Discusión de los resultados del estudio bivariante

An abundance of legislation now exists within the network, with different laws applying to the customary use of indigenous species. The Conservation Act 1987 exists as the umbrella act under which DoC administers other legislation such as the Wildlife Act 1953 and Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978 which demands protection for indigenous animals irrespective of location or the National Parks Act and Reserves Act which provides protection for plants and habitat based on the status of the land. In addition numerous management documents, plans and strategies exist at various levels and across regions including the Northland Conservation Management Strategy (CMS) 2014-2024 (Department of Conservation, 2014). There are also international agreements, which the New Zealand Government has signed which also hold influence in the network, notably the Convention on Biological Diversity, signed in 1992, and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) which entered into force in 1975.

The ever-evolving understanding of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi continues to influence the network and revise the balance of power between actants, as New Zealand law requires the Treaty be recognized and given effect in conservation management. Recent judgements of the court and the Waitangi Treaty Tribunal clarify principles recommend that the Treaty be considered in all current management plans such as The 1992 Sealord Settlement Act. More recently the Wai 262

Treaty Claim (see Fig. 4.14) lodged in 1991 sought to have Waitangi Treaty principles enforced but with a first report taking 20 years to produce (2011a) and still no resolution or decision in sight suggests its a rather difficult and contentious claim to resolve. The Wai 262 Treaty Claim is a significant intermediary in the network and showcases the claims by Māori that Government actions have prevented Māori from exercising Kaitiakitanga over Kererū through actions such as “the passage of the Wildlife Act 1953, the establishment of scientific reserves and protected areas which prevent Māori access to Kererū” and as such represent a “denial of te tino rangatiratanga”

(Sutherland, Parsons, & Jackson, 2011).

The only significance thus far of the Wai 262 claim was the production of a report in 201179; ‘Ko Aotearoa tēnei: A report into claims concerning New Zealand law and policy affecting Māori culture and identity’ (Waitangi Tribunal, 2011a). This document was the Waitangi Tribunal's first ‘whole-of- Government’ report which addressed “the work of more than 20 Government departments and agencies” (Waitangi Tribunal, 2011b) as well as the first Tribunal reports to deliberate New Zealand’s relationship with the Treaty after historical grievances are resolved. The reports made many recommendations (see Waitangi Tribunal, 2011b) but those relevant to the management of Kererū in New Zealand included “the establishment of new partnership bodies in education, conservation, and culture”,”a new funding agent for mātauranga Māori in science” and “Māori advisory bodies relating to patents and environmental protection”. In addition Ko Aotearoa Tēnei recommended improved support for Māori culture and traditional knowledge and “amendments to laws covering Māori language, resource management, wildlife, conservation, cultural artefacts, environmental protection, patents and plant varieties, and more”. The Tribunal does not settle claims but rather makes recommendation to the Government therefore the outcome of the Wai 262 Treaty claim and settlement now rests with the Office of Treaty Settlements that manages the negotiation of Treaty settlements on behalf of the Government. Treaty principles relevant to the customary use of Kererū include the varying degrees of the “recognition of Māori rangatiratanga (indigenous constitutional authority) over local taonga (valued things)” (Wevers, 2011, p. 6) and the active protection of Māori interests. The outcomes of these Tribunal Claims are already acknowledged by DoC as important to the direction of conservation management in New Zealand (Department of Conservation, 2015a) and is likely to alter the balance of power in the network as the findings and recommendations of

79 _{The New Zealand Ministry of Justice explains the reasons for the 20 year delay in the report :“There are} many reasons. Initially, priority was given to district hearings in order to support the process of settling historical Treaty grievances, so the Tribunal did not begin hearing the claim until some years after it was lodged. Subsequently, arguments between the Crown and claimants about the scope of the claim, the ill health of the first presiding officer, the extraordinary breadth and complexity of the claim, the need to keep up with an ever-changing law and policy environment, and competing priorities have all contributed to the time the inquiry has taken.” (New Zealand Ministry of Justice, 2011)

documents such as Ko Aotearoa Tēnei (Waitangi Tribunal, 2011a) become more widely accepted and adopted, or challenged.

The origins of the claim date back to 1988, when two women found that the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research had deposited several cultivars of native kumara (sweet potato) at a research institution in Japan. The kumara had been brought to New Zealand by the Māori people, but were no longer available there. The women travelled to Japan to bring the kumara back to New Zealand. The women became concerned at the ease with which native flora and fauna could be lost to overseas interests, and at the lack of Māori involvement in the decision-making process. They felt that the Government and the department had ignored Māori rights of authority and guardianship over New Zealand’s indigenous flora and fauna. Work towards filing a claim with the tribunal began.

Six individuals on behalf of six Māori tribes finally lodged the claim in 1991. The claim generated international interest and WAI 262 became associated with the plight of indigenous peoples around the world. Many governments still struggle to reconcile protection of the collectively owned, traditional knowledge of their indigenous peoples with IP systems based on defined ownership and commercial advantage.

The claim asserted that the crown had breached the Treaty of Waitangi, which guarantees Māori ownership of lands and other properties. It was claimed that the crown had:

 failed actively to protect the claimants’ exercise of their rights of authority and guardianship over indigenous flora and fauna, other cultural patrimony and Māori traditional knowledge;  failed to protect the patrimony itself;

 usurped Māori rights of authority and guardianship in respect of flora and fauna and other patrimony through the development of policy and the enactment of legislation; and

 agreed to various international agreements and obligations that affect indigenous flora and fauna, IP rights and rights to other patrimony.

The claimants also asked that one of the remedies include a framework recognizing Māori rights of authority and guardianship over indigenous flora and fauna, cultural patrimony and traditional knowledge. The progress of the claim has been slow: hearings began in 1997 and were completed in 2007.

Source: Huria (2010). Also see Ko Aotearoa Tēnei (Waitangi Tribunal, 2011a) introduction (pages 15–24) for a more detailed explanation of what the claim is about and what the Treaty relationship requires.