Category: IEM in action

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

 

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/

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.

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/