Kia aiō ngā ngaru,kia hora te marino: smoothing the waters in natural resource management to mitigate risk and uncertainty

Abstract

Aotearoa (New Zealand) is undertaking reforms in natural resource management, and there are promising signals that Indigenous perspectives will be included alongside science for decision-making. Any resource management system is underpinned by worldviews, from which values stem and then risk and uncertainty derive. Māori (the Indigenous peoples of New Zealand) and Eurocentric notions of risk and uncertainty are fundamentally different because knowledge holders have different worldviews. Eurocentric concepts of risk and uncertainty continue to frame policy, making it challenging for Māori knowledge to shape policy that is relevant for decision-making in Aotearoa. We explore Māori perspectives of risk and uncertainty and literature, identifying common attributes across natural resource management frameworks, and identify issues of risk and uncertainty from the perspective of Māori experts. We conclude that a Māori approach to enhancing natural resources is more aligned to current environmental policy compared with standard approaches for risk assessment and reducing uncertainty.

Keywords

Māori values Māori worldview risk uncertainty

Introduction

In Aotearoa (New Zealand), we are seeing a shift in societal and political appetites for incorporating Te Ao Māori (a Māori (the Indigenous peoples of Aotearoa) worldview) into legislation and policy (Harcourt, Awatere, et al., 2022; Harcourt, Robson-Williams, & Tamepo, 2022), and especially in the management of natural resources (Harmsworth & Awatere, 2013). Concerted efforts are being made to adequately acknowledge Māori rights and interests in the co-management or shared decision-making of natural resources (Harmsworth et al., 2016; Maxwell et al., 2020).

We currently know little about how sectoral, personal, and Indigenous perceptions of risk intersect, interact, and inform natural resource management in Aotearoa. Perception of risk is of high interest to policy and decisions makers because of the role it plays in the support of, or opposition to, various environmental choices, outcomes or technologies (Wilson et al., 2019). Differences in risk perception can lead to incompatible preferential or vested positions (Reid & Rout, 2020), creating conflict about whether to undertake a course of action or not.

Perceptions of risk and uncertainty in natural resource management

Until recently, in Aotearoa, policy and legislative frameworks have been shaped by Eurocentric measures and concepts as a legacy of colonization. Prior to colonization by European settlers in the 19th century, Māori, the Indigenous people of Aotearoa, had lived in respectful reciprocity with te taiao (the environment) and developed place-based knowledge about how to manage their relationships with natural resources (Harmsworth & Awatere, 2013; Rout et al., 2021). At first contact, Te Ao Māori was the dominant paradigm, and Mātauranga Māori (Māori knowledge, culture and values) informed and guided decision-making (Hikuroa, 2017; Rout et al., 2021). Mātauranga Māori has its own mana (an acknowledged influence) and autonomy and encompasses Māori knowledge, worldviews, philosophy, values, ethics, and qualitative and quantitative observations (Hikuroa, 2017; Morgan & Manuel, 2020).

Te Ao Māori frames te taiao and human relationships as an obligation of familial reciprocity with unique foundations, based on kinship ties between the physical and metaphysical worlds (Morgan & Manuel, 2020; Walker et al., 2021). A dynamic relationship exists between Māori, other communities of people and the natural environment. This relationship is many layered and endemic to local whānau (family), hapū (subtribe) and iwi (tribe) (Hikuroa, 2017; Maxwell et al., 2020). The notion of whakapapa and the connections between people and place (Mahuika, 1998; Marsden et al., 2003) help shape each whānau, hapū and iwi approach to natural resource management. In short, the Eurocentric position is one of extractive resource use, whereas the Indigenous position is based on reciprocal exchange—a difference that heavily impacts how risk and uncertainty and desired outcomes are perceived, understood and acted on.

Eurocentric approaches in risk assessment are generally implemented through the lens of positivism and are based on the fundamental assumption that there is only one truth, which can only be discovered in an objective and value-free way through scientific methods based on empirical data (Capra, 1996; Crotty, 2020). Viewing Indigenous knowledge through the lens of positivism will lead to inaccurate and misleading results, leading to a misrepresentation of Indigenous knowledge (Clapcott et al., 2018; Hikuroa, 2017) because Indigenous worldviews are defined by the connectedness between people and te taiao (Chilisa, 2019; Smith, 1999).

How risk assessment practices are conducted and what approaches and tools are applied are connected to how risk is perceived and understood (Le Heron et al., 2022). The reasons people generally perceive risk differently are complex (Wilson et al., 2019), and it has been suggested that people perceive risk from three generalized positions, which exist along a spectrum:

(a) The scientific perspective where risk perception is informed by scientific knowledge and data, causality and uncertainty are important (Taarup-Esbensen, 2019);

(b) The cognitive perspective where risk perception is viewed as a more subjective phenomenon that is modified by human behaviour, culture, social norms, and values (Van der Linden, 2014; Tetlock et al., 2017);

(c) More qualitative social science perspectives where risk perception is viewed as a situated sense-making process that accounts for social, cultural, economic and political contexts. Here, a more qualitative subjective perspective on risk is presented, which links risk perception with culture, histories and narratives, power and politics (Taarup-Esbensen, 2019).

Te Ao Māori perspectives are holistic and share properties with the three generalized positions of risk. However, the framing of risk is rooted in Māori ontology. Kia aiō ngā ngaru, kia hora te marino (may the waves be calm and peace be widespread) expresses the main sentiment of this article to mitigate the risk and uncertainty from a Te Ao Māori lens. We elucidate Māori perceptions of risk and uncertainty regarding natural resource management and provide a commentary on the contemporary problems facing the application of Te Ao Māori perspectives and frameworks in practice, regarding risk and uncertainty.

Methodology

To counter the dominance of Eurocentric worldviews in determining risk and uncertainty, this work required a methodology that centred on Te Ao Māori knowledge, practices, principles and customs (Smith, 1999). Māori ways of knowing are critical to guiding research to ensure that it is credible and relevant for Māori (Harcourt, Robson-Williams, & Tamepo, 2022). A kaupapa Māori (Māori approaches and framing) research approach privileges Māori beliefs and values and is underpinned by the philosophy and practice of being Māori (Smith, 1999), enabling research guided by Māori for Māori. Accordingly, we adopted a kaupapa Māori research approach for this research to ensure we privileged a Māori worldview; addressed Māori needs, aspirations, and concerns; and ensured that the rights and interests of our participants were protected.

