A kaka chick at the Orokonui Ecosanctuary. Photo by Stephen
Jaquiery.
The Orokonui Ecosanctuary needs to be recognised as a
place for Pakeha conservation ethics, Otago anthropologist Jill
Hamel says.
The time has come, it seems to me, to talk about the
differences between the Maori and Pakeha conservation ethics
at Orokonui ecosanctuary. I am using Pakeha here in the way
that historian Michael King uses it - the common culture of
non-Maori New Zealanders - something to acknowledge and
celebrate.
The ecosanctuary was set up by Pakeha with Pakeha aims,
described as preservation, protection, conservation and
fostering of New Zealand flora and fauna, with a strong
educational focus as well.
The aim was to push for a pristine intact ecosystem -
everything from soil organisms to kaka.
When the Department of Conservation gave over management of
the area to the trust, and when the University of Otago, the
Otago Museum and NHNZ signed memorandums of understanding
with the trust this would have been their understanding of
what they were agreeing to - a Pakeha institution with Pakeha
aims.
If we think as Pakeha about the place of people in the
ecosanctuary, human beings clearly have a place inside the
fence. But their place has to do more with how the
objective is achieved, not the objective itself.
By educating, you gain support for the objective and explain
why an intact ecosystem is important. And the only way that
humans enter the system of physical energy exchange inside
the fence is by input (adding plants, animals, expending
energy on maintenance), without taking out energy in the form
of food or plant materials.
With this attitude, we can even contemplate the ambition of
restoring Orokonui to an entire forested ecosystem in its
pre-human state.
The Maori viewpoint at this simple practical level is
different. Maori conservation includes terms such as:
1. Taiapure - which are
areas involving management of fisheries and controlling the
taking of fish by runaka.
2. Mataitai - which are
areas for customary taking of shellfish and other marine
foods.
3. Rahui - which can mean
regulation by a chief to preserve an area so as to improve a
resource such as pigeons.
Even though Maori do not use the terminology, they see humans
as part of the physical exchange of energy within the
ecosystem, taking as well as giving, even though they add
spiritual values into the mix.
Maori traditional conservation efforts were driven by the
need for food, fibre and shelter, rather than the
preservation of plants and animals for their intrinsic worth,
a view shared by people as different as the kaumatua, Tipene
O'Regan, and David Given, a government-employed plant
ecologist.
Pakeha spiritual values about conservation are all about
giving, in the short term at least, with any long-term gain a
very long way off and about preservation of the planet as a
whole.
If local iwi wish for any sort of formal partnership at
Orokonui, they must openly accept this ethic, just as Pakeha
have accepted the setting up of taiapure and maitaitai in
coastal waters. The collection of flax plants, drawn from all
over New Zealand and planted outside the fence at Orokonui,
could be made a physical demonstration of the two viewpoints.
Everyone must declare for "all give and no take" within the
fence at Orokonui for the foreseeable future. Here Maori and
Pakeha can demonstrate respect for each other's different
views.
Orokonui was set up by Pakeha in pursuit of specifically
Pakeha conservation ethics, and this needs to be clearly
defined and agreed to by all of us.
A name, residential address, and (preferably residential) telephone number is required from readers who comment on ODT Online. These details will not be visible to site visitors.