Co-management initiatives are intended to improve the sustainable management of environments and natural resources and foster more equitable sharing of power between the state and Indigenous peoples. However, there are still ongoing debates about who actually benefits from such co-management frameworks in practice. In this chapter, we examine whether the co-management framework for the upper catchment of the Waipā River is an instrument for transforming the historically inequitable relationships between Māori and the Crown and if Ngāti Maniapoto desires for improved river health and increased capacities to exercise their self-determination rights are being fully realised. We demonstrate that the meaning of co-management differs between iwi and state actors. Ngāti Maniapoto perceive that co-management is bound to their mana (power and sovereignty) and rangatiratanga (authority and self-determination rights) over their river (Waipā River). Local government officials, in contrast, interpret that co-management is about ensuring greater consultation with iwi and making sure that iwi are involved in formal advisory bodies that feed into local government decision-making processes. We show how Ngāti Maniapoto are seeking to establish and implement their own co-management policies and plans to protect and restore their awa and disrupt the authority and knowledge claims of the settler-state’s environmental management regime. Indigenous groups like Ngāti Maniapoto are simultaneously following existing settler-state policies and planning processes, and also reconfiguring or subverting them to shift freshwater management away from the Eurocentric paradigm of water as a resource and a river as a landscape feature to wai (water) as a living entity that holds its own mauri (life force) and an awa (river) as a tupuna (ancestor) and taonga (treasure).

We document the ways in which the introduction of the Resource Management Act (RMA) in 1991 went some way towards procedural inclusion of Māori interests but did recognise Māori iwi decision-making authority over their rohe (traditional lands and waters). However, the emergence of new legislation and resulting co-management arrangements (introduced since the mid-2010s) are providing Māori iwi with greater influence in relation to day-to-day operations as well as planning and policy changes about river management (New Zealand Parliament 1991, 2010a, 2017; Ngā Wai o Maniapoto (Waipā River) Act 2012; Rangitāiki River Forum 2015; Waikato River Authority 2011). We then consider the extent to which new legislation enacted as part of Treaty settlements fulfils its potential in providing Ngāti Maniapoto with the ability to intervene in freshwater management decisions. Before we proceed to our examples from Aotearoa, it is important to situate our research within the context of broader scholarship on Indigenous freshwater co-management.

Indigenous Co-Management of Freshwater

Co-management is an increasingly prominent arrangement in the context of Indigenous peoples and natural resource management, including freshwater. Although definitions of co-management vary (Armitage et al. 2009; Berkes 2009; Denny and Fanning 2016; Dowsley 2009; Jacobson et al. 2016), it generally is used to refer to a suite of governance and management arrangements aimed at finding solutions to pressing environmental problems (Berkes 1989; Bouma et al. 2017; Diver 2016; Dowsley and Wenzel 2008). Co-management approaches strive to adjust the relationships between the state and non-state actors to provide mutual advantages to those involved. Often described as a way of managing relationships (state, Indigenous, and interest groups) rather than managing natural resources, co-management arrangements generally involve an element of sharing decision-making power between state and non-state actors (most notably Indigenous peoples) (Natcher et al. 2005; Natcher and Davis 2007; White 2020).

Co-management involves some degree of joint decision-making about freshwater management. Yet, since “jointness” takes place on a continuum, co-management (as a term and a practice) implies a high degree of ambiguity. Co-management, thus, describes consultative arrangements that involve governments seeking to consult with community stakeholders, industry, and Indigenous peoples, but not necessarily share power with them. In Canada, for instance, such co-management institutions are extensively used within fisheries and biodiversity conservation (Dowsley 2009; Feit 2005; White 2020). Such co-management arrangements are treated as advisory bodies (to provide advice to government) with the Canadian provincial and federal government continuing to retain the final decision-making authority. On the other hand, the term co-management can also apply to arrangements that enable a large degree of community control in environmental management. In the Pacific Northwest, for instance, co-management arrangements between Indigenous nations (“treaty tribes”) and the settler-state were first created in the 1970s, after court decisions upheld Indigenous peoples’ treaty rights to fish salmon. Since then, co-management arrangements within the Columbia River salmon fishery resulted in joint authority between state and Indigenous peoples at all levels of decision-making (with the courts playing a key role in ensuring the meaningful participation of Indigenous peoples in such arrangements) (Diver 2009; Diver et al. 2019; Pinkerton 2018). Working through such nested institutions, Columbia River Indigenous peoples who hold treaty rights are also now shaping fisheries policy at the international level and also contributing to the sustainable management of salmon fisheries (Diver 2012).

A key debate related to co-management is whether it actually contributes towards Indigenous peoples’ desires for self-determination (Barrie 2018; Diver et al. 2019; Larsen 2018; Lowitt et al. 2019; Nuttall 2018). The term self-determination itself is highly debated amongst academics and Indigenous leaders (Daigle 2016; Durie 1998; Heinämäki et al. 2017; Rifkin 2017; Walker 1990) but here is taken to mean “Indigenous communities being able to participate meaningfully in the creation of the government institution that they live with” (Diver 2014, p. 6). One central question (for scholars and practitioners) is the extent to which co-management regimes result in more equitable sharing of decision-making authority between governments and Indigenous communities in practice. Another question is whether Indigenous peoples’ involvement in co-management efforts translate into meaningful benefits for them, such as greater access to resources, capacity building for Indigenous communities, and ongoing support for restoration projects.

