Desarrollo cognitivo

Consider the recording and documentation of traditional knowledge of the location of biological resources or anthropological artefacts. Perhaps the best fishing grounds or eel harvesting sites are mapped, or perhaps the location of a particular rongoā is mapped during a tribal

resource inventory. What could happen to that mātauranga? The benefits are self evident.

The knowledge is not lost and it can be shared within the whānau /hapū/iwi. The

documentation project could provide a mechanism for bringing together more tribal kōrero and

rekindle or strengthen whānaungatanga. The output could be used to provide vigour for

negotiations in and around a physical location if it is threatened. There could be internal development opportunities. The map could be used as a biodiversity and resource protection tool to ensure it (the resource) is not lost. Conversely, is the potential misuse of the knowledge – perhaps someone gains access to the map and uses the information inappropriately, or it is taken out of context. It could be used against the wishes of the kaitiaki, or an outsider (perhaps a biotech company or individual researcher) could springboard their research from the information found on that map.

It is clear then, that the benefits and potential problems that arise from mapping mātauranga

need to be considered before mapping to ensure that appropriate levels of security are in place both during collection and post mapping. This ensures that informed discussion drives the decisions on whether (and what) mātauranga could be mapped. This will inform the type

of mapping project that is developed, what security levels of information are required and ultimately whether GIS will be adopted.

It is apparent that Indigenous Intellectual Property Rights are inadequately protected by current IPR mechanisms, both internationally and domestically. On the whole, indigenous peoples are unable to block appropriation of mātauranga by others except by preventative

150 _{Ministry of Research, Science and Technology (2004). A ‘Snapshot’ of Vote Research, Science & Technology}

Investment in ‘Māori Research’ in the period July 2002 to June 2003. Wellington: Ministry of Research, Science

patenting or by publication (which in itself creates several issues). The Lego case where Māori pressured Lego into recalling inappropriately named ‘supertoys’, and the Samoan

agreement where 50% of the profits from a potential anti -HIV drug derived from the bark of their indigenous Mamala tree will be shared with the Samoan Government - are two examples of indigenous ‘wins’. There are however hundreds of other examples where Indigenous Peoples mātauranga was commodified, commercialised and appropriated by corporate bio-

pirating.

There is also an immediate need to discuss Māori use of IPR mechanisms. Some roopū have

already ventured into the intellectual property and patent arena as part of development initiatives that have their genesis in mātauranga Māori (for example - Manuka oil and

essential oils from Pikopiko or Horopito). While Māori are still arguing for indigenous rights to

IPR there appears to be no robust or widely participated discussion on what standards of behaviour Māori must adopt themselves.

This internal issue aside, the debate about outsiders being privy to a tribes cultural values and especially their indigenous knowledge - culturally sensitive information - is the most problematic when developing a GIS. The commercial world has already shown that information is both a power and an economic tool that can be used for both positive and negative purposes. The intellectual property rights of indigenous peoples and their knowledge have been hotly debated for several decades now. The corporate world is increasingly manufacturing rights to tangible and intangible resources. The assault on traditional knowledge is global in extent. It is not hidden behind the prose that information [local knowledge about local biodiversity or traditional medicinal practices for instance] should be shared before it is lost. It was under this auspice many indigenous peoples participated in the collection of mātauranga. Those who ‘get in first’ to

register domain names; gene markers; tradenames; native food species; logos using indigenous symbology and the like represent the negative nature of information ‘sharing’. Thus it is not so much the acquisition of information, it is the use and dissemination of that information that defines whether the knowledge will be beneficial for one or all. And therefore, whether knowledge should be broadcast or opened up for perusal by outsiders.

Harmsworth summarises the issues thus;

“Potential issues related to storage of Māori values information on GIS included control of information, where the information should reside, ongoing maintenance and development of a dataset, intended end use of information, potential for bypassing the consultative process; cultural and intellectual

property rights and ownership rights of the information, [and] potential impacts on tikanga Māori.”151

Te Runanga o Moeraki, having considered the adoption of GIS, nevertheless believed that there were too many significant issues revolving around mapping culturally significant information.152

Their response is provided in full to illustrate the critical appraisal used to formulate their decision not to establish a GIS.

“Some of the reasons for not doing so include:- Issues of ownership and accessibility of information constrain use e.g. Much of the information on sites of interest to iwi are bound up with whakapapa and whanau histories. This is their intellectual property and the production of a GIS database can then take the effective ownership out of the whanau/hapu control. It’s a bit like publishing a book. The information then becomes part of the public domain. Further to this is the information contained in the GIS takes on a higher level of creditability. i.e. if it’s not recorded on the GIS it is not an ‘authentic’ site and has no ‘real history’. Other people start defining what is authentic by whether or not it has been recorded rather than acknowledging the knowledge passed down through whanau.”

5.6 Summary

As described in the previous passages of this Chapter, the efficacy of indigenous GIS is typically positive. There are however, several barriers that need to be considered when assessing the capacity and capability of indigenous peoples to uptake this technology. The cultural implications of transferring indigenous knowledge by technological means instead of traditional; the sensitivity and confidentiality of knowledge; and the protection of that knowledge - all need to be taken into account when deciding whether to employ GIS as a tool in tribal development.

The next Chapter briefly discusses the experiences and opinions of those who are interested in, who have participated in or led Māori GIS projects. These opinions were gathered from a

2003 survey and informal but focussed discussions with a number of Māori GIS practitioners

to directly canvas their experiences. The pool of Māori GIS practitioners is very small at this

stage of development. Mindful of the huge demands on their time (made clearly evident by the topics under discussion throughout this thesis), the abundant generosity of all those who took time out to discuss aspects of Māori GIS is very much appreciated. Ngā mihi mahana ki a

koutou.

151 _{Harmsworth, G.R. (1997). Māori values for land use planning. New Zealand Association of Resource}

Management (NZARM) broadsheet, February 1997

Chapter 6: Practitioners

This Chapter discusses kōrero held with Māori GIS practitioners and those whose work

intersects with GIS and/or Māori development to supplement the views expressed in the

literature. These discussions were held to gauge the extent and intent of current Māori GIS

projects, to gain first-hand opinions from GIS practitioners about their experiences and also to gain direct feedback from a wide range of people who would potentially have an interest in GIS as a technology