222893e

LEGAL FRAMEWORK AT THE NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL LEVELcatchment and are based loosely on hydrological and administrativeboundaries. Each zone is large enough to enable the management ofabstraction from surface and groundwater systems to be integratedwith the management of the irrigated areas where the water is used,but small enough to ensure that committee deliberations take fullaccount of local catchment issues.Cooperation is encouraged through public participation in thedecision-making process of Zone Water Management Committees,which coordinate the development of a Zone ImplementationProgramme. Zone committees comprise 7-10 members who arelocally based or have a special relationship with the zone. Membersare drawn from the regional council, local authorities with an interestin the zone, Mori communities, and community members suchas consent-holder representatives and water resource stakeholders.Community members are selected based on their demonstratedability to collaborate and the need to ensure a balance of interestsand geographic spread. A Regional Water Management Committeehandles issues that are common across the region. This committeebrings together representatives of local government, central government,the Mori authority and water stakeholders.Next stepsZone Implementation Programmes have been developed for each ofthe 10 zones, and zone committees have an ongoing role in overseeingthe implementation of their programmes. Integration across thezones is provided by a regional Land and Water Plan that deals withcommon issues and sets the regional context.Zone Implementation Programmes address:• environmental restoration and development• land use intensification/reduction• zone scale infrastructure and its environmental impact• reconfiguration of allocations between surface and groundwater• water brokerage and efficiency improvement• water quality and quantity• customary use• recreational and amenity provision.In effect, the Zone Implementation Programmes are social contractsin which all parties agree on a way forward to enable community andeconomic wellbeing while safeguarding the ecosystems on which theydepend. The key objective is to provide long-term planning stability,including recommendations to the regional council as to the regulatoryframework they would like to see governing water resourcemanagement in their zone. These sets of rules constitute sub-regionalplans, which are essentially zone-specific extensions of the RegionalLand and Water Plan.Current statusOne sub-regional plan has been completed, and three otherzones are deliberating on their approach to setting quantityand quality limits. Council planners work closely with the zonecommittees to ensure that their recommendations can be translatedinto workable policies and rules. Most importantly, theregional council decision makers have undertaken to representas faithfully as possible the wishes of the zone committees inthe plan development process. Before plans become operationalthey are subject to a public hearing conducted by an independentpanel appointed by the council. Thus the final form of theplan is, in theory, beyond the direct influence of either committeeor council. In practice, it reflects the cooperativecommunity engagement process by which it wasdeveloped, representing the outcome of collaborativethinking across a wide range of community valuesand interests and a consensus approach to solvingcomplex problems.Making collaboration workCollaborative water management in New Zealand hastaken off in the last five years at national and regionallevels. We expect these early successes to ensureongoing momentum.Collaborative management requires that parties thatdo not agree on a complex problem are given a mandateto talk to each other systematically and intensively overa considerable time, aiming to reach consensus on howthe problem should be resolved. To commit themselvesto this task, participants must feel that their responsibilityis real, inescapable and unconstrained, and thatdecision-makers want them to agree and will haveserious regard for the conclusions they reach.In the experience of LWF, issues that will benefitfrom a collaborative process are likely to be complex,requiring enduring solutions and involving multiplestakeholders. They may require adaptive managementsolutions, where outcomes are expected to evolve overtime in response to changing knowledge of a resource.LWF’s second report made detailed recommendationsfor collaborative processes for freshwater management.In summary, collaborative processes should:• allow all interested groups to send their ownrepresentatives and include Mori representation• operate with a consensus rule• have a skilled independent facilitator/chairperson• allow options to be articulated where consensuscannot be reached• be supported by information on economic, social,cultural and environmental aspects of resources andtheir management, and by scientific informationabout them• have a mandate from a public decision-makingbody to address issues, and report to that body• have a realistic timetable for completing the work• have resources for doing the work, for examplewith funding from the decision-making body andparticipants• occur early in government or local governmentplanning processes or, in particular applicationsfrom developers, at a stage when a range of optionsis still open• engage decision-makers as servants of the process.In New Zealand, collaborative processes at bothnational and regional levels have refocused the freshwaterdebate. Our focus is no longer on disputing whetheror not there is a problem, but on the best options – cooperativelyarrived at – for solving the problem. Throughcollaboration, we see a challenging but rosier future forthe state and the use of New Zealand’s fresh waters.[ 181 ]