Guy SalmonTitle: “Being a
New Zealander: Our relationship with nature”
Executive
Director, Ecologic Foundation, PO Box 756, Nelson Email:
guy@ecologic.org.nz |
|
Talk
Guy Salmon is the executive director of the Ecologic Foundation (formerly
known as the Maruia Society). He has
worked full-time for the environment movement for 28 years.
|
AbstractIn a series of
conservation policy debates over the last decade the viewpoints of Mäori on
the one hand, and mainly European conservation NGOs on the other, diverged
significantly. The principal
differences may be characterised at two levels. At the level of the conservation ethic which infuses these
viewpoints, Mäori stressed sustainability while the NGOs stressed
preservation. At the level of the
means of implementation, Mäori stressed local community management while the
NGOs stressed the role of centralised rules and State bureaucratic
control. There are a number of
important reasons to believe that the tide of history is running with the
Mäori view on both these issues. A reconciliation of our differences, and a willingness
to work together, would bring into sharp focus some underlying shared values
and a broadly shared view about New Zealand’s future. As globalisation accelerates, New
Zealand’s shared sense of identity will become vastly more important to its
destiny. In shaping this identity,
the nation will turn to Mäori and to conservationists, for together we embody
at the deepest level, some vital points of difference between New Zealand and
the rest of the world. This is an
exciting opportunity: we must be ready to rise to it together. |
Go to top of page
Talk
I
would just like to start by saying to the tangata whenua and to the organisers of
this meeting, thank you so much for the privilege of being able to be here this
weekend and to share thoughts and feelings together. I have learnt a lot and I really value now the opportunity to say
some things that I’d like to say.
Please excuse me if I touch on many large issues quite briefly. I want to touch on some of the differences
between a Mäori viewpoint on natural resource issues and the viewpoint of many
conservation NGOs or non-governmental organisations like Forest and Bird, ECO,
Greenpeace and others. I would like to
be honest about these differences. But
also, and I think this is the more important part of what I want to say, that
on many of these issues, the Mäori view has proved to be the wiser view; that
the tide of history is running with the Mäori view; and above all, that the
differences that we have had and may continue to have, need to be put into some
perspective and set to one side. This
is because I believe that what we have that unites us is more important than
what divides us. The time has come when
we need to step on to a larger stage together to say something to the rest of
New Zealand about the values that we hold in common.
Let
me start with a controversial image.
This was perhaps an image which should have been part of Nora’s
presentation just now. It shows an area
of virgin beech forest in the Waikoau Valley, in western Southland, adjoining
Fiordland National Park, which is being clear-felled. It is Mäori land. Yet I
stand with Nora in her analysis of the problem here, that this is not just a
Mäori problem; there is a long history to this issue. I believe that the real problem has been the failure of the Crown
to step forward and compensate the owners of these lands. When one asks why the Crown cannot see its
way clear to do that, when it can find $120 million for people on the West
Coast, I think you have to step behind the Crown and ask where are the Green
movements? Where are the NGOs who you
would expect to speak out about this issue?
Why do we have such a silence, a sour silence about this issue? My fear, particularly in this valley - which
I flew over and took this photograph only a few weeks ago - is that there is
now very little forest left. By the
time the Government finally moves, it may all be gone.
In
the end, every culture is struggling to live up to its own values. We are building the integrity of our
cultures, as we get our actual behaviour closer to our ideals. But in a case like this, a positive outcome
also depends on the two cultures working together and understanding each other
well. Those involved here have to build
that mutual understanding, before they can act.
I
want to go through half a dozen case studies of the last decade where Mäori and
conservation NGOs have been in conflict.
There have been two big differences, I think. One is the European NGOs emphasising nature preservation as their aspiration, while the Mäori
communities are putting a little more emphasis on sustainable use of natural resources. The second difference has been that the NGO community has had a
strong liking for centralised rules and for State control, while the Mäori
people have been speaking of the need for local community management.
Those
are the two big differences that I see have emerged in these debates, and
they’re summed up perhaps in these pictures.