Method

Having established that Te Ao Māori and Eurocentric worldviews are difficult to reconcile due to their fundamental differences and that Eurocentric worldviews are typically privileged in the decision-making process, we set out to describe a Māori-centric perspective on, and understanding of, risk. To achieve this, we first set out to explore what is known in the literature about the concepts of risk and uncertainty from a Māori perspective primarily through a search of the global catalogue of library materials. We identified key Māori values that form the basis for Māori perspectives, assessments, and understanding of ecosystems and environmental risk in the limited existing academic literature. Values, while indiscrete and overlap, provide pathways to understanding Māori thinking.

We then evaluated eight value-based natural resource management frameworks or policies that are inclusive of a Te Ao Māori worldview and identified their key attributes for enabling Māori perspectives within contemporary natural resource management. We complemented our evaluation of the natural resource management frameworks by conducting semi-structured interviews with 12 Māori policy makers or advisors, researchers, scientists, and whānau, hapū and iwi researchers to gain insight into how these frameworks are operating in the existing natural resource management landscape, including their current utility and potential for addressing issues of risk and uncertainty, as well as the systematic and ongoing barriers to fulfilling their uptake.

The 12 Māori participants were selected for their wide-ranging expertise in decision-making or research in areas of risk and uncertainty in the natural resource management field. The selected participants had diverse experiences, from ground-roots working with whānau, hapū and iwi, to the public sector and internationally. The project received ethics consent from the National Institute for Water and Atmosphere (NIWA), the host institution for the project in September 2020. Following the NIWA human research ethics protocol, participants opted into the interview by choice were each provided with information about the project prior to their interview and were asked whether they had any questions about the research before the interview commenced. Participants were asked for their permission to record the interviews and were assured that their identities would remain anonymous.

Key themes we explored with our Māori participants were the following:

How is risk experienced, understood and expressed by Māori?

How do/can existing Mātauranga Māori tools policies, processes and approaches be applied to addressing risk and uncertainty in natural resource management?

How is Mātauranga Māori expressed in the submissions/evidence?

How is Mātauranga Māori expressed in policies? What are the limitations of existing policies?

Participants were asked to talk about their background, for example, who they are, where they are from, and their position and role if applicable. To explore real-life examples, participants were also asked about their experience with natural resource management, for example, experience with interacting with their lands and forest and their connection to them.

To understand how risk and uncertainty regarding natural resource management are being experienced by Māori in their respective places, interview and focus group transcripts were analysed to identify common concepts, values and principles important to gauging risk and uncertainty. Transcripts were collated, coded and analysed using NVivo 12 plus software (QSR International, Melbourne, Australia). Thematic analysis was undertaken based on frequently used words and phrases and a comparison with the findings of the literature review. Sentiment and cluster analysis was used to determine the inter-relatedness of themes plus the strength of support for each theme. All themes identified were sense-checked with project advisors to ensure the consistency of interpretation and appropriateness for context and purpose. Thematic analysis helps to make explicit the range of values that are expressed through the natural resource management landscape.

Results

Māori values, concepts and perspectives on environmental risk in literature from a Te Ao Māori worldview, and perceptions of risk and uncertainty are framed within the knowledge and wisdom that are passed down through the generations. Māori make sense of things by looking to the past to understand the present and future which is encapsulated in the whakataukī (proverb): Titiro whakamuri, kia anga whakamua (look to the past in order to move forward). In this way, Mātauranga Māori can guide future decision-making (Clapcott et al., 2018). Often taking the form of pūrākau (stories), whakataukī and waiata (songs), generational handing down of knowledge enabled knowledge holders to decipher environmental patterns and predict likely outcomes (Hikuroa, 2017). Four core concepts are integral to understanding how Māori make sense of risk and uncertainty: whakapapa (genealogy), kaitiakitanga (intergenerational sustainability), mauri (lifeforce) and mana (acknowledged influence).

Whakapapa is a fundamental concept within the Māori worldview and has been described as the central principle that ordered the universe for Māori (Mahuika, 1998; Marsden et al., 2003). Whakapapa explains the relationships Māori have with each other, natural resources, te taiao and the world, as well as with spiritual and cosmological entities (Harmsworth & Awatere, 2013). The concept of whakapapa has proven useful in contemporary natural resource management by providing a baseline for assessing responsibility and environmental risk in a way that makes sense and maintains cultural integrity for Māori (Roberts, 2005). Roberts (2013) demonstrates how whakapapa can provide guidance on the acceptability or not of new biotechnologies and genetically modified organisms.

The implementation of whakapapa-based responsibilities to te taiao is through kaitiakitanga—the expression of a two-way relationship that involves obligations to give, receive and repay (Kawharu, 2000). Kaitiakitanga describes the interface between the spiritual and the physical dimensions of natural resource management and is a process that regulates human activity with te taiao, not the management of the environment. Kaitiaki (Māori resource managers or guardians) have responsibilities for natural resources designated by hapū and iwi to perform the duties of a kaitiaki (Kawharu, 2000; Mahuika, 1998). Everybody has some expected kaitiaki function, a responsibility to manage natural resources sustainably; however, certain individuals within whānau can be mandated to fulfil the role. Kaitiaki may also be animals and spiritual guardians (Jackson et al., 2017).

Mauri has also been described as the spiritual gatekeeper of whakapapa, protecting the mana of the whakapapa of living organisms, places or objects (Roberts, 2013). Appraisal of the mauri state of ecosystems enables Māori to assess impacts and identify intervention points. Owing to whakapapa interconnections within an ecosystem, Māori recognize the complex and interacting nature of mauri states of all parts of te taiao. Centuries of place-based observation and interaction with te taiao led to sophisticated, elaborate, place-based systems of tikanga (values and practices) to guide all activities and relationships. In this sense, mauri can be described as the form of value that Indigenous risk management responds to (Roberts, 2005).

