A Concept to Reconcile World Views to improve Marine Health in the New Zealand Exclusive Economic Zone
Kia Hora Te Marino
Kia Whakapapa Pounamu te Moana
Kia Tere Te Karohirohi i mua i tō huarahi
I mua i tō huarahi, a koutou hoa haere, ko te rangimarie
Updated October 2024
Background
This concept documents consistent and repeated conversations with stakeholders across ENGOs, government, Māori seafood business, Māori marine researchers and community conservation advocates, recreational fishers and scientists all seeking ways to catalyse systematic marine protection for ecological health in Aotearoa New Zealand and the recognition that this needs to fundamentally underpin the relationships that many of us, especially Māori have with the ocean. For Māori this is whakapapa, genealogy.
This document was first prepared whilst Katherine was Partner and co-owner in Terra Moana Ltd. Katherine is an ecologist and together with Tony Craig, they spent a decade supporting the largest Māori-owned seafood company Moana New Zealand to adopt a credible sustainability journey. Now in her own independent business, F.L.O.W. Collaborative Katherine recognises there are a range of marine protection categories and criteria in Aotearoa New Zealand. including Habitats of Particular Significance for Fisheries Management (Section 9(c) of the Fisheries Act, 1996), rāhui, taiāpure and mātaitai, marine reserves, cable zone, fisheries closures etc etc. F.L.O.W. Collaborative uses the language of habitats that are critical for fish production which although utilitarian gets at the point and raises awareness that harvested species, whether recreational, commercial, customary, or simply enjoyed for their existence (aesthetic, spiritual etc) value, all need habitats in which to breed, feed, grow and be.
Marine management is complex in New Zealand and there have been at least a dozen large analyses of possible ways forward, including the recently concluded Sustainable Seas National Science Challenge (See www.tohora.org.nz).
Some marine protection efforts are underway such as increasing Hapū-led rāhui declarations and the emergent Mauri o te Moana rōpū. DOC also has MPA research, MPI has trawl footprint work and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Estuaries report was useful. There are also ~ 400 applications by Māori under the Marine Area Coastal Act (Takutai Moana), and some regional and district councils are finally enacting their RMA marine responsibilities, although resource management continues to be restructured. Discourse is ongoing about Wai262, the personification of nature, blue carbon, natural capital and ecosystem services in the marine arena. Marine mātauranga is emerging and interest grows in understanding the implications of the maramataka in fisheries management. Whilst a Minister for Oceans and Fisheries exists, the Ocean Secretariat was disbanded and there is no cross government marine body presently.
Sadly however, as the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment notes, systematic marine protection is very politicised in Aotearoa New Zealand. Best practice international science says that ~30-40% of the marine area needs to be protected from all uses to enable resilience against non-linear change (climate change) and other stressors (e.g. sediment), let alone the cumulative effects of multiple-stressors. Marine ecosystem health needs caring for. Some amongst Māori want to see 100% protection with ‘allowed use areas’ established dynamically within such a regime.
30-40% of the marine area needs to be protected from all uses to enable resilience against non-linear change (climate change) and other stressors (e.g. sediment), let alone the cumulative effects of multiple-stressors.
- Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment
F.L.O.W. Collaborative freely offers these thoughts below and welcomes being a part of any efforts to bring them to life. Science is a means to an end and in the process outlined below, although with mātauranga and western science2 at its core, if carefully designed and governed, and if allowed to run its course independently without political interference, could bring much value add which could fundamentally change the nature of the marine protection discourse and knowledge base in Aotearoa New Zealand.
A significant opportunity exists internationally to use the IUCN Indigenous Protected Area framework to bring this vision to life.
Current Context and Underpinning Assumptions
whether valued as a recreational, commercial, customary, spiritual or aesthetic marine creatures need somewhere to live. They need many different habitats for different life history stages.
Marine governance in Aotearoa New Zealand is complex, fragmented, and not of sufficient political priority to bring about the necessary reform harmoniously.
There is no systematic national marine protection.
The current western science driven approach to marine protection in Aotearoa New Zealand does not readily align to Te Ao Māori – in many ways.
However, EBM does align to Te Ao Māori – in many ways and which is now well documented in the Sustainable Seas Science Challenge.
Many kaupapa Māori approaches currently expressed through rāhui, taiāpure and mātaitai are not being recognized as part of systematic national marine protection nor systematically monitored although marine Cultural Health Programmes are emerging e.g. Motiti and Hawkes Bay.
A number of attempts at a national ocean data system have been tried but there is no national strategy an there many marine datasets remain distributed with problematic accessibility.
The Takutai Moana/MACA rohe moana process is both a significant risk and potentilly opportunity for Māori.
The underutilised IUCN Indigenous Protected Areas criteria could be far better used by Aotearoa New Zealand and others (in potential partnership) to redefine how marine spatial management occurs here, as could OECMs.
A Safe Space to Kōrero (talk)
A sustained safe space, a bridge, is needed upon which sustained, facilitated, resourced and progressive conversations can ‘move the dial’.
Māori and key partner leadership could take a fresh look at the opportunities associated with the design to apply kaitiakitanga in practice alongside the push for EBM, MPAs and Marine Spatial Planning and the use of mātauranga to underpin marine health and seafood production.
