This article was downloaded by: [North Carolina State University]On: 06 September 2013, At: 05:26Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Coastal ManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucmg20

A Race for Marine Space: Science,Values, and Aquaculture Planning in NewZealandMichael Vincent McGinnis a & Meghan Collins ba Graduate School of International Policy and Management, Centerfor the Blue Economy , Monterey Institute of International Studies ,Monterey , California , USAb Environmental Studies Department, School of Geography,Environment and Earth Sciences , Victoria University , Wellington ,New ZealandPublished online: 05 Sep 2013.

To cite this article: Michael Vincent McGinnis & Meghan Collins (2013) A Race for Marine Space:Science, Values, and Aquaculture Planning in New Zealand, Coastal Management, 41:5, 401-419

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2013.822284

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Coastal Management, 41:401–419, 2013Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0892-0753 print / 1521-0421 onlineDOI: 10.1080/08920753.2013.822284

A Race for Marine Space: Science, Values,and Aquaculture Planning in New Zealand

MICHAEL VINCENT McGINNIS1 AND MEGHAN COLLINS2

1Graduate School of International Policy and Management, Center for the BlueEconomy, Monterey Institute of International Studies, Monterey,California, USA2Environmental Studies Department, School of Geography, Environmentand Earth Sciences, Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand

New Zealand (NZ) has developed a coastal management framework that includes largewatersheds and territorial waters (out to 12 nautical miles). The article describes thedeveloping conflicts associated with the biophysical and epistemological dimensions ofexpanding coastal marine space for aquaculture. We first review aquaculture policy inNZ, and recent evidence of the biophysical impacts from increasing terrestrial inputson marine ecosystems. We provide a case study of conflict over a recent proposal toexpand salmon aquaculture in the Marlborough Sounds, which covers some 4,000 km2

of sounds, islands, and peninsulas. Based on information and data from interviews ofstakeholders involved in the aquaculture planning, we describe three diverse epistemolo-gies of science—client-based science, civic science, and Maori traditional ecologicalknowledge. We conclude the article with a critical review of how to better resolve spatialconflicts that often emerge in coastal management and planning.

Keywords agriculture, aquaculture, conflicts, epistemology, marine spatial planning,New Zealand, science, values, watershed management

Introduction

Scholars recognize the role of values, perceptions, and beliefs in shaping coastal manage-ment (Miller and Kirk 1992; Knecht and Cicin-Sain 1997), and show that resource managersoften face value-based conflicts associated with diverse interpretations of science (Shrader-Frechette and McCoy 1993; Lee 1993). First, there are conflicts over the magnitude andcertainty of particular consequences, such as the cumulative impacts of the multiple-useof coastal and marine resources. Second, conflicts often emerge over competing economicvalues associated with multiple-use and biodiversity protection. Third, conflict over theuse, allocation, and protection of coastal marine resources are also shaped by the proximityand potential access to resources.

This project was funded by the Emerging Issues Program (2010–2012), overseen by the Instituteof Governance and Policy Studies, School of Government, Victoria University of Wellington (NewZealand). We thank two reviewers and the editor for their useful comments and suggestions. Theopinions expressed in this article are those of the authors.

Address correspondence to Michael Vincent McGinnis, Associate Professor, Graduate Schoolof International Policy and Management, and Senior Research Fellow, Center for the Blue Economy,Monterey Institute of International Studies, 460 Pierce St., Monterey, CA 93940. E-mail: mmcginnis@miis.edu

401

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

26 0

6 Se

ptem

ber

2013

402 M. V. McGinnis and M. Collins

This article examines the expanding scope of conflict and the current debate over thepotential socioecological impacts of aquaculture in NZ’s territorial waters. We describethe biophysical and epistemological dimensions to spatial conflict that is associated withthe expansion of marine space for aquaculture in the country. The ecology of the dynamiccoastal–marine interface shapes the biophysical dimension to conflict between the uses ofcoastal ecosystems and marine areas. As described in this article, terrestrial inputs carriedby coastal watersheds include water pollution from agriculture operations that influence theproductivity of marine ecosystem goods, including aquaculture activities. There is also anepistemological dimension to spatial conflict in coastal management that includes diverseinterests, values, and beliefs over coastal marine resource use. Conflicts between valuesoften arise when there is debate over scientific information and where there is scientificuncertainty over the biophysical characteristics of coastal marine ecosystems.

NZ aquaculture and coastal dairy production has significantly grown in the scaleof resource development and production over the past decade. In cooperation with theaquaculture industry, the country’s national government is pursuing a major expansionof aquaculture space in territorial waters (McGinnis 2012a, 2012b). This race for marinespace in territorial waters contributes to an expanding scope of spatial conflict over resourceallocation and use. The interest in the expansion of aquaculture is made more difficult by thechanges in coastal land use, including the rise of dairy production in the coastal watershedsof NZ that is contributing to water pollution in marine and freshwater systems, and byscientific uncertainty with respect to the potential impacts of aquaculture operations oncoastal marine systems.

NZ aquaculture (and other products such as agriculture goods) relies on a marketingscheme that supports a “clean and green” image for the country’s exports (Murray andMcDonald 2010). The marketing of NZ farmed king salmon is an example. Farmed salmonis sold to European markets, and is advertised as a product derived from the “100% Pure”marine waters of the country. The clean and green image has long been promoted by theisolated country in its striving to compete in world markets. As demands for protein (fromfish and beef) have grown overseas, this marketing scheme is threatened by degradationof the coastal marine environment. The “100% Pure” brand and marketing campaign forexports is threatened by scientific studies that show substantial increases in the amountsof sediments, nitrates, phosphates, and bacterial contamination in freshwater and marinewaters (Anderson 2012).

After a brief description of the existing management context for aquaculture expansion,we describe the biophysical impacts from dairy production on water quality. We also providea case study of political conflict over a recent proposal to expand salmon aquaculture in thesensitive and unique coastal marine area of the Marlborough Sounds, which covers some4,000 km2 of sounds, islands, and peninsulas. The Marlborough Sounds lie at the SouthIsland’s north-easternmost point, between Tasman Bay in the west and Cloudy Bay in thesouth-east. The coastline has 1/5 of the length of NZ’s coasts. With information gained frominterviews of key stakeholders (including scientists, resource managers, and others) who areinvolved in the aquaculture industry, we report interview information that shows that thereare diverse epistemologies associated with the role of science and scientists in this policydomain. The article concludes with a critical discussion of the potential use of new planningtools, such as spatial planning, to address conflicts over future aquaculture development.

