Content uploaded by Gail Tipa
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gail Tipa on Jul 10, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
A Cultural Health Index for
Streams and Waterways
Indicators for recognising
and expressing Maori values
Report prepared for the Ministry for the Environment
by Gail Tipa and Laurel Teirney
June 2003
Published in June 2003 by the
Ministry for the Environment
PO Box 10-362, Wellington, New Zealand
Technical paper: 75
ISBN: 0-478-24092-9
ME number: 475
This document is available on the Ministry for the Environment’s website:
www.mfe.govt.nz
Foreword
This report is the product of three years’ work by the authors to develop Māori stream health
indicators for mauri and mahinga kai. The Ministry for the Environment is making this
available as a technical report under the Environmental Performance Indicators Programme.
The report provides useful information to a wide range of people with an interest in
environmental indicators and resource management. The Cultural Health Index is an interim
product, which will be tested for its national applicability by 2005.
Earlier technical reports on the development of mauri and mahinga kai indicators are available
on request:
Technical Paper No. 58, Māori Environmental Indicators: Taieri River Case Study,
October 1999
•
• Technical Paper No. 58, Māori Environmental Indicators: Taieri River Case Study,
Volume 2, October 1999.
For more information about this project and other Māori indicator projects, please contact
Hamish Wilson at hamish.wilson@mfe.govt.nz.
You can visit the Ministry for the Environment environmental reporting website at
www.environment.govt.nz/info/techdocs.html for a full list of technical reports relating to the
development of Māori indicators. Alternatively, contact:
Ministry for the Environment
PO Box 10-362
Wellington
New Zealand
Phone (+64 4) 917 7400
www.mfe.govt.nz
A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways iii
Acknowledgements
We are indebted to the following people, whose contribution made the development of the
Cultural Health Index possible. The reward for their involvement is a new tool that holds much
potential for promoting the input and participation of Māori into natural resource management.
In particular, Colin Townsend has provided ongoing advice about study design, analysis and
documentation throughout the study.
University of Otago Stream Team
Professor Colin Townsend •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Dev Ngogi
Chris Arbuckle.
Te Runanga Otakou
Bill Loper
Terry Broad
Rose Clucas
Andrea Todd.
Te Runanga o Moeraki
Isbel Williams
Ray Williams
Rua McCallum
Huia McGlinchey
Kyle Nelson.
For oversight of the project and administrative assistance, we sincerely thank:
Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu
Linda Constable
David O’Connell.
For believing our project was worth supporting, and providing the resources that enabled us to
deliver the Cultural Health Index for streams, we are most grateful to those involved from the
Ministry for the Environment:
Ruth Berry
Charlotte Severne
Hamish Wilson
April Bennett
Megan Linwood.
Correspondence to the authors
Gail Tipa Laurel Teirney
115 Main South Road 6 Marion Street
East Taieri McAndrew Bay
Otago Dunedin
Phone 64 3 489 4534 Phone 64 3 476 1242
Email gtipa@xtra.co.nz Email l.teirney@xtra.co.nz
iv A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways
Contents
Foreword iii
Acknowledgements iv
Executive Summary vii
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Relationship to the Ministry for the Environment’s strategic direction 1
1.2 Study title and objectives 2
2 An Iwi Perspective on Freshwater and Its Management 6
2.1 Cultural values 6
2.2 The significance of freshwater to Māori 9
2.3 Participation of iwi in resource management 10
3 Study Design 13
3.1 River selection 13
3.2 Site selection 14
3.3 Selection of indicators of cultural stream health 17
3.4 The recording form and data collection 24
4 Calculating the Cultural Health Index 26
4.1 Component 1: traditional association 27
4.2 Component 2: the mahinga kai measure 27
4.3 Component 3: cultural stream health measure 30
4.4 Is the cultural stream health component of the CHI appropriate for streams
of different sizes and for the different rivers? 34
4.5 How does the cultural stream health component of the CHI compare to
Western scientific measures of stream health? 34
4.6 What is the relationship between cultural and Western scientific stream
health measures and patterns of catchment land use? 36
4.7 Stream health measures and iwi 37
4.8 Incorporating tangata whenua values into SHMAK 38
5 Applying the Cultural Health Index 39
5.1 Capturing an iwi perspective 39
5.2 The CHI as a diagnostic and monitoring tool 40
5.3 Implementation of the CHI nationwide 45
5.4 Incorporating the CHI into resource management processes 46
6 Combining Cultural and Scientific Perspectives 50
7 Conclusion 53
A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways v
Executive Summary
The purpose of this study was to develop a tool to facilitate the input and participation of iwi
into land and water management processes and decision making. The result is the Cultural
Health Index (CHI) for streams, developed by linking Western scientific methods and cultural
knowledge about stream health.
Identifying indicators
The starting point for the project was the indicators that Māori use to assess stream health. We
interviewed kaumātua and iwi resource managers, from which the following indicators were
derived as being important in determining whether a river is healthy:
• •
• •
• •
• •
• •
• •
• •
• •
• •
•
•
•
•
shape of the river natural river mouth environment
sediment in the water water quality
water quality throughout the
catchment
abundant and diverse range of mahinga
kai species
flow characteristics riparian vegetation
flow variations use of river margin
flood flows temperature
sound of flow catchment land use
movement of water riverbank condition
fish are safe to eat water is safe to drink
uses of the river
Designing the recording form
Once the list of indicators was identified, a recording form was composed for rūnanga members
to assess the health and mahinga kai at each stream site. Because the objective was to develop a
quantitative index, the recording form needed to:
make a clear distinction between positive and negative statements
introduce a rating scale (1–5)
ask for an overall assessment of stream health (rated 1–5) on which to base an evaluation
of the contribution each indicator makes to overall stream health.
A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways vii
Data collection
Each team comprised at least five members. Each rūnanga member used the recording form to
complete a field assessment of stream health and mahinga kai at each stream site. Data were
gathered for all sites in the Kakaunui1 and Taieri catchments. The rating information from each
of the recording sheets was collated into a spreadsheet for analysis. Compiling the mahinga kai
information required access to historical as well as contemporary data. Lists of species that
were traditionally harvested from the sites were compiled from interviews with rūnanga
members and from the written records of Ngāi Tahu. Electric fishing was carried out at all sites,
with fish species identified and returned to the stream.
Developing the index
As the project progressed and indicators were defined, the concept of constructing the Cultural
Health Index (CHI) for streams developed and became a reality. The CHI has three distinct
components, each of which is made up of multiple measures. The three components are the
status of the site, a mahinga kai measure and a cultural stream health measure.
Component 1: Stream sites are classified according to traditional association and intention to
use in the future by asking:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Is there a traditional association between rūnanga and the site?
Would Māori come to the site in the future?
Component 2: Sites are evaluated for the following mahinga kai features.
How many mahinga kai species are present?
Are the mahinga kai species that were gathered in the past still there?
Are the mahinga kai species accessible for gathering?
Would Māori come to the site in the future?
Component 3: Sites are evaluated for cultural stream health. First, the average scores for the
rūnanga team members are calculated for 18 indicators of stream health in each site. Then,
using a set of criteria, the list of indicators is condensed to a smaller set that effectively
encapsulates overall stream health (as assessed on the recording form). The average score for
all included indicators provides the cultural stream health measure (1 is poor and 5 is the highest
cultural stream health rating).
Overall index
The overall three-part Cultural Health Index is expressed as shown in the following example:
A–0 / 2.1 / 4.2
where:
A identifies the site as traditional (versus B for non-traditional)
0 identifies that the site will not be used in the future (versus 1 for will be used)
2.1 is the mahinga kai score (four factors are scored on a 1–5 scale and then averaged)
4.2 is the stream health score (five factors are scored on a 1–5 scale and then averaged).
1 ‘Kakaunui’ is the traditional name for what is commonly known today as the Kakanui River.
viii A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways
While resource management agencies will receive a CHI score, such as A–0/2.1/4.2, Māori will
have all the data collected at a site, including an inventory of mahinga kai species (see
Appendix 2). By analysing the individual scores for each of the factors that comprise the index,
Māori will be able to diagnose issues, identify changes to sites over time, and identify remedial
actions that are necessary to restore or enhance the site.
This CHI is based on Ngāi Tahu perspectives about stream health and their assessment of hill
country rain-fed rivers. Given that kaumātua and other rūnanga members from throughout the
rohe were involved in identifying stream health indicators, we are confident that the index can
be applied to other hill country rain-fed rivers throughout the rohe by Ngāi Tahu rūnanga.
Validating the CHI for wider use
It is less certain that the CHI will be valid for very different river types and for other iwi.
During development, the risk of implementing the CHI widely without validating the tool for
different river types and different iwi was identified. Validation only applies to the stream
health component of the index, as the traditional status of a site and the mahinga kai component
are generic to iwi throughout the country. Confidence in applying the CHI more widely is
critical if the tool is to be applied successfully in the longer term.
In Chapter 5 of this report, recommended processes for applying the CHI in other regions and
with other iwi are set out.
Two distinct knowledge bases were combined in this study to develop a resource management
tool that has the potential to significantly enhance the effectiveness of freshwater management
practice. We trust that the CHI will contribute positively to enhanced freshwater management
in New Zealand, thereby enabling Māori and resource management agencies to fulfil their
obligations to manage our freshwater resources sustainably.
A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways ix
1 Introduction
The purpose of this study was to develop a tool to facilitate the input and participation of iwi
into land and water management processes and decision making. The result is the Cultural
Health Index (CHI) for streams, developed by linking Western scientific methods and cultural
knowledge about stream health.
This study is one of a number of Māori environmental performance indicator case studies that
have been funded by the Ministry for Environment as part of its Environmental Performance
Indicators Programme.
It is an extension of the Taieri River Project, which was initiated in 1998 and focused on
freshwater, specifically water quantity. Now known as Stage 1, the initial study resulted in the
identification of indicators that iwi use to assess stream health.
During the current study (Stage 2), these indicators were revalidated and refined, and provided
the basis on which the CHI was developed. Although aspects of mahinga kai were expressed in
the indicators initially identified, when Stage 2 of the study began in 2000 it was not obvious
how mahinga kai could be adequately incorporated into an index.
In this report we describe the development of the Cultural Health Index for streams (sections 3
and 4). The significance of stream health to iwi (section 2) and the potential value of such a tool
(section 5) are discussed in detail. Comparisons between the stream health component of the
CHI and Western scientific stream health measures indicate that the CHI is not only a credible
measure of stream health, but also a good indicator of land use within a catchment (section 4).
We identify the benefits of applying the tool as a way of involving iwi in environmental
reporting, water and land management, and the regional council processes that can provide for
such involvement (section 5).
1.1 Relationship to the Ministry for the Environment’s
strategic direction
The principal driver for this project was the Ministry for the Environment’s Environmental
Performance Indicators (EPI) Programme, under which a set of environmental performance
indicators is being completed that will allow resource managers to monitor progress towards
achieving key environmental goals (at both a national and a regional level).
The Ministry sought direction from Māori about the way they wanted to be involved in the
development of EPIs. In addition to a national working group, four Māori case studies were
supported. The Taieri River project, or Stage 1 of this current project, was one of the four.
