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.