Given the unequal power dynamics between Indigenous peoples and government entities, strong concerns are raised about co-management functioning as a tool that co-opts or continues to exclude Indigenous interests (Castro and Nielsen 2001; Muru-Lanning 2012). On the one hand, some studies conclude that many co-management initiatives are not effective because they do not result in the meaningful divisions of responsibility and collaborations. In part, this failure is traced to state bureaucratic systems continuing to privilege (and reinforce) the position of the state (and interest groups aligned with the state), and hegemonic Euro-Western knowledge systems continue to marginalise other (Indigenous and other non-Western) worldviews, knowledges and values (Nadasdy 2007; Parsons et al. 2019; Weir 2009). On the other hand, some scholars maintain that co-management arrangements provide clear opportunities to shift institutional norms, change societal expectations about management outcomes, and contribute to policy transformations (Diver 2016; Te Aho 2015; Zurba et al. 2012). Since state institutions are not monolithic and neither are Indigenous organisations, there is the potential for co-management arrangements to be flexible and adapted to suit changing expectations, knowledges, and socio-economic, political, cultural and ecological conditions. While there are imperfections with existing co-management arrangements, there is mounting evidence that co-management arrangements can provide Indigenous peoples with the ability to develop and pursue their own environmental management and restoration initiatives that can co-exist with government-led resource management strategies (Berkes and Armitage 2010; Denny and Fanning 2016; Diver 2014; White 2020). Accordingly, the existing literature on co-management broadly addresses both the opportunities and challenges of sharing knowledge between Indigenous communities and government agencies.

The ability of government departments to accept different (multiple) ontologies and epistemologies is often hampered by how they are designed (although that differs between contexts).

The extent to which state agencies recognise Indigenous peoples’ spiritual relationships with their local environments, is an indication of the disconnect between settler-state (and the dominant worldview that underpins the state) and Indigenous peoples’ and their knowledge systems (Castleden et al. 2017; Howitt and Suchet-Pearson 2006; Lavau 2013). Common practises of attempting to translate Indigenous knowledge concepts into narrow categories or formats that fit within the existing knowledge systems and institutional structures of settler-state agencies often result in incomplete representations (an injustice by way of misrecognition) of complex Indigenous concepts (Arsenault et al. 2019; Hikuroa et al. 2011; Nadasdy 2007). Following Diver (2014) and Weinstein (1999), there are also concerns surrounding the “capture” of information, where the redistribution of information can lead to a lack of collective power over important natural resources, especially under open-access circumstances (such as everyone being able to access water or hunt fauna freely) (Diver 2014; Heaslip 2008; Weinstein 1999). For example, sharing in-depth community knowledge with agencies about the location of natural resources, such as flora and fauna, could result in increased harvesting by outsiders (Marsh et al. 2015; Nadasdy 2007; Ross et al. 2011).

Some scholars argue that co-management is an ongoing problem-solving process, rather than an entrenched model that involves extensive discussion, deliberation, negotiation and joint social learning within networks established for problem-solving (Berkes 2009; Zurba et al. 2012). From this standpoint, research into co-management arrangements should be directed at understanding how different management tasks are organised and allocated, and by extension concentrate on the functions and activities, rather than the structure, of the co-management regime. Such an approach to examining co-management arrangements offers the potential to highlight how the sharing of power and responsibilities is the result (not the starting point) of the process (Berkes 2009; Zurba et al. 2012).

The Resource Management Act: Recognition of Māori Interests

First introduced in 1991, the Resource Management Act (RMA) remains Aotearoa’s key legislation for environmental management (Barnett and Pauling 2005; Grundy and Gleeson 1996). The purpose of the RMA is “to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources” (section 5) (Crow et al. 2018; Knight 2016; New Zealand Parliament 1967). It allows for greater public participation than previous legislation, which specifically provides for Māori to participate in planning processes (resource consents) (Burton and Cocklin 1996; Lowry and Simon-Kumar 2017). The RMA (1991) contains specific provisions related to Māori interests in Part II of the Act (Purpose and Principles), which instructs all persons exercising functions and powers under it. Inclusion of the Māori concepts of kaitiakitanga (environmental guardianship) and taonga (treasures) marked a significant shift in recognition of Māori interests in environmental management that was glaringly absent from earlier environmental (and other) legislation.

The RMA (1991) went some way to address the lack of procedural inclusion for Māori in government-led environmental planning and decision-making processes in that iwi (tribes) were required to be consulted about planning applications (resource consents) that could impact them; however, this required district or regional councils to determine whether the applications were sufficiently important to justify public notification and public hearing processes (Burton and Cocklin 1996; Lowry and Simon-Kumar 2017). In this way, decision-making powers remained with the settler-state (district and regional councils), and Māori capacities to shape decisions remained severely constrained. Indeed, procedural, recognition and distributive injustices (as we discussed in regard to water pollution in the Waipā River in Chap. 5) continued even after the RMA (1991) was introduced.

