Key Issues Emerging from Consultation
Te riri me te mamae [anger and pain]
General frustrations
One of the most striking and consistent themes to emerge from the hui is the anger, pain and sorrow many Māori individuals and communities feel due to the current state of New Zealand's freshwater resources, particularly the effects of pollution and over-allocation of water. Many things underlie these feelings - pain at the damage which has been caused to Papatūānuku (the waterways are seen as her veins) and the mauri of waterways, the cultural offence caused by practices such as sewage and effluent discharge, the damage to and loss of mahinga kai, damage to the health of those who rely on that mahinga kai, the loss of cultural wellbeing caused by degradation of the mauri of the waters, the cumulative effects on all aspects of wellbeing and much more.
For Māori, issues around water allocation and quality are not new, and many communities have been dealing with the impacts of declining water quality for years. Consequently, there is widespread frustration at a lack of action over the years on water management issues, which was reflected in the annoyance and even anger expressed by many hui participants in their verbal submissions (although almost all submitters remained courteous in the expression of their anger).
Poor water quality and declining quantities of water were raised as an issue at almost all of the hui, especially in regions with extensive dairy farming or sewage discharges to freshwater bodies.
Many people stated quite specific concerns about the impacts of poor water quality on both the waterways they relate to and their local community. These were often based on their own experience or knowledge of local impacts, or feared local impacts. The criticisms which were most commonly expressed were that water management did not give proper priority to the environment, that poor water quality and quantity had significant effects on indigenous species in waterways (including mahinga kai and taonga species), that some types of pollution were highly offensive in cultural terms, and that human health was being affected by water-borne pollutants or contaminated food sources.
While hui participants sometimes spoke about water quality issues in general terms, many also complained about water quality degradation caused by particular activities in their area (for example, sedimentation from subdivision, roads, or forestry; discharges from industry, sewage works or farming; fall in water levels due to forestry or abstraction for irrigation). These comments were frequently linked with the speaker's personal familiarity with the quality of waterways in the area, and the activities causing the impact.
Consultation and process issues
There is support for the Sustainable Water Programme of Action kaupapa - some hui participants felt that the Sustainable Water Programme of Action was a good initiative with the potential for positive change. Engaging with Māori and local communities early in the policy development process and the opportunity to discuss issues at the hui was also supported by some, although the general view was that the hui should be the first step in a longer ongoing process of engagement with tangata whenua on freshwater management.
The climate of consultation on the Sustainable Water Programme of Action was influenced by Māori experience in other local and central government consultation processes. Some hui participants expressed cynicism about the central government approach to consultation, mostly due to late engagement with Māori resulting in non-meaningful consultation on issues in the past. Some also stated that past consultation has left them feeling as though their views were not incorporated into the feedback or the final policy, or that decisions had already been made prior to the consultation.
'Hui fatigue' was also cited as an issue by some participants, who find that attendance of hui can be a time-consuming commitment, with the same iwi and hapū members often required to attend hui and provide input for consultation on a number of concurrent issues without financial compensation for their time. Hui fatigue was expressed as an issue at the Sustainable Water Programme of Action hui, as they closely followed hui for foreshore and seabed, land access and aquaculture reforms, and the Review of the Resource Management Act 1991, with Treaty negotiations also proceeding in some areas.
There were some other specific criticisms and dissatisfactions expressed regarding the Sustainable Water Programme of Action consultation process. These included inadequate advertising, notification and provision of information (mostly in the first week of the hui where there were problems with advertising), inadequate resourcing for Māori to participate in government processes, complaints about the venues and locations chosen (including the desire of many for engagement to take place at hapū or marae level), and the relatively short time available to consider the information and make written submissions.
The general nature of the government presentation meant that many participants did not have sufficient information to discuss some of the technical or unfamiliar aspects of the Sustainable Water Programme of Action. Discussion of some issues and actions (for example, those around market mechanisms as a tool) was limited and only took place in very general terms, due to a lack of detail in the presentation and the discussion document itself.
