Go to next talk

 

Peter Horsley

Title: “Collaborative Management – Pre-conditions and Prospects”

School of Resource & Environmental Planning, Massey University, PB 11-222, Palmerston North

Email: p.g.horsley@massey.ac.nz

 

Talk

Discussion

 

Peter Horsley teaches in the Resource and Environmental Planning program at Massey University. He has been working on collaborative management initiatives for the Whanganui River, Lake Horowhenua, Otaki River and
Mt Taranaki, with iwi, DoC and other government agencies, and community groups.
 

 

Abstract

Collaborative management is ‘an idea whose time has come’. Waitangi Tribunal reports have recommended its implementation; DoC is talking about co-operative conservation management and developing new models for national park management plans; the Ngäi Tahu Settlement establishes a number of mechanisms that allow for greater resource management by iwi; the Office of Treaty Settlements is promoting collaborative management as an option for iwi claimants to consider; and there is growing pressure from iwi and communities for shared responsibility of rivers, lakes, estuaries, and protected areas.

 

Despite the growing acceptance of the idea, progress has been frustratingly slow. Government agencies are reluctant to move away from the time-honoured consultation model. They cite a lack of capacity in the interested communities to engage in effective management. They highlight their statutory responsibilities to deliver environmental and conservation outcomes in an efficient manner. They are reluctant to commit their resources to long term (and sometimes uncertain) community capacity building projects that go beyond yearly budget cycles.

 

While these administrative concerns have some validity, they are rooted in a management approach that can be too narrow, suspicious and entrenched. An empowered hapü or community or iwi can offer insights, enthusiasm, and creative solutions. They can form alliances and networks in the interests of the wider community. They can learn from the technical expertise that lies within agencies. They can share their perceptions and take responsibility for the kaitiakitanga and guardianship of their place.

This presentation briefly summarises important pre-conditions for collaborative management proposals, outlines progress that is being made in a number of West Coast North Island initiatives, and offers suggestions for advancing collaborative management in New Zealand.

Go to Top of Page

Talk                            

Collaborative management is ‘an idea whose time has come’.  Waitangi Tribunal reports have recommended its implementation; DoC is talking about co-operative conservation management and developing new models for National Park management plans; the Ngäi Tahu Settlement establishes a number of mechanisms that allow for greater resource management by iwi; the Office of Treaty Settlements is promoting collaborative management as an option for iwi claimants to consider; and there is growing pressure from iwi and communities for shared responsibility of rivers, lakes, estuaries, and protected areas.

 

Despite the growing acceptance of the idea, progress has been frustratingly slow.  Government agencies are reluctant to move away from the time-honoured consultation model.  They cite a lack of capacity in the interested communities to engage in effective management.  They highlight their statutory responsibilities to deliver environmental and conservation outcomes in an efficient manner.  They are reluctant to commit their resources to long-term (and sometimes uncertain) community capacity building projects that go beyond yearly budget cycles.

 

While these administrative concerns have some validity, they are rooted in a management approach that can be too narrow, suspicious or entrenched.  An empowered hapü or community or iwi can offer insights, enthusiasm, and creative solutions. They can form alliances and networks in the interests of the wider community. They can learn from the technical expertise that lies within agencies. They can share their perceptions and take responsibility for the kaitiakitanga and guardianship of their place.

 

It is timely to consider the New Zealand experience in terms of an array of innovative conservation initiatives that are emerging globally as pressure mounts by local communities and indigenous people for a greater say in resource management decision-making.  In New Zealand, key issues in the debate are the Treaty of Waitangi and the historical legal exclusion of Mäori from a formal resource management role, particularly since the early 1900 s.  It is clear that the threatened state of our environment requires contributions from both Western and Mäori environmental traditions if we are to develop effective and inclusive conservation responses.  Given the task that confronts us, it is crucial that we now recognise New Zealand’s dual Mäori and Western conservation management heritage.  A complementary management approach based on sustainability and conservation principles, an enhanced responsibility for the well-being of nature and the communities it supports, and unique place-based cultural perspectives, are pre-requisites for a viable ecological future in New Zealand.

