IEM case study: Improving the Declining State of Whitebait

Improving the Declining State of Whitebait

If you listen to old-school whitebaiters, tales of taking away full buckets of the bait are not unheard of. However, nowadays you would be doing extremely well to be catching those types of volume, and despite fluctuating catches from year to year, most whitebaiters would agree that today’s catches are far less than they have been in previous times.

 

What is whitebait?

Whitebait is not one single kind of fish. The term whitebait is a general term used in many countries to describe small freshwater fish that are tender and edible. In New Zealand it describes the juvenile forms (around 4–5 centimetres long) of five species of the fish family Galaxiidae.  These juvenile grow up to become inanga, koaro, banded kokopu, giant kokopu and short-jawed kokopu. These native fish are known as galaxiids, due to the Milky Way-like galaxy patterns found on the adult fish, in particular the giant kokopu.

Problem Definition

As mentioned, there are five species of juvenile fish that constitute whitebait. Of these, the large the inanga makes up the largest portion. So what about the other four species? well the other four species are now considered to be seriously threatened due to a number of contributing factors.

Predator problems endanger the survival of Inanga:

·         Trout

·         Shags

·         Eels

·         Humans with nets

However, the pollution of our waterways and the destruction of whitebait habitat are considered more of a concern. So perhaps these first few threats (trout, shags, eels) are logically expected given they are part of nature and possibly make up a life cycle, which might be expected to occur. The human on either side of the riverbank with his or her net however would not be part of this life cycle, although their intentions are the same of the shag, trout and eel, which is to feed their bellies, with what is regarded in New Zealand as a delicacy.

So what else is causing havoc in the life of a whitebait then? Well I’m glad someone asked, because without defining the problem correctly it is difficult to understand how to solve the problem within the context of IEM (well so I’ve heard!).

Defining the Problem correctly

The pollution of New Zealand’s water (from agriculture) and the destruction of whitebait habitats are perceived to be the major concerns with regards to the declining whitebait population, other than the human net of course. It seems only logical that a clear link can be made between the decline of whitebait over the last 50 years and agriculture, particularly dairy farming considering that this has been a major growth industry in the last 20-30 years (coincidently over a similar period to the decline of whitebait).

The whitebait seeks habitats upriver where there is still plentiful indigenous forest cover. The issue with agriculture especially dairy farming is that a lot of this indigenous cover is being removed and to add to that stock are allowed to roam the banks of lowland streams where their hooves cut up the riverbanks while their grazing of the riverbanks reduces the streamside vegetation.  Something to take into consideration is that the number of cows in New Zealand has increased to more than the human population.

Impediments in our waterways notably culverts and dams that have been introduced in many rivers and streams throughout the country to benefit human civilisation is considered another major problem for the survival of whitebait. Impediments in our waterways restrict the journey of fish to be able to move upstream to spawn and therefore reduced the juvenile fish (whitebait) travelling downstream. Another problem that may be considered is that there is a lack of understanding about the spawning habitats of all the whitebait species. Of the five whitebait species, only the spawning habits of inanga are fully understood. This may be another reason why whitebait is declining or the population rates fluctuate from year to year.

 Issues:

Whitebait spawns on a spring tide, by laying eggs in the vegetated areas next to streams. They need cool, moist, protected areas, because the eggs remain there until the next spring tide when they are picked up by the tide, hatch into the stream and wriggle out to sea.

Retrieved from:  http://www.doc.govt.nz/publications/parks-and-recreation/activities/fishing/whitebaiting/whitebait-regulations-all-nz-except-west-coast/whitebait-facts/

The modification of riverbanks (for urban purposes of because of livestock) and livestock grazing up to the edge of streams wrecks the whitebaits habitat, and leaves the vulnerable whitebait eggs out to dry, whilst the culverts and dam infrastructure restricts their movement to spawn at all. The other big problem for whitebait is the pollution to waterways from agriculture.

Freshwater fish struggle to survive in polluted waterways - they need clean, high-quality rivers to thrive. In most of the country, the quality of river water has been declining because of run-off from agriculture and urban land uses.