When developing an assessment tool for application at a local level it was essential that the tool
be consistent with the directions prescribed at the national level.
A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways 1
1.2 Study title and objectives
This project is called the ‘Mauri and Mahinga Kai Indicators Project’, but from the beginning we
struggled with use of the term ‘mauri’ because of the many intangible aspects of mauri that cannot
be encompassed by an index. It would also be demeaning to the concept – and to the fundamental
beliefs of Māori – to try to devise a mauri index. However, we chose to use the term ‘mauri’ in
some discussions because we were trying to define some of the components of mauri with respect
to the management of freshwater systems. For an overall index that includes aspects of stream
health and mahinga kai, we have chosen to use the phrase ‘cultural health index’.
A number of objectives were agreed between Ministry for the Environment staff and the project
team at the start of the project. At that stage we did not attempt to define the type of tool that
could result from the study. As the project progressed and indicators were defined, the concept
of constructing the Cultural Health Index (CHI) for streams developed and became a reality.
Because of the way the study evolved, we have included the following commentary on the
status of each objective. For clarity, reference is made to the section that contains detailed
discussion about particular aspects of the objectives.
1. Devise relevant indicators of mauri and mahinga kai2 for selected
sites from the headwaters to the lower reaches of the Taieri and
Kakaunui Rivers consistent with Ngai Tahu’s ki uta ki tai philosophy
(sections 2, 3 and 4)
Indicators were identified, defined, and developed into the Cultural Health Index for streams.
The index has three distinct components, each of which is made up of multiple measures. The
three components are:
•
•
•
the status of the site
a mahinga kai measure
a rūnanga evaluation of cultural stream health.
(a) Status of the site
Sites are classified according to whether or not they have a traditional association with iwi and
whether or not iwi believe they would or would not use the site in the future.
(b) Mahinga kai measure
The second component of the CHI was developed as a specific measure because of the
significance of mahinga kai to Māori. The indicators and the data needed to derive this
assessment were obtained from interviews with kaumātua and iwi resource managers,3 as well
as from contemporary assessments of mahinga kai availability.
2 Using mahinga kai is a natural extension of the project, given that all kaumātua agreed that the abundance,
diversity and health of the life supported by a river is an indicator of its mauri.
3 Iwi resource managers: the only iwi that has participated in this project to date has been Ngāi Tahu.
Therefore any references to iwi resource managers should be read as referring to Ngāi Tahu resource
managers.
2 A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways
(c) A runanga evaluation of cultural stream health
The third component of the CHI comprises evaluations of a number of critical cultural
indicators of stream health. The majority of the cultural indicators of stream health identified in
the 1998 study were encapsulated in a questionnaire that was completed by rūnanga team
members in 46 stream and river sites. The members also recorded overall stream health on a
scale of 1–5, providing a baseline against which to compare and condense the indicators to a
smaller set that effectively defines cultural stream health. Our aim was to produce a
manageable and straightforward process by which rūnanga teams can consistently assess stream
health now and in the future.
We compared the cultural stream health component of the CHI with two Western scientific
measures of stream health:
the Macroinvertebrate Community Index (MCI), based on invertebrates on the stream bed •
• the Stream Health Monitoring and Assessment Kit (SHMAK), which has habitat and
invertebrate components.
Results showed that the cultural stream health component of CHI was a reliable measure of
stream health that reflected both the invertebrate and habitat components of the Western
scientific measures. This was a fundamental aspect of the project given that Māori may have
cultural and spiritual values outside those identified and captured by Western scientific
measures.
2. Determine the effect of catchment land use (tussock, forest and
pasture) on indicators of mauri and mahinga kai for the Taieri and
Kakaunui Rivers (section 4.3.2 c)
The greater the percentage of developed land in the catchment above each stream site, the
poorer the cultural stream health score. In assessing the effect of land use on stream health, the
cultural stream health component of the index performed as well as the Western scientific MCI
and better than the SHMAK. Determining the effect of specific land uses required the
replication of sites within each land-use category, which was beyond the scope of this study.
However, this could be readily achieved in an extension of the current study.
3. Formulate ways of integrating indicators of mauri into Western
scientific measures of stream health to better accommodate tangata
whenua values and encourage participation in stream-monitoring
programmes (section 4.3.2 d)
We found that the cultural and Western scientific measures of stream health are focused at
completely different levels. Whereas the Western scientific measures are based on specific
measurable components in the stream, cultural perceptions about the entire catchment are the
basis of the cultural stream health component of the CHI. The project reconfirmed the
significance of holism to Māori. Attempting to combine measures that are so philosophically
distinct was not considered appropriate. However, the cultural measure fits comfortably
alongside Western scientific measures and provides a significant and complementary addition to
tools for assessing stream health. As noted above, Māori have values outside those captured by
Western measures.
A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways 3
4. Document how indicators of mauri and mahinga kai can be
incorporated into regional councils’ land and water management
planning and decision-making processes (section 5)
The CHI has been accepted in the Otago region as a potentially valuable tool for the expression
of iwi views about stream health. It also incorporates an important diagnostic and monitoring
capability that holds considerable promise for enhancing land and water resource planning and
decision-making. These aspects are documented later in this report.
5. Develop and document a process for determining indicators of mauri
and mahinga kai that can be applied by mana whenua to assess the
condition of river systems throughout their takiwa (section 5)
The CHI we have developed is based on Ngāi Tahu perspectives about stream health and their
assessment of hill country rain-fed rivers. Given that kaumātua and other rūnanga members
from throughout the rohe were involved in identifying stream health indicators, we are
confident that the index can be applied to other hill country rain-fed rivers throughout the rohe
by Ngāi Tahu rūnanga.
What is less certain is the validity of the CHI for very different river types and for other iwi.
For instance, the important features of hill country rain-fed rivers may not be the same for
gravel braided rivers. Similarly, other iwi may value rivers in a different way and produce a
different list of indicators. An extension of the study is required to validate the index for other
river types and other iwi.
In this report we have documented the process of determining the CHI, with the proviso that it
must be validated for distinctly different river types and for other iwi for there to be confidence
in applying the results more widely. For this reason, the process documented here cannot yet be
described or promoted as a guideline for other iwi or river types.
4 A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways
Photograph 1: Rangatahi
(foreground) attending the training
day on the Lower Taieri.
Photograph 2: Members of
Te Runanga o Moeraki
attending the training day.
A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways 5
2 An Iwi Perspective on Freshwater and Its
Management
The long history of occupation and travel within New Zealand has left many sites that are of
significance to Māori, and has enabled them to accumulate an extensive knowledge of natural
resources within their tribal areas and to develop management practices appropriate for the
sustainable use of these resources. The reason for undertaking this case study was the
conviction that the knowledge Māori have, the cultural values they espouse, and their customary
practices remain valid and have the potential to complement contemporary management
practices to enhance the effectiveness of management overall.
In this section of the report we discuss:
some of the Māori cultural beliefs, values and practices that underpin this project •
•
•
•
•
•
•
the significance of freshwater to Māori
the reasons Māori have for seeking an increased role in freshwater management.
Increased participation is not without its challenges, and some of the practical difficulties facing
resource managers and Māori are identified at the end of the section.
2.1 Cultural values
The discussion of cultural values in this section is not meant to be exhaustive. Rather, it seeks
to provide a conceptual framework for the Cultural Health Index and its relationship to the
values Māori associate with freshwater. The overriding goal when developing the CHI was to
have a tool grounded in the beliefs, values, and practices of Māori. Here we attempt to explain
the Māori perspective on freshwater in terms more readily understood by those resource
managers that may apply the CHI, recognising that a Māori perspective is fundamentally
different in its treatment of the interactions between people and nature.
At least four cultural values central to the development of this case study were identified when
the study began:
mauri
mahinga kai
kaitiakitanga
ki uta ki tai.
The other concept discussed in this section is that of cultural landscapes.
6 A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways
2.1.1 Mauri
Mauri is the life force that ensures that within a physical entity such as the sea,
that all species that it accommodates will have continual life ... The mauri is
defenceless against components that are not part of the natural environment.
Mauri seems to be whatever it is in an ecosystem which conduces to the health of
that ecosystem (Massey University, 1990).
Māori traditionally believe that the forests, the waters, and all the life supported by them,
together with natural phenomena such as mist, wind and rocks, possess a mauri, or life force
(Marsden, 1992). The primary resource management principle is, therefore, protecting the
mauri of a resource from desecration.
The Ministry for the Environment recognises that the indicators proposed in the report
Environmental Performance Indicators: Proposals for Air, Fresh Water and Land (Ministry for
the Environment, 1997) did not address the need to monitor and report on spiritual issues, such
as mauri. In Environmental Performance Indicators: Proposals for the Marine Environment
(Ministry for the Environment, 1998), the Ministry outlined a number of initiatives that were
implemented to incorporate Māori concepts into the EPI Programme to ensure indicators are
developed that are relevant to Māori. One initiative was taking a case study approach, which
involves supporting iwi in identifying approaches for indicator development. The development
of the CHI is one of these case studies.
The protection of mauri has become one of the principal issues for contemporary freshwater
management, because Māori are increasingly concerned with the integrity of the waterways on
which their survival and their cultural identity depend. The decline in both water quantity and
water quality has impacted on cultural values and, most importantly, cultural uses of the river,
and threatens to put at risk the mauri of the resource, which is unable to protect itself against
unnatural changes to the environment.
2.1.2 Mahinga kai
The Ngāi Tahu story has at its heart their mahinga kai. The continuation of a mahinga kai
culture, in the midst of historical upheaval, explains the Ngāi Tahu insistence on the importance
of mahinga kai to its culture and provides the centre that holds the tribe together. Without
mahinga kai, Ngāi Tahu would lose a key component of their cultural identity.
The term ‘mahinga kai’ literally means ‘food works’, and it is an all-inclusive term that
encompasses the ability to access the resource (which depends on there being legal and physical
access), the site where gathering occurs, the activity of gathering and using the resource, and the
good health of the resource – it must be fit for cultural usage. Freshwater resources formed a
fundamental component of traditional ways of life, and remain important to many contemporary
Māori.
It must be stressed that freshwater and terrestrial resources, valued by Māori as mahinga kai
continue to be “absolutely necessary” today (K. Davis, personal communication, 2001). For
this reason alone, the decision was made to ensure that stage 2 resulted in the identification of
mahinga kai indicators and that, if possible, mahinga kai was to be incorporated in the CHI.
A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways 7
2.1.3 Kaitiakitanga
Māori as kaitiaki are obligated not only to protect the interests of future generations but also
stress the importance of ancestors to tribal identity. Only when you honour those who have
come before you can you truly protect the interests of those yet to be. It is this continuum that
makes development within the limits of sustainability more important than current economic
realities:
Kaitiakitanga denotes obligations or responsibilities incumbent on the iwi, its
members and appointed kaumatua, kuia or tohunga to carry out particular
functions, be custodians, protectors, guardians of iwi interest, its taonga, various
resources it owns. The kaitiaki approach to environmental management is holistic
(Duker, 1994).
