• About this site|
• Site index|
• Contact us|
• Jobs

A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways: A tool for nationwide use

1 Introduction

2 Development of the Cultural Health Index

3 Evolution of the Cultural Health Index for streams and rivers

4 Engagement with Māori values

5 Conclusion

Glossary

References

Acknowledgements

Appendix 1: Recording form used to assess sites in the Taieri, Kakaunui and Hakatere catchments

Appendix 2: Recording form used to assess sites in the Tukituki ctchment

Appendix 3: Table used to assign the 1-5 scores for the nmber of species present at a site

Appendix 4: Final recording form used to assess sites in any catchment

Appendix 5: Examples of site assessments completed in the four catchment studies

Appendix 6: Ministry for the Environment's Environmental Performance Indicator Programme

4 Engagement with Māori values

4.1 Responsiveness to Māori values

Throughout the study, our intention was to develop an evaluative tool that was grounded in the beliefs and values of Māori. Before concluding this report it is necessary to reflect, firstly, upon how the index recognises and provides for Māori values described in Section 2 and the indicators identified during Stage 1. Each of the Māori values from Section 2 is listed below, and the extent to which the design of the Cultural Health Index and/or the process by which tangata whenua apply the Cultural Health Index in their takiwa recognises and responds to that particular value, is explained. [This is based on the framework presented by Crengle which appears in Tipa, Crengle, Davis, Allingham and Symon (2002) Cultural Impact Assessment - Project Aqua.]

Whakapapa: the Cultural Health Index uses traditional knowledge (without disclosing it) and recognises interactions between, and the significance of, different parts of an ecosystem (e.g. relationship between physical characteristics and the mahinga kai species present, or between individual physical characteristics of a waterbody such as water flow, water quality catchment and riparian condition).

Mauri: the three components of the Cultural Health Index collectively represent a means by which Māori will measure the present health of the river in a holistic manner, thus enabling them to assess the extent to which contemporary resource management protects the mauri of the resource.

Wahi tapu and wahi taonga: sites that are assessed will be chosen by those individuals mandated as kaitiaki because the sites are significant due to their tapu or taonga status.

Rangatiratanga: application of the Cultural Health Index by tangata whenua and use of the data collected formally recognises the rights of iwi to land, water and other natural resources within their tribal areas - including rights to access, use and manage resources.

Mahinga kai: the mahinga kai measure reflects the need to protect the diversity and abundance of species necessary for the cultural well-being of tangata whenua as well as the need to safeguard the ability of tangata whenua to gather and use these resources, thus enabling the transference of cultural values and practices between generations.

Taonga: the three components of the Cultural Health Index collectively recognise the intrinsic and the amenity values of resources and the fundamental management principle - protection of the mauri of taonga.

Kaitiaki: when applying the Cultural Health Index, Māori will be fulfilling their intergenerational responsibilities to protect taonga for future generations.

Tikanga Māori: the three components of the Cultural Health Index comprise indicators that Māori have confirmed are those used by Māori to monitor the state of freshwater resources.

4.2 Responsiveness of the CHI to indicators from stage 1

Table 10: Description of how the indicators are addressed in the final CHI

* Indicators from Stage 1 that are incorporated in the CHI are marked in bold.

Issues that are still to be resolved include: whether these values are formally or informally acknowledged in the Cultural Health Index; whether resource management agencies will recognise these Māori values; and, if adopted, will resource management agencies fully appreciate their relevance and give them appropriate weighting along with 'scientific' values?

A further issue concerns how a Māori perspective in freshwater management is to be acknowledged. Collaborative management is seen by Māori as a means of recognising different perspectives and benefiting from the complementarity of different value systems. Collaborative management is not about merging values systems (Davis, personal communication). While Stage 1 of the Taieri River Environmental Performance Indicator (EPI) project was initiated and managed by Ngāi Tahu, Stage 2 saw two perspectives, 'indigenous - cultural' and 'western science', working together to develop an index, using the indicators that Māori had identified. In effect, the Cultural Health Index provides an opportunity to extend the relationship between Māori and resource management agencies beyond the confined processes of New Zealand's resource laws.

Another significant consideration relating to the values of prospective partners concerns the value of knowledge. The Ministry's EPI programme was based on the premise that it is important to establish an environmental baseline so that changes and trends can be monitored over time. The intergenerational knowledge of Māori is a taonga (treasure) and its value to resource management has not been fully realised. The design of the CHI has found a way to use traditional information while protecting its sensitivity thus potentially enabling a 'baseline' that uses data from earlier periods, even as far back as the nineteenth century, to be established.

And finally there is the issue of environmental outcomes. Māori are likely to commit to a collaborative process if they are assured that collaboration will achieve the outcomes they seek. Because the project is only at the stage where a 'tool' to assist assessment and data collection has been developed, the process has not progressed to the point where it is possible to provide resource management agencies with hard evidence that the use of the Cultural Health Index will result in positive environmental outcomes.

4.3 Facilitating increased responsiveness by resource managers

Within contemporary New Zealand society, the Treaty is viewed as the cornerstone, having the potential to be enabling (Broad, personal communication). In advocating an increased level of participation and support for initiatives such as the Cultural Health Index, Ngāi Tahu would inevitably use the Treaty of Waitangi and the principles of the Treaty to support its argument.