A key concern for Maori in the Waikato is the loss of whitebait from the lower Waikato River because it is seen as a historic cultural fishery. The presence of large numbers of whitebait in the river has also been viewed as an indication what the health of the river is. Recovery of the whitebait fishery is therefore an important restoration goal for iwi in the Waikato River.

What is already happening?

The New Zealand whitebait connection organisation is an example of how the declining state of whitebait in New Zealand can be reduced using an integrative approach. The NZ whitebait connection is essentially a community based environmental management group that is taking a bottom up approach (from the grass roots) providing knowledge about freshwater ecology and the effects of land management on freshwater quality. Acknowledging the causes of an issue can be seen as one of the first steps toward making any improvements to the issues management.

Waikato Environment and Scientists have come up with a solution to overcome the spawning issues posed by dams and culverts in New Zealand rivers purely by studying the existing behaviour of the fish and understanding the system. The solution is rope: picture

Yes, seriously the use of rope for fish to climb up is a successful answer that these scientists have come up with, check out the video below to learn for yourself!

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/videos/3578748

Recommended solutions:

·         Whitebait regulations could be revised, meaning licences for catching whitebait would be needed. This however does not address the problems identified earlier this is just a response to take less of what is already considered a depleting stock because of more fundamental reasons.

Using an integrated management approach, I would recommend the following:

·         To be able to change the declining state of water quality, reduce the impacts on habitats and overcome the barriers of structures in rivers preventing the spawning patterns of whitebait a number of IEM approaches need to be implemented.

·         Central government action is needed in particular to be able to have any attempt at reducing the dominating effects of agriculture on the quality of the water in our rivers and ultimately the survival of not only whitebait but also many other aquatic species. Multiple tiers of government could be implemented here using a top down approach.

·         Goals need to be set in terms of nutrient run off, and rules need to be established regarding the access of stock to open waterways, both of which are having major impacts on the quality of whitebait habitats.

·         The scope and the scale of the problem in a nationwide context needs to be identified so that the question of what subjects should be included in the initial efforts to reduce the effects on the declining population of whitebait. The historical nature of whitebait trends and fluctuations also needs to properly understood to figure out long-term goals and objectives.

·         Although I have already mentioned the idea of community based environmental management as a solution that is currently being undertaken by the informal group NZ whitebait connection. None of this knowledge or support will be useful without increasing community awareness or creating options for participation and collaboration between all stakeholders and institutions that have an interest in whitebait or are having an effect on its existence. Although a  bottom up approach may begin to drive awareness of the issue it may have little effect on major industry having effect on water quality therefore a top down approach would be necessary as well (multi level governance).

• ·         Restoration can only be achieved if the factors responsible for the decline in the fishery can be identified and reduced. The agricultural industry is therefore a key industry that needs to be involved in the participation and collaboration process to improve the declining state of our waterways, not only to protect whitebait but every other ecosystem reliant on freshwater streams and rivers, and to provide for a sustainable future.

• ·         Pressure points need to be identified. Spawning habitats for inanga are very limited in rivers and is therefore a pressure point in the life history of inanga, restoration of spawning habitat in the Waikato River is clearly required. Not only would this be required in the Waikato, but it would also be a trend that needs addressing all over the country. To address this, the consultation needs to occur with the industries that are affecting the environments; this may even require government intervention to regulate the use of and access to riverbanks. Improving the protection of whitebait habitats for spawning purposes may therefore be a short-term objective to produce results in the long term.

Who wants to see this disappear? I know I dont!!

References:

Carl Walrond. 'Whitebait and whitebaiting - Whitebait in New Zealand', Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 1-Mar-09 
URL: http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/whitebait-and-whitebaiting/1

‘In our Nature’ – blog by Nicola Toki, retrieved from URL: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/blogs/in-our-nature/7393261/Why-our-whitebait-are-at-risk

http://www.doc.govt.nz/publications/parks-and-recreation/activities/fishing/whitebaiting/whitebait-regulations-all-nz-except-west-coast/whitebait-facts/

Community Based Environmental Management: Its relevance to IEM

What is Community Based Environmental Management (C(B)EM)?

The most simplistic theory regarding C(B)EM is to think globally and act locally.

