Communication

The way changes are framed, contested and agreed on is a function of language use. This framework is highly contested as each respondent articulates their stake in landscape change decisions. Language here is not treated as just a medium but as a tool to shape landscape. The discussions below examine key principles emerging from this framework namely language clarity and transparency.

Language clarity should mark acceptable landscape change decisions. Apparent immediately is a difference in interpretation of key concepts framing landscape change in Central Otago. Although there could be several other aspects, efficient water use elicited an exciting discourse. The different interpretations of efficiency highlight the tensions between the policy shapers and those affected by the policy.

… I think it’s the capture of the language … efficiency is the language that has been

altered it its meaning … efficiency as it is used now means greater reward … more money

… not sustainable efficiency but more money … condoning the notion, ‘any change that brings reward is good change’… C2.

... if you analyse it, it is only efficient in the sense of growing grass, to make money. If you look at it in the holistic sense pivot irrigation is not [more] efficient than flood irrigation …

it [flooding] returns water to aquifers, springs and wetlands … it’s where you come from

and the definitions that matter … C4.

… They [policymakers at councils] don’t necessarily have experience of what that means

to the community … one word … one word that basically means someone can’t do

something … C8.

… our interpretation of it [efficiency] is quite different … efficiency is, it’s not the most

economical way of using your water necessarily, but it is the most efficient way of using water for the whole valley … if runoff from my farm irrigates the next farm and the runoff from that irrigates the farm further down is that not using water efficiently? ... it might be inefficient for the chequebook but I don’t think it is inefficient for the valley … the water is used several times before it goes down the gorge at Chatto Creek …. C17.

… efficiency … you are not spending … wasting money, wasting nutrients … what you put

on does not leach into the waterways … and make the best of the land that you’ve got without spending huge amounts of money … C18.

Words and language are not innocent or neutral and should therefore be applied with care. Some of words arising from this discourse which will be re-examined are efficiency, and local. However,

180 in the immediate, if used in a clear manner they will promote transparency, and hopefully consensus on acceptable change.

Landscape change decisions should be transparent. This implies transparency of the processes of landscape change decision making, and the outcomes. Transparency should include active participation of different interest groups in the process of decision making, not just keeping them passively informed. By implication the visibility of the process is as important as the outcome.

… so what we have tried to do to undertake a landscape assessment is to try and create a

methodology for assessing the landscape that is as transparent as possible which tries

to be as objective as possible, a very subjective subject … P1.

… on that group are representatives from Forest and Bird, Fish and Game, Central Otago

Environment Society and so they are … [] we are doing the technical work about engineering and hydrology but through the process they are having input into how those

decisions are shaped, so earlier on we put a number of options on the table ... [so that it

was clear to all participants] … I 1.

… but for people that live there and people that have information and knowledge, their

responses to landscape are very much conditioned by what they know about that

landscape. So the whole idea of managing landscape visual parameters or aesthetics is

very difficult. It is fraught with nebulous concepts if you like … P5.

… Right at the beginning of RMA a lot of people did not know what the RMA was about

… C8.

Transparency means that the process is visible and open to participation. This implies less contests or conflicts between the community and councils, between community members and interests groups including professionals. The following section will highlight the tensions appearing in the accounts and speculate on possible motives. Figure 7.8 below illustrates process principles.

The process principles emphasise the ‘how?’ of landscape change decision making. To the key informants, process is as important as the substantive outcomes on landscape. This is illustrated by the desire to have very clear and transparent processes in all levels of landscape change decision making. The principles cluster more towards the deliberative group.

181 Process-‘how?’- principles Deliberative Communicative Generic Objectivity Consistency Consultative Benchmark Neutrality

Operational Disinterested mediation Deliberation

Negotiation Co-management

Clarity Transparency

Figure 7.8: Process landscape change principles

This suggests that the key informants are framing a discursive and open ended approach to managing landscape change, where multiple interests can be negotiated, and where or if there are conflicts, non-partisan mediators steer the landscape change decisions towards co-managed, co-determined outcomes.