Kaitiakitanga is an inherent part of rangatiratanga. Without legal recognition of rangatiratanga,
kaitiakitanga becomes difficult to put into effect (Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, 2001). The kaitiaki
exercise kaitiakitanga:
Traditionally kaitiaki are the many spiritual assistants to the gods, including spirits
of deceased ancestors, who are the spiritual minders of the elements of the natural
world (Mutu, 1994:17).
Today, it is for those who hold mana whenua status to exercise kaitiakitanga and protect the
mauri of significant resources. To ensure this, kaitiaki want to participate in the management of
significant waterbodies within their traditional area. Resource managers are required to
recognise and provide for the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their
ancestral lands, water, sites, wāhi tapu and other taonga.4 They also must have particular regard
to kaitiakitanga.5 To achieve this, resource managers need to enable mana whenua to participate
in resource management and ensure that data specific to cultural values inform decision-making.
This project responded to these requirements by developing a tool that enables kaitiaki to
participate in the assessment of waterbodies and the collection of data specific to cultural values
that can then inform management decisions.
2.1.4 Ki uta ki tai
In the context of freshwater management it is necessary to consider a catchment in its entirety:
from its source, and the passage of its waters through a network of tributaries, on to lower
floodplains, to its interface with saltwater at estuaries along the coast. Monitoring regimes need
to respond to this ‘mountains to the sea’ philosophy.
4 Section 6(e) of the Resource Management Act 1991.
5 Section 7(a) of the Resource Management Act 1991.
8 A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways
2.1.5 Cultural landscapes
To gain a full understanding and appreciation of the past lives and activities of Māori, it is
necessary to view traditional sites within their wider context, and to focus on the relationships
between the sites and the wider cultural landscape they inhabit.
A small-scale example of this type of relationship could include the position of a site adjacent to
a tributary. The resources that are able to be gathered from the tributary would have been a
significant factor in locating the site, and need to be considered as an integral part of the site’s
function, regardless of whether any archaeological remains lie within it.
On a wider scale, the entire landscapes of the Taieri and Kakaunui catchments are dotted with
sites of significance. These sites did not function in isolation from each other, but were part of a
wider cultural setting that included not only sites as defined by the presence of archaeological
remains, but also the waterway itself.
The significance of cultural landscapes reinforces the need to:
ensure that sites are selected from throughout the catchment •
• develop a tool that ensures a holistic perspective on stream health assessment.
2.2 The significance of freshwater to Māori
In 1998 Ngāi Tahu chose freshwater as the subject of its environmental performance indicators
case study in recognition of the absolute necessity of freshwater to the lives of Māori, which
made it a part of their spiritual and cultural existence. The spiritual affinity with freshwater
continues.
Specific freshwater sources are valued because of their spiritual status or usage. Water may be
tapu, or sacred, because of its properties in relationship to other waters, places or objects. Other
water bodies may be accorded taonga status because of particular uses the waterway supports,
which, unlike wai tapu, are not prohibited by tapu. In a resource management context, Māori
are likely to seek the absolute protection of freshwater resources that are considered tapu, and
seek the protection of sufficient quantities of high-quality waters of taonga value (Ministry for
the Environment, 1997).
The CHI responds to these beliefs by enabling Māori to identify those waters of special
significance, and to use an assessment tool grounded in their beliefs and values to ensure that
cultural data inform management, and that the significance of sites is reflected in resource
management decisions.
In summary, Māori want to sustain the mauri of significant freshwater resources. A waterbody
with a healthy mauri will sustain healthy ecosystems, support a range of cultural uses (including
the gathering of mahinga kai), and reinforce the cultural identity of the people (Ministry for the
Environment, 1997).
A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways 9
2.3 Participation of iwi in resource management
As early as 1900, Māori knew that mahinga kai, and the ways of life based on mahinga kai,
could die. Their action was needed to keep mahinga kai and a mahinga kai-based culture alive.
However, as settlement intensified, Māori were not active participants in decision-making, and
there was no statutory requirement for resource managers to consult Māori when developments
were undertaken.
If freshwater managers and the wider community are to recognise cultural values and practices,
and if they are to enable Māori to be active participants in the management of freshwater, it is
necessary to either identify the similarities in world views, practices and values, or identify how
the incorporation of a Māori perspective will enhance management.
Māori believe that contemporary environmental practices have failed to address the adverse
effects of resource use and development on their cultural values. For example, in a number of
forums Māori have argued that their relationship with the freshwaters of their tribal territories
has been eroded (Waitangi Tribunal 1991, Waitangi Tribunal 1995). More specifically, they
contend that the mauri of many waterways has been desecrated.
Māori have two main reasons for seeking the recognition of cultural values and practices in
contemporary freshwater management:
•
•
the conviction that their cultural practices have a very strong environmental basis and
could enhance the management process
an obligation, as kaitiaki, to protect the natural world.
Developing the CHI recognises that the kaitiaki system is based on whakapapa and inherited
responsibility, and that the obligations of kaitiaki are inalienable. A group mandated from
elsewhere, such as an environmental group or a resource management agency, cannot fulfil the
obligation, as only mana whenua can be mandated as kaitiaki. The application of the CHI
encourages a collaborative relationship between mana whenua and resource managers, and
enables the parties to fulfil their respective inherited and statutory obligations. The CHI
therefore has the potential to reduce or avoid tensions between Māori as kaitiaki, who are often
divorced from an active management role, and the resource management agencies that in the
absence of cultural data may make decisions that conflict with cultural beliefs and values.
This discussion of the significance of freshwater management illustrates the distinct world view
that Māori would bring to the management process. It highlights that some of the effects of past
and contemporary management regimes cannot be measured only in economic and ecological
terms, and that in fact some losses go beyond physical health.
In contemporary society statutory resource management agencies (especially regional councils)
have an integral role in protecting the mauri of freshwater, through their primary responsibility
under the Resource Management Act 1991 for controlling human interaction with freshwater.
Māori expect resource managers to recognise and provide for their cultural beliefs and practices
given the statutory provisions in Part 2 of the Resource Management Act.6 However, in order to
protect a value, the resource management agencies must possess an appreciation of that value
and an understanding of the actions necessary to protect it. The difficulty for Māori and
resource management agencies is the noticeable absence of appropriate tools and processes that
ensure a Māori perspective is incorporated in management. The CHI is intended to fill this void
6 See sections 5, 6(e), 7(a) and 8 of the Resource Management Act 1991.
10 A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways
and enable resource management agencies and Māori to assess the overall health of freshwater
resources and identify the necessary restorative actions.
Although Māori have sought a greater role in resource management, there are a number of
practical challenges that need to be discussed and resolved in order to achieve this.
There may be uncertainty among some resource management agencies, conservationists and
stakeholders over the effectiveness of traditional management systems due to the current lack of
opportunities for Māori to implement cultural practices. This may result in a steep learning
curve for resource managers and other stakeholders when iwi are applying or seeking to apply
the CHI, or are using the data collected as a result of its application.
Another challenge facing resource management agencies is that Māori represent one of many
groups with an interest in freshwater management. Freshwater is a commodity that is subject to
intense competition, and the interdependency of different parts of the hydrological system
creates many stakeholders. The significance and value of water to Māori and other stakeholders
may conflict. Data generated by the CHI defines something of the value of particular resources
to Maori. In using this data Maori can add a significant new dimension to the appreciation of
such issues.
It is for resource management agencies to respond to these conflicting interests. However,
statutory resource managers, such as regional councils, are bound by section 8 of the Resource
Management Act 1991, which states that the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi must be taken
into account. The interests of Māori, as the Treaty partner, are therefore distinct from those of
other stakeholders.
Although many resource management agencies want to recognise traditional management
practices, some consider that the intangible or metaphysical aspects of Māori values make it
difficult to understand what they mean and how they could be recognised and provided for. The
fundamental question remains: what are the practical means by which they are to recognise and
provide for cultural values and practices within contemporary resource management systems?
The CHI is proposed as a practical, easily implemented tool that enables the collection of data
specific to cultural values.
The enunciation of resource-specific Treaty principles potentially advances the case of Māori
seeking participation in management. The principles provide positive confirmation for the
cultural values and practices that Māori have articulated for decades, but may not have had
recognised by resource management agencies. Where resource management agencies have a
statutory obligation with respect to the Treaty, they are obligated to “give effect” to or “take
account” of those cultural values and practices that courts have confirmed by way of Treaty
principles.
However, statements of principle, by themselves, may be insufficient to change resource
management practices, and further definition of the application of these principles may be
required. The Waitangi Tribunal has imposed obligations for resource management agencies
and clear direction is needed as to how, in a practical sense, resource management agencies are
to meet these obligations while fulfilling their other statutory responsibilities. Understanding
how the Treaty principles are to be applied to a specific resource (in this case freshwater) and
separate management functions and activities is crucial.
A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways 11
Utilising tools such as the CHI recognises that only Māori are able to provide the clarity needed
by resource managers and, significantly, supports application of the Waitangi Tribunal principle
that “the spiritual and cultural significance of a freshwater resource to Māori can only be
determined by the tangata whenua who have traditional rights over the river” (Ministry for
Environment 1987:85).
In summary, despite the obligations imposed on resource management agencies by the Treaty of
Waitangi and New Zealand’s resource management laws, the issue of incorporating Māori
values into management practices remains largely unresolved. Māori need tools, based on their
cultural values, that enable them to meaningfully express their views about the health of
freshwater and to participate more fully in environmental management. Māori also need to
know that contemporary resource managers support the use of tools such as the CHI, recognise
the validity of the data collected, and will respond to the information provided.
12 A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways
3 Study Design
This section of the report describes the:
choice of rivers included in the study •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
selection of sites on those rivers
identification of appropriate cultural indicators of stream health
development of the recording form used by the rūnanga assessment teams
data collection.
3.1 River selection
Two river catchments were included in the study to determine whether the methods and tools
resulting from the project are valid for different catchments. The Taieri and Kakaunui
catchments were selected because:
the two catchments are of significance to Ngāi Tahu, as recognised by the Crown in the
Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998 (schedules 70 and 23 contain the statutory
acknowledgements of Lakes Waipori / Waihola in the Taieri catchment and the Kakaunui
River, respectively)
the rivers are of significance to Otakou and Moeraki rūnanga, respectively
a significant amount of written traditional information and knowledge is held within the
rūnanga and could be accessed
they are both hill country rain-fed rivers with a variety of land uses in their catchments
extensive research has been conducted into stream health in the Taieri River
the Otago Regional Council has assigned priority to investigating and reviewing
management of both catchments.
3.1.1 The Taieri catchment
The Taieri catchment is the second largest in Otago, covering an area of 5650 km2. The river
rises in the uplands of Central Otago and meanders through the block mountains of the upper
Taieri catchment, before passing through an incised gorge and crossing the Taieri Plains, in
what is commonly referred to as the Lower Taieri. The Taieri joins the Waipori River before it
passes through another gorge to meet the sea at Taieri Mouth.
A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways 13
3.1.2 The Kakaunui catchment
The Kakaunui is one of a number of significant rivers that drain the coastal hills of Otago. It
rises in high country and passes predominantly through dry lowlands. The catchment is subject
to low flows, particularly during November and April.
