How to become a famous blogger

So we have reached the end of the road.  Time has run out for this blog and its blogger and whilst this might be a relief for some(!), it also an opportunity for some reflection, some insight and some helpful hints for any who follow in the footsteps of the ERST 633 Class of '11.

Whilst I've tried to maintain the cheesy travelogue theme as far as possible, there's not much "travelly" about feedback. So I've prepared a simple guidebook page on what to expect in the world of blogging, and (most importantly) what not to expect.  It also contains some analysis in ways to generate some more comments and interest in IEM blogging.. No holiday snaps this time, I couldn't find any to match!

Fame and fortune

One option

A lot of bloggers go into the bloggersphere in the hope of finding fame..and fortune..and immortality. But unfortunately, unless you are picked up by some Fairfax/APN webpage there is little to be gained in celebrity from blogging.  

And of course, the topic/theme/raving lunacy you pick to blog about will have a huge impact on the number of followers you get.  In this case, the theme of the blog was set (IEM, integrated environmental management) as well as the range of content of a certain number of these entries (3 were designated "theory", 5-8 as "IEM in current affairs" and 1 being the feedback you're reading now).  However, this does not mean that there is not a great amount of flexibility in what each post contains. Use your imagination, think outside the IEM box/matrix - and draw from your own experience.  I know Alicia impressed us all with her seemingly unlikely use of the "coloured hats" that many had to sit through in primary school.  But actually, in an environmental management context, it doesn't sound so naff after all! There is merit and usefulness in de Bono's theories, beyond that of getting kids to work together in the classroom.  Good stuff Alicia.

Don't be shy - learn from others

Work with the rest of the class - it's not a competition. Don't be shy about sharing your blogs early on.  The input of fellow ERST 633ers is invaluable, not to mention they are great proof readers! Thanks to Lara, I figured out that I can't just copy and paste pictures into my blog, I have to go through the process of uploading them, otherwise they end up as nasty red crosses, and the blog suffers from overtextualisation.  Something that no one wants to see in a blog, a presentation or even a report.  Which brings me to another point - pictures, pictures, pictures!!!  Relevant or not, they will help break up the barren wasteland that can be an IEM theory blog post - as well as hitting home some of your more salient points (signposting anyone?)  If you want people to stay interested in your post beyond the first line, it pays to give their eyes something to look forward to, not to mention it'll give your blog some nice padding!!

Blogs take time

Really - you shouldn't have..

Blog on time! Make it a weekly routine. In a world where people followed my blog, this would be important to keep them entertained. However, this advice is purely practical - blogs take time.  You can't leave them all until the last week (which I didn't thankfully, but I know the stress that others have been through!) Even if you aren't writing a blog post each week, at least be on the look out for likely blog topics. Keep a list, note down ideas, it will make things much easier when you are able to find the time to make the post. There's nothing worse than trying to make a blog post out of nothing.. If things get tricky, go for something pithy. Don't slave away at paragraph after paragraph - you won't be able to change the [IEM] world if your readers are asleep at the start line.  Make it short and sweet and insightful, rather than dull and lacking substance.. (I should be careful what I say here, something about stones and glasshouses comes to mind!)

When all else fails, sell your soul

I thought that I might gain some more followers (and maybe actually earn some money) by signing up with Google Adsense ("take advantage of AdSense For Feeds to increase your blog's potential").  However, to date, I have earned a grand total of 82 cents. Needless to say I'm not waiting for the cheque in the mail.  

This experience did provide some entertainment however, including some rather unusual advertisements (a man in his boxer shorts does not make me think NZ Army, not sure which demographic they were going for there..).  You may even find some interesting ads as you read this blog post.

And that, my friends, is the last you'll hear from me! Until next time.

How can IEM respond to an environmental disaster?

I had hoped to incorporate a more international flavour in today’s post (thanks to Lara for that inspiration), but I just can’t get past the unfolding environmental disaster in the Bay of Plenty that has been dominating the news for the past week.