Environmental problems often begin at local scales, people live locally, but governments act under districts, regions and at a national scale. Therefore, problems may be better dealt with people that are closest to the issue and believe to know more about the problem than those decision makers from outside. It can  also be argued that environmental issues are more likely to be addressed by those who will benefit most from their resolution (ERST 633), i.e., those that live locally to an environmental issue are more likely to work on managing or fixing the problem because they will be the immediate beneficiaries if the problem is solved.

There exists a long history of community management in some resources, especially where there is a long intergenerational history, for example many local fisheries and forest management programmes worldwide have adopted community based management as the best solution for the restoration of these resources.

Community Based Environmental Management and New Zealand?

Prior to the Conservation Act 1987 and more particularly the quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation reforms, New Zealand had a reputation for ‘doing it themselves’ in conservation (ERST 633), e.g.,

•         Trampers built & maintained their own huts
•         Acclimatisation Society (now Fish and Game NZ) members took part in many on the ground works
•          Rabbit boards, pest boards and water boards were established

The first attempt at coordinated environmental management using community management was through the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941 which established local catchment boards to coordinate soil and water conservation across whole water catchments which spanned several towns, boroughs or counties (MfE, 2012). Government subsidies were supplied via Ministry of Works and Development to the Catchment boards to assist local landowners to carry out flood protection works, river control work, drainage and soil conservation works.

Throughout the late 1960s and early 1970s, public awareness of environmental issues was fuelling high profile campaigns against hydro development (i.e. the raising of Lake Manapouri), the clear felling of indigenous forests, Christchurch's air pollution, and numerous cases of water pollution (MfE, 2012). The growing pressure for better environmental protection therefore brought in many reforms to the New Zealand government which was reflected in a number of new laws.

Some of these laws were:

• Water and Soil Conservation Act 1967
• Clean Air Act 1972
• Town and Country Planning Act 1977
• Pesticides Act 1979

Potential issues in Community Based Environmental Management

• Whose views prevail when it comes to the social construction of nature and of sustainability, how is agreement reached when views are divided?
• Issues of equity, in particular the gender of group members and the diversity of membership. For example are certain members of society locked out of interest groups?, are there conflicts of interests?
• Issues of leadership retention, often one key motivator or champion leads the group and withholds its vision and possibly its passion, what happens if that person leaves and no ‘succession’ planning has occurred?
• What level is the management being facilitated at? Stream care, land care, catchment management. Issues to do with scale may include when does the problem get to great that it can no longer be dealt with using community management, and who decides where this point is? Is there any monitoring and feedback occurring that may give rise to such a situation or to enable the community to recognise any progress they may have made?
• For C(B)EM to be affective for solving larger "complex" environmental issues on a global scale it requires all communities to be in sink with one another and abide by the same directive...
• Community based groups may struggle to enforce ideas or programmes without legislation in a tougher economical world...

So why bother with local management?

One of the most important steps that can be taken to stop or reverse the present erosion of natural resources and environmental quality at local levels is to empower people with environmental understanding or allow people within communities to manage their specific environments (Dahl, 1999). More often than not people within communities whom withhold what is termed “localised knowledge” can better manage local environmental problems than that of a top down approach using central government management.

Localised knowledge could be best described as where people of a particular setting or community have a wealth of experience in that area and know how it adapts, changes or is managed under different environmental circumstances or constraints.

Community based management could also be seen as a form of integrated management. C(B)EM implies, almost by default, integration, coordination, co- management, and uses multiple tiers of governance. To this end, it essentially is an approach to IEM. C(B)EM can be seen as an alternative view based on theories of collaborative approaches to environmental management and to achieve more in the long run; both of which are consistent with IEM theories.

Case Study/Example:

The Lincoln Envirotown Trust is an example of a C(B)EM group and one that is rather familiar to any student that has undertaken any environmental course at Lincoln University. The Lincoln Envirotown Trust is a trust that is dedicated to fostering a community-owned process for sustainability in the Lincoln area. The group works with the community, for the community, in partnership with Selwyn District Council, Lincoln University, Landcare Research, Waihora Ellesmere Trust, Environment Canterbury, Plant & Food Research, local schools and businesses. (how is that for integrating the stakeholders and interested parties of the area?)