In the middle there you have a picture of kaimoana reefs. It is not exactly a Craig Potton photograph
– it has some people in it. It is a
Mäori view of the world, in a way of kaimoana reefs from which the community
takes a harvest, with the people there being a central part of the story. And then crowding in on them, in the one
hand is that idyllic image that embodies the aspiration of the European
conservation community for an untouched landscape with no humans in it at all;
and on the other side, I show the government’s Coat or Arms, a symbol of the
authority of the State pushing in and asserting its dominant role over the
local community.
The
next picture is of Graham Metzger who is with us today, kia ora Graham. Graham is holding a traditional poha
containing titi. We recently had a
rather unsatisfactory debate on customary use of native plants and animals. It was teed off by the New Zealand
Conservation Authority, I think with excellent intentions. Yet it was unsatisfactory, for two
reasons. One was that it came to no
resolution. The other was that it
showed a lack of capacity, especially I fear on the conservation NGOs’ side, to
listen to the Mäori viewpoint. Mäori
were wanting more local flexibility and local control over the question of
harvest of traditional plants and animals.
But this something which in the NGO community generally opposed. A few conservationists said, ‘that’s okay as
long as it is sustainable’ but many simply said ‘we can’t agree with that in
principle at all.’
It
is worth reminding ourselves about the centuries of traditions that lie behind
the aspiration for customary use. You
see it in this picture of Graham and his nephew, in the traditions being passed
down from one generation to the next.
There is the special woven flax basket and kelp bag that is used for
storing the mutton birds. There again
it is in the bottom photo of the interior of a wharenui, incorporating many natural resources which are given a
special meaning in that context. These
things do command the attention of everybody, calling on us to think about
those traditions and to be willing to respect them; and to also recognise the
connection between such uses of resources and the sustaining of the natural
environment.
Then
we have the debate which Trevor Howse spoke about earlier, between the concepts
of Taiäpure and Mätaitai on the one hand, and marine reserves as promoted by
Department of Conservation and Forest and Bird on the other hand. We find that the programme of creating
marine reserves has been stalled in many areas, certainly throughout the South
Island and many parts of the North Island, by iwi objections. Again the issues are about sustainable
harvest and about local community management.
My
next image is of the Whangapoua Harbour on Aotea, Great Barrier Island. That harbour is one of the potentially great
marine reserves of New Zealand because it includes a wonderful deep ocean
up-welling zone which is rich in biodiversity; it includes sea mounts topped
with great red corals some of the unique organisms like octopods which are
dying out. Yet because of a mutual lack
of understanding, lack of ability to make some compromises, we still don’t have
any agreement about what is to happen to that area.
Then
there is the sad story of the East Coast Forestry Project, centred north of
Gisborne in an area with massive soil erosion problems. There have been – and still are – Government
subsidy schemes to plant trees to contain that soil erosion. It is also an area of severe socio-economic
impoverishment and the people who live there, mostly Mäori people,
understandably place economic development as a crucial priority for them.
When
the forestry companies came forward with a joint venture with Ngäti Porou
Whanui Forests Ltd, there was common ground that any remaining mature native
forest should be protected. But there
was disagreement about the future of the kanuka- manuka vegetation communities. That vegetation is a seral vegetation type, something
which springs up quickly in the wake of land clearance and which, if it is
cleared itself, will spring up quickly again.
But it won’t progress through to a mature native forest unless it is
fenced and the stock are kept out of it.
There are thousands of hectares of it on Mäori land on the East
Coast. The tangata whenua of that area
made an appeal to the conservationists by saying, ‘look, we will preserve much
of this kanuka vegetation and fence it off and allow it to return to native
forest if you could agree to us clearing some other areas so that we can earn a
living from growing our pine plantations there.’
Unfortunately,
some of the NGOs couldn’t accept any compromise in that situation. They used
their power of veto through the New Zealand Forests Accord to stop the forestry
company from proceeding with its aforestation plans on the East Coast. The tangata whenua, I feel, bitterly turned
away then from further dialogue. They
found another company that was not bound by the Forests Accord, a Korean
company, and now they are clear-felling the kanuka there. To me it is a great pity that those who
could have had – those who did have -
so much in common could not have resolved their differences in that
situation. That conflict also damaged
our prospects of reconciliation on so many other issues.