 

Collaborative Management

 

Collaborative management is a process that involves partnerships in which government agencies, local communities and resource users, non-governmental organisations and other interest groups negotiate the authority and responsibility for the shared management of a specific area or set of resources.  Collaborative management involves agreements that outline detailed provisions for rights, obligations and rules for decision makers and resource users, as well as a structure to co-ordinate decision-making.  It has also been described as an inclusionary, consensus-based approach to resource use and development.

 

The concept has evolved over the past two decades under vastly different circumstances in different countries.  A recurrent theme, throughout Canada and Australia, is the need to address indigenous peoples and treaty rights.  In other situations collaborative management has evolved in response to either real or perceived environmental or conservation crises.  In many overseas examples, land claims by indigenous peoples have forced governments to re-examine their relationships with indigenous peoples.  In particular a number of court decisions1 in Canada and Australia have been instrumental in clarifying indigenous rights [superscripts refer to reference notes listed at the end of this paper].  As a consequence, these decisions have provided the impetus for governments to seek collaborative management partnerships with indigenous peoples.

 

The development of collaborative management arrangements requires increasing levels of integration with local communities on the part of government management agencies.  Such arrangements are particularly apt for people who derive an income from natural resources, or people who possess knowledge, capacities, aspirations and skills that are relevant for management, or people who hold unique cultural and spiritual relationships with their local environment.  These factors are important for the many indigenous communities who claim customary use rights over the natural resources, which may not be officially recognised by the administering agency or its legislative mandate.

 

Local residents and communities may also claim an interest in the management of a protected area.  Such groups include government agencies that are legally responsible for specific resources, (e.g. tourism, fisheries), and local government which will have an interest in land or water uses and the management of significant protected areas within its jurisdiction.

 

Collaborative management can operate at a range of levels.  Berkes et al.2  (see Figure 1 below) modified Arnstein’s3 “ladder of community participation” to depict degrees of co-management as rungs of a ladder.  Each rung on the ladder illustrates a gradual shift in power and responsibility from central government control and token participation (bottom rung) to community control (top rung).  Community control can include an indigenous community, but may also be extended to include other community groups with an interest in the management of natural and physical resources.

 

 

Figure 1: Levels of Collaborative Management

 

7

Partnership/Community Control

Partnership of equals; joint decision making institutionalised; power delegated to community where feasible

 

 

 

6

Management Boards

Community is given opportunity to participate in developing and implementing management plans

 

 

 

5

Advisory Committees

Partnership in decision-making starts; joint action or common objectives

 

 

 

4

Communication

Start of two-way information exchange; local concerns begin to enter management plans

 

 

 

3

Co-operation

Community starts to have an input into management; e.g. use of local knowledge, research assistants

 

 

 

2

Consultation

Start face to face contact; community input heard but not necessarily heeded

 

 

 

1

Informing

Community is informed about decisions already made

 

One of the fundamental principles of collaborative management is that local resource users are involved in making decisions that affect their local environment, including their economic, social, and cultural well-being.

 

Berkes4 suggests that for indigenous peoples, collaborative management enables the articulation of community concerns, and provides for the protection of traditional resource rights and customs.  Greater community involvement in management decisions may have the advantage of instilling a strong sense of commitment to conservation and sustainable management practices.

 

However, it should not automatically be assumed that local communities want to take on a resource management role without some assistance and encouragement.  Extensive programmes which may include education and other forms of assistance need to accompany a long term strategic plan to implement collaborative management in a particular area, or for a particular resource.

 

“In many instances, tangible economic and social benefits are key motivating factors for a communities desire to be involved in co-management.”5

 

Collaborative management in New Zealand

 

While much of the experience of collaborative management of protected areas has taken place to date in Australia and Canada, New Zealand is developing its own responses based on our unique cultural, political, legal and ecological concerns.

 

The conservation experience in New Zealand is characterised by a diversity of traditions and a multi-faceted approach to conservation management.  Iwi, conservation, recreation and community groups, DoC, local authorities, Fish and Game Councils, land users and corporate bodies, all have a role to play in conservation activities.  Any collaborative management initiative by its very nature will embody a mix of social, cultural and governance characteristics that are relevant to a particular area or ecosystem.  It is important to acknowledge that a complementary approach to conservation management needs to be encouraged.  A range of iwi and community approaches can each contribute important support and resources to the overall goal of conservation protection and restoration.