Schedule 1D of the Proposed Regional Water Plan for the Otago Region confirms the
significance of both the Taieri and Kakaunui Rivers to Ngāi Tahu. It identifies the following
cultural values for both:
kaitiakitanga •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
mauri
wāhi tapu and/or waiwhakaheke
wāhi taonga
mahinga kai
kōhanga
trails
cultural materials.
3.2 Site selection
The study was designed to ensure that data for each of the indicators of stream health and
mahinga kai collected at sites in the Taieri and Kakaunui Rivers could be subjected to
statistically rigorous analysis during the development of the CHI. The study design also
provided for the application of Western scientific stream health assessment methods at all sites
so that comparisons could be made between cultural and scientific measures, providing a
broader perspective within which to view the CHI.
Sites were selected according to the following criteria:
stream size
sites of traditional significance
catchment land use.
3.2.1 Stream size
A credible stream health measure should give reliable results across all stream sizes, from
headwater streams to the lower reaches of the mainstem. In cultural terms, site selection that
includes all parts of the catchment is consistent with the ki uta ki tai (mountains to the sea)
philosophy.
Three orders of stream size were selected as the most appropriate measure. The categories
adopted were:
first- and second-order streams – the smallest or headwater streams
third- and fourth-order streams – medium-sized streams that may be tributaries or the
mainstem in the middle reaches
fifth-order and above streams – larger streams that may be major tributaries, or the
mainstem in the lower reaches.
14 A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways
Within each of these stream-order categories we sought 8 to 10 sites, because this level of
replication allows meaningful results to be separated out from natural variability within the data.
In the larger Taieri catchment this translated to 30 sites: 10 in each of the three stream-order
categories.
In the smaller Kakaunui catchment we anticipated including sites within all three categories, but
none of the first- and second-order streams were flowing during our site visits. As a result, our
database was restricted to 16 sites: eight in the third- and fourth-order categories and eight in the
fifth-order-plus category.
3.2.2 Sites of traditional significance
Members of Te Rūnanga Otakou and Te Rūnanga o Moeraki were interviewed about the Taieri
and Kakaunui Rivers, respectively, and their catchments. Members were asked, in an
interactive ‘conversation-style’ interview, the following questions:
1. If you drove up beside a beautiful healthy stream, what would it look like?
2. How do you assess a site and decide whether to fish there or not?
3. What has impacted on the health of streams and rivers?
4. What has impacted on your mahinga kai?
5. What traditional monitoring techniques have you heard of – specific to rivers?
6. What are some of the sites that you use or used in the past in the Taieri / Kakaunui
catchments? What was harvested from these areas?
7. What could iwi add to the management process?
8. What are the barriers that stop us participating now?
As can be seen from this list, interviews started with general questions about river health,
moved on to questions about mahinga kai, and then, with the use of maps, associations with
specific sites were identified and sites of traditional significance recorded. The recommended
list of sites was agreed with representatives from each of the rūnanga.
3.2.3 Catchment land use
Land use within the Taieri catchment is documented on the University of Otago Stream Team’s
Geographic Information System (GIS). Categories include tussock, intensively grazed pasture,
deer farming, pine plantation, and native bush. For the optimum study design, our aim was for
sites to be replicated in each stream-order and land-use category. This was possible for first-
and second-order streams, and two sites were selected in each of the five land-use categories.
Further downstream there is greater heterogeneity in catchment land use, so strict selection
according to land use was more difficult.
For the Kakaunui catchment, land use was assessed from aerial photographs held by the Otago
Regional Council and entered into the GIS. Fewer land-use categories were evident, with
intensively grazed pasture and tussock predominating. A field visit was required to validate the
data before site selection could be finalised.
A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways 15
3.2.4 Finalising site selection
In the site-selection process, sites of traditional significance were first assigned within each of
the stream-order categories. Remaining sites were selected to optimise variety and replication
of land use. Figures 1 and 2 show the location of sites selected in each catchment, together with
details of stream size and traditional association.
Figure 1: Taieri River site locations
Site Map Map ref Site Map Map ref Site Map Map ref
1 I44 099862 11* I44 994749 21* H45 891646
2 I44 935831 12* I44 027775 22* H44 831715
3 H44 682866 13 I43 110095 23* I45 901657
4 H44 656878 14 H43 697063 24* I44 957807
5 H44 669912 15* I42 966376 25* I44 979835
6 H44 645913 16* I42 975433 26 I44 996969
7 H44 697830 17* I42 954461 27* H43 684136
8 H44 672843 18* H42 832470 28* I41 932655
9 H44 725732 19* H42 864539 29* H42 881538
10 H44 720730 20* H43 669235 30* H43 705276
Note: A* indicates that the site is of traditional significance.
16 A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways
Figure 2: Kakaunui River site locations
Site Map Map ref Site Map Map ref
31* J42 437582 39* J42 434568
32 J41 426674 40* J42 429579
33 J41 412294 41* J42 401583
34 J41 428712 42* J42 394598
35 I41 243710 43* J41 390632
36* J41 324641 44* J41 381666
37* J42 336584 45* J41 334705
38* J42 390582 46 J41 323737
Note: A* indicates that the site is of traditional significance.
3.3 Selection of indicators of cultural stream health
3.3.1 Potential indicators from the 1998 case study
The starting point for this study was the report from the 1998 Taieri River Case Study (known
as Stage 1; see Tipa, 1999), which concluded with a list of 30 indicators for assessing stream
health. Stage 2 of the project sought to operationalise the indicators that had been identified by
kaumātua, and develop a tool for use by Māori to assess stream health from a cultural
perspective.
A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways 17
3.3.2 Further interviews to determine indicators
Some of the indicators identified during Stage 1 represent positive statements that describe a
healthy waterway, while others are negative and describe features or activities that adversely
impact on a waterway.7 We therefore carried out further interviews with members of Ngāi Tahu
whānui, asking them to describe the characteristics of a healthy waterway. Because the
questions about the health of a waterway are generic, we interviewed Ngāi Tahu from
throughout the rohe. Twelve further interviews were completed: two from Otakou, four from
Moeraki and six from throughout the rest of the rohe. From interview transcripts we derived the
following indicators that are important in determining whether a river is healthy:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
shape of the river
sediment in the water
riverbank condition
flow characteristics
flow variations
flood flows
sound of flow
movement of water
river mouth
natural river mouth environ
water quality
water quality throughout the catchment
riparian vegetation
use of the river margin
temperature
catchment land use
freshwater smell
sediment on the riverbed stones and gravels
abundant and diverse range of mahinga kai species
fish are safe to eat
water is safe to drink
uses of the river.
These indicators are very similar to – and further validate – the indicators that were included in
the 1998 report. In the paragraphs below we provide quotes from those interviewed that we
believe validate the inclusion of each indicator.
7 This mix of positive and negative indicators was raised as a concern by Nigel Jollands (former Ministry for
the Environment) when he commented on the first Taieri Report, prepared in 1998.
18 A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways
Shape of the river
The shape of the river has to be natural. Those interviewed explained that a healthy river is
characterised by pools, riffles and runs with a natural pattern of bends and curves. More
specifically they believed it was important that:
There have been no alterations to the course of the stream… The river flows and
there are a series of pools, riffles and runs (Broad).
It would have curves and bends, twists and turns … It would have ebbs and flows,
deeps and shallows (Cook).
The river environ is balanced. The river fits the landscape; river, river margin,
and land are all connected. Nothing is at risk. The river is healthy from the source
in the headwaters to the sea. The river is balanced. Stream change is natural –
floods and droughts are natural (G. Thomas).
Sediment in the water
Water free from discoloration is seen as important, as evidenced by the statement from Williams
that “the water is good quality cos the only discolouration is when the river is in flood”.
Riverbank condition
A number of interviewees started by describing the riverbanks. Many linked riverbanks and
riparian margins, but Broad specifically saw the importance of “the banks are non-eroding (this
means there is no cattle on the banks)”.
Flow characteristics / flow variations
All interviewees commented on the flow of water. The comments by Davis and O’Connell, in
particular, confirm that water quantity is an issue. However, it is not possible to fully assess
quantity issues with one visit to a site. We therefore sought to identify a number of indicators
that collectively might help us to assess flow and quantity issues.
To me a healthy river is a river that has first and foremost a full complement of
water. It has a quantity of water that retains a high fishery resource in terms of a
number of varieties of fish can live in it. A river that has the quantity that will
maintain quality of water (Davis).
We take too much out and don’t consider what the river actually needs
(O’Connell).
Flood flows
The following statements confirm the importance of flood flows. However, given the approach
of using a single site visit, this indicator could not be further involved in developing the cultural
stream health index.
A healthy river for me is one that has maintained waterflow – that actually does all
the maintenance or flood maintenance or whatever is required in the river to keep
the channel open, so that it allows migration inland and downstream, for whatever,
it may be an animal, it maybe a fish for that to happen (Davis).
A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways 19
Sound of flow
Couch believed that assessing the river means that “you consider the sound, clarity, look and
taste of it”.
Movement of water (is visible)
A number of interviewees believed that the visible movement of water was an important
characteristic of a healthy river.
The river flows (O’Connell).
It looks like it has life – if it is stagnant or there is no flow it is unlikely to support
life (Couch).
River mouth
Interviewees noted that activities upstream have the potential to impact on sites downstream.
Reihana advised that we should “check the river mouth, the condition, and the clarity there”.
Our approach to assessing multiple sites in the catchment precludes specific assessment of the
river mouth, and this indicator is not considered further.
Water quality throughout the catchment
As noted earlier, Williams summarised the importance of water-quality considerations when she
explained that in a healthy river, “the water is good quality cos the only discolouration is when
the river is in flood”.
Riparian vegetation
The following comments confirm that interviewees clearly believe that the health of the river
and the species to be sourced from that river are linked to the condition of the riparian margins.
The other thing about healthy rivers, they need to be rivers that have the vegetation
that is appropriate for the shelter and the habitat for those animals that live and
I’m not just talking about fish, I’m talking about the micro-organisms and the
insects ... and even those animals that frequent it for whatever reason they want to
be there (Davis).
There is overhang – vegetation (ferns or tussocks) overhang the bank and into the
water. This provides food and clears the sediment away (Broad).
Vegetation on the river margin provides shelter and food for what is in the river.
The river supports a range of species. Fish in the water, trees and vegetation
growing beside the water, birds on the water and in the trees. A full range of life is
supported – linked by water (D.Tipa).
20 A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways
Use of the river margin
Activities on the river margin were noted as a concern. Broad referred specifically to the
presence of stock, explaining that for a healthy river “the banks are non-eroding (this means
there is no cattle on the banks)”. Davis noted the presence of tracks and vehicle access along
the riparian margin as a concern.
Temperature
One interviewee (Reihana) stated that he would use temperature as an indicator if he was
responsible for monitoring the health of a waterway. Once again, the approach of using a single
site visit precludes meaningful analysis of temperature and this indicator is not considered
further.
Catchment land use and river ‘balance’
Interviewees believed that there is a link between land use and river condition, as evidenced by
the following comments.
The source of the mauri is the headwaters. These mountainous ranges are the
home of the atua. Physical markers would be placed throughout the catchment.
