Multistakeholder Participation in the Waipaoa Catchment, Gisborne District

Carole Donaldson and John Kape, Landcare Research, and Willie Smith, Geography Department, Auckland University

This community-based project is an example of operational research: that is, it has both policy and research objectives. It was initiated by Landcare Research in the Waipaoa district, including Gisborne, because of three main features:

  • substantial soil erosion,
  • significant ongoing changes in land use from pastoral farming to forestry, and
  • the existence of several earlier government studies on sustainable land management in the region.

The final selection of the community for the project was based on a more elaborate set of criteria, which included potentially conflicting land uses, evidence of diverse views about the economic future of the region, and an energised community, including substantial landowning by Maori, and a population that had already expressed concern about local environmental, social and economic issues.

One goal was to develop a strategy to address soil erosion and other issues of concern to the communities of the catchment. Another goal was to study the application of a multistakeholder approach to sustainable development. This is an approach where everyone who is affected by a decision is recognised as a stakeholder, and where local residents have direct involvement in the decisions about sustainable land management in their communities.

The methodology and its polysyllabic title come from Canada where it is sometimes called the "Ecosystem Approach". There are several guiding principles. The approach is holistic - it recognises the connectedness of social, cultural, environmental and economic components. It involves partnerships among all people and interests affected. It recognises several forms of knowledge — scientific, local (i.e. that of residents in an area), and traditional (that held by indigenous peoples). It has a guardianship attitude towards the land; and it sees leadership as the prime motivator to stimulate sustainable decisions at the local level.

The multistakeholder approach is used to engage a community in decision-making. The process typically involves the community in identifying issues of concern; developing a vision and goals; identifying objectives; and designing actions and strategies to achieve these goals. Although the communities of the Waipaoa catchment are geographically distinct most, but not all, stakeholders live there. Thus the notion of community used in this project is community of interest, i.e. stakeholders who have an interest in a specific area, issue, activity or decision, but who may or may not live in that area.

Land Use

The Waipaoa Catchment relates to the watershed of the Waipaoa River. The total area of 250,000 hectares extends from Poverty Bay into which the river drains, over the Poverty Bay flats and approximately 100 km up- stream into the surrounding hill country. Steep hill country, characterised by moderate to severe erosion, and fertile flood plains are the two major landforms, representing 92% and 5% respectively of the total area.

The fertile flat land is intensively farmed. Maize, sweetcorn, squash, kiwifruit, pip fruit and grapes are the main crops. Tomato-growing was a significant land use until 1996 when Cedenco relocated its processing operation overseas. A small amount of deer-farming and lamb fattening occurs on the flats — which are prone to flooding. Subdivision of land for lifestyle blocks and the compaction of superior soils have recently emerged as issues on these river flats, while a significant shift in land use from farming to plantation forestry is occurring in the hill country. Trees planted by the government in the 1960s are now being harvested by their new owner, Rayonier. Between 1989 and 1992 the East Coast Conservation Forestry Project carried out grant-assisted planting on severely erodible land, and more recently, forestry investment syndicates and others have been planting on moderately erodible land nearer Gisborne.

People, Communities and Interests

There are five different census districts and ten distinct rural townships and communities. Two of the districts, totally in the catchment, had a total population in 1991 of just 906 people, of whom nearly 400 worked out of the district and 14.5% were unemployed. It was a population with a young age structure: 31% under 15 yrs and 5% over 65 years. 64% were Maori. Three districts, partially in the catchment, had a total population of 6021 in 1991, a daytime population of 3594 (60%) and an unemployment rate of 7.7%. The population here was also young with 30% under 15 years and 5.3% over 65. Nearly 31% were Maori.

In the whole catchment the proportions of Maori and non-Maori are approximately equal. There are four iwi and at least twelve marae. Maori are significant resource managers in the catchment. Their land is generally under multiple ownership and managed by incorporations and trusts. There is a wide range of uses for this land, including hill country sheep and cattle farming. Maori have been particularly affected by the recent decline in rural incomes and the loss of farm-based employment.

An initial meeting held in Gisborne started the project by involving local representatives of major stakeholders: Gisborne District Council, Women’s Division Federated Farmers, Federated Farmers, Te Puni Kokiri, Ministry of Forestry, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Conservation, East Coast Forestry Industry Sector Group, Agriculture New Zealand, Te Rununga o Turanganui a Kiwa, We Pere Trust, ECO 2000, Turanganui a Kiwa Tangata Whenua Environmental Working Group, Te Aitanga a Mahaki Research Unit, and Mangatu Blocks Inc. The project team wanted to identify and involve opinion leaders to validate the need for a participatory process and to provide input to process design.

The next step was a series of small community meetings held throughout the catchment. These involved farmers, marae and women. These were well attended, especially in those hill country communities closer to Gisborne where there have been recent changes in ownership and land use.

The main issues raised concerned social and economic effects of change:

  • the lack of communication between communities and forestry neighbours,
  • decline in relative farm income,
  • shift from agriculture to forestry,
  • decline in rural farm-based employment,
  • decline in rural population,
  • future of rural schools,
  • rural road funding, maintenance and safety,
  • increase in public liability insurance after forestry moves in,
  • risk of regulations imposed on farmers to meet higher environmental standards,
  • reduced representation of rural interests on the local council,
  • lack of usable information that would enable informed decisions,
  • the possibility of benefits from forestry development bypassing local communities.

When the meetings were prompted to discuss sustainable land management, many questions were raised, such as: What is sustainable land management? Are trees in the ‘right’ place? What are the effects of forestry on water yields?What are the health impacts of pollen and spraying? and What happens to the soil after three rotations of Pinus Radiata?

