an integrated systems thinking deliberative process to explore approaches for dealing with land use...
DESCRIPTION
Presentation from the WCCA 2011 conference in Brisbane, Australia.TRANSCRIPT
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