Aquaculture and the Race for Marine Space

NZ is unique with respect to governance of the land–sea interface; the country is one ofthe few coastal states that has adopted a regional governance framework that includes both

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

26 0

6 Se

ptem

ber

2013

A Race for Marine Space 403

Figure 1. Regional councils of New Zealand. Source: Statistic New Zealand. Available at http://www.stats.govt.nz/.

major watersheds and the associated territorial waters (out to 12 nm) (Makgill and Rennie2012). Under the national government sector reforms of the late 1980s, more than 800governmental and quasi-governmental agencies were dismantled or reorganized (Ericksen1990). In their place, three primary national government agencies and 86 local and regionalgovernment authorities (comprised of 12 regional councils based on catchment boundaries,and 74 territorial authorities called district or city councils) were established, which werecollectively responsible for all aspects of environmental, natural resource, land use planningand coastal marine management (Ericksen 1990). During this process of major policyinnovation and reorganization over 55 statutes and 19 sets of regulations were eliminatedand replaced by a single legislative enactment—the Resource Management Act (RMA)of 1991 (Ericksen 1990). The RMA established unitary authorities at district and regionallevels of coastal and marine management. The regional councils are depicted in Figure 1.

With respect to aquaculture planning, the RMA established a framework for resourceconsent (occupation of space) while the Fisheries Act 1983 gave provision for aquaculture

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

26 0

6 Se

ptem

ber

2013

404 M. V. McGinnis and M. Collins

Figure 2. New Zealand aquaculture production in thousand tons, 1950–2010. Source: The Food andAgriculture Organization (FAO). United Nations. Fisheries and Aquaculture Statistics. Available athttp://faostat.fao.org/site/629/default.aspx. Reprinted with permission (color figure available online).

permits. Under this joint legislative approach aquaculture development requires a resourceconsent from the relevant regional and district council (under the RMA), and an aquaculturepermit from the Ministry of Fisheries (granted under the Fisheries Act).

Since the passage of the RMA there has been dramatic growth in a number of coastal-dependent industries, including aquaculture, and major changes in coastal land use associ-ated with an expansion of the dairy industry. This section’s focus is on the recent changesmade to aquaculture policy and planning in NZ. The historical growth of the three primaryaquaculture products (Pacific cupped oyster, Chinook or King Salmon, and NZ mussel) isshown in Figure 2. These industries have seen a dramatic rise in production since 1980.

One goal of the national government is to expand aquaculture revenues from the cur-rent $390 million to $1 billion by 2025 (Brownlee 2010). Such an expansion would expandthe allocation of marine space for aquaculture from the current 5,700 hectares to 16,000hectares within territorial waters (Ministry of Fisheries 2010). The Aquaculture LegislationAmendment Act (No 3) 239-1 (2010) implements the national government’s reforms for thesector. Four separate laws—the Resource Management Act 1991, the Fisheries Act 1996,the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004, and the Aquaculture Re-form (Repeals and Transitional Provisions) Act 2004—were amended by the AquacultureLegislation Amendment Act. The guiding national aquaculture planning strategies supportthe use of market-based tools and incentives for expansion of the sector, including govern-ment investment to support the growth of the sector (including marine science, technology,and engineering), and the adoption of co-management and self-management strategies forthe industry. The major focus by national government is a deregulatory approach to grantconsent for aquaculture development. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF Fish-eries) oversees the marine permitting process for aquaculture, and is in charge of promotingaquaculture. Thus MAF Fisheries is both a regulator and a promoter of the industry. Thesetwo managerial “hats” are difficult to wear simultaneously, since there may be a perceivedconflict of interest.

Dairy Agriculture and the Biophysical Limits to Aquaculture Expansion

There are biophysical limits to the expansion of aquaculture in NZ. Aquaculture takes placewithin the territorial sea close to shore, and is, therefore, influenced by terrestrial inputs,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

26 0

6 Se

ptem

ber

2013

A Race for Marine Space 405

including water pollution associated with agriculture and urban development (Cornelisenet al. 2011). Terrestrial inputs include sediments, nutrients, and other water pollutants thatenter marine areas from rivers and streams, which can influence aquaculture productivity(Morrison et al. 2009). Within the last decade there have been major changes in the ecologyof coastal watersheds of NZ (Gibbs et al. 2006). In particular, there has been a dramaticshift toward large-scale dairy production in NZ (Mulet-Marquis and Fairweather 2008),and this rise of the dairy industry has significant effects on the coastal marine ecosystemsof the country (McGinnis 2013). Dairy milk production in 1977/1978 was 5,238 millionlitres and increased to 19,129 million litres in 2011/2012, while the number of dairy cowsdoubled during this period (DairyNZ 2012, 5). Thirty-nine percent of the country’s landcover is used for dairy (DairyNZ 2011). Dairy production has increased by 77% duringthe past 20 years. Between 1990 and 2010, the national dairy cattle herd increased from3.4 million to 5.9 million. Ninety-two percent of the total dairy production is supported byFonterra, a multi-national dairy producer (DairyNZ 2012). Most of the dairy production isin the form of low value dry milk powder that is shipped to Asian markets.

The Ministry for the Environment (2012) describes a number of watershed-relatedproblems associated with changes in coastal land use derived from the increase in dairyproduction, including:

• lowland rivers in agriculturally developed areas have been subjected to high nutrients,turbidity and faecal contamination, leaving them in a poor condition;

• Streams in areas of dairy farming, especially where poor practises of shed effluentdisposal have been used, are in particularly poor condition, and the intensificationof farming associated with dairying in general has also been related to increasinglevels of nutrients, sediments and faecal bacteria;

• alteration and destruction of habitats and ecosystems;• widespread and increased eutrophication;• decline of fish stocks and other renewable resources; and• changes in sediment flow due to hydrological modification.

Studies show that water quality and quantity is on the decline in NZ primarily dueto agriculture dairy production (Morrison et al. 2009). The use of nitrogen fertilizer inNZ increased by more than 800% since 1990 (Organization for Economic Cooperationand Development [OECD] 2008). This is the highest percentage increase reported by anycountry within the OECD. In addition, use of phosphate fertilizer increased by more than100%. The most intensive dairy farming is happening close to water sources, and in areasof groundwater recharge.

MacDiarmid and colleagues (2012) indicate that the primary threats to coastal marineecosystems of NZ are global climate change, marine activities (such as commercial fishing),and impacts from terrestrial inputs from major watersheds (depicted in Figure 3).

Terrestrial inputs are among some of the highest-scoring threats to NZ’s marine habitats.Foremost is increased sedimentation resulting from changes in coastal land use; this is thethird equal highest-ranked threat over all habitats, and is the highest-ranked threat for fivecoastal habitats, including harbor intertidal mud and sand, sub tidal mud, sea grass meadows,and kelp forest. Other threats deriving from human activities in watersheds include sewagedischarge, increased nitrogen and phosphorus loading, and heavy metal pollution. Sewagedischarge and norovirus contamination, for instance, has closed down oyster farms in thenorthern part of the marine areas of the North Island in 2001.