The inclusion of Māori interests in water and land management through legislation paralleled developments in other settler-societies. In all settler-nations, Indigenous peoples have called for greater recognition of their rights and responsibilities to (and for) their rohe as well as the legal authority to make decisions about their rohe and their people. International scholars highlight that attempts to recognise Indigenous peoples through legislation (such as the RMA) frequently disregard or redress the multiple ways in which the setter-state deliberately excluded Indigenous cultures, knowledges, and practices from environmental management regimes (Hartwig et al. 2018; Jackson and Barber 2016; McLean 2014; Poelina et al. 2019). The re-distribution of power and changes to water governance and management approaches are a fundamental part of addressing the historical and contemporary environmental injustices faced by Indigenous peoples. Thus, the creation of new collaborative governance and management arrangements are critical to the advancement of Indigenous capacities to manage their water resources effectively and improve river management (Tsatsaros et al. 2018). Next, we examine the development of co-management arrangements between the New Zealand Government (Crown) and Ngāti Maniapoto in 2012 and show how it represented an important shift in formal decision-making processes in relation to the Waipā River. In doing so, the co-management arrangements strengthen the provisions of the RMA to ensure that Ngāti Maniapoto are procedural included in freshwater management.

Giving Effect to Co-Management of the Waipā River

As the preceding chapters make clear, Ngāti Maniapoto endured ongoing and systematic exclusion from formal institutional processes and the management of the Waipā since colonisation and were affected significantly by the radical transformation of land- and waterscapes in their rohe. In 2012, co-governance and co-management of the Waipā River were formalised through the passing of the Ngā Wai o Maniapoto (Waipā River) Act 2012 (referred to as the Waipā River Act), which gives effect to the Deed of Settlement and Waiwaia Accord signed by the Crown and Maniapoto Maori Trust Board (MMTB) in 2010. MMTB, as the only existing governance entity for Ngāti Maniapoto, currently represents Ngāti Maniapoto in national matters affecting iwi Māori and is the post-settlement governance entity for Ngāti Maniapoto (Jones 2016).

In the Deed of Settlement and Waipā Act, the Crown acknowledges the social, cultural and historical significance of the enduring relationship between Ngāti Maniapoto and its river (Waipā River), their guardian Waiwaia (a taniwha a supernatural being that dwells in waters), and the mana (power) of both the Waipā River and the iwi. It also acknowledges that Ngāti Maniapoto experiences distress as a consequence of the deterioration of the health of the Waipā River. Despite acknowledgements of Ngāti Maniapoto as kaitiaki (guardians) and the relevance of tikanga (laws) within the Deed of Settlement and legislation, nowhere in either document does the concept of rangatiratanga (authority and self-determination rights) appear. Indeed, the settler-state’s failure to explicitly recognise rangatiratanga, along with several other principles underpinning Ngāti Maniapoto ways of being and knowing, remained a source of continued environmental injustice for iwi.

Principles for Co-Management of the Waipa River

As a means of regulating the interactions between partners, the principles contained in the Waipā River Act (discussed earlier in Chap. 7) focus on ensuring reciprocal relationships are maintained between parties and that all parties receive benefits from these relationships. The foregrounding of place-based principles and values, including Ngāti Maniapoto expressions of kaitiakitanga and tikanga, (re)asserts Ngāti Maniapoto mātauranga (knowledge) and legal orders and traditions (tikanga) suppressed by colonisation and emphasises the situatedness (or the ‘where’) of law (Davies 2015). The guiding principles of interpretation within the legislation give legal recognition to the relationship between Ngāti Maniapoto, the Waipā River, and Waiwaia as well as principles and values important to Ngāti Maniapoto including their relationship with the Crown. In addition to identifying the Vision and Strategy (discussed in Chap. 7) as the primary direction-setting document for the Waipā River and Waikato River (which also asserts the authority of mātauranga and Māori values), the guiding principles strongly assert Māori concepts as the foundation for co-governance and co-management. In particular, the Waipā River Act provides guidance on the interpretation of mana, rangatiratanga, kāwanatanga (governorship), kaitiakitanga as they pertain to Ngāti Maniapoto and their relationship to the Waipā. The importance of reciprocity in maintaining relationships is expressed in the principles of te mana o te wai (the quality and integrity of the waters), nga wai o Maniapoto (the deep-felt obligation of Maniapoto to restore, maintain, and protect all waters within the Maniapoto rohe), te mana o te Waipa (which refers to the historical, intellectual, physical and spiritual relationship between Maniapoto and the Waipā River), and te mana tuku iho o Waiwaia. Moreover, principles relating to processes and procedures for working together to ensure efficient and practical outcomes emphasise partnership (in light of the Treaty of Waitangi), integration (across a number of levels and a range of agencies) and integrity (a shared commitment to act to protect the integrity of the deed) as fundamental to the co-governance and co-management framework (New Zealand Parliament 2012).