The Trust has the following objectives:

• To promote the long-term environmental sustainability of Lincoln Township with the understanding that this is also the basis for social, cultural and economic sustainability in the future. (Relevance to long term goals from Cairns & Crawford 1991)
• To educate about and raise awareness of environmental sustainability issues and to provide information about how to achieve environmental sustainability. 
• To provide appropriate opportunities for personal and community decision making to ensure that the environmental, social, cultural and economic sustainability of the Lincoln Township is promoted. 
• To act as a role model for other communities wanting to progress towards environmental sustainability. 

What the Trust achieves and seeks to achieve

Projects that have been undertaken include (but are not limited to) a State-of-the-Town report, planting native vegetation, educational workshops and courses for adults and children, public and private consultation sessions, a sustainability centre, a local "Zero Waste Street Challenge", and more. 

The Trust also helps other communities to set up their own enviro groups aiming to foster environmental sustainability. By 2011 the Lincoln Trust had helped five other communities set up groups.

The Mahoe Reserve is one of the many key projects that the Lincoln Envirotown Trust Manages. The Mahoe Reserve has three broad objectives, which are, education, ecology and pest management. The vision for the Enviro Trust for this particular project is to ensure that the Mahoe Reserve will be restored to a healthy indigenous ecosystem, highly valued by the community. 

Other key projects that the Lincoln Envirotown Trust undertakes within its community include a Sustainability Centre, a Community Garden, an Enviro Kids programme and assisting other Envirotown Groups.

 To leave you with a thought and a quote:

“the law alone cannot enforce the common interest, it principally needs community knowledge and support.... it will also require promoting citizens initiatives, empowering peoples organisations & strengthening local democracy” (WCED, 1987: 63).

References:

http://iefworld.org/es/ddahl99b.htm (Dahl, 1999)

http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/ser/ser1997/html/chapter4.2.html

http://www.lincolnenvirotown.org.nz/index.php

The integration of managing Christchurch's Earthquake rubble

Dealing with earthquake waste: An IEM case study

Background:

 As a result of the September 4^th 2010, the aftershock of February 22^nd 2012 and many other aftershocks, much damage has occurred to infrastructure within the Canterbury region. The severity of this damage has caused many buildings, houses and other structures to collapse and or be demolished. A significant amount of rubble waste will therefore be generated from these demolitions within the central city, residential homes and damaged infrastructure. Initial estimates were that earthquake rubble would total 4.25 million tonnes, however civil defence later raised this estimate to 8 million tonnes. In comparison, 250,000 tonnes of general waste is sent to the Kate Valley Landfill in North Canterbury.

This waste from building demolitions has been sent to the old Burwood landfill and three other smaller areas of the surrounding Bottle Lake Forest since the earthquake on the authority of the Civil Defence National Controller.

Problem Definition:

•        Firstly 32 times the annual waste of Canterbury is estimated to occur as a result of the demolitions (and this figure is still an estimate), not to mention that the waste types will be different as well.
•        How to deal with this major increase in waste as there is too much for current landfill capacity and city waste services to deal with.
•        Regulations were repealed in the time of extreme circumstances to allow for the immediate disposal of wastes, unregulated dumping therefore occurred.
•       The long term effects – etc. What we don’t know is what types of wastes are being deposited into landfills or clean fills, where are these dumping sites located, and will the material be dug up later to be resorted?
•     Wastes could be made up of concrete, carpets, timber, metal, plastic, bricks, furniture, fencing, roofing and even soft toys, even whole houses right down to the kitchen sink.
•      The costs of dealing with (sorting) and disposing of the waste
•      Large volumes of ‘heavy vehicle’ traffic expected

Context:

The Christchurch City Council has decided to suspend a waste bylaw and allow contractors to dump unsorted building waste into what are known as “clean fills”. Richard Lloyd a recycling and waste specialist believes that the Council’s decision to suspend the 2004 bylaw that effectively protects precious aquifers from contamination, has been rushed and poorly thought through. This is a statement that I would strongly agree with as it does not take into account any thought of long-term objectives. The suspended bylaw was a very effective one because it ensured that only genuine inert hardfill material could be deposited into quarry sites and cleanfills around Christchurch.

