Table 1. Ability of proponents of particular values to influence changes in rules and investments to favor their interests.
| |
| |
|
Value |
Political influence of proponents |
Consequences for rules and investment |
| |
|
Marketed irrigation use values |
Generally very strong because of lobbying power of sectors and voting
power of employees and associated social networks, but varies across sectors.
|
Very strong property rights and secure access to water resources and
infrastructure |
|
Non-marketed use values |
Strong for recreation because of number of voters enjoying recreation.
Indigenous groups lobby separately to secure control over traditional lands, so
far without significant gains. |
Public provision of parks and reserves, with secure formal allocation of
water, but it is probably inadequate to maintain the ecological processes that
generate these values, and it is subordinate to irrigation allocations in times
of drought. |
|
Intrinsic values |
Strong because of lobbying power of non-governmental conservation
organizations, and power of urban votes. Lobbying by Indigenous groups is
also aimed at maintaining intrinsic values. |
|
Bequest values |
Negligible because beneficiaries are under age or unborn. |
As above, with additional protection from heritage laws and
regulations. |
|
Option values |
Negligible because no current use. |
No explicit protection now. |
|
| |
|