The deterioration of water quality is matched by dramatic declines in freshwaterbiodiversity. More than 60% of NZ’s native freshwater fish as well as the only freshwater

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

26 0

6 Se

ptem

ber

2013

406 M. V. McGinnis and M. Collins

Figure 3. Relative impact of threats from different sources on New Zealand’s marine habitats.Source: MacDiarmid et al. (2012). Reprinted with permission (color figure available online).

crayfish and mussel species are listed as threatened with extinction (Allibone et al. 2009).NZ is ranked 18th worst out of 189 nations in terms of preserving its ecosystems (Bradshawet al. 2010). As one of the country’s freshwater scientist (Joy 2011) notes with respect tothe state of aquatic ecosystems:

We have gone too far. Surely it is time to admit, even if just to ourselves,that far from being 100% Pure, natural, clean, or even green, the real truthis we are an environmental/biodiversity catastrophe. . . . In five decades NewZealand has gone from a world-famous clean, green paradise to an ecologicallycompromised island nation near the bottom of the heap of so-called developedcountries.

Epistemologies of Science: Aquaculture, Values, and Science

The planning of aquaculture space within the territorial waters of NZ is made more com-plicated by the need to make decisions based on limited information and by the fragmentednature of the sector-by-sector approach used to manage resource use in the country (TheRoyal Society of NZ 2011, 2012). The Royal Society of NZ (2012, 5–6) notes:

Our limited capacity to carry out baseline research is only one example ofthe systemic lack of research, to the point where it is difficult to see how any

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

26 0

6 Se

ptem

ber

2013

A Race for Marine Space 407

marine resource can be effectively managed or any a balance struck betweencompeting uses. Improving the capability to monitor cumulative impacts, assessthe vulnerabilities of ecosystems, inform on ecosystem health and integrity, andto understand socioeconomic values of marine areas will help the success ofintegrated planning of marine resource management.

In a study on aquaculture in NZ, Banta and Gibbs (2009, 177) write, “Regulators haveoften been forced to make resource consent decisions on relatively sparse information.”Forrest et al. (2007) indicate that there is uncertainty in the level of cumulative effects orthreshold effects for major aquaculture developments.

Coastal management is also made more difficult given the diverse and often conflictingvalue orientations that are associated with the use of science and scientists in this policydomain. Indeed, there is a heated debate over the socioecological impacts of the futuregrowth of the aquaculture industry in NZ. This debate includes issues of the role of scienceand scientists in aquaculture planning, and issues over the potential biophysical impacts ofaquaculture operations on coastal marine ecosystems.

Case: The Debate over Salmon Aquaculture in the Marlborough Sounds

NZ accounts for over half of the world production of king salmon (Oncorhynchustshawytscha) (Ministry of Fisheries 2007). The NZ King Salmon Company is the pri-mary producer of king salmon. There are no native or endemic salmon in the rivers andmarine areas of NZ. The king salmon farmed in NZ originally derives from the McCloudRiver of the Sacramento Basin in California, and it was introduced to NZ in the early1900s. The introduced salmonids are a primary threat to the indigenous freshwater fishin NZ via competition and predation. These impacts are thought to have resulted in thefragmentation of some native fish populations (Townsend and Crowl 1991). The presenceof the non-native salmonids has altered the behaviour and habitat use of indigenous speciesvia competitive interactions (McIntosh and Townsend 1995).

Studies show that public perception of aquaculture in NZ is generally negative (NZAC2006; Shafer et al. 2010). In general, conflict in aquaculture is likely to be higher wherecoastal areas are densely populated, such as near urbanized areas, or in areas popular forrecreation. Aquaculture is politically controversial because it has involved: conflicts be-tween development and concerns over the ecological and economic impacts of the industry(Rennie 2009; Shafer et al. 2010); questions over the importance of preserving the naturalcharacter of ecosystem (Gibbs 2010); uncertainty over the ecological effects of marineresource use (Rennie et al. 2009; Gibbs 2010); contention over the NZ property rightsregime (Rennie et al. 2009; Gibbs 2010); and conflict between local residents, recreationalusers, and environmentalists (PCE 1999).

A demonstrative example of this controversy is the recent proposal by the NZ KingSalmon Company to double production of salmon aquaculture in the Marlborough Sounds,which is located in the northern coastal marine area of the south island. Success for KingSalmon depends on being granted a consent that would require changes to the existingMarlborough Sounds Resource Management Plan (MSRMP). The MSRMP was completedby the Marlborough District Council in 2003, and underpins all activities in the Soundswith the goal of balancing economic development with sustainable use of the area’s uniqueecosystems. The MSRMP explicitly prohibits expansion of aquaculture in the marine areaoutside areas designated for aquaculture. The MSRMP zones roughly half of the Sounds forindustrial use, such as aquaculture, and roughly half for recreation. The proposed expansion

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

26 0

6 Se

ptem

ber

2013

408 M. V. McGinnis and M. Collins

by the NZ King Salmon would include marine areas zoned for recreational activities in theMSRMP. Eight of the sites for additional salmon farming would be in marine areas whereaquaculture is prohibited by the MSRMP because of their scenic beauty and popularity.

Under the authority of the RMA, aquaculture planning decisions takes place withinthe authorities of the Marlborough District Council and MAF Fisheries. The proposedexpansion by the King Salmon Company in the Sounds was considered nationally significantissue by the Minister of Conservation and, thus, went to a special national decision-makingbody for further consideration. The King Salmon case is considered nationally significantfor a number of reasons, including:

• Effects to the Marlborough Sounds as a place of national significance, with significantecological, landscape, visual, natural character, recreational, and amenity values

• Proximity to habitat of endemic and nationally endangered NZ King Shag andHector’s dolphin

• Results or likely results of irreversible changes to the environment (specificallyregarding the faecal matter of salmon)

• Expansion that is or is likely to be significant in terms of the Treaty of Waitangi, asthere are eight iwi (tribes) who may claim customary interests where the farms areproposed

• Potential to create positive economic benefits to the region• Widespread interest to the public regarding its likely effects on the environment

With this in mind, the proposed expansion of marine space for king salmon in the Soundswas placed under the jurisdiction of the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) Boardof Inquiry whose members were appointed by the Minister for the Environment. The goalsof the Board were to: consider all submissions, holds hearings, and make a final decisionon the matter; run its own process and make a decision independently from the EPA andthe Minister; and, coordinate and lead a planning process that included arguments for andagainst the proposal to expand King Salmon production in the Sounds.

