4.1.4 PROCESO DE PRESTACIÓN DE SERVICIOS Breve resumen:

The benefits of GIS and some of the practical issues consequential to the use of the technology as seen by international writers/reporters have been established in the preceding discussion. Indigenous mapping/GIS discussion fora are well established internationally, while domestic discussions of Māori GIS and its efficacy are also gaining momentum.

The growth of Māori GIS is being reflected in the slowly increasing number of studies

documenting this emerging field. It is also evident in the number of New Zealand conferences with Māori GIS practitioners presenting papers on Māori GIS projects and opportunities. The

number of conferences where indigenous/Māori GIS held its own focus is also increasing.

Two national hui in 1996 and 1999 were convened to discuss Māori mapping Māori Land and

Resource Aspirations (Wellington 1996) and Developments in Information Technology and Communications (Otaki 1999) respectively. A Federation of Māori Authorities conference in

2003 had a number of indigenous/Māori GIS papers presented. At a 1995 international

Indigenous Knowledge’s Conference in Wellington, papers were presented ranging from the use of indigenous toponyms in Australia; a local government/iwi joint venture mapping wāhi

tapu in the greater Wellington district; Hawaiian cartographic projects; a paper encouraging cartographic literacy in indigenous communities, and a challenge issued to GIS software developers to extend the functionality of their programmes to better serve indigenous cartography.

5.2 Efficacy

Both Laituri and Engle have considered the efficacy of indigenous adoption of the GIS technology. Laituri comments that,

“The challenge is in combining indigenous knowledge with western technology to devise alternative strategies that may be more efficient as well as being culturally sensitive… The recognition and acknowledgement of local knowledge within the reality of information technology is a promising avenue of empowerment in decision-making. Supporting the alternative knowledge systems of indigenous people may allow them to access foreign techniques as they choose. This is an essential caveat in the use of GIS by indigenous people – that the GIS is used by them for their own needs.” 109 _{(Emphasis in original)}

Engle's 2001 paper, Negotiating Technology – (Re)considering the Use of GIS by Indigenous Peoples, also offers another evaluative voice to the discussion. He cautions that it is not only crucial that indigenous groups ask whether the technology merges with, and improves upon traditional systems that are already in place but also that “GIS use will only be effective if adapted to those existing social, cultural and institutional contexts.”110

He sums it up by commenting that,

“…groups must carefully evaluate their symbolic representation in, and physical access to GIS before investing in the technology. It is only when groups negotiate for themselves the wider implications of GIS use can they, in the short term, evaluate the appropriateness of investing in GIS and over the long term add their own cultural imprint to existing applications”111

Morgan expresses similar sentiments, finding it necessary that information technology and exchange should simply be put into context, that GIS isn’t the be all and end all, and that face- to-face is still, and always will be, necessary.112

Young-Ing adds to this when he writes,

“Indigenous Peoples have adapted into their various unique and distinct contemporary forms by adhering to two important cultural principles: 1) that

109 _{Laituri, M. (1995). Indigenous Knowledge and Databases, How can traditional local knowledge be used in a}

geographic information systems. NZ Science Monthly 6 (5), June 1995. pp. 10-11

110 _{Engle, S.T. (2001). Negotiating Technology – (Re)considering the Use of GIS by Indigenous Peoples. New}

Zealand Geographer 57 (1) 2001. p. 33

111 _ibid

112 _{Morgan, K. (2004) The exaggerated death of geography: learning, proximity and territorial innovation systems.} Journal of Economic Geography, Vol. 4, No. 1. Oxford University Press. pp. 3-21

incorporating new ways of doing things should be carefully considered in consultation with community and Elders and according to Customary Law; and, 2) if it is determined that a new technology or institution goes against fundamental cultural values and/or might lead to negative cultural impact, or breeches Customary Law, then it should not be adopted.”113

Harmsworth also offers numerous reasons why Māori can incorporate GIS technology.114

Improving the effectiveness of land-use planning by helping to identify Māori

values within a spatial context.