The beginning of the oil leak (it has increased substantially in the subsequent bad weather)



Showing the crack in the ship's hull
 (Wednesday 12 October)



In case you’re not aware of the crisis, it began when the 47,000 tonne, 236m cargo ship “Rena” ran aground on the Astrolabe reef in the early hours of October 5th. Quite how this happened, and who is responsible, is not yet clear, and it is even less clear how long the oil leaking from the ship will continue. As I finish this post, the ship has not yet broken in two, although it has lost about 70 containers and is predicted to break up in today’s heavy seas.



A dead yellow-eyed penguin



Meanwhile, hundreds of tonnes of thick, toxic fuel oil* has leaked from the ships ruptured fuel tanks, with an estimated 1700 tonnes still onboard. To date, dozens of seabirds and an unknown number of fish and other sea life has succumbed to the oil sludge, that is now covering Mount Maunganui, Maketu and Papamoa beaches.

Papamoa Beach



So how could an IEM approach be used to prevent this crisis happening? Well, let’s start with some problem definition.  There are a number of ways to look at the issue:

1) Failings by Maritime New Zealand to prevent the ship leaving Bluff on 28 September, where their inspections allegedly showed inaccurate navigation charts. Problem: insufficient authority, expertise or resources for Maritime NZ.

2) The ship’s crew are alleged to have been celebrating the Captain’s 44th birthday on the night the ship ran aground. Problem: culture of drinking on large cargo ships.

3) The ship’s operator is Costamare Inc, parent company of the ship’s owner, Daina Shipping Co., but the ship has been chartered by the Mediterranean Shipping Company. Problem: difficult to find out who is responsible for the ship.

4) The Government response to both the stranding and the subsequent oil leakage was perceived by many to be too slow, with authorities ill-equipped to deal with a disaster of this magnitude. Problem: under resourcing of maritime disaster response units, lack of co-ordination and leadership between authorities.

The list could go on and on. The point being that, in a situation such as this, one that New Zealand has never had to deal with, the definition of the problem may go a long way to ensure that such a disaster never happens again, or at least not to the same degree as the Rena stranding.



This appeared last week on a shipping
crate at Papamoa



Another aspect of IEM worth considering is how community based environmental management (CBEM) could help with the cleanup of the beaches. Many locals are becoming increasingly angry with authorities for the delay in co-ordinating a cleanup response, but more importantly, for keeping locals away from the beaches, and preventing their involvement in the cleanup efforts. Whilst there are issues surrounding the toxicity of the oil, as well as the best methods for removing it from the beaches so as not to make the environmental impact worse, there seems to have been very little in the way of collaboration between authorities and locals. This seems absurd when you consider the size of the job, as well as the number of willing helpers. Gaining some social capital at the outset could go a long way in the Government’s favour if the situation worsens (as it is likely to do). Only today am I seeing messages on the NZ Herald website, requesting volunteers to help. Could this not have been done sooner? Would the Government have gained some much needed brownie points? And would the environmental effects of the oil have been mitigated by a quicker response?



Maritime NZ Salvage Unit Manager Bruce Anderson,
Environment Minister Nick Smith, Transport Minister
Steven Joyce and National On Scene Commander
Nick Quinn at the press conference at Tauranga
Boys’ College on Tuesday afternoon.



This discussion leads me to consider how better institutional integration might have either prevented this disaster, or at least reduced the impact it is now having on the Bay of Plenty environment, by allowing a quicker response to the ship’s stranding last week. It seems now that the oil leak and likely disintegration of the vessel was inevitable. Such is the value of hindsight. But did the authorities really believe this would happen last week? At the time, the weather was fine, so no attempt was made to remove the containers from the ship (arguably due to lack of proper equipment) or to empty the fuel tanks of oil (also due to equipment, although the barge had only to come from Auckland). Lack of public information on how to safely clean up the beaches, and officials telling people to stay away, has led to public hostility against those in charge. Could better co-ordination between Maritime New Zealand, the Government Ministries (Ministry for the Environment and Ministry of Transport) and conservation groups have helped with the salvage and oil cleanup efforts, if not with public perception?  It also might have helped if the proper equipment was closer to hand – should New Zealand have its own floating crane to remove containers in future? This would not seem excessive in a country so reliant on cargo ships to move freight. The ship itself was not an oil tanker (perish the thought!) and there are thousands of cargo vessels navigating our harbours every year.