The King Salmon case highlights the tension between the drive for commercial gainsin aquaculture with other socioecological values associated with NZ coastal marine areas.Roughly two-thirds of the nearly 1300 submissions to the EPA on the expansion plansopposed the proposal, and the planning process has been a costly one. A key issue of debateremains the potential socioecological impacts of salmon aquaculture. The NZ Departmentof Conservation (DOC) maintained that the proposed salmon aquaculture expansion planshould carefully consider cumulative environment impacts that include existing and poten-tial new farms. According to DOC, a range of other effects on the seabed, marine mammals,seabirds, recreation and tourism, economics, and navigation should also be carefully eval-uated in the planning process.

The Board of Inquiry produced its final report and decision on the King SalmonCompany’s proposal in February 2013. In its final decision, the Board of Inquiry (2013)allowed the MSRMP change request and concurrent applications for resource consent forfour sites—Papatua, Ngamahau, Waitata, and Richmond within the Sounds. The Board alsodeclined the MSRMP change request and concurrent applications for resource consent forfour sites—the Kaitapeha, Ruaomoko, Kaitira, and Tapipi farms.

Soon after the final decision by the Board, a coalition of community groups, SustainOur Sounds, and the Environmental Defence Society filed separate appeals of the Board’sdecision in the NZ High Court on the grounds that the Board failed to careful considerevidence on water quality effects, the economic impacts of increased salmon farming onother coastal and marine industries, such as tourism, and inadequately consulted with the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

26 0

6 Se

ptem

ber

2013

A Race for Marine Space 409

regional community. The appeal was heard by the High Court in May 2013. (No decisionby the High Court has been made at the time of writing this article).

The case of the proposal to expand salmon aquaculture in the Sounds reflects anintergovernmental tension between diverse units of coastal management—in this case, theconflict between the MAF Fisheries and NZ King Salmon (who strongly support aquacultureexpansion), the Department of Conservation (DOC) (who advocate for resource protectionas one of their functions under the Conservation Act of 1987), and the local authority (whoremained opposed to the proposed expansion of salmon aquaculture in the Sounds). Thecase also reflects a conflict between private and public interests and values. During theplanning process, the Marlborough District Council submitted a formal letter to the Boardof Inquiry opposing the King Salmon application because it would set a precedent for otherapplicants seeking private MSRMP changes in the Sounds, which the council feared wouldlead to an undesirable ad hoc approach to coastal planning. The council was concerned thatthe proposed salmon farm expansion runs up against the goals of the MSRMP. Overall, thecase raises the issue of who is in charge of coastal marine planning for the region. Thisconflict reveals the fragmented character of aquaculture planning in NZ, and depicts themany institutional challenges that coastal managers face when a sector-based approach tocoastal marine planning and management. The appeal of the Board’s decision to the NZHigh Court indicates the problem of reconciling competing interests and values duringplanning processes that allocate a particular resource use within an ecologically sensitivearea, such as the Sounds, that includes multiple uses and values.

Science-Based Epistemologies

To further explore the general character of conflict, this article identifies the range of epis-temologies associated with the role of science and scientists in aquaculture planning in NZ.Understanding the influence of epistemic communities can provide insight into the normsand beliefs held by individuals, their causal beliefs associated with often diverse knowledgesystems, their shared perceptions what is considered valid, and common policy goals thatshape and influence a community (after Haas 1992). Thus, studies of epistemologies canoffer unique opportunities to understand the intermingling of science and scientists andvalues in coastal management. Similar studies show the complex interplay of science andvalues in coastal watershed planning (McGinnis et al. 1999). Like other aspects of a conflict,the scientific and technical aspects of spatial disputes over access and use to coastal marineresources, the legal and institutional characteristics that govern allocation of resources, anddebates over the level of protection that is needed to support coastal marine ecosystems areinfluenced by the particular socioecological context (Woolley and McGinnis 2002).

Analytical Approach

This article reports information gained from interviews of major stakeholders, includingmembers of the scientific community, resource agencies and industry, who are involvedin aquaculture planning in NZ. McGinnis (2012a, b) conducted interviews of over onehundred stakeholders in 2010/2011 who are involved in NZ coastal marine governance.The interviews show that there are a number of factors that influence the role of scienceand scientists in coastal marine management. Stakeholders recognize that there exists apaucity of baseline scientific information on the coastal marine ecosystems associatedwith the country. There is no long-term comprehensive monitoring program to assess the“health” or “integrity” of the diverse marine ecosystems associated with NZ. There is a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

26 0

6 Se

ptem

ber

2013

410 M. V. McGinnis and M. Collins

perceived lack of intergovernmental consultation and public buy-in when some marineresource decisions are made.

In a related study, Collins (2011) conducted focused interviews (N = 52) on the subjectof aquaculture in NZ. This section describes the results of these interviews. Interviewquestions were open-ended and included a discussion of the following major topics:

• The nature of spatial conflict over aquaculture use, including underlying values andprinciples;

• Linkages between science providers, policymakers, and the private sector in aqua-culture;

• Strategies for using science to promote or oppose aquaculture development;• Links between values and science in aquaculture conflict;• The ways that science has influenced the outcomes of spatial conflict; and,• Interviewees’ concerns for how science is used in aquaculture governance, including

the challenges to using science in addressing spatial conflict.

Interviewees with a range of stakeholders were conducted, including national and re-gional policymakers, Maori iwi (or tribes), scientists, marine advocates, investors, membersfrom the aquaculture industry, and other users of marine space. Interviewees were selectedto illicit a diversity of opinion and types of expertise in the policy domain, and were drawnfrom the ten stakeholder group categories (depicted in Table 1).

Responses to the interview questions are indicated in the text by numerical value andbracketed.1 The focus of this research is not to assess each individual according to epis-temology; instead, we examine the epistemologies for aquaculture science as they appearthrough beliefs, values, and policy preferences that are expressed in the in-depth interviews.

Results

Three interrelated epistemological communities are identified—scommercial or client-based values, civic concerns, and the diverse Maori value orientation toward science. These

Table 1Distribution of interviewees by stakeholder group and by location

Distribution of Abbreviation used Distribution ofinterviewees by in results interviewees bystakeholder group reporting location

Advocate—environmental Adv-envr 6 Auckland 5Advocate—recreational Adv-rec 5 Bay of Plenty 3Coastal planner CP 5 Christchurch 2Commercial fishing CF 2 Dunedin 1Maori development MD 3 Marlborough Sounds 5Marine farming MF 8 Nelson 16Policy analyst PA 7 Northland 3Scientist—CRO2 Sci-CRO 8 Tasman Bay 3Scientist—ministry Sci-min 2 Waikato 2Scientist—university Sci-uni 6 Wellington 12Total 52 Total 52

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

26 0

6 Se

ptem

ber

2013

A Race for Marine Space 411

Figure 4. Diverse epistemologies of science.

epistemologies reflect competing values and beliefs about the role of science and knowledgein aquaculture planning, and are reflected in Figure 4.

