SIMBOLOGÍA GRÁFICOS Y DIAGRAMAS PROCEDIMIENTOS

Nesting, according to Ostrom, is included only for CPRs of a larger size, which is why it is included on this list. Subsidiarity is a major principle when designing and reviewing nested systems, and so some, not all of the management of the Lake can fall under this style of management. Earlier questions regarding central government’s involvement touch on this subject, as well as on commentary surrounding a topic that distorted the nesting within the Zone; co-governance.

Document Analysis

The CWMS describes the nesting of the process best, “Planning activities will be carried out in a ‘nested’ zone/regional/national level for consideration while ensuring coherence between the levels” (CWMS, 2011 p. 15). Figure 22 also describes the arrangements in two presentation slides that discuss nesting in governance (B. Jenkins, personal communication, 2013).

These slides also allude to a shift in the governance of the region to a more collaborative, nested style. This is supported by the wording of the documents establishing relationships between Ngai Tahu and the regional council (e.g. Whakaora Te Waihora). Co-governance,

91 and the associated agreements, is part of that nesting, done at a higher level than the more operational level of the ZC.

Figure 22: Presentation Slides from: Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere: A hidden treasure on our doorstep (B. Jenkins, personal communication, 2013)

Observations

Observations during the ZC concerning nesting were limited. Occasional clarification of the statutory nature and implementation of different programmes was provided by ECan. A sense of equality amongst ZC and the regional zone committee was present.

92

Interviews

Interviews on nested governance touched on two major topics; central government and co- governance within the Zone. ZC2 mentioned central government in a more opinionated way, “there’s a view that government departments in Wellington want to run things all the time. Fair amount of truth in that. But in the case of Waihora, and I’ve been involved with some of the discussion about… …the Ministry for the Environment, they’ve been pretty supportive, actually”. EC1 also commented, “government is well-represented, whether the government plays, plays the sort of role it should play in this sort of thing is another matter”. Comments surrounding central government’s involvement involve the idea of nested

governance. In a nested system, subsidiarity would warrant an issue be dealt with on the smallest effective scale possible. For example, central government is not deciding the details over the lake opening. There is a role for central government to play especially when it comes to funding, support, and recognition of recommendations but it should not be their role in a nested system to micro-manage, at least inside of the ZC.

Several comments were made about nesting indirectly, through the views and functions of co-governance within the Zone. Although ZC1 thought the agreements to be a help, they also said, “On the positive side, I see that it has obliged people to look at those other points of view very carefully and see that as a positive thing. On the other hand, like cheese, good things take time”. EC1 said that, “Co-governance is kind of yet to be proven,” and

continued, “There’s that interesting kind of interaction between co-governance and the CWMS and the ZC that hasn’t really been tested yet”. ZC2 said simply, “I think its early days,” and ZC6 added, “I think as time goes by they may be a help, but there may be a period where they’re viewed with suspicion by general public”. ZC8 was vague, “I wouldn’t say they’ve been a hindrance,” and ZC3 didn’t see much impact at all, “I think it’s business as usual and over time it will just slide into significance”. LU1 said, “At that time, they were necessary, absolutely necessary, so from that perspective they are good. But I’m not sure they’ve been implemented in an integrated sort of way as they could be”.

Two comments from opposite sides of the spectrum help to frame the impact of co-

governance on nested systems the best. It was ZC4, who said, “I think at this point they’re a hindrance,” and explained their point, “They provide, I, to me, very negatively. Because I sort of believe right from the beginning that there were two tiers. So we could sit at a table and have a discussion, and I always felt I could win a debate at the table, knowing that the folk could get up from the other side of the table and go back up at that level, go up three

93 tiers, and say, actually, this is what we’re going to do anyway”. On the contrary, EC2,

mentioned a longer-term goal for the co-governance agreements, “in my mind I hope it personally it leads to more Maori seats on the… ECan. Now we can actually be a part of the policy making process”.

5.3 Conclusion

Results varied depending on the principle in question, though the different types of results (e.g. document analysis, observations, interviews) did not always align. One example was the principle for clearly defined boundaries. After document review and observations, the

boundaries did not look to be defined for much of the CPR in question. There were three or more different maps showing the catchment and changing physical boundaries relating to the Lake. It was through the interviews that it was revealed the ZC members and others (e.g. iwi, researchers) all had a shared understanding of the boundaries. This result speaks to understanding each principle through the various lenses of the research to create a more informed output. No single result can work to define the presence or lack of a principle. Interviewees, though not necessarily familiar with Ostrom, had an understanding of the principles in question even though they were not asked directly; some via their experiences monitoring, some via policy and some via opinion and local government involvement.

94

Chapter 6 - Discussion

This Chapter presents a discussion of the results from the previous Chapter within the context of the theoretical literature reviewed in Chapter 2. In particular, the findings in relation to each of the Ostrom’s Principles are drawn together in a discussion of community empowerment, the role of effective practical operational procedures, and the difficult nature of the challenges faced in this particular catchment.

The impacts of the Treaty cannot be emphasized enough in this thesis. Within New Zealand, the Treaty is a founding document and has a set aside holiday to recognize its historical signing. It is clear from the interviews that to analyse any type of resource management in New Zealand without considering the Treaty would leave much unexplored and not

understood. Aside from the Treaty, its manifestations of the Settlement Act and both co- governance/management agreements play a major role surrounding the management of Lake Ellesmere, and are discussed as appropriate relating to the following topics.

Without input from various members of the Zone Committee who may have been absent by not having a specific seat on the ZC, there is a chance some groups could miss out on certain conversations or chances to be heard.

This issue poses questions about the jurisdiction of those at the bottom of the catchment and the extrapolation of their involvement and decision making abilities up the catchment to areas where they do not live or where they do not have a history. It may be that these abilities are enhanced because of location specifically, or potentially because of the Treaty and iwi recognition. It is unclear whether these should be viable reasons to have an enhanced role in the management of the Lake.