5 Applying the Cultural Health Index
5.1 Capturing an iwi perspective
Because the Cultural Health Index is intended to assist Māori and resource managers to collect data specific to cultural values, it was essential that the index be grounded in the beliefs, values and practices of Māori. As the previous sections confirm, our project originally sought to develop indicators consistent with the values of mauri and mahinga kai, but resulted in the incorporation or recognition of many other cultural values in the CHI and many unanticipated social and cultural outcomes. The purpose of summarising the values in the following paragraphs is to demonstrate how the goal of recognising, promoting, or protecting cultural values in the design and application of the CHI has been achieved.
5.1.1 Cultural values recognised in the design of the index [This framework is based on that presented by Crengle (2002).]
The design of the CHI, and in particular the decision to have three components, responds to Māori values, as follows.
- Mauri: the three components of the CHI collectively represent a way for Māori to measure the present health of the river in a holistic manner and compare it to their recollections of the site's condition in the past, thus enabling them to assess the extent to which contemporary resource management protects the mauri of the resource.
- Wahi tapu and wahi taonga: sites selected may include those considered to be wai tapu or wai taonga. Those applying the index need simply to identify a site as traditional - they are not required to disclose to resource management agencies the reasons for it being considered tapu or a taonga.
- Mahinga kai: component 2 reflects the need to protect the diversity and abundance of species, and safeguard the ability of mana whenua to gather and use these resources, both now and in the future.
5.1.2 Values recognised when mana whenua apply the CHI
The CHI has been designed in such a way that it must be applied by Māori. The calculation of CHI scores must be informed by traditional knowledge. Participation of mana whenua ensures that the following values are recognised:
- Mana: application of the index and use of the information to inform resource management processes recognises that iwi have the right to access, use and manage waterways, and the interaction of humans with waterways.
- Mana whenua: recognises that those individuals mandated to apply the index will be chosen on the basis of ancestry (i.e. their whakapapa).
- Kaitiakitanga: imposes responsibilities to manage resources in a manner that protects the resource and the interests of future generations. Application of the CHI represents a means of engaging with kaitiaki in management processes.
5.2 The CHI as a diagnostic and monitoring tool
This report does not contain all the CHI calculations for the 46 sites assessed. This information belongs to the kaitiaki runanga, who will now use this information in its discussions with the regional council.
However, to illustrate how the CHI can be used as a diagnostic and planning tool, information collected at five sites has been included in Appendix 2. The CHI scores of these sites are set out below with a brief analysis of each score.
- Site 1: McRaes Creek: B-1 / 2.69 / 4.87
- Site 6: Barbours Stream Tributary: B-0 / 1.3 / 3.02
- Site 11: Owhiro Creek: A-0 / 1.75 / 1.65
- Site 21: Taieri River - Ferry Bridge: A-1 / 1.65 / 2.72
- Site 38: Island Stream - Maheno: A-0 / 2.56 / 1.06
Photograph 3: McCraes Creek (in the Taieri Catchment). The CHI is B-1
/ 2.69 / 4.87.
Photograph 4: Three O'clock Stream - a site in the Taieri Catchment.
The CHI score was B-0 / 1.25 / 3.55.
Photograph 5: A site on the lower reaches of the Waiareka. The CHI score
was A-0 / 1.44 / 1.97.
Photograph 6: The site on the Silverstream on the Lower Taieri. The
CHI score was A-0 / 3.13 / 2.00.
Photograph 7: A site on the mainstem Kakaunui(CHI is A-1 / 2 / 2.86).
Photograph 8: One of the sites on the Waiareka (in the Kakaunui Catchment).