The epistemological identified in this study are shaped and influenced by types ofknowledge (community-oriented and expert based) and demands for scientific information(market-based and democratically oriented). The epistemological communities identifiedhere should not be understood as distinct communities but rather communities that mayshare particular beliefs and values about science. We provide a general characterization ofthese epistemic communities below.

The Value of Client-Based (Commercialized) Science

Client-based science is one prevailing epistemology in NZ aquaculture. Client-based sci-ence supports economic development. Science is perceived as an essential factor that fosterseconomic growth of the aquaculture sector. Examples of statements from interviewees whohold this epistemology are:

What’s also really good is that the Government has focused on economic growthas a component of industry-science linkages, so the question is how will scienceserve the economy? (MF 14)

The way I see public good research is about building capability, capacity inNZ, whatever the area in NZ. You’ve got that knowledge and that capacity, andpeople are able to then do the specific projects that companies want done. (MF43)

The best marketing tool we have for that is the claim to a sustainable aquacultureindustry which presents healthy, risk-free food. . . . NZ is largely perceived as

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

26 0

6 Se

ptem

ber

2013

412 M. V. McGinnis and M. Collins

providing a top-range, healthy, sustainable product. We need science to assistus maintain that market advantage. (MD 5)

You are often dealing with datasets that have actually been paid for by commer-cial clients. They are not always available publically. . . . The concern would bethat you are giving away a lot of the- essentially a lot of knowledge, essentiallya lot of valuable information that we would prefer to use ourselves for internalcapability development or whatever. (Sci-CRO 41)

I work on fisheries and aquaculture species because I know I stand more chanceof attracting money to work on those species to sequence [a] whole genomethan I will in any other species. So I am in this area because I want to addresssome basic science questions, and this is the best way I know to do that. (Sci-uni2)

The NZ science system, up until very recently, tends to be based on compet-itiveness, which actually doesn’t do a good deal for some things that you aretalking about. Because we all have to get revenue in and we have to fight forthat revenue, and we hang on to it when we get it and we don’t want otherpeople to know that we’ve to it, so we don’t talk to them and don’t involvethem in the projects. . . . Collaboration would be so much nicer. (Sci-CRO 46)

The presence of the client-based epistemology of science can, in part, be explained by therole of the Crown Research Institutes (CRIs) in NZ, such as The National Institute of Waterand Atmospheric Research (NIWA), in coastal marine management. CRIs are private, for-profit institutions. NIWA is the major coastal and marine scientific body in NZ, and unlikethe U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the research instituteoperates as a for-profit entity that is by and large supported by clients from industrialusers of coastal and marine areas, such as the commercial fishing industry. Accordingly,information collected by NIWA scientists may not be available or accessible to the generalpublic, since it is research supported and funded by particular clients (McGinnis 2012a,b). Indeed, one of the concerns expressed by interviewees is the lack of public access toscientific information in planning and decision-making.

Civic-Minded Science

Civic science aims at making improvements for the public good, and is oriented toward in-tegrative or collaborative approaches to resolve socioecological issues (Pielke and Sarewitz2005; McGinnis and McGinnis 2011). A group of interviewees expressed a view of sciencethat fosters a stronger relationship between the community and nature. As one intervieweenoted:

The scientists can range from people going out to looking at the benthos andcoastal processes to dealing with communities and the communities’ experi-ences and views on things. If you are taking a broad view . . . it’s a prettyconstant process. It’s about going out into the community and getting theirviews on things . . . that the community’s views are included in that way ofincorporating science [into planning]. (CP 9)

Many interviewees embrace a civic-minded science that is engaged in public processes(Adv-envr 21) and in collaborative, community-based coastal management (Adv-envr 38).Interviewees in this epistemic community are interested in a more concerted effort that

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

26 0

6 Se

ptem

ber

2013

A Race for Marine Space 413

strengthens the role of scientists in the consideration of non-consumptive values in aqua-culture planning (Adv-envr 28). This group of interviewees supports institutional improve-ments as part of a move toward democratization, public dialogue, and evidence-basedplanning and decision-making.

Maintaining the objectivity of science is one goal of the civic-minded scientist. Al-though science may be funded by private interests, the civic-minded scientist believes thatfact gathering and analysis should not be biased in support of a client. The major differ-ence between the civic-minded scientists and client-based scientist is that science does notpromote commercial interests in this epistemology. However, civic-scientists may use com-mercial resources to support basic science. Sir Peter Gluckman, the Chief Science Advisorto the Prime Minister, notes the primary role of science is to provide unbiased advice “freefrom conflicts of interest, provided apolitically and independent of any particular end-userperspective” (Gluckman 2011: 7).

Maori Traditional Ecological Knowledge

Maori interest in aquaculture is growing in part as a result of claims from Treaty ofWaitangi Settlements, and from growing joint venture agreements. The Maori AquacultureClaims Settlement Act of 2004 allocates 20% of new aquaculture space to iwi (or tribes).Accordingly, Maori are economic stakeholders in the allocation of coastal marine space.In addition to economic interest, Maori hold traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) thatis based on customary rights and cultural traditions that support the multiple values carriedby coastal marine areas. Examples of TEK are:

• Kaitiakitanga—“the act of guardianship” (Roberts et al. 1995, 8)• Mauri: essential life force, which is destroyed by mixing different types, including

water (Douglas 1984)• Rahui: ban on harvesting due to death at sea or to prevent overexploitation, which

enhances mauri (Kawharu 1998)• Rohe: geographical or spiritual boundary (National Library of NZ 2010), which also

applies to ocean space• Taniwha: guardian or protector of a water body (National Library of NZ 2010)

Kaupapa Maori is a form of TEK that embodies the beliefs and experiences of many iwi(Henry 2000). Facts about particular places are irrevocably connected to a sense of kinship,community and the region. Maori worldviews reflect a tradition in which resources are bothutilized (as a source of community) and sustained across generations, as reflected in thefollowing statements from interviewees:

Maori have a whole tradition that is not based in western science, but it is equallyvalid. That is something scientists easily forget. Science as a philosophy is reallynew, 4–500 years old! In terms of a system for understanding our environmentand our world, it’s very, very new. It’s very important, but it’s not unique orthe only means by which we can comprehend the natural environment. TheMaori system is called Mataranga Maori. And it describes things in terms ofrelationships to each other. It doesn’t differentiate relationships from humanrelationships and relationships between non-humans. (MD 5)

The primary objectives for [Maori who invest in] aquaculture are social andeconomic. That is within . . . the exercise of the framework of kaitiakitanga,which is an appreciation for the interlinked nature of life and non-life. It

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

26 0

6 Se

ptem

ber

2013

414 M. V. McGinnis and M. Collins

accords closely to ecology. Ecological principles can be found within the Maoriframework, which is known as Mataranga Maori. (MD 5)

