1 Introduction
The purpose of this study was to develop a tool to facilitate the input and participation of iwi into land and water management processes and decision making. The result is the Cultural Health Index (CHI) for streams, developed by linking Western scientific methods and cultural knowledge about stream health.
This study is one of a number of Māori environmental performance indicator case studies that have been funded by the Ministry for Environment as part of its Environmental Performance Indicators Programme.
It is an extension of the Taieri River Project, which was initiated in 1998 and focused on freshwater, specifically water quantity. Now known as Stage 1, the initial study resulted in the identification of indicators that iwi use to assess stream health.
During the current study (Stage 2), these indicators were revalidated and refined, and provided the basis on which the CHI was developed. Although aspects of mahinga kai were expressed in the indicators initially identified, when Stage 2 of the study began in 2000 it was not obvious how mahinga kai could be adequately incorporated into an index.
In this report we describe the development of the Cultural Health Index for streams (sections 3 and 4). The significance of stream health to iwi (section 2) and the potential value of such a tool (section 5) are discussed in detail. Comparisons between the stream health component of the CHI and Western scientific stream health measures indicate that the CHI is not only a credible measure of stream health, but also a good indicator of land use within a catchment (section 4). We identify the benefits of applying the tool as a way of involving iwi in environmental reporting, water and land management, and the regional council processes that can provide for such involvement (section 5).
1.1 Relationship to the Ministry for the Environment's strategic direction
The principal driver for this project was the Ministry for the Environment's Environmental Performance Indicators (EPI) Programme, under which a set of environmental performance indicators is being completed that will allow resource managers to monitor progress towards achieving key environmental goals (at both a national and a regional level).
The Ministry sought direction from Māori about the way they wanted to be involved in the development of EPIs. In addition to a national working group, four Māori case studies were supported. The Taieri River project, or Stage 1 of this current project, was one of the four.
When developing an assessment tool for application at a local level it was essential that the tool be consistent with the directions prescribed at the national level.
1.2 Study title and objectives
This project is called the 'Mauri and Mahinga Kai Indicators Project', but from the beginning we struggled with use of the term 'mauri' because of the many intangible aspects of mauri that cannot be encompassed by an index. It would also be demeaning to the concept - and to the fundamental beliefs of Māori - to try to devise a mauri index. However, we chose to use the term 'mauri' in some discussions because we were trying to define some of the components of mauri with respect to the management of freshwater systems. For an overall index that includes aspects of stream health and mahinga kai, we have chosen to use the phrase 'cultural health index'.
A number of objectives were agreed between Ministry for the Environment staff and the project team at the start of the project. At that stage we did not attempt to define the type of tool that could result from the study. As the project progressed and indicators were defined, the concept of constructing the Cultural Health Index (CHI) for streams developed and became a reality.
Because of the way the study evolved, we have included the following commentary on the status of each objective. For clarity, reference is made to the section that contains detailed discussion about particular aspects of the objectives.
1. Devise relevant indicators of mauri and mahinga kai [Using mahinga kai is a natural extension of the project, given that all kaumatua agreed that the abundance, diversity and health of the life supported by a river is an indicator of its mauri.] for selected sites from the headwaters to the lower reaches of the Taieri and Kakaunui Rivers consistent with Ngai Tahu's ki uta ki tai philosophy (sections 2, 3 and 4)
Indicators were identified, defined, and developed into the Cultural Health Index for streams. The index has three distinct components, each of which is made up of multiple measures. The three components are:
- the status of the site
- a mahinga kai measure
- a runanga evaluation of cultural stream health.
(a) Status of the site
Sites are classified according to whether or not they have a traditional association with iwi and whether or not iwi believe they would or would not use the site in the future.
(b) Mahinga kai measure
The second component of the CHI was developed as a specific measure because of the significance of mahinga kai to Māori. The indicators and the data needed to derive this assessment were obtained from interviews with kaumatua and iwi resource managers, [Iwi resource managers: the only iwi that has participated in this project to date has been Ngai Tahu. Therefore any references to iwi resource managers should be read as referring to Ngai Tahu resource managers.] as well as from contemporary assessments of mahinga kai availability.