Lloyd believes that we need to consider the long-term effects of disposing of earthquake waste rather than deriving an immediate dumping solution. Lloyd also stated that:

“I am aware of one site that has been taking in milk and alcoholic beverages along with demolition waste. While the Council has clearly stated this is not acceptable, I believe the operator knows he is unlikely to be held to account under the current circumstances”

While this occurs to be the case for some of the industrial wastes and demolition waste, Nick Smith stated something quite contrasting for dealing with residential waste. Smith stated on the Stuff news site that it was important dangerous materials were dealt with in a safe way. “We don’t want to see these hazardous materials being tipped down drains or buried to create future environmental and health risks”. With this statement, it appears that long-term objectives have been taken into consideration, something that is quite different from that posed by the disposal of industrial and commercial waste.

The Christchurch City Council also plans to dump up to 5000 tonnes of damaged concrete pipes containing asbestos has angered Parklands and Waimairi Beach residents, some of whom say they were not told about the proposal and about a public meeting last week. The asbestos issue highlights a number of the problems with the Canterbury earthquake recovery legislation shortcutting Resource Management Act processes.

Evidence of Integration:

·         Central Government and Local and Regional Councils have helped fund the removal of hazardous wastes from more than 6000 red-zoned Christchurch properties. The Government will provide $509,000 from the waste minimisation Fund to help the disposal of household hazards whilst the Christchurch City Council, Waimakariri District Council and Environment Canterbury have also committed a further $260,000 toward the collection and disposal of wastes.

·         The Government is working with councils and industry to maximise the recycling of the estimated 4.5 million tonnes of demolition and liquefaction waste from the Canterbury earthquakes, Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee and Environment Minister Nick Smith announced today. This is an example of integration within multiple tiers of governance advocated by Scrase & Sheate (2002).

Possible improvements of integration:

Cairns and Crawford 1991 stress the importance that to achieve an integrated management approach to the environment then long term objectives must defined and incorporated. This appears not to have occurred with the decision to suspend the 2004 bylaw and allow for the dumping of all types of materials into clean fills. Better management of the removal of earthquake rubbish and rubble now, will ensure better environmental outcomes in the long term, which must be a major consideration for local government. This incorporates the idea of Cairns and Crawford (1991) that short and long-term objectives need to be better balanced in decision-making processes.

·         Although it is understood that to enable the city to function again in as short as time possible, unregulated dumping was necessary. However, there appears to have been a lack of consultation from the council with industry experts and the community before making this decision. Margerum and Hooper (2001) strongly encourage the involvement of all stakeholders within management processes to achieve effective management. The use of collaboration and consultation with the community, industries and local government would have produced a management outcome that was more integrated and therefore provided a more effective solution.

·         In relation to the statement by Lloyd regarding the lack of accountability for illegal dumping, this identifies to me that there is an evident pressure point here and that the rules or the policy at the time did not include measures of prevention for this kind of behaviour.

·         In terms of the asbestos issue, it appears from the article that public consultation had not occurred according to a number or residents. Essentially the community and the environment both lose out because there is no chance for public submissions or challenge through the Environment Court due to the circumstances. Community consultation and communication is something strongly emphasised by Margerum & Hooper (2001) and Margerum (1995) for an integrated environmental management outcome.

·         A need for more collaboration between what was happening with residential waste disposals and commercial waste disposals would also be recommended.

Outcomes:

The Christchurch City Council will permit the establishment of the Burwood Resource Recovery Park to sort, process and recycle the 4.25 million tonnes of building rubble created by the 22 February earthquake.

There appears to have been two sides to the coin over the handling of residential waste and commercial waste. Perhaps this is solely down to the scale of the waste however, I do not see why both processes could not have been adequate enough to ensure that hazardous materials were being dealt with appropriately in both cases.

The levels of integration appear to have been mixed. In some cases, the integration of multiple tiers of governance was evident however, in other areas there appears to have been a lack of consultation particularly with industries, and a lack of long term planning in terms of waste solutions.

References:

http://www.rebuildchristchurch.co.nz/blog/2011/11/beehive-recycling-of-earthquake-waste-to-be-maximised

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1009/S00203/earthquake-waste-where-is-it-all-going.htm

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/christchurch-earthquake-2011/6301235/Govt-to-assist-with-red-zone-waste-removal

http://www.ccc.govt.nz/thecouncil/newsmedia/mediareleases/2011/201103313.aspx