There is no single Māori view on the EEZ, yet there are many common values and often similar interpretations of kaitiakitanga and elements of marine mātauranga Māori.
What would Māori need to seize the opportunity to drive and define what this could look like for Aotearoa NZ? What would be required for a positive, proactive strategy and deliberate, urgent leadership and resourcing?
A safe space to have the kōrero and do the modelling about the implications – especially the implications on the Māori fisheries quota portfolio. N.B. “safe” means: Resourced, professional, facilitated, intellectually open with an absence of foregone conclusions or political influence, kind.
Concept
That a mātauranga and science reconciliation process be run in four workstreams:
Mātauranga Māori o te Moana Models and Maps – using kaupapa Māori methodology to assess, develop and test the use of Mauri (life force) and cultural health based designs of systematic marine protection for the EEZ (possibly e.g. dynamic). This would parameterise the models such as Marxan and Seasketch with Māori values, and also explore using the IUCN Indigenous Protected Areas and OECM criteria.
A small team (3-4 Māori) of cultural health, mātauranga and marine science capable individuals (who have been trained to walk in both worlds) in a resourced 2-3 year innovation project to design an integrated model of coastal habitats, wāhi tapu etc for at least one FMA (if not the entire continental shelf depending on resources).
Western Science Models and Maps - Western science (and 3-4 scientists) could in parallel do the same as above through standard science techniques to design a comprehensive, adequate and representative network of marine protected areas.
1 and 2 would be explicitly co-designed and required to come together regularly for workshops, information sharing, acculturation, introduction to and training in each other’s tools and approaches and cross-cultural learning on all levels. The exercise would initially focus on fisheries (customary, recreational and commercial) and once operating successfully could include other marine sectors – e.g. oil and gas (depending on resourcing).
Model = at least maps, oceanography, economics, mauri values, mātauranga, biophysical characteristics e.g. sediment inputs, what is known in relation to climate change etc.
Using those maps to co-design systematic marine protection scenarios i.e. that underpin Māori fisheries and are analysed to understand the quota holding implications of the various models.
Economic Implications - An economic analysis to model the implications of the various design choices, either in just the Māori seafood quota portfolio, all seafood company portfolios or at the blue economy scale. This could be under non-disclosure agreements to access commercially sensitive data and produce business-useful real-world scenarios. i.e. answering the questions: what are the potential habitat changes and/or expected productivity improvements for given species and thus fisheries of different spatial choices with for e.g. a climate change resilience focus?
Legal and Policy Implications – Engage with existing legal and policy analysis done through the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor’s Commercial Fisheries project, Environmental Defence Society and Sustainable Seas Science Challenge. A legal and policy analysis piece could be usefully run in parallel on the legal and policy implications of different objectives and management scenarios. It is well recognised that New Zealand has a significant amount of overlapping (and conflicting) marine related legislation. What can be rationalised, streamlined and made more efficient? i.e. the UK spent 10 years exploring its new Marine Act and Marine Management Organisation.
Note: NCEAS, the National Centre for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis at UC Santa Barbara has run similar processes as this on polarised fisheries issues and is a model that could be learnt from and or employed to support this with facilitation or delivery/independence. This process could also use the Stanford Centre for Ocean Solutions where F.L.O.W. Collaborative has strong relationships (Jim Leape, Fiorenza Micheli) if/as appropriate.
The whole exercise to be supported by a Secretariat providing support for coordination, governance, logistics, access to information (e.g. science publications), networks, peer review, communications and outreach etc.
A Range of Possible Outcomes
An independent “think tank/collaboration hub” type process with a governance structure would require all traditional marine management stakeholders to ‘let go somewhat’. This “think tank/collaboration hub” would be empowered to run independent of the government, industry, ENGOs, and crown research institutes. It would have an independent Council type governance structure keeping the enabling and innovation philosophy most top of mind. Yes it would be scary but hey it might just surprise us.
This would enable quota holders and others with jurisdictional responsibilities (assuming they ‘play’ constructively) to develop area/habitats/harvest footprint and quota implications model(s) in relation to various protection regimes.
It would build cross-cultural understanding about the values Māori and non-Māori place on marine ecosystems and habitats.
It could enable an appropriate pause for consideration of the nature and extent of the role for EBM and MPAs in New Zealand fisheries management going forward.
It would enable the nature and extent to first be considered through a “Te Ao Māori lens” not driven by international examples or pressures. Could this be reconciled through the “IUCN Indigenous Protected Areas criteria”?
It could underpin EBM to ensure EBM complements the QMS given the QMS is so deeply anchored in Treaty Rights and interests.
It could build on, weave and feed into other relevant programmes and projects in New Zealand (Hapū, ENGO, Sustainable Seas Science Challenge, government agency, National Oceans Centre and Aquarium work etc)
A true partnership could emerge for the oceans – modelled on the Te Urewera, Taranaki Maunga and Whanganui awa examples.
This could empower participants to be proactive, open minded yet applied, principled and disciplined.
This project could be resourced by a range of parties and which would create the necessary political independence:
Māori (seafood businesses, TOKM, key iwi depending on the FMA chosen).
Key commercial fisheries quota owners depending on the FMA chosen.
Government – central and regional.
CRIs.
Universities.
NGOs.
A joint approach by the above to Philanthropists domestically and internationally to co-fund.
