Oceania and Pacific

Kaitiakitanga: The Reclamation of the Domain Of Tane Mahuta.
A Look at the Deforestation of Aotearoa, and an Argument for Structuring an Idealised Future.

Sandy Gauntlett. Masters student in Maori Education at the University of Auckland, and Research student of the Maori Research Unit, Education Department, Auckland University.

1. Introduction

The process of deforestation of Aotearoa (New Zealand) is a process that has seen the stripping of this country's Indigenous Forests, and their replacement with large tracts of monocultural plantation forestry and huge areas of pastoral farmland (Ellis, 1920). That this process was largely completed by the beginning of the twentieth century is recorded as historical fact.(Ellis, 1920). Neo liberal theorists of the 1980s and 1990s have ascribed the deforestation of Aotearoa to the pages of history in an attempt to ignore it.

Globalisation, on the other hand, is seen as a relatively modern process which has given birth to the rise of the Transnational Corporation (TNC). The theorising that has developed around whether the TNC is good, bad or indifferent has tended to focus on linking Globalisation with the rise of the TNC. This paper argues that the process of how Globalisation is viewed is dependant upon who is doing the viewing, and when the process of disputing ownership is perceived as beginning.

2. Modern influences of the continued degradation of forestry

There is no disputing the fact that introduced animals, (in particular the possum) provide the most serious problem in terms of modern forestry degradation. The problem has been exacerbated by the move against the fur trade. While there are undoubtedly good and valid reasons to protect threatened species against the exploitation of their fur, the modern unpopularity of fur has also meant that humanity (the New Zealand possum's only predator) has largely ceased the hunting of these animals. Consequently, Aotearoa now has a possum population that every night destroys tonnes of Native forestry. The use of traps has proved ineffective; baiting of poisoned carrots has been expensive and potentially dangerous to other wildlife. Our government needs to develop new and effective ways of dealing with these pests before the damage removes our last remaining areas of woodland giants.

The other major contributing factor in the continued degradation of New Zealand Indigenous forestry is undoubtedly monocultural plantation forestry (Rosoman, 1994). Both the concentration on pine plantation forestry, and the environmental toxins often associated with it are providing barriers to the re-forestation of Aotearoa in Indigenous Forestry (Jackman, 1992; Rosoman, 1994).

3. Traditional (Pakeha) views on the deforestation of Aotearoa

Traditional European theorists have tended to ascribe the deforestation of Aotearoa to the historical process of colonisation. In the mid 1800s, Britain was experiencing the Industrial Revolution, and much of it's own farmland was being cleared in order to build the factories that were seen as providing the engines for the new economic order (common historical knowledge). In order to ensure that it's labour force was fed, Britain was aggressively seeking new countries to settle, in order that these lands could be converted to pasture, to provide the "homeland" with a new set of gardens to replace those shunted aside by the Industrial Revolution (Jackman, 1992; Rosoman, 1994).

The ideal country for providing these gardens would be far enough removed from Britain that it could not easily poach upon British technology in order to partake of the Industrial Revolution itself. It also needed a temperate climate, and enough land mass to make the exercise of converting it to pasture economically feasible, but at the same time small enough to make land transport a minor issue. Large areas of coastline would be a bonus (Jackman, 1992; Rosoman, 1994).

The new settlement of New Zealand seemed to provide the ideal site. All of the above was in place, and the indigenous population were being described by anthropologists of the day as "Noble Savages" (read dim and compliant). Accordingly, the Treaty of Waitangi was drawn up, and signed between the English crown and representatives of the indigenous peoples in February, 1840. That the Treaty has been the subject of controversy and dispute since the signing is also a matter of historical record, but it is a record that is not readily taught in the education syllabus of New Zealand schools.

The colonising process of Aotearoa was swift and aggressive. Native forests were cleared at an alarming rate in order to make room for agricultural holdings (Ellis, 1920). Not only did the native timbers being cut provide a cheap source of building materials for the hordes of invading settlers, but huge tracts of land were simply burnt off in order to provide pasture land.

