90Davis <strong>and</strong> ThrelfallTable 2. Thirteen Actions for freshwater for a sustainable future in New Zeal<strong>and</strong>.No. Actions1. Develop national policy statements.2. Develop national environmental st<strong>and</strong>ards.3. Address important national values.4. Increase central government participation in regional planning.5. Increase central government support for local government.6. Develop special mechanisms for regional councils.7. Enhance the transfer <strong>of</strong> allocated water between users.8. Develop market mechanisms to manage diffuse discharges.9. Set requirements for regional freshwater plans to address key issues <strong>and</strong> challenges.10. Enhance Maori participation.11. Enable regional councils to allocate water to priority uses.12. Raise awareness <strong>of</strong> freshwater problems <strong>and</strong> pressures, <strong>and</strong> promote solutions.13. Collaborate between central <strong>and</strong> local government, scientists, <strong>and</strong> key stakeholders on pilot projects todemonstrate <strong>and</strong> test new water management initiatives.Source: Ministry for the Environment 2004.several local councils.Regional councils can prepare single issue plans(e.g. water) or multiple issue plans such as air,l<strong>and</strong>, <strong>and</strong> water. Some regional water plans, forinstance, differ substantially across the country, inpart due to recognition <strong>of</strong> different local conditionsbut also due to lack <strong>of</strong> guidance through nationalwater policy statements, resulting in mixed <strong>and</strong> attimes inconsistent rules across regional councils.The Auckl<strong>and</strong> Regional Council recentlypromulgated the Regional Plan: Air, L<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong><strong>Water</strong> (Auckl<strong>and</strong> Regional Council 2005), whilethe Otago Regional Council maintains a RegionalPlan: <strong>Water</strong> for Otago (Otago Regional Council2004b, 2006b). The case study <strong>of</strong> the Auckl<strong>and</strong>Region portrays how the regional council isattempting to manage wet weather discharges tothe Waitemata Harbor from several district councilsthrough its consenting process governed by theAir, L<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Water</strong> Plan. The example from theOtago Region discusses how IWRM concepts areimplemented under the <strong>Water</strong> Plan in the case <strong>of</strong>regulation <strong>and</strong> management <strong>of</strong> water allocation<strong>and</strong> stream flow.Conservation ActThe Department <strong>of</strong> Conservation holdsresponsibility to manage freshwater fish, exceptfor commercial fisheries <strong>and</strong> sports fisheries. Thedepartment also manages l<strong>and</strong> adjacent to rivers<strong>and</strong> lakes, as well as upper catchments for waterquality. This last item reflects adoption <strong>of</strong> thehistorical role <strong>of</strong> the original Forest Service that in1919 was charged with protecting water <strong>and</strong> soilby protecting forested catchments (Deans 2004a).Among other functions, the Conservation Actprovides the Department <strong>of</strong> Conservation withthe ability to review private resource consentapplications on private l<strong>and</strong> that may affect waterquality, in particular with regards to when aconservation marginal strip lies between a propertyto be developed <strong>and</strong> a water body. In addition, arange <strong>of</strong> provisions in the Conservation Act <strong>and</strong>subsidiary regulations provide the Department <strong>of</strong>Conservation with functions to protect freshwaterresources, including regulations for freshwaterfisheries (including fish passage <strong>and</strong> protection<strong>of</strong> particular species), game management, <strong>and</strong>provisions for a variety <strong>of</strong> protected areas (Deans2004a).Local Government ActLocal government’s roles, responsibilities,powers <strong>and</strong> accountabilities are defined by threeacts: (1) 2002 Local Government Act; 2001 LocalElectoral Act; <strong>and</strong> 2002 Local Government (Rating)Act. Local government reflects regional <strong>and</strong> localcouncils, <strong>and</strong> other democratically elected localbodies. The 2002 Local Government Act replacesUCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION
IWRM in New Zeal<strong>and</strong>: Legislative Framework <strong>and</strong> Implementation91the 1974 Act. The new Local Government Act,similar to the 1974 Act, provides rules under whichdemocratically elected governments can operate. Itis simpler <strong>and</strong> empowers local government, whilealso providing more accountability <strong>and</strong> publicinput. Overall, the Local Government Act requiresmore rigorous <strong>and</strong> transparent decision-making bylocal governments (Department <strong>of</strong> Internal Affairs2005).The Act (a) states the purpose <strong>of</strong> localgovernment, (b) provides a framework <strong>and</strong> powersfor local governments to decide which activitiesthey undertake <strong>and</strong> the manner in which theyundertake them, (c) promotes accountability <strong>of</strong>local governments to their communities, <strong>and</strong> (d)provides for local governments to play a broad rolein promoting the social, economic, environmental,<strong>and</strong> cultural well-being <strong>of</strong> communities, takinga sustainable development approach. The statedpurpose <strong>of</strong> local government is: (a) to enabledemocratic local decision-making <strong>and</strong> action by,<strong>and</strong> on behalf <strong>of</strong>, communities <strong>and</strong> (b) to promotethe social, economic, environmental, <strong>and</strong> culturalwell-being <strong>of</strong> communities in the present <strong>and</strong> forthe future (Government <strong>of</strong> New Zeal<strong>and</strong> 2004).The Act requires local governments to facilitatea process with their communities at least everysix years to identify community outcomes for theintermediate <strong>and</strong> long-term future <strong>of</strong> the districtor region, with the premise that the communitytakes ownership <strong>of</strong> the identified outcomes. TenyearLong Term Council Community Plans arerequired <strong>and</strong> must be reviewed every three years.The Long Term Council Community Plans describethe community outcomes <strong>and</strong> priorities <strong>and</strong> theactivities that the local government will undertaketo contribute to the outcome. “Significant activities”must be put forward in accordance with the LongTerm Council Community Plans. The localauthorities are charged with defining “significantactivity” <strong>and</strong> how priorities are determined,both subject to public review <strong>and</strong> concordance(Government <strong>of</strong> New Zeal<strong>and</strong> 2004).The Treaty <strong>of</strong> Waitangi <strong>and</strong> Natural ResourceManagementThe 1841 Treaty <strong>of</strong> Waitangi, an agreementbetween the English Crown <strong>and</strong> the Maori, hasconstitutional significance that underlies thefoundation <strong>of</strong> society in New Zeal<strong>and</strong>. The treaty<strong>and</strong> implementation are not without controversy<strong>and</strong> differing interpretations (Orange 1987,Brookfield 1999).The principles <strong>of</strong> the treaty are influential in thearea <strong>of</strong> environmental protection <strong>and</strong> natural resourcemanagement. Under the 1987 ConservationAct, 1991 Resource Management Act, <strong>and</strong> 2002Local Government Act, the principles <strong>of</strong> the treatymust be observed <strong>and</strong> the relationship <strong>of</strong> the Maori<strong>and</strong> their culture <strong>and</strong> traditions are considered tobe a matter <strong>of</strong> national importance <strong>and</strong> must berecognized <strong>and</strong> provided for (Government <strong>of</strong> NewZeal<strong>and</strong> 1987, 2004, 2005). Further, the LocalGovernment Act is based on a quadruple bottomline (culture, social, economic, <strong>and</strong> environment)that distinguishes cultural aspects as separate fromsocial aspects for added emphasis. The Maori believefor example, that the forest, waters, <strong>and</strong> alllife supported by them, together with natural phenomenonlike wind, mist, <strong>and</strong> rocks, possess maurior life force (Barlow 1991, Llewell 2004). Theprimary management principal for the Maori isprotection <strong>of</strong> mauri <strong>of</strong> a resource from desecration.The Maori worldview does not separate spiritual<strong>and</strong> intangible aspects from non-spiritual aspects<strong>of</strong> resource management (Tipa 2006).Historically, a rift between treaty obligations<strong>and</strong> modern legal obligations existed. Prior topromulgation <strong>of</strong> these three Acts, New Zeal<strong>and</strong>legislation did not refer to specific obligationsregarding aspects <strong>of</strong> the treaty. A further breachoccurred between treaty obligations <strong>and</strong> regional<strong>and</strong> local council governance, the