There were also some concerns that the information from the hui would not influence the policy process, and that the discussion document showed a lack of understanding or consideration of issues for Māori (see following section). Fears were expressed at some hui that the Sustainable Water Programme of Action could lead to privatisation of water, and if so, the consultation was insufficient.
The hui presenters gave undertakings at the hui in order to assure the participants that the Sustainable Water Programme of Action consultation process is genuine. Participants were told that minutes of the hui would be supplied to Ministers and treated as formal submissions, that the hui would be reported back separately so that the views expressed would remain clearly differentiated, and that this consultation round was part of the initial stage of developing policy for the Sustainable Water Programme of Action, with no decisions on the shape of the final policy package having yet been made.
Scope of the Sustainable Water Programme of Action and the discussion document
The absence of any discussion of high-level Treaty issues (including issues around ownership of water) from the Sustainable Water Programme of Action discussion document Freshwater for a sustainable future was criticised at many hui. There was also particularly strong criticism from many of the hui that the discussion document makes little or no reference to Māori viewpoints, issues, and values. The absence of such references was alienating to many. Concerns were also raised that proposed actions to enhance Māori participation was only listed 11 out of 13 actions, when it should be at or near the top of the list, to reflect the Treaty relationship. The lack of prominence given to the issues for Māori has led to some participants in the hui being unwilling to fully engage.
Themes emerged regarding the scope of the Sustainable Water Programme of Action, and its sustainable development context. Many felt that a reprioritisation was needed to create an approach more in line with the principles of kaitiakitanga, with factors other than economic ones being given greater priority, and that the emphasis should be on enhancing rather than exploiting the water resource.
There was also a feeling in some areas that the Sustainable Water Programme of Action was not taking enough of a holistic view, as it did not consider issues and actions around urban water management, including stormwater and sewage treatment, or effects of freshwater management on the coastal environment and estuaries.
In relation to Māori participation in the Sustainable Water Programme of Action process, many at the hui supported the work done to date by the Māori Reference Group but sought changes to its composition. There was some support for a broader reference group with members from around the country representing waka or iwi.
The need to deal with Treaty issues around ownership and partnership
As noted above, many people felt alienated by the lack of discussion of high-level Treaty issues, Treaty claims or Māori values in the discussion document. A few saw the question of freshwater management as essentially a Treaty issue. Many participants called for the Treaty to be a factor in determining the appropriate level of Māori involvement in freshwater management, and wanted consideration of the Treaty relationship to be a priority within the Sustainable Water Programme of Action.
Many speakers were of the view that Treaty-based relationship and ownership issues must be addressed before any major changes to water management can be considered, with some stating that this was especially so where changes which might result in auctioning or tendering of water rights, or privatisation of the resource, were being considered. Some participants asked for government to work to address and clarify some of the uncertainties around property rights in fresh water. A few submitters wanted it to be much clearer whether the Crown was assuming ownership or management rights. Article 2 issues, particularly the need to protect water as a taonga and give Māori the power to protect their taonga themselves, were also raised.
The Treaty settlement process was raised as an issue in some areas. Many iwi have claims with freshwater and natural resources aspects in the hearings or negotiations phases. Some have settlements which recognise interests in freshwater resources through mechanisms such as statutory acknowledgements. There was a concern that those currently managing freshwater resources did not have a good understanding of the significance of historical Treaty claims and the issues they raised.
Hui participants expressed a wide range of views on the underlying ownership issues. Some have stated that Māori consider that the water resource belongs to them. A similar comment was that Pākehā have never bought the water resource, but assume they have the right to manage it. Others described the relationship of Māori to water as that of a rights-holder, compared to the interests of others who were stakeholders. Another point of view expressed was that no-one owns the water but someone has to manage it, and the question is who should do that.
Regardless of the views on ownership, there was a general consensus that iwi and hapū have some form of customary rights or interest in water, with a greater interest in its use and management than those who are seen as stakeholders.