Modern European theorists, in examining the historical records have ascribed these events to the annals of history, and blamed it on the process of colonisation. Those who defend the process are quick to point out that Maori have not rejected the technological benefits that accompanied this deforestation; those who recognise colonisation as an injustice, also often attempt to exonerate themselves by the compartmentalisation of history. Examples of this are arguments of the ilk of " I am not responsible for the sins of a hundred and fifty years ago. It is time we left the past behind us."

This argument fails to recognise the lessons of history. The Maori response to this argument is that justice is about reparation rather than blame. Acceptance and healing rather than guilt and denial. Our worry is that unless the wrongs of the past are recognised and righted, there will be no inheritance for our children, except the message that their parents were yet another generation to close their eyes to the realities of the world they lived in.

Maori philosophy is about the interconnectedness of all life and all reality (Mika/Smith, 1998; Appendix 2) Thus, what happens to the forest has an impact on our health; not just because of the carcinogenic chemicals that are often a part of the reality of modern forestry, but also because the Mauri (essence) has been hurt. Because we believe we are connected to that Mauri, we believe we feel the hurt.

4. Globalisation and the TNC

The relatively recent emergence of the TNC as an aggressive force in the new world economic order is often viewed as the beginnings of a new process of Globalisation (Saini, 1981; Saxena, 1987). The TNC operates under market forces imposed by global and regional agreements such as NAFTA , GATT and CER. The rationale behind the emergence of these agreements has been that the market has a right to operate free from the artificial restrictions imposed by national boundaries and concepts like cultural and intellectual property rights (Kiro, 1998: Appendix 1) Many ordinarily conservative governments and economic theorists are feeling under threat from the TNC and the new world economic order. The MAI agreement, as an example, has faced unprecedented public opposition. In Aotearoa, when the GATT agreement was being debated, there was very little public opposition, other than from the NGO sector and from some activist sectors of our society. However, the debate over MAI has seen nationwide petitions, marches and several well attended public meetings and hui.

What then has been the difference? Other than a few years gap between the two, there has been an opportunity for the ordinary citizen to view the TNC in operation. In terms of the forestry industry, the events at Clayoquot Sound in British Columbia alerted the world to the fact that even supposedly world leaders amongst the developed nations were at risk in terms of the exploitation of their resources. It is this realisation that I believe has provided the impetus for the sudden surge of public awareness about the capabilities of the TNC. There is now some urgency in the calls for sanctions and controls on the operations of these economic giants, some of whom have economic resources behind them that exceed the Gross national product of most of the developing nations (Saini, 1981).

5. The Indigenous viewpoint on Globalisation and the TNC.

Mahandar Kumar Saini in his PhD. Thesis "Politics of Multinationals; a pattern in neo-colonialism" puts forward the argument that there has been a transition in the form of colonialism, from the Thronerooms of Europe to the Boardrooms of the TNC (Saini, 1981). His argument centres around economic theory and the cost of maintaining the colonial systems. As an argument, the logic is pure, simple and undeniable. The rising cost of maintaining colonial sub-systems is increasing at the same time as there is a lessening in the availability of exploitable resources (Saini, 1981). The demand for increased profits has meant a call for larger, more efficient companies and the creation of global and regional trade agreements that serve to facilitate access for the TNC.

In Aotearoa, there has been a similar recognition of the TNC as a newer form of the old colonial system. However, there has also been a rise in the demand for recognition of both as a process of exploitation that began with the exploratory forays of the 18^th century whalers and sealers. Under a general theory of exploitation, it is possible to see globalization as a grab for the resources of others. For Maori, the exploitation and denigration of our forests cannot be separated out from the exploitation of our seas and ocean resources, or from the grab for ownership of our lands. Neither can these be separated out from the urbanisation of the Maori population of Aotearoa, or from the associated marginalisation of our peoples (Kiro, 1998; Appendix 1). In turn, these issues impact upon our self esteem and educational performance. This process of marginalisation helps to ensure that the bulk of the Maori population remains amongst the lower socio-economic stratas of our society (Kiro, 1998; Appendix 1).