A common theme was the need to have and share information. A proposal to hold an information day to learn what information was known about the catchment was strongly supported.

Research Surveys

Two surveys were conducted as part of the overall project: the first consisted of interviews with a sample of 35 hill country farmers and relevant officials on attitudes to sustainable land use and changes in land use. The results showed that there were common concerns throughout the catchment, with different focii, depending on local experience. Land use change was often recognised by the farm households more as a symptom than a cause of rural conditions.

The second survey involved the mailing of a questionnare to farmers and land managers on the Poverty Bay flats to investigate their long-term overall economic sustainability and wealth, and to identify ways of improving conditions in the area. The survey aimed at identifying attitudes to flood risk management on the flats and to forestry development on hill country up river from the flats. The results were comparable to a 1994 survey, which showed strong support for forestry development, but at the same time identified some specific problems.

Information Day — Open Meeting

There were three parts to this meeting which was attended by 70 participants, including representatives of several catchment communities and other interests such as forestry, DoC, MAF and ECO2000.

  • A morning session when ‘expert’ and local speakers provided their perspectives on the catchment.
  • Poster displays of work relating to the catchment.
  • An afternoon session which focused on issues of concern. Discussion established what was great about the catchment, developed a vision for the future, identified barriers to achieving the vision, and determined future steps in the process.

Issues from Workshops (additional to those identified at the small community meetings)

  • soil erosion;
  • land prices;
  • provision of services to rural areas;
  • employment;
  • relevance of education and training, and access to them;
  • increased reliance on off-farm income and farm women working off-farm;
  • less time for community activities and loss of community spirit;
  • future of rural infrastructure including schools and funding of roads and rural transport;
  • safety on rural roads, especially with the increased number of logging trucks;
  • poor response by local council to concerns of the rural population;
  • cross-boundary issues: planting to the boundary, pest control, fence maintenance, marijuana growing, return of stray stock;
  • retention of small ‘lifestyle blocks’ or at least farming homesteads;
  • encouragement of new residents who would readily identify with the rural community;
  • loss of biodiversity e.g. decline in Weka population;
  • design of new flood protection scheme, lack of consultation.

A Vision for the Future

Participants were asked to imagine an ‘ideal’ community, the future as they would like it to be.

A detailed vision was developed during lively discussion. Its major characteristics are:

  • a vibrant, vital ‘people-place’ with
  • a diverse, supportive and sustainable economy, and
  • a clean, green and pest-free environment.

Perceived Obstacles to Achieving the Vision

  • fear of the unknown, including impact of climate change and the ability to adapt,
  • tradition — ‘doing what we’ve always done even if it didn’t work’,
  • conflicting values and visions — lack of commitment, leadership and motivation,
  • unemployment and underemployment, people unable to realise their potential, and the current economic philosophy which does not consider social/community values,
  • the ‘bureaucracy — politicians and officials,
  • insufficient understanding of markets and the impact of imports,
  • negativity — portrayal of the Gisborne area as a hopeless case, and
  • isolation from markets and from information sources.

Overcoming the Obstacles

Discussion at the meeting also identified suggestions for overcoming the obstacles and noted that solutions would be primarily in the hands of local people, that is, through concerted effort in the communities.

The Suggestions:

  • analyse strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats,
  • create effective networks with agencies and other regions (NZ and abroad), and knowledge centres,
  • improve communication — disseminate relevant and timely information about sustainable land use,
  • motivate people to get involved before a crisis — be co-operative,
  • be creative and innovative — lobby for resources,
  • make more use of field days,
  • use people and their skills more; put people first and support special needs,
  • change the existing economic paradigm,
  • allow access to learning to increase job skills,
  • appreciate our cultural diversity and learn to work together.

Moving On

The meeting decided to establish a working group to take the project to the next phase. Some people volunteered for this and others who had not attended the seminar were suggested. A record of the meeting was written by the project team and circulated. Some follow-up meetings were arranged. Two of these were marae meetings where ways were developed for tangata whenua involvement. There was recognition that in addition to representation on the working group, parallel processes might be useful for the development of iwi-based resource management.

The first working group meeting decided to focus attention on three priority areas:

  • Development: the key to sustainable land management was seen as economic development. Apart from improving the profitability of core farm activities, two other avenues were considered: rural tourism and niche market activity such as alternative tree crops, eel farming and garlic, lavender and ginseng production.
  • Partnership: the development of a partnership approach to soil erosion and nature conservation involving land users and central/local government, was needed.
  • Networking: this was regarded as important to the success of future community development. To this end one newsletter has been produced and an address and telephone list compiled. The project team has developed a draft of a community resource document which synthesises key information about the catchment.

Conclusion

The use of a multistakeholder process as a means to develop sustainable land management strategies is a robust and legitimate approach. It is designed to respond to the interests of the community. In the Waipaoa catchment the issues of concern were primarily social and economic. Sustainable land management was discussed in this context. In addition to prompting community development around this issue, the project has also produced useful knowledge and topics for further research. There is a role for scientists in such community-based projects.

The project provided a useful and constructive forum for various interests to express themselves in a non-confrontational way. Some participants said that it was the first time they had the opportunity to discuss their vision and their concerns with neighbours and others. The project highlighted the importance of communication, and networking, and pointed to the need for a paid coordinator/facilitator to maintain the ongoing participation of the communities in managing change effectively.

Previous Page TOC Next Page

Contact for Enquiries

Rural Affairs Coordinator
Sector Performance Policy
MAF Policy
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
PO Box 2526
Wellington
NEW ZEALAND

Phone: +64 4 894 0675
Fax: +64 4 4 894 0745
Contact this person

 
Print this page Print this page