ArticlePDF Available

He Mahere Pāhekoheko Mō Kaipara Moana –Integrated Ecosystem-Based Management for Kaipara Harbour, Aotearoa New Zealand

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Indigenous peoples must be able to practice their ways of caring for their particular environment within their own belief systems, while also needing to understand western logic and systems, in order to work together efficiently. Navigating the divide between ontological and epistemological differences is challenging, and what this means in practice is unclear. This paper describes a framework of comanagement called He mahere pāhekoheko mō Kaipara moana – Integrated Kaipara harbour management – a model with the intent to connect and utilize indigenous Māori values and knowledge alongside principles of ecosystem-based management. He Mahere recognizes and accepts the validity of each philosophy of management on its own and does not co-opt Māori ideology. This framework successfully strengthens the position of Māori as partners in the management of the Kaipara Harbour, Aotearoa New Zealand and can inform ecosystem restoration concepts from grassroots society to the text of regional planning documents.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=usnr20
Society & Natural Resources
An International Journal
ISSN: 0894-1920 (Print) 1521-0723 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/usnr20
He Mahere Pāhekoheko Mā Kaipara
Moana–Integrated Ecosystem-Based Management
for Kaipara Harbour, Aotearoa New Zealand
Leane Makey & Shaun Awatere
To cite this article: Leane Makey & Shaun Awatere (2018): He�Mahere�Pāhekoheko�Mō�Kaipara
Moana–Integrated Ecosystem-Based Management for Kaipara Harbour, Aotearoa New Zealand,
Society & Natural Resources, DOI: 10.1080/08941920.2018.1484972
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2018.1484972
Published online: 13 Aug 2018.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 16
View Crossmark data
He Mahere P
ahekoheko M
o Kaipara MoanaIntegrated
Ecosystem-Based Management for Kaipara Harbour,
Aotearoa New Zealand
Leane Makey
a
and Shaun Awatere
b
a
School of Environment, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand;
b
(Ng
ati Porou) Landcare
Research NZ Ltd., Manaaki Whenua, Hamilton, New Zealand
ABSTRACT
Indigenous peoples must be able to practice their ways of caring for
their particular environment within their own belief systems, while
also needing to understand western logic and systems, in order to
work together efficiently. Navigating the divide between ontological
and epistemological differences is challenging, and what this means
in practice is unclear. This paper describes a framework of coma-
nagement called He mahere p
ahekoheko m
o Kaipara moana
Integrated Kaipara harbour management a model with the intent
to connect and utilize indigenous M
aori values and knowledge
alongside principles of ecosystem-based management. He Mahere
recognizes and accepts the validity of each philosophy of manage-
ment on its own and does not co-opt M
aori ideology. This frame-
work successfully strengthens the position of M
aori as partners in
the management of the Kaipara Harbour, Aotearoa New Zealand and
can inform ecosystem restoration concepts from grassroots society
to the text of regional planning documents.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 28 February 2017
Accepted 5 May 2018
KEYWORDS
Ecosystem-based manage-
ment; indigenous-M
aori
peoples; integrated
management; Kaipara
harbour; kaitiakitanga
Introduction
Overview
Promoting agency to indigenous peoples involvement in natural resource management
and acknowledging the different ways, they view the world is increasingly being recog-
nized (Te Aho 2009; Memon and Kirk 2012; Richmond et al. 2013; von der Porten and
de Lo
e2013;
e2014). Indigenous attuned frameworks and tools of governance and
management have been shown to inform natural resource planning and ecological res-
toration; present relational framings of nature and society; address power imbalances
between indigenous and settler-state entities; and build indigenous peoples capacity to
participate in natural resource management (Maclean et al. 2013; Dodson 2014;
Salmond, Tadaki, and Gregory 2014b; Taylor 2015; Thomas 2015; Auditor-General
2016;Harmsworth, Awatere, and Robb 2016; Simms et al. 2016; Fox et al. 2017).
CONTACT Leane Makey lmak003@aucklanduni.ac.nz School of Environment, University of Auckland, Aotearoa,
Auckland 1142, New Zealand
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/usnr.
ß2018 Taylor & Francis
SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES
https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2018.1484972
This article contributes to the growing literature on co-management
1
with a real-world,
indigenous-led approach for restoring the well-being of a harbor-catchment ecosystem.
Co-designed with multiple interest groups, this approach illuminates the potential for an
indigenous ideology alongside Eurocentric approaches such as ecosystem-based manage-
ment (EBM). This article presents He Mahere P
ahekoheko m
o Kaipara Moana, a frame-
work shaped by a way of thinking that shifts participation premised on conflict, to one
that recognizes the synergies between humans and ecosystems. In the first part of this art-
icle, we present the local contextual situation with a basic description of M
aori ideology
and environmental management practices, and with an outline of the relevant legislative
and policy framework in which Aotearoa New Zealand operates. This is followed in the
second part with a description of the framework attributes, which was designed to
embrace indigenous-M
aori ideology and knowledge alongside EBM. The article finishes
with a discussion concluding that He Mahere framework has successfully strengthened the
position of M
aori as partners in the management of the Kaipara harbour.
Efforts to integrate unique ideologies such as indigenous environmental knowledge and
western notions of sustainability, frequently encounter difficulties when reconciling these
diverse approaches due to differing processes of knowledge production and underlying
epistemologies/worldviews (Leonard et al. 2013; von der Porten and de Lo
e2013; Salmond
2014a; Maclean and The Bana Yarralji Bubu Inc. 2015; Parsons, Fisher, and Nalau 2016).
Recently, scholars from various disciplines have argued for the need to engage with and be
receptive to wider epistemic worlds to confront the dualist constructions of nature/culture
that proceed to reinforce Eurocentric knowledge, with the goal to offer a different and
deeper understanding of the role of nature in human lives (Salmond 2014a; Escobar 2016;
Krause and Strang 2016; Larsen and Johnson 2016; Parsons Fisher, and Nalau 2016).
Furthermore, there is a growing respect and acceptance by academics to recognize indi-
genous ontologies independent of Eurocentric notions of natural resource management
(Coombes 2007; Salmond 2014a; Larsen and Johnson 2016). The challenge for natural
resource management practitioners lies in recognizing and accepting the validity of indi-
genous management approaches and respecting processes, scope, and practices that
involve indigenous peoples more centrally and meaningfully in decision-making
(Harmsworth, Awatere, and Robb. 2016; Simms et al. 2016).
Indigenous M
aori Society
The indigenous people
2
of Aotearoa New Zealand are inextricably bound to the envir-
onment by virtue of whakapapa (genealogy) (Te Aho 2009; Harmsworth and Awatere
2013; Salmond 2014a). Some practice a resource management ethic centered and shaped
by M
aori ideology including an ethic of sustainable resource management (kaitiaki-
tanga), whakapapa, respect (manaakitanga), and family/tribal relationships (whanaunga-
tanga) (Harmsworth, Awatere, and Robb 2016). M
aori ontology
3
recognizes small shifts
in the mauri (life principle, vital essence) of any part of the ecosystem, for example,
through use or misuse, would cause changes in the mauri of directly related sub-com-
ponents of that ecosystem, which could eventually affect the whole system. The caretak-
ing of this complicated system of mauri is carried out by kaitiaki (local resource
managers). Most activities of caretaking are guided by the philosophy of kaitiakitanga
2 L. MAKEY AND S. AWATERE
(Kawharu 2000). The philosophy of kaitiakitanga strives to regulate and sustain the
well-being of people, communities, and natural resources using values inherent in the
iwi/hap
u(tribe/subtribe groups) belief system including, for example, mauri and rahui
Figure 1. Kaipara harbour and catchment with inset showing Aotearoa New Zealand. (Marae, tribal
meeting areas).
SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES 3
(closed season, reserve, to put in place a temporary ritual prohibition) (Minhinnick
1989; Barlow 1991; Crengle 1993). The philosophy of kaitiakitanga is concerned with
the care and protection of mauri (Kawharu 2000). The desire for resource management
practices that acknowledge the interconnected relationship between people, the spiritual
realm, and the natural world, is an approach that guides the work of this case study.
Legislative Frameworks
M
aori rights, roles, and responsibilities are protected in the Treaty of Waitangi, signed
with the British Crown in 1840, which acknowledges that iwi and hap
uhave a legitim-
ate, sanctioned role to play in natural resource management in Aotearoa New Zealand.
Subsequently, principles of the Treaty have been incorporated into modern legislation
such as the Resource Management Act (RMA) 1991 that require the Crown (central and
local government) to actively protect rights including retention of t
aonga (treasure, any-
thing prized such as language, flora, and fauna species, customs), and the right of tino
rangatiratanga (sovereignty and chieftainship) over those resources and their lands as a
matter of national importance (Waitangi Tribunal 2011a; Barrett and Strongman 2013).
Treaty of Waitangi settlement agreements (Waitangi Tribunal 2011b) has been a
major catalyst and legislative foundation for new resource management partnerships,
Memorandum of Understandings (MoUs), and other informal and formal relationships
in Aotearoa New Zealand (Memon and Kirk 2012). A large number of co-operative and
inclusive governance and management models have emerged over the past 20 years in
Aotearoa New Zealand to meet M
aori aspirations for rivers, wetlands, lakes, and catch-
ments including our case study situated on the Kaipara harbour (Figure 1)
(Harmsworth, Awatere, and Robb 2016).