Ceremonies would take place at these markers. The physical mauri together with
the appropriate ritual ensures plentiful harvest. Management is underpinned by
ritual and respect. Maori knew the mainstem Kakaunui could be followed and that
it would branch into a number of small tributaries. The source, which should be
protected, was the homes of the atua – the Kakaunui Hills (Higgins).
This statement was supported by that of Reihana who explained that:
The mauri is sourced from the headwaters. They should be intact, unmodified, and
protected. There are different parts to a catchment as there are parts to any living
entity – damaging one part impacts on the whole.
Furthermore, it is important that:
The river environ is balanced. The river fits the landscape; river, river margin,
and land are all connected. Nothing is at risk ... There is stability in the
surrounding land (G. Thomas).
Freshwater smell
Although the 1999 report concluded that the freshwater smell should not be used as an
indicator, it has been included here because several interviewees referred to smell as an
indicator.
A healthy river is a sense, a feeling, a sense, when you get to a river, lake or
stream, you feel, that this is in good shape. You can smell a healthy river (Couch).
It would have all those, have those lovely smells (Cook).
A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways 21
Sediment on the riverbed stones and gravels
Broad explained that a healthy river would be characterised by “clear gravel on the river bottom,
free of sediment”.
Abundant and diverse range of indigenous species
Interviewees believe that a healthy waterway would support life, in particular abundant
indigenous populations. They specifically mentioned birds, fish, insects, and plants.
A healthy river supports life. There is lots of activity – fish, plants, birds
(D. Thomas).
Identify what lives in the catchment. Check it all out, birds, fish, all life (Reihana).
I’d be looking at what is actually in the water – the species. ... We consider what
we get from it – what mahinga kai. What is in the stream and what is in the
ecosystem surrounding it? (O’Connell).
Fish are safe to eat
Interviewees specifically referred to the condition of mahinga kai, pointing out that mahinga kai
from a healthy waterway would be fit for human consumption. O’Connell summed this up
when he explained:
... the mahinga kai would be safe to eat. We consider the health of mahinga kai. If
it supports life, is that life in a healthy state? If a tuna has abscesses on it, we
won’t take it home for the pot.
A concern was that you did not always know the condition of the fish. Reihana believed fish
may “not be safe to eat – with contamination – you don’t always know”.
Water is safe to drink
Couch believed that a healthy river is safe to taste.
Uses of the river
Interviewees also identified what they believe was the cause of deterioration in the health of a
river. As a result, indicators were included that focused on activity and uses of the river.
The river has changed. The land has changed. Change – too much, too quickly.
As a result habitats and species mix have changed. Linkages are being broken –
mountains to sea. From river to land. The stability is lost. When you look on the
banks and inland to the lands adjacent to the river you see instability – habitats
change, overfishing, introduced species (G. Thomas).
Mahinga kai in its truest concept is not just the food thing ... a healthy river;
healthy environment is healthy people (Williams).
22 A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways
3.3.3 Mahinga kai indicators
Each interviewee was also asked to explain how they would assess the appropriateness/
suitability of a site for mahinga kai. Some started by reiterating their earlier comments,
confirming that a number of the indicators of cultural health are also seen as indicators of
mahinga kai.
Indicators of mahinga kai included the following:
water quality throughout the catchment •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
riparian vegetation
sediment on the riverbed stones and gravels
abundant and diverse range of mahinga kai (fish) species
abundant and diverse range of mahinga kai (bird) species
abundant and diverse range of mahinga kai (plant) species
condition and size of fish
fish are safe to eat
water is safe to drink
river is able to be accessed
ability to harvest species of choice
ability to harvest using methods of preference.
The justifications for all but the final three indicators are provided in the previous section. In
the paragraphs set out below we have included quotes from those interviewed that we believe
justify the inclusion of the final three indicators.
River is able to be accessed
One issue of particular concern to interviewees was the inability to access mahinga kai. Access
includes three distinct aspects: physical access, access to particular species, and using traditional
methods to gather the species.
Adverse effects intensify as you move downstream. Lowland areas, especially the
estuaries that we fished, the traditional sites for mahinga kai are the worst
affected. The sites that remain unmodified are those in the headwaters that are
hard to access (Williams).
There is too much competition. Areas untouched, unmodified, in good quality,
stable – are in the headwaters and may not have been traditionally fished (Broad).
People need to walk to the rivers and that’s a help for people too. If we have
tracks down the sides of our rivers for vehicles the health of our river, well it is
basically not there (Davis).
A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways 23
Ability to harvest mahinga kai species of choice
While the previous indicator addresses the issue of physical access, this indicator focuses on the
issue of access to particular species – in particular the ability to harvest species of traditional
significance. The following statements highlight that the ability to access traditional sites and
harvest the mahinga kai species that were there in the past is a concern.
The species mix has changed. We can’t always access and catch what we want.
With eels, we used to fish the lowland areas. These are now fished out. How far
do we have to go to get a feed? (Reihana).
They overfish the streams. We can’t access our traditional sites and if we could is
there anything to catch? The species have changed and the numbers have changed
(D. Tipa).
Mahinga kai is a practice and a principle. It includes a developmental aspect. We
should not be limited to 1840 sites and species. We know the sites but the species
change (O’Connell).
Ability to harvest mahinga kai using methods of preference
Another issue of particular concern to interviewees was the inability to continue to use
traditional methods of harvest.
We can’t use our methods. We can’t go to our sites – we need to ask permission.
The species we used to catch have changed (Reihana).
We know what the river supported. The traditional methods of
managing/harvesting are not permitted (e.g. they cull swans and geese – we would
take the eggs). That will limit numbers. We are limited to having an interest in
traditional species but there have been impacts. We should be able to develop and
take species that have replaced our traditional ones (O’Connell).
From the above statements it is apparent that the focus for an assessment of mahinga kai has to
be wider than the river environment itself. It has to consider the health of the site, the species
available, and the ability to undertake the activity of harvesting mahinga kai.
3.4 The recording form and data collection
3.4.1 Designing the recording form
On the basis of information in section 3.3, a recording form was developed for rūnanga
members to assess the health and mahinga kai at each stream site (Appendix 1). All the
indicators used on the sheet can be traced back to the interviews with kaumātua and iwi resource
managers.
Because the objective was to develop a quantitative index, we needed to:
make a clear distinction between positive and negative statements •
•
•
introduce ratings of 1–5
ask for an overall assessment of stream health (1–5) on which to base an evaluation of the
contribution each indicator makes to overall stream health.
24 A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways
3.4.2 Data collection
Three generations were represented in the rūnanga teams: kaumātua, pakeke and rangatahi.
Each team comprised at least five members. Some days we took additional personnel into the
field when husbands, sons, daughters and nephews chose to accompany us. This confirmed that
the process was inclusive, accommodating and straightforward.
An unexpected outcome from the fieldwork was the positive effect participating in the study
had on rūnanga members. No data were collected on this aspect of the fieldwork, although this
sort of project does lend itself to the collection of qualitative data about social and cultural
outcomes.
Each rūnanga member used the recording form to complete a field assessment of stream health
and mahinga kai at each stream site. Data were gathered for 16 sites in the Kakaunui catchment
and 30 sites in the Taieri catchment during the 2000/01 summer. The rating information from
each of the recording sheets was collated into a spreadsheet for analysis.
Compiling the mahinga kai information required access to historical as well as contemporary
data. Lists of species that were traditionally harvested from the sites were compiled from
interviews with rūnanga members and from the written records of Ngāi Tahu. As an iwi, Ngāi
Tahu have access to substantial written records. Collection of this information could have taken
significantly longer to collect if Maori Land Court minute books and the records held by
individual whānau members had had to be researched. For contemporary data on plant and bird
species, rūnanga members listed on the recording form the mahinga kai plant and bird species
present in the vicinity of the site.
Because it was not possible for rūnanga members to directly observe fish at each site, sampling
was required to identify the presence of mahinga kai fish species. Electric fishing8 was carried
out at all sites, with fish species being identified and returned to the stream alive. At larger
sites, in lower river reaches, a combination of netting and electric fishing was used; netting was
the only practical method of sampling in the deeper waters while electric fishing could take
place along the edges.
8 One of the electric fishers was a Ngāi Tahu PhD candidate from the University of Otago.
A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways 25
4 Calculating the Cultural Health Index
Traditional association, mahinga kai and stream health are the three components that make up the
Cultural Health Index. To derive the index at a particular stream site, first iwi association is
identified, then mahinga kai values are assessed, and finally cultural stream health is evaluated.
Almost all the necessary data for these measures are derived from the recording forms. The
components of the CHI are first outlined below and then dealt with in detail in sections 4.1 to 4.3.
Component 1: stream sites are classified according to traditional association and intention to
use in the future.
Is there a traditional association between rūnanga and the site? Sites of traditional
significance are assigned an ‘A’. Sites that do not have a traditional association are
assigned a ‘B’.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Would Māori come to the site in the future? Whether the rūnanga would return to the site
or not is also recorded. If the rūnanga would return, the site is awarded a 1, and if not, a 0.
Component 2: sites are evaluated for the following mahinga kai features. Each feature is rated
1–5 and the mahinga kai score is the average of the four 1–5 ratings (1 is poor and 5 is the
highest mahinga kai rating).
How many mahinga kai species are present? This requires identifying the mahinga kai
species that are present now.
Are the mahinga kai species that were gathered in the past still here? This enables a
comparison between the mahinga species that were gathered historically with the species
that are present now.
Are the mahinga species accessible for gathering? Accessibility includes physical access
and legal access.
Would Māori come to the site in the future? This component is the same as the second
part of component 1 above. If the rūnanga would return, the site is awarded a 5, and if
not, a 1.
Component 3: sites are evaluated for cultural stream health. First, the average scores for the
rūnanga team members were calculated for 18 indicators of stream health at each site. Then,
using a series of criteria, the list of indicators was condensed to a set of five that effectively
encapsulates overall stream health (as assessed on the recording form). The average score for
all included indicators provides the cultural stream health measure (1 is poor and 5 is the highest
cultural stream health rating). The method of narrowing the set of indicators to five (principally
through data analysis and validation by groups of iwi members) is described below.
Overall index: the overall three-part Cultural Health Index is expressed as shown in terms of
the three components. For example, a stream may be given an index of:
A–0 / 2.1 / 4.2
where:
A identifies the site as traditional (rather than a B for non-traditional)
0 indicates that Māori would not return to this site in the future (1 indicates they would return)
2.1 is the mahinga kai score (score of 1–5)
4.2 is the overall evaluation of stream health (score of 1–5).
26 A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways
4.1 Component 1: traditional association
The selection of sites to be monitored enables Māori to choose sites that are valued because of
their traditional significance and special characteristics.
It was important that the CHI distinguish between traditional and contemporary sites.
Preservation of valued traditional sites is an important task for those individuals who are
mandated as the kaitiaki. Protecting traditional sites also makes a significant contribution to
preserving cultural identity. The first part of the traditional association component of the CHI is
therefore a classification along these lines:
A – means the site is one that was chosen by Māori because it is a traditional site •
•
•
•
B – means that the site is not traditional.