I
would now like to consider the question of the sustainable harvest of native
forest. Some people look at this
photograph and see a stump: they see it as a symbol of man’s destructiveness
and exploitation of the natural environment.
Other people look at that same photograph and they see the regeneration
as well, the next forest coming up around the stump from the seedlings there. I guess that the perspective you have comes
partly from your cultural background but the latter vision comes, I think, from
a willingness to reflect a little longer and see a little more. Perhaps that is what we so often need to do
on these issues.
My
next picture is of graffiti sprayed on a Wellington wall by people who support
Native Forest Action. It says “No
whaleburgers, no tuatara handbags, no rimu furniture.” It expresses the idea that the right message
for conservationists to put forward is one of progressively declaring more and
more elements of the natural environment to be sacred, to be untouchable,
regardless of ownership, regardless of history, regardless of sustainability,
regardless of the intent in the minds of the people who want to harvest. A really important question is what the
attitude of those conservationists is to the 650,000 hectares of native forest
that is in private ownership. Almost
half of that is in Mäori ownership and some of those owners would perhaps like
to take a sustainable wood harvest. We
face this stand-off, with many conservation NGOs and their supporters simply
holding to a view that any harvest of native trees would be morally wrong.
I
believe that there is a tide of history in human attitudes to these
things. I believe that on each of the
issues that I have been speaking about, the tide is running with Mäori. NGOs believe passionately in the importance
of wilderness. It gives a certain
meaning to one’s life to be able to respect and value untouched nature. Yet the challenge, I think, is to take a
less rigid view of what we mean by ‘untouched’. I believe we can also include nature which is carefully or
lovingly touched as part of the value we aspire to uphold; not just the wild
but also the cared-for parts of the natural environment. Thus we can try to achieve a better balance
in our distinctive ethic, one in which wilderness is part of our aspiration as
environmentalists, but not the whole part.
In this way we can set wilderness in a larger context of sustainability. Of course sustainability is a great part of
the European tradition. You think of
those European farmlands that have been looked after by my ancestors, and
others’ ancestors, for generations. We
have a wider tradition there than just wilderness, and it is a tradition we
have to rediscover if we are to do justice to the full extent of the human
relationship with nature. That is
because the wilderness ethic alone cannot adequately guide us to a proper relationship
with nature.
The
passion for wilderness is coming to a limit, I believe, because there is not
much wilderness left to “save”. I put
the word “save” in inverted commas because, of course, we have only saved it
from the direct impact of humans. We
haven’t saved it from the possums or from the stoats which are degrading its
biodiversity. The total biomass of the
South Island’s native forest is declining by 4% every decade, not because
humans are harvesting, but because we are failing to control the possums.
The
philosopher Robert Goodin has tried to articulate what is central to the
environmental ethic in the European tradition.
As he does so, I believe he brings us closer to the environmental ethic
in the Mäori tradition. My picture here
of organic farmers with their carrots is a reminder again that Europeans, in
their own tradition, have something to be proud of that is not just about
wilderness preservation. It is about
looking after nature, and tending it lightly and lovingly. These are Goodin’s words, from his book Green Political Theory:
If
what we value about nature is that it allows us to see our own lives in some
larger context, then we need not demand that nature be literally untouched by
human hands. We need demand merely that
it be touched only lightly or – if you prefer – lovingly by them.
I
believe that the ethic of sustainability is about touching nature lightly and
lovingly. There has been a tendency in
recent times to portray those who speak about sustainability as wanting to
sustain only those things that are valued by humans such as timber or
fish. That is too hasty; and it is
certainly a wrong characterisation of the ethic of sustainability. The sustainability ethic is not just about
sustaining humans’ economic needs and manipulating nature for that
purpose. The sustainability ethic is also about sustaining the intrinsic
values of nature.
The
other difference I’ve seen between Mäori and the conservation NGOs has been on
the question of local community management.
Again, I think the tide of history here is running with the Mäori
view. I would point to these two great
trends in the introduction of certain principles that we see all around the
world. First, the principle of subsidiarity. This is the idea that you should devolve decisions to the lowest
possible level, to the community of interest that is directly affected by the
decisions being taken. That principle
is enshrined in the European Union, is being implemented in many countries and
is implicit in the regional and local administration of our Resource Management
Act.