Kaitiakitanga is the local version of more internationally recognised traditionalenvironmental knowledge. It operates locally within communities, within spe-cific environments. It has to do with two things. One is maintenance andsustainability of the resource, but also it is utilisation. . . . It is the underpinningof Maori environmental management. (MD 27)

I suppose it’s difficult to get into these sorts of esoteric discussions with you,but in Maori, if you go into an area of the sea, that is the domain of the AtuaTangaroa (god of the sea). Tangaroa is assigned the duty to make decisions onwhat, where and how things happen in the sea. Tangaroa knew where to placescallops, mussels or shell fish. Science is so singularly focused on the contentof what they are doing that they are not taking a holistic approach. (Adv-envr21)

There is a recognized challenge in integrating TEK with western epistemologies in sup-port of science. One respondent describes the challenges of uniting Maori and westernepistemologies:

If there is a different epistemological knowledge system for kaitiakitanga frommainstream environmental science, which there could very well be, and thereare certainly operationally very big differences. . . . You end up thinking youare making sense, and you end up talking to yourself. It’s that colonisation ofthe information again. You say things from a kaitiaki perspective but they areheard in terms of a mainstream perspective. So you’ve got to spend a lot oftime and a big effort to retain the essence of kaitiakitanga and articulate it inthat other world. (MD 27)

Discussion

In the race for marine space in the territorial waters of NZ, this article described twodimensions to spatial conflict that is shaping the politics of aquaculture development. First,there is a biophysical dimension to spatial conflict that reflects the irrevocable connectivityand relationship that exist between coastal watersheds and marine ecosystems. In NZ,large-scale changes to the coastal watersheds and marine areas of the two main islands haveresulted from the growth of the dairy industry. Water quality impacts threaten the interestin the expansion of aquaculture within territorial waters.

We have also characterized the epistemological dimension to conflict with the case ofthe proposed expansion of salmon aquaculture within the Sounds. Spatial conflict is basedon competing uses and values associated with marine space that can be exacerbated byperceived and real impacts from human activities and natural changes to coastal marineareas. Diverse epistemologies of science can perceive contribute to the biophysical debateover the role of science and scientific information in spatial conflicts. Our results shedsome light on the linkage between science providers, policymakers, and the private sectorin aquaculture planning. For instance, a client-based epistemology will support spatialallocation for marine aquaculture on the grounds that it furthers the growth of the industryand that aquaculture operations will not threaten the environmental quality of the marine

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

26 0

6 Se

ptem

ber

2013

A Race for Marine Space 415

environment or threaten the use of the marine environment by other user groups. In thecase of the proposed expansion of salmon aquaculture in the Marlborough Sounds, over 40experts were hired by the industry, and many of these scientists noted that the biophysicalimpacts would be insignificant. Other scientists who were part of the planning process,including experts from DOC, noted that the cumulative impacts were poorly evaluated.

Intergovernmental conflict over the biophysical and economic impacts of aquacultureoperations can also contribute to the challenge of allocating resources in a transparent man-ner. Conflict can follow from debates over scientific information and the lack of appropriateplanning tools and policy instruments to address scientific uncertainties and intergovern-mental conflict at each stage of the process.

We have also identified diverse epistemologies of science. Client-based science sup-ports economic development and growth. Because civic science and Maori TEK incorporatesocial, cultural, natural and instrumental values for the ocean, they are examples of diverseepistemic communities in this policy domain that may challenge the dominant client-basedepistemology. Maori worldviews are closely linked to historical and cultural traditions thatmay not be compatible with economic development and growth. These diverse epistemolo-gies influence the spatial debate over resource allocation and use.

Overall, coastal marine governance in NZ is symptomatic of the problem facing mostcoastal states—the institutional structure for coastal marine management remains highly“balkanized,” which supports a single-sector approach to manage specific uses and effects.The Ministry for the Environment (2012: 1) acknowledges that conflicts over marine spaceare inevitable and recommends that appropriate management frameworks are needed toaddress these conflicts in a comprehensive and integrative way:

The urgency for action stems from the opportunity we currently have to getthe right frameworks in place before the pressures or competition for spacebecome more difficult to resolve. There is also an opportunity to build a greaterconstituency to work through the range of values and uses. A more collaborativeapproach to decision-making and management could also address perceptionsthat might currently be hindering resource development and use in the marineenvironment. The inefficiencies of fragmented regulatory regimes need to belooked at, and improved integration of legal and management frameworks willbe an important step towards reducing compliance costs and improving theprosperity derived from our marine resource. We need more sophisticated toolsto enable us to have the debate about what resources we use, how we use themand what we conserve.

The management challenge is not simply a matter of improving the management ofcommercial or recreational fishing activities or the permitting of marine areas for aquacul-ture. NZ would benefit from the adoption of a more integrative, multi-sector, and ecosystem-based approach to coastal marine resource use allocation and biodiversity conservation.There are a range of proposals that support a more integrative, multiple-use approach tocoastal marine governance in NZ. DOC’s Marine Unit is developing key science themesunder PlanBlue, a new strategy for ecosystem-based management of the coastal marineenvironment. Under PlanBlue three research themes are being explored: marine conser-vation planning, ecological integrity, and mapping and mitigation of threats to the marineenvironment. The development of marine ecological indicators to assess the integrity ofmarine ecosystems and the services they provide is an encouraging sign that the country has

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

26 0

6 Se

ptem

ber

2013

416 M. V. McGinnis and M. Collins

begun to develop a strategic plan to assess ecosystem services and maintain the integrity ofcoastal marine ecosystems.

There is also an interest in the use of marine spatial planning (MSP) in NZ to addressmultiple-use conflict. In the northeastern part of the North Island of NZ, the diverse membersof the Hauraki Gulf Forum, led by the Auckland Council, have expressed an interest inthe use of a collaborative and integrative approach to MSP for the Gulf’s coastal marineecosystems (Hauraki Gulf Forum 2011). The Forum is a statutory body, which promotesand facilitates integrated management and the protection and enhancement of the HaurakiGulf, under the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000. The Forum can learn from the waveof interest in MSP as a planning tool. To date, the initial phase of development of a MSPfor the Gulf has been delayed because of intergovernmental conflict between the diversemembers of the Forum, and questions over the availability of scientific information thatwill be needed in the MSP effort (McGinnis 2012a, b).