Whilst I cannot begin to solve all the questions raised in this post, I think it is appropriate that an IEM approach be considered as a way forward from this situation. It might not have all the answers, and the series of circumstance giving rise to the disaster may never happen again, but there are certainly aspects of IEM that can be drawn on to help manage the recovery, and possibly prevent future catastrophes.

Fuel oil

 

*Fuel oil used aboard ships is known as “bunker fuel”, a name derived from the storage of coal in bunkers for when ships were powered by steam. The only things more dense than bunker fuel are carbon black feedstock and bituminous residue which is used for paving roads (asphalt) and sealing roofs (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_oil#Bunker_fuel)

Ki uta ki tai – IEM ki te ao Māori?

Taumutu Marae

On the 25^th August 2011, Ngati Moki hosted for the first time in its history, a Government Minister at its Taumutu Marae. 

Dr Nick Smith, the Minister of the Environment visited the marae to mark the signing of Whakaora Te Waihora, a long term relationship agreement and shared commitment between Ngāi Tahu, Te Waihora Management Board and Environment Canterbury.

One of the dual purposes of this agreement is to:

“provide for sustainable management of natural and physical resources, and the realisation of outcomes aimed at the restoration and rejuvenation of Te Waihora, including the cultural, biodiversity, mahinga kai, economic, and recreational values. This includes the outstanding values relating to habitat for wildlife, indigenous vegetation and fish and significance in accordance with tikanga Ngāi Tahu in respect of Ngāi Tahu history, mahinga kai and the customary fishery. This will be delivered for Te Waihora and its catchment through a framework driven by Ki Uta Ki Tai / integrated management of the catchment which recognises and provides for the practical and meaningful exercise of the respective statutory and kaitiakitanga responsibilities of the Parties.” [emphasis added]

Whilst a blog (and probably an essay) could be written about the IEM implications within the first part of that clause, for the time being I am more interested in investigating further the expression “ki uta ki tai”.

In the interpretation section of the agreement, it is defined as:

“a Ngāi Tahu paradigm and ethic and is the Ngāi Tahu way of understanding the natural environment, including how it functions, how people relate to it and how it can be looked after appropriately. It is the concept used to describe the overall approach to natural resource management by Ngāi Tahu - from the mountains to the sea.”

Quite literally, it means “from the mountains to the sea”, but I was curious to find out what this means in actual environmental management practice, and how close it is to an integrated approach to environmental management.

This led me to Ngāi Tahu’s 2025 vision document, in particular the Te Ao Tūroa (natural environment) section. This vision was prepared in 2000 and contains goals for the iwi, and “where their whānau, hapū and iwi would be in 25 years time, what they would look like and what the world would look like”

Te Runanga o Ngāi Tahu logo

Under te ao turoa, Ngāi Tahu has a number of 5 year and 5 to 25 year goals, including to develop a generic ‘Ki Uta Ki Tai’ iwi environmental management plan (within 5 years), and to develop ‘Ki Uta Ki Tai’ environmental management plans for Papatipu Rūnanga (the ancestral tribes) (5–25 years).

As a means to achieving this first goal, in 2002/2003 Ngāi Tahu’s Kaupapa Taiao (“environment policy") developed a draft scoping document for the Ki Uta Ki Tai concept, including ways it can be implemented to achieve the aspirations for our natural environment as outlined in Ngāi Tahu 2025.

From this document, the following local Papatipu Rūnanga Ki Uta Ki Tai Plans (“iwi management plans”) have been developed, including:

• Te Taumutu Rūnanga Natural Resource Management Plan 2003;

• Kāi Tahu Ki Otago Natural Resource Plan 2005;

• Kaikōura Rūnanga Natural Resource Management Plan 2005 (second edition 2007); and

• Te Rūnanga o Makaawhio Kaitiakitaka Pounamu (Pounamu Resource Management Plan) 2009.

So, how do these plans reflect the principles of IEM?

On closer inspection of the Kaikōura Plan (2^nd edition), it is possible to see a substantial amount of the Bührs' IEM Matrix within the plan’s contents page alone. (I won't go further than the contents page, given the document is 339 pages long!)