For Maori as a people, we have lived with the effects of colonisation for all of our lives. We recognise it, in all of it's guises; we have even reached the stage where we believe we can smell it coming. Part of our urgency in trying to get Pakeha to see colonisation as a living (as opposed to historical) evil is that we believe the process continues with the move to the TNC. This time however, colonisation is not bothered by ethnicity or race. It is simply a grab for the resources. Unless all of us, Pakeha and Maori, see the process for what it is, then we may be incapable of the hard negotiating necessary to protect our remaining natural resources.

6. Treaty settlements and the return of lands and forests.

For Maori, one of the major impacts of the call for regional and global trade agreements has meant that the government has increased the drive for full and final settlement of outstanding Treaty issues (Kiro, 1998; Appendix 1). In order to ensure that there is no legal impediment to free trade, there is a need to ensure that any pre-existing agreements are discharged in full. Land or forests where ownership is being contested under a pre-existing legal agreement would not appear as attractive to potential buyers as land where no such impediment existed. In the settlements so far reached between Iwi authorities and Government, there are already large tracts of previously government owned forestry areas (Gasson, 1998). While it is true that most of these are in pine plantations, there are also some sizable areas of the remaining indigenous forestry blocks (Gasson, 1998). It is imperative that protocols are developed that serve both Maori economic interests and traditional Maori values in terms of Kaitiakitanga (guardianship) for both of these areas. There has already been instances of short sighted planning in some smaller tracts of land being converted to pine plantation forestry by Maori owners because the economic return from such forestry is quicker than the dividend gained from indigenous forestry.

Over the next twenty years, it would probably not be an exaggeration to say that billions of dollars of forestry assets will be returned to Maori ownership (Gasson, 1998). This will create a situation where a people who are cash poor become asset rich (Gasson, 1998). The temptation to reach for the quick fix will be overwhelming, and alternatives need to be developed now that will allow for the retention of assets to coincide with a brighter economic future.

7. The sometimes uneasy relationship between Maori and the environmental movement.

Unfortunately, the relationship between Maori and the Environmental Movement has not always been one of mutual understanding. As someone who has a long history of activism within both the Indigenous Rights movement and on various environmental causes, there have been times when loyalties have frayed almost to the point of schizophrenia. From various Maori within the environmental movement, it would appear that there are two immediate points of conflict. The first is that at various points in it's history, the New Zealand environmental movement has not been forthcoming in it's recognition of Maori as Tangata Whenua of Aotearoa, and have presented papers at conferences on various issues including forestry, that have omitted any reference to Maori. The second issue is a more subtle one, and I believe relates to the issue of world viewpoints (Mika/Smith, 1998; Appendix 2).

Maori have always believed that the Pakeha viewpoint is one that is compartmentalised; that is, often the environment is divorced from either the economy or social impact. This is an attitude that is not only alien to Maori, but is viewed as being "souless."

That aside, the history of Aotearoa is interwoven with examples of both hostility and co-operation between Iwi and environmental NGOs. More and more, there is a move from both sides that is attempting to build on commonalties. In the past, Maori have often seen the issue of saying "There must be no forestry in this area" as just another attempt to deny Maori the right to an economic future. Sustainability is the keyword in moving these discussions beyond this barrier.

In the exact same way that we as Maori demand recognition from the environmental movement, we must accept that some of their concerns are valid. The Indigenous and Environmental factions working together as a bargaining agent would provide a formidable foe. Working in opposition to each other, we both present easier targets. In the final analysis, we both owe the children of tomorrow the very best of our efforts.

8. Some portents for a brighter future.

The Ngati Porou Whanui Forests and Hansol Forem of Korea, this year made a unique contribution to the history of New Zealand forestry when they reached joint agreement over one crop of pine from 10,00 hectares of Ngati Porou land on the east coast of the North Island (Gasson, 1998). There are several aspects that make this agreement unique, but one of the most important to Maori is that this deal is limited to the life span of one crop, but does not preclude future co-operation.

