• Rural NZ
• Adverse Events
• People issues
• Profitability
• Research
• Rural Proofing
• SLM Hill Country Erosion Programme
• Community Irrigation Fund
• Stats & forecasts
• Sustainability
  • Best practices
  • Biodiversity
  • Climate
  • Irrigation
  • Land
  • Native forests
  • Organics
  • Resources
  • Water
• Legislation
• Media Centre
• Publications
• What's New

7  How does irrigation add to social wellbeing in the national interest?

The social impacts of irrigation are often mentioned in relation to the triple bottom line of economic, environmental and social[1] impacts that underpin sustainable development. However, there is very little information available that is absolute about the social impacts of irrigation specifically, separately from the social changes and adaptations that occur in any community of interest over time. This section does not attempt to incorporate the costs and benefits of social externalities into the analysis of the economic value of irrigation.

Summaries of several key pieces of recent New Zealand research are contained in Appendix 4. Essentially there are some key themes that summarise the impact of irrigation on the national interest in social outcomes. These are:

• Through increased production and intensification there is more employment opportunities created in a community than would otherwise exist.
• Through climate proofing, irrigation prevents much of the economic impact of dry periods from being felt directly in local communities.
• Through land use change, irrigation brings a greater diversity of business activities and therefore greater security to local economies during downturns in any one sector or activity.
• Through general intensification, irrigation brings closer settlement, more farm owners, more employment, and more consistent financial flows through the community, which all build on each other, leading to better services. Optimism and innovation is usually improved as a result.
• Change impacts both positively and negatively within communities depending on the perspective of the observer.
• The national interest is in keeping rural communities stronger than they otherwise would be, in localities where irrigation is the comparative advantage for that community (examples are Culverden and Ashburton).

Irrigation is not the only factor contributing to such impacts. For example, tourism or manufacturing can have similar influences on rural communities. Much depends on the particular location or geographical attributes of the community, which is often the factor that limits the ability of a community to take up other options. For much of the Canterbury Plains, farm-based production is the basis of the communities and likely to remain so in the foreseeable future. Irrigation, rather than tourism or any other economic stimulus, is likely to make a more defining difference to communities in Canterbury than say in Central Otago, where both tourism and irrigation have an (inseparable) impact. Irrigation may well stimulate other economic activities such as tourism, through new recreational activities or just generally higher economic activity and more population.

Land use change is the key to determining impacts from irrigation. Studies and observation suggest that there are waves of land use change once irrigation becomes available, which are accompanied by changes in farm ownership, composition of the workforce, and the demographic profile of the population (McCrostie et al 2003[2]). The same study also noted that communities can experience structural and demographic change for an extended period, potentially more than a generation after the irrigation becomes available. Development of irrigation has profound impacts on communities into the future that are difficult to quantify or to attribute to irrigation development alone. Other impacts are via community belief in the future and a “buzz” as new activities are undertaken which feed on itself in much the same way as sporting events, although with arguably more longer lasting effects. Communities that rely on irrigated agriculture believe that without further irrigation development they will decline.

It is also very difficult to separate the impacts of irrigation from improved farming economics. There are no studies that try to do this, but anecdotally much of rural New Zealand’s transformation in some areas is attributed to the development of more irrigation. In fact, much is likely to be due to improved terms of trade of farmers. Notwithstanding this qualification, the above impacts are likely to apply, but are very difficult to quantify. A study comparing two similar regions after 20 years – one with irrigation and one without – showed marked differences in population, income and employment (Ford 2002[3]). The two areas studied were similar in their soils, climate and location compared to large cities, but one has had irrigation of the surrounding farmland for 20 years, while the other remains in predominantly dryland land uses. Compared to the dryland area, the irrigated locality had increased population 16%, had a greater proportion of better paying jobs, more full-time jobs and higher household incomes.

The question of a national interest in the realisation of these benefits will generate debate.  The effect will be to have more jobs in various rural areas than would otherwise be the case.  However, some of these jobs will be low quality (in terms of the pay and conditions), for example, physical seasonal work (Appendix 4, section 4.5). But for dryland farming areas, irrigation is the most realistic means to grow an inclusive, innovative local economy and therefore to create the opportunities to reduce the inequalities they experience in health, education, employment and housing[4].