Situating Kaipara
In 2002, the Northern Kaipara hap
uTe Uri o Hau settled their historical Treaty of
Waitangi grievances with the Crown (New Zealand government) (Te Uri o Hau Claims
Settlement Act 2002), receiving statutory acknowledgment of the special association Te
Uri o Hau have with the Kaipara harbour and its tributaries. In 2005, the group Ng
a
Kaitiaki Taiao o Kaipara
4
and the post-settlement institution, the Te Uri o Hau
Settlement Trust
5
led the establishment of the comanagement platform the Integrated
Kaipara Harbour Management Group (IKHMG) in response to concerns about the eco-
system health of the Kaipara harbour. The IKHMG is recognized as the means to
implement obligations between Kaipara hap
uand Memorandum of Understanding part-
ners (such as government agencies) under settlement legislation, in particular giving
effect to kaitiakitanga and hap
umanagement plans (for example, Environs Holdings
Ltd 2011). As seen in Figure 1, the Kaipara harbour is located on Aotearoa New
Zealands west coast of the north island. The Kaipara is Aotearoa New Zealands largest
estuarine ecosystem and one of the largest harbors in the world (Haggitt, Mead, and
Bellingham 2008). The Kaipara is home to many high-value species such as the pro-
tected great white shark, the critically endangered Maui dolphin and over 150,000
northern hemisphere migrant wading birds that come to feed in the Kaipara (IKHMG
4 L. MAKEY AND S. AWATERE
2010). The Kaipara contains some of the rarest ecosystems in Aotearoa New Zealand
including sand dunelands, seagrass, freshwater, and estuarine wetlands as well as being
an important nursery for juvenile fish (Morrison et al. 2009). For hap
u, the Kaipara is a
family member intimately connected through whakapapa and this relationship is refer-
enced in pepeh
a(tribal sayings) and whakatauki (proverbial sayings). Their knowledge
(m
atauranga) is applied in a manner that reflects their lived reality: a reality of whanau
(kin groups), spirituality, place, and active utilization of natural resources. Restoring
and protecting the mauri of the Kaipara and improving ecosystem health is of utmost
importance to kaitiaki, which is challenging as multiple and complex environmental
burdens are increasingly evident including declining biodiversity, over-fishing, impacts
of climate change, and declining water quality (Haggitt, Mead, and Bellingham 2008;
IKHMG 2010; Gibbs et al. 2012; Morrison et al. 2014; Bulmer, Kelly, and Jeffs 2016).
Furthermore, these burdens are exacerbated by the jurisdictional split through the mid-
dle of the Kaipara harbour and the fragmented and siloed approach to governing and
managing Kaipara ecosystems (IKHMG 2010).
The Kaipara, like most coastal and land management in Aotearoa New Zealand, is split
between different types of statutory management agencies with overlapping responsibilities
(Peart 2007). This article centers on IKHMGs uptake of the challenge of integration
whereby the Kaipara harbour and catchment is situated within a complex plethora of legisla-
tion, policies, and planning instruments governed by seven agencies (Peart 2007;IKHMG
2010). Figure 2 depicts this complexity. Auckland Council and Rodney Local Board govern
Figure 2. The spatial management of the Kaipara harbour and catchment. Figure to the left illustrates
local and regional governance. Centre figure is fisheries management areas in relation to the Kaipara
harbour and catchment. Figure to the right illustrates hap
u rohe and rohe of interest as per Treaty of
Waitangi settlement legislation.
SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES 5
the south Kaipara coastal and catchment environment while Northland Regional Council,
Kaipara District Council, and Whangarei District Council govern the north Kaipara coastal
and catchment environment. Each agency has their own development and land use plans
under the RMA and Local Government Act 2002; consequently, rules applying to stock
access to waterways and coastal intertidal areas vary between Northland and Auckland
councils. Crown-owned conservation lands, along with the intertidal zone, are managed
under the Conservation Act 1987 by the Department of Conservation (there are two conserv-
ancies, Northland and Auckland); fisheries are managed under the Fisheries Act 1996 which
includes specific indigenous statues,
6
by the Ministry of Fisheries.
This jurisdictional split has resulted in conflicting management philosophies, scales of
management, and a fragmentary legislative framework particularly when dealing with
the land and sea interface (Peart 2007). The connected complexity of ecosystems and
overlapping environmental burdens are compartmentalized and rationalized within a
political and legislative context thereby removing and disconnecting the challenge of the
place from where it belongs; that is, a situation of complex, multi-scalar, and social,
indigenous, and spiritual; ecological, and political dimensions. When the tribal territory
(rohe) of Kaipara hap
uare considered (Figure 2, map on the right) there is a spatial
mismatch with Kaipara governance. For hap
u, the Kaipara is not compartmentalized
into political boundaries but considered in its entirety: from its mountain source to its
interface with the coastal environment. Hap
uneeds, values, interests, and knowledge
are portrayed at this scale. This article does not critically analyze this conflicting legisla-
tive paradigm but focuses on how the IKHMG brought this situation to the foreground.
Focus on ecosystems has been scripted into national and regional policy for Aotearoa
New Zealand coastal and freshwater ecosystems, fisheries, and biodiversity management.
(DoC and MfE 2000; Department of Conservation 2010;MfE2011; NZ Government
2011; Ministry of Primary Industries 2016). An ecosystem is an integrated system of liv-
ing species, habitats, and interactions with other species, including people, and the
physical environment. M
aori view the environment as a construct of mental, physical,
and spiritual realities and the same applies to ecosystems (Royal 1993). M
aori see them-
selves as part of ecosystems rather than separated from it (Harmsworth and Awatere
2013). It was not until the year 2000 that the first attempt at conceptualizing an ecosys-
tem approach to nature conservation and natural resource management laws in
Aotearoa New Zealand was crafted (Park 2000). Ecosystems research including effects
to ecosystems has been a global goal since the 1960s. Despite this uptake by policy-mak-
ers and scholars there are few examples of practical implementation of an ecosystems
approach to management, or EBM, where EBM principles have been taken up alongside
indigenous ideology of natural resource management and have a valid role in decision-
making (Takeda and Ropke 2010; Tiakiwai, Kilgour, and Whetu 2017). The goal of
EBM is to manage human interactions with ecosystems so that the natural integrity of
ecosystems is maintained and sustained in perpetuity. EBM is a holistic concept that
requires a shift from a view of humans dominating nature to an understanding of
humans as caretakers of nature (Takeda and Ropke 2010), a concept that has been prac-
ticed by kaitiaki for generations. EBM is not explicitly referred to in New Zealand legis-
lation yet has been attempted by fisheries management (Cryer, Mace, and Sullivan
2016) but not to its fullest extent (Hersoug 2018; Peart 2018). This has given the
6 L. MAKEY AND S. AWATERE
IKHMG an opportunity to position EBM to connect and integrate with kaitiakitanga.
This is discussed in the next section.
The following section presents how, under a non-statutory regime, expedited through
settlement legislation and MOUs, the IKHMG has revolutionized an approach to these
challenging aspects of co-option of knowledge, scale mismatch, and lack of integration
with the development of a framework of integrated EBM, called He Mahere P
ahekoheko
m
o Kaipara Moana Integrated Kaipara Harbour Management.He Mahere (Figure 3)
is a model of environmental comanagement with the intent to embrace indigenous
worldview and knowledge alongside principles of EBM. He Mahere supports the inclu-
sion of diverse values across a large land- and sea-scape and opens up a space for a
new way of engaging across interest groups. Below, we outline the core components of
the framework, which underpin the decision-making functions of IKHMG. We begin by
first describing the purpose, working principles, and shared vision for IKHMG followed
by descriptions of the core components.
He Mahere P
ahekoheko M
o Kaipara Moana: Integrated Kaipara Harbour
Management (he mahere)
Between 2007 and 2014, the IKHMG convened several meetings and workshops to pro-
gress the development of a management framework that would support IKHMG roles
and functions. He Mahere strengthens the position of hap
u/iwi as partners in the man-
agement of Kaipara. At the core of the integrated framework is the vision. Four guiding
Figure 3. He Mahere P
ahekoheko m
o Kaipara Moana Integrated Kaipara Harbour
Management Framework.
SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES 7
principles help achieve this vision. Six core components are essential for successful
implementation of the integrated framework: knowledge, strategic planning, defined
planning region and scale, engagement and participation, monitoring and capacity, and
capability development.
Core Components
Integrated Kaipara Harbour Management Group (IKHMG)
The institutional structure of the IKHMG depicts a collective partnership of participation,
advice, action, and support. The Te Uri o Hau Settlement Trust leads IKHMG and co-
chair with Ng
a Maunga Whakahii Development Trust. The IKHMG is structured by terms
of reference (TOR) adopted in 2009 that formalizes in good faith the commitment of par-
ties to participate and engage utilizing an ethic of care, respect, and reciprocity for Kaipara
and each other (IKHMG 2009b). The administration that supports IKHMG in the delivery
of the TOR sits with Te Uri o Hau and the coordinator. Active members include regional
and national government agencies, nongovernment organizations, tribal elders, industry
(e.g. sand mining, dairy milk processing, and utilities), iwi and non-iwi farmers, fishers,
women, men, and children; school teachers and research institutions. There are no bind-
ing legislative agreements requiring these diverse groups to sit and discuss Kaipara envir-
onmental challenges under a M
aori philosophy and deliver on a shared and common
vision a healthy and productive Kaipara harbour. However, action by government agen-
cies and industry sectors was via Treaty of Waitangi MoUs and protocol agreements held
directly with Te Uri o Hau and Ng
a Maunga Whakahii. These obligated them to give effect
to kaitiakitanga and hap
umanagement plans, respond to sustainability concerns and the
future wellbeing of the Kaipara harbour and catchment.
