Equity and Fairness in Water Resource Allocation and Management

Equity and Fairness
in
Water Resource Allocation and Management
Reference:
Lange, M. (2008), ‘Equity and Fairness in Water Resource Allocation and Management’. Water and
Health, Issue 35, ESR: Christchurch.
1

Equity and fairness in water resource allocation and management
“One thing is clear: few topics arouse as much emotion in this part of the world as water. The river,
and its use, is special to many people”. The Press, Christchurch (1 September 2007).
Water resource allocation and management decisions raise numerous complex and ‘messy’ issues,
emotions and feelings. Key among these are equity and fairness issues, but these are not often
explicitly addressed during decision-making processes. In last October’s issue of Water and Health,
Ann Winstanley showed that having access to or living near water appears to be integral to
Aotearoa/New Zealand culture, and that these connections to water can contribute to our sense of
well-being. This article describes our research that examines what a ‘fair’ water management decision
may look like, and outlines the need for research that investigates the ways in which our well-being
can be affected by water and its (fair or unfair) management.
What do ‘equity’ and ‘fairness’ mean?
The concept of fairness in relation to resource management is often discussed in terms of procedural
and distributive justice. Procedural justice refers to fairness in the decision-making process (for
example, the degree of representation, provision for voice or influence in the decision-making
process), whilst distributive justice refers to the way the resource is apportioned or distributed. A
‘fair’ decision is one that has been made based on an inclusive, transparent process, as well as one that
considers and acknowledges the various ‘voices’ to justify the decision for how the resource is to be
allocated (Syme & Nancarrow, 2006).
Why are equity and fairness important in resource and water management?
• Sustainable development is based on notions of ‘fairness’, with a commitment to intra- and intergenerational
equity;
• An ‘unfair’ decision (or one that is perceived to be unfair) can have major impacts upon people’s
well-being – outcomes that are perceived to be unfair can result in damaged relationships, divided
communities and individual suffering;
• Perceptions of fair processes and decisions can increase trust, compliance and support for
government agencies; and
• New Zealand resource management law incorporates the notions of equity and fairness in theory,
but less so in action.
Modelling equity and fairness
Water resources research over the last five years at ESR has clearly identified that equity and fairness
issues are important but under-researched topics, both nationally and internationally. We have looked
at the following research questions:
• What are the fairness issues that arise as a result of water management and decision-making in
New Zealand?
• What forms of community engagement enables social values and issues of fairness to be
articulated and understood?
Our research has involved several case-studies:
• Fairness issues that were identified through research in the Tasman District that looked at
community uses and values for water and options for management;
• Fairness issues relating to water trading/transfer in the Opuha Irrigation Scheme, Fairlie, South
Canterbury (2005–2006);
• Fairness issues that featured in media material relating to the proposed Central Plains Storage and
Irrigation Scheme (2006–2007);
• Fairness issues that were evident in submissions to Environment Canterbury’s Draft Natural
Resources Regional Plan (NRRP) Water Quality and Quantity chapters; and
2

• Fairness issues that arose in the reference group process used in the Canterbury Strategic Water
Study (2006–2007).
Findings from this case-study-based research have led us to develop a preliminary ‘equity and fairness
model’. The model shows the key fairness issues that arose in the case-studies and illustrates the
tensions that exist within each issue.
Equity and fairness model showing the ethical and moral tensions that can arise in water
management
The model shows that many ethical and moral tensions arise in water management. For example, has
a particular decision been focused on short-term gain, or has it looked at the bigger, long-term
picture? Are the people who benefit from a decision the same people that might lose something? Are
those involved with consultation representative of an appropriate range of views?
Our research and the case-studies show that these tensions impact hugely on whether or not a decision
is considered to be ‘fair’. For example, a key factor that contributed to the success of the Opuha
irrigation scheme in South Canterbury was the extensive community consultation process that
enhanced acceptability for the dam and irrigation scheme amongst many members of the community.
Research in the Opuha region revealed that the processes used to engage the community were
relatively successful and well carried out, and many farmers were happy with the process used to
inform and update them of developments and progress. Public meetings and information days were
held, and the directors put a lot of effort into discussing the scheme with farmers. The directors of the
scheme believe they were aware that there may be some contentious issues raised, and of the
importance of involving the community. “It was a South Canterbury thing, and we certainly were
mindful of and had to respect the real concerns of the community” (Chair of South Canterbury
Farmers Irrigation Company SCFIS).
In another case study that evaluated the reference group process of the Canterbury Strategic Water
Study (Stage 3), participants were invited and selected according to three main criteria – geographical
spread; knowledge and experience in water resource decisions; and ability to see more than one view
3

or perspective, regardless of their individual interests. The requirement for knowledge and experience
on water resource issues meant that there was significant representation of irrigation interests where
members of the farming community were – or had been – involved in large-scale irrigation initiatives.
Interviews with 12 members of the reference group indicated that tourism and social interests were
less well represented, and that there were very few women involved. Additionally, Māori
representation was not consistent because of the work load carried by those mandated to speak on
behalf of iwi. There were considerable positive outcomes of the reference group process, such as the
building of social capital between participants, and constructive dialogue between those with
economic or environmental interests. However, the issue of fairness has been raised in several public
fora where individuals questioned the selection of participants and the lack of transparency of the
process. The literature relating to these fairness-related issues suggests that these kinds of issues can
affect public acceptance and support for the outcomes. Smith and McDonough (2001), for example,
stress that ‘notification’ about who is participating is especially important where there is diversity and
geographical spread, and where natural resource decisions may take several years to make. The
Canterbury Strategic Water Study is now in Stage 4 where an open strategy process will enable wider
public participation.
Incorporating fairness into resource management decision-making
The development of this equity and fairness model has prompted us to think about how the concept of
fairness could be incorporated into resource management decision making. There is:
• A need for better understanding of the significance of fairness issues outlined in the model.
• A need to better articulate and understand the social values of water which are also
connected to what is perceived as fair or unfair. Emotions, feelings, perceptions and beliefs are
i) difficult to articulate (especially in many Western cultures) ii) not given the chance to be
articulated or iii) not often included within a rational decision-making process.
• A need for further research into the health and well-being implications of fair or unfair
resource management decisions. The literature on fairness in resource management decisionmaking
makes few specific links with health and well-being issues. Some of the research that has
been carried out discusses social well-being in terms of a community’s ability to respond
collectively to challenges (Gross, 2007, Syme, Porter, Goeft & Kington, 2006).
• A need to create effective tools that can link this knowledge to policy. Explicit consideration
of people’s emotional attachment to a river or other natural resources will be an important part of
any consideration of fairness, and will add to decisions that reflect participative democracy and
contribute to the development of social capital. In our case-studies to date, we notice that
stakeholder meetings often begin with acknowledgement that water issues are emotive, but that
the discussions need to put these emotive values aside, and focus on more “rational” issues.
However, we believe that unless fairness issues and processes are considered and dealt with,
solving water ‘problems’ will remain extremely difficult.
Miria Lange
ESR
miria.lange@esr.cri.nz
4