Under this agreement, any future deals will be negotiated under the prevailing conditions. This means that if environmental conditions alter, so can the terms of the accord. The other major benefit to the Iwi concerned is that it does not necessitate the sale of the land (Gasson, 1998).

Increasingly, Iwi are going to be negotiating deals with overseas companies for the cutting of existing forests, and the development of future ones. In order to ensure the long term sustainability of these forests, there are some aspects of Kaitiakitanga that are important to include.

1. The sowing of a new generation. Any future deals for cutting of existing forestry should include a replanting clause. Where the forestry being harvested is pinus radiata, a small percentage of the cut forest should be set aside for the regeneration of Indigenous forests. This would ensure that there were ongoing access to quick turnover crops, while at the same time recognising the importance of ensuring that Tane's domain is one that he recognises.
2. The banning of clearfelling as a majority practice in forestry, and the corresponding banning of the use of particularly destructive types of heavy machinery. This would ensure that the ground destruction is kept to a minimum, and would also provide for greater local employment.
3. Where the forest being felled is a rarer indigenous species, environmental protocols like "pockets of light" forestry should be adhered to. These have the advantage of both providing for some economic return and of providing a way of manipulating the forest in order to set up natural nurseries.
4. The banning of any proven carcinogenic chemical in either the production or treatment of the timber. This will probably be the most contentious of the protocols, and as such will be the most contested.

9. Conclusion

In the negotiation of any forestry deals along the lines of Kaitiakitanga, it should be recognised that there are several areas of potential dispute, and Iwi should be encouraged to make full use of not only their own experts within the field, but also those that exist within the environmental NGOs. For extremely rare timber species, there should be consideration given to the concept and development of a full and complete eco-timber project (Kiro, 1998; Appendix 1). The other issue that needs to be borne in mind is that by itself, the development of an eco-timber project is little more than the application of a Band-Aid to a gaping wound. New Zealand no longer has a separate and dedicated ministry of forestry. It has been subsumed into the ministry of agriculture.

The drive for increased agriculture lead this nation into it's current state of deforestation. Considering forestry as an adjunct of agriculture may prevent us from viewing it as a separate industry, needing long term planning to ensure sustainability. Before co-management can work as a concept, Government need to satisfy Maori that the domain of Tane is seen as a unique and vibrant eco-system, deserving of it's own ministry.

The reason that Kaitiakitanga was so successful in preserving most of an ancient way of life is because it did not stand alone. It was a part of life itself (Mika/Smith, 1998; Appendix 2). Along with it went traditional ways of preserving knowledge, the religion, the societal rules and mores and the attitude that we as a species are reliant on our environment. Not for a moment do I advocate a return to the old religion, although the romantic in me mourns it's passing. Nor do I believe that any one way is necessarily good for all people. What I do believe is that we must get back to a belief that we are all entitled to respect, and that we must equally give it. We should be encouraging an educational environment that supports diversity and teaches holism. Our Social Studies curriculum at all levels needs to include cultural and environmental studies, and it needs to teach it with respect.

Unless we can pass on to our children the importance of nature, our grandchildren will blame us for it's loss.

There are many people that need to be thanked for the development of this paper. Not the least of whom are the three people who are responsible for the writing of the appendices. Cindy Kiro, Carl Mika and Cheryl Smith are academics within their own rights, all of them are extremely capable people who are committed to the development of a better future for our peoples. For their input and support I am eternally grateful. To the literally hundreds of people with whom I spoke and shared the development of this paper, I present it as a shared vision of a better future. In time, we will get it right, and we will remember the people we met along the way; both those who were for us, and those against. This memory will serve as a guide for our children in their negotiations. Our duty is to ensure that we leave them with sufficient resources that they are in a strong bargaining position. We also need to leave them with a sure and certain knowledge that this is their children's inheritance, rather than their own.

Reference List.