Mana is an intangible and metaphysical presence that is imbued in the natural environment and people. This essence is imbued into our world by the many atua (a uniquely Māori understanding and personified form of natural realms) that are anthropomorphic representations of the spiritual authority or power of our ecosystems (Marsden et al., 2003). Mana can be likened to intrinsic value, the value of te taiao independent of people (Chan et al., 2016; Department of Conservation, 2020; Ministry for the Environment, 2020). In recent natural resource management policy, mana has been likened to the fundamental importance of natural resources for the well-being of the wider environment, not just for humans. Furthermore, acknowledging the mana of natural resources is crucial for restoring and preserving the balance between te taiao and whānau, hapū and iwi (Department of Conservation, 2020; Ministry for the Environment, 2020).

The literature review identified that key values and concepts guide Māori to gauge a balance between pragmatism and precaution, and thus underlie Māori perception of risk. Where communities are tightly connected to their natural resources and Te Ao Māori–led ways of thinking and being, Mātauranga Māori provides important baseline information to assess the relative environmental change over time, for example, monthly, seasonally, annually, decadal, impacts of past hazards and their potential recurrence. Te Ao Māori tools like the maramataka (Māori lunar ecological calendar), observing patterns and signs within te taiao, have traditionally supported decision-making. Thus, local knowledge and an intimate understanding of interpreting environmental cues and changes by Māori are useful for informing risk assessments and reducing uncertainty.

Insights from natural resource management frameworks inclusive of Te Ao Māori worldview

Māori perspectives of environmental risk are inherently holistic, multi-dimensional, interconnected and value-based, and can be used to guide ethical and moral risk assessment as an alternative to using scientific tools and frameworks. In this section, we summarize eight Te Ao Māori worldview-informed frameworks that have developed over recent decades (Table 1) and identify their common attributes for enabling Māori perspectives in contemporary natural resource management.

Table 1.

Summary table of the selected natural resource management frameworks and their underpinning Māori values and key attributes.

Framework	Description	Core values	Key attributes
Waka Taurua (Maxwell et al., 2020)	A framework that promotes marine co-management	Mauri, kaitiakitanga and whakapapa	• An interface between Mātauranga Māori and western knowledge • Promotes a partnership approach between hapū, iwi and government
He Mahere Pāhekoheko (Makey & Awatere, 2018)	A framework that promotes harbour co-management.	Mauri, kaitiakitanga and whakapapa	• Integrates ecosystem-based management and kaitiakitanga
Mauri Compass (Ruru, 2015)	An evaluation tool for holistically assessing the health of a site or waterway	Mauri, mana, kaitiakitanga and whakapapa	• Utilizes mauri as the evaluation measure • A holistic assessment of health that includes ecology and people
Mauri Model (Morgan, 2006)	An evaluation tool for holistically assessing sustainability	Mauri, mana and kaitiakitanga	• Utilizes mauri as the evaluation measure • A holistic assessment of health that includes ecology and people
Arotakenga Huringa Āhuarangi: National Climate Change Risk Assessment (NCCRA) Framework (Ministry for the Environment, 2019)	A national climate change risk assessment framework that integrates Te Ao Māori perspectives and promotes partnership with whānau/hapū/iwi	Mauri, kaitiakitanga and whakapapa	• Combines scientific, technical and expert information (including Mātauranga Māori) across multiple domains • Acknowledges interconnectedness of people, natural capital and ecosystems
Te Mana o te Wai National Policy Statement (Ministry for the Environment, 2020)	The statement prescribes objectives and policies for freshwater	Mauri, mana and kaitiakitanga	• Prioritizes health and mauri of freshwater over other values • Acknowledges the intrinsic value of water
Te Mana o te Taiao—Aotearoa New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy (Department of Conservation, 2020)	The strategy sets a national strategic direction for the protection, restoration, and sustainable use of biodiversity	Mauri, mana, kaitiakitanga and whakapapa	• Recognizes interconnectivity between nature and people using He Awa Whiria—a braided river approach • Acknowledges the intrinsic value of nature
Mātauranga Māori Framework—Environmental Protection Agency (Environmental Protection Authority—Te Mana Rauhi Taiao, 2020)	A Mātauranga Māori framework to help decision-makers understand, test and probe Mātauranga Māori evidence within an appropriate Te Ao Māori lens	Mana, mauri, kaitiakitanga and whakapapa	• Incorporates Māori knowledge, values, natural resources, health and wellbeing and economic development and sustainability

mauri = lifeforce; kaitiakitanga = intergenerational sustainability; whakapapa = genealogy; hapū = subtribe; iwi = tribe; mana = acknowledged authority; Te Ao Māori = Māori worldview; Mātauranga Māori = Māori knowledge.

The frameworks identified in Table 1 provide examples of how core Māori values like mana, mauri, kaitiakitanga and whakapapa have been promoted within natural resource management, without being co-opted into scientific approaches. Indeed, a primary aim of developing and utilizing these frameworks is to revitalize Māori ways of knowing, being and doing to inform governance of natural resources. For example, the Te Mana o te Taiao—Aotearoa New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy is based on a He Awa Whiria (a braided river) approach, comprising multiple interconnecting channels that each represent unique worldviews, values, perspectives, peoples and sectors in biodiversity restoration. This approach ensures that Mātauranga Māori is elevated to equal standing with other knowledge forms.

These frameworks are dynamic, multi-dimensional, interconnected and inclusive of spiritual or metaphysical considerations. For example, the Mauri Compass assesses the overall mauri of a waterway by considering the holistic health of whānau, hapū and iwi; the health of the ecosystem; and the health of the taonga (treasured resources) species. Individual metrics are utilized within each of these domains; however, the results are presented in a way that emphasizes the complex relationships and interconnectivity between the variables, which together impact the overall mauri of a waterway.

The well-being of te taiao is prioritized through the frameworks, rather than focusing on the utility of te taiao as an extractive resource for economic gain. This concept is clearly shown in the Te Mana o te Wai National Policy Statement, which prioritizes the health and mauri of freshwater in water management decisions, followed by the need for drinking water for human health, and finally, other uses that do not adversely impact the mauri of freshwater. The well-being of te taiao is further supported in the frameworks by recognizing the mutual interconnections and interdependencies between people and the environment, including all living and non-living entities. For example, Te Mana o te Taiao describes the interconnections between nature and people as ngā hononga i waenganui i te aotūroa me te tangata—people are part of nature and nature supports life and human activity.