The central purpose of the IKHMG is to promote integrated and co-ordinated inter-
agency management and kaitiakitanga of Kaipara and its catchment(IKHMG 2011,
2010). The IKHMG achieve this by way of work programs that are aligned with six
long-term objectives centered on topics of biodiversity, fisheries, mauri, climate change,
social economies and integration, and coordination. Although numerous, it was import-
ant for hap
uthat an articulation of an overlapping and interlinked perspective, a hol-
ism, is expressed for the management of Kaipara. The objective to protect and restore
the mauri of Kaipara appreciates the ancestral linkage and highlights the complexity of
Kaipara as more than just a natural resource to plan for and manage. This objective
also addresses the sacred relationship held between the communities of Kaipara. The
mauri objective explicitly recognizes a M
aori worldview and challenges institutions to
manage toward indigenous based aspirations. The IKHMG is a legitimate institutional
space to bring disparate and unintegrated management to the foreground, giving this
complex legislative, and governance situation justified attention. It offers a space where
indigenous concerns and processes are valid and can inform decision-makers.
Principles
Dedicated meetings were held between October and November 2008 to identify a set of
principles that would aid in guiding IKHMG roles and functions, specifically process,
8 L. MAKEY AND S. AWATERE
behavior, member responsibilities, and annual work plans. M
aori ideology mixed with
contemporary European environmental management concepts shaped and informed the
principles. Four principles were identified: (1) kaitiakitanga (2) integrated EBM, (3)
manaakitanga (respect and care for others), and (4) comanagement (IKHMG 2009a).
Implementation of kaitiakitanga means kaitiaki (hap
uguardians
7
) are actively engaging
in meaningful environmental decision-making (Johnson 2013). Active engagement
ensures the reciprocal relationship seen through whakapapa not only maintain balance
within the ecosystem but also maintain individual and community identities. IKHMG
recognizes that kaitiakitanga is one essential management tool amongst many and sup-
port kaitiaki utilizing various practices to aid them in achieving their aspirations. For
example, the management of w
ahi tapu (sacred areas) to protect and conserve import-
ant historical sites; applying traditional fisheries management processes such as r
ahui (a
temporary closure) to protect, regenerate, and manage fisheries of importance to tribes
such as shellfish; and, the development of monitoring programs that utilize indigenous
concepts of value such as mauri (Robb et al. 2016). The principle integrated EBM cap-
tures the shift from sectoral-based environmental management to a (w)holistic concept
of EBM (McLeod and Leslie 2009; Kidd, Plater, and Frid 2011) meaning management
does not place one use or value at the center of its focus or decision-making. The focus
remains on a relational framing of nature-culture and complimenting indigenous M
aori
approaches to management.
The ability to nurture and protect people is an important element of manaakitanga
(Barlow 1991; Mead 2003). For the IKHMG, this means the actions of the group need
to produce positive outcomes for improving the well-being of the collective.
Furthermore, members and stakeholders must feel accepted and safe in carrying out
their duties for the IKHMG. Comanagement provides an avenue for M
aori to actively
exercise their responsibilities as kaitiaki. For communities, the spirit of comanagement
also provides opportunities for them to be directly involved in decision-making about
local resources and environment.
Knowledge
Knowledge encapsulates rules, laws, behaviors, wisdom, inter-generational experiences,
observations, and resource practices derived from both M
aori and non-M
aori experien-
ces. A foundational output of the IKHMG was an information review and gap analysis,
where gaps were defined using the common phrase the space between where we are
and where we want to be(IKHMG 2010). The process adapted was to document,
review, and identify gaps across three knowledge-bases: biogeophysical, M
aori know-
ledge (m
atauranga M
aori), and socio-economic. Using a matrix-based assessment
between the knowledge-bases and the seven long-term objectives, knowledge gaps were
identified, such as the absence of a hap
u-based cultural health index for monitoring
mauri, ecosystem effects of sedimentation and eutrophication, and the lack of under-
standing adaptation strategies for Kaipara harbour communities in the face of climate
change. Furthermore, the analysis identified that local knowledge and an understanding
of spatial and temporal effects of land-based stressors were excluded from fisheries
management. We found that the doingprocess of identifying gaps at the initial stages
SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES 9
of the IKHMG partnership not only clearly articulated the diverse knowledge require-
ments for a healthy and productive Kaipara but portrayed a (w)holistic approach to
knowledge coproduction that demanded M
aori knowledge and societal values. At long
last, the local context of the Kaipara harbour was heightened and the constitution of
knowledge production was situated whereby the effects of colonization were written
alongside EBM; the ecosystems were defined alongside M
aori environmental and spirit-
ual domains; and, jurisdictional boundaries alongside tribal boundaries.
Strategic Planning
Strategic planning provided focus and direction, the identification of priorities, legitim-
ate stakeholder collaboration, and participation, shaped resourcing requirements and
triggered support. More importantly, the strategic planning process explicitly recognized
M
aori ontology and knowledge (often missing in statutory plans (Awatere et al. 2012)),
and defined a (w)holistic ecosystem management approach for the Kaipara harbour and
catchment. As leaders of the IKHMG, hap
uwere active participants in the planning. To
achieve multiple long-term objectives, the Kaipara Harbour Strategic Plan of Action was
developed with the intention that all stakeholders, Kaipara community, and hap
ucon-
nect and have a responsibility in achieving the strategic goals and course of action. The
strategy sets out a direction for member parties to ensure integrated and co-ordinated
action (IKHMG 2011). The plan of action informs IKHMG business planning and
annual work programs and member parties own statutory plans such as the Auckland
Region Unitary Plan (Auckland Council 2016) and the Auckland and Northland region
conservation management strategy (DoC 2014a,2014b).
Defined Planning Region and Scale
IKHMG business recognizes Kaipara in its many forms particularly, as an estuary,
catchment, open marine environment, and a family member. Defining Kaipara in this
way brought together multiple stakeholders with diverse knowledge, interests, and val-
ues at various scales, such as specific sites of river reaches and wetlands, taonga (sacred)
species, and mahinga kai (food gathering areas). It was important and strategic to clarify
the planning region and scale for He Mahere. This helped partners to understand their
role and contribution to the entire catchment-harbor ecosystem, aided in aligning
knowledge scales in the analysis of knowledge and information gaps, and representing
the Kaipara planning region as a (w)holistic entity, both biophysical and metaphysical
and not to be considered as sectors. The approach required an alignment between the
scale of management action and the scale of the problem. For example, sedimentation
sees regional councils and M
aori mandated to engage on a large scale, across several
catchments and kilometers of coastal marine environments. For this reason, IKHMG
management actions focus on policy recommendations and planning initiatives at a
regional and strategic level right through to the micro scale at a farm paddock level.
Showcasing this approach in action has been achieved through the establishment of an
IKHMG field program at flagship sites (Figure 1). Strategically placed within priority
freshwater ecosystem catchments, IKHMG partnered with eight commercial farms
10 L. MAKEY AND S. AWATERE
(cattle, sheep, and dairy), two industrial sites (a lime quarry and a dairy milk processing
factory), and a commercial flatfish fishery to showcase the journey toward integrated
EBM at a local scale.
Engagement and Participation
This component of He Mahere nourished respect for each others values and aspirations.
Partners were accepted as an essential element in implementing He Mahere. For
example, the concept of integrated catchment management for Kaipara was initiated
from the consensus of community stakeholders in 2007, who required the IKHMG to
report on progress with achieving the shared vision. Tribal elders, governance represen-
tatives, and participants provided feedback to IKHMG on their progress while meaning-
fully discussing issues and solutions. IKHMG formal quarterly meetings are a space to
enhance partner engagement and participation. These meetings brought together expert-
ise from across multiple agencies, sectors, and M
aori and community groups, catalyzing
and brokering new partnerships for the hap
uwhich may not have arisen if not leaders
of the IKHMG (Taylor 2015). They have produced critical turning points in the devel-
opment of IKHMG, like the dedicated meetings held to identify the four working prin-
ciples. Hui (meetings) embodied the presence of Kaipara, to the extent that they were
held at varied locations around the Kaipara harbour, including marae (tribal meeting
areas) (Figure 1), government offices and community facilities. The running of these
hui is characteristics of efforts to incorporate M
aori practices and protocols into
IKHMG processes. Hui is chaired by the hap
uand adopt a bi-cultural structure and
process, which involves beginning the hui with karakia (M
aori prayer) and whanaunga-
tanga (introductions and relationships) followed by the sharing of food, and then gen-
eral business. This same process is carried over into the IKHMG field program in the
management of their farm field days.
Monitoring
This component of He Mahere encapsulates the assessment of outcomes against the
shared vision. Monitoring allows for partners and the wider community to see and
relate to regional and local outcomes. For example, Te Uri o Hau has developed an
Atua (Deity) domains framework that is shaped by their aspirations and values. The
Atua domains articulate biophysical indicators (e.g., abundance of species), social (e.g.,
ability to provide food for traditional gatherings) and meta-physical indicators (e.g.,
quality of mauri) (Environs Holdings Ltd 2013; Robb et al. 2016). A bi-cultural
approach by IKHMG includes complementary indicators that are informed by western
science (e.g., sediment loads) and community values (e.g., number of tree planting days
for restoration). This (w)holistic inclusion of ecosystem and societal values adequately
ensures that M
aori and community aspirations are actively monitored which allows
them to be well positioned to robustly participate and engage in environmental deci-
sion-making relevant to their area of interest.
SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES 11
Capacity and Capability Development
This component of He Mahere informs and shapes the capability and capacity of IKHMG
staff, community, and M
aori to participate today and inter-generationally in ecosystem res-
toration and management of the Kaipara harbour. Limited capacity during 20072014 was a
weakness for the IKHMG with one dedicated coordinator doing the role of four full-time
positions. The coordinator was the administrator, communications manager, field officer,
researcher, funding proposal writer, and strategic planner. Tipa and Welch (2006)and
Simms et al. (2016) state that capacity can be an impediment to indigenous participation in
catchment governance. Time, staff, and resourcing are a significant challenge for IKHMG
and, for Kaipara hap
u, this relates to self-determination. The design of He Mahere, the struc-
ture of IKHMG and the hap
uleadership have provided agency for Kaipara hap
uto be in a
position to advance their own aspirations and environmental futures for the Kaipara rather
than be dictated to by non-indigenous development and planning pathways. The IKHMG
capacity building provides for on-going learning, skills development, and training, and
ensures kaitiakitanga opportunities are provided for into the future. It is here that situational
leaders or leaders who arise from the community when needed, rather than designated or
authoritarian designation, can be developed and nurtured for long-term stability.
Discussion
He Mahere is a framework of environmental comanagement with the intent to meaningfully
embrace kaitiakitanga and indigenous knowledge alongside the principles of EBM. He
Mahere, through the vehicle of the IKHMG, provides a modern practical example of a genuine
effort to develop a process of integrated management that encompasses meaningful and legit-
imate collaboration, co-planning, and the use of M
aori values and knowledge of ecosystem
restoration and management, and co-action across regional and local scales. Recognizing the
validity of a complementary ontology to that of EBM is a rejection of the standard method of
co-opting indigenous knowledge into Eurocentric models. This recognition is essential for
achieving integrated EBM which is evident in other environmental management case studies
(Maclean and The Bana Yarralji Bubu Inc. 2015). In the 12years since its formation, the
IKHMG has, by a way of a diverse partnership, utilizing an integrated approach to ecosystem
restoration and management premised on the validity of two worldviews. This has been
accomplished in the absence of statutory power and by instead using its expertise and hap
u
leadership, limited resources, and the good faith held in the spirit of the partnership. He
Mahere framework aims to maintain, restore, or improve ecosystems by overcoming the frag-
mentation of sectarian management approaches and a plethora of legislative and governance
arrangements that exist across the land and sea. The early development of the principles was
highly valuable. They were well defined and founded in good faith and respect, supported by a
transparent process which was replicated for the development of other core components of
He Mahere. The IKHMG institutional structure has enhanced diversity in stakeholder partici-
pation by bringing views from regional and local scales, directly into their open discussion
process. This has been found to support EBM (Kidd, Plater, and Frid 2011)andtheIKHMG
is an exemplar of defining values, aspirations, and future vision of the Kaipara. The IKHMG
has used novel implementation methods to raise the ecosystem concept through its on-farm
flagship program, bi-cultural process, and its organization structure to engage partners and
12 L. MAKEY AND S. AWATERE
the wider community to actively participate and maintain involvement. To achieve IKHMG
objectives the spatial focus was confirmed in the early formation stage of IKHMG. By doing
so, this highlighted the fragmentary nature of environmental governance and management
and led to the promotion of Kaipara as one (w)holistic natural area, a diversity of stakeholders,
knowledge requirements, and co-ordinated action across the land-sea boundary. The scale of
knowledge and action played a role in IKHMG decision-making due to their responsibility to
communities and stakeholders. In this regard, social, m
atauranga and ecological information,
and research at a local river or farm scale were just as important as at a catchment-wide scale.
The multi-scalar approach adopted by the IKHMG emphasizes Kaipara interconnections.
The extent to which this model is effective and sustainable in meeting and recogniz-
ing the rights of Kaipara hap
uis outside the scope of this article; however, researchers
identify joint partnerships as having greatest capacity for long-term sustainability
(Feeney et al. 2010; Taylor 2015; Auditor-General 2016; Harmsworth, Awatere, and
Robb 2016), despite being underutilized due to lack of capacity of hap
uorganizations.
Taylor (2015) points out that the inclusion of mauri (life force) as an objective and the
inclusion of M
aori based principles like manaakitanga and kaitiakitanga contradicts the
claims that multi-stakeholder forums like IKHMG tend to neglect indigenous concepts,
rights, and self-determination. Porter (2006) suggests that when it comes to power rela-
tions and leveraging actors agendas off the multi-stakeholder platform, in many cases
initiation is considered critical. In the case of the IKHMG, M
aori initiated, promoted,
and led the collaborative approach. There is definitely room for improvement of He
Mahere and this will be attempted with the Treaty of Waitangi settlement of the
Kaipara harbour (Ng
ati Whatua and NZ Crown 2014). Cogovernance
8
of Kaipara has
always been an aspiration for Kaipara hap
u. This opportunity provides scope for
Kaipara hap
uto have a meaningful, significant, and critical role in environmental deci-
sion-making. Both Kanwar et al. (2016) and Taylor (2015) argue for a balance in power
relations between iwi/hap
uand government agencies, as IKHMG requires a meaningful
level of regulatory involvement to initiate positive management change in the decision-
making arena. The strength of He Mahere lies with the four core principles, shared
vision, and the agency of IKHMG, which enables any new additional components, such
as statutory powers, to continue with setting the platform for how indigenous M
aori
peoples engage and how policy and planning manifest for the Kaipara harbour.
Indigenous attuned frameworks of governance and management have been shown to
inform natural resource planning and ecological restoration (Awatere et al. 2012; Barry
2012; Harmsworth, Awatere, and Robb 2016); address power imbalances (Taylor 2015;
Simms et al. 2016); evolve partnerships and collaborations to resolve the rights of inclu-
sion for indigenous peoples (Dodson 2014; Auditor-General 2016; Harmsworth,
Awatere, and Robb 2016); offer relational framing of nature-culture relations (Salmond,
Tadaki, and Gregory 2014b; Thomas 2015), and build indigenous peoples capacity to
participate in natural resource management (Maclean et al. 2013). Recognizing and
accepting the validity of indigenous management framings, practices, and knowledge is
challenging for settler-states like Aotearoa New Zealand but a necessary goal for ecosys-
tem restoration and management (Salmond, Tadaki, and Gregory 2014b; Larsen and
Johnson 2016; Simms et al. 2016). However, there is significant uncertainty concerning
processes, scope, and uptake (Simms et al. 2016).
SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES 13
The He Mahere framework shaped and informed the efforts and practices to integrate
unique ideologies of indigenous M
aori and EBM. With the leadership held by Kaipara
hap
uand the central purpose of IKHMG to promote integrated and co-ordinated inter-
agency management and kaitiakitanga, indigenous ideologies and knowledge are tem-
porally and spatially visible and have ultimately enhanced indigenous peoples
participation in decision-making and management of the Kaipara harbour. Actions and
practices of the IKHMG, like hui, forming and maintaining relationships, are premised
on manaakitanga protocols, the consciousness of care and respect for each other, the
shared vision and the Kaipara harbour.
Conclusion
Realizing the potential of IKHMG requires the continued support of Treaty-based gov-
ernance and co-management arrangements and active implementation of indigenous
knowledge in co-planning and co-action. Cogovernance has represented a new era in
Treaty of Waitangi settlements where arrangements, responsibilities for duties, powers,
and functions under Aotearoa New Zealands environmental legislation, the RMA, are
vested (to varying degrees) in tribal entities (Harmsworth, Awatere, and Robb 2016). He
Mahere is well positioned to adapt and support any shift that delivers cogovernance and
setting the platform for how indigenous M
aori peoples engage and how policy and
planning manifest for the Kaipara harbour. For Kaipara, an integrated framework has
effective strengths that support indigenous aspirations, (w)holistic ecosystem under-
standing, multi-agency co-operation, multi-scalar interactions, strategic vision, good sci-
ence, and action on the ground. The IKHMG is a useful means for indigenous groups
to provide leadership with a (w)holistic approach to integrated management. We believe
it will be important for M
aori and stakeholders to build their own capacity and for this
to become an ongoing culture. Learning as they go, recognizing and adapting to change,
accepting the simultaneous engagement of research and practice, utilizing diverse know-
ledge-bases; spatial planning, and being flexible are all important. Making change hap-
pen on the ground, with Kaipara social, spiritual and ecological well-being at the core
of management is the partnerships vision. As Kaipara tribes have declared, this is the
start of an inter-generational journey.
Notes
1. We follow Harmsworth, Awatere, and Robb (2016) definition of comanagement: actions
and responsibilties implemented jointly by the parties. Comanagement involves deciding
how a desired goal, objective, or outcome is best achieved (e.g., catchment, wetland, and
farm plans, consents, riparian planting, river clean-ups, restoration, etc). Iwi/hap
u groups
(tribal/sub-tribal groups) work together with partner agencies. (p. 9)
2. In New Zealand the term indigenousrefers to those of M
aori ethnicity.