It is essential that the traditional association component also reflects whether Māori believe they
would or would not visit a site in the future. It is of little value having a traditional site valued
highly because of the many mahinga kai species present and the water being free from physical
pollution if Māori will not actually go there.
One example that highlights the different perspectives of Māori and non-Māori is the
specification of water standards and the definition of water pollution. Māori spiritual values
with respect to drinking water include standards and perceptions of pollution that may conflict
with scientific measures. For example, ‘drinking-water standard’ may be scientifically defined
as carrying contaminants, but at a level that is not toxic. In other words, a certain level of
degradation can occur. In contrast, Māori would require drinking water to be protected from
physical and spiritual pollution, which requires an absolute prohibition on certain discharge
activities (Ministry for the Environment, 1997).
Including a question about whether or not Māori believe they would visit the site in the future
enables them to consider the site in the context of their many other beliefs and values.
The second part of the traditional association component of the CHI is the question in the
recording form that asks: Would you use this site in the future?
No scores 0
Yes scores 1.
4.2 Component 2: the mahinga kai measure
Qualities that help describe the mauri of a waterway include its life-supporting capacity, and the
abundance, diversity and condition of the resources it supports. When assessing sites, Māori are
likely to request sufficient quantities of water, of a quality appropriate for the maintenance of
healthy mahinga kai resources and their related cultural values (Ministry for the Environment,
1997). As previously stated, a consideration of mahinga kai incorporates the ability to access
the resource, the health of the site where gathering occurs, the abundance and condition of
species gathered, the health of the site where gathering occurs, and the activity of gathering. It
also requires that resources be accessible to Māori and in a condition whereby they are fit for
cultural use. It was essential that the Index encapsulated the many facets of mahinga kai.
A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways 27
The mahinga kai component of the CHI was designed to incorporate four different aspects that
are central to the continuity of cultural practices with respect to mahinga kai:
the presence and abundance of mahinga kai species at a site •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
the ability to harvest the same species as in the past from sites of traditional significance
the ability to access a site for the harvest of mahinga kai
the perception by Māori that the site can be used as it had been in the past.
To combine the four aspects of the mahinga kai component, each was rated on a 1–5 scale and
then the four 1–5 scores were averaged to give a single 1–5 mahinga kai rating. The follow
sections explain how these aspects are addressed in the mahinga kai component of the index.
4.2.1 Presence of mahinga kai species at sites now
This part of the mahinga kai component of the CHI requires the compilation of a list of mahinga
kai species (plants, birds, and fish) present at each of the sites. When assessing each site,
rūnanga members were asked to compile a list of bird and plant species present. Mahinga kai
fish species were identified from electric fishing. A 30-metre reach was fished at each site and
fish captured were identified and recorded before being returned alive to the water. The species
lists were collated and a resource inventory prepared.
The number of mahinga kai plant, bird and fish species observed at each site then needs to be
converted to a 1–5 scale. Sites that score a 5 indicate the high relative abundance of mahinga
kai species in comparison to lower-rated sites within the catchment, whereas those that score a 1
are relatively sparsely populated.
Scores of 1–5 were assigned according to the number of species present. First, the site with the
most species is identified. This number then needs to be converted to 5, the top of the 1–5
scale. For example: in our study the maximum number found at any one site was nine species.
To convert the number to a score between 1 and 5 we added 1 and then divided the total by 2.
In effect this means that the best site in its current condition sets the baseline for comparison.
This was appropriate given that a number of relatively unmodified sites are found in the Taieri
and Kakaunui catchments. However, it does raise questions if none of the sites are in their
original state. The project team is reviewing this aspect.
By adding 1 to the number of species for all 46 sites and then dividing by 2, the following
scores were obtained:
no mahinga kai species present scores 1
three species present scores 2
five species present scores 3
seven species present scores 4
nine or more species present scores 5.
28 A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways
4.2.2 Presence of mahinga kai species at traditional sites
Accessing traditional records enables the identification of species sourced from traditional sites.
As noted previously, the principal means of compiling lists of species traditionally sourced from
an area are:
written archives and journals •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
evidence presented in support of Tribunal claims
Maori Land Court records
interviews with whānau members, in particular kaumātua
community records.
This historical information can then be compared with the mahinga kai species present at the
site today. Cultural continuity means that greater value will be assigned to sites of traditional
significance that continue to support the mahinga kai species that were sourced from these sites
in the past. A score of 1–5 is assigned, based on the number of species of traditional
significance that are still present today:
non-traditional site scores a 1
none of the species sourced in the past are present at the site scores 1
at least 25% of the species sourced in the past are still present scores 2
at least 50% of the species sourced in the past are still present scores 3
at least 75% of the species sourced in the past are still present scores 4
all species sourced in the past are still present at the site scores 5.
4.2.3 Current access to mahinga kai at sites
The definition of ‘mahinga kai’ encompasses Māori being able to access the resources they want
to gather. ‘Access’ covers both legal and physical access. Physical barriers may include it
being too far to travel to the site, or too steep or dangerous to get to a site.
Legal barriers may include having to ask the landowner for permission or encountering locked
gates. Although a number of species may be present at a site, if there is no access (and therefore
no utility value), mahinga kai values cannot be ascribed.
A score of 1, 3 or 5 is assigned to each site based on the ability to access the site.
no access is available scores 1
either physical barriers or legal barriers make access difficult scores 3
no barriers to access scores 5.
A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways 29
4.2.4 Will the site be used by Maori for mahinga kai?
As described in section 4.1, the question of whether Māori will use a site is fundamental to its
mahinga kai status. Therefore, this aspect is also included here in the mahinga kai component
of the CHI. In answer to the question: Would you come and use this site in the future?
No scores 1 •
• Yes scores 5.
Please note that the scoring for component 2 differs from component 1 as all scores in this, the
mahinga kai component, are between 1 and 5.
4.2.5 Calculating the mahinga kai measure
The mahinga kai score for a given site is determined by averaging the scores for each of the
mahinga kai components. The scores for these components are derived from the recording form
and electric fishing, except the score for the component described in section 4.2.2, which
depends partly on historical information.
4.3 Component 3: cultural stream health measure
In addition to the many intangible qualities associated with the presence of a waterway, mauri
can be tangibly represented in terms of some of its physical characteristics, including water
clarity; the depth, velocity and volume of water flow; natural character; flora and fauna;
continuity of flow from the mountain source of a river to the sea; and fitness of the waters and
the resources supported for cultural usage (Ministry for the Environment, 1997).
To be effective, the cultural stream health measure must embody Māori values and produce
consistent and repeatable results irrespective of the iwi members who use it and the streams it is
applied to. Of the 21 original indicators of cultural stream health on the recording form, 18
were identified as potentially useful components of the cultural stream health measure. (River
shape and Balance were removed after they proved difficult for rūnanga members to score
consistently. Mahinga kai birds was removed so that mahinga kai values are reflected in
component 2 and no mahinga kai values would appear in the cultural stream health measure.
The two components of Indigenous species, on adjacent land and in riparian margins, were
scored as a single measure).
The 18 indicators used to develop the cultural stream health measure of the CHI are listed
below. Rather than discuss each indicator in the order it appears on the recording form, they
have been grouped by topic. For instance, those relating to the river margins are presented
together, as are those that relate to in-stream water quality.
River health values include an overall stream health measure – an all-encompassing measure
made up of all the indicators that contribute to stream health. Correlation coefficients between
each indicator and overall stream health are shown in square brackets.
For cross-referencing, the number of the indicator on the recording sheet is presented in italics
after the numbering by topic used here.
30 A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways
4.3.1 Indicator categories
River health values
1. (21) Overall stream health (1–5; very unhealthy / very healthy) [1.0]
2. (19) Fish safe to eat (1–5; completely unsafe / completely safe) [0.91]
3. (17) Water safe to drink (1–5; completely unsafe / completely safe) [0.84]
4. (18) Would go fishing at the site (1–5; would not / great place to fish) [0.83]
Catchment scale
5. (1) Catchment land use (1–5; land and margins grazed / natural condition) [0.64]
Riparian river-margin scale
6. (16) Use of riparian margin (1–5; riparian zone grazed / natural) [0.65]
7. (4) Riparian vegetation (1–5; little or none / indigenous riparian vegetation) [0.54]
8. (5) Indigenous species (1–5; exotic vegetation on adjacent land and margins / indigenous
vegetation on adjacent land and margins) [0.45]
9. (2) Riverbank condition (1–5; banks eroding / stable) [0.36]
In-stream physical characteristics
10. (8) Use of river – modification (1–5; evidence of modification / appears natural) [0.66]
11. (15) Sediment (1–5; sediment covering bed / bed free of sediment) [0.60]
12. (7) Riverbed condition (1–5; muds and sands / cobbles and gravels) [0.48]
13. (9) Use of river – takes and discharges (1–5; takes and discharges evident / no evidence)
[0.39]
In-stream flow
14. (10) River flow – visible (1 or 5; no movement / movement visible) [0.58]
15. (11) River flow – audible (1 or 5; no sound / flow audible) [0.44]
In-stream water quality
16. (13) Water quality – pollution (1–5; foams or oils / none evident) [0.75]
17. (12) Water quality – smell (1 or 5; unpleasant odour / clean smell) [0.69]
18. (14) Water quality – discolouration (1–5; badly discoloured / clear) [0.61]
A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways 31
The measure of overall stream health (item 1) has particular significance in deriving a stream
health measure. Every ecosystem health index is a human construct that depends on a
subjective value of what is considered healthy. Thus, the cultural stream health measure derived
in this study must encapsulate and be closely related to the overall measure of what rūnanga
members consider healthy from their point of view.
Selecting the indicators that best express stream health from a cultural perspective involved the
following steps:
A. Identify and remove value judgement indicators that are equivalent to overall stream
health and that cannot be adequately defined or consistently measured.
B. Determine indicators from the various categories of indicators that are most strongly
correlated with ‘overall stream health’ (catchment category, riparian river-margin
category, in-stream physical category, in-stream flow category, and in-stream water-
quality category).
C. Perform a stepwise multiple regression analysis to determine, in a rigorous statistical
manner, which variables together account for most of the variation in ‘overall stream
health’ at a site.
D. Compare the outcome of the multiple regression analysis in C with the variables selected
in B and decide on a final set of indicators to include in the cultural stream health
component of the CHI. Finally, average the scores for the selected indicators to provide
the cultural stream health component at every site.
4.3.2 Selecting the indicators
(a) Identify and remove redundant health values
At step A, indicators 2, 3 and 4 (Fish safe to eat? Water safe to drink? Would go fishing?) were
found to be very strongly correlated with overall stream health (correlation coefficients greater
than 0.80).9 Note that all four items are value judgements and are essentially measures of the
same thing, indicating that the Māori concept of overall stream health is strongly related to the
use of natural resources. For the purposes of developing a robust index of cultural stream
health, indicators 2–4 will not be considered further.
(b) Identify indicators from a range of categories that correlate most strongly
with overall stream health
Step B identified the following indicators from each category shown above as being most
strongly correlated with overall stream health. These are listed below, together with their
correlation with overall stream health. In the catchment category, only a single measure was
available but it was strongly correlated with overall stream health. Two or more indicators were
present in each of the other categories. Within a category, indicators were often highly
correlated with each other and may be considered to be measuring essentially the same thing
(e.g. in the water-quality category smell (0.77) and discoloration (0.71) were both highly
correlated with pollution).
