Does business as usual still make politics as usual?

Prospects for sustainably managing freshwater resources

as a CPR in Canterbury, New Zealand

≈

P.A. Memon, Lincoln University, New Zealand

John W. Selsky, University of South Florida Lakeland, USA

Presented at GIN2007Waterloo, Ontario, June 2007

General context: managing fresh water Challenge in both developed & developing countries

Increases in demand – population rises, development pressures, changing market economics

Compromised quantity and quality of supply

Governments attempt to deal with these challenges through their regulatory apparatuses.

New Zealand at forefront of innovation in natural resource management since passage of innovative Resource Management Act (RMA) in 1991.

Exploratory case study – Canterbury region, New Zealand First phase - ‘prospected’ a case of a rapid increase in

dairy farming in Canterbury and its impact on the management of fresh water resources during 1991-2001.

Diagnostic analysis published (Memon & Selsky 2004) Stakeholders:

Fonterra Environment Canterbury Farmers Fish & Game Council; Forest & Bird Society Maori Other – national Ministry of Ag & Fish; research institutions; etc.

First phase findings

Rapid increase in dairying associated with increasing pressure on water resources, quality degradation, social conflict

implementation gap in application of RMA to freshwater resources

condition of ‘business as usual makes politics as usual’ in political economy of Canterbury

RMA has transformative potential alternative solution paths possible: “transformative change in the relationships among the private

sector, the public sector and civil society” “transformative change in each stakeholder’s and each sector’s

relationship to natural resources”

trajectory for the case

Unless concrete steps are taken soon to resolve water allocation conflicts, the social, economic and environmental consequences will de-generate into one of the classic scenarios in the literature on exploited commons, namely, a tragedy of de facto open access (see Selsky & Creahan 1996).

A working hypothesis going into second phase of case study.

Second phase (2001-05) – research questions

1. Has the implementation gap persisted during 2001-05? How has it changed?

2. Has the condition ‘business as usual makes politics as usual’ persisted? How has it changed?

3. Has there been any evidence of either alternative solution path? Can these paths be made more operational?

Ecology of issues

Dairying in Canterbury Project Aqua Lake Tekapo water allocation issue - Meridian Energy

vs Aoraki Water Trust Central Plains Water scheme Fonterra Clean Streams Accord Environment Canterbury regional water plans Rangitata River water conservation order Ngai Tahu and water issues

Second phase findings

1. implementation gap? In general, persisted. RMA still being used to

protect/sustain private property rights, not common property rights.

2. ‘business as usual makes politics as usual’? Same as it ever was. No new force to deflect neo-

Gramscian alignment between Fonterra and ECan. Use of ‘neoliberal toolkit’ Continued, if not accelerated, degradation of

groundwater and surface water

Findings – cont’d.

3. evidence of either alternative solution path? Appears to be intensification of the earlier dynamics Humble evidence:

Civil society has won a few skirmishes (Project Aqua, Lake Tekapo), but continues to lose the war to Fonterra

Fonterra now recognizes its environmental responsibilities due to European market pressures.

But NZ dairy farmers continue to see no problem, see themselves as guardians of the countryside/environment

Analysis & ‘points of hope’

Situation not adequate because it is now less likely to deliver

sustainable ecosystems. What can be done?

1. implementation gap?

☼ strengthen the consultation provisions and platforms for consensus building in the RMA

☼ retire those ECan staff with old and inappropriate mindsets and replace them with staff with a strategic, ecosystemic perspective?

2. ‘business as usual makes politics as usual’?

☼ put more faith in the market in terms of changing the mentality of consumers regarding product value. This may in turn inspire/force corporations to alter their practices and their deliverables to their markets.

3. evidence of either alternative solution path?

☼ Focus on institutions. Put more resources into government as an effective counterweight to big business (and big agriculture?). Either negotiate more aggressively on the terms of industry self-regulation, or monitor it more aggressively, or reduce the ambit of self-regulation. Revive/re-position government as the guarantor of the public good.

☼ Note: the politics in the application of such new regulation should be unusual!

Concluding thoughts

This is a bellwether issue for illustrating current state of public resource management vis-à-vis corporate and community interests in NZ.

At macro scale this issue mirrors the growing recognition of the challenge of climate change Use of phrase ‘business as usual’ to signal impending

climatic catastrophe

Source: Christchurch Press, 2003

dreck

Possible growing sense of ‘governmentality’ (Silver et al. 2007) or ‘environmentality’ (Argawal 2005).

[drop?] Examples of potential positive effects: they might help stakeholders to transcend

adversarial encounters based on private property rights

they might help stimulate new action-oriented platforms for sustainable ecosystem management.