1) Ellis, L.M. (1920) Forest Conditions in New Zealand, and the Proposals for a New
Zealand Forest Policy. Report prepared for the House of Representatives
By the Department of Forestry.

2) Gasson, B. (1998) New Zealand - Maori hold key to natural resources. Internet article
Web3.asia1.com.sg/timesnet/data/ab/docs/ab1052.html

3) Jackman, G. (1992) The Deadly Legacy Published in Auckland by Greenpeace New Zealand.

4) Kiro, C.A. (1998) Developing an Indigenous Framework for Forestry. Written as
Appendix 1 in the conference paper.

5) Mika, C Te W. & Smith, C.W. (1998)
Colonising the Mind : Deforestation of Aotearoa. Written as
Appendix 2 in the conference paper.

6) Rosoman, G (1994) Ed.
The Plantation Effect Published in Auckland by Greenpeace New Zealand

7) Saini, M.K. (1981) Politics of Multinationals : a pattern in neo-colonialism. Published in
New Delhi by Gitanjali Prakashan.

8) Saxena, U. (1987) Role of Multinationals in India's Foreign Trade. Published in New Delhi
By Ashish Publishing House.

Appendix 1

Developing an Indigenous Framework for Forestry
C.A. Kiro

August 1998
Maori are the indigenous people of Aotearoa New Zealand, and have inhabited this land for at least 1300 years prior to colonisation by the British from the mid-1840s. The process of colonisation, while essentially a social process of supplanting one culture with another, was coupled with the exploitation of the physical resources of this land. TI-is pattern of significant exploitation of physical resources for the creation of wealth has continued and underlies the dominant economic system worldwide which pursues the creation of wealth as the most valued goal in society. Such a pursuit has inevitably had massive consequences for Maori and other indigenous peoples. We experience the alienation of our culture, land and other resources, while experiencing the ongoing effects of deeply embedded racism and socioeconomic disadvantage.

During the period of New Zealand's welfare state, Maori life expectancy and socioeconomic status improved, although disparity remained. From the mid-1980s, New Zealand introduced neo-liberal economic reforms which were underpinned by individualist values which are anathema to the collectivist values of Maori society'. A recent report by Te Puni Kokiri (Ministry of Maori Development) showed that all major social indicators such as unemployment, home ownership, mortality and morbidity, the gap between Maori and non-Maori had grown during the period 1984-1996 1.

During this period Maori also acted to protect our cultural and intellectual property from exploitation with the use of Declarations and networking with other indigenous peoples worldwide. The Mutate Declaration 2 is a reflection of the strength of opinion and sophistication of indigenous analysis. This document affirms the knowledge of indigenous peoples as a benefit to all humanity, acknowledges that indigenous peoples have a commonality of experience relating to the exploitation of their cultural and intellectual property, recognises their fundamental right to define and own this cultural and intellectual property, and insists that the beneficiaries of this knowledge be descendants of these indigenous peoples. The following year the National Maori Congress organised an International Conference for indigenous peoples to look at the impact of globalisation and strategies for self-determination. This roundtable meeting between various indigenous peoples reaffirmed the threat to indigenous peoples of the kind of globalisation of capital and ongoing exploitation of all resources (human add physical), for the creation of wealth of non-indigenous peoples. This hui (meeting) identified issues as broad as de-militarisation, biological resources exploitation such as patenting of life for -Ms, the UN Biodiversity Convention and Indigenous Trade Agreements 3.

The Treaty of Waitangi is widely considered the founding constitutional document of New Zealand, since it recognised a relationship between the British Crown and Maori Hapu (sub-tribes) as partners. From the mid-1980s governments have attempted to settle 4 @ all claims" against the Crown arising from grievances by Maori, usually relating to the unlawful acquisition of land by the Crown in the last century. This land was needed for pastoralisation by English settlers, which became the basis for New Zealand's economy until the 1970s. However, this attempt to settle grievances serves a more duplicitous purpose. Linking of economic development with these Treaty settlements has allowed risk shifting to occur between the government and iwi (tribes)4.