level <strong>of</strong>government that undertakes actions that most<strong>of</strong>ten affect the Maori (Tunks 2002). The 1974Local Government Act lacked treaty guarantees.This breach was rectified with inclusion <strong>of</strong> treatyprovisions in the 1991 Resource Management Act<strong>and</strong> the 2002 Local Government Act. The ongoingchallenge remains how to incorporate culturalaspects, including spiritual, into decision-makingwhile also addressing the colonial <strong>and</strong> post-colonialhistorical legacy.Some maintain that Maori viewpoints <strong>and</strong>values are not incorporated sufficiently intodecision-making (Mutu 2002, Tunks 2002, Tipa2006). This situation is a result <strong>of</strong> various factorsincluding (a) lack <strong>of</strong> underst<strong>and</strong>ing <strong>of</strong> Maori issuesJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR
- Page 3:
Journal of ContemporaryWater Resear
- Page 6 and 7:
2Bruce Hooperinstitutional, and tem
- Page 11 and 12:
IWRM: Governance, Best Practice, an
- Page 13 and 14:
IWRM: Defi nitions and Conceptual M
- Page 15 and 16:
IWRM: Defi nitions and Conceptual M
- Page 17 and 18:
IWRM: Defi nitions and Conceptual M
- Page 19:
IWRM: Defi nitions and Conceptual M
- Page 22 and 23:
18Cardwell. Cole, Cartwright, and M
- Page 24 and 25:
20Mostert26 water boards responsibl
- Page 26 and 27:
22MostertTable 1. Third National Wa
- Page 28 and 29:
24MostertImplementationThe ambitiou
- Page 30 and 31:
26MostertBiswas, A. K. 2004b. Respo
- Page 32 and 33:
28UNIVERSITIES COUNCIL ON WATER RES
- Page 34 and 35:
30Ashton, Turton, and Rouxresource
- Page 36 and 37:
32Ashton, Turton, and Rouxassumptio
- Page 38 and 39:
34Ashton, Turton, and RouxEffective
- Page 40 and 41:
36UNIVERSITIES COUNCIL ON WATER RES
- Page 42 and 43:
38Hussey and Doversin water policy
- Page 44 and 45: 40Hussey and Dovers1994 Council of
- Page 46 and 47: 42Hussey and Doversestablished Thes
- Page 48 and 49: 44Hussey and DoversTable 1. Typolog
- Page 50 and 51: 46Hussey and Doversassessment appro
- Page 52 and 53: 48Hussey and Doverspolicy goals.Bey
- Page 54 and 55: 50Hussey and DoversFrawley, K. 1994
- Page 56 and 57: 52Mitchelloften took three to four
- Page 58 and 59: 54Mitchelltree preservation plans;
- Page 60 and 61: 56UNIVERSITIES COUNCIL ON WATER RES
- Page 62 and 63: 58Genskow and Borna series of chall
- Page 64 and 65: 60Genskow and BornTable 1. Watershe
- Page 66 and 67: 62Genskow and Bornthe first Dungene
- Page 68 and 69: 64Genskow and BornWashington, DC.Ko
- Page 70 and 71: 66Green and Fernández-BilbaoWithin
- Page 72 and 73: 68Green and Fernández-Bilbaosubjec
- Page 74 and 75: 70Green and Fernández-Bilbaoinflue
- Page 76 and 77: 72Green and Fernández-BilbaoBerbel
- Page 78 and 79: 74UNIVERSITIES COUNCIL ON WATER RES
- Page 80 and 81: 76BallweberEstablish AdvisoryCommit
- Page 82 and 83: 78Ballweberattributes in others (Ch
- Page 84 and 85: 80UNIVERSITIES COUNCIL ON WATER RES
- Page 86 and 87: 82Barreiraand ground water. To this
- Page 88 and 89: 84Barreirawith other states for int
- Page 90 and 91: 86UNIVERSITIES COUNCIL ON WATER RES
- Page 92 and 93: 88Davis and ThrelfallResource Manag
- Page 96 and 97: 92Davis and Threlfallby regional an
- Page 98 and 99: 94Davis and Threlfallenforcement, a
- Page 100 and 101: 96Davis and Threlfallhusbandry prac
- Page 102 and 103: 98Davis and ThrelfallNew Zealand: T
- Page 104 and 105: 100UNIVERSITIES COUNCIL ON WATER RE
- Page 106 and 107: 102Lamoree and van SteenbergenIt is
- Page 108 and 109: 104Lamoree and van Steenbergenand n
- Page 110 and 111: 106Lamoree and van Steenbergeninter
- Page 112 and 113: 108BourgetWorks Planner Capability
- Page 114 and 115: 110Bourgetwith over 600 people resp
- Page 116 and 117: 112Bourgetgovernment’s intrusion
- Page 118 and 119: 114Bourget4.management, drought man
- Page 120 and 121: 116McKayFigure 1. The four paradigm
- Page 122 and 123: 118McKay4. Paradigm 4 (which commen
- Page 124 and 125: 120McKaythree main functions:1. ass
- Page 126 and 127: 122McKayState Implementation of the
- Page 128 and 129: 124McKayTable 2. Corporate governan
- Page 130 and 131: 126McKayFigure 4. Qu. 26 - The ESD
- Page 132 and 133: 128McKayFigure 7. Qu.93- This organ
- Page 134 and 135: 130McKayBrundtland Report. 1987. Ou
- Page 136 and 137: 132UCOWR BOARD OF DIRECTORS/COMMITT
- Page 138 and 139: 134BENEFITS OF UCOWR MEMBERSHIPThe
- Page 140 and 141: 136Past Issues of the Journal of Co
- Page 142 and 143: 138Academic Organizations Membershi
- Page 144 and 145:
140Individual Membership Applicatio
- Page 146 and 147:
Universities Council on Water Resou
- Page 148:
Integrated Water Resources Manageme
Change language