 2022). This post is going to briefly explore the issue, identify the environmental management problem, highlight weaknesses in the current management approach and propose a possible IEM approach to management.

Let’s step back and understand why this is a problem. New Zealand is a global hotbed for diverse and abundant marine life. It houses 92 species of indigenous seabirds, at least 52 indigenous marine mammal species and a variety of protected sharks and corals (Forest and Bird, 2020).

The Government is responsible for administering the Fisheries Act 1996 and its supporting regulations. The Act gives “commercial, recreational, and customary fishers access to resources while ensuring fish stocks are managed sustainably” (Ministry for Primary Industries, 2021). The Act includes law about the application and administration of the Quota Management System (QMS). The QMS sets rules around total allowable catch and avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of fishing on the aquatic environment.

Currently, the effects of bottom trawling are managed through closing certain areas to trawling and limiting fishing vessel sizes in certain areas. The seafloor is protected by piece-meal actions such as marine mammal sanctuaries, recreational areas and submarine cable closure zones (Ministry of Primary Industries, n.d.). The catch limits imposed under the Quota Management System also act to limit the amount of trawling that occurs, but there is no specific policy protecting the sea floor from bottom trawling.

Information measuring trawl footprint and impact has been largely under resourced. The activity has been happening for over 50 years in New Zealand yet in 2021, Fisheries New Zealand was only just in the process of completing “comprehensive” research on bottom trawling and its impacts on marine biodiversity.

An IEM approach would consider an ecosystem-based management of fisheries that takes a holistic view. Considering the Government has recently adopted a biodiversity strategy to address the biodiversity crisis, this could include increasing marine protections and stronger legislation guiding management of fisheries.

 

References

Forest and Bird (2020). Pathway to Zero Bycatch. Retrieved from https://www.forestandbird.org.nz/sites/default/files/2019-08/a%20pathway%20to%20zero%20bycatch_final.pdf

Vance, A. (2022, August 30) The death toll from our appetite for fish and chips. Stuff. https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/129711786/the-death-toll-from-our-appetite-for-fish-and-chips

Ministry for Primary Industries (2021, July 29). Introduction to fisheries legislation. New Zealand Government. https://www.mpi.govt.nz/legal/legislation-standards-and-reviews/fisheries-legislation/introduction-to-fisheries-legislation/#:~:text=The%20Fisheries%20Act%201996%20and%20sustainability&text=The%20Act%20gives%20commercial%2C%20recreational,many%20fish%20can%20be%20harvested

Ministry for Primary Industries (n.d.). Bottom trawling. New Zealand Government. https://www.mpi.govt.nz/fishing-aquaculture/sustainable-fisheries/strengthening-fisheries-management/bottom-trawling/

Posted on

The Disconnect in Freshwater Reform

Kia ora koutou,

A couple of weeks ago an article in Stuff by Mitchell (2022) titled “Freshwater reforms reveal difficulty in science-driven policy, report says” caught my eye. This article discussed a recently released report by the Environmental Defence Society on the role that science played in the development of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPS-FM) 2020. The project undertook a national and international literature review, scrutinised the documents sitting behind the policy development process, and undertook in-depth interviews with people directly involved in the process. The report explored the role of science in the policy-making process in order to deepen the understanding of the dynamics operating at this interface (Koolen-Bourke & Peart, 2022). It also investigated the ways in which the scientific basis underpinning policy might be strengthened to better support good environmental decision-making (Our Land and Water, 2022). The report gave a behind-the-scenes look at how the policy process played out, and why the end result fell short of expectations.

Picture 1

Figure 1 Polluted river in South Canterbury photographed in 2021 (Mitchell, 2022)

The Government assembled an advisory group to provide a scientific basis for freshwater reforms. The elephant in the room – nitrogen. The proposed way of dealing with the polluting nutrient was through national bottom lines which set the maximum amount of individual nutrients allowed in a river (like a speed limit). The advisory group set about analysing the reforms. They were not allowed to consider economic impacts and did not have to agree.

Wait, have we jumped straight to a solution? Reflecting back on week one, problem definition alarm bells should be ringing. Barwell (1991) identified Inadequate time spent in the problem exploration phase can result in ineffective problem solving, leading to issues such as solving the wrong problem, solving a solution, or trying to get an agreement on the solution before there is an agreement on the problem. Acknowledging this, we carry on…

During the policy process, it became clear that most of the advisory group favoured a nitrogen bottom line of 1mg/L. This would be a stark reduction in the existing bottom line, which had been 6.9mg/L (Mitchell, 2022). Reducing nitrogen levels to 1mg/l in some regions would require large-scale land-use change and make dairy farming unviable in some cases. The 1mg/L bottom line was supported by most of the Government’s panel of experts, the Ministry for the Environment (MfE), and several external science groups. This was vehemently opposed by farming industry groups, regional councils, and the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI).

Here pops up conflict. Conflict management is an important part of the problem-solving environment and can greatly influence successful problem-solving. Unlike the scientific advisory group, industry groups, regional councils and MPI had considered the economic impacts of the proposed reduction. Let’s see how this conflict was managed…

When the final freshwater policy was announced the 1mg/L figure – which had been part of the proposed rules put out for public consultation – was nowhere to be found. Interestingly, it had been dropped from the reform.

This has taken an interesting turn. The report concluded pushback from outside groups representing the agricultural industry influenced the final policy. The cost/benefit analyses that the policy went through favoured an approach that didn’t have a significant economic cost. Amongst leaked emails and secret informal meetings regarding the construction of the policy, overall there was a lack of integrated management in this process. Alongside a lack of trust between stakeholders, some barriers that challenged the creation of the policy were historical difficulties in accessing and using reliable data, increased amount of scientific uncertainty, economic considerations, and the looming Covid-19 response.

