Ronda Cooper
Title: “Great
Expectations – how we look at co-management”
Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the
Environment, P O Box 10-421, Wellington Email:
ronda@pce.govt.nz
|
|
Talk
Ronda Cooper lectured in English literature at Victoria University, and
wrote a regular column for Auckland’s Metro magazine, before advising
on landscape issues and public awareness for the NZ Conservation
Authority. Now in the Office of
the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, projects have included
investigations into marine management, local government and the RMA, and the
acceptability of genetically modified biocontrols for possums.
|
Abstract
Co-management is, like “sustainability”, “heritage” or
“the precautionary principle”, an environmental management concept that means
many different things to different people. Such broad, generalised concepts are usefully generous and
accommodating; they attract a rich diversity of interpretation and exegesis,
and an array of different kinds of definitions, goals, objectives and
expectations. Despite the
complexity and erudition of much of this sort of commentary, at heart the
things themselves are deceptively, seductively simple. These kinds of abstract concepts are paraded as bright
fluttering banners across the policy landscape – undeniably noble principles
under which management will be able to move forward and achieve brave, if
usually very vaguely charted, new worlds. They are promoted as solutions to the inadequacies and failures
of the status quo – appealingly idealistic answers to the limitations and
frustrations experienced by the various participants in current processes. But when there are a range of different expectations
and assumptions driving the responses to these generic concepts, when the
participants are talking different languages (although they are using the
same words), when the disjunctions between different paradigms push people
suddenly, rudely outside their usual comfort zones – the results can be
confusion and disappointment, or worse, an entrenching of previous
dissatisfactions and adversarial polarisations. This presentation will look at two recent studies by
the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment – the 1999 investigation
into marine environmental management, and this year’s work on public
acceptability of genetically engineered biocontrols for possums – as examples
where there are a multiplicity of expectations, worldviews, values,
approaches, languages, styles and objectives of the participants. Respect for the full range of
different kaupapa is a critical starting-point for New Zealand to achieve
improved environmental management, and make the abstract concepts a reality. |
Go to top
of page
Talk
Introduction
It is useful to start by explaining a little bit about the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, and how we fit into the scheme of things. The Office is independent of the Government, reporting directly to Parliament through the Speaker of the House. This independence gives us the neutrality necessary for our role as an environmental “watch dog”. Our job is to keep an eye on the management systems, the legislation, policies and practices of the various agencies and groups that are involved in environmental management. That gives us the opportunity to get involved in an incredible range of issues, and I will talk about a couple of our projects later.
Definitions
To
start things off, Henrik Moller suggested that I look at the area of
definitions, and explore the topic for this hui: co-management. What is “co-management”? The Oxford Dictionary doesn’t include a
specific entry, but I looked up “manage”, which is derived from the Latin word manus,
which means hand. So inherent in the
Latin origins of the word “management” is the concept of “hands-on”
activity. The dictionary
definitions include concepts like:
- holding and handling
something,
- controlling something,
- achieving your goals,
- making proper use of
something, utilising it intelligently and wisely, and
- doing what is
appropriate, doing what is right.
And
so from the Latin, you get similar kinds of concepts as are the basis for
tikanga and kaitiakitanga.
The
Latin prefix “co” means doing something along with somebody else, jointly,
mutually, in partnership. Many
other words in the dictionary that also use the prefix “co” are interesting in
their implications for the concept of co-management. Some of these words include: connect, combine, community,
company, communicate, collaborate, cooperate, colleague, coherence, concord,
consequences, contacts, coincidence, conspiracy, continuity, contribute and
covenant. All those words share that
same “co” prefix, and are thus like a whänau in the language.
“Co-management”
is a broad-ranging term, like “consultation”, “sustainability”, and
“heritage”. These kinds of big
wide words are often used in policy documents, plans or management initiatives
to encapsulate the principles and values that are going to drive the policy in
the direction that people are going to follow. Such terms are promoted as the kinds of things that need to
happen. Often they’re upheld as
ways of fixing up what’s wrong with the status quo, and as frameworks for reform. Therefore it is important to think
carefully about the meanings and intentions underpinning such broad
concepts.
Formal
official definitions of “co-management” have been developed in various policy
documents and plans, and no doubt we will be hearing about some of those over
the next couple of days. There are
various international discussions around definitions as well. However I’m not going to attempt a
specific definition now, because in some ways I think that trying to pin these
words down to a single definition can be counter productive. It makes me feel uneasy when people try
to nail down such huge, rich ideas to too narrow a definition.