Many iwi appear to accept this connection between development and Treaty settlements and have been proactively seeking to increase the profitability from these settlements by engaging in business activities and providing educational scholarships, particularly for students interested in science and business *. Other iwi have also been proactive in seeking out business ^'opportunities" which include monocultural exotic forestry plantations, to property investment, whale watching tourist ventures, and to proposed casinos. Such investments are a reflection of a widespread acceptance of the need to create wealth, before worrying about redistribution of wealth. By accepting this argument, Maori have brought into the neo-liberal arguments and see themselves as needing to be 'players' in the global market place. No-one can dispute the intention of iwi to increase employment opportunities and wealth amongst their own, but to believe that these decisions are somehow value-free (that is that these investment decisions do not contain ethical conflicts), or that they are consistent with traditional Maori values is a naivete.

Maori unemployment is the highest of the last four decades I PP. 14-16. The impact of this unemployment is however greater than during the depression, since we are now urbanised rather than living in communitarian rural enclaves. Dispossession and despair now accompany this new economic face and the failure to address underlying structural problems of inequality will leave Maori with diminishing options.

The pursuit of ecologically damaging practices such as monocultural forestry plantations of exotics (such as pinus radiata) will continue to exacerbate the gap between the haves and have-nots. both within Maori society and between Maori and non-Maori (). These differences will further encourage Maori to continue to opt for high return investments which are linked to ecologically exploitative practices. Like the rest of New Zealand, Maori are desperate for a new vision of development which is both humane and economically pragmatic. Options such as eco-timber offer some possibility of matching the demand for unique timbers with high monetary value, with more ecologically sustainable practices. This requires a new partnership between government (the Crown) and Maori which includes an investment in high-value goods, high skilled personnel (with the required education and training) and ecologically safe practices. Certainly there is an attempt by iwi to find some of these kinds of initiatives (for example eco-tourism), but much more is needed. Furthermore, this needs to be part of a cohesive vision of sustainable development which rejects the individualist approach of neo-liberalism. Our future development as iwi Maori will only be achieved through wide-spread cooperation amongst ourselves and a common political will to address underlying structural and ideological differences.

*Excellent critiques of these neo-liberal reforms exist for example Brian Easton's book, "The Commercialisation of New Zealand", Auckland University Press, 1997 and Jane Kelsey's work.

^See Mana Magaxine article on Tainui’s development approach, 1998. Also, Ngai-Tahu have pursued similar strategies following their Treaty settlement.

()For example Ngati-Porou have joint ventured with a Korean company to plant pinus radiata on marginal land on the East Coast. This is now under threat because of a massive decrease in demand for wood from Korea.

References

1. Kokiri TP. Progress Towards Closing Social and Economic Gaps Between Maori and Non-Maori: A report to the Minister of Maori Affairs. Wellington: Te Puni Kokiri, 1998.

2. Mataatua Waka Hui. Declaration on Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights of Indigenous Peoples; 1993 June 1993.

3. Mead ATP, editor. Global Indigenous Strategies for Self-Determination: Report of the Maori Congress Indigenous Peoples Roundtable Meeting, Whakatane 13-17 June 1994. Maori Congress Indigenous Peoples Roundtable Meeting: Global Indigenous Strategies for Self-Determination; 1994 July 1994; Whakatane, Aotearoa New Zealand. National Maori Congress.

4. Kiro C, Maori, the Welfare State and Market Economy. Te Oru Rangahau; TP Hauora (Ed.) 1998 July 7-9, 1998; Massey University, Palmerston North. Te Pumanawa Hauora, Massey University.

Appendix 2

Colonising the Mind: Deforestation of Aotearoa
Carl Te Wharekaniwha Mika and Cherryl Waerea-i-te-rangi Smith

Tenei au, tenei au ki te hokai nei o taku tapuwae, ki te hokai nuku ki te hokai rangi ki te hokai to toatou tupuna a Tane-nui-a-rangi.

