'Connecting Science to Indigenous Knowledge: kaitiakitanga, conservation, and resource management' by Tara McAllister, Daniel Hikuroa and Cate Macinnis-Ng in (2023) 47(1) New Zealand Journal of Ecology 3521 comments
Indigenous Knowledge (IK) provides effective solutions to environmental threats and pressures. Using approaches that fully include Indigenous concepts, ideas, worldviews, knowledge, process, and practice helps the recovery of threatened species and endangered ecosystems, but it is essential that such work engages with Indigenous Peoples and that engagement is respectful, reciprocal, and meaningful. We support using mātauranga (Māori knowledge, culture, values, and worldview) alongside science, because incorporating socio-cultural perspectives and initiatives allows sustainability to be addressed in a more holistic way. This collaborative group of Māori and Pākehā researchers brings a range of perspectives and expertise to the challenge of working at the interface of IK and science, and practices of conservation and resource management. In developing a deeper understanding of kaitiakitanga, which is often translated as “guardianship”, “stewardship”, or the “principle and practices of intergenerational sustainability”, when working in partnership with Māori, Western-trained scientists can meaningfully acknowledge Māori values, knowledge, process, and practice in their work. This enhanced consideration of kaitiakitanga requires bringing together intricately linked concepts such as whakapapa, rangatiratanga, mana, mauri, tapu, noa, and manaakitanga. In this paper, we aim to guide Western-trained scientists and other practitioners in understanding kaitiakitanga so that they can meaningfully engage through an enhanced understanding of Māori worldviews, knowledge, process, and practice. We also aim to highlight the synergies and differences between kaitiakitanga and conservation and resource management, whilst providing examples of how kaitiakitanga can be used to enhance conservation for holistic sustainability outcomes. We emphasise the benefits and importance of working with Māori communities for long-term partnerships based on mutual trust and respect.
The authors argue
Aotearoa New Zealand’s already stressed natural environment is facing increasing threats and pressures (Brown et al. 2015; Norton et al. 2016; Ministry for the Environment & StatsNZ 2022). Invasive species, destructive fishing practices, extractive industries, a changing climate, and intensification of agriculture are examples of processes that are causing ongoing environmental degradation (Brake and Peart 2015; Clarkson et al. 2015; OECD 2017; Macinnis-Ng et al. 2021; Ministry for the Environment & StatsNZ 2022). We need to acknowledge customary ways to conserve threatened species and endangered ecosystems and enact resource management because the current methods and/or their implementation often exclude Indigenous peoples (e.g. Ruru et al. 2017). Using mātauranga (Māori knowledge, culture, values, and worldview) alongside science is an effective way forward, as weaving multiple knowledge- systems, socio-cultural perspectives and initiatives allows sustainability to be addressed in a more holistic way (Lyver et al. 2018; Marques et al. 2019; Hill et al. 2021).
Indigenous practices of ecosystem management across the globe include a range of tools such as resource management and landscape patchiness incorporated with social dimensions of intergenerational knowledge transmission and the development of specific world views and cultural practices (Berkes et al. 2000). The global review by Berkes et al. (2000) draws parallels between adaptive management and Indigenous approaches because they include feedback learning and evolving understanding of dynamic systems. Recognition of the value of Indigenous Knowledge (IK), which emerges from a worldview that sees the people and the knowledge as being of the land, is growing in the international literatures of ecology and conservation with key papers like Berkes et al. (2000) receiving over 5000 citations. Alternative perspectives and highly detailed local knowledge combined with social mechanisms and customary practices in tune with environmental and ecological processes are key aspects of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK; Berkes et al. 2000; Wehi et al. 2019). Although TEK is a subset of IK and is now widely acknowledged as an empirically sound and rich resource for community-based resource management (Lauer 2017), it has also been critiqued, because as conventionally practiced it can colonise IK by removing it from its cultural context and applying it within non-Indigenous management plans (McGregor 2004). So, despite having strong alignment with the definition of TEK in Berkes et al. (2000) we find the term Indigenous Knowledge better captures the evolving nature of modern Indigenous knowledges and remains consistent with ever-growing insights and expertise. In response to the bi-cultural approach being undertaken in Aotearoa New Zealand we use IK in general, otherwise mātauranga – the knowledge, culture, values, world view, process and practice of Māori, the Indigenous peoples of Aotearoa New Zealand. Therein bi-cultural approaches to conservation that include frameworks for effective collaboration and prevent cultural appropriation can empower local communities to build strong societal relationships with the natural world while addressing declines in biological and cultural well-being (Lyver & Tylianakis 2017; Lyver et al. 2018, 2019; McAllister et al. 2019; Wehi et al. 2019). While excellent examples of collaborative research are becoming more common (Clapcott et al. 2018; McAllister et al. 2019), globally and nationally many ecologists and conservation biologists continue to operate entirely independently of IK and fail to recognise the global importance of Indigenous lands for conservation (Garnett et al. 2018). For instance, Norton et al.’s (2018) paper on restoration of native biodiversity in Aotearoa only mentioned Māori as a relevant community group, failing to acknowledge the role Māori should play in restoration (Ruru 2004).