The promise of an integrative, ecosystem-based approach to MSP is that human beingscan cooperate to plan for the large-scale spatial complexity and variability of ecosystems,and resource managers can resolve the inevitable conflicts between social, economic, andpolitical interests that are often associated with marine spaces (Ehler and Douvere 2007,2009). Advocates of MSP often refer to appropriateness of land use planning (LUP) andzoning in terrestrial settings as one reason that MSP is needed. Yet, there are problemsin relying on terrestrial models of land management, zoning and LUP. LUP may be aninappropriate model to emulate with respect to the dynamic scale and complexity of coastalmarine systems. Coastal marine systems have very different characteristic scales (func-tion, time, space) than terrestrial systems. For instance, the abundance and distributionof marine life is influenced by subtle changes in sea surface temperature and oceano-graphic processes, such as currents and eddies. Our understanding of the spatiotemporalfeatures and processes of marine systems is poor, and often “shifts” over time with newinsights into history, evolution and scientific data. This use of terrestrial models for coastalmarine governance warrants further investigation given the complexity and limited amountof scientific information on the natural history of coastal marine ecosystems.

While a set of generic principles to guide MSP is described in many recent scientificarticles and government documents (Foley et al. 2010). These planning principles are diffi-cult to practice especially when the existing coastal marine governance framework is highlyfragmented between resource management sectors and interests (Gopnik 2008). MSP ismore than a technical or scientific mapping exercise; it requires more than the formulationof spatial plans for particular uses of coastal marine areas. It requires an integrative ap-proach to address multiple values that are associated with the diverse epistemologies andbiophysical linkages that exist in dynamic coastal marine areas. New planning tools suchas MSP will need to address the epistemological and biophysical dimensions to spatialconflict. As with all tools or technologies, the use and application of MSP may not rep-resent an ecological panacea. To support MSP, new planning instruments and governanceframeworks are needed today.

Ultimately, maintaining the life-giving values of coastal marine ecosystems require thatwe overcome the limits of the “multiple-use” mentality which makes impossible a collectiveexperience with the coastal marine ecosystems that we depend on. Can we pass frominstitutions in support of multiple uses to a form of governance that sensitizes to, protects,and conserves the multiple values that are carried by marine ecosystems, integrating humanculture with these values? The strength of any truly adaptive coastal marine governanceframework is based on the value orientation(s) of decision-makers; the scope of conflict thatis influenced by the scale of resource use and allocation; the level of biodiversity protection

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

26 0

6 Se

ptem

ber

2013

A Race for Marine Space 417

that is supported and maintained over time; the capability of decision-makers to learn andrespond to new information and values; and, the communicative and integrative skills ofthe practitioner, the resource user, the scientist, and the citizen.

Note

1. Responses were vetted by interviewed participants. Information gained from these interviewswas transcribed in full. The first stage of coding categorized data into end-use categories for science.Patterns were sought from these categories as to how they linked to values. Data were then analyzedusing content analysis to identify patterns and relationships of meaning. Internal validity of statementswas sought through triangulation of primary data with other sources and convergence betweeninterview responses (where applicable). Once the data were coded, the statements were corroboratedagainst each other to a point where sufficient generalization could be made; otherwise, it was notedthat the opinion may have been unique.

References

Allibone, R., B. David, R. Hitchmough, D. Jellyman, N. Ling, P. Ravenscroft, and J. Waters. 2009.Conservation status of New Zealand freshwater fish. New Zealand Journal of Marine andFreshwater Research 44:271–287.

Anderson, C. 2012. New Zealand’s green tourism push clashes with realities. The International HeraldTribune. November 16. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/17/business/global/new-zealands-green-tourism-push-clashes-with-realities.html?pagewanted=all& r=0 (accessed Oc-tober 10, 2012).

Banta, W., and M. Gibbs. 2009. Factors controlling the development of the aquaculture industry in NewZealand: Legislative reform and social carrying capacity. Coastal Management 37:170–196.

Board of Inquiry. 2013. New Zealand King Salmon Requests for Plan Changes and Applicationsfor Resource Consents. Environmental Protection Authority. Available at http://www.epa.govt.nz/Resource-management/king-salmon/Pages/Final%20report%20and%20decision.aspx(accessed May 15, 2012)

Bradshaw, C. J. A., X. Giam, and N. S. Sodhi. 2010. Evaluating the relative environmental impact ofcountries. PLoS ONE 5(5):e10440.

Brownlee, G. 2010. Funding boost for New Zealand aquaculture. Beehive News Release. January 19.Available at http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/funding-boost-new-zealand-aquaculture (ac-cessed October 10, 2012).

Collins, M. 2011. What is the relationship between science and politics in aquaculture? A New Zealandcase study in environmental controversy. Master’s Thesis. Victoria University Wellington. NewZealand.

Cornelisen, C. D., P. A. Gillespie, M. Kirs, R. G. Young, R. W. Forrest, P. J. Barter, B. R. Knight, andV. J. Harwood. 2011. Motueka River plume facilitates transport of ruminant faecal contaminantsinto shellfish growing waters, Tasman Bay, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine andFreshwater Research 45:477–495.

Douglas, E. 1984. Land and Maori identity in contemporary New Zealand. Waiora, Waimaori,Waikino, Waimate, Waitai: Maori Perceptions of Water and the Environment. University ofWaikato Occasional Paper No. 27.

Ehler, C., and F. Douvere. 2007. Visions for A Sea Change. Report of the First IntergovernmentalOceanographic Commission And Man And The Biosphere Programme. Ioc Manual and Guides.The Biosphere No. 48. Iocam Dossier No. 4, 12. UNESCO.

Ericksen, N. F. 1990. New Zealand water planning and management: Evolution or revolution. InIntegrated water management: International experiences and perspectives, ed. B. Mitchell,45–87. London: Belhaven Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

26 0

6 Se

ptem

ber

2013

418 M. V. McGinnis and M. Collins

Forrest, B., N. Keeley, P. Gillespie, G. Hopkins, B. Knight, and D. Govier. 2007. Review of theEcological Effects of Marine Finfish Aquaculture: Final Report. Prepared for the Ministry ofFisheries. Cawthron Report No. 1285.

Foley, M. M., B. S. Halpern, F. Micheli, M. H. Armsby, M. R. Caldwell, C. M. Crain, E. Prahler,et al. 2010. Guiding ecological principles for marine spatial planning. Marine Policy 34:955–966.

Gibbs, M. 2010. The historical development of fisheries in New Zealand with respect to sustainabledevelopment principles. Electronic Journal of Sustainable Development 1(2): 23–33.

Gibbs, M. T., J. Hobday, B. Sanderson, and C. L. Hewitt. 2006. Defining the seaward extent of NewZealand’s coastal zone. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 66:240–254.

Gluckman, P. 2011. Towards Better Use of Evidence in Policy Formation: A Discussion Paper. Officeof the Prime Minister’s Science Advisory Committee.

Gopnik, M. 2008. Integrated Marine Spatial Planning in US Waters: The Path Forward. The MarineConservation Initiative. A Report to the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

Haas, P. M. 1992. Banning chloroflourocarbons: Epistemic community efforts to protect stratosphericozone. International Organization 46:187–224.