The CHI score is B-0 / 1.75 / 1.37
5.2.1
Site 1: McRaes Creek (B-1 / 2.69 / 4.87)
The assessment confirmed that:
- this is not a traditional site (B)
- despite this, runanga members would return to the site (1)
- its mahinga kai values are only average (2.69):
- an average score for access - it is accessible, although it involves a significant walk
- a reasonable range of mahinga kai species present, especially plants, but this is a small tributary and there are not many fish species present
- not a traditional site and therefore species sourced traditionally cannot be compared with those present today (scores 1)
- scores highly because runanga members would return to the site
- it scores very highly for component 3, stream health (in fact McRaes
Creek received the highest ratings of all 46 sites), as follows:
- catchment 4.6
- modification 4.75
- riparian 5
- flow visible 5
- water quality 5.
The slightly lower score for 'catchment' reflects the presence of some exotic species within a native catchment. The score for modification reflects the presence of a track through the watercourse that is used by mountain bikes and motorbikes.
5.2.2 Site 6: Barbours Stream (B-0 / 1.3 / 3.02)
The assessment confirmed that:
- this is not a traditional site (B)
- because of the degraded condition of the site, runanga members would not return to the site (0)
- its mahinga kai values are poor, because:
- it has poor access - it was be difficult for runanga members to find this site without assistance
- mahinga kai species were absent
- this is not a traditional site, therefore species sourced traditionally cannot be compared with those present today (scores 1)
- runanga members would not return to the site (scores 1)
- it received an average score for stream health:
- catchment 2.5
- modification 2.6
- riparian 1
- flow visible 5
- water quality 4.
The low scores for 'catchment', 'modification' and 'riparian' were because this site is heavily modified by stock. In particular, the riparian margin was considered to be in poor condition. Despite this, a flow is visible in the river and the water quality appears to be high, possibly because of the tussock in the catchment.
5.2.3 Site 11: Owhiro Creek (A-0 / 1.75 / 1.65)
The assessment confirmed that:
- this is a traditional site (A)
- runanga members would not return to the site (0)
- its mahinga kai values are low, due to:
- a high score for access, but
- the site is so modified there were no mahinga kai species, aside from eel
- it scores highly because it is traditionally a significant site for eels, and these are still present, but
- it scores poorly because runanga members would not return to the site
- it scores poorly for stream health (in fact it was one of the two
poorest scoring sites for this component):
- catchment 1
- modification 1
- riparian 1
- flow visible 4
- water quality 1.25.
All scores apart from a visible flow are very low.
5.2.4 Site 21: Taieri River - Ferry Bridge (A-1 / 1.65 / 2.72)
The assessment confirmed that:
- this is a traditional site (A)
- runanga members would return to the site in the future (1)
- its mahinga kai values are poor, because:
- it receives an average score for access
- there is not a good range of mahinga kai species present
- not all the species sourced traditionally are still present (scores poorly), but
- runanga members would return to the site (scores highly)
- average scores were assigned for stream health:
- catchment 2
- modification 1
- riparian 2.6
- flow visible 5
- water quality 3.
The lower score for 'catchment' reflects the fact that the catchment is highly modified. The score for modification reflects the reclamation upstream of the site, plus other types of riverbank protection. Water quality received an average score because of suspended sediments.
5.2.5 Site 38: Island Stream - Maheno (A-0 / 2.56 / 1.06)
The assessment confirmed that:
- this is a traditional site (A)
- runanga members would not return to the site (0)
- its mahinga kai values are only average:
- it receives a high score for access because it is easily accessible, but
- there is a limited range of mahinga kai species present
- it scores highly because it was a significance eel fishery and has the highest density of eels within either of the two catchments, but
- it scores poorly because runanga members would not return to the site
- it scores poorly for stream health:
- catchment 1
- modification 1.3
- riparian 1
- flow visible 1
- water quality 1.
The consistently low scores for each of the indicators confirm the poor health of this site, which was the worst of the 46 study sites.
5.3 Implementation of the CHI nationwide
During the course of the project, runanga members (and subsequently resource managers) identified the need for further work. Three specific areas of work have been identified:
- guidance to improve consistency of assessment by different members and different teams
- testing the applicability of the CHI in river types other than the type in which the CHI was first developed
- testing the acceptance of the CHI methodology by iwi other than the iwi who were involved in initial development of the CHI.