The value-based underpinning of the frameworks promotes decisions that are inclusive of local contexts and people, rather than generic and universal top-down instruction that does not account for local and contextualized knowledge and experiences. This is important for Māori because while core values may be shared between different whānau, hapū and iwi, the enactment of these values will differ from place to place, depending on locally specific knowledge, history and their relationships to place. The frameworks mandate or at least encourage best practice engagement and positive outcomes for whānau, hapū and iwi. Some of the frameworks have in-built caveats to ensure that they cannot be used without ongoing input from whānau, hapū and iwi to mitigate the risk of co-opting Mātauranga Māori along with minimizing reputational risk.

Themes from participant narratives and interviews

In this section, we report the key themes derived from our analysis of the participant interviews with 12 Māori policy makers, advisors, researchers, scientists, and whānau, hapū and iwi researchers.

What is risk and uncertainty?

All the participants agreed that notions of risk and uncertainty were important to Māori and that Māori perspectives should help to inform natural resource management in Aotearoa. Overall, the participants reported that Māori are familiar with concepts of risk, especially active kaitiaki on the ground who observe and predict environmental changes. However, there was variation in how the participants perceived and discussed notions of risk and uncertainty, and this differed according to the participants’ background and experiences.

Participant 1, an Environment Commissioner, provided a useful framing of the diverse ways that risk and uncertainty are broadly considered—things we can control and things we cannot. For things we can control, such as fishing practices, we should ask how we improve the relationship we have with the natural environment, and for things outside of our control, such as climate or natural hazards, the question becomes, how can we make sure the things we value are not adversely affected? The same participant suggested that there are two ways to think about risk: one is concerned with the risk of adverse impacts of activity and the other is that principles and values underpin any decision about risk. The first requires identification of what the risks are and the second requires prioritization of management strategies based on values.

They elaborated that while risk and uncertainty are commonly considered in the context of how to reduce the potential impact of an activity, Māori have a different worldview perspective, thinking instead of how an activity can enhance the mana of a natural resource in the first instance rather than being limited to reducing adverse risk. This perspective connects with a Te Ao Māori worldview that the well-being of te taiao and people is intricately connected, rather than viewing te taiao as a resource to be utilized. For example, the Environmental Protection Authorities’ (EPA) current decision-making tool is compliance-based, involving consent, compliance, prevention and prosecution; rather than thinking about how to enhance the well-being or mana of natural resources, the compliance approach forces applicants to minimize costs. Participant 1 states that applicants ought to explore

how does what we do add value to or enhance the mana of the river or the harbour . . . . While one looks to minimise impact, one looks to enhance wellbeing. The legislation and the decision-making process is not setup to enable the enhancement of the mana.

Risk in relation to natural disasters and climate change was discussed by eight participants. Four of th participants reported that there are some aspects of natural hazards that Māori do not necessarily perceive as a risk that needs to be prevented because they recognize the importance of working with or alongside hazards and nature:

When we say risk, it is often risk to people and places, but Māori often look at is as a risk to the relationship they have with their tūpuna [ancestor], rivers, mountains, streams as being more important than the risk to people. (Participant 1)

Another key difference between scientific thinking and Te Ao Māori thinking is that science understands complicated concepts by breaking them down into small segments with implied narratives, whereas Māori tend to think in the bigger picture as demonstrated by the holistic natural resource management frameworks in the previous section, gaining an understanding of complicated concepts through identifying connections and portraying these narratives through metaphorical imagery. This bigger picture also includes establishing appropriate co-management or partnership relationships for Māori to be in the appropriate position to make decisions. According to Participant 2, a Māori Planner, “we would always try to talk to them [a national network of kaitiaki, iwi resource managers] about specific risks of an activity, their thinking was always much bigger than that.” An example of this bigger picture thinking was evident in discussions the EPA led with Māori around the reassessment of 1080, a biodegradable poison called sodium fluoroacetate. Whānau, hapū and iwi wanted to comprehensively understand the risk posed by 1080 operations and be involved in the whole picture of decision-making and management at the highest level before they would discuss specific tools of pest management. Participant 2 states that “before we even get to talking about 1080, let’s get the mechanisms [decision-making] in place from the beginning.”

Long-term considerations in resource management

A key feature that underpins Māori natural resource management is the tendency to plan more for the long term—usually on inter-generational timeframes. Whānau, hapū and iwi cannot easily move to another area or sell and buy new land because they have spiritual and generational obligations to look after the land that they belong to. Hence, land-use decisions are more than transactional and include other considerations, such as providing opportunities for employment, supporting whānau lifestyles on their whenua (lands) and providing opportunities for whānau to connect to natural resources in diverse ways. Participant 3, a Hapū Researcher, expressed that financial valuation is a key factor for whānau, hapū and iwi to consider, but equally important is the consideration of non-financial factors such as cultural identity:

If all we measured it on was the economics, the economics would tell us to move away . . . . For us to maintain our sense of selves on our whenua papatupu [ancestral land], we have to stay here, or we have to carry that out on our whenua. We have to look at a broader way, or a more integrated way of valuing what we had, and what we had access to, but it is not going to be monetary or economical, not fully anyway.

Māori tend to take a precautionary approach to manage risk and uncertainty, which connects with a long-term planning mindset. According to Participant 1, “If there is too much uncertainty that we can’t be sure that the impacts of an activity would be mitigated, then iwi and hapū would lean towards not allowing the activity to take place.” However, Participant 1 also identified that it is important to acknowledge that there is heterogeneity within whānau, hapū and iwi, especially for those that work within sectors that focus on financial returns, such as farming or fishing. There can be tension between taking a long-term, precautionary approach as informed by core Māori values and having the responsibility of providing financial returns for a Māori-owned business. Reconciliation of these dual responsibilities is a dilemma that whānau, hapū and iwi are faced with and requires ongoing active navigation of priorities under different conditions.