In addition to co-governance arrangements, another significant component of the Waipā River Act (as well as the other two River Acts) was the creation of co-management agreements. As Māori legal scholar Jacinta Ruru states “[t]hese are the first statutes in New Zealand to evaluate Māori to co-management roles with the Crown in regard to fresh water” (Ruru 2013, p. 311). The co-management arrangements include iwi Environmental Plans, Integrated River Management Plans, as well as the Joint Management Agreements (JMAs ) Table 8.1. Unlike the JMAs under the provisions of the RMA (1991), JMAs under the Waipā River Act are mandatory. Within each JMA, parts are compulsory (such as water monitoring and enforcement, preparation and amendments of planning documents) and other parts are by agreement between parties (iwi and government). Instead of making multiple JMAs with different local authorities, the Maniapoto Māori Trust Board (MMTB)—the mandated representative body for Ngāti Maniapoto—entered into one collective joint management agreement with the five local authorities that possessed jurisdiction in relation to the Waipā River; namely: WRC, Waikato District Council, Waipā District Council, Otorohanga District Council, and Waitomo District Council. The single JMA was intended as an instrument to strengthen and build better and more effective partnerships and relationships across the parties. As such, the Maniapoto JMA provides a framework for local authorities and MMTB to work together to carry out the functions, duties and powers provided for and to give effect to the Waipā River Act. The Ngā Wai o Waipā Co-governance Forum was formed to determine whether the JMA is being implemented to the satisfaction of all parties and in accordance with the principles set out in the JMA. The Forum comprises equal numbers of representatives from local authorities and MMTB and meets at least annually or more frequently if necessary with secretariat support provided by WRC.

Table 8.1 Co-management mechanisms for the Waipā River
Full size table

Operationalising co-Management Arrangements

Following the signing of their deed of settlement, MMTB sought to develop and implement the co-management arrangements outlined in the deed as part of their annual programme of work. Almost immediately after the Waipā River Act was passed, MMTB embarked on a number of projects focused on management and restoration of the Waipā. These projects were supported in various ways by the funding opportunities enabled through the Act (for instance, through the WRCuT—the Waikato River Clean-up Trust, annual funding as part of the settlement agreement, and funding enabled through JMAs and Accords). The Act outlines five specific co-management arrangements available to Ngāti Maniapoto in giving effect to their Deed of Settlement.

River Objectives

Clause 4.3 of the deed stipulates that Ngāti Maniapoto identify their objectives for the Waipā River and that these objectives must be consistent with the overarching purpose of the deed. The River objectives are: (1) Inclusive and valued relationships between all key stakeholders; (2) Ngāti Maniapoto ancestral relationship is revitalised and recognised; and, (3) Partner/River relationships are clear, maintained and focussed. In realising these objectives (and the Vision and Strategy—V&S) and as part of their commitment to protecting the health of the Waipā River, Ngāti Maniapoto focused on identifying and prioritising restoration projects for the Waipā through a series of marae-based wānanga between 2013 and 2014. This process built upon Ngāti Maniapoto contributions to the Waikato River Independent Scoping Study process, which had focused primarily on the Waikato River, and was partly funded by Ministry of the Environment under the co-management arrangements (National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd 2010). The Maniapoto Priorities for the Restoration of the Waipā River Catchment report provides

anybody who wants to enter into a research or restoration relationship with Maniapoto a really clear guide… It does set the direction that [Maniapoto] can follow, but also leaves room for flexibility. Because priorities change and those were the priorities of the time and the whanau that were involved in that process. But new whanau are getting engaged and have priorities that they also want to achieve. (Kelly R)

The Maniapoto Priorities Report articulates Maniapoto whanau aspirations, values and issues in relation to the Waipā and has synergies with other plans and policies including the WRC’s Waipā Catchment Plan and the Waipā Zone Management Plan (Maniapoto Maori Trust Board 2017; NIWA 2014). The Waipā Catchment Plan was developed by WRC in conjunction with Ngāti Maniapoto through a collaborative process to guide the implementation of integrated catchment management activities within the Waipā River. The Waipā Catchment Plan identifies 100 actions points, ranging from large erosion and sediment control projects to biodiversity, to looking after peat lakes, to working with Māori landowners (WRC 2014). These action points, though not enforceable, provide the focus for WRC to undertake restoration and management within the Waipā catchment and progress is measured against attainment (Iwi Rep 1 2017; Iwi Rep 2 2020; Local Government Rep 1 2018; Local Government Rep 2 2019). Overarching the Catchment Plan is the Waipā Zone Management Plan, which sets out high-level strategies and objectives to guide management activities ‘to revitalise the waters of the Waipa River and its tributaries by 2050’ (WRC 2012). The Maniapoto Priorities Report formed the basis for the Waipā projects included in the Restoration Strategy.

Crown-Iwi Accords

The Waiwaia Accord is the overarching Accord signed at the time of the Maniapoto deed of settlement, with nine other Accords added as Schedules. Between September 2010 and 2014, Maniapoto developed 10 Crown Accords, which were signed by both parties. During 2015–2016, Ngāti Maniapoto developed and proposed eight Accord Implementation Plans to the Crown agencies for adoption and signoff (MMTB 2017). The Accords provide direct lines of communication and engagement between MMTB and Crown agencies.

Regulations

The Act provides opportunities to make regulations consistent with the overarching purpose of the Act for the management of species and habitats of the Upper Waipa River. MMTB developed the Fisheries Plan for the Upper Waipā River with co-funding from the WRA as a planning document to provide for the protection, restoration and enhancement of the fisheries resources of the Waipā River catchment (MMTB 2017; Watene-Rawiri et al. 2015). The Fisheries Plan was launched in 2016 in anticipation of the development of regulations with the Ministry of Primary Industries, but these have yet to eventuate.

