Maori, the indigenous peoples of New Zealand, have been practicing kaitiakitanga over natural resources since their ancestors first arrived some 1,000 years ago. The principle of kaitiakitanga, as it is known in the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, is often referred to as the principle of “guardianship”. But there are other shades of interpretation. In order to understand more fully what kaitiakitanga means for this report, a broad explanation of the term is given.
The word kaitiakitanga derives from the term ‘tiaki’ which literally means to care for or guard.[1] When combined with the prefix ‘kai’ the literal translation means “caretaker, guardian, conservator, or trustee.”[2] Though this may seem a straight forward translation, Kawharu explains that implications arise when the interpretation of the term guardianship differs between Maori and non-Maori. One of the consequences Kawharu states is that the misinterpretation of the term means that it becomes “simplified”.[3] Trustee obligations may not be properly understood if only a simplified interpretation is considered. For Maori, guardianship as a translation of kaitiakitanga means taking care of not only the physical element of resources but also the spiritual. Kaitiakitanga is a holistic principle. It is “a means of resource management and administration in environmental and social contexts”.[4] Kawharu explains kaitiakitanga could also apply to commercial resource development “so long as metaphysical and physical aspects of both the resource and the local kin group are protected and managed accordingly.”[5]
Another aspect of kaitiakitanga is that guardianship over resources in kin groups is practiced by kaitiaki specific to each region. For instance, in the Northland district of the Hokianga sea creatures including Stingrays are often seen as kaitiaki of the harbour. Kawharu states that in the environmental world, kaitiaki “oversee exploitation as much as preservation of physical resources.”[6] This aspect may be hard for non-Maori to perceive as they would not have the same spiritual connection that Maori do to certain areas and resources. This is why co-management between Maori and local councils over natural resources are vital.
In the physical world, the kaitiaki are individuals and kin groups.[7] Each whanau, hapu and/or iwi has a responsibility over the management and preservation of the resources and estates in their areas. Kaitiakitanga, in the physical and spiritual world is about a two way relationship between kaitiaki and the resource – there are obligations to give, receive and repay – an ethic of reciprocity as Kawharu explains. This “ethic of reciprocity”[8] is systematic to the relationship Maori have with the environment, a foundation that may not be well understood. For in practical terms this means that by taking care of resources, resources will in turn provide the necessities of survival – food, or materials for clothing or housing. For example, sustainable fishing practices framed by kaitiakitanga meant taking only what was required. A ‘first’ fish may be offered back to Tangaroa (God of the Sea); the fishing waters would not be polluted by throwing fish remains back into the water, and so on.
In order to understand the essential element of rahui, which is tapu, a broad explanation of what rahui is explained. The essential meaning that is associated with tapu, Barlow explains, is the power and influence of the gods and is present (at times) in land, rivers, and sea.[9] Tapu is ‘awoken’ through karakia (prayer) that “transcends the sacredness” of an object or area. Once sacredness over an area or an object has been exercised, gods may exercise protection, guidance, or management over it; this as Kawharu states is kaitiakitanga.[10] In the physical realm, rahui were traditionally evident with the symbol of pou, or posts, near areas that were tapu. Today rahui are often implemented with the use of signposts, public notices in local newspapers, or sometimes regulations by local councils outlining restrictions around beaches, rivers or other areas.
[1] Marsden and Henare, 1992 as cited by M. Kawharu 2000, 350.
[2] Ibid, 349.
[3] Ibid,351.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid, 352.
[7] Ibid, 353.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Barlow, 1991 as cited in Kawharu, 357.
[10] Ibid.