AN INTEGRATED SYSTEMS THINKING DELIBERATIVE PROCESS TO EXPLORE

APPROACHES FOR DEALING WITH LAND USE ON WATER QUALITY

M.E. Wedderburn, D. Bewsell, P. Blackett, S. Kelly, M. Mackay, O. Montes de Oca, I. Brown, K. Maani

AgResearchEnvironment Canterbury

WCCA 26th Sept 2011

BALANCING COMMUNITY OUTCOMES: THE CONVERSATION

• “One of the most significant challenges to be faced is the strong link between some forms of land use intensification, water use and water quality decline”

New Start for Fresh Water – Office of Minister for Environment (2009)

WICKED PROBLEMS

• The behaviour of resources is complex and this complexity increases when overlaid with land use and management

• We have imperfect knowledge and resulting uncertainty

• We lack consensus on the issues and therefore the most “appropriate solutions”

• Communities are central to the decision making and they have multiple often competing values and are represented by a complex network of political interactions with stakeholders

• There is a huge sense of urgency and high stakes are at risk

DIFFERENT APPROACHES ARE REQUIRED

Science centric management alone is not enough to address the issues

• A movement to include legitimate stakeholder perspectives within new governance models

• Creation of adaptive settings to allow inclusive and integrated conversations across the stakeholders

THE EXPECTATIONS• Produce a range of solutions which are workable & are

generally supported

• Recognition of environmental limits

• Recognise social, economic, cultural & environmental values

• Some trade-offs may be necessary but if there are the reasons for these will be made open and transparent

“common problem” Identification

Organise the problem:StakeholdersScenariosValues

Ground deliberation in a sound knowledge base

Deliberate impact of Scenarios

Reflectreiterate

Collective learning

1

2

34

5

6

Framework for deliberating and informing water quality limits and future pathways

Report,recommend

“common problem” Identification Collective

learning

1

Framework for deliberating and informing future pathways

Land basedoptions

Effect of nurients onthe environment

Pollution

Health

Safety for kids

Environmentalpolicy

Clear sparklingwater

Amenity values

Commercialtourism

Local economy

Communitywellbeing

Sense of place

Non commercialrecreation

Employment

Farm profitability

Use of environmentaltechnologies

Knowledge ofadvisors

Land stewardship

Appropriate riverflowAvailability of

water

Hydro generation

Reliability and efficiencyof water for irrigation Food gathering

Social awareness ofgood farming

What are the factors that linkland, water and people in the

Hurunui Catchment

Migrant labour

Communityinfrastructure

Climate change

Biodiversity

Fish population

Agribusinessservice

National economy

Local history andheritage

Sediment

Drinking waterqualityNgai tahu values

Science andinnovation

Drinkingwater

quality...

CommunityWell being

Land

PeopleWater

“common problem” Identification

Organise the problem:StakeholdersScenariosValues

Collective learning

1

2

Framework for deliberating and informing future pathways

The Deliberation Matrix

• Analyses the impacts of a range of scenarios across a set of assessment criteria (Values) for a set of stakeholder groups

• Stakeholders consider the Values and assess the impacts (i.e. acceptable, unacceptable, unsure) of each scenario from their perspective

• By making transparent the different impacts of different scenarios on different stakeholders a space for deliberation and debate is opened – The purpose of the matrix is to create this deliberation space – not to provide a mechanical decision

• The Deliberation Matrix can be visually represented as a cube

ORGANISING THE DELIBERATION

Values (Assessment Criteria)

Social, Environmental, Cultural, Economic

ScenariosStrategies

Stakeholders

STAKEHOLDERS SCENARIOS

•Iwi•Pastoral food and fibre•Dairy•Arable•Agribusiness•Recreation•Environmental NGO’s•Rural Woman•Energy•Tourism•Hurunui District Council•Hurunui zone committee•Community health

• Scenario 1: Current land use

• Scenario 2: Business as usual

• Scenario 3: Extensive irrigation

• Scenario A: High certainty of reaching regional policy water quality objectives

• Scenario B: Water quality target 1990-95

EXAMPLES OF VALUES (ASSESSMENT CRITERIA)Environmental Social Cultural Economic

Water Quality Recreational uses Intergenerational Water availability/allocatio

Water quantity Communities Mauri (life force) of water

Regional economy

Biodiversity Public access Sense of connectedness

Profitable land use

Land use intensity Human health Traditional food harvest

Energy available

Soil Health Reciprocity Spiritual metaphysical

Healthy service sector

Ground deliberation in a sound knowledge base

Collective learning

3

Framework for deliberating and informing future pathways

1

2

“common problem” Identification

Organise the problem:StakeholdersScenariosValues

MODELLING NITRATE CONCENTRATIONS

Ground deliberation in a sound knowledge base

Deliberate impact of Scenarios

Collective learning

34

Framework for deliberating and informing future pathways

1

2

“common problem” Identification

Organise the problem:StakeholdersScenariosValues

Environmental Economic Social Cultural0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Pastoral food & fibreRural WomenLocal authority and healthArableDairyEnergyTourismIwiAgribusinessEnvironmental GroupRecreation

Value weightings

ScenarioA

B

1

2

3

Arable/Horticulture

Pastoral food and fibre

DairyEnviro NGOs Tourism Energy Recreation

Rural Woman

Water Quality

“common problem” Identification

Organise the problem:StakeholdersScenariosValues

Ground deliberation in a sound knowledge base

Deliberate impact of Scenarios

Reflectreiterate

Collective learning

1

2

34

5

6

Framework for deliberating and informing water quality limits and future pathways

Report,recommend

RECOMMENDATIONS

Agricultural development could take place if it included adaptive management, staged development and adoption of mitigations

Actions were identified to turn unacceptable judgements into acceptable through the use of the conceptual system map:1.Enabling behaviour (e.g. Implementation of audited self management with regulation as a back up)

2.Informing good management practice i.e. Principles not recipes

3.Reinforcing positive feedback cycles (e.g. Ensuring reliable water supplies)

REFLECTIONS

•Gave a framework to inform the setting of water quality limits and is being used Canterbury wide

•Competing values were made transparent and unintended consequences identified

•Collective learning was enhanced and trust built

•Translating technical information into the outcomes community’s desire is an essential part of the process

•Key to successful implementation will be regional and local partnerships between regulators and stakeholders

This work was funded under the P21 Environment programme

jointly funded by FRST, DairyNZ, Fonterra and Beef and

Lamb New ZealandAlso Environment Canterbury