Often
the formal definitions of such terms – aiming for specificity and precision in
delineating the commitments of official agencies – can get incredibly
complicated. You get lots of
arcane legalistic language and very carefully worded, carefully phrased
definitions. But at heart, I think
these things are very simple. When
you are doing it from the heart, when you’re living it and making it happen,
the realities of it are stunningly simple.
Diversity of
meanings
Such
broad generalised concepts will inevitably mean different things to different
people. And some people see this
diversity of meanings and relevance as a problem, as generating confusion and
misunderstandings. But I would
suggest that maybe that kind of plurality, that multiplicity of meaning can
also be a strength.
Everybody
at this hui will have had the experience of working with people who are in a
completely different framework of reference from where you are. No matter where you’re from or what
iwi, agency or group you’re working for, you will have had the experience of
talking to somebody – trying to explain your point of view, your perspectives
and what you are trying to achieve, the goals that you are trying to get to –
and you may be being quite profound, but the other person has this rather blank
look on their face. They may be
smiling politely, nodding and saying yes, but you know that they’re just not
getting it, they’re just not in the same space as you. I think with big broad terms like
“co-management” this kind of thing is quite common. Different people and groups have different ways of looking
at the world and different goals, different expectations, different assumptions
about what they’re doing. We come
across this kind of thing all the time in our work with environmental
management issues in the Commissioner’s Office, where there are a multiplicity
of different stakeholders, different participants and processes. They may be using the same words but
they’re talking completely different languages from each other.
One
example of this pattern is the Marine Investigation the PCE worked on in
1999. We looked at New Zealand’s
systems for managing the marine environment and found an amazingly diverse
range of groups and sectors each with their own approach and priorities:
·
tangata
whenua, with a number of interests:
o
rights
guaranteed under te Tiriti o Waitangi,
o
customary
relationships with kaimoana resources,
o
relationships
with heritage sites, wahi tapu and other special places around the coast,
o
the
identification of each iwi and hapu with the coast line of their rohe, and
o
Mäori
involvement in the fishing industry;
·
the
fishing industry and aquaculture sectors, working within completely different
kinds of frameworks – to them, marine sustainability meant something shaped by
economics and overseas markets, technology and processing systems, fish stocks
assessments and quota allocations;
·
the
bureaucracy – the Ministry of Fisheries, the Department of Conservation, and
the other official agencies with responsibilities in regard to coastal and marine
environments and resources.
Their language and approaches are often legalistic, process oriented,
formal and risk averse. They’re
there to represent the interests of the Crown, and that’s part of the
frameworks of expectation that shape their approach – that’s the work that they
are there to do;
·
the
conservation NGOs – ECO, Forest and Bird, Greenpeace and other groups. Sometimes they work very closely with
the official agencies, although they can also be sharply critical and challenge
government policies and systems.
That’s an important role for these groups to contribute into the overall
equation. Sometimes they work with
tangata whenua, but not often enough, and it’s encouraging to see people from
the NGOs here at this hui.
·
the
recreational sectors – fishers, yachties, divers and tourists. When the PCE Office started the
investigation, the America’s Cup was getting under way and so we met with Sir
Peter Blake. In the context of
such high-profile international events, the marine environment was important as
the venue for the yacht race, and in terms of the quality of experience for the
thousands of overseas spectators and competitors, and the media sending images
of New Zealand out to the rest of the world.
So within one topic, marine sustainability,
we found completely different kinds of approaches, values and expectations of
what’s important to each group and what they’re working towards.
The
other PCE investigation that shows the range of diverse meanings attaching to a
single concept is our current project exploring public attitudes towards
genetically modified biocontrols for possums. This is a complex topic, bringing together the highly
controversial debates around genetic engineering, with the equally high-profile
issues of pest management. Not
surprisingly we have encountered a whole range of different languages,
different expectations, different goals and objectives:
· tangata whenua, concerned
with protecting the whakapapa, the mauri and the integrity of taonga resources
from being genetically modified,
· pest managers in councils
and DOC, the people that are doing the practical mahi to get rid of possums,
· farmers and forestry people
who are interested in solving the possum problem because of the economic
impacts on their operations,
· the scientific research
institutions that are actually doing the laboratory work on potential
genetically modified control techniques – they approach the issues from a
science perspective, and talk a rather academic language of technicalities,
quantification, and analysis,
· the biotechnology industry,
bringing their own kinds of imperatives with the commercial orientations of
developments of new technologies,
· NGO’s, both the conservation
groups and also the anti-GE groups, who are well-organized, assertive, and very
knowledgeable about the science and the issues,
· the bureaucracy, including
ERMA (the Environmental Risk Management Authority), MAF, DOC, and the Royal
Commission now being set up to look at genetic modification and its possible
uses in New Zealand, and
· animal welfare and ethics
groups, such as SAFE (Save Animals from Exploitation), bringing another set of
expectations and values into the debate.