Iwi Management Plans

Iwi Management Plans (IMPs) are planning documents developed by recognised iwi authorities and which outline their aspirations and objectives for their rohe. Under the RMA, local authorities must keep and maintain IMPs, and local authorities shall take into account IMPs in their various planning efforts (Thompson-Fawcett et al. 2017). The Waipā River Act reinforces the position of IMPs as documents to be considered as required under the RMA. In 2014, Maniapoto undertook to review He Mahere Taiao Maniapoto Iwi Environment Management Plan 2007, with co-funding from the WRA. The revised iwi plan, Ko Tā Maniapoto Mahere Taiao, was launched in 2016 (Kowhai Consulting Ltd 2007; Maniapoto Maori Trust Board 2016). This plan provides the direction of iwi and hapū, and describes issues, objectives, policies and actions to protect, restore and enhance the relationship of Maniapoto with the environment including their economic, social, cultural and spiritual relationships.

Joint Management Agreements

Unlike the JMAs under the provisions of the RMA (1991), JMAs under the Waipā River Act are mandatory. Within each JMA parts are compulsory (such as water monitoring and enforcement, preparation and amendments of planning documents) and other parts are by agreement between parties (iwi and government). Instead of making multiple JMAs with different local authorities, the Maniapoto Māori Trust Board (MMTB)—the mandated representative body for the Ngāti Maniapoto—entered into one collective joint management agreement with the five local authorities that possessed jurisdiction in relation to the Waipā River; namely: WRC, Waikato District Council, Waipā District Council, Otorohanga District Council, and Waitomo District Council. The single JMA was intended as an instrument to strengthen and build better and more effective partnerships and relationships across the parties. As such, the Maniapoto JMA provides a framework for local authorities and MMTB to work together to carry out the functions, duties and powers provided for and to give effect to the Waipā River Act. The Ngā Wai o Waipā Co-governance Forum was formed to determine whether the JMA is being implemented to the satisfaction of all parties and in accordance with the principles set out in the JMA. The Forum comprises equal numbers of representatives from local authorities and MMTB, and meets at least annually or more frequently if necessary with secretariat support provided by WRC.

In 2017, a review was undertaken to assess the effectiveness of the Maniapoto JMA and to identify areas of potential improvement (Brough Resource Management Limited 2017; Ministry for the Environment and Te Puni Kōkiri 2017). The review found there was continuing support for the Ngāti Maniapoto JMA amongst both government and iwi, and that the JMA provided a strong legislative foundation to give effect to the government-iwi partnership. However, there were further opportunities to expand the working relationships between government and iwi in the future. The review identified possible opportunities to include community, economic and environmental projects that align to iwi aspirations as per the Ngāti Maniapoto JMA and Waipā River Act (Maniapoto Māori Trust Board et al. 2013; New Zealand Parliament 2012). The review highlighted the benefits of holding more meetings to discuss strategic outcomes and to promote collaborative projects, with the need to augment formal meetings with informal gatherings as a way to understand and accommodate iwi aspirations for the future.

At an operational level, the review determined the Ngāti Maniapoto JMA was an effective tool, but there were limits on its effectiveness due to lack of resourcing as well as lack of clear communication between different tiers of decision-making Ngāti Maniapoto iwi. Many iwi members outside of leadership roles (within WRA, MMTB, and councils) expressed a lack of knowledge about the nature of co-management relationships. As one iwi representative informed us: “I don’t know anything about co-management or co-governance or what that is” as she was focused on the “mahi” (work) at the flax-roots level rather what goes on in the offices and boardrooms (be it of MMTB, WRA, and the various local councils) (Iwi Rep 7 2019b). Ngāti Maniapoto iwi members emphasise how the co-management arrangements, as with co-governance, for the Waipā River, need to be reconfigured to fit with iwi approaches. So rather than the regional council holding a single hui (meeting) with iwi representatives—on one marae (tribal meeting area with complex of buildings) or in a board room—to discuss a resource consent application require longer and more in-depth discussion and negotiation processes need to be the norm. Iwi representatives maintain that each time an issue of freshwater management arises, (such as the resource consent applications for the Otorohanga District Council to discharge wastewater into the river which we discussed in Chap. 5), a series of hui or wānanga need to be held (which involve local hapū and iwi as well as co-management partners) to ensure that people are fully informed and consensus is built. Such community-level rather regional-level approach challenge the existing practices of western-style institutions (Iwi Rep 7 2019a). Iwi Representative 7 reported that:

more information [needs to be] available to whānau, hāpu and iwi. [And it] actually, [needs to go] back to the whānau, hāpu and iwi, and actually ask [them] the questions around [freshwater governance and management]. Because, at the end of the day, it’s actually those people who are looking after the awa, who are down the awa all the time. You can’t tell me those that are in a governance position [within the WRA and WRC] are the ones who are actually doing the mahi [work] down at awa [to restore it]. They’re just making decisions. (Iwi Rep 7 2019a)

The importance of Māori modes of decision-making that emphasis community discussion (whānau, hapū and iwi) communities are about to talk about information and issues to reach a consensus (at the flax-roots level) differs from the standard (settler-state) planning processes undertaken.