The purpose of this work would be to validate the CHI for nationwide use by iwi and resource managers.
5.4 Incorporating the CHI into resource management processes
The CHI we have developed is based on mahinga kai and stream health indicators identified by kaumatua and runanga members from throughout the Ngai Tahu rohe. Moeraki and Otakou runanga members evaluated these indicators for 46 sites on the Kakanui and Taieri Rivers (respectively), two rain-fed hill country rivers.
These two runanga can now use the results of the CHI on Taieri and Kakaunui River sites to work with the Otago Regional Council, identifying stream health issues of cultural importance and deciding how these might be addressed.
5.4.1 Process for applying the CHI on the Taieri and Kakaunui Rivers
- The runanga approves the use of the CHI and confirms the runanga
team that applied the tool and determined the CHI scores at sites
on the Taieri and Kakaunui Rivers.
- Inform the Council about the CHI.
- For each river site, runanga members interpret the scores assigned
to the three CHI components and identify priority issues.
- For each river site, runanga identify the sensitive information
that is to be protected by silent files (or a similar type of system).
- Runanga members work with the Council to identify priority issues
within each catchment.
- The Council and runanga members discuss ways of addressing these
issues and set objectives.
- Remedial actions are initiated.
- Monitoring requirements are identified and the runanga/Council undertake monitoring at appropriate intervals.
5.4.2 Process for deriving and applying the CHI on other rain-fed hill country rivers in the Ngai Tahu rohe
Because the five indicators that best describe stream health in the Taieri and Kakaunui Rivers apply to rain-fed hill country rivers, the CHI is ready to be implemented on this type of river throughout the rest of the Ngai Tahu rohe. The following process outlines the steps involved to achieve this.
- Inform the relevant runanga about the CHI.
- The runanga approves the use of the CHI and selects the runanga
team that will apply the tool and determine the CHI scores at selected
river sites.
- Train the runanga team in the use of the CHI.
- Inform the resource managers about the CHI.
- Select sites on the river(s) of interest. Site selection will depend
on the reason the CHI is being applied. However, selection will require
identifying traditional sites, and should include sites that reflect
ki uta ki tai. Other factors that might be important in site selection
include: land use, channel manipulation, water abstractions and discharges.
(Note: sites may be selected in conjunction with the water managers.)
- The runanga compiles available information about mahinga kai and
stream health for the sites of traditional significance.
- The runanga team carries out the CHI evaluations. For the stream
health component only the five indicators need to be rated.
- Electric fishing is carried out to identify mahinga kai fish species
present.
- Each component of the CHI is rated/calculated and the CHI determined
for each site.
- Runanga members interpret the scores assigned to each component
of the CHI and identify priority issues, if this is relevant.
- For each river site, runanga identify the sensitive information
that is to be protected by silent files (or similar type of system).
- Runanga members work with regional councils to identify priority
issues, if this is relevant.
- Regional council and runanga members discuss ways of addressing
these issues and set objectives.
- Remedial actions are decided and implemented.
- Monitoring requirements are identified and the runanga / regional council undertakes monitoring at appropriate intervals.
5.4.3 Process of deriving the CHI for other river types within the Ngai Tahu rohe
For other river types, such as gravel braided rivers or glacial-fed rivers, the mix of indicators defining stream health may be different to the five identified for rain-fed hill country rivers. To check this, the 18 indicators identified by kaumatua and runanga members (section 3.3.2) need to be validated, and the form to be used in the field finalised on the basis on the validated indicators. The final list of indicators will be rated by the runanga team at each stream site on a different river type. For the comparison between stream health indicators on rain-fed hill-county rivers and other river types to be valid, the sampling design must be comparable. Accordingly, site selection must conform to the criteria used for selecting sites on the hill-country rain-fed rivers: small, medium and large, traditional sites and a variety of land uses. [This requirement is necessary because the CHI is still under trial. Selecting a range of sites of differing sizes and land uses may not be needed in the future when iwi are choosing the sites they want to assess.] If the same five key stream health factors are identified from the analysis it indicates that the CHI can be applied with confidence on rivers throughout the Ngai Tahu rohe irrespective of river type.
