CODIFICACIÓN MPEG-4

Cultural or historic heritage includes those natural and physical resources that contribute to an understanding and appreciation of New Zealand's history and cultures. They derive from archaeological, architectural, cultural, historic, scientific and technological qualities. They include historic sites, structures, places, and areas; archaeological sites, sites of significance to Māori, including wāhi tapu; and surroundings associated with natural and physical resources. The RMA Section 6 (f) under matters of national importance demands recognition and provision for the protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development (New Zealand Parliament, 1991). Heritage provides a sense of identity, belonging and nationhood to individuals, families, iwi/hapū and other communities (Creech & Clarke, 2015). However, this definition of heritage places does not relate well to heritage landscape concepts as there is no classification model for heritage landscapes. The Historic Places Act 1993 (replaced by the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014) places particular emphasis on, among others, aesthetic, archaeological, architectural, cultural and technological values. Heritage landscapes are

86 those landscapes, or network of sites, with heritage significance to communities, tangata whenua, and/or the nation (Stephenson, Bauchop, & Petchey, 2004).

The management of cultural heritage is shared between several government agencies and private community groups (Central Otago District Council, 2012; Quality Plannning, 2015). Territorial local authorities manage land-based historic heritage through district plan policies and heritage listings (Creech & Clarke, 2015). This is informed by the RMA, Local Government Act 2002, Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 among other requirements as defined by the Reserves Act 1977, the Building Act 2004 and the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 (Quality Plannning, 2015).

In implementing the RMA, regional councils in their regional policy statements must have regard to the relevant entry on the New Zealand Heritage List/Rārangi Kōrero required by the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 (New Zealand Parliament, 1991). These requirements objectify heritage into discrete items, which explains the focus of district councils on detached items rather than landscapes. However, in 2002, the Department of Conservation (DoC) developed a methodology for heritage landscapes assessment that differed from that used in studying discrete heritage sites such as individual buildings or archaeological sites. The methodology facilitates the identification, management and interpretation of landscapes with multiple historic sites, embedded stories and close community relationships with the land, at a landscape scale. This methodology was tested successfully in Banockburn landscape in Central Otago (Stephenson et al., 2004).

A heritage landscape approach removes discrete demarcations in heritage management, allowing instead for an all-encompassing cultural landscapes approach (Wallace, 2015). Cultural and heritage landscapes are included under ‘wider historical and cultural area’ in the New Zealand Heritage List/Rārangi Kōrero. This guides territorial local authorities in identifying and protecting cultural and heritage landscapes under, for example, the RMA and the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014. Although local authorities may use heritage strategies to manage cultural heritage, there is no statutory obligation to prepare such a strategy (Quality Plannning, 2015). There is slow progress in recognising Māori heritage in regional and district plan heritage schedules with the deficiency more pronounced in district plans (McClean, 2013). Management of heritage has involved rules limiting private property rights, management of public reserves and assets. Since the majority of heritage sites are on privately held land, this can sometimes be a source of conflict. Good management involves incentives,education, support and regulation (Quality Plannning, 2015).

87 There are three key areas of heritage that may have influenced key informant responses in the case study namely, built, natural and cultural heritage values, which are significant for the identity of Central Otago. Built heritage encompasses buildings, structures and objects, whereas natural heritage includes, among others, natural places, objects and their intangible attributes. Cultural heritage links the first two, and encompasses the tangible- including artefacts, buildings, landscapes, and historic places, and the intangible- customs, traditions, histories and notions of identity. For example, the pastoral and horticultural heritage is embedded in the landscape together with the architecture, innovations and methods drawn from the cultures and institutions of the first settlers (Central Otago District Council, 2012).

The Central Otago District Plan places particular emphasis on heritage buildings, structures, sites and trees. For example, the five towns of Clyde, St. Bathans, Ophir, Old Cromwell and Naseby have heritage precincts and are listed in the Heritage Register and included in the District Plan (Central Otago District Council, 2014). Throughout the district, many gold settlements decayed, however, some evolved and adapted to circumstances retaining active use in contemporary society. These can be termed ‘continuing landscapes’ in contrast to ‘relict landscapes’ whose particular use ended and they have not evolved. While there are other continuing landscapes in the district, Bannockburn was the first to be studied and documented. It showed several layers of history of occupation and use, including Māori settlements and early mining including various phases of different mining technologies (Stephenson et al., 2004).

Three significant elements- towns, railway track and water races - are still visible in the case study landscape, and formed part of everyday discourse. The towns and settlements such as St. Bathans, Lauder, Omakau and Ophir, are actively used. The former railway track has been redesigned into the Central Otago Rail Trail and has had significant impact on tourism in the district. However, the water races have continuously been in use in conveying water- initially for gold mining sluicing works and today for irrigation. The networks of water races can be said to be the most significant continuing landscape features that have transformed the landscape in the case study area. Although there are wāhi tapu and wāhi taonga sites within the district, none were directly identified in the case study area. However, in view of wider district, heritage landscapes have been identified, especially as mahika kai sites, and routes from such sites to the coastal settlements in the Otago region.

Less tangible but just as influential are the stories which have survived through the generations (Central Otago District Council, 2012). Community members identify their family heritage with the pastoral tradition and their identities are embedded in the landscape. The pastoral heritage was a

88 significant influence in the decisions of those who preferred incremental change or conservation discourses. The intangible notions of identity built over more than a hundred years were evident in the discussions, especially of those participants who had generational roots in the landscape. Surprisingly, even those who had settled into the area in the more recent past, drew on heritage values in forming their arguments and identities. The notion of identity is, therefore, a strong thread that links the majority of the participants with the case study area and the Central Otago landscape generally.

There are other institutional issues which impact on the case study location. Two examples are highlighted in the following section.