 

There are a number of specific elements in New Zealand that will direct the structure and scope of any collaborative management initiatives.  These include:

·         the Treaty of Waitangi relationship between iwi and the Crown, and the Treaty partnership principles that have been articulated by the Courts and the Waitangi Tribunal;

·         the Department of Conservation’s management structure and its commitment to iwi through section 4 of the Conservation Act and the Kaupapa Atawhai Strategy;

·         an expectation by Mäori that as tangata whenua and kaitiaki they share the responsibility of protecting and restoring the conservation estate by being active partners in decision making;

·         a growing recognition that Mäori initiatives and approaches to meeting social and environmental goals and expressing cultural aspirations provide positive benefits to both Mäori and society and should be encouraged;

·         the threatened state of nature conservation in New Zealand, and the need for a broadly based community response to protect and restore ecosystems, habitats and indigenous species, that is informed by a sound information base and effective management systems;

·         an integrated resource management framework that recognises ecological and conservation priorities and the contribution that both Western-based and Mäori environmental traditions can make to achieving sustainability goals;

·         a common concern by most New Zealanders (Mäori, European, and other cultures) for effective environmental protection and restoration measures;

·         the significance of the conservation estate to all New Zealanders and the long-standing concern by community groups and non governmental organisations who have historically participated in the management of the estate;

·         the tradition and experience of Mäori and European being able to work together, of respecting each others cultures, and recognising the unique contribution that each culture makes to our understanding of the natural world.

 

Current difficulties for collaborative management initiatives

 

There are a number of problems that will need to be addressed as collaborative management initiatives are developed.

 

The collective experience in New Zealand of establishing and maintaining collaborative management initiatives in conservation and land management is limited.  The Landcare movement is arguably the best-known community-based programme and it is gradually being established throughout rural New Zealand.  However, it is still in its infancy, and has yet to achieve the public and political acceptance and support that is evident in Australia.  One of the difficulties is that the establishment of community-based groups cannot be stimulated by artificial inducements such as short term funding which can be removed and leave groups vulnerable.  Temporary solutions and a lack of institutional commitment are likely to be mistrusted.6

 

Community-based conservation protection and restoration models that involve the sharing of management responsibilities are also relatively uncommon.  While there are a number of legal processes and structures under the Conservation, Reserves, and Resource Management Acts that allow for consultation with the public and iwi, a conservative approach is generally evident with an institutional reluctance to advance opportunities for more progressive power sharing arrangements with community and iwi groups.

 

The lack of opportunities for meaningful dialogue between DoC, iwi, and conservation and recreation groups about different cultural perceptions towards the natural world is also inhibiting the potential for collaborative management.  There appears to be little real understanding of Mäori kaitiaki responsibilities, for instance, by many European conservationists who tend to be suspicious of Mäori aspirations for a greater say in conservation management.  Conversely, many Mäori are unaware of the complex conservation management and policy problems faced by DoC and the difficulties caused by chronic under-funding.

 

A key challenge for developing effective collaborative management programmes for the conservation estate will be the need to link them into the existing DoC management structures in an innovative and cost effective way.  Budgetary constraints, the requirements of the Public Finance Act, and established management systems pose inherent limitations on the scope of collaborative management options.  However, DoC has a responsibility to accommodate approaches by iwi, community groups and individuals who wish to participate more fully in conservation management activities.7 The Ngäi Tahu Settlement provides examples of how iwi and DoC can develop mutually satisfactory and innovative solutions for a wide range of conservation concerns.

 

The potential for collaborative management initiatives in New Zealand

 

Collaborative management is not just about extending participatory and management responsibilities from natural resource management agencies to sections of the community.  It involves a community based management approach that recognises the importance of relationships with the natural world and how they can be established, rebuilt, and experienced through collective and co-operative effort.  This ability to involve sections of the community through action, experience, and participating in decision-making is one of the strengths of the collaborative management process.  When concerned individuals and groups who share DoC’s conservation goals, are recognised and empowered in DoC management structures, their commitment to conservation can be strengthened and sustained.

 

Some of the collaborative management agreements will involve only iwi representatives and the Department of Conservation in accordance with Treaty of Waitangi and tangata whenua responsibilities, while for other agreements, it may be necessary to include a wider range of interest or community groups.  Such a range of collaborative management agreements should be seen as complementary and beneficial, not competitive or threatening.  Agreements should also not be static as they need to evolve and adapt as external factors change and new partnerships and relationships are created and strengthened.

