From Pride and Prejudice towards Sense and Sensibility in Canterbury Water Management

Figures & data

Table 1. Priorities and principles from the Canterbury Water Management Strategy (Canterbury Mayoral Forum 2009).

First order priorities:	Environment, customary use, community supplies and stock water.
Second order priorities	Irrigation, renewable electricity generation, recreation and amenity
Primary principles	Sustainable management, regional approach, and tangata whenua
Supporting principles	Natural character, indigenous biodiversity, access, quality drinking water, recreational opportunities, and community and commercial use.

Figure 1. Map of the case study area.

Figure 2. A schematic of the Selwyn Waihora process.

Table 2. Framework of causal mechanisms for the environmental performance of participatory and collaborative governance (source: Newig et al. 2018).

Mechanism	Independent Variables (Feature of Participation)	Dependent Variables (Results)	Conditioning Variables
			Internal to DMP	External to DMP
Cluster I – Opening up of decision making to environmental concerns
1a Access for environmental concerns 1b Dominance of non environmental concerns	Opening up decision making for groups typically outside the policy process	Strong (a) versus weak (b) representation of environmental concerns	Targeted recruitment, balanced representation of stakeholders;	Environmental orientation of stakeholders, willingness, and capacity to participate
2a Advocacy of environmental concerns 2b Co-optation of environmental groups	Representation of environmental concerns in collaborative (2b) DMP	Strong (a) versus weak (b) environmental output	Facilitation or mediation; trust-building	Environmental groups’ susceptibility to co-optation
Cluster II–Incorporation of environmentally relevant knowledge
1 Harnessing lay/local environmental knowledge for decision making	Involving a variety of issue-related stakeholders in a DMP	Additional knowledge relevant to the DMP and implementation	Structured knowledge integration	Knowledge deficit among decision makers; knowledgeable stakeholders
2 Education and empowerment of participants for meaningful participation	Stakeholder involvement in DMP	Empowered and knowledgeable participants	Clear, understandable information; trust-building	Engaged stakeholders but with knowledge deficits; trust in authorities
3 Sound information basis for environmentally appropriate decision making	Environmental knowledge available to DMP	Strong environmental output	Framing of knowledge as useful	Political will and commitment; stakeholder interests
4 Knowledge fosters the implementability of decisions	DMP includes environmental and implementation-relevant knowledge	Implementation of decisions	Lasting conflict resolution; no important groups excluded	Participants charged with implementation; participant capacities
Cluster III – Group interaction, learning, and mutual benefits
1 Negotiation and bargaining for mutual gains	Communication intensive DMP	Strong environmental output	Facilitation, representation of environmental concerns	Capacities and relative exit options for participants
2 Group innovation and learning	DMP with open dialogue; group interaction	Innovative solutions benefiting strong environmental output	Facilitation, shared sense of purpose, trust-building	Complex problem setting; competent and open-minded participants
3 Deliberation and common good orientation of participants	Deliberative setting	Strong environmental output	Protected space; trust-building, fair, and transparent process	Competent participants; low conflict and power imbalance
4 Consensus at lowest common denominator	Number of veto players involved in DMP	Weak environmental output	Decision mode	Degree of conflict; narrow negotiation space
Cluster IV – Acceptance and conflict resolution for implementation
1 Accommodation of participants interests	Stakeholder involvement, power delegation	Acceptance of output by stakeholders	Access of important groups	Participants are legitimate representatives
2 Acceptance through procedural fairness	Fair, inclusive, accountable, or otherwise legitimate DMP	Acceptance of output by participants and other stakeholders	Early involvement, transparency, facilitation	Trust in authorities
3 Negotiation, mutual gains, and conflict resolution for acceptance	DMP that produces mutual gains and resolves conflicts	Acceptance of output stakeholders	Facilitation and mediation; no important groups excluded	Participants are legitimate representatives
4 ‘Waking sleeping dogs’: Stakeholders become aware of a decision’s negative aspects	Stakeholder awareness raising and involvement in decision making	Increased controversy and opposition to environmental outputs	Excluding important stakeholders; raising unrealistic expectations	Diverse stakeholders with high and conflict stakes, issue salience
5 Acceptance for implementation and compliance	Acceptance of output by stakeholders	Implementation of and compliance with output	Lasting conflict resolution; no important groups excluded	Participants charged with implementation; participant capacities
Cluster V – Capacity building and implementation and compliance
1 Potential addresses are informed of upcoming obligations	Early participation of policy addressees	Implementation of compliance with output	Clear, understandable, unbiased information	Addressee interests and capacities, technical feasibility
2 Social capital and network-building for implementation	Collaborative DMP	Implementation of and compliance with output in collaborative networks	Intensive repeated interaction; trust-building, sense of ownership	Participants’ incentives, capacities, and role in implementation; shared motivation; redundancy of network relations

Figure 3. Number of technical team engagements (e.g. workshops, public meetings) between the SWP technical team, partners, and stakeholders for different project stages. (Reproduced from Robson-Williams, Small, and Robson-Williams 2020a).

Table 3. Record of formal engagements on policy development in the SWP.