(c) A runanga evaluation of cultural stream health
The third component of the CHI comprises evaluations of a number of critical cultural indicators of stream health. The majority of the cultural indicators of stream health identified in the 1998 study were encapsulated in a questionnaire that was completed by runanga team members in 46 stream and river sites. The members also recorded overall stream health on a scale of 1-5, providing a baseline against which to compare and condense the indicators to a smaller set that effectively defines cultural stream health. Our aim was to produce a manageable and straightforward process by which runanga teams can consistently assess stream health now and in the future.
We compared the cultural stream health component of the CHI with two Western scientific measures of stream health:
- the Macroinvertebrate Community Index (MCI), based on invertebrates on the stream bed
- the Stream Health Monitoring and Assessment Kit (SHMAK), which has habitat and invertebrate components.
Results showed that the cultural stream health component of CHI was a reliable measure of stream health that reflected both the invertebrate and habitat components of the Western scientific measures. This was a fundamental aspect of the project given that Māori may have cultural and spiritual values outside those identified and captured by Western scientific measures.
2. Determine the effect of catchment land use (tussock, forest and pasture) on indicators of mauri and mahinga kai for the Taieri and Kakaunui Rivers (section 4.3.2 c)
The greater the percentage of developed land in the catchment above each stream site, the poorer the cultural stream health score. In assessing the effect of land use on stream health, the cultural stream health component of the index performed as well as the Western scientific MCI and better than the SHMAK. Determining the effect of specific land uses required the replication of sites within each land-use category, which was beyond the scope of this study. However, this could be readily achieved in an extension of the current study.
3. Formulate ways of integrating indicators of mauri into Western scientific measures of stream health to better accommodate tangata whenua values and encourage participation in stream-monitoring programmes (section 4.3.2 d)
We found that the cultural and Western scientific measures of stream health are focused at completely different levels. Whereas the Western scientific measures are based on specific measurable components in the stream, cultural perceptions about the entire catchment are the basis of the cultural stream health component of the CHI. The project reconfirmed the significance of holism to Māori. Attempting to combine measures that are so philosophically distinct was not considered appropriate. However, the cultural measure fits comfortably alongside Western scientific measures and provides a significant and complementary addition to tools for assessing stream health. As noted above, Māori have values outside those captured by Western measures.
4. Document how indicators of mauri and mahinga kai can be incorporated into regional councils' land and water management planning and decision-making processes (section 5)
The CHI has been accepted in the Otago region as a potentially valuable tool for the expression of iwi views about stream health. It also incorporates an important diagnostic and monitoring capability that holds considerable promise for enhancing land and water resource planning and decision-making. These aspects are documented later in this report.
5. Develop and document a process for determining indicators of mauri and mahinga kai that can be applied by mana whenua to assess the condition of river systems throughout their takiwa (section 5)
The CHI we have developed is based on Ngai Tahu perspectives about stream health and their assessment of hill country rain-fed rivers. Given that kaumatua and other runanga members from throughout the rohe were involved in identifying stream health indicators, we are confident that the index can be applied to other hill country rain-fed rivers throughout the rohe by Ngai Tahu runanga.
What is less certain is the validity of the CHI for very different river types and for other iwi. For instance, the important features of hill country rain-fed rivers may not be the same for gravel braided rivers. Similarly, other iwi may value rivers in a different way and produce a different list of indicators. An extension of the study is required to validate the index for other river types and other iwi.
In this report we have documented the process of determining the CHI, with the proviso that it must be validated for distinctly different river types and for other iwi for there to be confidence in applying the results more widely. For this reason, the process documented here cannot yet be described or promoted as a guideline for other iwi or river types.
Photograph 1: Rangatahi (foreground) attending the training day on the
Lower Taieri.
Photograph 2: Members of Te Runanga o Moeraki attending the training
day.