 

To an extent, collaborative management is a form of partnership.  However, collaborative management is different from previous proposals for partnership in New Zealand because the terms for collaborative management must be developed and implemented cooperatively with all parties involved.  Partnerships in managing natural resources will obviously include the two Treaty of Waitangi partners, DoC representing the Crown, and iwi.  It is likely, though, that other collaborative management agreements will also be established that will involve new partnerships being formed between DoC and other natural resource management agencies, iwi and the wider community.

 

A suggested management approach

 

Because collaborative management is a multi-faceted approach to community based conservation activities, it is useful to outline a broad framework that can guide the development of any local initiative.  The suggested framework has a number of components: underlying themes and guiding visions, an integrated ecosystem focus, and a number of implementation elements. For the sake of brevity, the components will be listed, rather than discussed. More details on the points raised can be found in the report “Exploring Collaborative Management Initiatives between Whanganui Iwi and DoC”.8

 

The underlying themes provide the bedrock for any initiative: the Treaty of Waitangi; nature conservation concerns; and broad participation and empowerment processes.  Guiding visions will need to be articulated by the communities who are embarking on any initiative.  The visions will probably, however, embody a number of the following in some form or other: common conservation and environmental sustainability goals; empowered communities; Treaty of Waitangi partnerships; respect for tradition and diversity;  the acceptance of mätauranga Mäori; generosity of spirit and a commitment to reconciliation.  The management approaches will of necessity include an ecosystem focus that recognises the place and role of integrated, collaborative, and adaptive management principles and techniques.  Implementation mechanisms are crucial for progressing any initiative.  Experience suggests that the following are crucial: political commitment and leadership; a legal framework for shared decision making; a mutually acceptable process for working through issues; adequate resourcing and capacity building; good dispute resolution processes; a well defined group with a clear focus; a recognition that scale, time, and adaptability are all necessary for defining the problems; ‘experts’ being on tap, not on top; and the acceptance of the value of traditional and community knowledge.  Projects will also need to recognise the following issues and concerns: the relationships of hapü/iwi and Europeans with the local environment; agreement on mana whenua status; workable representative structures; the need to identify ecological priorities; the identification of communities of interest and communities of impact; the importance of building good links between tribal structures and government agencies; and mechanisms for on-going review of the whole process.

 

While the above factors are all useful for the implementation of collaborative management initiatives, a distinct New Zealand response to ecosystem management concepts will, of necessity, lie at the heart of any project.  This response connects and embraces two major elements of conservation and resource management practice that are emerging in New Zealand and the wider global community - traditional ecological knowledge and relationships with nature (expressed in Mäori tradition as kaitiakitanga) and modern scientific understanding of interconnectedness and interdependence (expressed through ecology and the ecosystem concept, biodiversity concerns, and guardianship/stewardship responsibilities).  While the importance of the authority of iwi and hapü is affirmed through the exercise of kaitiakitanga and rangatiratanga, it is equally necessary to use Western understanding of ecosystems to resolve problems of ecological management.  We are now facing the distinct possibility of Mäori and European being able to develop a complementary relationship that celebrates a diversity of approach for the common goal of living sustainably and healing damaged ecosystems.

 

It is equally important to place this response in the processes at work in the landscape and the interaction of people and cultures who live in the localities.  People who take on kaitiaki and resource guardian roles need to understand and be bound by the principles of ecosystem function.  An ecosystem approach demands a geographically broad coverage, a longer-term time frame, and the inclusion of a much more comprehensive constituency of interest groups, individuals and decision makers in resource management decisions.  It needs to focus on large physically coherent areas (eg. entire catchments, lakes, rivers) rather than small pieces such as indigenous remnants.  Such remnants should be seen as surviving segments of a lower and potentially restorable system.  In considering the processes that share the ecosystem, ecosystem management needs to look at a time-span of decades and centuries rather than a three-year budgeting cycle.  And perhaps most importantly is should include the visions, knowledge and ideas of the range of people involved with it, especially those living within the ecosystem and affected by management decisions9.