3. A branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and relations of being.
4. Ng
a Kaitiaki o Taiao is the joint leadership group between Te Uri o Hau and Ng
ati Wh
atua
o Kaipara concerned with Kaipara environmental challenges (IKHMG 2011: 43). Ng
ati
Wh
atua o Kaipara, the hap
u of the southern Kaipara, settled their historical greivances in
2013 (Ng
ati Wh
atua o Kaipara Claims Settlement Act,2013). Their post-settlement
institution is titled Ng
a Maunga Whakahii Development Trust.
14 L. MAKEY AND S. AWATERE
5. The IKHMG is led by the Te Uri o Hau Settlement Trust through its kaitiaki unit the
Environs Holdings Trust and is co-chaired with Ng
a Maunga Whakahii.
6. These cover commerical and non-commerical fisheries, including the Treaty of Waitangi
Fisheries Claim Act 1992 and M
aori Fisheries Act 1989.
7. Marsden & Henare (1992) define as keeper, preserver, conservator, foster-parent, protector(p.18).
8. We follow Harmsworth, Awatere, and Robb (2016) definition of cogovernance: formal
arrangement to share decision making. In terms of iwi/hap
u and the Crown, this should be
based on the Treaty of Waitangi. Through principles and collaborative guideines, the treaty
provides the basis for meaningful ongoing relationships.(p.9)
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge the Te Uri o Hau Settlement Trust who has given permission for the authors to
write and publish, on their behalf, their story about the IKHMG. We wish to acknowledge all the
member parties of IKHMG, individuals, and families who have engaged in this Kaupapa to create
a healthy and productive Kaipara harbour. We thank Garth Harmsworth, Karen Fisher and
William Wright for their valuable comments made on this article. The authors thank the
anonymous reviewers who offered valuable feedback and continued to support the publication of
our practice-based manuscript.
Funding
This work was supported and funded by the IKHMG.
ORCID
Leane Makey http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8501-8714
References
Auckland Council. 2016. Auckland unitary plan. Operative in part 29 March 2018. http://unitaryplan.
aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/pages/plan/Book.aspx?exhibit¼AucklandUnitaryPlan_Print (accessed April
24, 2018).
Auditor-General, New Zealand. 2016. Principles for effectively co-governing natural resources.
Auditor-General, New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand.
Awatere, A. S., G. Harmsworth, S. Rolleston, and C. Pauling. 2012. Kaitiakitanga o ng
ahere
p
ohatu: Kaitiakitanga of urban settlements. In Reclaiming indigenous planning, eds. R. Walker,
T. Jojola, and D. Natcher, 236259. Monteral, Quebec: McGill-Queens University Press.
Barlow, C. 1991. Tikanga whakaaro: Key concepts in M
aori culture. Auckland, New Zealand:
Oxford University Press.
Barrett, J., and L. Strongman. 2013. Sovereignty in postcolonial Aotearoa New Zealand:
Ambiguities, paradoxes and possibilities. PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review
36 (2):341357. doi:10.1111/plar.12033
Barry, J. 2012. Indigenous state planning as inter-institutional capacity development: The evolu-
tion of government-to-governmentrelations in coastal British Columbia, Canada. Planning
Theory and Practice 13 (2):213231. doi:10.1080/14649357.2012.677122
Bulmer, R. H., S. Kelly, and A. G. Jeffs. 2016. Light requirements of the seagrass, Zostera muel-
leri, determined by observations at the maximum depth limit in a temperate estuary,
New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 50 (2):18394.
doi:10.1080/00288330.2015.1120759
SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES 15
Coombes, B. 2007. Postcolonial conservation and kiekie harvests at Morere New Zealand - abstract-
ing indigenous knowledge from indigenous polities. Geographical Research 45 (2):18693.
doi:10.1111/j.1745-5871.2007.00450.x
Crengle, D. 1993. Taking into account the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi: Ideas for the imple-
mentation of Section 8, Resource Management Act 1991. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry for
the Environment.
Cryer, M., P. Mace, and K. Sullivan. 2016. New Zealands ecosystem approach to fisheries man-
agement. Fisheries Oceanography 25 (S1):5770. doi:10.1111/fog.12088
Department of Conservation. 2010. Proposed New Zealand coastal policy statement 2010.
Wellington, New Zealand: Department of Conservation.
DoC 2014b. Conservation management strategy. Northland 20142024, Volume 1. Operative
29 September 2014. Whangarei, NZ.
DoC, and MfE. 2000. The New Zealand biodiversity strategy. Our chance to turn the tide.
Whakakohukihukitia Te Tai Roroku Ki Te Tai Oranga. Wellington, New Zealand: Department
of Conservation and Ministry for Environment.
DoC. 2014a. Conservation management strategy. Auckland 20142024. Operative 17 November
2014. p. 320.
Dodson, G. 2014. Co-governance and local empowerment? conservation partnership frameworks
and marine protection at Mimiwhangata, New Zealand. Society & Natural Resources
27 (5):521539. doi:10.1080/08941920.2013.861560
Environs Holdings Ltd 2013. The assessment of Kaipara Harbour Mauri. Phase 3: Application of
the Te Uri o Hau environmental monitoring framework. Prepared for Manaaki Whenua
Landcare Research Ltd, Contract No. C09X1003, Whangarei, NZ: Environs Holdings Trust, Te
Uri o Hau Settlement Trust.
Environs Holdings Ltd. 2011. Te Uri o Hau Kaitiakitanga o Te Taiao. Iwi Environmental
Management Plan. Whangarei, New Zealand: Te Uri o Hau Settlement Trust.
Escobar, A. 2016. Thinking-feeling with the earth: Territorial struggles and the ontological
dimension of the epistemologies of the South. AIBR, Revista De Antropolog
ıa Iberoamericana
11 (1):1132. doi:10.11156/aibr.110102e.
Feeney, C., W. Allen, A. Lees, and M. Drury. 2010. Integrated catchment management. A review of
literature and practice. Environmental Communications Ltd for the Ministry for Environment.
Fox, C. A., N. J. Reo, D. A. Turner, J. A. Cook, F. Dituri, B. Fessell, J. Jenkins, A. Johnson, T. M.
Rakena, C. Riley, et al., 2017. The river is us; The river is in our veins: Re-defining river res-
toration in three indigenous communities. Sustainability Science 12 (4):521533. doi:10.1007/
s11625-016-0421-1
Gibbs, M., G. Olsen, A. Swales, and S. He. 2012. Kaipara harbour sediment tracing. Sediment
dispersion across the harbour. January 2012. NIWA Client Report HAM2011-091. Hamilton,
New Zealand: Integrated Kaipara Harbour Management Group.
Haggitt, T., S. Mead, and M. Bellingham. 2008. Review of environmental information on the
Kaipara Harbour marine environment. Technical Publication No. 354, 2008. Auckland,
New Zealand
H armsworth, G. R., and S. Awatere. 2013. Indigenous M
aori knowledge and perspectives of eco-
systems. In Ecosystem services in New Zealand - conditions and trends, ed. J. R. Dymond,
274286. Lincoln, New Zealand: Manaaki Whenua Press.
Harmsworth, G., S. Awatere, and M. Robb. 2016. Indigenous m
aori values and perspectives to
inform freshwater management in Aotearoa-New Zealand. Ecology and Society 21 (4):9.
doi:10.5751/ES-08804-210409
Hersoug, B. 2018. After all these years- New Zealands quota management system at the cross-
roads. Marine Policy 92:101110. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2018.02.010
IKHMG. 2009a. Vision and principles. Working draft. December 2009 v4. Integrated Kaipara
Whangarei, New Zealand: Harbour Management Group.
IKHMG. 2009b. Who we are. http://www.kaiparaharbour.net.nz/About (accessed April 12, 2016).
IKHMG. 2010. The World of Kaipara. Information review and gap analysis. Whangarei,
New Zealand: Integrated Kaipara Harbour Management Group.
16 L. MAKEY AND S. AWATERE
IKHMG. 2011. Kaipara Moana. He mahere rautaki whakakotahi. Integrated strategic plan of
action 20112021. Whangarei, New Zealand: Creating a healthy and productive Kaipara
Harbour. Whangarei, NZ.
Johnson, J. 2013. Kaitiakitanga telling the stories of environmental guardianship. In A deeper
sense of place: Stories and journeys of indigenous- academic collaboration, eds. J. T. Johnson
and S. C. Larsen, 122138. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.
Kanwar, P., C. Koliba, S. Greenhalgh, and W. B. Bowden. 2016. An institutional analysis of the
Kaipara harbour governance network in New Zealand. Society & Natural Resources
29 (11):13591374. doi:10.1080/08941920.2016.1144838
Kawharu, M. 2000. Kaitiakitanga: A m
aori anthropological perspective of the m
aori socio-envir-
onmental ethic of resource management. Journal of the Polynesian Society 109 (4):349370.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/stable/20706951
Kidd, S., A. Plater, and C. Frid. 2011. The ecosystem approach to marine planning and manage-
ment. London, UK: Earthscan.
