S Haack, op cit., pp 31-47.

Five key themes emerged from the analysis of the findings. They were:  Existing Māori heritage gardens

 How heritage is defined  Gardens, health and wellbeing

 Re-establishing and sustaining gardens  Planning and heritage

The gardens that were visited during the course of this study emphasised how Māori heritage gardens can provide a rich treasure of cultivation history and Mātauranga Māori. Additionally, they can help to keep the home fires burning whilst nourishing people and their spirits as they connect back to Papa-tū-ā-nuku, Rongo-marae-roa and their ancestral roots. As the kai grows so do the people, their shared memories, narratives, identity and spirits. A Māori heritage garden is more than a living monument, it restores genetic seed heritage and is a link to cultural activity that expresses indigeneity through knowledge, traditions and values indigenous to New Zealand.

International bodies, charters and models have shaped heritage conceptions. These definitions have been framed by Eurocentric ideals that embrace the grandeur of architecture and art associated with buildings and decorative gardens that portray European heritage. Over time international heritage has broadened its scope to

125

recognise heritage types beyond the tangible such as intangible and living heritage that embrace concepts valued by indigenous peoples. However, these types of heritage encompass more than physical properties and therefore are outside the familiar and conventional ideas around heritage that dominate heritage planning. Thus the challenge ahead is to encourage wider views that look beyond the material to the metaphysical and holistic.

Garden heritage can represent indigenous life ways in the contemporary world. Customary tools can help to inform crop growth, sustain whānau and enable hapū to provide for their manuhiri and serve nutritional traditional foods that have been grown with the blessings of their atua. This thesis has illustrated the link between indigenous gardens, heritage, planning and health. Planning to help restore and sustain Māori food gardens can help to provide for the interlinking prerequisites for Māori health – social, physical, mental and spiritual wellbeing.

Pro-active measures are required to ensure that indigenous garden heritage can be re-established and although they represent an ephemeral form of heritage, through effective support the life cycle of gardens can be constantly renewed and maintained to ensure that this taonga is sustained into the future. The research findings highlight that Māori garden heritage projects must be driven by Māori as any imposed solution will be unsustainable. Additionally, councils can assist with the planning and funding that is required to help pay for resources and project staff such as coordinators and researchers. Councils could also relieve pressure by providing rates subsidies and removing leasing agreements. Collaborative and inter-sectoral arrangements between council and hapū and other agencies such as health and educational providers require open and honest communication and long term commitment to ensure the longevity and success of a heritage communal gardening project.

The problem this research has revealed is how planning can hinder effective input by tangata whenua in heritage planning and management. These issues will need to be addressed if planning is able to effectively contribute to the revival of Māori food gardens as a part of New Zealand’s living indigenous heritage. The interview and

126

questionnaire findings reinforced the literature. For instance, economic development priorities will often mean that indigenous heritage values are overlooked especially where there is a lack of tangible evidence. This focus on physical properties reflects that material heritage is the most accepted form of heritage within the planning system.

The incorporation of Māori perspectives and local tribal experts’ knowledge is lacking in many council planning policies and plans and as a result there is a privileging of a western worldview and the alienation of local indigenous knowledge. This is evident in the neglect of Māori knowledge and values in in policies and plans. Despite the

RMA framework that provides for Māori input into decision-making, uptake of these provisions is often an afterthought with tangata whenua being asked to comment on plans and policies rather than develop them from the outset. Furthermore, local plans such as district or city plans contain policies and objectives that promote Māori participation in heritage management planning. However, tension remains as to how to effectively implement plans that incorporate Māori philosophies so that plans aren’t just words on paper.

District plans often have scant iwi provisions or include the recognition of Māori heritage values in introductory chapters identifying issues, but have little or no mention in the rest of the plan. These issues imply that planning systems require restructuring to be more responsive to tangata whenua needs. Greater effort is needed to identify and remove the institutional barriers that prevent empowerment of Māori in contributing to heritage management. The potential opportunities for delivering change are ultimately dependent on council planning approaches to provide for structures, policy, plans and processes which speak to Māori ambitions for both celebrating and protecting their ancestral heritage.

To better recognize the value and importance of Maori heritage gardens, there will need to be changes to both planning and heritage management. Under the RMA re- establishing a substantive garden may require a resource consent incurring costs and time delays, if a Māori garden on a traditional cultivation site does exist then there

127

may be problems in having it recognised as a heritage site. Furthermore, Māori food gardens as inclusive of living and intangible heritage and spiritual values is unfamiliar territory for many planners when dealing with heritage thus they are likely to be overlooked in planning decisions unless there is more explicit recognition of Māori heritage gardens. At the same time hapū and or iwi will need to drive this if there is to be greater recognition of these gardens in plans, policies and legislation.

Local authorities have statutory obligations to recognise and provide for the rights of tangata whenua under the TOW in protecting their taonga. Therefore the treaty principles such as participation, protection and partnership must be applied in planning practice to ensure Māori heritage perspectives, knowledge and values are recognised and provided for in planning processes. Active participation means planners need to provide opportunities for regular and on-going input into decision- making by hapū and iwi in heritage planning processes including the opportunity to participate from the formulation to the development and implementation stages of heritage policy and plan-making and by councils ensuring they are aware of consents that may impact on their heritage.

Protecting Māori interests regarding their heritage and associated values can be achieved through a values-centered planning approach that ensures a mātauranga Māori framework informs heritage management and planning praxis alongside western knowledge and approaches. This approach prompts local authorities to evaluate their processes and approaches in terms of their efficacy in acknowledging and providing explicit reference to and protection for the diversity of indigenous heritage. Furthermore, councils need to support iwi to develop heritage planning tools such as IMPS and cultural impact assessments that enable them to identify how they want their heritage values protected. Furthermore, district plans need to contain robust iwi provisions such as Māori heritage protection zones with rules to protect Māori heritage sites and associated values. These provisions must cascade throughout the plan from issues, objectives and policies through to the methods. The

128

interview findings highlighted how district plans can help to protect Māori heritage values through having tailor-made district or city plan rules.

Partnerships must be cultivated by local authorities and planners with hapū and iwi that are based on building trust, provide for greater Māori representation, mutual learning and shared decision-making opportunities. Joint decision-making, collaborative arrangements and MOUS that are tailor made for the local people will help to ensure tangata whenua interests in heritage management and planning are represented.

Thus, local authorities and heritage planners can fulfil their statutory obligations under the treaty through best practice and respond to the post-colonial challenge to reframe heritage around supporting indigenous rights. If planning is to contribute to reviving Māori food garden heritage it will require that local authorities and planners re-think, re-plan and re-store indigenous connections to their ancestral heritage. This will help tangata whenua to reclaim their garden heritage, so that it is living once again and their people can continue to grow and thrive into the future.