37 Selwyn Waihora Zone Committee meetings with public invited	October 2010-December 2013
14 focus group meetings (approximately 70–80 people each time)	December 2011- October 2013
23 Selwyn Waihora Zone Committee workshops (generally public excluded)	September 2012-October 2013
6 meetings with consent holders on proposed minimum flows	June 2013-July 2013
1 meeting with Waikekawai landowners	July.2013
15 Ngāi Tahu and co-governance meetings where relevant aspects of SWP were discussed	November 2011-March 2013
5 meetings with Selwyn District Council and milk processors on point sources	December 2012-January 2013
17 meetings with farming industries	July 2012-November 2013
ECan website about SWP updated and maintained throughout process	December 2011- ongoing
Technical reports, presentations and syntheses created during SWP made available immediately upon delivery on the website	Dec 2011-Dec 2014
Direct mail out to all Federated Farmers members and Central Plains Water shareholders	February-March 2012
Newsletter sent to all focus group members, and included in Foundation for Arable Research newsletter	March.2013
Mail out to all consent holders about minimum flow meetings	June-July 2012
Newsletter available at field days and included in Foundation for Arable Research newsletter	August.2012
Opinion piece in local newspaper	September.2012
Stand at South Island field days agricultural show	November.2012
Stand at Courtney A&P agricultural show	March.2013

Table 4. Agricultural nitrate-N loads from Selwyn Waihora ZIPA.

	N Load (agricultural component) t/yr	Comments
Current	3200	Load extrapolated from 2011 water quality measurements. Excludes lag effects.
Baseline scenario: 2011 land use	4100	Includes lag effects i.e. The expected load from 2011 land use. Loads assume GMP.
Development scenario	5600	Assumed 30,000 ha of new CPW irrigation and gradual intensification over the rest of the catchment. Loads assume GMP
SWZC recommendations	4800	Requires on farm N loss rates to be better than GMP by 30% for dairy, 22% for dairy support, 20% for pigs, 7% for arable, 5%for irrigated beef and sheep and horticulture, 2% for dryland beef and sheep, and 0 % for other land uses.

Note: GMP = good management practice

Table 5. Overseer modelled N and P losses from farms in Canterbury 2010–2020.

Year	All farms N loss kg/(ha.yr)	All farms P loss kg/(ha.yr)	Dairy N loss kg/(ha.yr)	Dairy P loss kg/(ha.yr)
2010–2011	27.7 (n = 790)	0.3	66.4 (n = 328)	0.8
2011–2012	27.8 (n = 841)	0.3	62.4 (n = 357)	0.8
2012–2013	27.7 (n = 1323)	0.3	58.5 (n = 547)	0.7
2013–2014	25.3 (n = 1407)	0.3	51 (n = 611)	0.7
2014–2015	25.2 (n = 1539)	0.3	49.9 (n = 713)	0.7
2015–2016	27.6 (n = 1969)	0.3	49.8 (n = 1029)	0.6
2016–2017	26.9 (n = 2258)	0.3	47 (n = 1227)	0.6
2017–2018	27.9 (n = 2478)	0.3	49.2 (n = 1230)	0.7
2018–2019	25.9 (n = 2689)	0.3	47.5 (n = 1312)	0.6
2019–2020	23.6 (n = 2797)	0.3	42.7 (n = 1340)	0.6

Table

A-NZ	Aotearoa me Te Waipounamu New Zealand Aotearoa me Te Waipounamu A name for New Zealand preferred by some Ngāi Tahu as it distinguishes North Island (Aotearoa) and South Island (Te Waipounamu)
CMF	Canterbury Mayoral Forum
CPW	Central Plains Water (irrigation scheme)
CWMS	Canterbury Water Management Strategy
ECan	Environment Canterbury (Canterbury Regional Council)
GDP	Gross Domestic Product
Hapū	kinship group, the primary political unit in traditional Māori society
Iwi	extended kinship group, a tribe
Mātauranga Māori	Māori knowledge as created according to a Māori worldview and perspectives
Māori	indigenous New Zealander (from māori: normal, ordinary)
Ngāi Tahu	The iwi of most of South Island (Kāi Tahu in their dialect)
NPS-FM	National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (2014, 2017, now 2020)
Papatipu rūnanga	a rūnanga with traditional links to a takiwā
RMA	Resource management Act (1991)
Rūnanga	a council within an iwi
SWP	Selwyn Waihora Project
SWZC	Selwyn Waihora Zone Committee
Takiwā	district, area
Taonga	a possession, especially anything prized, a treasure
Te Reo Māori	Māori language
Te Waihora	Lake Ellesmere
Wāhi tapu	a sacred site; might have restrictions on access
Whakaora Te Waihora	healing, restoration of Te Waihora
ZIP	Zone Implementation Programme
ZIPA	Zone Implementation Programme Addendum

Newig, J., E. Challies, N. W. Jager, E. Kochskaemper, and A. Adzersen. 2018. “The Environmental Performance of Participatory and Collaborative Governance: A Framework of Causal Mechanisms.” Policy Studies Journal 46 (2): 269–297. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12209.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Robson-Williams, M., B. Small, and R. Robson-Williams. 2020a. “Designing Transdisciplinary Projects for Collaborative Policy-making: The Integration and Implementation Sciences Framework as a Tool for Reflection.” GAIA Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 29 (3): 170–175. doi:https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.29.3.7.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar