Water Transfer in Context â A New Zealand Case Study

More documents

Recommendations

Info

the ‘bigger picture’ fits together. As the chair of SCFIS suggests, “there are a lot of variations within the onescheme, but the objective and game plan is the same for everyone”. It seems that it is not necessary for eachfarmer to know how the scheme works, as long as they “understand what they need to know and the conditionsof their consent” (Hubbard Churcher and Co). The complexity of the system appears to be necessary in order forit to be simple for users. On the other hand, the passing of time may reveal that such a complex system masksdifficult and unclear rights that require further clarification and legal assessment.4.6 EQUITY ISSUES – NOT ALL HAVE ACCESS TO SHARES OR TO WATERChanging the nature of a good with property rights inevitably excludes or includes new people and this involveschanging power, influence and relationships. Farmers were only given one chance to buy shares in the schemewhen it was originally developed. New farmers to the area, or those who chose not to buy shares can only do sonow if someone is selling their shares (and apparently very few are selling – Chair of SCFIS) or if they buy landand the shares are sold with the land. This system excludes some members of the community. Those who didbuy shares are of the opinion that farmers who did not buy shares now regret that they did not or could not buyshares in the scheme. It seems that some of those who were unable to buy shares at the time feel that thissituation is unfair. Further research aims to examine these issues further.These barriers and drivers raise a range of key issues that illustrate lessons to be learned from the articulatedsuccesses and/or difficulties of the scheme. Highlighting these issues provides knowledge useful for policydevelopment, for building regional and local government understanding and expertise that can feed intocommunity consultation practices, and for identifying areas where further information or research may beneeded.5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONSThe Opuha scheme provides a good example of a developing water transfer system. Discussions with keystakeholders and an analysis of key issues identified in the literature show that there are some success stories andadvantages for farmers and the community. At the same time, there are factors that make trading and transferdifficult, and some issues that may require further consideration. As can be expected, there are a range of viewsregarding drivers and barriers to water transfer in the Opuha scheme.The processes used to tell the community about the issues involved positively affected initial set-up of thescheme. While there remain those who felt ‘blackmailed’ or that they had little choice but to participate,feedback from farmers and other stakeholders reveals that the extensive community consultation processesgreatly enhanced acceptability for the scheme. Fenemor and Sinner note that “norms and values can be anobstacle to adoption of market-based instruments, especially where they help to protect the interests of keystakeholders, but value-based opposition can be overcome if stakeholders are involved early and their practicalconcerns are addressed” (2005).Other important process issues that have enabled transfer include the fact that the administration system is aneasy and familiar system for farmers to use, with the provision of information easily available for those wantingto transfer water. That regulations have changed since the scheme was implemented (for example introduction ofminimum flows above the dam, and regional council rules on water application to land) shows the importance ofdeveloping a flexible framework that can account for the uncertainty and change inherent with water resourcemanagement and demographic, climatic and economic conditions. The Ministry for the Environment (MfE) andMinistry of Agriculture and Forestry emphasise the need “to provide flexibility to enable adaptive management,given the incomplete understanding of the impact of abstraction/use on environmental in-stream values and thedynamic and unstable nature of freshwater ecosystems” (2004). As the MfE (2004) points out, “a flexibleallocation and use system may encourage higher environmental, social, cultural and economic values to becatered for, and thereby make progress towards achieving the difficult balance of maximising economic wealthwhilst ensuring a quality environment for all New Zealanders to enjoy”.The Sustainable Water Programme of Action (Ministry for the Environment and Ministry of Agriculture andForestry, 2005), found that some of the most important aspects of water management for irrigators are reliabilityand security of supply, certainty of volumes, certainty of investment, adequate quality, straightforward consentrequirements, and minimal compliance costs. Farmers with shares in the Opuha scheme have seen some benefits,