 

Finally, environmental education, capacity building and community empowerment are all key requirements for ecosystem management.  New community structures and processes that encourage local initiatives, local control, and the mobilising of local resources are necessary to address ecological projects.  The key focus has to be education, empowerment and facilitation, assisted by skilled professionals and lay people who can work at the community level by breaking down artificial barriers, creating dynamic partnerships, and setting in motion processes that have beneficial system-wide effects.

 

Reference notes:

 

1  e.g. Calder v Attorney-General of British Columbia (1973) 34 DLR (3d) 145, and Mabo v Queensland [No 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1

 

2  Berkes, F. et al 1991’Co Management: The Evolution in Theory and Practice’, Alternatives Vol 18 No 2

 

3  Arnstein, S. 1969 ‘Ladder of Citizen participation, AIP Journal

 

4  Berkes, F. 1989 ‘Co-Management: bridging the Two Solitudes’ Northern Perspectives, University of Manitoba, Canada

 

5  Furze, B. et al 1996 ‘Culture, Conservation and Biodiversity: The Social Dimensions of Linking Local Development through Protected Areas’

 

6  Blackford et al 1993 ‘Cooperative Land Management in NZ’.p. 57.

 

7  See Atawhai Ruamano Strategies and Plans.

 

8  Sunde, C; Taiepa, T; Horsley, P. 1999: Massey University, Palmerston North.

 

9  Park, G. 2000 ‘New Zealand as Ecosystems’ DoC, Wellington

 

Go to Top of Page

Discussion                       

 

Question/Comment (Tungia Baker)

I just want to share something with you because I think there might be a solution to the situation we found ourselves in very recently. You may or may not know that Kapiti Coast is a very fast growing part of the

Country and the developers are going hard for it. The Resource Management Team we have got at Whakarongotai is quite vigorous, I think would be the appropriate word. About four weeks ago one of the developers went in and uncovered some graves and bodies. The old people reclaimed the bodies. The developers, in order to continue, needed an archaeological assessment to be done. We required that to happen. It did not happen but the developers nevertheless went back in again, did some more work and subsequently uncovered another 11 bodies. The urupa is dated about 1870. We went in to recover those people and they were eventually installed in the local funeral directors place. Now there was a cost to us for doing all that. So we are suing the developer for those costs. We will sue them also for the cost of the funerals. For those people who may find themselves in that sort of situation again, Peter, what sort of advice would you have to give them? I hope that nobody ever has to do what we had to do, to go out and recover 11 bodies. Kia ora.

 

PH - Well you probably know the answer better than I do. But I would suggest that the local authority should have developed sufficient relationships with Te Ati Awa and Whakarongotai to be able to identify those particular tapu areas. There can be silent files which can be kept and people can be approached to advise whether there are burial sites or other sacred sites in the vicinity of proposed development projects. There should also  be protocols for any developer who is going to be working in an area which

Has been intensively lived in for centuries, as has been the case with Kapiti and the Horowhenua. Protocols should be drawn up so that any developer or subdivider, knows exactly what to do when human remains are found. It also comes down to knowing who to speak to on your side, which elders are appropriate, and what procedures should be followed. Respect and dialogue are the starting points and once these are established, a range of

responses can follow. I think this highlights the sorts of problems that are occurring with the RMA where Mäori issues go beyond consultation to developing much more effective ways to actively address these concerns where responsibilities have to be shared. I think there are going to be similar problems with Section 4 of the Conservation Act which has a much higher requirement than the RMA to give effect to Treaty principles. It means having to sit down and really taking these issues seriously so that agreements and procedures can be prepared and implemented with the utmost good intent.

 

 

Question/Comment (Rangi Te Maiharoa, Southland Conservation Board)

Kia ora. Back in 1986 we had the Environment Forum in Wellington and it was attended by about 170 odd invited people. Amongst them were about six Mäori people. We were given limited time during the session to get up and speak. My advice to Russell Marshall (who was the Minister of Conservation at that particular time), was to not set any policy in concrete before you go back and talk with the Mäori elders. That was away back then. It amazes me now that it has taken so long for that approach to filter through. I want

To share a little joke with you because I think that its appropriate that I share it here. Amongst the group, there were National Party and Labour Party members. Now one bright spark got up and he just said "What would be the colour if you mixed the blue with the red?" and a neighbour quickly jumped up and said "Brown". Kia ora.

