Water and Agriculture : A Strategic Overview
Resilience and Growth
Willie Smith, Director, School of Geography and Environmental Science, The University of Auckland.
The last twenty years have surely, if they have done anything, highlighted interdependence of the economic, environmental, and social dimensions of change. The concept of sustainability encapsulates these ideas, and sustainability has become a catch-word and appears to have emerged as a broadly accepted policy goal.
That this is so is a direct tribute to the Brundtland Report. This Report is itself a wonderful policy document, totally seductive, and for the most part we all appear to have "bought-in". The Report itself has been repeatedly reprinted, yet perhaps like The Bible, not as frequently read - at least right to the end.
Innumerable papers have been generated which debate the meaning of sustainability. The crux of the argument, however, is perhaps less its definition, than how to better operationalise the concept. In this, there are several key points that require reflection and provide the context for any debate on the strategic use of water in agriculture.
Sustainability has been sold as "having it both ways", including growth, environmental conservation, and happy families. At this level it's all "apple pie and motherhood" or "win-win" as we so often like to say. Certainly, you can kill something precious by neglect; but you can kill also by hugging something too tight or "loving too much". If we want to secure sustainable water use it is time we took sustainability seriously, "grasped the nettle" and looked at our love affair with the concept with a more critical eye. Only then can New Zealand secure sustainable water use and build resilience and growth into the agricultural economy.
There are four key points:
- Water is indeed, as the conference title states, the life-blood of the environment. It is one of the biggest global environmental and political issues, yet there is no chapter in Brundtland on water.
- The Brundtland Report argues for a fairer, more equitable world. In effect that to achieve sustainability, "the poor must become rich and the rich must learn how to behave".
- Equity in this context implies access to resources. This, Brundtland argues requires "enlightened self-interest". In an inter-connected world, any damage inflicted by one group of people impacts on us all - so it pays to be kind.
- We have broadly bought-in to the equity debate in so far as we accept the need to manage resources now to ensure choices/options for future generations.
What we have failed to address is that sustainability also requires:
- Addressing equity - to create a fairer world - within the current generation.
- Addressing issues of scale...at what scale should sustainability be secured? - At the level, for example, of every farm? Region? Nation? Or at a global level?
The application, management and use of water in agriculture, and the associated research, science and technology were fundamental elements in the establishment of agriculture as New Zealand's prime example of a knowledge-based industry.
Water was fundamental to the lay-out of the pastoral runs on the Canterbury Plains when every run was given a river frontage, and the subsequent subdivision of the runs into the mixed farms of today was dependent on the development of complex patterns of water races. Since the end of the 19th Century and till today, irrigation has been and is of increasing importance - in Otago and Canterbury, but indeed now throughout the whole country from Northland to the Wairarapa, from Nelson to Southland. With intensive water management, came the diversification of the rural economy and the development of small towns with retail, personal and professional services for the farm population. There followed churches, banks, hotels, and smithies. Similar patterns of intensification occurred elsewhere with the drainage of swamps and marshlands.
Of course the impact of water use/management did not work in isolation from the development of improved communications, refrigeration and the like. It was this combination of inputs backed by research, science and technology that made agriculture the key export sector that it is today. Inevitably, too, there was a downside measured in increased erosion, siltation, pollution and the loss of natural habitats.
As with any form of development, the costs and benefits of water use were unevenly spread. And the expansion of land drainage and irrigation of different types spread throughout the country in conjunction with the actual and shifting perceptions of resource availability and needs.
Today, whether internationally or within New Zealand, water availability and water use are subject to increasing pressure from competitive demands. The issue, as noted earlier is about the choices we make. The status quo or "doing nothing" imposes its own costs. Recent work for MAF, on agriculture and water use, done jointly with Lincoln Ventures and Harris Consulting has explored these choices through the building of different scenarios (to 2021), including a continuance of existing trends, tighter environmental controls, institutional and capital barriers addressed, and unfettered development. Perhaps inevitably, this work reveals a range of economic, social and environmental benefits that vary with the scenario involved. For example, with a continuance of existing trends, agricultural development could be expected to generate 17,000FTEs (mainly in dairying and viticulture) over the current situation, while higher water standards could be expected to result in a substantial fall in employment and fewer farms than expected. Equally, addressing institutional and capital barriers could boost employment by 29,000FTEs above existing trends.
Any growth in employment, and associated social benefits from increased employment, more farms and increased population as a result of improved water use will inevitably, vary regionally. The impacts of increased irrigation would be concentrated on the east coast, particularly in Gisborne, Marborough, Canterbury and Otago. With the overcoming of existing institutional barriers, 85% of benefits (GDP) would be in these regions. With the removal of all controls, 75% of the increase in GDP over existing trends would be in Hawke's Bay, Wellington, Marlborough, Canterbury and Otago.
The significance of this differential regional impact is highlighted against two key facts: the existing regional level of dependence on agriculture, and regional levels of depravation.
- Currently, the Gisborne region generates 20% of its GDP from agriculture and forestry, Hawke's Bay 13%, Marlborough 11%, and Otago 10%. Canterbury has 7 % (the national average). In contrast, Auckland generates 1%, and Wellington 2% from these sources (G.V. Butcher, pers.com.).
- The New Zealand deprivation index, on the other hand, identifies Gisborne with a score of 1073 as the most deprived region, with Hawke's Bay at 1023, Marlborough at 971, Canterbury at 979 and Otago at 983 (Crampton et al., 2000)
New Zealand has an on-going debate on the need for increased national development. This national level debate is often presented as an essentially Auckland discourse. What an examination of water use/agriculture reveals is that national development requires an attention to the regions. Some of the richest regions have least to use if water use for agriculture is further constrained, some of the poorest regions would be the biggest losers. There is a need to better match our efforts to the problem.
As suggested earlier, this is not a "win-win" situation. Much of the solution may lie in more research to develop better land management practices to control adverse environmental effects. Improved institutional arrangements including cross-catchment management may also help. But fundamentally too, there is a need to address the issue of scale, and view water resources in terms of a regional "portfolio" or "package" or resources in terms of their sustainable use.
Plainly, sustainability is not enough but must be better operationalised to include the enhancement of regional productivity and social equity. It is a fatal conceit that environmental integrity can be secured by specific victories or more easy economic/environmental accommodations. It requires a coalition for the environment, social; justice, community and future generations.
Reference
Crampton, P., Salmond, C., Kirkpatrick, R. with Scarboorough, R. and Skelly, C. 2000: Degrees of Deprivation in New Zealand: An Atlas of Socioeconomic Difference. Bateman.
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