Tools for managing risk

As identified in the literature review, Mātauranga Māori was used to guide traditional resource management by describing how to take and give back in a way that respects nature and therefore inherently reduces environmental risk and uncertainty. Mātauranga Māori in relation to risk and uncertainty can come in the form of whakatauki, waiata, place names or pūrakau, and often stems from understanding relationships to place. As Participant 4, a Māori Scientist, states, “[mātauranga Māori is] rigorously verifiable, accurate, precise knowledge, we just codify it in a different way.”

The maramataka is a codified natural resource management system or decision-making tool that has in-built risk and uncertainty features. It is based on an intimate knowledge of environmental processes and helps to predict environmental impacts and reduce uncertainty to maintain a balance between whānau, hapū, iwi and te taiao. It is highly localized and includes, but is not limited to, knowing the seasonal spawning habits of cultural keystone species. Participant 4 states,

You build into your knowledge system an anticipation that at some stage change will probably occur, so we need to be able to record that when it happens, account for it, test it, see if it is the new normal, and then embed it.

Rāhui (prohibition) represents another traditional tool for managing risk and uncertainty as discussed in the literature review and works by ensuring that the well-being of te taiao is upheld or improved, although it does not currently have much legal standing. Importantly, it is the thresholds of impact on ecosystems that lead to the placement of rāhui that reveal Māori applications of risk—traditionally, rāhui for natural resource management was placed after what many might consider moderate harvesting pressure. Participant 1 states, “[rāhui offer] an opportunity to push pause on something until we know, or until something is less uncertain.”

A general caution follows the discussion of these traditional Māori resource management frameworks and accompanying Mātauranga Māori—that they need to be implemented in the right way. According to one participant and consistent with the literature, Māori communities see value in utilizing science to meet their aspirations, but what they do not want is to “have their mātauranga tried to be explained in the science sense . . . . It asks the wrong questions” (Participant 4).

Natural resource management policy—a colonial legacy and moving forward

All the participants who spoke of policy identified the need for organizational structure and systematic changes, and strong Te Tiriti (The Treaty of Waitangi)–based relationships with whānau, hapū and iwi at the decision-making level. Much of Aotearoa’s existing policy was developed within the colonial ethos of Crown ownership, for example, the Resource Management Act 1991, New Zealand’s main piece of legislation for managing the natural environment, and the Native Wildlife Act 1953, which considers the protection and control of wild animals and birds and the management of game. These legislative acts reinforce the Crown’s authority in resource management and relegate Māori as stakeholders at best. Several participants spoke of the lasting impacts of colonization on the ability of whānau, hapū and iwi to access and manage their natural resources in their own way, profoundly impacting their ability to exercise kaitiakitanga. Some identified these policies of state control as a continuing driver of decline in taonga species.

The participants with policy backgrounds referred to a general appetite for change within Aotearoa’s current natural resource management policy space, acknowledging that most policymakers are willing to incorporate Māori perspectives and mātauranga into natural resource management policy. There are an increasing number of new policies demonstrating how Mātauranga Māori might be incorporated into mainstream policies, such as the EPA’s Mātauranga Māori decision-making framework, the Ministry for the Environment’s National Climate Change Risk Assessment Framework, Te Mana o te Wai—National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management and Te Urewera Act 2014 (Table 1) that replaces the National Parks Act 1980 for the governance and management of Te Urewera National Park. While these policies signal a positive leap for bicultural planning in Aotearoa, there remain concerns that the fundamental structures of existing policy organizations, in addition to a lack of resourcing and capability, continue to hinder their full potential in practice. Regardless of how much policymakers may want to incorporate Mātauranga Māori, there are just not enough policymakers and planners who understand how to do so. For example, Ministry for the Environment’s National Climate Change Risk Assessment Framework (Table 1) incorporated Māori perspectives and was developed with Māori researchers, and yet was rolled out by a predominantly Pākehā (New Zealanders primarily of European descent) policy team. This approach can potentially cause disruptions in the implementation of policy if analysts do not have the necessarily capability to understand a Māori worldview. Instead, the implementation approach risks alienating Māori from the process. Importantly, what matters most for policy implementation is the capability of analysts to understand and have empathy for a Te Ao Māori worldview.

Furthermore, the inclusion of Mātauranga Māori in policy and decision-making remains heavily restricted by current legislation. Participant 2 explains,

a lot of the regulatory policy provides the opportunity to identify what the issues, what the interests might be that Māori have, and to talk about them in terms of risks and benefits but then the specific criteria that decision makers actually have to use, that are outlined clearly in the Act, none of them refer to any of that, they are all very quantitatively based criteria.

Participants believed that scientific evidence is often preferentially selected over Mātauranga Māori in decision-making. Significant effort was required on the part of supporters of Mātauranga Māori to help prioritize Te Ao Māori within policy and legislation. Participant 2 shared,

So often I remember workshopping with some of our decision makers and they would say, often we wanted to add a condition or to decline an application because of the weight of evidence coming from Māori, but to be able to do that we had to find other mechanisms to justify that decline, we couldn’t use the Māori stuff alone.

Some Mātauranga Māori–based frameworks (Table 1) will enable decision-makers to better probe mātauranga as evidence. However, given that most frameworks are not statutory tools, their impact on improving the relevance and application of Mātauranga Māori in risk management decisions remains uncertain. As Participant 2 identified, decision-makers must address the decision-making legislation that remains framed from a western scientific lens and is not well aligned to support Māori evidence.

Discussion

Māori take a holistic approach to natural resource management decisions because Māori are engaged in a constant drive to achieve balance in all things, between competing economic, sociocultural and environmental drivers, and in the relationship between whānau, hapū, iwi and te taiao more generally. Enhancing the mana, the intrinsic value of natural resources provides an alternative paradigm to the more reductionist approaches of risk assessments and reducing uncertainty for natural resource management decision-making and is more in alignment with Aotearoa’s shift in environmental management and policy.

However, through a literature review of natural resource management frameworks or policies that are inclusive of a Te Ao Māori worldview and interviews with Māori policy makers, advisors, researchers, scientists, and whānau, hapū and iwi researchers, we have discovered several challenges to meaningful inclusion of Māori worldviews and perspectives in natural resource management.

