8.0 Implementing the Transferable Permits Regime: the Experience to Date
The Oroua Catchment Plan became operative in January 1995. Although the weather during the first year of operation under the new Plan was fairly dry, at no time did the river drop to below the first threshold point. This meant that no restrictions were put in place and therefore no permit transfers occurred. The transferable permit system has yet to be tested. Furthermore, over that period many of the affected irrigators were still renewing their water permits.
While it is impossible to draw conclusions on the success of the system at this stage, there are some important lessons to be shared.
In terms of monitoring and administration requirements, the council is not expecting the new system to be any more or less difficult to enforce than the previous system. It should however be somewhat "self-policing", as irrigators have a vested interest in monitoring each others' compliance with the conditions on their water permits. This should relieve the council of some of the more detailed monitoring, but it will still need to monitor overall abstractions and to check river flow levels.
A proportion of the monitoring costs are recovered through the cost of permits. In the case of temporary transfers, these costs remain with the original permit holder. This may provide some basis and incentive for irrigators to put a monetary value on permits. The council is not intending, however, to become involved in attempting to set a price on any water transferred, Pricing is a matter for those transferring permits to determine.
In the short term, implementation of the transferable permit system may lead to an increase in administrative work for the council. A computer spreadsheet is being established so that the total water budgets and any permit transfers can be monitored in times of low flow. There is, however, some potential for less involvement over time as resource users become more familiar with the system.
The decision to adopt the transferable permit system was not motivated by the possibility of reducing direct involvement in managing the water resource. In the view of the hearings committee the potential advantages of the system lie rather in the efficiency and flexibility of resource use, and the scope for resource users to be actively involved in apportioning and managing the resource. This increased involvement was also seen to have potential social benefits in terms of encouraging cooperation between irrigators, and potential political benefits in making the council appears less interventionist.
Contact for Enquiries
MAF Information Services
Pastoral House
25 The Terrace
PO Box 2526
Wellington, NEW ZEALAND
Fax: +64 4 894 0721
Contact this person