Krause, F., and V. Strang. 2016. Thinking relationships through water. Society & Natural
Resources 29 (6):633638. doi:10.1080/08941920.2016.1151714
Larsen, S. C., and J. T. Johnson. 2016. The agency of place: Toward a more-than-human geo-
graphical self. GeoHumanities 2 (1):14966. doi:10.1080/2373566X.2016.1157003
Leonard, S., M. Parsons, K. Olawsky, and F. Kofod. 2013. The role of culture and traditional
knowledge in climate change adaptation: Insights from east Kimberley, Australia. Global
Environmental Change 23 (3):623632. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.02.012
Maclean, K. and The Bana Yarralji Bubu Inc. 2015. Crossing cultural boundaries: Integrating
indigenous water knowledge into water governance through co-research in the Queensland wet
tropics, Australia. Geoforum 59:14252. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.12.008
Maclean, K., H. Ross, M. Cuthill, and P. Rist. 2013. Healthy country, healthy people: An
Australian aboriginal organisations adaptive governance to enhance its social-ecological sys-
tem. Geoforum 45:94105. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.10.005
McLeod, K., and H. Leslie. 2009. Why ecosystem-based management? Washington, DC: Island Press.
Mead, H.M and 2003. Tikanga m
aori: Living by m
aori values. Wellington, New Zealand: Huia
Publishers.
Memon, P. A., and N. Kirk. 2012. Role of indigenous m
aori people in collaborative water govern-
ance in
aotearoa/New Zealand. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management
55 (7):941959. doi:10.1080/09640568.2011.634577
MfE. 2011. Proposed national policy statement on indigenous biodiversity. Wellington, New Zealand:
Ministry for Environment.
Minhinnick, N. 1989. Establishing Kaitiaki: A paper. Auckland, New Zealand: Nganeko Kaihau
Minhinnick.
Ministry of Primary Industries. 2016. Future of our fisheries. MPI Discussion Document 2016/27.
Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Primary Industries.
Morrison, M. A., M. L. Lowe, E. G. Jones, L. Makey, U. Shankar, N. Usmar, C. Middleton. 2014.
Habitats of particular significance for fisheries management: The Kaipara Harbour. New Zealand
Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Report No. 129. Wellington, New Zealand.
Morrison, M., A. M. L. Lowe, D. Parsons, N. Usmar, and I. McLeod. 2009. A review of land-
based effects on coastal fisheries and supporting biodiversity in New Zealand. Auckland,
New Zealand: Ministry of Primary Industries.
New Zealand Government. 2011. National policy statement freshwater management 2011. Issued
by notice in the NZ Government Gazette on 12 May 2011. Wellington, New Zealand:
New Zealand Government.
Ng
ati Wh
atua o Kaipara Claims Settlement Act, 2013. Statue Number 2013 No 37.
Ng
ati Whatua, and NZ Crown. 2014. Kaipara Moana framework agreement. 8th August 2014.
Wellington, New Zealand.
Park, G. 2000. New Zealand as ecosystems: The ecosystem concept as a tool for environmental
management and conservation. Wellington, New Zealand: Department of Conservation.
SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES 17
Parsons, M., K. Fisher, and J. Nalau. 2016. Alternative approaches to co-design: Insights from
indigenous/academic research collaborations. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
20:99105. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2016.07.001
Peart, R. 2007. Beyond the tide. Integrating the management of New Zealands coasts. Auckland,
New Zealand: Environmental Defence Society.
Peart, R. 2018. Voices from the sea. Experiencing New Zealands fisheries management system.
Auckland, New Zealand: Environmental Defence Society.
Porter, L. 2006. Planning in (post)colonial settings: Challenges for theory and practice. Planning
Theory & Practice 7 (4):383396. doi:10.1080/14649350600984709
Richmond, L., B. R. Middleton, R. Gilmer, Z. Grossman, T. Janis, S. Lucero, T. Morgan, and A.
Watson. 2013. Indigenous studies speaks to environmental management. Environmental
Management 52 (5):10411045. doi:10.1007/s00267-013-0173-y
Robb, M., S. Awatere, G. Harmsworth, and L. Makey. 2016. Bicultural tools for biodiversity meas-
urement and monitoring: TUOH framework and model for monitoring biodiversity in the
Kaipara. Whangarei, New Zealand: Te Uri o Hau Settlement Trust.
Royal, C. 1993. The perspectives of M
aori knowledge holders. In The state of New Zealands eco-
systems: A questionnaire of ecologists, conservation managers, resource planners and iwi kaitiaki
(unpublished), ed. G. Park. Wellington. New Zealand: Department of Conservation.
Salmond, A. 2014a. Tears of Rangi: Water, power, and people in New Zealand. HAU: Journal of
Ethnographic Theory 4 (3):285309. doi:10.14318/hau4.3.017
Salmond, A., M. Tadaki, and T. Gregory. 2014b. Enacting new freshwater geographies: Te awaroa
and the transformative imagination. New Zealand Geographer 70 (1):4755. doi:10.1111/nzg.12039
Simms, R., L. Harris, N. Joe, and K. Bakker. 2016. Navigating the tensions in collaborative water-
shed governance: Water governance and indigenous communities in British Columbia,
Canada. Geoforum 73:616. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2016.04.005
Takeda, L., and I. Ropke. 2010. Power and contestation in collaborative ecosystem-based management:
The case of Haida Gwaii. Ecological Economics 70 (2):178188. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.02.007
Taylor, L. B. 2015. He waka hourua, he waka eke noa: Evolving management and governance for
Kaipara Moana. Auckland, New Zealand: Masters, University of Auckland.
Te Aho, L. 2009. Negotiating co-management of the Waikato River. Resource Management
Journal 1418.
Te Uri o Hau Claims Settlement Act. 2002. Public Act 2002 No 36, Date of assent 17 October
2002.
Thomas, A. C. 2015. Indigenous more-than-humanisms: Relational ethics with the Hurunui River
in Aotearoa New Zealand. Social & Cultural Geography 16 (8):974990. doi:10.1080/
14649365.2015.1042399
Tiakiwai, S. J., J. T. Kilgour, and A. Whetu. 2017. Indigenous perspectives of ecosystem-based
management and co-governance in the pacific northwest: Lessons for Aotearoa. AlterNative:
An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples 13 (2):6979. doi:10.1177/1177180117701692
Tipa, G., and R. Welch. 2006. Comanagement of natural resources: Issues of definition from an indigen-
ous community perspective. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 42 (3):373391. doi:10.1177/
0021886306287738
von der Porten, S., and R. C. de Lo
e. 2013. Collaborative approaches to governance from water
and indigenous peoples: A case study from British Columbia, Canada. Geoforum 50:149160.
doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.09.001
von der Porten, S., and R. C. de Lo
e. 2014. How collaborative approaches to environmental prob-
lem solving view indigenous peoples: A systematic review. Society & Natural Resources
27 (10):10401056. doi:10.1080/08941920.2014.918232
Waitangi Tribunal. 2011a. Ko Aotearoa t
enei. A report into claims concerning New Zealand law
and policy affecting M
aori culture and identity. Section 3. Relationship with the environment.
Wai 262. Waitangi Tribunal, Wellington, New Zealand.
Waitangi Tribunal. 2011b. Ko Aotearoa t
enei. Te taumata tuatahi. A report into claims concern-
ing New Zealand law and policy affecting M
aori culture and identity. Wai 262. Brooker &
Friend, Waitangi Tribunal, Wellington, New Zealand.
18 L. MAKEY AND S. AWATERE
... There is a growing realisation by civil society that understanding Māori views and beliefs is essential for natural resource management decisions (Harmsworth et al. 2013). Concerted efforts are being made to adequately acknowledge Māori rights and interests in the co-management of natural resources (Harmsworth et al. 2016;Makey and Awatere 2018;Maxwell et al. 2020b) such as the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011. However, the New Zealand planning conundrum is that while civil society expresses a willingness to work with Māori worldviews, the capability to meaningfully commit to a Māori planning perspective resides with hapū/iwi planners or kaitiaki constrained by capacity. ...
... While the M aori have recently undertaken a revival of utilizing m atauranga for the purposes of natural resource management (Hikuroa, 2017;Makey & Awatere, 2018), colonization has for the broader M aori population, led to the disconnection between M aori and their ancestral land along with the loss of language (te reo) and customary practices (tikanga). As a result, the ability of many M aori to "listen to the land," and "read the signals" in the surrounding environment has diminished. ...
Chapter
Most development planners and practitioners have often wrongly assumed that solutions for community challenges lie within the “western scientific knowledge” only. However, the recent studies have highlighted the relevance of Indigenous Knowledge to inform western scientific solutions. This study is on the Barotse Flood Plain of the Western Province of Zambia. Flood inundation understanding by the local communities has direct implications for their livelihood options and for the well-being of their households. The research found that there are a number of important local knowledge systems that are early warning systems based on observations of weather, water level and landscape, and animal behavior, which are widely disseminated through a specific communication network. The chapter concludes with a discussion on how the integration of Western scientific and Indigenous Knowledge Systems will better inform interventions to improve livelihood options for the communities within the Barotse Flood Plain and policy and practice within the developing world at large.
... Further, while we have focussed on the role of science in supporting social licence, we recognise that many other factorsespecially the level of trust and strength of relationships between invasive species programmes, the general public, local communities or private landowners (Edwards et al. 2020; Estévez et al. 2015; Ogilvie et al. 2019; Stronge et al. 2019) -may strongly in uence social licence for invasive species control efforts.Our ndings concur with those of a systematic literature review(Estévez et al. 2015) that found provision of localised forecasts for a wide range of impacts of interest to stakeholders and local communities is likely to be a useful pathway for science to support social licence for invasive species control programmes. Previous studies have emphasised the need for forecasts on multiple ecosystem properties in engaging communities in ecosystem-based management (e.g.Delacámara et al. 2020;Makey and ...