Selected components of Kaikōura Rūnanga Natural Resource Management Plan	Corresponding Bührs IEM matrix / IEM principle component
Part 1: Introduction
“Relationship with other plans and policy”	Integration with other policies/plans
“Outcomes” Kaitiakitanga and Treaty-related outcomes; Environmental outcomes; and Social, economic, health and well-being outcomes.	A broad, holistic view of “environment”, includes consideration of components of the triple bottom line (plus culture!)
Part 2: Kaitiakitanga
“Legislative frame work”	A further integration of policy, sets out connections with existing legislation.
“Kaitiakitanga: Values and principles”	Integration of knowledge, interpretation, analysis.
Part 3: Policy
“Atmosphere and Air”	The first component of a wide interpretation of “environment”. The following sections include this wide interpretation, adopting a catchment based approach to environmental management.
“Awatere”	Integrates the land-related environmental components of the Awatere River catchment and surrounds, for example: mountains (Tapuae o Uenuku), forestry, vineyards, freshwater, riparian planting, salt extraction, mahinga kai, biodiversity, river banks, hazardous substances/new organisms.
“Waiau Toa”	The Clarence River catchment gets a similar integrated management approach as the Awatere River catchment. This section also includes consideration of high country matters (tenure, access), and transport matters.
“Te Ahi Kaikōura a Tama ki te Rangi”	Again, an integrated, “catchment” based approach to management of the local Kaikōura region, including the township. Covers matters such as residential subdivision, business, tourism, farming, sewage disposal, gravel extraction.
“Okarahia ki te Hurunui”	The Hurunui catchment (includes Tūtae Putaputa, Waiau and Hurunui rivers). Matters such as forestry, limestone mining, Hanmer Springs, water extraction and minimum flows.
“Te Tai o Marokura”	The coastal marine area of Kaikōura: from Te Parinui o Whiti to the Hurunui River and out to the open sea. Includes issues such as coastal land use and development, coastal protection, activities in the CMA, fisheries, marine mammals, marine birds, offshore petroleum extraction.
“Wahi Tapu”	Significant treasures and sacred places. The final component of the broad interpretation of “environment”.
Part 4: Implementing the plan
“Effective partnerships”	Institutional integration of Ngati Kuri with regional/territorial authorities and other organisations, where “effective partnership” involves communication and collaboration.
“Implementation tools and methods”	No single “solution” advocated – a variety of tools that are flexible and adaptable.

 

From the mountains..

Whilst that is a very brief summary of the content of the plan, it seems to me that it embodies both literally, and strategically, the “mountains to the sea” philosophy of “ki uta ki tai”. I will be interested to follow how such management plans are now implemented, and how the notion of ki uta ki tai can contribute to an integrated approach to environmental management.

Inland Kaikoura (view from Mount Fyffe)

..to the sea

How to become a Trustee (community based environmental management in action!)

This blog post is going local, to Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere, which is just down the road from Lincoln University in Canterbury.



Te Waihora - by Cath Brown (local Māori artist)



It all started with today's IEM lecture, where we discussed the evolution and role of community (based) environmental management (C(B)EM) as part of IEM.  This phenomenon is also referred to as, amongst other things, "community-centred environmental management", "community-level environmental management", and even collaborative management/governance (although quite where C(B)EM fits on the spectrum of management --> governance is open for debate).

C(B)EM in its most basic form is the involvement of community members in organised groups, which strive for the advancement of environmental goals within their local area - although "local" is not necessarily just their respective neighbourhoods.  Such groups may be formalised in an incorporated society, a trust, or even under legislation (for example, the Guardians of Fiordland). 



Community plantings



But what can C(B)EM actually accomplish? Is it a good tool for achieving better environmental outcomes where more centralised government operations have failed? Or is it merely a "cop out" by governments who have centralised environmental funding and services so much that there is a gap on the ground that must be filled by volunteers? And, more importantly, what can such groups really achieve in terms of improving environmental quality? Does all that tree-planting and sausage sizzling actually help to combat problems such as high nitrates in water, or enhance biodiversity in wetlands? Or is it really just producing a "feel good factor" that results in a gain in social capital but none in tangible environmental improvement?