9 A correlation coefficient of 0 means there is no relationship, whereas a value of 1.0 means the two factors
are perfectly correlated.
32 A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways
Reducing each category to a single indicator that is most highly correlated with overall stream
health avoids problems of using several indicators of the same condition. The resulting
indicators, by category, are as follows:
(i) catchment scale: catchment land use [0.64]
(ii) riparian river-margin scale: use of riparian margin [0.65]
(iii) in-stream physical characteristics: use of river – modification [0.66]
(iv) in-stream flow: river flow – visible [0.58]
(v) in-stream water quality: water quality – pollution [0.75].
(c) Stepwise multiple regression of health indicators
Step C involved a stepwise multiple regression of stream health indicators. Stepwise multiple
regression is a statistical procedure that mathematically selects a reduced set of variables (from
the 14 indicators considered in step A) that best account for the variation in a dependent variable
(in this case, the overall health score). We used a full stepwise procedure, which adds variables
one at a time in building an overall model. The first variable added is the one that explains the
most variation in the dependent variable (i.e. has the highest correlation with overall stream
health). This first variable will not explain all of the variation in the dependent variable, so
there is ‘residual’ variation left unexplained. The stepwise procedure then adds another
variable, specifically the one that accounts for the most residual variation after the first variable.
The procedure continues in this manner until a set of variables is included in a model such that
each one explains a significant portion of the variation in the dependent variable in the overall
model.
Our stepwise regression analysis (setting the necessary statistical significance for inclusion of
an indicator as p < 0.05) yielded the four indicators below, given in order of importance. When
these four factors are taken together they account for an acceptable 76% of the variation in
overall stream health at the sites:
(i) water quality – pollution
(ii) use of riparian margin
(iii) use of river – modification
(iv) river flow – visible.
(d) Calculation of the cultural stream health measure
The conclusions from the above sections (b) and (c) are very similar, providing considerable
confidence for our choice of indicators to include in the cultural stream health measure. Our
subjective choice of individual factors from five habitat categories was the same as the result
from the objective stepwise multiple regression analysis, except that the latter did not identify
catchment land use as a significant component of the model. This is probably because
catchment land use and use of the riparian margin were strongly correlated with each other
(0.84). On this basis, we could have decided to omit catchment land use from our cultural
measure. However, the holistic view of river systems held by Māori is such that it seemed more
appropriate to retain catchment land use.
A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways 33
Calculation of the cultural stream health measure for each site involved calculating the average
score for rūnanga members for each of the following indicators (each on a 1–5 scale), before
calculating a grand mean for the five indicators together (again on a 1–5 scale):
(i) catchment land use (1–5; land and margins grazed / natural condition)
(ii) use of riparian margin (1–5; riparian zone grazed / natural)
(iii) use of river – modification (1–5; evidence of modification / appears natural)
(iv) river flow – visible (1 or 5; no movement / movement visible)
(v) water quality – pollution (1–5; foams or oils / none evident).
The recommended recording sheet with these five indicators included is found in Appendix 3.
4.4 Is the cultural stream health component of the CHI
appropriate for streams of different sizes and for the
different rivers?
We found no significant correlation between the cultural health component of the CHI and
either stream order (1–2, 3–4, 5+) or river (Taieri, Kakaunui). This means that the tool
developed is equally applicable to the different rivers and streams of different size. This is
important because, had this not been the case, different tools would be needed for different
circumstances.
4.5 How does the cultural stream health component of the
CHI compare to Western scientific measures of stream
health?
The CHI comprises three components, of which only the stream health component has Western
scientific counterparts. To place the cultural stream health component of CHI in a broader
perspective, we compared it with two Western scientific measures of stream health (see below).
This comparison provides an effective way of identifying what iwi have to offer that is not
currently incorporated into land and water resource management processes and decisions.
4.5.1 The Macroinvertebrate Community Index (MCI)
The Macroinvertebrate Community Index (MCI), widely used by regional authorities and
researchers to assess stream health, is based on the presence or absence of certain types of
invertebrate on the stream bed, which differ in their ability to tolerate pollution. Healthy
streams have high values on the MCI (120 or above) whereas unhealthy streams have values as
low as 80 or less. We used Otago Regional Council protocols to determine the MCI at all
46 stream sites.
34 A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways
4.5.2 The Stream Health Monitoring and Assessment Kit (SHMAK)
The Stream Health Monitoring and Assessment Kit (SHMAK) was developed as a tool for
landowners to monitor the health of streams flowing through their properties, particularly in
relation to changes to riparian or catchment land use, and it has been quite widely adopted by
community groups working to improve stream health in both rural and urban settings. It is
made up of a habitat component and an invertebrate component. Measurements of flow
velocity, pH, temperature, conductivity, clarity, bed composition, deposits and bank vegetation
over a 10-metre stream reach make up the habitat component. The invertebrate component is
based on a simplified version of the MCI, incorporating just 17 invertebrate taxa.
The outcome of the SHMAK protocol is a verbal rating of very poor, poor, moderate, good,
very good, and excellent health, which we converted to numerical values of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6
for statistical comparisons with the cultural stream health measure at the 46 sites.
4.5.3 Relationships between the three measures
The cultural stream health measure was significantly correlated with both the MCI (0.58) and
SHMAK (0.49) (Figure 3). This indicates that the cultural stream health measure, like its
Western scientific counterparts, successfully captures aspects of stream health.
Figure 3: Western scientific stream health measures (MCI and SHMAK) compared with
the cultural stream health measure
0
40
80
120
160
MCI score
a
0
40
80
120
160
MCI score
a
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
SHMAK score
b
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
SHMAK score
b
0
20
40
60
80
100
SHMAK
Habitat score
c
0
20
40
60
80
100
SHMAK
Habitat score
c
888
CSHM score
0
2
4
6
8
012345
SHMAK
Invertebrate score
0
2
4
6
8
012345
0
2
4
6
8
012345
SHMAK
Invertebrate score
d
Notes: MCI = Macroinvertebrate Community Index; SHMAK = Stream Health Monitoring and Assessment
Kit; CSHM = cultural stream health measure.
The very strong relationship between the MCI and the cultural measure is particularly notable.
This is because the MCI is based entirely on stream invertebrates whereas the cultural measure
has no invertebrate component but assesses stream health from a Māori perspective on the basis
of a combination of catchment, river-margin and in-stream characteristics. Streams judged by
rūnanga members to be in poor health turn out to possess a set of invertebrate species that are
tolerant of poor water quality.
A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways 35
The cultural stream health measure was less strongly correlated to the invertebrate component
of SHMAK (0.36) than to the habitat component (0.70) (see Figure 3), which is not surprising
given that the cultural measure is habitat-based. The invertebrate component of SHMAK is
based on 17 indicator taxa, which differ in some respects to those incorporated in the MCI.
It is important to acknowledge that although the MCI and the cultural stream health measure
correlated well, the cultural stream health measure is specifically designed to assess Māori
values. While it represents a means of facilitating communication between resource managers
and Māori, the MCI should not be seen as a surrogate for resource managers to consider the
likely status of Māori values.
4.6 What is the relationship between cultural and Western
scientific stream health measures and patterns of
catchment land use?
Research in the Taieri catchment and elsewhere has established that land-use development in
stream catchments, such as conversion from native vegetation to agriculture, can influence
stream health by changing water chemistry, turbidity, temperature and the physical nature of the
stream bed and banks, with consequences for stream life. It is therefore of interest to consider
the relationship between the cultural stream health measure and land use in the stream’s
catchment, and to compare the performance of the cultural and Western scientific measures in
this respect.
We used the University of Otago Stream Team’s Geographic Information System (GIS) to
determine the percentage of developed land for each stream catchment, defining developed land
(DL) as the sum of bare ground, urban, pasture, and pasture plus riparian willows. A topical
question in stream ecology is the scale at which stream health is influenced by land use. Is
stream health influenced more by land use in the entire catchment (all the land draining into the
headwaters that feed the site in question), or just in the riparian zone adjacent to the stream?
We address this question, and check how well the cultural and Western scientific measures of
stream health encapsulate the land-use effect. We compare the relationships between the
cultural stream health measure, MCI and SHMAK and land use using two scenarios:
percentage developed land in the entire catchment above each site (DL1) •
• percentage developed land in a 100-metre-wide riparian strip extending for just
500 metres above each site (DL2).
There were negative relationships between percentage developed land at both scales and each of
the stream health measures (as percentage developed land increased, the stream health measure
scores decreased, as expected) (see Figure 4). Of all the relationships, the strongest was
between the cultural measure and riparian development (-0.56) (see Figure 4f), with a lower
correlation between the cultural measure and development in the entire catchment (-0.41)
(Figure 4c). This may reflect the fact that rūnanga members focused their attention at each site
on land use within their visual range. The MCI also performed well, but in this case showed a
stronger relationship with catchment development (-0.51) (Figure 4a) than riparian development
(-0.44) (Figure 4d). This suggests that invertebrate stream life is more strongly influenced by
land development in the catchment as a whole. SHMAK performed poorly, with correlations of
-0.25 at both scales (Figures 4b and 4e).
We conclude that the cultural stream health measure performs as well as the MCI in
encapsulating the relationship between land development and stream health.
36 A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways
Figure 4: Relationships between Western scientific measures of stream health (MCI
and SHMAK) and cultural health stream measure, and percentage developed
land, by entire catchment and riparian zone
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
SHMAK score
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
b
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
SHMAK score
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
b
0
40
80
120
160
MCI score
0
40
80
120
160 a
0
40
80
120
160
MCI score
0
40
80
120
160 a
0
40
80
120
160
MCI score
0
40
80
120
160 d
0
40
80
120
160
MCI score
0
40
80
120
160 d
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
SHMAK score
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
e
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
SHMAK score
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
e
CSHM score
Percent developed
f
0
1
2
3
4
5
CSHM score
0
1
2
3
4
5
20 40 60 80 100
Percent developed
20 40 60 80 100
c
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
CSHM score
0
1
2
3
4
5
20 40 60 80 100
Percent developed
20 40 60 80 100
c
0
Entire catchment Riparian zone
0
1
2
3
4
5
020406080100
0
1
2
3
4
5
020406080100
Note: Riparian zone = 500 metres adjacent to the site.
4.7 Stream health measures and iwi
4.7.1 The cultural stream health measure and iwi values
The values and perceptions of iwi form the basis of the cultural stream health measure.
Kaumātua initially identified features of the catchment and stream that, from a cultural
perspective, are fundamental to healthy streams. These features were assessed directly by
rūnanga members at all stream sites. Because each feature is expressed at a broader level than
Western scientific measures, flexibility was required in the assessment method we used. For
instance, water quality is evaluated on the basis that the water appears polluted by foams and
oils. While water quality is evaluated as a single feature, a number of considerations are clearly
involved in arriving at the score. The selection of a 1–5 rating scale proved appropriate for
assessing the broader-scale features of cultural significance and for use by rūnanga members.
The approach is considered to be in keeping with the way stream health is evaluated culturally.