Indeed, as many scholars already observe, there are problems associated with current state-based recognition of Indigenous land and water rights as the power to define what (or whom) is recognised remains vested with the settler-state (and Western cultures) rather than within those of Indigenous peoples themselves. Rights, as Corntassel and Bryce observe, are “state constructions that do not necessarily reflect inherent indigenous responsibilities to their homelands”. Furthermore, discussions of land and water rights compartmentalises Indigenous “self-determination from governance and community wellbeing from homelands and relationships to the natural world” (Corntassel and Bryce 2011, pp. 152–153). By embedding themselves within the settler-state centred recognition of Indigenous rights, Indigenous communities risk reinforcing the settler-colonial status quo (replicating knowledge, governance and management approaches of the state) rather than honouring their relationships and ways of interacting with their traditional lands, waters, and human and more-than-human entities that dwell there. Accordingly, scholars including Coulthard, Corntassel and Bryce argue that approaches need to centre on Indigenous resurgence involving reconnecting Indigenous peoples to their traditional lands and waters, socio-cultural practices, languages, knowledges, and ways of governing and managing their environments (Corntassel and Bryce 2011; Coulthard 2014; McGregor 2014). Emphasis is placed of how to reclaim, restore and regenerate their relationships (and responsibilities for) their homelands through decolonising processes that transform “indigenous struggles for freedom from performance to everyday practice” (Corntassel and Bryce 2011, p. 153). Indeed, in the context of Ngāti Maniapoto, the ways in which iwi members are seeking to manage and restore their awa highlights how iwi are disrupting and moving beyond the narrowly defined state-based discourse of Māori water rights. They are practising their everyday responsibilities (as kaitiaki) to their rohe and their kin (including their whānau, their human- and more-than-human ancestors) and in doing so showing manaakitanga (respect and care for others) towards the awa, wai, plants and animals, and the Waipā River’s supernatural guardian Waiwaia. In order, to enact their kaitiakitanga-based (environmental guardianship) practices of sustainably managing and using freshwater resources for their subsistence as well as economic development needs, iwi members identify how the current planning regime (WRP, JMA, and district plans) remains inadequate.

Integrated Management Plan

Each of the Treaty settlements and the resulting legislation that established the co-governance and co-management of the Waikato and Waipā Rivers allows for the development of integrated river management plans in collaboration with central and local government authorities (including WRC) (New Zealand Parliament 2010a, b, 2012). The integrated river plans are intended to allow iwi, hapū and whānau to be more directly involved in plan development as well as its implementation, and the practice of river management and restoration. As of 2020, no plans have been created; however, in late 2018 Ngāti Maniapoto notified WRC of their desire to start work to develop an Upper Waipā River Integrated Management Plan (Iwi Rep 4 2020; Iwi Rep 5 2019; Iwi Rep 7 2019a). Ngāti Maniapoto participants express the hope that the Integrated River Management Plan will provide a powerful mechanism (a “lever”) by which iwi and hapū can seek to improve freshwater governance and management at a hapū- or flax-roots-level and allow for the realisation of iwi desires for the freedom (agency) to choose their own paths towards more sustainable freshwater futures (Māori Business Owner 1 2019). One iwi participant expresses his hope that the:

Integrated Plan [would be] an amazing tool for whānau for when they want to do something to know who they go to. Then they’ve got something to take with them to these people, so they don’t just get fobbed off and say oh no, we don’t have time for that. They can say no, but you have to make time for this. (Māori Business Owner 1 2019)

Not Trickling Down to Flax-Roots-Level

The extent to which the benefits of co-governance and co-management arrangements for the Waipā River are’ trickling down’ to the flax-roots-level (marae, hapū, whānau) are uneven; this raises questions about the structure of the co-governance entity, how co-governance and co-management are enacted, and who (what) are the winners and losers in the new institutional arrangements. Capacity and resourcing are key issues for the formal iwi institutions (such as the MMTB) as well as other social groupings within the iwi (including hapū, marae, whānau). Many express concern that those higher up the co-governance and co-management ladder (who sit on boards) can earn wages or salaries from their positions, whereas those lower-down do all the mahi (work) on a voluntary basis. They argue that the iwi needs to ensure that those within their iwi, hapū and whānau and hapū are taken care of.

[W]e tend to forget about those people, right down [at the grassroots level] … who are doing the [water] testing [and cultural health assessment framework which MMTB is creating and implementing with scientists]. … Those are the people who are gathering the data [for the MMTB and scientists but] they’re not paid to do that. Some of them take time off [their jobs], just to attend [the wānanga and hui]. So, [we need to make] sure that they’re well looked after, well resourced. If you’ve got a pen in your office, then, make sure you give a pen to the people down the river… Because we don’t own the knowledge, we don’t own mātauranga. So, rather than being a gatekeeper, we just [feed] the people with it. A good leader will always be someone who will train someone up to be better than them, and not be phased by it. [If] I could train twenty people up to be twenty times better than me, cool. They’ll be awesome. (Iwi Rep 7 2019b)

Indeed, for some members of Ngāti Maniapoto, the establishment of the WRA, new legislation, and co-management plans are just not being translated into tangible changes to materially improve the wellbeing Ngāti Maniapoto as a collective group (iwi, hapū and whānau). Indeed, successful co-management needs to foster beneficial relationships within an iwi (based on the values of whanaungatanga—the centrality of kinship, whakapapa that binds the Māori world together and manaatikitanga—the process of demonstrating generosity, respect, and care for others) as well as meaningful relationships between iwi, local government, and the Crown, industries, and other stakeholders. Thus, as we stressed in our previous chapter, adequate resources need to be provided not only by the settler-state to Māori groups to address Māori disadvantages (addressing the distributive disparities faced by iwi) and in doing so “level the playing field in terms of capacity for collaboration” (Porten et al. 2015, p. 134). These duties, to ensure the distribution of adequate resources, also extend to co-governance and co-management institutions (including the MMTB) so that iwi/hapū/whānau, who face limited access to resources (be it financial, technical or human), can access support so they can participate in planning for and taking actions to manage and restore their awa.

