1 / 19

The future of water governance in Canterbury

The future of water governance in Canterbury. Professor Ali Memon Lincoln University. Key message I wish to convey. Canterbury faces a water crisis (???) This crisis is our own creation: how we have interacted with our environment

niles
Download Presentation

The future of water governance in Canterbury

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The future of water governance in Canterbury Professor Ali Memon Lincoln University

  2. Key message I wish to convey • Canterbury faces a water crisis (???) • This crisis is our own creation: how we have interacted with our environment • Big challenge: how to convert this crisis into an opportunity for transformative change. • Focus: how we (humans) should interact with each other and with our environment

  3. My talk: • Define the scope of the problem • Reflections on water governance in Canterbury

  4. 3 key imperatives for good water governance Design institutions for water governance that: • Protect sustenance functions of water • Manage economic functions of water • And are democratic

  5. a. The basic sustenance imperative • There is no substitute for water for survival of all forms of life: human, animal & vegetative. • Arguably, access to clean water for drinking (human and animals) and for recreation are fundamental human as well as environmental rights.

  6. Questions • Are these rights adequately protected in our current formal and informal institutions in Canterbury? • Who should pay for protecting water for exercising human/environmental rights? Is the current distribution of cost burden fair between community and the economic sphere?

  7. b. Material wealth production and capital accumulation imperative • In the economic sphere, water essential factor of production. Difficult/costly to substitute. Scarcity value. • But hitherto, treated as a “free gift of nature”. • Agriculture in Canterbury a “growth machine” • Economistic values deeply imbedded in our formal and informal institutions.

  8. Question • Capital accumulation fundamental economic driver and cause of current water crisis in all parts of the world. The environmental problematique. • In Canterbury, to what extent are we addressing the fundamental causes of water conflicts or merely seeking to remedy adverse impacts of capital accumulation?

  9. c. Democratic decision making • Electoral and participatory • Electoral democracy multi-scalar: hierarchical, command and control governance • Now criticised • Risk: throw baby out with the bathwater???

  10. Participatory democracy flavour of the month • Shift from government to governance • Collaborative goverance; co-management

  11. Question • How democratically robust are our current water institutions in Canterbury? • How well do we marry top-down governance and participatory democracy?

  12. Water governance in Canterbury Two key elements of the current governance framework. Not totally congruent with each other • Canterbury Water Management Strategy • Replacement of elected members by central government appointed commissioners with strong mandate (Canterbury Act)

  13. Reflections: • Divergent expectations re: zone committee roles • Accountability of zone committees • Sustainability of intensive agriculture in a dry region • Re-configuration of the local government map

  14. a. Divergent understandings • Act top-down focus. Replaced electoral democracy with Cabinet appointed members. • Statutory planning instruments: strong powers • Akin to command and control governance • CWMS: Key role assigned to zone committees. Akin to participatory governance model ; bottom-up focus.

  15. The HW Zone Committee • Recent Hurunui experience: collision • Loss of trust

  16. Possible causes • Possible reasons: deliberate ambivalence in the CWMS? • Thus, divergent understandings/expectations

  17. b. Accountability of zone committee members • Ambivalence in the CWMS • Hurunui experience with appointment: trust issue

  18. c. Sustainability of intensive agriculture in a dry region • Historically, civilisations based on irrigation in arid regions not resilient to change • Reluctance to debate this issue in Canterbury

  19. d. Reconfiguration of future local government map in Canterbury • After the commissioners??? • Unitary authority/supercity/two tier authority scenarios. Permutations of these. • Need robust public debate but reluctance • Seize the opportunity now before Nick Smith comes back ! • Who is going to take the lead???

More Related