Almost all of those who discussed the use of market mechanisms such as tradable property rights in water, or auctioning or tendering of rights to use water were opposed to such proposals. There was a common view that freshwater is essential to all, and that market-based approaches would advantage a wealthy minority at the expense of others. Some also felt that an increase in commercialisation would be a threat to the environment. The option also raised ownership issues for some, and a fear that Māori interests would be traded off or extinguished.
There was a view at some hui that the current system did not encourage water users to recognise the true cost and value of water, and that some forms of charging for the use of the water resource would be desirable because they encouraged efficiency and a greater valuing of the resource.
Kaitiakitanga o Papatūānuku [water management]
Traditional water management philosophies
The cultural perspective described by hui participants was one which is still influenced by the traditional Māori world view. Water was described as the essence of life and the lifeblood of Papatūānuku, often reflected in the use of the word 'mauri' (which can be translated as 'life force'). The significance of the tapu and wairua of water was also discussed. Participants recounted how fresh water is integral to their cultural and personal identity and wellbeing - rivers and lakes carry ancestral connections, identity and wairua for whānau, hapū and iwi, as reflected in all tribal pepeha and personal mihi. This importance was not only described in spiritual terms. Participants also described the value of freshwater as a resource that promotes social wellbeing for Māori communities and individuals through the capacity of healthy waterbodies to provide food, resources, and opportunities to maintain traditional connections and practices such as manaakitanga. The value of access to fresh water for the development of land or other economic and employment opportunities was also discussed.
The perspective that water always comes first as a resource, can be explained by the spiritual and cultural concepts underlying this, and are reflected by one of the whakataukī shared at the hui: 'Tuatahi ko te wai, tuarua whānau mai te tamaiti, ka puta ko te whenua' - when a child is born the water comes first, then the child, followed by the afterbirth ('whenua', which also carries the interpretation of earth, land and Papatūānuku).
Hui participants shared many aspects of traditional water management practices which are rooted in the principles of kaitiakitanga and care for Papatūānuku. As described at the hui, these practices are based on an approach which:
- emphasises responsible management through care, healing and replenishment of Papatūānuku rather than exploitation without replenishment
- does not distinguish between physical and spiritual approaches
- recognises the various states of water (including wai tapu, wai ora, wai kino, wai piro and wai mate [Waiora - waters of life, purest form of freshwater, gives and sustains life, can rejuvenate damaged mauri, counteracts evil. Waimate - dead water, has no regenerative capacity, mauri is lost, can contaminate other mauri of living things or other waters. Waitapu - waters of death, waters are tapu due to loss, restrictive (Jane West, presentation, WaiMaori Water Values, 2005).] )
- focuses on the protection and restoration of the mauri or life force of the water
- focuses on the health of waterways and their ability to replenish and heal themselves
- takes a holistic and whole-of-catchment approach to managing water.
The use of traditional Māori indicators for assessing the health and mauri of the water, such as the presence or absence of particular species were also discussed in many places. There was a desire for a much wider recognition of the value of mātauranga Māori (traditional knowledge) and the information about freshwater held within local communities to be complementary with current monitoring principles.
A few participants also cautioned that there was not a single Māori approach to water management, or a single set of traditional values for freshwater, but that each iwi and hapū have their own practices and values. While there was a lot of consistency in the values expressed at hui, various examples of different tribal approaches were explained. For example, some iwi agreed with the 'mountains to the sea' approach taken by the Sustainable Water Programme of Action; while other iwi spoke of freshwater from puna (springs) to the sea, and their water management practices that reflect the groundwater origins of rivers and streams.
Strong desire to be involved in decision-making and management at all levels
One of the fundamental complaints expressed at many of the hui was that the current water management system does not recognise the role of Māori as kaitiaki, or recognise the responsibilities and duties that come with kaitiakitanga within the water management system. Māori would like to see their concepts and values, such as giving effect to or restoring the mauri of waterways, as part of the water management framework.