Hauraki Gulf Forum. 2011. Spatial Planning for the Gulf. Auckland.Henry, E. 2000. Kaupapa Maori: Locating indigenous ontology, epistemology and methodology

in the academy. In Building the Research Capacity within Maori Communities: A Report inthe Proceedings of the wanaga. Te Runanga o Aotearoa mo te Rangahui it e Matauranga/NewZealand Council for Educational Research. New Zealand.

Joy, M. 2011. The dying myth of a clean, green Aotearoa. The New Zealand Herald. April 25.Available at http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c id=3&objectid=10721337(accessed October 11, 2012).

Kawharu, M. 1998. Dimensions of Kaitiakitanga—An Investigation of a Customary Maori Principleof Resource Management. Oxford University PhD thesis.

Knecht, R., B. Cicin-Sain, and G. W. Fisk. 1997. Perceptions of the performance of state coastalzone management programs in the United States. II. Regional and state comparisons. CoastalManagement 25 (3): 325–343.

Lee, K. 1993. Compass and gyroscope: Integrating science and politics for the environment. Wash-ington, DC: Island Press.

MacDiarmid, A., A. McKenzie, J. Sturman, J. Beaumont, S. Mikaloff-Fletcher, and J. Dunne. 2012.Assessment of anthropogenic threats to New Zealand marine habitats New Zealand. AquaticEnvironment and Biodiversity Report No. 93.255.

Makgill, R. A., and H. G. Rennie. 2012. A model for integrated coastal management legislation:A principled analysis of New Zealand’s Resource Management Act 1991. The InternationalJournal of Marine and Coastal Law 27:135–165.

McGinnis, M. V. 2012a. Marine Governance: The New Zealand Dimension. A Full Report. Fundedby the Ministries of New Zealand. Emerging Issues Program, School of Government, VictoriaUniversity Wellington, New Zealand. August.

McGinnis, M. V. 2012b. Living up to the brand: Greening New Zealand’s ocean policy. PolicyQuarterly 8 (1): 17–28.

McGinnis, M. V. 2013. Creating Ecological Scarcity: The Struggle to Sustain New Zealand’s Water,Watersheds, and Pastoral Heritage. Proceedings of the Politics of Freshwater: Access and Identityin a Changing Environment. Middlebury College. Vermont. March 14–16.

McGinnis, M. V., and C. E. McGinnis. 2011. Adapting to climate impacts in California: The impor-tance of civic science in local coastal planning. Coastal Management 39 (3): 225–241.

McGinnis, M. V., J. T. Woolley, and J. K. Gamman. 1999. Bioregional conflict resolution: Rebuildingcommunity in watershed-based planning and organizing. Environmental Management 24 (1):1–12.

McIntosh, A. R., and C. R. Townsend. 1995. Contrasting predation risks presented by introducedbrown trout and native common river galaxias in New Zealand streams. Canadian Journal ofFisheries and Aquatic Sciences 52:1821–1833.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

26 0

6 Se

ptem

ber

2013

A Race for Marine Space 419

Miller, M. C., and J. Kirk. 1992. Marine environmental ethics. Ocean and Coastal Management17:237–251.

Ministry for the Environment. 2012. The Natural Resources Sector Briefing to Incoming Min-isters. http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/about/briefing-incoming-minister-2011/index.html(accessed May 9, 2012).

Ministry of Fisheries. 2007. Marine Aquaculture. Updated November 16. Available at http://www.fish.govt.nz/en-nz/Fisheries+at+a+glance/default.htm (accessed June 3, 2011).

Ministry of Fisheries. 2010. Information Sheet 1. Available at http://www.fish.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/9DBED4A1-E107-49B2-BC0D-B63ADF2C3CEF/0/aquaculturelegislativereformsoverview 3.pdf (accessed June 3, 2012).

Morrison, A., M. L. Lowe, D. M. Parsons, N. R. Usmar, and I. M. Mcleod. 2009. A Review ofLand-Based Effects On Coastal Fisheries And Supporting Biodiversity In New Zealand. NewZealand Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Report No. 37.

Mulet-Marquis, S., and J. R. Fairweather. 2008. New Zealand Farm Structure Change and Intensifi-cation. Research Report No. 301. Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit (AERU). LincolnUniversity. March.

Murray, C., and G. Mcdonald. 2010. Aquaculture: Economic Impact in the Auckland Region. JointlyPrepared By The Auckland Regional Council And Market Economics Ltd. For Auckland Re-gional Council. Auckland Regional Council Document. Technical Report 009.

National Library of New Zealand. 2010. Matauranga Maori. http://www.natlib.govt.nz/collections/online-exhibitions/matauranga-maori (accessed June 15, 2012).

NZDairy. 2011. New Zealand Dairy Statistics 2010/2011. Available at http://www.lic.co.nz/pdf/DAIRY%20STATISTICS%2010-11-WEB.pdf (accessed May 15, 2012).

NZDairy. 2012. New Zealand Dairy Statistics 2011/2012. http://www.dairynz.co.nz/file/fileid/45159(accessed May 15, 2012).

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2008. Environmental Perfor-mance of Agriculture at a Glance. Secretary General of the OECD.

Pielke, R., and D. Saretwitz. 2005. Bringing society back into the climate debate. Population andEnvironment 26:255–268.

Rennie, H. G. 2009. Aquaculture management areas—An example of why we should not rush toditch the RMA’s effects-based approach? Planning Quarterly 174:14–16.

Rennie, H., R. White, and L. Brabyn. 2009. Developing a conceptual model of marine farming inNew Zealand. Marine Policy 33:106–117.

Roberts, M., W. Norman, N. Minhinnick, D. Wihongi, and C. Kirkwood. 1995. Kaitiakitanga: MaoriPerspectives on Conservation. Pacific Conservation Biology 2:7–20.

Shafer, C., G. Inglis, and V. Martin. 2010. Examining residents’ proximity, recreational use, andperceptions regarding proposed aquaculture development. Coastal Management 38:559–574.

Shrader-Frechette, K., and E. McCoy. 1993. Method in ecology: Strategies for conservation. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

The Royal Society of New Zealand. 2011. Ecosystem Services: Emerging Issues. July.The Royal Society of New Zealand. 2012. Future Marine Resource Use: Emerging Issues. May.Townsend, C. R., and T. A. Crowl. 1991. Fragmented population structure in a native New Zealand

fish: An effect of introduced brown trout? Oikos 61:347–354.Woolley, J. T., and M. V. McGinnis. 2002. The California watershed movement: Science and the

politics of place. Natural Resources Journal 42 (1): 133–183.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

26 0

6 Se

ptem

ber

2013