Co-Management Strengthening Procedural Inclusion and Recognition

From 1991, as we mentioned earlier, the introduction of the RMA did go some (limited) way to recognising Māori relationships with their rohe, and provided an avenue for Māori to be procedurally included in planning processes. Likewise, the new legislation and institutional arrangements (including the WRA, the V&S, WRP and JMAs) over the last decade provides Ngāti Maniapoto with greater recognition and procedural inclusion under the planning regime governed by local government (WRC and district councils). In particular, the mandatory nature of the JMA, including the provisions of water monitoring, provides Ngāti Maniapoto with more information about the health of their awa as well as the abilities to conduct their own water testing; previously the iwi encountered substantive difficulties accessing information from district councils that restricted their capacities to participate in decision-making. Bryant’s work into community participation in pollution prevention highlighted how participatory practices (fair procedures) can foster environmental justice through ensuring that:

rules, regulations, behaviors, policies and decisions support sustainable communities where people can interact with confidence that the environment is safe, nurturing, and productive. (Bryant 1995, p. 6)

He observes that the principles of environmental justice can be achieved when a community is able to reach their full potential cultivated through: “democratic decision-making and personal empowerment … where both cultural and biodiversity are respected and highly revered and where … justice prevails” (Bryant 1995, p. 6). Bryant’s work demonstrates how the co-management arrangements being implemented within the Waipā River can (or could potentially address) some of the environmental injustices experienced by Ngāti Maniapoto by providing them greater abilities to influence local-level environmental planning decisions.

Members of Ngāti Maniapoto note how, despite the new legislation and co-management agreements, they are disappointed that water quality of their awa remains poor, and they cannot restrict activities that negatively affect their awa (through vetoing resource consent applications). Iwi members’ hopes that their rangatiratanga would be recognised and empowered through the new co-governance and co-management arrangements are yet to be realised:

We’ve got the [Accords], we’ve got the JMAs [Joint Management Agreements between councils and iwi] they aren’t working. … We’re hoping that that will give more [power] to get things done. (Māori Business Owner 1 2019)

Indeed, Ngāti Maniapoto iwi members stress that they seek to exercise their rangatiratanga not as actions of secession (that challenge state sovereignty as some Pākehā and government officials fear), but rather to ensure that the principles embedded in the Treaty more than a 150 years ago are finally honoured (including active protection of rangatiratanga and iwi-Crown partnership). In the words of one iwi representative “co-management … to me should be we make the decision jointly at the end”, it is put simply an exemplar of what rangatira who signed to Treaty envisioned, the ability of Māori to choose how they would or could live (walking in one, both or between the worlds of Māori and Pākehā) (Jones 2016; Māori Business Owner 1 2019; Salmond 2017). However, one iwi member questions whether Ngāti Maniapoto actually possess (under their Deed of Settlement and Waipā River Act) any level of authority that comes close to the rangatiratanga promised to them under the Treaty, as the iwi still cannot hold governments to account for their failures to follow laws, management plans, and regulations:

there’s no … regulation of these management agreements, there’s no-one checking up on them [the councils] to make sure that they're actually [doing what was promised]. They’ve just been put [it] into an [policy] and they’re left [it] there to [carry on] do[ing] their job. (Māori Business Owner 1 2019)

In previous chapters, we documented the disproportionate distribution of environmental impacts on iwi as a consequence of freshwater degradation linked to settler colonialism, and how the lack of legal and regulatory powers to prevent governments’ and individual settlers’ destroying their landscapes and waterscapes added another layer to the environmental injustices they experienced. The Treaty settlements, new legislation and co-governance and co-management arrangements all explicitly acknowledge the negative effects of iwi and do provide some mechanisms (legislation, funding, co-governance and co-management) by which environmental injustices faced by Māori can be addressed. Yet, these mechanisms remain incomplete and imperfect tools. Co-management needs to create opportunities for reciprocal and meaningful relationships between iwi and the settler-state (and its various agencies). Such relationships cannot be premised, however, on the maintenance of settler status quo (whereby settler-state institutions, government officials, and interest groups control how freshwater is managed) which led to the current state of freshwater degradation (and broader challenges associated with the Anthropocene). Instead, it needs to involve a transformative decolonising shift, that allows for iwi to enact their kaitiakitanga practices in ways that accord to their ways of governing and managing freshwaters, and for iwi-state to find a new (more equitable) relationship based on shared partnership and mutual respect. Scholars highlight how Indigenous responsibilities-based management approaches are critical avenues by which Indigenous peoples’ to revitalise their relationships, promote the regeneration of sustainable water, land, and food systems in communities, and transmit their knowledge, values, and practices to future generations (Corntassel and Bryce 2011). Yet, more than co-management offers the opportunities of “learning together” between different groups and within groups, and the capacities to draw on multiple knowledges, and to design management approaches that can accompany pluralistic ways of knowing the world(s) (Hopkins et al. 2019).