These
two projects give some indication of just how multi-faceted these big broad
issues can be, and how words like “sustainability” or “co-management” attract a
broad range of different paradigms and different ways of looking at the
world. Whether you’re doing it to fulfil your kaitiaki responsibilities
and to protect the mauri and the wairua of taonga, whether you’re doing it to
make a profit for your company, whether you’re doing it to fulfill a legal
requirement imposed upon your Regional Council by some policy or legislation –
everybody is going to be coming at the issues from a different direction.
One
of the questions that arises from this typical multiplicity is: “Is a single definition
necessary?” If all the
stakeholders are talking different kinds of languages, how are you going to
deal with it? In order to get
things happening, do you need to have everybody talking the same language, and
operating within the same frameworks?
I would say no. And the
principle here is from ecology itself, the principle of diversity. Everybody knows the vulnerability of a
monoculture. The greater diversity
you have in an ecosystem, the more strength and resilience that system will
have. More diverse, multi-faceted
systems have greater adaptive capacity, can bounce back faster from
disturbance, are more productive, healthier and stronger, and have more beauty.
I
don’t think we should try and stuff everybody into the same box. I don’t believe we should expect people
all to be talking the same talk, because then we would jeopardise our identity
and our uniqueness, and we would foreclose opportunities to learn and to
evolve. I think we need respect
for the perspectives and the positions of others, for the values, experience
and knowledge that they’re bringing into the process. We need understanding, and that comes from dialogue,
listening, talking together, working things through as we will be doing in this
hui over the next two days.
Taking action
We
also have to learn by doing, by actually getting out there and making it
happen, turning the opportunities into realities. That means getting on with walking the talk, and that in
turn will mean getting beyond the stage of taking tentative little “baby
steps”. New Zealand has to get
past the stage where something as important as co-management occurs only in
isolated “model projects” – a little pocket of activity here, a little trial
project somewhere else, the exceptional “one-offs”. Co-management is a concept offering enormous potential. It needs to be widespread throughout
these islands, throughout the various processes and systems for environmental
management – not as something experimental, but more as the normal way of doing
things.
There
are more than adequate provisions in the current statutes and formal structures
for co-management to be happening right now. The Resource Management Act, section 6(e), requires local
government to “provide for” as well as to “recognise” the relationships of
Mäori with their rohe and their taonga.
That’s the “active” part of the Treaty principle of active protection. There’s also Section 33 of the RMA,
providing for the transfer of local authority functions and powers, although no
council in the country has yet been brave enough to actually undertake a
Section 33 arrangement with tangata whenua; this reluctance is wasteful of many good opportunities to
get practical things under way.
Under
the Conservation Act there is Section 4, requiring DOC to give effect to the
principles of the Treaty in their work, and no doubt Keith Johnston and Eru
Manuera are going to talk about what DOC is doing there. Other opportunities in the conservation
area include the Conservation Authority’s recommendations for providing for
Mäori customary use of natural taonga.
The Minister of Conservation gave approval nearly a year ago for those
recommendations to be implemented by DOC, so maybe Keith and Eru will give a
progress report on how things are going with that.
But
I would like to suggest that the most important factor for making progress with
co-management is to keep a clear distinction between the process and the actual
work itself. Process includes the
formal systems, the agency structures, the policies, the legislation, the
plans, the kinds of consultation processes and funding that are provided. People often tend to focus their
efforts and attention on what kinds of structures, systems and formalities are
going to be set up, and it can be easy to get caught up in that level of
things. But it is more important
to keep focused on the purpose, the actual environmental goals to be achieved,
the reasons why you might be doing any of it anyway. The practical environmental realities and on-the-ground
needs are the real priorities, rather than what kind of committee you set
up. There’s been too many losses
and too much damage happen already.
It’s time to turn things around, to work more to the kaupapa of what we
need to do to ensure the wellbeing, the strength and richness of te ao marama,
me nga taonga tuku iho. We have
responsibilities both to our tupuna and to the generations that will follow and
will look back to us.
In
the two days ahead, the speakers are going to be giving us some good practical
advice, and some examples of projects they’ve been able to get happening in
their rohe. They’re also going to
be sharing with us their wisdom and their thoughtfulness on these complex
topics. I know we are going to
have a very interesting two days and I look forward to the rest of the korero.
