Historically, oraanga Mangaia had minimal impact on the environment143 (Allen, 1969).
Oraanga Mangaia as “cultural development demonstrated a finely tuned ecological balance between societies and their modified habitats” (p. 59). Ecosystem people dependent upon a continued supply of local resources, have a much greater stake in the protection of the surrounding environment (Dasmann, 1998). With no manufacturing or transportation of goods to external markets, a lower carbon footprint was possible. In addition, taeake aroa ensured social sustainability through the redistribution of resources.
However, the desire to reap the material benefits of westernisation has given Mangaians perhaps two different pathways to follow; described here as pathways A and B.
In pathway A I use the pineapple industry on Mangaia as an example of an externally influenced, and often controlled, economic development that disrupted oraanga Mangaia leading to environmental damage, some social breakdown and a partial loss of culture. Whereas in Pathway B a development that is economically viable and results in better environmental protection, strengthened oraanga Mangaia and culture is described. Pathway A
The pineapple industry, of the 1950s and 1960s, whilst providing income for Mangaians caused severe erosion on the maunga slopes (Allen, 1969). Pine trees144 were then planted to
stabilise the soil. Unfortunately, overplanting and self-seeding caused trees to grow
alongside and in the valley streams eventually drying them up (Syed & Mataio, 1993). This has negatively affected taro crops. A planter explains:
We believe the pine trees have dried up the streams and irrigation channels that provided water to the taro swamps. Now we cannot grow our black swamp mamio (taro)145. Nowadays we must make do with dry taro.
Participant 40: Community member
Some argue that overplanting occurred in part to protect jobs.
143 With the exception of very early ecosystem destruction and species extinction (Kirch, 1996, 1997, 2007;
Steadman & Kirch, 1990).
144 Caribbean Pine (Pinus caribaea) (Syed & Mataio, 1993).
The pine tree planting project was only meant to stablise the soil on the top slopes but planting continued solely to provide jobs.
Participant 13: Community member In the public service restructure of 1996, these workers became redundant anyway creating a new problem:
The original idea was to export the timber but with the 1996 redundancies there was no labour to prune the tress rendering them useless as a source of timber. Ironically timber export would have been unfeasible with the prohibitive cost of transport.
Participant 23: Community member
Geologist Paul Ascott stated, “The Pine trees are a hazard … and need to be harvested immediately in order to restore and retain the valuable water resources and soil nutrients of Mangaia” (Cook Islands Herald, 2009). Ascott believes increased acidity, from the pine trees could leach the coral reef (ibid).
Compounding the problem has been the extension of the forest to the lower slopes and valley floors, with the planting of invasive tree species like Acacia146 and Albizia for
development projects that never eventuated.
Acacia was planted to provide fuel for the electricity generators on the island, reducing the need for expensive diesel, but the idea never even started. Albizia was grown to provide a soft timber for pineapple packing cases, but the project never eventuated and the fast growing invasive tree has become a nuisance.
Participant 43: Community member
A forestry management plan prepared by Jahn (2001), recommended the removal of the trees with portable mills, as large-scale logging would rip the trees from the ground causing further soil erosion. The plan goes on to suggest the planting of slower growing indigenous tree species to improve soil cover. In summary, development practices, in this case the pineapple industry, led to soil erosion and the presence of invasive tree species. The pineapple industry also impacted on cultural and social sustainability through
“competition for labour” (Allen, 1969, p. 77). The singular focus on wage labour resulted
in the neglect of akonoangaenua and a resulting reduction in livelihood resilience. Reduced fishing, planting and sharing meant some Mangaians went without.
In summary, the desire for economic development can result in a partial move away from more ecosystem friendly oraanga Mangaia practices, and a resultant pressure on the
environment and culture of Mangaians. The development pathway is eventually unsustainable.
I now describe a potential alternative future pathway B where development thinking and practice incorporates culture and local context, a scenario where SD is indeed possible. Pathway B
In this pathway, oraanga Mangaia stays firmly embedded at the centre of development thinking as described in sections 6.4 and 6.5. The desire to retain the benefits of oraanga Mangaia and culture is strong. New economic development initiatives co-exist and leverage off oraanga Mangaia rather than replacing it. Necessary economic activity and development occurs but in a manner which respects oraanga Mangaia and minimises environmental impact. As Jim Marurai counsels:
We have to be careful about how we go about development on the island. We have to consider the impact of any development on the environment and our culture.
Jim Marurai
Western interpretations of development disguised as helpful development assistance are recognised and politely rejected. The result is holistic development that creates economic and material wealth whilst strengthening oraanga Mangaia, Mangaian culture and protecting the environment. The development approach in pathway B is more sustainable and can be considered in the context of Maiava’s description of a previously hidden Pacific indigenous development that operates in a hopeful post-development setting, as described in section 2.4.