Community

It is clear from these structural and functional considerations that many interviewees believe that landscape change decision making should assess social issues and incorporation the community in consequent processes and outcomes. This could include judging the effects of change on

162 community continuity, distinguishing community from corporate values and the recognition by external decision makers that the impacts of their decisions are felt locally, and by individuals. Additionally, the economic implications are not just felt by individuals, but by the community too. Therefore, Landscape change should enable continuity of families in the community. Landscape change is not just about the physical land but the social fabric, which has been woven over more than a hundred years on the landscape. The culture has not developed independent of the land, but as the seasons shaped the occupations of both Māori and European settlers, in turn they have reshaped the landscape over several generations. Change, seen mostly as capital intensive land uses, which means that

… [with intensification] … there will be a lot of pressure for dry-land farmers to leave the district, take their families with them, they might be 4th, 5th generation; so you are losing a lot of their cultural connections, and then you get new people coming in and then you get corporates, with very limited community involvement and very transient populations … I 6.

... I am the 5th generation, my son is the 6th … that is what the Regional Council may as

well destroy in a lot of places … and it’s not because we are not good farmers, that’s because they are putting very loaded conditions on water requirements … C1.

This threatens generational continuity, primarily because to meet intensification demands, … the farmers might have to get the capital themselves or others will come along and

make the capital investment … to that extent there will be dislocation … C5.

However, landscape decision makers should ensure that policy and Landscape changes respond to community needs. Policy making should not be alien to the realities of its effects on local community. Although councils engage with community through liaison staff, they are not always fully embedded in the community, and often will change positions or change employers. Impacts of any change directive are felt first, often irreversibly, by the community, and less often by decision makers who might not live in the locality affects. This means that

… It is important that the values that you place on this landscape are reasonably

consistent with what the community values as well ….P1.

[… and the council decision makers] … (they’ve got) to remember that, we’ve got to live

here and the decisions that the policy makers make don’t affect their lives… C17.

The quotes above indicate the focus on community needs and values. This raises questions of who should make decisions and the role of government agencies as decision makers. These issues will be examined later in section 7.5 dealing with governance.

163

Landscape change decisions should be affordable for the local community. It is acknowledged that progress demands capital outlay; however, this should be moderated to match available resources and mitigate unintended consequences such as sale of land and dislocation of families.

… they are forcing my hand to do this water stuff and extend my mortgage

situation…otherwise we’ll be forced to sell and dairy will come to this area and take it up

… C1.

… the farmers might have to get the capital themselves or others will come along and

make the capital investment. To that extent there will be dislocation … C5.

A real and overlooked consequence is the vicious cycle of capital intensive investment and the resulting intensification of operations to recoup.

… [change will be necessary since] … irrigation (that) costs me now $60/ha to irrigate my

farm, but there’s talk of $1200/ha, that’s what would make me [intensify] … C16.

The respondents felt their livelihood was threatened if they cannot afford to meet the requirement of change. The threats include loss of land and consequent displacement by those who afford to invest, however, those who invest do not essentially have community interests and will often divest if necessary.

… it’s economic progress …but there has to be environmental progress and social progress of the communities in here … [what the locals can’t afford, corporates can, however non-

local] people take their money and run … C9.

This implies that landscape change decisions, driven from outside the locality, should be aligned to what communities can pay for. Secondly it implies moving away from resource intensive changes to more affordable changes, at pace and scale manageable by the community.

Landscape change should be socially viable. This implies ensuring the community retains its socio-economic viability. However, the community is not a homogenous group but composed of diverse and often competing interests. Therefore what is needed is;

… some form of balanced system … I think overall dry land farming would be more

palatable to the wider community … P5.

… there are three or four of them out there. They have moved into the area and they

don’t want to see any progress whatsoever because the area is nice… and [so and so] he

doesn’t want to see any changes whatsoever. …there are lots of people with different

ideas … C7.

What is appropriate change for one person or group might not be for the entire community. For instance, intensification of land use or conversion to lifestyle blocks elicits comments such as,

164 … [I] would be concerned about the impact on tourism … environmental impacts … in the

immediate and over time … the tourism industry would be upset about that … I think lots

of New Zealanders would be upset about that too … C5.

… concentration of lifestyle blocks here would not be a happy occurrence … C6.

To respondents with vested interests in tourism for instance, the landscape should remain as it is, in conformity with their needs and expectations. A contrary view is voiced and justified by respondents doing businesses which rely more on farming operations than tourism;

… [change, intensification and increase of population is] actually good for the community

because more people coming in … [means more business, vibrant community hall, sports] it’s good for the area … C11.

… I’m in two different frames of mind on that one… business people feel this way. Some

farmers don’t … a farmer if they wanted to do intensive, they will go and do it, and they wouldn’t care at what cost to the environment. They would just … coz it means more money. Ultimately that’s what keeps the world going round, it’s the amount of money you can make. So the more intensified they are the more money they can make out of it whereas there a lot of people, business people in this area that probably think they don’t want their rivers damaged and destroyed, coz there are lots of fishermen in this area, so they’d hate to see that happen … C7.

The contests or differing frames as illustrated above raise the issues of community harmony. This research proposes that, change should be framed not by preferences of the few, but, Landscape change should express community values. Instead of serving narrow sectoral needs, this principle involves basing change on wider community interests and broadly agreed on values. The success of projects and policy is therefore predicated not just on whether consultation has been undertaken, but the extent to which the project or policy, including implementation, expresses community desires.

... you want to get something that you are comfortable with actually that [it reflects] the

desire[s] of the broader community … I 2.

… [the district council] opposed the scheme on the basis that it was incongruent to the

community developed plan … the community was very much involved in the consultation

process and what they didn’t like is that [the developer-] came along and totally ignored

that to some degree … P1.

However, community values will not always consistent with individual aspirations and preferences. While community values might be focused on harmony and continuity individual preferences are geared towards family continuity and profitability of operations. For example;

... I have two private water rights myself which are up for renewal in 2021 … Which is part

of the value of this property … the [council is taking my] private water rights … they are

going to take that and give to other people who do not have as much water if we are not

165

… dairy is a sensitive issue as people have sold their land to dairy … sheep and beef has

not been very profitable in the last 10 years or more … you can understand when … someone comes along and offers them a large sum of money they would not have

dreamed of … to turn them to dairy. It is a torrid thing but you’ve got to understand them

too … C5.

As noted above, the water would actually be allocated to someone else within the valley. As expected, conflicts and tensions often arise, but they can be overcome through deliberative practices. Moreover, all change is costly in terms of capital and resource consumption. Landscape change decisions therefore to be empathic to community and promote social harmony, have to be affordable. Figure 7.6 below summarises substantive landscape change principles emerging from the local and professional discourses.

Substantive ‘WHAT?’ principles

Structural Functional Community

Generic Balance Holism Distribution

Resilience Risk mitigation

Social & economic viability Continuity Benchmark Context Appropriateness Community focus Value based Operational Indigeneity Identity Biodiversity Incremental

Figure 7.6: Substantive landscape change principles

Although the principles here are nominally about substantive outcomes on the landscape, they also embody social aspects. The principles voiced by the key informants are framed from the social perspective meaning the community concept and its identity are embedded in the landscape, that is, it is a community of place as discussed in Chapter 2. There are generic principles which govern landscape change across structure, function and community. But the most significant finding here is the emphasis on structural principles at the operational level. This implies that the informants are very clear that landscape change should be incremental and enhance identity. The focus on identity and indigeneity also is consistent with theoretical arguments (see Egoz, 2013; Menzies & Ruru, 2011; Strecker, 2011) about the interconnectedness of place, identity and community.