Preprint
Full-text available
The primary role for science in addressing complex environmental problems, such as biological invasions, is generally assumed to be as a guide for management decisions. However, science often plays a minor role in decision-making, with practitioners instead relying on professional experience and local knowledge. We explore alternative pathways by which science could help reduce the spread and impacts of invasive species. Our study centred on attempts to understand the science needs of three local governance bodies responsible for the management of invasive (wilding) conifer species in the southern South Island of New Zealand. We used a combination of workshop discussions, questionnaire responses and visits to field sites to elicit feedback from study participants. We applied a mixed inductive-deductive thematic analysis approach to derive themes from the feedback received. The three main themes identified were: 1) Impacts of wilding conifers and goals for wilding conifer control; 2) barriers to achieving medium- and long-term goals; and 3) science needed to support wilding conifer control. Participants identified both instrumental (e.g. reduced water availability for agriculture) and intrinsic (e.g. loss of biodiversity and landscape values) impacts of wilding conifer invasions, with long-term goals focussed on avoiding or reversing these impacts. Barriers to achieving goals were overwhelmingly social, relating either to unwillingness of landowners to participate or poorly designed regulatory frameworks. Consequently, science needs related primarily to gaining social licence to remove wilding conifers from private land and for more appropriate regulations. Participants did not perceive any need for additional scientific information to guide management decisions, relying instead on professional experience and local knowledge. International experience suggests that invasive species control programmes often face significant external social barriers. Thus, for many biological invasions the primary role for science might be to achieve social licence and regulatory support for the long-term goals of invasive species control programmes and the management interventions required to achieve those goals.
... While there is an extensive repository of research on Māori groups, much of it has a tainted history in terms of appropriation of indigenous ideas, the remarginalisation of indigenous groups, and the failure to engage with and give back research to these groups (see, for example , Walker 1990;Smith 1999;Bargh 2007). Embracing Smith's (2014) call to researchers-which may include pākehā-to establish and re-build respectful relationships with indigenous groups with special emphasis toward creating ethical spaces of engagement, there is a growing set of examples in the literature, which document how researchers (Māori and pākehā) can be better guests in Māori worlds (see, for example, Thomas 2015;Fisher et al. 2015;Makey and Awatere 2018). ...
Article
Full-text available
Far from being passive and/or static victims of climate change, indigenous peoples are hybridizing knowledge systems, and challenging and negotiating new environmental and social realities to develop their own adaptation options within their own registers of what is place and culture appropriate. Our paper seeks to demonstrate how we, as guests on Māori land, were able to develop a partnership with a Māori community facing difficult adaptation decisions regarding climate change hazards through the pragmatic navigation of multi-disciplinary research and practice. In particular, we co-developed and tested the potential of a serious game (Marae-opoly) approach as a platform which assembles cross-cultural climate change knowledge to learn, safely experiment and inform adaptation decisions. Marae-opoly was developed bespoke to its intended context—to support the creation of mutually agreeable dynamic adaptive policy pathways (DAPP) for localized flood adaptation. Game material was generated by drawing together detailed local knowledge (i.e. hydrology, climate data, mātauranga hapū) and situated adaptation options and accurate contextual data to create a credible gaming experience for the hapū of Tangoio Marae. We argue that the in-situ co-development process used to co-create Marae-opoly was fundamental in its success in achieving outcomes for the hapū. It also provided important lessons for the research team regarding how to enter as respectful guests and work together effectively to provide a resource to support our partners' adaptation decisions. The paper discusses the steps taken to establish research partnerships and develop the serious game and its subsequent playing, albeit we do not evaluate our indigenous research partners' adaptation decisions. Our contribution with this paper is in sharing an approach which cultivated the ground to enter as respectful guests and work together effectively to provide a resource for our partners' adaptation decisions.
Article
If wilderness is dead, do wild rivers exist and if so, in what form and in whose construction? This reflective article reviews perspectives on rivers in Aotearoa New Zealand as wild or tamed entities. A historical overview of the socio-cultural and institutional relationships with rivers examines the meanings of rivers in Aotearoa New Zealand through multiple lenses. This includes indigenous Māori knowledge, command-and-control mentalities of a settler society that assert human authority over rivers, the emergence of the environmental movement and associated legislation with a sustainability focus (the Resource Management Act), and recent movement towards co-governance arrangements that incorporate the original intent of Te Tiriti o Waitangi (1840). It is contended that management practices have disconnected society from rivers, and vice versa, creating a sense of environmental loss (solastalgia), especially for Māori. Using rivers in the Greater Wellington Region as examples, prospects to accommodate wild river behaviour in Aotearoa New Zealand are explored. Recognising that re-wilding is no longer a feasible option in most instances, further attempts to tame rivers are also considered to be unrealistic, especially in light of climate change and accentuated flood risk. Reconnecting with indigenous knowledge offers prospects to re-imagine wild rivers in Aotearoa, living generatively with rivers as dynamic and emergent entities.
Chapter
Ngāti Porou within the Waiapu catchment, on the East Coast Region of New Zealand's North Island, have long-term interests in their land. Projected climate change scenarios will impact negatively on Ngāti Porou wellbeing. The Waiapu is already suffering from high rates of erosion, sedimentation, and recent drought. The predicted increase in magnitude and frequency of extreme weather events like drought, wildfire, and excessive precipitation will likely result in further degradation to land and waterways. To help landowners mitigate these risks, this project developed a decision tool to provide robust guidance for developing planting plans for nontimber-based forestry for landowners to help mitigate climate change impacts and achieve cultural priorities such as intergenerational equity. There are numerous visual signs (tohu) in a landscape that can be integrated and interpreted by landowners to make robust decisions about productive planting regimes for nontimber resources. Utilizing a single case study area in the Waiapu catchment, we identified visual signs (climate, topography, soils, plant species, physiological state, and bioactives) across the landscape and correlated these to growing suitability of nontimber forestry products and Māori cultural aspirations. Our tool helps empower Māori landowners to engage in climate adaptation and helps build their capability to carry out afforestation projects.
Article
Māori, the Indigenous people of Aotearoa New Zealand, have an intrinsically environmental approach to economics. This approach—informed by the Māori worldview—was refined over the first millennium of inhabitation, before colonization brought the intrusion of Western institutions and the consequent involution of Māori institutions. Māori view humans as embedded within a wider nonhuman community of nature that is simultaneously spiritual and material. Māori understand “nature” as a unified spiritual-socioecology. Economics is just one facet of this whole, a facet fundamentally entwined with the whole such that all economic relationships have inherently social, spiritual, and ecological elements. At the core of Māori relationships with nature is the ethic of kaitiakitanga, or the act of guardianship over the spiritual-socioecology. Māori have a responsibility to actively care for their human and nonhuman community, to act with mana (authority and dignity), to respect nature’s tapu (sacredness), and to maintain nature’s mauri (life force). The Māori economy is underpinned by an integrated, nuanced, and adaptive framework of beliefs and institutions that constrains decision-making, ensuring the consideration of the human, nonhuman, and spiritual domains across time while simultaneously being calibrated toward delivering mutually beneficial outcomes within kin-group networks. This ensures that economic success does not come at the expense of other people, nature, or future generations. An economy based on a Māori worldview is, fundamentally, an environmental economy. Following colonization, Māori suffered a loss of mana. Land was sold below market rate or stolen, and after massive deforestation and significant loss of native flora and fauna, Aotearoa New Zealand’s tapu was desecrated and its mauri reduced. In the mid- to late-20th century, Māori political activism and a resultant tribunal examining actions and omissions by the state during land acquisition resulted in Māori regaining mana. Consequently, Māori have overcome the drastic change in rights to their remaining land to act as kaitiaki (guardians) of this remaining land in ways both congruent with traditional practices (te ao tūroa) and adapted to changed context (te ao hurihuri). Māori have realigned the imposed governance structures of their organizations to reinstate their original focus on the intergenerational well-being of human and nonhuman communities, reinvigorating the influence of mana in business, and its capacity to create a virtuous circle. Māori have managed to thrive in the settler and global economy not despite their environmentally grounded economic approach, but because of it.
Article
This paper discusses the use of an estuary monitoring toolkit Ngā Waihotanga Iho as a central part of a Māori-centred education project undertaken by Kaipara hapū (sub-tribe), Te Uri O Hau, in Northland, New Zealand. The toolkit was designed by New Zealand’s National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA). In this project, Te Uri O Hau collaborated with NIWA and regional high schools in order to use this toolkit as a mechanism for kaitikaitanga (environmental guardianship) and Indigenous-led environmental education. This paper demonstrates that approaches such as this can be powerful vehicles for Indigenous self-determination as Māori actively undertake tribal development and environmental guardianship, and strengthen the place of Indigenous knowledge, priorities and approaches within an evolving ‘post-colonial’ education system.