Well, in an attempt to see how such groups operate, I decided to attend the annual general meeting for the Waihora/Ellesmere Trust, being held at the brand new Lincoln Events Centre (a great opportunity to check out this new facility, if nothing else!).  I wasn't too sure what to expect - maybe a bit of an overview of the Trust's strategy for 2012, and some information on what they have been up to in the past year.  It turns out that I was presented with all of this and more - the more being an impromptu nomination for (and acceptance of) the newly vacant fifteenth Trustee position.  Not quite what I had anticipated..

The Lake on a good day



The Lake on a better day - or some careful photo shopping to make it blue..?



Nevertheless, I seized the opportunity to "get involved" and learn more about what this group is doing for Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere.  The Trust "is a community organisation dedicated to the improvement of the health and biodiversity of Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere and its catchment".  It aims to "educate, activate and facilitate", working with other groups to make the Lake and its environs a better place. 

The Trust's logo

 

A more accurate picture of the water colour in the Lake



So far, I've seen what has been achieved under a new joint sustainable drain management initiative, the progress that has been made by prison workers on riparian plantings at Chamberlains and Coes Fords, how the Trust's strategy and vision is still relevant almost a decade after its conception, and that the Trust itself is a very interesting example of people getting involved in environmental management of their area.  I'm pretty sure my nomination was accepted in order to get some "fresh blood" into the group (the Trustees' words, not mine!) as well as to add a more representative dimension (I'm one of four lovely ladies on a group of 15) which I'm more than happy to provide.  Unlike many of the Trustees, I don't have any historical ties to the Lake, nor do I own land in the area (or even live nearby), but I'm hoping that my fresh perspective and interest in environmental matters generally will make my nomination worthwhile.  And of course, I'll be promoting an IEM approach wherever possible!

Sustainable drain management in action



So yes, it turned out to be quite an interesting evening - and now I really will learn how well C(B)EM works in practice! You'll just have to watch this space.. In the mean time - why not have a look around your local area to see what is on offer in terms of C(B)EM - go plant a tree (see how good it makes you feel?!) or attend a meeting, submit on a plan or join a group. You never know what opportunities might come along for you to get some community based environmental management action! And who knows, you might really make a difference for some of those "big picture" environmental problems.



The plight of Kiribati

(Pronounced “Keer-i-bhas”)

The effects of climate change may be felt in the increased occurrence of extreme weather events and patterns. The damage and scale of these events varies, and it is still a contested point whether increased CO² emissions is the cause of climate change at all. But what if, rather than being faced with an increased chance of drought or higher temperatures, there is a credible  likelihood that your whole country might be swamped by the sea within 60 years? This is a real concern for Kiribati President Anote Tong, who, not for the first time, spoke of the impending crisis facing the 100,000 residents of Kiribati at the recent 42^nd Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), 6^th – 9^th September 2011, hosted by the New Zealand Government at Waiheke Island.

Pacific leaders pose for the traditional “silly shirts” photo, as part of the 42^nd PIF, 6^th – 9^th September 2011, Waiheke Island, New Zealand.

Kiribati is an island nation in the very middle of the Pacific Ocean (straddling both the equator and the international dateline) and is made up of a series of 32 atolls, and one raised coral island. These islands have an area of only 811 square kilometres, but are spread over 3.5 million square kilometres. The average altitude of Kiribati is about 2-3 metres with the highest point being only 81 metres above sea level. Whilst there are an estimated 100,000 permanent residents, there is a net migration rate of -2.85 per 1000 people, mostly due to the limited economic prospects on the islands. However, the greatest threat for the population seems to be the environmental degradation from a growing population and limited carrying capacity of the islands, and its impending vulnerability to climate change.

Kiribati

The middle of the Pacific Ocean

The PIF Communiqué 2011 included a resolution acknowledging the effects of climate change:

“CLIMATE CHANGE

15. Leaders reaffirmed that climate change remains the single greatest threat to the livelihoods, security and well-being of the peoples of the Pacific. They welcomed the historic visit of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to the Pacific to see firsthand the degree of vulnerability of the people of the Pacific to the adverse impacts of climate change and sea level rise, as exemplified by the case of Kiribati. They also welcomed the presentation by the President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, and support for regional efforts and strong international action to address the impacts of climate change.”

