How do we get that balance between productivity and protection? Farming versus restoration. Some of those relationships are adversarial but do they need to be? (CS04/34390)
Achieving a balance of the multiple goals that landowners and users have for any given area and natural resources is a constant challenge identified by all participants interviewed. Land use activities such as farming and cropping can have a significant impact on the condition of an ecosystem. Demands for water extraction and the use of waterways for release of waste and general
farm run off (CS01/3222; CS13/5430) can contribute to environmental degradation. Māori have a post colonial history, enforced by the Crown (Loveridge, 1996; McClean & Smith, 2001c), as a developer of natural resources. Resource use was geared towards economic development. Māori were encouraged to transform the ancestral landscape for ―productive agricultural use‖ (Loveridge, 1996, p. 153). Farming became and remains a common activity on Māori-owned land (Loveridge, 1996),170
particularly those properties owned and administered by hapū members (CS04/12637, 34390; CS06/409; CS08/4863). For example in the Whakaki area there are a number of farming ventures owned by hapū members including the Anewa Station, Whakaki 2N Māori Incorporation and Te Whakaari (Whaanga, 2004). Also, a number of smaller Māori land blocks around the Lake property continue to be leased for agricultural activities. These types of enterprises are complicit in the environmental degradation of the Whakaki Lake ecosystem and continue to place pressures on this system (Forster, 2010b). Given the importance attached to cultural precepts that underpin the contemporary practice of kaitiakitanga the people interviewed in this study argued for more of an effort to adopt resource management practices that are more consistent with kaitiakitanga. This means that there is a need to be more critical of our own actions:
Ironic really considering that most of the land in this area is Māori owned and it is the local people themselves that are leasing the land out to major cropping or farming companies and it is the action of the leasees that is stuffing up [the environment]. The Māori owners don’t tell the growers not to do that. They don’t lease it to someone else. (CS08/4085)
All of the participants spoke of the need to identify inconsistencies in practice and work towards transforming those practices so that customary templates are once again the basis of hapū resource management decisions. For example when making decisions related to use of land other options besides farming could be considered. Furthermore, hapū members and the entities that manage their interests should make more of an effort to engage in relationships and economic development activities that reflect core cultural values like kaitiakitanga:
That whole relationship thing is really really important and you do need to strategise what the relationship is... just be aware... ok we are doing restoration projects but we could be working with a developer who is actually doing adverse things so we need to be aware that we are not just supplying trees to beautify some project while in the mean time these guys have actually shafted us... we need to be aware of that. (CS06/27394)
However it is idealistic to suggest that these issues can be resolved simply by prioritising core cultural values. Such an argument ignores the complexities involved in addressing environmental degradation and the consequences of historical and social circumstances that shape the realities and economic activity of hapū (CS03/38577; CS13/18216, 20045).
170
In 2005/2006 52% of Māori owned commercial assets were invested in primary industries (i.e. agriculture, horticulture, forestry, fishing and mining) and 40% in tertiary industries (i.e. service industry).
Crown policy and practices that facilitated the conversion of Māori-owned land for farming (Loveridge, 1996) has resulted in agricultural activity dominating Māori economic development. In this regard the state has controlled the type of land based activities in which hapū could engage. The capacity to diversify or engage in alternative land use activities requires considerable investment, research and development. Hapū capability, particularly that of smaller hapū or land block owners, in these areas is limited. Diversification or a change in core activities also needs to be driven but finding an individual or team with the skills, expertise and tenacity to lead such a project is difficult for many small scale hapū. Also, a transformation in practice is limited by the organisational structures used to manage Māori owned-land. For example changing the terms of a trust order is a complex process. Introducing new, alternative practices to farming can be equally challenging for it requires a substantive shift in the attitudes and practices of those involved in management of these properties. Change requires considerable effort, planning and resources. Remaining with the status quo is much easier.
Nevertheless despite the many challenges all of the participants in this study were adamant that improved environmental outcomes could feature more prominently in the development agenda of a hapū:
That is what I think a lot more hapū and iwi need to be doing, planning for the future... Of course in there you need your ablution block and the restoration of the flag pole and wharenui and all that but needs to go wider to include the local environment. (CS03/29234)
Also, extra effort could be invested in support of practices such as sustainable development that are consistent with a kaitiakitanga ethos (CS03/37539, 38363; CS08/4085). At one level this requires identification of practices that “denigrate Papatūānuku” (CS13/17963) and taking active steps to minimise the hapū and personal impact on the environment, “If we are not willing to support hydro dams then we better not use too much energy cause if we are not happy with them then what alternatives are we investing in?... you can’t be a hypocrite” (CS13/120876). Therefore the participants are advocating for hapū decision-making that is based on a value or ethical based approach cognisant of the cultural basis of resource use and development.
All of the participants in this study argued that a value or ethics based approach that was cognisant of the implications of our actions must be channelled towards resource use and development decisions. Such a decision- making mindset ensures that key cultural precepts such as whakapapa connections and notions such as sustainability are key drivers of land and natural resource use and development rather than just financial gain (CS03/38363). The active kaitiaki argued that there was a need for a more critical, strategic and deliberate approach when making decisions related to land use and getting “smarter” (CS08/1607; CS09/111; CS13/26838, 55705) with regard to environmental data collection, preparation of submissions and engagement with others. The objective would be to link core cultural values and tikanga to land use so that the whenua that remains for future generations is indeed a taonga tuku iho. That is, the whenua is still capable of exhibiting those elements that are highly valued by the hapū and is able to contribute to whānau ora (family health and wellbeing) by sustaining the hapū and future generations spiritually, culturally and economically.