Unlike the experiences encountered by other marginalised populations, the circumstances that contribute to environmental injustices for Indigenous peoples differ and are (arguably) more complex: encompassing distributional, procedural and recognitional justice. Much of the difference, as we discuss in previous chapters, rest in the ways in which, under settler-colonial rule, environmental laws, governance and management approaches are underpinned by settler-colonial knowledges, values and practices that are antithetical to Indigenous peoples achieving environmental justice (Muir and Booth 2012, p. 458). Another basis of this difference rests on Indigenous ontologies that are holistic, relational, and place-based wherein socio-cultural interactions, spirituality, and ecological attributes are all interwoven together. Injustices borne by Ngāti Maniapoto (like other Indigenous peoples), as we document in previous chapters, include the exploitation and degradation of environmental resources required for subsistence, and the destruction of wāhi tapu (sacred sites) and the graves belonging to their ancestors. According to this view, Schlosberg and Carruthers observe that:

Indigenous demands for environmental justice go beyond distributional equity to emphasize the defense and very function of Indigenous communities—their ability to continue and reproduce their traditions, practices, cosmologies, and the relationship with nature that tie native peoples to their ancestral lands. (Schlosberg and Carruthers 2010, p. 13)

As we document in the previous chapters of this book, the settler-state’s laws, policies and actions (including those that radically transformed Māori landscapes and waterscapes) negatively affected their capacities to access their traditional food sources, maintain their economic livelihoods, and ensure their responsibilities as kaitiaki (environmental guardians). The inability of Māori to maintain the mauri (life force) and wairua (spiritual integrity) of their awa (to which is classified as their kin) are not only direct assaults (injustices) against the mana whenua (tribal group with authority over their rohe), but also direct assaults against the “cultural practices and beliefs” that iwi require to ensure their cultural continuance (Schlosberg and Carruthers 2010, p. 13). As Schlosberg and Carruthers (2010) point out, the survival of Indigenous peoples is directly connected to their sustainable interactions with their land and waters, and with the enactment of their laws, practices, ceremonies, and beliefs connected to their places. The need to take into account a particular groups’ historical and cultural basis that is critical to achieving environmental justice for those communities. When key components of Indigenous peoples are removed, the abilities of Indigenous communities to determine their own futures are therefore also removed.

The new co-management arrangements are, in many respects, enhancing the capacity of Ngāti Maniapoto to self-identify (as an iwi and as mana whenua of the upper catchment of the Waipā River). Therefore the legislation and co-management planning tools are reversing some of the injustices caused by colonisation, which includes those that threatened the cultural continuance of iwi. Indeed, through its iwi Environmental Plans, the JMA, and the legislation, Ngāti Maniapoto are asserting their mātauranga (knowledge), tikanga (laws), and kawa (ceremonies) within freshwater management. They are also articulating their aspirations and objectives through its own policies and those created in collaboration with local government authorities support the resurgence of mana whakahaere of Ngāti Maniapoto. In the restoration projects funded by WRA, for instance, the mātauranga and tikanga of Maniapoto as a dynamic grouping of people with their own conceptualisation and commitment to intergenerational Indigenous environmental justice (which extends to include the more-than-human actors most notably the Waipā River herself and the taniwha Waiwaia himself) are being not only expressed but also acted on. The Waipā River Act, the JMA, and the other co-management agreements, thus, are enabling Ngāti Maniapoto involvement in local-level decision-making processes about their awa to a far greater extent than in the past. Formerly excluded Ngāti Maniapoto are now central actors (but not necessarily equitable Treaty partners) in the freshwater governance, management and planning about their awa.

Conclusion

Rather than seeing co-management is a single piece of legislation or an institution, this chapter highlights that successful co-management between Indigenous peoples and settler states should instead be seen as a process (as part of wider decolonising processes). It is a process that is premised on sharing decision-making responsibilities, between settler-state and Indigenous authority-holders, which involves considering not only different management plans and regulations, but also the processes wherein these plans and regulations are translated into on-the-ground actions that address the material and metaphysical health and wellbeing of Indigenous communities. A critical component of this process is the consideration of Indigenous peoples’ authority (self-determination, rangatiratanga holders) and responsibilities to their traditional lands and waters (rohe or homelands) as well as to their kin-group (which includes human and more-than-human beings). No longer can Indigenous peoples be framed as just another stakeholder group or a marginalised community, instead their authority as Indigenous peoples, First Nations, or in the Aotearoa context, mana whenua needs to be the basis for equitable, effective, and sustainable co-management arrangements that take into account the recognitional, distributional and procedural components of environmental justice. The first steps towards more successful co-management partnerships between Ngāti Maniapoto and the setter-state are being made in the upper reaches of the Waipā River, and it remains to be seen if that early promise can be translated into lasting environmental just outcomes for Ngāti Maniapoto.