The steps required to validate the stream health component of the CHI are as follows:
- The runanga approves the development of the CHI for different river
types and selects the runanga team that will evaluate river sites
for stream health.
- Train the runanga team in the use of the CHI.
- The kaitiaki runanga and regional council select a river that is
different to a hill-country rain-fed river and is culturally significant.
- Select sites on the basis of stream size (ki uta ki tai), traditional
association and land use that will provide sufficient data to identify
key stream health indicators.
- The runanga team records their ratings of the 18 stream health indicators
at each site.
- The regional council samples invertebrates and determines the MCI
at each site (optional, but recommended).
- Runanga stream health ratings are analysed according to the process
described in section 4.3 and significant indicators are identified.
- Scores are calculated for the stream health component of CHI at
each site.
- Relationships between stream health component scores and MCI scores are investigated.
If the same five indicators describe stream health in this type of river, one process can be used to implement the CHI on all rivers within the Ngai Tahu rohe (see 5.4.1 above).
If different indicators are identified, they will make up a different stream health component of the CHI to be used for that type of river throughout the rohe.
5.4.4 Process of deriving the CHI for other iwi
It is necessary to determine whether another iwi feels the three components of the CHI appropriately reflect their values. The CHI component that requires particular attention is the stream health measure (component 3). If differences are revealed, these will probably originate in the beliefs of kaumatua about what makes a healthy stream. However, it is important to validate the overall design of the CHI if it is to provide iwi around the rest of the country with a useful tool.
Only those steps that are required to validate the stream health component of the CHI with different iwi are documented below. Please note that focus groups will be used to assess the overall design of the CHI.
- Observe protocols to gain entrance to the iwi. Time should be taken
to ensure that appropriate mandates are obtained.
- Inform the iwi about the CHI in a forum of their choice.
- Iwi support the extension of the CHI into their rohe.
- Kaumatua and other iwi members are interviewed, and the transcripts
used to identify stream health indicators. Once iwi mandate is obtained,
guidance should be sought as to which kaumatua or iwi members should
be interviewed. [A list of the questions
used for this project is included in Appendix 3.]
- A list of possible indicators is compiled, refined, and listed on
recording sheets.
- Iwi select the team that will evaluate river sites according to
the list of indicators.
- The iwi team is trained in the use of the recording sheets.
- Inform the regional council about the CHI.
- The iwi select a culturally significant rain-fed hill-country river
(this could be in conjunction with the regional council).
- Select sites on the basis of stream size (ki uta ki tai), traditional
association and land use that will provide sufficient data to identify
key stream health indicators. Where possible, it would be advantageous
to utilise the databases of resource management agencies, in particular
regional councils.
- Iwi team records their ratings of the listed stream health indicators
at each site.
- Regional council samples invertebrates and determines the MCI at
each site (optional but recommended).
- Iwi stream health ratings are analysed according to the process
described in section 4.3 and significant indicators are identified.
- Scores are calculated for indicators that make up the stream health
component of the CHI at each site.
- The relationships between stream health component scores and MCI scores are investigated.
If the indicators making up the stream health component are the same as those identified by Ngai Tahu, the current CHI for rain-fed hill-country rivers can be applied to other rivers of that type throughout the country. If the indicators differ, it implies that the stream health component of the CHI must be tailored to individual iwi.
Assuming the stream health component of the CHI proves common across river types and across iwi, the relevant process for working with the regional councils on water resource issues is documented in 5.4.1. The CHI is a tool that potentially can be applied throughout the country to facilitate the input and participation of iwi into resource management planning and decision-making processes.