However, President Tong went further than this when, in his speech to fellow leaders, he outlined a radical plan to combat the effects of climate change on his country. He proposes that his people shall, within 60 years, be living on a series of “floating islands”, entirely man-made, at a cost of USD$2billion. Here is an artist's conception of what they might look like:

The Jetsons meets Swiss Family Robinson

Pretty bizarre? That was my first reaction. As too for the many people who commented on a story in the UK Guardian newspaper last week (you can read them for yourselves here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/sep/08/artificial-island-pacific-sea-levels#start-of-comments ). 

But then I thought some more about this “solution” that President Tong has so boldly proposed. Is he a little deluded, a bit too optimistic that such a science fiction-esque project can be completed? He admitted himself that his own people might struggle to live on such islands. Has President Tong been sucked into a goal trap? Whereby he provides a solution for his people that does not require them to abandon their island living? Or has he been forced into a corner by the rest of the world, who's ability to ignore the plight of Kiribati has meant that any attempt at a more integrated environmental management approach would be closer to impossible than his dream of floating islands.

For one, climate change is an acknowledged “wicked problem” (see my first blog for an explanation of this) that has no easy solution. How then can a small country, covering such a vast area, yet so insignificant on a global scale, begin to hope to address such a complex problem – and one to which they barely contribute. Whilst the risk of sea level rise to small Pacific Island nations has been well acknowledged, there seems to be very little being done to help those who cannot easily help themselves. This raises the issue of environmental refugees, and where the line between migration and forced exile should be drawn. Rumour did exist that New Zealand actually had an agreement with Tuvalu to receive climate change refugees. However, this is unfortunately not true (see http://mfat.govt.nz/Foreign-Relations/Pacific/NZ-Tuvalu-immigration.php). So, whilst New Zealand generally supports its smaller Pacific neighbours, even we do not have a specific agreement to provide a safe haven for refugees/migrants from those nations most affected by climate change. The New Zealand government instead includes an allocated number of migration entitlements for these countries each year, more as part of an economic assistance package than anything else.

It has been raised that the “donation” of a spare island by another Pacific nation could well solve Kiribati's problems. Fiji perhaps? Vanuatu? But would these nations really be prepared to give up some space for Kiribati? And is it likely that, if they did, it would be particularly productive or economically sustaining land? Not really, given that all other Pacific nations have their own environmental, economic and social issues to deal with, mostly on very limited space themselves.

Therefore, with such elementary options unavailable to Kiribati, is the floating island suggestion really such a “solution-minded” outcome for President Tong to reach? It seems that, where an integrated environmental approach might have provided a better resolution for Kiribati, such an approach is much too far out of his reach.

Back to Christchurch, New Zealand

Believe it or not, the Rugby World Cup is not the only big event happening in New Zealand this year. It is also election year. Come 26 November 2011, we will have a new government, of sorts. 

 

Of course, neither the election nor the World Cup is on the same level as the event that took place at the beginning of the year – the February 22 Christchurch Earthquake.

These three events are all very different, but are at the same time linked. The World Cup and the earthquake will and have put us in the sight of global news media. The election may not have quite the same exposure, but it will nonetheless be affected by both of the earlier events. 

Which NZ will receive the most exposure?  This one?

This one?

Or this one?

     

Some people think that the result of the rugby will determine the result of the election. Likewise, the Government's response to the earthquake may have a bearing on the outcome of the election.

So I was pleasantly surprised when I received last week a letter from the Hon Gerry Brownlee, MP for Ilam (my electorate) and Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery. Mr Brownlee welcomed me to his electorate and gave me the opportunity to complete a survey on how I felt the Government's response to the earthquake had been.

My response looked something like this:

Rate the Government's response to the earthquake. Poor    Fair   Good         Excellent Comments Good, in so far as the immediate financial assistance to people. However, I'm concerned that the response is ignoring the views of Christchurch residents. Christchurch is a city needing to be rebuilt, not a failed business requiring assistance. Rate the Government's response to land damage. Poor    Fair   Good         Excellent Comments Good, in so far as owners of the worst affected land have been offered financial assistance. However, I am concerned that again, the Govt is treating this as a business case by intending to redevelop this land in the future. There are other ways of getting value from land that do not include housing and commercial developments. Any other areas you would like more Government action in. Comments The consultation to date has highlighted a pretty unanimous desire from residents to see a “green” city rebuilt, both for recreational and sustainable purposes. It is unclear at this stage how the Government will include this desire, as little environmental focus has been shown .