 

PH - I think one of the sad things is that before the introduction of the Resource Management Act and indeed the Conservation Act, there were good aspirations and ideals to fully honour kaitiakitanga and to allow the Maori relationship with the environment to be fully expressed in decision making. But things went off the boil. I think it is now well overdue that these issues are addressed in a serious and honest way. We've got a few good examples starting to emerge in both the North and South Islands but we are still muddling along. Good pilot projects are needed to act as a fertile spawning ground so that other initiatives can be started.

 

 

Question/Comment (Janet Stephenson)

Kia ora Peter. Thank you for that very interesting presentation. You have obviously had a lot of experience with co-management projects. I wondered if you could tell us what are the most difficult areas to get through to get a co-management project off the ground?

 

PH - Building trust and good relationships. It is very straightforward. We heard that today from Lou and Tane. Unless you can find people who are willing to actually reach out and start to establish solid trust and

Working relationships and friendships, you just can't get off the starting block. That requires openness on both sides together with a generosity of spirit, a commitment to reconciliation, and acknowledging the wounds of the past and the ecological realities of the present. We have an enormous amount to do and that requires us to work together, to honour cultural diversity and each others strengths, and to try and find common ground.

 

 

Question/Comment (Rachel Puentener, Ngäi Tahu)

I am working for Ngäi Tahu as DoC liaison officer. Would you be able to comment a bit more about the capacity and resourcing issues because  they are often essential for a co-management model.

 

PH - We just finished a workshop on that point and after an hour, we  were just getting into the solid issues. It is hard to summarise what was said there, but I think that  co-management is going to work at a range of

levels, starting with small projects that can grow as capacity and confidence grows. Perhaps the first need is for all of us to become more closely linked with Mother Earth. If we understand the earth, see her wounds and understand her power for renewal, we can open ourselves with humility to the necessary learning and co-operation that is required for protection and restoration activities. That understanding has to be expressed at all levels - from bringing up our kids to developing environmental education programs and appropriate community responses. Small practical projects in particular are crucial for inspiring the community at large. These issues are best illustrated by looking at the restoration of Lake Horowhenua/Waipunahau by Muaupoko iwi and the Horowhenua Lake Trustees. It's the largest restoration project of its kind in the country and it has been an amazing learning experience for all concerned. I think one of the great gifts that Muaupoko and the Trustees have given  the Horowhenua community is the way they have approached their restoration project. They started with nothing but they were guided by tikanga, their desire to reclaim their rangatiratanga and their kaitiakitanga and an open approach that was inclusive of the community at large. Since the project started four years ago it has had an enormous positive influence. They had have good help from good people, but their vision and their energy has always been at the forefront of all the work. After careful planning, they planted 120 000 flax plants over a nine month period. After a year and a half, the harakeke have grown six to eight feet in height. That kind of growth has to be seen to be believed and the pride of accomplishment is now spinning year through the entire community. A nursery has been established and over 50,000 seedlings from local sources are being grown and planted out each year. Old enmities and conflicts are being buried and people are now talking about a whole range of related projects - riparian protection and land care projects

for streams entering the lake, and an ecological corridor to an adjoining lake (Papaitonga) and up to the Tararua Ranges. Forest and Bird has put forward an initiative to try to get $400 000 for the corridor project.

 

If a project can be started that has a clear focus and good people behind it, and if reasonably quick results can be generated, then community interest can be captured and capacity can grow. People with all sorts of skills can come on board. I have been using  Massey University students to help by preparing reports and giving them back to the community. The local Polytechnic and schools have also become involved, as have local businesses and community groups. The Regional Council, DoC, and the local District Council have also been very supportive.

 

The Lake Trustees and project team have been very skilled at highlighting the good news and bringing people on board in an open inclusive way. They have developed all sorts of new skills but they have worked in a

gradual and careful way. Perhaps most importantly, they have always acknowledged that the wairua and mauri of the land and the Lake and have been guided by both traditions - Maori and Western ecological knowledge. When these elements can be combined with community support, then small beginnings can grow into powerful stories and symbols of healing and renewal that can benefit us all. Kia ora.

 

 

Go to Top of Page

 

Go to next talk