We noted a dearth of literature on Indigenous perspectives of risk and especially uncertainty. Uncertainty in environmental science usually revolves around the ability to predict relationships and changes to relationships. In contrast, a Māori view is that change is the only constant, but when and how fast that change occurs is not prescribed. Rather, systems of observation and frameworks of knowledge, for example, maramataka, record the change when it occurs. Accordingly, there is a certainty that change will occur, but when and in what form cannot be known. The framing of environmental issues and problems is often from a Eurocentric position and privileges scientific information. Although many frameworks incorporate or co-opt Indigenous values, in practice they are disconnected from Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing which are often redefined explicitly or implicitly within Eurocentric ideologies (Harmsworth & Awatere, 2013). There is a growing body of literature advocating for the recognition of Mātauranga Māori as a valid way of knowing and a useful knowledge system for helping to inform natural resource management in Aotearoa (Clapcott et al., 2018). A key message from the literature, some of the frameworks and the interviews is one of constant negotiation and struggle for Te Ao Māori thinking to maintain its integrity when co-opted into reductionist frameworks (Harmsworth et al., 2016).

Next, even when best practice is followed in the development of appropriate Mātauranga Māori frameworks (Table 1), Māori evidence is unlikely to be implemented in resource consenting processes if it is not recognized as relevant evidence within statutory plans. There are an increasing number of new policies that are demonstrating how Mātauranga Māori might be incorporated into mainstream natural resource management, such as the EPA’s Mātauranga Māori decision-making framework (Environmental Protection Authority—Te Mana Rauhi Taiao, 2020), the Ministry for the Environment’s National Climate Change Risk Assessment framework (Ministry for the Environment, 2019) and freshwater planning policy—Te Mana o te Wai (Ministry for the Environment, 2020).

While these policies signal a positive step for co-planning in Aotearoa (Harmsworth & Awatere, 2013), there remain concerns that in practice the fundamental approach of policy development does not yet embrace power-sharing with Māori (Maxwell et al., 2020). In addition, a lack of resourcing for hapū and iwi participation in co-planning (Harmsworth et al., 2016), continues to hinder realizing the full potential of incorporating Mātauranga Māori into policy and plans.

There are also capability challenges within mainstream natural resource management. Regardless of how much policymakers may want to incorporate Mātauranga Māori, there are just not enough policymakers and planners who understand how to do so. To support Māori to navigate contemporary notions of risk and uncertainty, it is therefore important that decision-making processes provide Māori with adequate time, space and resources to design and engage within their own tikanga-led and value-based processes (Harmsworth et al., 2016).

In addition, Māori are advocating for Mātauranga Māori to be recognized alongside scientific approaches for natural resource management within Aotearoa (Maxwell et al., 2020). Mātauranga Māori is only relevant and useful for Māori if that knowledge maintains its integrity within natural resource management policy and is elevated to the same status as scientific information. Where Māori values and Mātauranga Māori are co-opted into Eurocentric frameworks, they are disconnected from the worldview from which they were derived and are no longer meaningful. Acknowledging Mātauranga Māori as relevant is important to consider by natural resource management decision-makers due to legislative and policy signals to frame natural resource issues from Māori ideological positions like mana (Department of Conservation, 2020; Ministry for the Environment, 2020).

However, decision-makers ought to recognize the ontological differences between Mātauranga Māori and scientific approaches considering issues of risk. Māori generally prefer a mana-enhancing approach to natural resource management thinking instead of how an activity can enhance the mana of a natural resource in the first instance rather than being limited to reducing adverse risk (Harmsworth et al., 2016; Makey & Awatere, 2018).

Finally, core Māori values like mauri, mana, kaitiakitanga and whakapapa are essential for guiding Māori in balancing priorities within te taiao. Where communities are tightly connected to their natural resources and Te Ao Māori–led ways of thinking and being, Mātauranga Māori provides important baseline information to assess relative environmental change over time, impacts of past hazards and their potential recurrence (Hikuroa, 2017; King & Goff, 2010; Mercier et al., 2011). The praxis of maramataka, the triangulation between ecology and astronomy, is an example of Mātauranga Māori ways of knowing that help whānau, hapū and iwi make natural resource management decisions. Importantly, Māori values like whakapapa emphasize the importance of place-based solutions needing to be applied within the context of whakapapa.

Conclusion

We argue that enhancing the mana, the intrinsic value of natural resources, provides an alternative paradigm to more reductionist approaches of standard risk assessments and reduces uncertainty for natural resource management decision-making. Māori take a holistic approach to natural resource management decisions and are engaged in a constant drive to achieve balance in all things, between competing economic, sociocultural and environmental drivers, and in the relationship between whānau, hapū, iwi and te taiao more generally. There is an appetite for change within Aotearoa’s current natural resource management policy space, and many policymakers are willing to incorporate Māori perspectives and mātauranga into natural resource management policy. However, the implementation of policy responsive to Mātauranga Māori to date has been imperfect. To address this, we propose framing environmental issues from a Te Ao Māori perspective, avoiding the co-option of Te Ao Māori in natural resource management and providing an adequate resource for Māori participation in natural resource management are essential approaches for ensuring that Mātauranga Māori—Māori knowledge, culture, values and worldviews are considered adequately within decisions concerning risk and uncertainty. We will need to carefully and collectively navigate these challenges to realize the benefits of the Te Ao Māori approach of mana-enhancing natural resources alongside a scientific approach. These challenges are complex, but not insurmountable through genuine and well-resourced attempts at partnership and understanding. In this way, the sentiment expressed in kia aiō ngā ngaru, kia hora te marino—may the waves be calm and peace be widespread—can be fully realized.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to the participants of this study. Ka nui te mihi ki a koutou.

Authors’ note

Jade Hyslop (Te Arawa) (MSc) graduated with a Master of Science in Geography in 2011 from the University of Auckland. Jade has worked as a Kairangahau Māori (Māori researcher) within the Manaaki Taiao team at Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research since 2016. Her key research areas include river and riparian restoration, as well as planning and policy innovation. Jade is particularly interested in exploring how western science knowledge can be utilized together with mātauranga Māori in ways that holistically empower hapū and iwi environmental well-being.