Of course, I'm no expert in evaluating the Government's response to the earthquake to date. Being lucky enough to live in the “shower zone”, and not owning my own home, I have had little involvement in the rebuild consultation over the past few months. I do follow the news and am interested in how the CBD demolition is going, as well as the higher level planning for recovery and rebuilding. Based purely on my own perceptions, and supported by the discussions we had in class a couple of weeks ago, it feels like the Government-led recovery operation requires a much greater focus on the environment. The people have given their views, and the Christchurch City Council has produced a commendable rebuild plan with a vision for a Christchurch with greater emphasis on the river, green space, attractive architecture, new-urbanist style design to create an overall “modern” and sustainable city.

But where is this in the Government's response? Have they considered these views? Only the day after the draft plan was released, Mr Brownlee told the press that Christchurch would “have to choose” what it wanted to have from the plan, meaning that having everything that was put forward is not possible. Why should we have to choose between the environment and the economic bottom line? Who says they are mutually exclusive? Mr Brownlee works in the world of business and numbers, but he is only one person to live in Christchurch. Albeit a person with a lot of influence.

But a city is more than the sum of its parts. I can't help thinking that, like I mentioned in my survey response, this is merely a business case for the Government, a purely technocratic response to a problem of collapsed buildings, when this can be turned into an opportunity for a great new city that everyone has a share in.

What is more important to you? Winning the Rugby World Cup, the general election, or an integrated, sustainable rebuild for Christchurch?

The final passport check (and a very helpful matrix)

I'm nearly ready to take off – the basic theory is covered, well, enough to actually go a few places.

Sunrise on the Southern Alps

Today I'll cover a bit about how to do IEM. Which has been put to the test in writing the essay for this week. How do you do IEM? How do you know you're doing IEM?? What can be done to improve the IEM approach?

One method is to use the IEM matrix of Bührs (1995). I drew from this in writing my essay, which, by the way, was set in the lovely tourist Mecca of the Queenstown Lakes District.

Lake Wanaka, towards Mt Aspiring from Iron Mountain

I digress.. the very helpful matrix can be set out as follows (adapted from Bührs, 1995, by Hughey & Montgomery):

		Management
	Classification	Interpretation / analysis	Institutions / analysis	Policy / analysis	IEM
The ENVIRONMENT	Land
	Water
	Air
	Plants
	Animals
	Resources
	People
	Built environment
Techniques/issues		Disciplines, EIA, SIA, risk assessment, TBL analysis	Approaches or barriers to integration	Relationships and connections	Management

This is all very nice and concise, but still the question remains, how exactly do you do IEM?? Well, to begin with, you undertake an interpretation, institutional and policy analysis. You look, like Bardwell, for where the problem actually is. What is wrong with the current management of the environmental problem? Where has the information been lost, the institutions disconnected and the policy fragmented?

These three steps are a start:

1. Think broadly and freely: Problem definition – why are we here? Interpretation, knowledge, information required at this stage. What do we know, what do we need to know?

2. Think interdisciplinarity and co-operatively. Who is involved? What institutions exist/should exist/have existed? Watch out for gremlins! We need vertical as well as horizontal integration. Where do the agencies work and what do they work on? e.g. Kaikoura, DoC in Christchurch and in Nelson, MFish in Christchurch, no one in Kaikoura. Do “turf battles” exist?

3. Think cohesively and develop connections Where is the policy? What policy works best together, or apart? “Fragmentation” or “independence”?

But also: you must think practically. Feasibility is crucial. How far can we expect to go on the budget/time/level of need we have? What interpretation/policy/institution has/hasn't worked before? Don't reinvent the wheel!

When things come to an impasse (like Kaikoura) – revert back to step 1.

References

Buhrs, T. (1995), Integrated Environmental Management: Toward a Framework for Application, Environmental Management and Design Division, Lincoln University (unpublished).

Hughey, K. and Montgomery, R. (August 2011), Session 3 lecture notes.