|Institution:||University of Otago|
|Keywords:||Mackenzie; Basin; Dairying; Collaborative|
|Full text PDF:||http://hdl.handle.net/10523/4836|
Intensive dairying is an essential part of the New Zealand economy and has become one of our most important exports. But what are the potential consequences of intensive dairying development into marginal farmland and rural communities? This research focuses on two planning issues within the context of the MacKenzie Basin. The first is to evaluate the potential social effects that intensive dairying will bring to the Mackenzie Basin, and the second is to evaluate the ‘Mackenzie Agreement,’ a collaborative planning strategy that has been developed to provide for both dairying and conservation efforts within the Mackenzie Basin. Specifically this research investigates what potential social changes dairying could bring to the Mackenzie Basin with an emphasis on community participation, community cohesion, and overseas migrant worker wellbeing. Researching into the Mackenzie Agreement investigates why there was a need for an alternative planning approach, and evaluates whether the Mackenzie Agreement will be effective in achieving its goals. Following 17 key informant interviews social impacts of intensive dairying highlighted effects on community participation in such areas as sporting teams and voluntary emergency services, and that the MacKenzie Basin is an isolated area with little current infrastructure or support to assist migrant workers. Developing such support tools were broadly identified as favourable by respondents. There was a joint consensus that the Mackenzie Agreement evolved out of the problems associated with the 2009 water consents hearing for the Upper-Waitaki Catchment. Respondents felt that the current planning framework that was used in the hearing was not adequate enough in terms of its processes, cost, and time efficiency to provide management in the Mackenzie Basin. Respondents also had a consensus that the Mackenzie Agreement would not achieve its goals citing a bad process in its creation, problems of funding, and a lack of Government interest and involvement as core reasons.