Nikki Harcourt (Ngāti Naho) (PhD) is a Kauhautū-Research Impact Leader at Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research. She has a background in native flora and fauna product development and specializes in non-timber planting strategies for Māori land. Her research integrates western science, commercialization and kaupapa Māori principles to increase biodiversity while delivering sustainable cultural, economic and social gains.

Shaun Awatere (Ngāti Porou) (PhD) has been actively supporting Māori manage collective assets in a more sustainable manner consistent with the kaupapa-Māori principles of kaitiakitanga, manaakitanga and whakatipu rawa. He is currently engaged in research and policy to help prepare iwi, hapū and Māori for climate change mitigation and adaptation planning. Shaun and a team of Nga Pae o Te Māramatanga researchers have recently summarized the latest research and guidance surrounding observed and projected climate change impacts on whānau, hapū, iwi and Māori business in Aotearoa. This research considers the implications of these changes for diverse interests and investments, and provides commentary about risk and uncertainty, knowledge gaps and options for climate change mitigation and adaptation.

Dan Hikuroa (Ngāti Maniapoto, Tainui, Te Arawa) (PhD) is a Senior Lecturer in Māori Studies, Te Wānanga o Waipapa, in the Faculty of Arts, University of Auckland, and is part of the executive team at Te Ao Mārama—Centre for Fundamental Inquiry. He graduated with a Bachelor of Science in Geology in 1996, a Postgraduate Diploma in Science in 1999 and a PhD in Geology in 2004. Dan’s research addresses fundamental foundations and applications of knowledge, particularly with respect to integrating mātauranga Māori and science. Dan explores the similarities and differences between Indigenous knowledges and science, the underpinning ontologies (ways of being) and the epistemologies (ways of knowing). His research includes how concepts of mauri contribute to ideas about life, kinship as practical ontology, how Indigenous concepts can be integrated with techno-scientific rationales to imagine new futures for our rivers and waterways, and Māori concepts of time, space and the universe.

Paula Blackett (PhD) is a Social Scientist with the National Institute of Water and Atmosphere, based in Hamilton, New Zealand. With a background in bio-physical science and human geography, her research largely revolves around facilitating integration and interaction between science and society for natural resource management challenges.

Richard Le Heron (PhD) is Emeritus Professor of Geography in the School of Environment at the University of Auckland, a past Chair of the International Geographical Union Research Commission on the Dynamics of Economic Spaces and a former Vice President (Humanities and Social Science) of the Royal Society of New Zealand. He has explored frontiers of trans-disciplinary knowledge across science, the social sciences and Te Ao Māori. This includes knowledge tools to co-imagine and apply socio-ecological knowledge, re-commoning of coastal and ocean domains, co-governance principles and practices, enactive knowledge under risks and uncertainties, the role of personal positioning, disciplinary norms, and hidden worldviews and their associated narratives in constraining decision choices and barriers affecting the creation of collective imaginaries and participatory decision-making processes. Developing such knowledge tools is vital to efforts to reset the conventional economy first-environment second equation to a reversed equation where environmental goals frame economic investment options.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship and publication of this article: This work is funded by the Sustainable Seas National Science Challenge, Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment contract number: C01X1901.

ORCID iDs

Shaun Awatere

Dan Hikuroa

Glossary

Aotearoa New Zealand

Arotakenga Huringa Āhuarangi a national climate change risk assessment framework that integrates Māori worldview perspectives and promotes partnership with family/subtribe/tribe

atua a unique Māori understanding and personified form of natural realms

hapū subtribe

he awa whiria a braided river

He Mahere Pāhekoheko a framework that promotes harbour co-management

iwi tribe

kaitiaki Māori resource manager or guardian

kaitiakitanga intergenerational sustainability

kaupapa Māori Māori approaches and framing

kia aiō ngā ngaru, kia hora te marino may the waves be calm and peace be widespread

mana an acknowledged influence

Māori the Indigenous peoples of Aotearoa

maramataka the Māori lunar ecological calendar; a codified natural resource management system or decision-making tool that has in-built risk and uncertainty features

Mātauranga Māori Māori knowledge, culture and values

mauri lifeforce life spirit; the inherent lifeforce of living entities within an ecosystem, the life-supporting capacity of air, water and soil

ngā hononga i waenganui i te aotūroa me te tangata people are part of nature and nature supports life and human activity

Pākehā New Zealanders primarily of European descent

pūrākau stories; narratives

rāhui prohibition

taonga treasured resources; prized assets, iconic species, possessions, precious resources

Te Ao Māori a Māori worldview

Te Mana o te Taiao a framework that describes the interconnections between nature and people

Te Mana o te Wai National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management

te taiao the environment

Te Tiriti The Treaty of Waitangi, a written agreement made in 1840 between the British Crown (the monarch) and Māori chiefs

tikanga values and practices

tūpuna ancestor

waiata songs

Waka Taurua a framework that promotes marine co-management

whakapapa the connections between people and place; genealogy

whakataukī proverb; proverbs

whānau family

whenua lands

whenua papatupu ancestral land

References

Capra

(1996). The web of life: A new synthesis of mind and matter. Flamingo.

Chan

K. M.

Balvanera

Benessaiah

Chapman

Díaz

Gómez-Baggethun

Gould

Hannahs

Jax

Klain

Luck

G. W.

Martín-López

Muraca

Norton

Ott

Pascual

Satterfield

Tadaki

Taggart

Turner

(2016). Opinion: Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(6), 1462–1465.

Chilisa

(2019). Indigenous research methodologies. SAGE.

Clapcott

Ataria

Hepburn

Hikuroa

Jackson

A. M.

Kirikiri

Williams

(2018). Mātauranga Māori: Shaping marine and freshwater futures. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 52(4), 457–466.

Crotty

(2020). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. SAGE.

Department of Conservation. (2020). Te Mana o Te Taiao—Aotearoa New Zealand biodiversity strategy 2020. New Zealand Government. https://www.doc.govt.nz/globalassets/documents/conservation/biodiversity/anzbs-2020.pdf

Environmental Protection Authority—Te Mana Rauhi Taiao. (2020). Partnership in action: The EPA’s mātauranga framework. New Zealand Government. https://www.epa.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Documents/Te-Hautu/Matauranga-Maori-Report_Framework-Report.pdf

Harcourt

Awatere

Hyslop

Taura

Wilcox

Taylor

Rau

Timoti

. (2022). Kia manawaroa kia puawai: Enduring Māori livelihoods. Sustainability Science, 17(2), 391–402.

