Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Annual Review 2012

1.4. Science processes
AEBAR 2012: Introduction
1.4.1. Research Planning
Until 2010 the Ministry of Fisheries ran an iterative planning process to determine, in conjunction with
stakeholders and subject to government policy, the future directions and priorities for fisheries
research. Subsequently, the Ministry has adopted an overall approach of specifying objectives for
fisheries in Fisheries Plans and using these plans to develop associated implementation strategies and
required services, including research. These services are identified in Annual Operational Plans that
are updated each year.
For deepwater fisheries and highly migratory stocks (HMS), the transition to the new research
planning approach is well advanced because fisheries plans for these areas have been approved by the
Minister. Research for these fisheries are already being developed using Fisheries Plan and Annual
Operating Plan processes as primary drivers, and, as necessary, Research Advisory Groups (RAGs) to
develop the technical detail of particular projects. The Ministry’s website contains more information
on this approach, developed during the Research Services Strategy Review, at:
http://www.fish.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/04D579E5-6DCC-42A6-BF68-
9CAB800D6392/0/Research_Services_Strategy_Review_Report.pdf (see Section 5.2, pages 14 to 21) and in
summary at: http://www.fish.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/432EA3A0-AEA7-41DD-8E5C-D0DCA9A3B96B/0/RSS_letter.pdf.
Generic terms of reference for Research Advisory Groups are in Appendix 12.5. For inshore fisheries,
the three Fisheries Plans (inshore finfish, shellfish, and freshwater) are still under development, so a
transitional research planning process was established for 2010 and developed slightly in 2011. This
included the following steps:
• Identification of the main management information needs using:
o Fisheries Plans or Fisheries Operational Plans where available
o Any relevant Medium Term Research Plan
o Fishery managers’ understanding of decisions likely to require research information in the
next 1–3 years.
• Technical discussions as required (i.e., tailored to the needs of the different research areas) to
consider:
o The feasibility and utility of each project
o The likely cost of each project
o Any synergies or overlaps with work being conducted by other providers (including
industry, CRIs, MBIE, Universities, etc.)
• Stakeholder meetings as required to discuss relative priorities for particular projects
The process for aquatic environment research for 2011/12 and 2012/13 (other than aspects driven by
deepwater and HMS plans or the specific needs of inshore fishery managers) followed essentially
these same steps.
The Ministry runs a separate planning group to design and prioritise its research programme on marine
biodiversity. Given its much broader and more strategic focus, the Biodiversity Research Advisory
Group (BRAG) has both peer review and planning roles and therefore differs slightly in constitution
from the Ministry’s other working and planning groups.
1.4.2. Contributing Working Groups
The main contributing working groups for this document are the Ministry’s Aquatic Environment
Working Group (AEWG) and Biodiversity Research Advisory Group (BRAG). The Department of
Conservation’s Conservation Services Programme and National Plan of Action Seabirds Technical
Working Group (CSP/NPOA-TWG, see http://www.doc.govt.nz/conservation/marine-and-
11