The
second great principle is one of accountability,
that people in power should not just have the right to do what they like, but
they should explain and justify their decisions to the people. I think that those two principles driving
together embody what Mäoridom has long been trying to say to us. I think that DOC is changing and responding
to both those great international trends.
It has tended to operate a centralised model with little real
accountability, either locally or nationally, but its Treaty obligation turns
it toward local people, makes conservation managers face the tangata whenua and
indeed, other conservationists in the region, and opens the dialogue. Gradually DOC is being transformed and
flattened to become increasingly a locally accountable organisation.
Yet
I think we saw something quite important when the contrast was drawn between
what Timberlands had to do to win consent for its proposed sustainable
management of native forest, and what DOC has to do when it wants consent for
its conservation management strategies on forests in any region. Timberlands had to make an application to
the local authority. It had to face
hearings. The scientists that wanted to
testify against it were able to be heard by an independent body. And there was a right of appeal to the
Environment Court – a powerful accountability mechanism. DOC, on the other hand, has nothing
equivalent. There is no independent
assessment of the sustainability of DoC’s management of its forests and this is
something which I believe we should seek to change.
Let
me step back now to the wider picture.
I see two big trends or forces, which are shaping our destiny in
Aotearoa/New Zealand. One is
globalisation. Look at this picture of
a city. What city could it be? It could be almost anywhere. It is actually Singapore. We are competing with the skills and
know-how of people all around the world in a way that we never have
before. At the same time everything is
becoming homogenised, so that we risk losing our identity, our distinctiveness
and our sense of community in that huge globalisation process. The second great trend that we have to face
is one of economic decline; my next image is of the Mataura Mill, just half an
hour’s drive from here, where hundreds of people are losing their jobs. Those are the white crosses that mark the
place where people once earned a livelihood.
We
as conservationists and as Mäori must respond to globalisation and economic
decline. I believe we have the values
to enable us to do so. New Zealand’s
future as a country, as a community, depends on our response to these two
things. In the face of globalisation,
in the face of the reality of our economic decline, which has been happening
throughout my adult life, we need to find a way forward. We need to find an ability to work better
together. We need to find a way to
attract our people back to New Zealand and to keep the young people that we
have here in our community.
How
can we do that? I suggest that it is
partly at least a question of articulating our collective values more strongly,
building our communities more strongly, making people feel they want to be
here, feel they want to work together.
That will drive our economic revival.
It will also drive our cultural revival.
In
a globalised world, what is our sense of national identity as a country? We latched on to the America’s Cup, we
thought we were the great yachtsmen of the world and our chests swelled with
pride. But then the great yachtsmen
left and went to sail for some other country.
We began to realise that those commercially constructed ideas of
national identity are rather transient, and that if we really want to get at
what our national identity is, we have to get down to the realities of our situation
here in the South Pacific. We have to delve into the realities of our history,
and we have to build a national identity around those things. If we really want to have a durable basis
for national identity we need to affirm and celebrate, and further develop,
what is good about our history and our age-old values.
So
what is a New Zealander? I put to you a
couple of defining characteristics of New Zealanders that fences us off from
everybody else and give us a sense of who we are. The first is our relationship with Mäori. If one is a New Zealander, one is either a
Mäori, or one is someone who shares an island with Mäori. The aspiration that has flowed from that is
an aspiration for two peoples to live together and to do it well. We took a great step in that direction when
we signed the Treaty. We have drifted
away from that. But we are coming back
and we are striving again. It is a
persistent national concern. It is one
of the pillars of being a New Zealander.
And
a second pillar, I suggest, is our relationship with nature. A New Zealander is someone whose ancestors –
European or Mäori – were settlers who plundered a biological treasure house the
like of which the world has never seen.
Our plants and animals were separated from the rest of the biota of the
planet for 70 million years and had become unique. Our ancestors plundered that treasure house. I believe that we, each of us, all New
Zealanders, have learnt from that experience.
The aspiration that has evolved from that lesson and which is embodied
now in our national identity, is an aspiration to honour nature by living in a
sustainable way. We may not do it well
yet, but I believe that a key thing that New Zealanders have in common is that aspiration.
So
I’m really saying that in the end, when they get past the America’s Cup and all
the other things that they thought were great about New Zealand, the nation
will have to turn to us - to Mäori and to conservationists - because we
together embody some values and connections which at the deepest level are New
Zealand’s defining points of identity
in a globalised world. If we are to
shape our country’s future as Mäori and as conservationists, we now need to
step beyond the differences that I have been speaking about. We must resolve them if we can, but above
all, focus on our shared values which we can communicate and excite the rest of
New Zealand with.
This
photograph is of Kevin Prime, a few years ago before he turned grey and
distinguished, with his son. Those
values of sustainability reflect a connection across generations, a belief that
we must manage our country in a way that respects the needs of future
generations. They also reflect
connection to the landscape and to nature which is so powerfully expressed both
in Mäori tradition and in the feelings of European conservationists toward
nature. Flowing from those values,
there is a practical commitment to building a sustainable way of life. That’s a way of life which intelligently
understands that we must take resources from nature and that we must return our
wastes to nature. But it understands
that we must do those things in a sustainable way. The outcome I suggest will be that when we speak of sustainability, we will use the term to
refer not only to the environment, but also to the need to build a sustainable
society socially and economically – a holistically
sustainable society.
I
believe those can be core elements of a national identity for New Zealand and
the question I ask is, who is going to articulate that? Who is going to lead? Surely it must be us. It must be that we will come together and we
will articulate those things. So I make
a plea to each and every one of you: that if we share this vision, let us work
together. Let us resolve our differences
where we can, acknowledge and set aside those that we cannot, but walk together on the larger stage. New Zealand needs to hear from us. Let’s build a network amongst ourselves for
cultural change in New Zealand through all of the different institutions of our
society. Let’s share ideas and
opportunities to influence New Zealand’s future through political parties,
through Government agencies, through the media, through the arts and literary
communities, and through the organisations of civil society. That is the challenge that I hope we can
take from this meeting.
It
is been a wonderful meeting. It is been
a great sharing of feelings and ideas.
I believe there is something here that we can go forward with, and take
to other New Zealanders.
Thank you.
Discussion
Question/Comment
(John Bain, SILNA shareholder)
Kia ora
tatou. Tina koutou. Tënä koutou. I want to tell you a little story about Guy. I first met Guy probably 10 - 12 years ago
while we had an occasion to be in Parliament Buildings on account of the SILNA
land issues. I was a trustee at that time. We were there in that quite a
daunting place and Guy was sitting there with the Green Movement who we
classified as the enemy I suppose.
However It wasn’t long before we realised that Guy had a message that he
was trying to put across to everybody there.
His message was for the Green Movement to get behind Mäori and the SILNA
owners. The Green movement is still
coming here today with their same story, so we have gone on for years and years
trying to get some resolution to our land issues. So Guy I thank you for your körero here this morning. Also thank Nora for her körero. Thank you both for coming down here and
sharing with us. Kia ora.
Question/Comment
(Henrik Moller)
Kia ora tatou.
I would like to broaden that statement out to more general issues beyond
SILNA. Guy has been an absolute
inspiration to the conservation movement more widely. He’s collected an
enormous amount of anger and personal attack for the way he has tried to shift
the conservation movement along from wholly preservation to include
conservation through sustainable use.
He saw the need for that change a good 10 years ago. He has been visionary and has carried a
personal cost which I would like just to acknowledge, Guy. It’s been enormously important that you have
been up there showing the way to change and that you have been able to keep
going somehow. I hope the tide is
coming more to your emphasis on sustainability and that conservationists will
recognise your commitment. Kia ora.
Question/Comment
(Shaun Weaver)
Kia ora tatou.
I just want to thank Guy for that inspiring delivery. There were two things there that speak
loudly to me which are the theme of globalisation and the theme of social and
economic decline in New Zealand. It
strikes me that these two things are very linked. There is an increase in understanding of the processes of
globalisation and its impacts on communities and the way that communities are
losing very real control over their resources in the wake of ever increasing
globalisation. It might be the
devolution of political authority to smaller and smaller communities but at the
same time it also involves the increase of economic authority into the hands of
sometimes very small groups of very, very powerful non Government entities
which in a sense is the large corporate world.