Article
Full-text available
Indigenous communities are increasingly taking the lead in river restoration, using the process as an opportunity to re-engage deeply with their rivers, while revealing socio-cultural and political dimensions of restoration underreported in ecological and social science literatures. We engaged in collaborative research with representatives from three Indigenous nations in the United States, New Zealand, and Canada to explore the relationship between Indigenous ways of knowing and being (i.e., “Indigenous knowledges”) and their restoration efforts. Our research project asks the following: how are Indigenous knowledges enacted through river restoration and how do they affect outcomes? How do the experiences of these Indigenous communities broaden our understanding of the social dimensions of river restoration? Our research reveals how socio-cultural protocols and spiritual practices are intertwined with restoration methodologies, showing why cultural approaches to restoration matter. We found that in many cases, a changing political or legal context helps create space for assertion of Indigenous spiritual and cultural values, while the restoration efforts themselves have the potential to both repair community relationships with water and empower communities vis-à-vis the wider society. We show that restoration has the potential to not only restore ecosystem processes and services, but to repair and transform human relationships with rivers and create space politically for decolonizing river governance.
Article
Full-text available
The impacts of global environmental change create new challenges and opportunities for indigenous peoples worldwide. Yet, there remains limited recognition that indigenous knowledge frameworks could (and should) influence the processes and outcomes of climate change mitigation and adaptation. This paper presents insights relating to indigenous issues in a global environmental change context from two workshops, which were held in Brisbane, Australia, and Umeå, Sweden. These workshops were attended by more than 30 indigenous and non-indigenous researchers, natural resource managers, policy-makers, and representatives from government and non-governmental organizations from across Asia, Oceania, and Scandinavia. This paper builds on workshop participants’ insights and illuminates key components of the process of co-creation of knowledges for and with indigenous communities, and describes some of the main challenges to, and opportunities for, transdisciplinary and cross-cultural knowledge production. We argue that indigenous methodologies offer important lessons for current efforts within global sustainability research to integrate different knowledges and design and conduct research in culturally and ethical respectful manner.
Article
Full-text available
In response to widespread water quality and quantity issues, the New Zealand Government has recently embarked on a number of comprehensive freshwater management reforms, developing a raft of national discussion and policy documents such as "Freshwater Reform 2013 and Beyond" and a National Policy Statement for freshwater management (NPS-FM 2014). Recent resource management reforms and amendments (RMA 2014), based on previous overarching resource management legislation (RMA 1991), set out a new approach and pathway to manage freshwater nationwide. Internationally, there is an increasing trend to engage with indigenous communities for research and collaboration, including indigenous groups as active participants in resource management decision making. What is driving this change toward more engagement and collaboration with indigenous communities is different for each country, and we document the progress and innovation made in this area in New Zealand. The indigenous rights of Māori in New Zealand are stated in the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi and in many forms of New Zealand's legislation. Local and central governments are eager to include local indigenous Māori groups (iwi/hapū) in freshwater management planning processes through meaningful engagement and collaboration. Key to the success of collaborative planning processes for Māori are enduring relationships between local government and Māori, along with adequate resourcing for all partners contributing to the collaborative process. A large number of shared governance and management models for natural resource management have emerged in New Zealand over the past 20 years, and some recent examples are reviewed. We provide some discussion to improve understanding and use of the terms used in these management models such as cogovernance, comanagement, and coplanning, and describe some of the more important frameworks and tools being developed with Māori groups (e.g., iwi/hapū), to strengthen Māori capacity in freshwater management and to support good collaborative process and planning.
Article
Full-text available
First Nations in British Columbia (BC), Canada, have historically been—and largely continue to be—excluded from colonial governments’ decision-making and management frameworks for fresh water. However, in light of recent legal and legislative changes, and also changes in water governance and policy, there is growing emphasis in scholarship and among legal, policy and advocacy communities on shifting water governance away from a centralized single authority towards an approach that is watershed-based, collaborative, and involves First Nations as central to decision-making processes. Drawing on community-based research, interviews with First Nations natural resource staff and community members, and document review, the paper analyzes the tensions in collaborative water governance, by identifying First Nations’ concerns within the current water governance system and exploring how a move towards collaborative watershed governance may serve to either address, or further entrench, these concerns. This paper concludes with recommendations for collaborative water governance frameworks which are specifically focused on British Columbia, but which have relevance to broader debates over Indigenous water governance.
Article
Full-text available
The theoretical framework of Epistemologies of the South was proposed by Boaventura de Sousa Santos as a way to recognize other different manners to understand the World. This offers a much more relevant role to non-Western views about our existence. Under this framework the present article describes the concept of relational ontologies, which implies different theoretical fundamentals for those who no longer want to be complicit with the silencing of popular knowledges and experiences by Eurocentric knowledge. Responding to the monolithic idea of World or Universe, this article presents a transition towards the zapatist inspiration of pluriverse, a world where many words fit. The article describes several examples of indigenous reactions against the mining practices, which were extended into the ontological occupation of the land. This article also argues that the knowledge offered by the Epistemologies of the South is much deeper for the context of social transformation than the one that usually originates in the academy.
Article
Full-text available
In 1986, New Zealand introduced a radical new quota management system (QMS) based on individual transferable quotas (ITQ) for most of its key fisheries. New Zealand's QMS focuses primarily on the management of individual fish stocks through the setting of total allowable catches (TAC) and total allowable commercial catches (TACC, allocated as ITQ) and is therefore essentially a single species-focussed system. However, New Zealand's Fisheries Act 1996 is designed to 'provide for utilisation while ensuring sustainability' and the obligation to ensure sustainability has led to the introduction of many measures to deal with: incidental captures of protected species (primarily marine mammals and seabirds); benthic effects caused by bottom trawl and dredge gear; changes to marine biodiversity; and the protection of habitats of particular significance for fisheries management. Together with directed fish stock management, these measures could be considered to constitute a first-level ecosystem approach to fisheries management. Many authors have advocated incremental or evolutionary approaches to the implementation of ecosystem approaches, and this paper summarizes developments in New Zealand since 1986 that build on the success of the QMS in this way.
Article
New Zealand has rightly been admired for a new and innovative system of fishery management (the QMS) where ITQs to commercial fishers have been granted in perpetuity. By the turn of the century, the system was seen as a model for how to get the incentives right. 15 years later, it is worthwhile considering the challenges that have not been solved. The article focusses in particular on social aspects such as the labour conditions in the charter fleet, the discard problems, the relationship between the commercial and the recreational sector, the complicated procedures involved in setting and changing TACs, the involvement of Maori in fisheries management and finally on the relationship to the aquaculture sector. The main message is that strong rights to one group (the quota owners), without sorting out the rights for the other stakeholders in the marine area, have created long-term problems, which now partly paralyses the entire QMS. This also implies some serious lessons for countries who would like to copy the QMS; the system comes with a cost.
Article
This article presents a case study of the ecosystem-based management model embedded within British Columbia’s Marine Plan Partnership for the Pacific North Coast and the Great Bear Initiative. These are two distinct, yet linked, examples of resource management and economic development that use ecosystem-based management in a way that incorporates indigenous perspectives and aspirations. The model potentially provides a framework that other countries, including Aotearoa (New Zealand), could examine and adapt to their own contexts using new governance structures and working with indigenous perspectives that include traditional ecological knowledge and aspirations. The case study is presented from a Māori perspective that represents both an insider (indigenous) and outsider (non-First Nations) view.
Article
The Kaipara Harbour in New Zealand is one of the largest estuarine systems in the world, containing significant areas of subtidal seagrass habitat (Zostera muelleri). Light availability at the maximum depth limit for Z. muelleri was measured at 2.10 (0.19 SEM) and 4.91 (0.53 SEM) mol photons m−2 d−1 during the winter and summer monitoring periods, respectively. The primary drivers of benthic light availability were found to be surface light availability, the timing of the low tide and water clarity. Core sampling analysis suggested that biomass of seagrass growing at the maximum depth limit was low, indicative of light limitation. The results of this study suggest that the subtidal distribution of seagrass in the Kaipara Harbour is light-limited and that reductions in water clarity due to changes in land use are likely to result in significant reductions in the extent and productivity of subtidal seagrass habitat.
Article
Contemporary Indigenous activism asserts an agency for place not normally found in geographical scholarship. Through place-based protest, organizing, and direct action, Native and non-Native people are interacting with place as a conscious being with the capacity to speak, create, and teach the responsibilities required for more inclusive forms of coexistence in today’s settler states. This “placework” articulates a more-than-human geographical self whose subjectivities are grounded in, and accountable to, land-based relationships and knowledges. Placework contributes to a geographical posthumanism that offers a distinctively Indigenous approach to the predicaments of the Anthropocene.当代的本土行动主义,声称地方具有一般在地理学研究中未被发现的行动本体。透过以地方为基础的抗议、组织及直接行动,原住民与非原住民和地方进行互动,其中地方作为有能力言说、创造,并教授今日迁佔国家中更具包容的共存形式所需的责任的有意识之存在。此一“地方工作”接合超越人类的地理自我,而该主体性深植于以土地为基础的关係及知识,并对它们负有责任。地方工作,对于为人类世的困境提出特殊本土方法的地理后人类主义做出贡献。El activismo indígena contemporáneo reivindica una agencia para el lugar que normalmente no aparece en la erudición geográfica. Por medio de la protesta basada en lugar, organización y acción directa, pueblos nativos y no nativos están interactuando con el lugar como ente consciente dotado con la capacidad de hablar, crear y enseñar las responsabilidades requeridas para formas más incluyentes de coexistencia en los estados colonizadores de la actualidad. Este “lugar-trabajo” articula un yo geográfico más-que-humano cuyas subjetividades están ancladas en relaciones y conocimientos basados en la tierra, ante los cuales responde. El lugar-trabajo contribuye a un poshumanismo geográfico que ofrece un enfoque peculiarmente indígena a los apuros del Antropoceno.