As outlined above, there is a wide range of views on the underlying ownership interests in water, but a general consensus that Māori should have a special place in water management. Some expressed the view that more Māori participation in decision-making was necessary to protect Māori values and interests, which were otherwise invariably outweighed by national or majority interests. For most at the hui, the proposed action of 'enhance Māori participation' in the Sustainable Water Programme of Action discussion document did not go far enough to achieve a suitable role for Māori in water management.
While some spoke about improving the existing Māori role in water management, most participants sought a more active role in decision-making around water at a governance and management level, and more use of ongoing joint management arrangements for water bodies. Many also sought an appropriate role for at the Māori hapū/marae level. A few sought fundamental changes to the current system, such as recognition of Māori customary ownership of or rangatiratanga over water resources, and the Government approaching iwi and seeking permission for any matters to do with freshwater. This was, however, a minority view, with most participants seeking a partnership role for Māori in water management.
In many areas there was also an interest in forming more practical partnerships and relationships with local authorities over water management issues, such as local Māori communities working more closely with councils on water quality monitoring. In some areas people had already gained relevant monitoring skills and qualifications, and were keen to work with councils to improve monitoring practices and create employment opportunities in communities.
Participants of hui felt that improved Māori participation was a means of improving outcomes for all, not just for Māori. There was a strong sense that almost all of the community, including Māori, were seeking the same outcomes in terms of healthy waterways, and that Māori would therefore be acting in the interests of all. Many participants spoke of the advantages that greater Māori participation would bring, because they felt that Māori brought a particular passion for healthy waterways and special knowledge to water management.
Participants also felt there would be benefits for all from greater adoption of Māori water management approaches and principles because of the Māori focus on kaitiakitanga, health and wellbeing as well as economic factors (ie, a balancing of the components of the sustainable development approach), compared to what they saw as the focus of councils largely on economic benefits. As a result, many participants would like to see Māori as kaitiaki playing a much more active role in determining, monitoring and enforcing minimum standards for water, among other things.
The capacity and capability of iwi and hapū to engage with councils in both consultation processes and decision-making or joint management was raised as an issue in some areas, as many organisations lack the structures and resources to engage as they would like. This was seen as a major impediment to greater Māori participation. While some iwi have resource management units staffed by full-time staff, most iwi and hapū rely on voluntary contributions and people undertaking unpaid work to deal with councils and Resource Management Act processes. A common suggestion at the hui was that central and local government should make greater provision of resources to allow Māori organisations to participate effectively (perhaps through direct resourcing or shared funding with councils), which would lead to higher quality engagement and better Māori involvement. Many participants also sought assistance to develop technical/scientific skills to complement the mātauranga Māori (traditional knowledge) and kaitiaki skills already existing in Māori communities.
It was often noted that iwi and hapū are not resourced by local or central government to take part in the consultation processes under the Resource Management Act or with central government. This could result in limited resources being stretched far too thinly. It was also seen as a distinct disadvantage when dealing with other parties, such as council staff or lawyers, who are paid for their time, while iwi participants are not.
Strong support for community-based solutions
Many hui participants suggested that communities and individuals were responsible for protecting and restoring the quality and mauri of waterways. Numerous examples were given of successful community-led projects which have effectively addressed water quality issues and changed behaviour, such as the 'Wanting Ahipara's Infected River Open Again' project run by Ahipara School in Northland. While some existing projects had received financial help from councils, many people were frustrated that other programmes did not receive any help for doing what was seen as the council's responsibility. There was a call for councils to resource groups with a passion for the work. It was also noted that these projects were often important for building better relationships with councils.
There was strong and widespread support for public education to be provided by central or local government to raise public awareness of water issues and promote water efficiency measures and better land management practices. Providing education about freshwater issues for children, councillors and farmers was seen as a high priority. This included introducing more education on water management to schools, educating councillors on environmental issues and tikanga, and providing land users with information on the impacts of water use. It was noted that water efficiency measures (eg, use of rainwater tanks for non-drinking water) which were once common are no longer widely used, and that these should be encouraged or required. It was felt that far less regulation would be necessary, and councils would be better able to achieve compliance, if the underlying problems with water management were understood.