As a member of a community who is passionate about this country, I am
very sad to see the loss of control of the resources of the country by the
people of this country to large interests which come from elsewhere. Some business enterprises may use ideas of
sustainability to legitimate their actions and their ideas sound very nice but
sometimes they don’t actually happen.
My view here is that if we can build trust between all sectors of
society, between businesses in communities and between Päkehä and Mäori then we
need to be genuine and recognise when something is genuine. And we need to recognise when something
might be a public relations exercise. I
don’t want to be cynical when I say that - I have experience in seeing very
genuine business relationships with communities. However, I have also seen situations where this theme of
sustainability has been used as a way to divert people’s attention from other
things that are going on. When those
things are questioned, I think its time for businesses to have some
transparency. I’m not referring to any
one particular situation. These
situations exist in the Fisheries area and in the Forestry area and
Agricultural area. We now have this
Royal Commission on Genetic Engineering beginning at the moment where major
influences are involved. I think that
if we can invite everyone to be honest and transparent, then we will build that
trust and we will be able to take those steps into the future. I think again that trust is the key and
that’s something we all have to earn from each other. So thank you Guy and thank you everyone who’s helped organise
this wonderful hui. I hope that I will
be able to keep coming to a hui like this in many years to come. Kia ora.
Question/Comment
(Edward Ellison, Te Runanga o Ngäi Tahu)
Kia ora Guy.
It is a great privilege to be present and to listen to such an inspiring
presentation. I think you walk the
talk. You are putting a vision out
there of how I see the Treaty could work in an ideal world. I think that what you are explaining to us,
and I’ve always believed it, is that the Treaty is a strength to this nation,
not an impairment in the way many people believe it is. I think that is an important message and
thank you for reinforcing it. One of
the issues that I do have is that those who have promoted ‘preservation’ have
also helped produce much of the legislation that governs the way we manage our
resources and our environment. This is
such a hard process to break past and change.
That’s one of the great difficulties we have. I am on the New Zealand Conservation Authority for my second
term. It is not very often that we have
such inspiring presentations. Only
rarely do we actually meet people who give a real message like the one we’ve
had here today. A message that can take
us forward with vision. It is the same
for us at a tribal level in Te Runanga o Ngäi Tahu. We struggle and wrestle
with how we are going to empower our communities and out of the blue there is a
presentation where the penny drops, or the light bulb goes on. I think your presentation was of that
nature. I’d just like to thank you and
I’m very pleased to have been here to have heard your message.
Question/Comment
(Kerry Jane Wilson, Lincoln University)
I would like to reinforce some of the points that Guy and Shaun made. There are two great challenges that I see to
New Zealand: Firstly, retaining New
Zealanders’ (Mäori and Päkehä) control over natural resources in an
increasingly globalised world. I see
that as one of the very great challenges this nation faces and one that at the
moment we are dealing with very, very badly.
In the last few years we’ve seen most of our strategic assets and much
of our land sold to Foreign investors.
I think that’s one of the great retrograde steps of the last decade.
The other challenge that Guy touched on, and I
smiled at his definition, is our identity as New Zealanders. He defined us as either being a Mäori or
someone who shares an island with Mäori.
I would like to think there is a lot more to our identity as Päkehä than
someone who lives here with Mäori. I
think our search for identity as New Zealanders, particularly as Päkehä New
Zealanders, is another of the great challenges that we as Päkehä are just
beginning to explore. Kia ora
Question/Comment
(Leslie Shand)
I would like to thank Guy
for his inspiring talk. I was also
inspired by Kevin Prime’s talk on ‘getting out and doing’ and what his
volunteers and his people did to restore an area. I am very aware that the Forest and Bird’s 56 branches have
practical projects on the ground which they are perpetually doing. I would invite the Ecological Society to
come up with targets in places all across New Zealand and as groups to invite
people to be part of their practical projects.
So, could we not just ‘talk’, could we ‘do’? Thank you Guy.