the increase of asthma patients in the Pueblo due to upwind pumice mining. They hope to find whether there is a potential correlation between the dust particulate and the rise in asthma patients.183
The Ramingining community in Northern Australia used GIS to map their cultural resources and current baseline environmental inventories to assist the local community “in making informed land management decisions with regard to environmental problems that are new to both traditional owners and the region itself”. Appropriate allocation of colour mapping was constructed to make it suitable for local interpretation; for instance “the Melaleuca species were allocated tones of grey to match the approximate colour of the bark. The floodplain grasses were colour-coded in tones of brown, to resemble their appearance during the dry season.”184
The Manitoba Keewatinowi Okinakanak tribe used GIS to defend their traditional rights from the impact of hydroelectric developments and large scale forestry activities on the physical resources.185 East Kalimantan Indonesians used GIS to evaluate different means of coordinating indigenous resource management systems with government instituted systems of management and as a basis for formal legal recognition and protection of customary forest tenure arrangements.186
Tangata whenua opportunities
“So, it looks as if there’s quite a bit of interest internationally amongst the indigenous peoples. In New Zealand it seems we’ve used GIS mainly as a mapping and assessment opportunity. However, we’ve only had our teeth into GIS for around ten years, so it’s not surprising. Still, with the land- base increasing and more active participation in planning and
development, there’s not much written information about our own GIS projects.”
The number of maps outlining traditional and historical land and marine resource use that have been created for Waitangi Tribunal claims is extensive. Some iwi have undertaken mapping projects through government funded initiatives. Ngai Tahu, for instance, are plotting land use capacity via the ARGOS scheme initiated by MAF. Te Whanau a Apanui are developing a custom- made GIS for a Land Use Optimisation project through a TechNZ funding project. Local
government, like the Opotiki District Council and the Tasman Unitary Council, are also supporting or funding cultural mapping initiatives with local iwi.
Roopu have explored a number of different development opportunities involving; tribal resource inventories fish harvesting
eco-tourism habitat ecosystems
183 http://kangis.org/mapping/sdm/students/index.cfm?projid=62
184 Bartolo, R.E. and Hill, G.J.E. (2001). A case study from northern Australia, Remote sensing and GIS technologies
as a decision-making tool for indigenous land management. Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor, March 2001, accessed on http://www.nuffice.nz/ciran/ikdm/9-1/bartolo.html on 27 February 2003
185 Hakopa, H. (1998). Ka pu te ruha, ka hao te rangatahi. MSc thesis, University of Otago, Dunedin, p 63 186 Hakopa, ibid, p 66
archaeology Cultural Health Indexes for streams
land suitable for different crops and cropping methods locating optimum hospital traffic flow
identifying historic and current property titles and ownership
More specific examples include;
Ngati Hauiti use the Terralink digital maps
Ngati Kahungunu are considering GIS to assist in eel management planning Mangatu Incorporated use GIS to assist them in their farming enterprises Taumutu Runanga used GIS for mapping and resource management
Ngati Whatua are investigating the use of GIS as part of their iwi management planning and Both Kati Huirapa Runaka in Otago and the Ngai Tai Iwi Authority in the Bay of Plenty use GIS Te Ika Whenua used GIS to map its landholding and to assist in its forestry development
Te Runanga o Ngati Porou mapped their landholdings from five different periods over a 120 year period to assist its treaty claims and planned to use the system to map its social services and housing work. It also used their GIS to assist their collaborative research project with Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research; to specifically “record and utilise Maori knowledge alongside scientific information to improve understanding of cultural values, catchment processes, and environmental change, for integrated catchment planning”.187 The archaeological research on Poutu Peninsula conducted for the Te Uri o Hau o Te Wahapu o Kaipara Waitangi Tribunal claim was supported by a GIS whereby the series of maps produced complemented the research reports and was also used to assist interpretation of temporal and spatial records, including being able to visually represent the changes in the coastline and even the correlation between pa sites and soil types188
Ngati Tama, Te Atiawa and Ngati Mutunga of Taranaki, used GIS to map cultural and historical information as part of their Waitangi Tribunal claim negotiations. The possible use of GIS as a tool for economic development and resource management post settlement was also a factor when purchasing their GIS189 Ngati Raukawa are completing a conventional GIS exercise to map demographic data collected in their iwi census.190 The resultant data set and GIS will enhance their ability to better target social, health and
education services to their tribal members
Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu Customary Fisheries Unit designed and implemented a GIS system to record precise and accurate data where customary fishing occurred enabling both spatial and temporal analysis to be undertaken to enhance management options
Te Runanga o Turanganui a Kiwa (TROTAK) had the existing capacity (human resource, equipment and administrative support) to develop a Maori Land Database as a means to develop under-utilised Maori land in Turanga. Contracted by the Community Employment Group to provide the database, the decision was made to utilise a GIS at an early stage, instead of the original spreadsheet concept. MapInfo training was provided by an experienced Maori GIS practitioner enabling the upskilling of researchers and project team members alike. The resultant database provided a tool for economic development that was culturally approved and appropriate.