Te kawanatanga me te iwi Māori [relationships with local and central government]
Variable relationships with central and local government
Given that most resource management is undertaken at local government level, existing relationships between Māori and regional and territorial authorities formed part of the background to consultation. Different hui reported variable relationships with local government. Some hapū and iwi reported good relationships and information-sharing processes with both councils and the wider community, while others spoke of poor relationships with councils and a feeling of exclusion from the decision-making process. Even in areas where relationships were generally good, nearly all hui participants who addressed this point sought a far greater and more active role for iwi and hapū in decision-making for freshwater management. There was a general view that the views and needs of other sectors of the community, such as farmers or industry, would always outweigh Māori concerns in local government decision-making.
Some hui participants considered that the inability or unwillingness of local authorities to work with tangata whenua, or to involve iwi in planning as the Resource Management Act provides for, as a significant barrier to high-quality Māori participation in water management. For this reason, some participants requested that central government take a greater role in water management (although others were nervous about greater central government involvement). It was felt that central government had a responsibility to provide guidance to local authorities on how to meet their obligations, and to ensure that Treaty matters were considered and honoured.
Issues around the way the Resource Management Act is implemented
A number of hui participants expressed faith in the Resource Management Act as a world-leading overarching framework for managing water resources, and saw it as a definite improvement on earlier practices. While confidence in the Resource Management Act as a piece of legislation was expressed at a number of the hui, concerns were expressed about the effectiveness of the resource consent system in promoting efficient use of water. Some hui participants felt that the Resource Management Act was very poorly implemented by councils. Some participants suggested that the water management system should provide requirements for much stricter limits for minimum flows and water allocation and more enforcement. A review of all water permits in a catchment or region at the same time, and tools to allow councils and the community to address allocation issues using an 'integrated catchment' approach were also suggested.
The variable performance of councils in meeting their obligations under Part II of the Resource Management Act, as well as monitoring water standards and monitoring and enforcing resource consent conditions, was noted at a number of hui. Considerable dissatisfaction was expressed with the performance of councils in addressing water quality and allocation. It was also noted by many hui attendees that many councils could not provide good information on the total amount of water being taken. It was also suggested that councils have not sufficiently investigated the cumulative effects of water allocation and discharges. Some hui attendees considered that central government should monitor council performance to ensure that councils enforced compliance with consent conditions under the Resource Management Act. Some felt that, in smaller areas, there was not a sufficient gap between council governance and management structures, and that compliance staff were put under political pressure. Others complained that those with close relationships with councils received preferential treatment when often scarce resources were allocated.
Many at the hui felt that central government should play a greater role in setting standards for water quality, and that standards set should ensure water is safe to swim in and drink. There was also support for central government setting standards for council monitoring of water quality, and introducing central government monitoring of council compliance and performance with regard to the Resource Management Act. There was dissatisfaction that, in the 14 years since the Resource Management Act was passed, no national environmental standards on water have been developed. Some participants did, however, caution that setting national standards carried a risk, as they could encourage council performance only to the minimum level set in the standards. Others were concerned that setting a national standard might not reflect standards appropriate for their region or circumstances.
There was support for clearer direction and guidance from central to local government, in the interests of consistency across the country. This was a particular issue for iwi or hapū whose rohe includes more than one council.
Ngā take a momo rohe o Aotearoa [regional issues]
Regional concerns/focus
At each hui we heard about specific regional water issues including water quality problems, water allocation issues, and issues surrounding access to and ownership of freshwater. Issues were different in each region. Participants stated:
- water quality problems resulting from sewage, farm and industrial discharge, and council relationships
- allocation issues and property rights
- poor relationships with local councils and lack of opportunities to participate in water management
- balancing iwi and hapū interests in freshwater resources with the 'national interest' or majority interests where there has been significant hydro-electric development
- protecting access to freshwater for land use purposes, and ensuring that councils recognise freshwater interests and accordingly engage in ongoing consultation.