The role of the Waitangi Tribunal is the second aspect that needs to be analysed when considering the future of the Cultural Health Index. The Waitangi Tribunal has considered a range of issues that different iwi, including Ngāi Tahu, have raised as part of claims before it. These relate to changes that have affected both the health of freshwater resources within tribal territories and tribal associations with these resources. As a result, a series of Treaty principles specific to freshwater can be found in the decisions of the Tribunal. [See Crengle (1993), Crengle in Ministry for the Environment (1997) and Tipa, Crengle, Davis, Allingham, Symon (2002).] For example:

• The Waitangi Tribunal has stated that the discharge of effluent or human waste is an affront to traditional Māori concepts and it is irrelevant to argue that it has been treated to a high, scientifically-defined standard before it has been discharged into rivers. Non-Māori, in particular those who share the use of freshwater and those who are charged with its protection, need to be aware of the mental and spiritual values held by Māori in relation to water and the resources it supports (Motunui-Waitara Report 1989).
• The Waitangi Tribunal also affirms that environmental consultation with iwi is a significant aspect of the partnership duty under the Treaty (Ngāi Tahu Report 1991).
• The Waitangi Tribunal has determined that the Māori concept of waterways is holistic and the rights that stem from the exercise of rangatiratanga over such resources will reflect this holistic perspective. The taonga value of freshwater encompasses the water itself, the resources within the waterbody and its supporting environs. Rangatiratanga with respect to water may include developmental interests (Te Ika Whenua Report 1998).
• The Waitangi Tribunal has stated that the spiritual and cultural significance of a freshwater resource to Māori can only be determined by the tangata whenua who have traditional rights over the river (Kaituna Report 1984).

These principles recognise cultural values and practices that Māori have promoted for decades and which they have struggled to have recognised by resource management agencies. Where resource management agencies have a statutory obligation with respect to the Treaty, they are obligated to 'give effect to' or 'take account of' those cultural values and practices that the Waitangi Tribunal and the courts have confirmed by way of Treaty principle.

Enunciating resource-specific Treaty principles, in theory, advances the case of Māori seeking either participation as a partner in a collaborative management system or at least the incorporation of their perspective in resource management. The identification of indicators and the development of the Cultural Health Index were necessary because statements of principle, by themselves, do not identify the changes in resource management practice that are required to ensure the practical application of these principles. Instead of providing clear direction for resource management agencies, the Waitangi Tribunal has imposed obligations without indicating how in a practical sense these obligations are to be met. The next step, to identify how the Treaty principles apply to specific resource management functions and activities, creates an immediate need for tools such as the Cultural Health Index and the formulation of appropriate processes to engage Māori.

With respect to freshwater management, a Treaty principle states that the spiritual and cultural significance of a freshwater resource can only be determined by the tangata whenua who have traditional rights over the river (Waitangi Tribunal, Kaituna Report). This principle clearly supports the participation of Māori and the application of tools such as the Cultural Health Index, a mechanism that enables Māori to assess the health of sites of significance using an evaluative tool grounded in the beliefs and values of Māori [and affirmed by scientific measurements].

4.4 Customary interests in freshwater

If the Cultural Health Index is to fully accommodate cultural values, it should also be cognisant of customary and Treaty rights. A rights-based approach is likely to be fundamental to tangata whenua interests in using the Cultural Health Index in working relationships with resource management agencies. From discussions with key informants, the property interests that Ngāi Tahu want to protect are the rights to manage, access and use resources of significance to them.

With respect to the right to manage, the Cultural Health Index project recognises the need for tools that enable Māori to exercise their right to manage natural resources significant to them. When designing the Cultural Health Index, a conscious decision to incorporate traditional knowledge was made. As a consequence, Māori, as kaitiaki, must apply the index and use their traditional knowledge to inform future assessments. If the support of resource management agencies is obtained, the Cultural Health Index is applied by Māori, and the resultant data used to inform decision-making, the project team will have achieved, in part, its goal of enabling Māori to exercise their right to manage.

Figure 2: Recognising the right to manage: elements of the Cultural Health Index that must be assessed by Māori

See figure at full size including text description

The ability of Māori to access and use resources is recognised in the design of the Cultural Health Index and, as a result, data are collected about access and use rights. Step 1 of the Cultural Stream Health Index requires Māori to respond to the question: would you visit and use this site in the future? This, together with questions relating to mahinga kai, enables an immediate assessment of the ability of the site to sustain cultural usage.

Finally, through the application of the Cultural Health Index, resource management agencies will be able to collect data that can facilitate Māori exercise of those rights. However, the fragmentation of property interests poses practical difficulties. As Davis (personal communication) points outs, "Where do we run the argument?". In other words, which organisation should Māori be targeting as a prospective partner and thus advocating the use of the Cultural Health Index? Davis also expressed concern that there is a reluctance by resource management agencies to recognise rights or even use that terminology because of their perception that rights only means ownership rights (Davis, personal communication). The failure of agencies to recognise that rights encompass not just the right to own but also to manage, access and use resources is seen as a potential barrier to effective collaboration with Māori and more effective resource management practice.

It is acknowledged that local authorities face a challenge in meaningfully including Māori values, satisfying expectations and meeting their obligations under the Resource Management Act in the absence of knowledge, tools and processes that provide them with access to a Māori perspective. Without these, resource managers will have trouble incorporating Māori values in the planning and application of environmental management and working in partnership with the iwi and hapū who share a responsibility for the areas in question. The Cultural Health Index is a tool that supports the meaningful inclusion of Māori values in the management of freshwater stream health. Ideally, the index will thus support both tangata whenua and council management of the streams and waterways in their areas.