Presentation from the WCCA 2011 conference in Brisbane, Australia.

1. 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
AgResearch
Environment Canterbury
WCCA 26th Sept 2011

2. 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)

3. 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

4. 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

6. 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

7. Framework for deliberating and informing water quality
limits and future pathways
Reflect
reiterate 6
“common
1 problem”
Collective Identification
Report, 5
recommend learning Organise the problem:
2
Stakeholders
4 Scenarios
3
Deliberate Values
Ground
impact of
deliberation in a
Scenarios
sound
knowledge base

8. Framework for deliberating and informing
future pathways
“common
1 problem”
Collective Identification
learning

9. Local history and
heritage
Climate change
What are the factors that link Sense of place
Social awareness of
land, water and people in the Appropriate river Non commercial good farming
Hurunui Catchment Availability of flow recreation
Drinking water
water Fish population
quality... Community
Community Hydro generation
Biodiversity
Water Amenity values People
Community
wellbeing
Well being infrastructure
Clear sparkling National economy
Sediment
water
Reliability and efficiency Commercial Local economy
Science and of water for irrigation Food gathering tourism
innovation
Effect of nurients on
Pollution
Knowledge of the environment
advisors Use of environmental
Drinking water
technologies
Land based
Land Ngai tahu values quality
Migrant labour
options
Health
Environmental Employment
policy
Farm profitability
Safety for kids
Land stewardship
Agribusiness
service

10. Framework for deliberating and informing
future pathways
“common
1 problem”
Collective Identification
learning Organise the problem:
2
Stakeholders
Scenarios
Values

11. 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

12. ORGANISING THE DELIBERATION
Scenarios
Strategies
Stakeholders
Values (Assessment Criteria)
Social, Environmental, Cultural, Economic

13. STAKEHOLDERS SCENARIOS
•Iwi • Scenario 1: Current land use
•Pastoral food and fibre
•Dairy • Scenario 2: Business as usual
•Arable
•Agribusiness • Scenario 3: Extensive irrigation
•Recreation
•Environmental NGO’s • Scenario A: High certainty of
•Rural Woman reaching regional policy water
•Energy quality objectives
•Tourism
•Hurunui District Council • Scenario B: Water quality target
•Hurunui zone committee 1990-95
•Community health

14. EXAMPLES OF VALUES (ASSESSMENT CRITERIA)
Environmental Social Cultural Economic
Water Quality Recreational uses Intergenerational Water
availability/allocatio
Water quantity Communities Mauri (life force) Regional economy
of water
Biodiversity Public access Sense of Profitable land use
connectedness
Land use intensity Human health Traditional food Energy available
harvest
Soil Health Reciprocity Spiritual Healthy service
metaphysical sector

15. Framework for deliberating and informing
future pathways
“common
1 problem”
Collective Identification
learning Organise the problem:
2
Stakeholders
Scenarios
3
Values
Ground
deliberation in a
sound
knowledge base

16. MODELLING NITRATE
CONCENTRATIONS

18. Framework for deliberating and informing
future pathways
“common
1 problem”
Collective Identification
learning Organise the problem:
2
Stakeholders
4 Scenarios
3
Deliberate Values
Ground
impact of
deliberation in a
Scenarios
sound
knowledge base

19. Value weightings
90
80
Pastoral food & fibre
70
Rural Women
60 Local authority and health
Arable
50
Dairy
40 Energy
Tourism
30
Iwi
20 Agribusiness
10
Environmental Group
Recreation
0
Environmental Economic Social Cultural

20. Water Quality
Pastoral
Arable/ food Enviro
Dairy NGOs Tourism Energy Rural
Horticulture and fibre Recreation
Scenario Woman
A
B
1
2
3

21. Framework for deliberating and informing water quality
limits and future pathways
Reflect
reiterate 6
“common
1 problem”
Collective Identification
Report, 5
recommend learning Organise the problem:
2
Stakeholders
4 Scenarios
3
Deliberate Values
Ground
impact of
deliberation in a
Scenarios
sound
knowledge base

22. 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)

23. 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

24. This work was funded under the
P21 Environment programme
jointly funded by FRST,
DairyNZ, Fonterra and Beef and
Lamb New Zealand
Also Environment Canterbury