“Okay. Now we know what is happening out there. Mainly mapping and analysis of cultural resources here in Aotearoa – and it all sounds pretty cool stuff! But. We should have a look at the downside too, see if there’s any problems with mapping
187 Harmsworth, G., and Warmenhoven, T. The Waiapu project: Maori community goals for enhancing ecosystem
health,
188 Jackson, M., (1997) Archaeology, CRM, GIS and Poutu Peninsula, MA Thesis, University of Auckland, Auckland,
New Zealand
189 McDowall, C., (1999) Interpreting GIS as mediator between intent and practice. MA (Geog) Thesis, University of
Auckland
190 Engle, S.T., Negotiating Technology – (Re)considering the Use of GIS by Indigenous Peoples, New Zealand
and GIS. I’m sure there are examples we could look at to see if there’s any risks with using this new tool.”
“You’re right Nanny E! Let’s have a look at what happens when something’s actually been produced, an analysis or a map and track back to the issues that created the problems”
“Too right Rangi, looks like you volunteered just in time.”
Risks
“Okay Nanny E, Timu. When I thought about it, it was clear that the first outcome for any mapping or GIS project was typically a cultural resource
inventory – what we identified as being important to us – our rohe, our landmarks, our traditional land use, our cultural markers like battle sites, rongoa sites,
mahinga kai, taonga, waahi tapu etc. Then I thought about what happens once we’ve mapped all this indigenous knowledge – this matauranga of ours – and even more issues came to mind. There was an aspect I hadn’t even considered until I saw a newspaper article about how a group of African people got ripped off by biopirates for an enzyme found only in their lake, that can be used to give jeans that faded look. Add that to the waste of money if we don’t plan how to maintain our GIS and how our maps might even be used against us it’s pretty clear we should plan properly and put the right policies and processes in place right from the start if we want to avoid unexpected consequences. Good thing we looked at it.”
The increase in participatory mapping, also known as community mapping or ethnocartography has resulted in several controversial instances of misuse and appropriation of indigenous collective knowledge. Maps, generated or commissioned by indigenous peoples, have at times been used against them and contrary to their original purpose.
Two examples of consequences of mapping cultural resources191
In Australia, an incomplete map, locating only some sites of significance, commissioned by the Western Australia Aboriginal Legal Service as part of a case in the Mining Warden’s Court, was used by the mining company Amax, as an authoritive indication of significant sites, supporting their intent to drill a wildcat well near Umpampurru. Umpampurru was well known as a significant site in the region “linked to major Ngaranggani (Dreaming) figures associated with goannas, lizards, frogs, kangaroos, turkeys, snakes and other reptiles.”192
Concerned with industrial logging practices, the Mamo Atoskewin Association (MAA) used GIS to establish a database and map of Atikamekw lands based on traditional knowledge of Moose, Beaver
191 see Appendices for further examples
192 Howitt, R., (2001) Rethinking resource management: justice, sustainability and indigenous peoples. Routledge,
and waterfowl information alongside information for gathering sites. Supported by aerial photos their mapping showed evidence that logging was non-compliant with regulations and threatened wildlife and flora. After sending supposedly confidential maps to government agencies, the MAA not only received no response from those agencies but found Quebec’s resource management agencies had used their maps without consent.193