Discussion
Question/Comment (Waaka Vercoe, Bay of
Plenty Regional Council)
It’s
nice to see your studies Ronda but what actually happens to those reports? Does anybody do anything useful from
them apart from reading them? What
follow-up is there?
RC - Are
we just producing more documents that are going to sit on people’s shelves and
gather dust? I hope not. In some cases we have very rapid and effective
responses to the Commissioner’s reports.
The Marine Report is a case in point. It was launched in February this year and just a short time
after that, the Prime Minister directed Pete Hodgson, the Minister of
Fisheries, to pull together a high level Cabinet process to pick up our
principal recommendation which was for an Oceans Strategy for sustainable
marine environmental management.
Other things take a little bit more time. The Commissioner’s report on historic heritage for example
was published in 1996 and the review process for Mäori heritage is still
working its way through in various forms.
However we generally have quite good responses from the official
agencies to our recommendations.
Question/Comment (Janet Stephenson)
Kia
ora Ronda. At the beginning of your presentation you said that often issues
themselves are deceptively simple and then you went around describing the
complexities. But you never got
back to the point of explaining just how these issues themselves were actually
very simple. Could you give us an
example.
RC - How
are these issues simple? It’s the
difference between what’s on the piece of paper and what you do. What’s written in the formal policy
documents and official papers is where it gets complicated. What will be the process for working
through all the different stakeholders, bringing them together and negotiating
who’s going to have how much of a say in things. That’s where it gets complicated – what kind of structures
you are going to set up, the procedures of kawanatanga, the processes of
science and technology, and bringing together those different paradigms. Where it’s simple is where it’s in the
heart. Where you wake up in the
morning and you know, yes I’m going to do this because such and such matters. The simplicity is in recognising and
knowing why it’s important.
Question/Comment (Kevin Prime, Motatau)
Does
the Parliamentary Commission ever take a stance on an issue or are they
normally just collating all the evidence, and then leave people wondering where
anybody stands?
RC - No,
we definitely take a stance. We do
both of those things Kevin. We try
and be as broad ranging as we possibly can when we are carrying out our
investigations. Obviously we can’t
talk to everybody. But we try and
cover the full range of people, groups and agencies with interests in the
particular issue. For example,
when we were doing the Marine investigation, we spent a whole morning at the
Devonport Naval Base which was really interesting. Nobody had ever talked to the Navy about environmental
issues before. So we talk to
people and bring together all the ideas, but then yes we do definitely take a
stand on things. That’s our
kaupapa, that’s our reason for being there. It’s written into our own legislation – our responsibility
is to make sure that environmental sustainability and environmental protection
are being achieved by councils and other official agencies.
Question/Comment (Kevin Prime)
I guess
my question was asking about something like genetic engineering. Are you going to come out and tell
everybody your view on genetic engineering i.e. that it’s no good for us, or
it’s very good for us?
RC - We haven’t actually finalised the recommendations of that report
yet. In regard to the genetic
engineering issue, we started our project back in the middle of last year, and
in the time frame that we’ve been working on it, the Government has now set up
the Royal Commission, and their task is to make those kinds of bigger picture
judgments. We chose quite
deliberately and strategically to focus on the possum biocontrols involved in
genetic engineering, so we will make some definite conclusions about that kind
of specific use of genetic engineering.
But the bigger issues of whether or not GE is right or wrong for New
Zealand, what its potentials and risks are, will now be addressed by the Royal
Commission.
Question/comment (George Ryan,
manawhenua)
You
spoke earlier on about the organization ERMA. What control has the Commissioner for the Environment got
over ERMA? They seem to make
decisions by themselves and when the pest runs wild, they have no responsibility. I’m talking about back a few years,
these angora goats and all the rest of this rubbish that they brought in, and
allowed into the country. When the
bottom dropped out of the market, they just turned them loose. No responsibility. The same with these carp and
catfish. People took them to the
waterways and now we have another pest.
ERMA to me seems to be a body that has no accountability to anybody, not
even to the environment and yet they say they are environmentally friendly.
RC - The Commissioner’s office doesn’t have any specific formal bureaucratic
control over a body such as ERMA.
We can’t direct or instruct those agencies to do x, y or z. We can recommend and advise, and we can
publicly comment. The issue you
raise about liability for introductions of New Organisms is a critical part of
the possum report that I’m finishing now.
Who’s going to accept responsibility for the down-stream consequences of
any adverse affects that might arise from any kind of organism, much less a
genetically engineered one?
There’s a terrifying mushiness in the area of liability, which urgently
needs to be addressed before New Organisms are introduced. As you say, we have so many examples
already of things that have been brought into the country with all the very
best intentions, and have had completely the opposite kinds of effects from what
was intended.