including major increases in yield and returns on their investment. These benefits have filtered through tofarming industries (Harris et al., 2006) and provided a substantial number of jobs.The Opuha scheme does provide ways for shareholders to cooperate and share the resource, using it for differentuses at different times. Belonging to such a scheme provides enhanced flexibility for shareholders in terms ofwater use, and may use water more efficiently as there is an incentive for farmers with ‘spare’ water to leasewater to someone who could use it. “I get an update on my account every month to say what percentage of waterI’ve still got to use and that I analyse in my own mind whether I’m going to be using it all, or whether I’ve gotspare water, and if somebody down here has got a crop, a specialist crop that he wants to irrigate, he can ring meup…and we’ll get together, and do a deal and say, righto, for three weeks you can have my allocation” (Chair ofSCFIS).There appears to be a degree of trust in Hubbard Churcher and Co for running the administration aspects of thescheme. Hubbard Churcher and Co are a well established and respected firm in South Canterbury, and severalinterviewees noted that the administration system is well organised and run. It would be interesting to explorethis issue further, as there may more important lessons to learn for future schemes. For example, how much of aninfluence does the trust in Hubbard and Churcher have on comfort with the transfer system, and perhaps comfortin having an independent group to address issues that may arise with Environment Canterbury?Incentives to transfer shares reveal important lessons for those involved in setting up transfer schemes; theyhighlight the importance of having a scheme that discourages a single party from buying a large share of permitsespecially if they are not going to use the water, they demonstrate the importance of access to information aboutthe quantity of water used and information that gives an idea of the value of water, and they show that althoughsome regulation is inevitable, there are advantages to farmers in having the flexibility to share the resourcebetween them.While the benefits from trading and transfer within the Opuha scheme can clearly be seen, there have also beensome issues raised that may hinder transfer. A key concern is that of equity. Natural resource issues ofteninvolve limited resources but multiple constituencies, creating a situation in which it is impossible for everyoneto get what they desire. Focusing on fairness may help to alleviate some resource-based conflicts (Smith &McDonough, 2001). Fairness has been defined as an overall heuristic which incorporates both procedural justice(justice in the decision making process) and distributive justice (how the water resource is apportioned) at bothsituational (local) levels and universal (regional or national) levels (Syme & Nancarrow, 2006). Communityperceptions of justice can directly influence acceptance of policies and decisions (Hillman, 2005), andstakeholders may base their evaluation of the sufficiency of water allocation processes in terms of how muchthey personally are going to benefit, whether those allocated water are using it efficiently and whether theallocation process was seen to be fair (Syme & Nancarrow, 2006).Consideration of fairness and equity issues in resource allocation is not an easy task. It is inevitable that somewill be excluded, or feel that some aspects of the scheme are unfair. The processes discussed above are one wayto address these issues – if people perceive the decision-making processes to be fair and inclusive, they may bemore accepting. Those involved with the start-up of the Opuha scheme made a commendable effort to include arange of views and “respect the real concerns of the community” (Chair of SCFIS). “Publicity for the damincluded meetings and people going out and about to explain it all. Tom Henderson and others provided anenormous amount of their own time” (farmer below dam).Another factor emphasised in the literature includes time for learning to take place among stakeholders about theimperatives and implications of change for individual and group circumstances (Connor & Dovers, 2002). It hasbeen more than ten years since the Opuha scheme was set up, and it appears that there is increasing support forand take-up of water transfer amongst shareholders. Facilitating trust and acceptance are also extremelyimportant for establishing equitable processes and outcomes. The needs, opinions, and values of a range ofgroups need to be taken into consideration and incorporated into water transfer schemes (McKay & Björnlund,2001). As one farmer mentioned (below dam), “the people advocating for the scheme need to know how to treatpeople. When asking people to take a shift in attitude, it takes time. It’s the hardest to change attitude”. An issuethat has been raised, and one that may require further research, is that of the comparison between those thatbelong to the scheme and those that do not. Some interviewees mentioned that their neighbours who are not onthe scheme are envious, and regret that they did not buy shares.
Page 5 and 6: eal use out of it in the future”.
Page 7 and 8: 3.1 ACCESS TO STORED WATER, AND KNO
Page 12 and 13: Further questions of equity are rai

Water Transfer in Context â A New Zealand Case Study

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?

Water Transfer in Context â A New Zealand Case Study