In this review and synthesis, we explore kaitiakitanga, a key Māori concept informed by IK and often linked with conservation, and aim to give Western-trained scientists (acknowledging that Western science also marginalises Eastern cultures; Memmi 2019) and practitioners a better understanding of what kaitiakitanga is beyond (mis) interpretations of “guardianship” or “stewardship”. We also explore some synergies and dichotomies between kaitiakitanga and conservation and highlight some recent examples of co-developed research and monitoring projects. While we specifically discuss Māori worldviews and their relevance to Aotearoa New Zealand in this paper, we believe scientists across the world would benefit from being aware of these concepts because of the similarities and connectedness of many IKs. In addition, indigenising conservation policy is essential globally because colonial conservation ideologies perpetuate injustices to Indigenous human rights to the detriment of human and environmental well-being (Domínguez & Luoma 2020).
In our broad definition of conservation, we include threatened species recovery, protection of endangered ecosystems, and sustainable resource management. While these three areas are traditionally seen as siloed areas of work, each is clearly tightly interwoven and using a holistic and inclusive understanding of these concepts (consistent with te ao Māori), is essential for effective progress in all three fields.
Acknowledging and elevating mātauranga is important in Aotearoa New Zealand in order to honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the Wai 262 claim (Geismar 2013; Houghton 2021; Potter & Māngai 2022). Te Tiriti o Waitangi is New Zealand’s founding document: an agreement in both Māori and English languages, made between rangatira, Māori chiefs, and the British Crown. The chiefs signed the Māori language version and significant differences in the intent and meaning of key terms between the Māori and English versions created challenges from the outset, followed by deliberate breaches by successive governments through following decades (Charters & Whare 2017; Mutu 2018; Mutu 2019). Furthermore, the rule of contra proferentem which translates as “interpretation against the draughtsman” and was in use in 1840 (and continues in the present-day) is a contractual interpretation that views that, where a term, promise, or agreement is ambiguous, the meaning that is prioritised is the one that works against the interests of the party (the British Crown) who provided the ambiguous wording to begin with. Therefore, the correct version is Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the reo Māori version (Kwan-Parsons 2021). The Waitangi Tribunal, established in 1975, is a standing commission of inquiry that makes recommendations on claims brought by Māori relating to legislation, policies, actions, or omissions of the Crown that breach the conditions made in Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Settlement of Treaty breaches with a particular iwi (tribe) includes a Crown apology and the transfer of cash and assets to a Post-Settlement Governance Entity. Ataria et al. (2018) explain how the Treaty of Waitangi—English language version—specifically covers lands, estates, forests, fisheries, and other properties and the Wai 262 claim covers Indigenous culture, flora, and fauna consistent with Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Māori language version. The Treaty settlement era has seen a resurgence and reconnection between the environment and people, which has resulted in cultural concepts, including kaitiakitanga, being incorporated in policy (Resource Management Act 1991) and research (Kawharu 2000; Henwood & Henwood 2011). Furthermore, kaitiakitanga is increasingly being incorporated as a key part of some national funding schemes (National Science Challenges; Sustainable Seas, Our Land and Water) and also in wider scientific discourse (Hikuroa et al. 2011; Dick et al. 2012; McGinnis & Collins 2013). The proliferation of iwi environmental management plans (e.g. Hauraki Māori Trust Board 2012; Mahaanui Kurataiao Ltd 2013; Te Ātiawa ki Whakarongotai Charitable Trust 2019) has also highlighted the importance of kaitiakitanga.
The development, adoption, and implementation of policy frameworks like Vision Mātauranga (MoRST 2005) have incentivised and resulted in increased scientist-initiated engagement with Māori, and in some cases, Māori initiated engagement with scientists. Well-intentioned scientists and practitioners are seeking to incorporate mātauranga, but in our collective experience, a general lack of understanding of kaitiakitanga is thwarting their efforts and runs the risk of cultural appropriation. Here, we highlight the similarities and differences between kaitiakitanga and conservation, and urge non-Māori scientists and practitioners, even if they are working in genuine partnership mana whenua, to refrain from the “we’re all kaitiaki now” sentiment, as witnessed by all three authors on many occasions. Ataria et al. (2018) clearly articulate the risks of poor-quality engagement with IK and describe ways forward for mātauranga to enrich contemporary scientific thinking and, globally, Latulippe and Klenk (2020) advocate for Indigenous research leadership to combat this issue.
We have collectively experienced kaitiakitanga becoming a buzzword in Aotearoa New Zealand’s scientific and regulatory community, frequently used by environmental managers and science organisations in Aotearoa New Zealand divorced from its cultural context. Despite the widespread adoption and use of the term kaitiakitanga by these organisations and practitioners, a deep and true understanding of its significance and meaning is usually lacking. This has resulted in the widespread belief that kaitiakitanga equates with conservation guardianship, and we support the argument put forward by others (Kawharu 2000) that this is an oversimplification of a rich and complex concept and set of practices, from a different worldview. Roberts et al. (1995) suggests that in order to fully understand a cultural concept (and to prevent the misuse of superficially acquired knowledge), such as kaitiakitanga, one must first serve an apprenticeship. In this particular case, it means kaitiakitanga must be understood within its cultural context, rather than severed from values and related concepts, which ground it within te ao Māori. Similarly, Wehi et al. (2020) describe the philosophical responsibilities of working with mātauranga. Here, we aim to guide conservation scientists and practitioners in understanding kaitiakitanga so that they can meaningfully engage through an enhanced understanding of the Māori worldview. Despite kaitiakitanga not being equivalent with conservation, its widespread use either interchangeably and/or as a proxy for conservation has prompted this article.