Within Maori beliefs all life is connected and there are gods who watch over and protect aspects of the environment that we draw sustenance from. It is our belief that it would arrogant of us to take life without acknowledging these caretakers who exist to sustain the balance of Papatuanuku, the earth mother and Ranginui the sky father and so we offer prayers to acknowledge the life gifted to us in the full knowledge that without the diversity of life, we would no longer exist. As tangata whenua (people of the land) we also must ensure that the land remains healthy. We do not see our spirituality as being separate from the land.

Throughout colonisation we have been taught that life is to be organised into hierarchies, some of these parts of creation have less right to live than other parts. Humans are to learn to dominate all that they survey (so its important to walk up the top of mountains e.g. Everest) because you can see further. We were taught in the schools that you can know a plant by picking a leaf, dissecting it, classifying it and therefore 'knowing' it. The knowledge we knew of how this plant works medicinally, the plant as a part of creation and knowledge of how it feeds ourselves and others was extinguished as valid knowledge. Introduced foods were considered more civilised.

The deforestation of this country was rapid in the 19"' century. Over 80% of the land was covered with forests that were rich with bird life. Timber was milled but much of the forest was burnt off to make way for the pastoral economy that was to serve Britain. Pine trees, a native to the west coast of America was found to grow very fast in the local conditions. Vast plantations were planted over 'waste' lands, non pastoral land. These pine forests which were planted by the state are being contested as Maori make Treaty claims. The Treaty claims to forestry have seen the sale of cutting rights to transnational corporations whilst rental monies from the land is administered by the Crown Forest Rental Trust, a government appointed body that channels the funding to researchers making claims before the Waitangi Tribunal.

Over recent times the Treaty claims process has focused the attention of Maori on to the return of 'assets' and 'resources' such as pine trees and away from the world view of interrelationship with the te taiao (the natural world). Those areas of native forest that remain guarded by iwi are often in conflict with the Department of Conservation, fundamentally and practically. The Department of Conservation (DOC) is often responsible for the destruction of large tracts of native forest by administering the spraying of forests with chemicals which not only kill the targeted possums but also the forests themselves.

Meanwhile the view that Maori hold of the native forests becomes weakened. The more that Maori participate in the positivistic decision-making processes that are characteristic of DOC and other related organisations, the less confident Maori become of looking after their forests in ways corresponding to kaupapa Maori. The right way becomes the DOC way and the oft-cited link with nature that Maori profess is part of being Maori is frayed.

The terminology used now to identify native forests is both interesting and dangerous. It is interesting because words such as 'resource' and 'asset' are indicative of a world view where the narcissistic human can manipulate the natural world in order to achieve his own goals and enjoyment. This is predominantly a Western world view in which nature has to be nice-ified in order to meet the self-indulgent expectations of humans. It is also dangerous because it is a belief system which is compelling and dominant at the moment - it runs the risk of spilling over into Maori epistemologies of nature and threading the idea of 'property rights in trees' into the minds of Maori.

Pakeha control of nature is nothing new and is borne of its own peculiar world view. Western evolved legal decisions around forestry (and land, and fish. and lakes ... ) would collapse if one were to delete the idea of property. The lack of an original perception of the world on the part of Maori is evident in the way many Maori now are planting pine trees in an effort to secure an income, rather than primarily looking after the land and the trees already on it.

The ways in which Maori traditionally viewed the 'forests' is embodied in the name Maori gave them - Te Wao nui o Tane. (the domain of Tane) Just as the tauparapara states at the beginning of this paper, it was Tane that went in search of knowledge for people to use. this included the knowledge of how to care for forests as part of our whakapapa (ancestry and connectedness to all life.

References

Economics. Politics and Colonisation Journal, Vol 11 Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights Moko/Irl Publication, University of Auckland

Shiva V (1995) Monocultures of the Mind Zed Books Ltd.

Mies M, Shiva V 199') Ecofeminism Spinifex Press

Walker R (1990) Ka Whawhai Tonu Matou: Struggle Without End. Penguin, Auckland.

back to UC Process