Harcourt

Robson-Williams

Tamepo

. (2022). Supporting the design of useful and relevant holistic frameworks for land use opportunity assessment for Indigenous people. Australasian Journal of Water Resources, 26(1), 116–130.

10.

Harmsworth

Awatere

Robb

(2016). Indigenous Māori values and perspectives to inform freshwater management in Aotearoa-New Zealand. Ecology & Society, 21, Article 4.

11.

Harmsworth

G. R.

Awatere

(2013). Indigenous Māori knowledge and perspectives of ecosystems. In Dymond

J. R.

(Ed.), Ecosystem services in New Zealand—conditions and trends (pp. 274–286). Manaaki Whenua Press.

12.

Hikuroa

(2017). Mātauranga Māori—the ūkaipō of knowledge in New Zealand. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 47(1), 5–10.

13.

Jackson

A. M.

Mita

Hakopa

(2017). Hui-te-ana-nui: Understanding kaitiakitanga in our marine environment. University of Otago. https://www.sustainableseaschallenge.co.nz/tools-and-resources/hui-te-ana-nui-understanding-kaitiakitanga-in-our-marine-environment/

14.

Kawharu

(2000). Kaitiakitanga: A Māori anthropological perspective of the Māori socio-environmental ethic of resource management. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 109(4), 349–370.

15.

King

D. N.

Goff

(2010). Benefitting from differences in knowledge, practice, and belief: Māori oral traditions and natural hazards science. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 10(9), 1927–1940.

16.

Le Heron

Lundquist

C. J.

Logie

Blackett

Heron

E. L.

Awatere

Hyslop

. (2022). A socio-ecological appraisal of perceived risks associated with mangrove (mānawa) management in Aotearoa New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 56(3), 447–465.

17.

Mahuika

(1998). Whakapapa is the heart. In Coates

McHugh

P. G.

(Eds.), Living relationships—Kokiri ngatahi: The Treaty of Waitangi in the new millennium (pp. 215–221). Victoria University Press.

18.

Makey

Awatere

(2018). He mahere pāhekoheko mō Kaipara Moana–integrated ecosystem-based management for Kaipara Harbour, Aotearoa New Zealand. Society & Natural Resources, 31(12), 1400–1418.

19.

Marsden

Henare

T. A.

Royal

(2003). Kaitiakitanga: A definitive introduction to the holistic worldview of the Māori. In Royal

T. A. C.

(Ed.), The woven universe: Selected writings of Rev. Māori Marsden (pp. 54–72). Estate of Rev. Māori Marsden.

20.

Maxwell

K. H.

Ratana

Davies

K. K.

Taiapa

Awatere

(2020). Navigating towards marine co-management with Indigenous communities on-board the Waka-Taurua. Marine Policy, 111, Article 103722.

21.

Mercier

Stevens

Tia

(2011). Mātauranga Māori and the data-information-knowledge–wisdom hierarchy: A conversation on interfacing knowledge systems. MAI Journal, 1, 103–116.

22.

Ministry for the Environment. (2019). Arotakenga huringa āhuarangi—A framework for national climate change risk assessment for Aotearoa New Zealand. New Zealand Government. https://environment.govt.nz/publications/arotakenga-huringa-ahuarangi-a-framework-for-the-national-climate-change-risk-assessment-for-aotearoa-new-zealand/

23.

Ministry for the Environment. (2020). National policy statement for freshwater management 2020. New Zealand Government. https://environment.govt.nz/publications/national-policy-statement-for-freshwater-management-2020/

24.

Morgan

Manuel

(2020). Western science and Indigenous wisdom: Is integration possible, practical, plausible. New Zealand Science Review, 76(2), 6–12.

25.

Morgan

T. K. K. B

. (2006, December). Decision-support tools and the Indigenous paradigm. In. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Engineering Sustainability (Vol. 159, No. 4, pp. 169–177). Thomas Telford Ltd.

26.

Reid

Rout

(2020). Developing sustainability indicators–The need for radical transparency. Ecological Indicators, 110, Article 105941.

27.

Roberts

(2005). Walking backwards into the future: Māori views on genetically modified organisms. WINHEC: International Journal of Indigenous Education Scholarship, 1, 49–60.

28.

Roberts

(2013). Ways of seeing: Whakapapa. Sites: A Journal of Social Anthropology and Cultural Studies, 10(1), 93–120.

29.

Rout

Awatere

Mika

J. P.

Reid

Roskruge

(2021). A Māori approach to environmental economics: Te ao tūroa, te ao hurihuri, te ao mārama—The old world, a changing world, a world of light. In Shugart

(Eds.), Oxford research encyclopedia of environmental science. Oxford University Press.

30.

Ruru

(2015). The mauri compass. A concept paper showing the mauri compass as an evaluation tool in a RMA Freshwater context. Te Rūnanga o Turanganui a Kiwa.

31.

Smith

(1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples. Zed Books and University of Otago Press.

32.

Taarup-Esbensen

(2019). Making sense of risk—a sociological perspective on the management of risk. Risk Analysis, 39(4), 749–760.

33.

Tetlock

P. E.

Mellers

B. A.

Scoblic

J. P.

(2017). Sacred versus pseudo-sacred values: How people cope with taboo trade-offs. American Economic Review, 107(5), 96–99.

34.

Van der Linden

. (2014). On the relationship between personal experience, affect and risk perception: The case of climate change. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(5), 430–440.

35.

Walker

D. P.

Ataria

J. M.

Hughey

K. F.

Park

P. T.

Katene

J. P.

(2021). Environmental and spatial planning with ngā Atua kaitiaki: A Mātauranga Māori framework. New Zealand Geographer, 77(2), 90–100.

36.

Wilson

R. S.

Zwickle

Walpole

(2019). Developing a broadly applicable measure of risk perception. Risk Analysis, 39(4), 777–791.