Assisting with land use/resource management conflict resolution by helping to identify Māori values within a spatial context

Improving conceptual frameworks showing what Māori values are and where

they are

Trying to quantify in some way the term Māori values

Incorporating a Māori dimension/perspective into environmental planning so

that land is not just looked at in the ‘market’ sense as illustrated by the terms unproductive land, marginal land, high value land, highly productive land. Giving an intrinsic value to land through expressions of taonga, mana, mauriora, and tapu

Needing to link biophysical, economic and social information with Māori

values to provide information which helps define changes in land ownership, land tenure, landuse and demographic patterns through time.

Spatially referencing Māori value information to portray community values,

and assist future planning scenarios.

Quantifying different community values to identify the type of, where, and the magnitude of the values

Understanding cultural basis of value

Allowing informed decisions to be integrated into policy Helping plan socially acceptable uses of Māori land

Establishing impact of European values on Māori values

Helping focus monitoring activities towards locations of high cultural value/threat of degradation or loss

Facilitating adoption of GIS based planning technology and intellectual property rights among the Māori community

113 _{Young-Ing, G. (2005). Ethical and Moral Issues in the Transformation of Traditional Knowledge Through Indigenous}

Artistic Practice. draft paper presented at Reconciling Academic Priorities with Indigenous Realities: Indigenous Knowledges Conference, Wellington, New Zealand.

114 _{Harmsworth, G. (1998). Indigenous values and GIS: a method and a framework. Indigenous Knowledge and}

A recent example of a Māori GIS focussed project illustrates an opportunity to use GIS

analysis for Māori development.

GIS was used to identify ‘Kyoto eligible’ Māori land on the East Coast.115 The

research has indicated that the total Māori land in the Gisborne-East Coast (GEC)

eligible under the Kyoto 1990 baseline was estimated as being 25,000 – 35,000 ha or 20% of Māori land in the GEC. By combining vegetative cover (1996 and pre

1990), land use capability, and Māori land for the Gisborne East Coast, using the

MLIB, VCM, NZLRI and LCDB,116 _{the Kyoto eligible M}

āori land on the East Coast

can be quantified, visualised and analysed.

Figure 7: Kyoto Areas on Māori land within the Gisborne-East Coast117

Another Manaaki Whenua product is the Land Environment New Zealand (LENZ) dataset. This dataset, an environment based classification product, uses fifteen data layers to describe various aspects of New Zealand climate, landforms and soils such as lowest temperature, highest winter solar radiation, drainage etc. According to Shaun Awatere, not only was the dataset able to assist in ecological management but could also be applied to Māori Resource

Management needs as well.118 _{Further to this opportunity was the potential to identify}

alternative horticulture opportunities (and therefore economic opportunities). Using maps prepared by Daniel Rutledge and company for the Lake Taupo Land Use Summit, Shaun Awatere illustrates the GIS opportunities that Māori can also tap into.

115 _{Harmsworth, G. (n.d.) “Māori land: A regional learning case study on the Gisborne-East Coast”, “Māori and climate}

change: Carbon sequestration opportunities on Māori land”. Landcare Research. Available from

http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/research/greenhouse/files/posters/gh_Māori_ghg_poster.pdf

116 _M

āori Land Information Base, Vegetative cover, New Zealand Land Resource Inventory and Land Cover Data

Base

117 _{Adapted from “Maori and climate change: Carbon sequestriation opportunities on Maori land”. Harmsworth, G. et}

al. (n.d.) “Maori land: A regional learning case study on the Gisborne-East Coast”. Landcare Research retrieved from http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/research/greenhouse/files/posters/gh_Māori_ghg_poster.pdf

118 _{Awatere, S. (n.d.) “Māori Resource Management & LENZ”. Landcare Research, New Zealand. Retrieved from}

http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/databases/lenz/Presentations_Guests/LENZ_Regional_Workshops_Maori_Resource_ Management_LENZ.pdf

Māori Land NZLRI NZLRI (Veg) VCM + NZLRI GEC, Kyoto

Areas on Māori Land

Figure 8: Potential Blueberry location maps119

Before drawing conclusions as to the efficacy of GIS as a tribal development tool however, it is timely to consider three discussion points that do not have obvious implications. The first discussion point to be traversed in this section is that of mapping cultural heritage. The potential impact or benefits for changing traditional methods of transmitting mātauranga are

addressed before the second point of indigenous cartography is discussed. This chapter ends with an examination of the third and most problematic discussion point - intellectual property rights for mātauranga Māori.