This example has highlighted some of the difficulties that can be faced by those in the decision-making arena. The report highlighted although there were flaws, the process was a significant improvement on previous attempts at freshwater reform, and the rules around nitrogen did change – the existing 6.9mg/L limit for nitrate toxicity was lowered to 2.4mg/L, giving more protection to aquatic life from the direct effects of toxicity. In the future, there should be a greater focus on policy implementation which was a notable gap in this case. The report identified there needed to be more support for building a scientific basis in policy – gathering data, supporting the scientists involved in policy, and being less constrained by the electoral cycle and regulatory measures that focus on economic costs over sustainability.

 

References

Bardwell, L.V.  (1991). Problem-framing: A perspective on Environmental Problem-Solving. Environmental Management, 15:603-612.

Koolen-Bourke, D. & Peart, R. (2022). Science for Policy: The Role of Science in the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management. Retrieved from https://ourlandandwater.nz/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Freshwater-Policy-Report_FINAL_CorrectedPostLaw-Suit.pdf

Mitchell, C. (2022, August 22). Freshwater reforms reveal difficulty in science-driven policy, report says. Stuff. https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/300665073/freshwater-reforms-reveal-difficulty-in-sciencedriven-policy-report-says

Our Land and Water (2022). Science for Policy. Retrieved from Our Land and Water: https://ourlandandwater.nz/news/science-for-policy/

Posted on

IEM Framework

Alright folks! We are back for another instalment understanding the need and application of IEM.

Building on Bardwell’s 1991 article from last week, this week I reflect on content from class and a 1995 unpublished article Integrated Environmental Management: Towards A Framework For Application by Ton Bührs.

Wider literature agrees there is no simple definition or recipe book in the undertaking of IEM. Bührs (1995) understands the IEM as a management approach “that takes into account the complex, multi-faceted and interconnected nature” of the natural environment. IEM acknowledges the environment is to be considered as a whole entity, and actions taken in one sphere can have flow-on effects on other parts.

There is a diverse range of approaches to environmental management, such as environmental impact assessment, strategic planning, environmental policy and management (Bührs, 1995). While there is no single framework that details IEM as a process, there are several frameworks that have been created. One such example of this is from Hughey (2022) in Figure 1. This framework can be broken down into five key steps that are applicable across any application of IEM.

Untitled picture

Figure 1 Integrated Environmental Management Framework (Hughey, 2022)

Another framework that can be used to evaluate IEM performance was created by Bührs in 1995. The framework presents environmental parameters along the vertical axis and management efforts along the horizontal axis with the intention that a holistic approach considers all these components.

Screen Shot 2022-09-08 at 10.22.03 AM

Figure 2 The IEM Matrix (Bührs, 1995, pg 4).

These two frameworks, although different highlight some key characteristics of IEM. These are problem definition, stakeholder participation, institutional framework, legislation and solutions. Solutions should address the quadruple bottom line – cultural, economic, environmental and social aspects. IEM intends to integrate these management techniques into one holistic approach.

 

References

Bührs, T. (1995). Integrated Environmental Management: Towards A Framework For Application. Unpublished. Lincoln University, Environmental Management and Design Division.

Hughey, K. (2022). Bühr’s Analytical Framework [Powerpoint slides]. Retrieved from ERST633, Lincoln University: https://learn.lincoln.ac.nz

Posted on

Hello world!

Tēnā koutou katoa,

Hello and welcome to the first of many blog posts about Integrated Environmental Management (IEM) and all it entails. This blog is a place for me to chart my journey through ERST633 as I experience it, and as a practice space to integrate ideas and skills learned throughout the semester.

So, what is IEM?! At the start of this course, I summarised IEM in one sentence – “I believe IEM to be an approach that involves different actors and stakeholders all attempting to address complex environmental issues”. Reflecting on what I have learned these past few weeks, I now realise IEM is not so easily defined. Thankfully there is academic literature on how to begin to understand environmental problems. One of these pieces is Problem-framing: A perspective on Environmental Problem-Solving by Lisa Bardwell (1991). She identifies a key feature of an integrated management approach is problem framing. If an environmental problem is not correctly defined or framed it can create challenges in finding solutions, or can cause other problems to be arise. Bardwell (1991) identifies the importance of problem framing. She acknowledges

“… how one defines a problem determines one’s understanding of and approach to that problem, being able to redefine or reframe a problem and to explore the “problem space” can help broaden the range of alternatives and solutions examined.”

Inadequate time spent in the problem exploration phase can result in ineffective problem solving. This can lead to issues such as solving the wrong problem, solving a solution, or trying to get an agreement on the solution before there is an agreement on the problem (Bardwell, 1991). Bardwell (1991) identifies that a problem solving effort entails several stages

    1. Building an understanding of the problem: defining the problem-space
    2. Establishing some initial criteria for the goal
    3. Searching for solutions
    4. Deciding among solutions
    5. Evaluating progress: comparing initial goals to and monitoring the solution

At the interface of problem solving also lies the complexity of people. Problem framing incorporates a cognitive perspective on how people respond to information (Bardwell, 1991). Problem definition is not always a typical part of the problem solving approach. Key features of the problem solving approach acknowledges cognitive psychology and conflict management. These draw on management techniques that encourage a problem solving environment that is holistic, inclusive and productive.

The information environment can greatly influence successful problem solving. Sufficient time in the problem framing arena can yield better approaches to environmental problems.

 

References

Bardwell, L.V.  (1991). Problem-framing: A perspective on Environmental Problem-Solving. Environmental Management, 15:603-612.