A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways 37
4.7.2 MCI and iwi values
The MCI requires stream invertebrates to be sampled and identified and an index to be
calculated. Training, equipment and laboratory facilities are integral to the MCI, and this
effectively restricts its use to researchers and land and water managers. Based as it is on benthic
invertebrates, the MCI does not incorporate iwi values.
4.7.3 SHMAK and iwi values
Developing a stream health indicator for use by community groups involved the integration of a
habitat and an invertebrate component. Instruments are needed to measure habitat features such
as water velocity, temperature, clarity, pH and conductivity, and invertebrates are sampled and
indicator species identified and counted over a 10-metre reach in the field. Both components of
SHMAK are based on Western scientific measures of stream health. Given the requirement for
detailed measurements of stream habitat and the identification of benthic invertebrates, SHMAK
does not currently incorporate iwi values.
4.8 Incorporating tangata whenua values into SHMAK
As this study proceeded we considered whether it would be feasible to incorporate iwi
perspectives and values into SHMAK. At the beginning of the project we anticipated meeting
this objective. However, as the project progressed and we analysed data sets and developed the
cultural stream health measure, it became clear that the two sets of values are on such different
scales that it would be inappropriate to incorporate an iwi component into SHMAK.
Whereas iwi values are expressed at a broader holistic level, SHMAK components are defined
at a detailed Western scientific level and are measured using instruments. Furthermore,
invertebrate sampling and counting was considered by rūnanga participants in this project as
foreign to the way iwi evaluate stream health.
Our analysis of cultural and Western scientific data sets in this study further indicates that the
cultural measure reflects the level of land development in the catchment more closely than does
SHMAK. The holistic Māori view of stream health would seem to be better served by a
measure that is closely related to the overall state of the catchment.
Finally, the CHI comprises three interrelated components: the traditional status of the site, the
mahinga kai component and the stream health component. Incorporating aspects of one
component into a Western scientific measure could compromise the integrity of the CHI. From
a cultural perspective, the CHI can be easily applied as a whole and produces meaningful results
that embody most of the aspects of stream health that are valued by iwi.
38 A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways
5 Applying the Cultural Health Index
5.1 Capturing an iwi perspective
Because the Cultural Health Index is intended to assist Māori and resource managers to collect
data specific to cultural values, it was essential that the index be grounded in the beliefs, values
and practices of Māori. As the previous sections confirm, our project originally sought to
develop indicators consistent with the values of mauri and mahinga kai, but resulted in the
incorporation or recognition of many other cultural values in the CHI and many unanticipated
social and cultural outcomes. The purpose of summarising the values in the following
paragraphs is to demonstrate how the goal of recognising, promoting, or protecting cultural
values in the design and application of the CHI has been achieved.
5.1.1 Cultural values recognised in the design of the index10
The design of the CHI, and in particular the decision to have three components, responds to
Māori values, as follows.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mauri: the three components of the CHI collectively represent a way for Māori to
measure the present health of the river in a holistic manner and compare it to their
recollections of the site’s condition in the past, thus enabling them to assess the extent to
which contemporary resource management protects the mauri of the resource.
Wāhi tapu and wāhi taonga: sites selected may include those considered to be wai tapu or
wai taonga. Those applying the index need simply to identify a site as traditional – they
are not required to disclose to resource management agencies the reasons for it being
considered tapu or a taonga.
Mahinga kai: component 2 reflects the need to protect the diversity and abundance of
species, and safeguard the ability of mana whenua to gather and use these resources, both
now and in the future.
5.1.2 Values recognised when mana whenua apply the CHI
The CHI has been designed in such a way that it must be applied by Māori. The calculation of
CHI scores must be informed by traditional knowledge. Participation of mana whenua ensures
that the following values are recognised:
Mana: application of the index and use of the information to inform resource
management processes recognises that iwi have the right to access, use and manage
waterways, and the interaction of humans with waterways.
Mana whenua: recognises that those individuals mandated to apply the index will be
chosen on the basis of ancestry (i.e. their whakapapa).
Kaitiakitanga: imposes responsibilities to manage resources in a manner that protects the
resource and the interests of future generations. Application of the CHI represents a
means of engaging with kaitiaki in management processes.
10 This framework is based on that presented by Crengle (2002).
A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways 39
5.2 The CHI as a diagnostic and monitoring tool
This report does not contain all the CHI calculations for the 46 sites assessed. This information
belongs to the kaitiaki rūnanga, who will now use this information in its discussions with the
regional council.
However, to illustrate how the CHI can be used as a diagnostic and planning tool, information
collected at five sites has been included in Appendix 2. The CHI scores of these sites are set out
below with a brief analysis of each score.
Site 1: McRaes Creek B–1 / 2.69 / 4.87 •
•
•
•
•
Site 6: Barbours Stream Tributary B–0 / 1.3 / 3.02
Site 11: Owhiro Creek A–0 / 1.75 / 1.65
Site 21: Taieri River – Ferry Bridge A–1 / 1.65 / 2.72
Site 38: Island Stream – Maheno A–0 / 2.56 / 1.06
Photograph 3: McCraes Creek
(in the Taieri Catchment). The
CHI is B–1 / 2.69 / 4.87.
Photograph 4: Three O’clock
Stream – a site in the Taieri
Catchment. The CHI score was
B–0 / 1.25 / 3.55.
40 A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways
Photograph 5: A site on the
lower reaches of the Waiareka.
The CHI score was A–0 / 1.44 /
1.97.
Photograph 6: The site on the Silverstream
on the Lower Taieri. The CHI score was
A–0 / 3.13 / 2.00.
A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways 41
Photograph 7: A site on the
mainstem Kakaunui
(CHI is A–1 / 2 / 2.86).
Photograph 8: One of the sites on the
Waiareka (in the Kakaunui Catchment).
The CHI score is B–0 / 1.75 / 1.37.
42 A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways
5.2.1 Site 1: McRaes Creek (B–1 / 2.69 / 4.87)
The assessment confirmed that:
this is not a traditional site (B) •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
despite this, rūnanga members would return to the site (1)
its mahinga kai values are only average (2.69):
– an average score for access – it is accessible, although it involves a significant walk
– a reasonable range of mahinga kai species present, especially plants, but this is a small
tributary and there are not many fish species present
– not a traditional site and therefore species sourced traditionally cannot be compared
with those present today (scores 1)
– scores highly because rūnanga members would return to the site
it scores very highly for component 3, stream health (in fact McRaes Creek received the
highest ratings of all 46 sites), as follows:
– catchment 4.6
– modification 4.75
– riparian 5
– flow visible 5
– water quality 5.
The slightly lower score for ‘catchment’ reflects the presence of some exotic species
within a native catchment. The score for modification reflects the presence of a track
through the watercourse that is used by mountain bikes and motorbikes.
5.2.2 Site 6: Barbours Stream (B–0 / 1.3 / 3.02)
The assessment confirmed that:
this is not a traditional site (B)
because of the degraded condition of the site, rūnanga members would not return to the
site (0)
its mahinga kai values are poor, because:
– it has poor access – it was be difficult for rūnanga members to find this site without
assistance
– mahinga kai species were absent
– this is not a traditional site, therefore species sourced traditionally cannot be compared
with those present today (scores 1)
– rūnanga members would not return to the site (scores 1)
it received an average score for stream health:
– catchment 2.5
– modification 2.6
– riparian 1
– flow visible 5
– water quality 4.
A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways 43
The low scores for ‘catchment’, ‘modification’ and ‘riparian’ were because this site is
heavily modified by stock. In particular, the riparian margin was considered to be in poor
condition. Despite this, a flow is visible in the river and the water quality appears to be
high, possibly because of the tussock in the catchment.
5.2.3 Site 11: Owhiro Creek (A–0 / 1.75 / 1.65)
The assessment confirmed that:
this is a traditional site (A) •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
rūnanga members would not return to the site (0)
its mahinga kai values are low, due to:
– a high score for access, but
– the site is so modified there were no mahinga kai species, aside from eel
– it scores highly because it is traditionally a significant site for eels, and these are still
present, but
– it scores poorly because rūnanga members would not return to the site
it scores poorly for stream health (in fact it was one of the two poorest scoring sites for
this component):
– catchment 1
– modification 1
– riparian 1
– flow visible 4
– water quality 1.25.
All scores apart from a visible flow are very low.
5.2.4 Site 21: Taieri River – Ferry Bridge (A–1 / 1.65 / 2.72)
The assessment confirmed that:
this is a traditional site (A)
rūnanga members would return to the site in the future (1)
its mahinga kai values are poor, because:
– it receives an average score for access
– there is not a good range of mahinga kai species present
– not all the species sourced traditionally are still present (scores poorly), but
– rūnanga members would return to the site (scores highly)
average scores were assigned for stream health:
– catchment 2
– modification 1
– riparian 2.6
– flow visible 5
– water quality 3.
44 A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways
The lower score for ‘catchment’ reflects the fact that the catchment is highly modified.
The score for modification reflects the reclamation upstream of the site, plus other types
of riverbank protection. Water quality received an average score because of suspended
sediments.
5.2.5 Site 38: Island Stream – Maheno (A–0 / 2.56 / 1.06)
The assessment confirmed that:
this is a traditional site (A) •
•
•
•
•
•
•
rūnanga members would not return to the site (0)
its mahinga kai values are only average:
– it receives a high score for access because it is easily accessible, but
– there is a limited range of mahinga kai species present
– it scores highly because it was a significance eel fishery and has the highest density of
eels within either of the two catchments, but
– it scores poorly because rūnanga members would not return to the site
it scores poorly for stream health:
– catchment 1
– modification 1.3
– riparian 1
– flow visible 1
– water quality 1.
The consistently low scores for each of the indicators confirm the poor health of this site,
which was the worst of the 46 study sites.
5.3 Implementation of the CHI nationwide
During the course of the project, rūnanga members (and subsequently resource managers)
identified the need for further work. Three specific areas of work have been identified:
guidance to improve consistency of assessment by different members and different teams
testing the applicability of the CHI in river types other than the type in which the CHI
was first developed
testing the acceptance of the CHI methodology by iwi other than the iwi who were
involved in initial development of the CHI.
The purpose of this work would be to validate the CHI for nationwide use by iwi and resource
managers.
A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways 45
5.4 Incorporating the CHI into resource management
processes
The CHI we have developed is based on mahinga kai and stream health indicators identified by
kaumātua and rūnanga members from throughout the Ngāi Tahu rohe. Moeraki and Otakou
rūnanga members evaluated these indicators for 46 sites on the Kakanui and Taieri Rivers
(respectively), two rain-fed hill country rivers.
These two rūnanga can now use the results of the CHI on Taieri and Kakaunui River sites to
work with the Otago Regional Council, identifying stream health issues of cultural importance
and deciding how these might be addressed.
5.4.1 Process for applying the CHI on the Taieri and Kakaunui Rivers
1. The rūnanga approves the use of the CHI and confirms the rūnanga team that applied the
tool and determined the CHI scores at sites on the Taieri and Kakaunui Rivers.
2. Inform the Council about the CHI.
3. For each river site, rūnanga members interpret the scores assigned to the three CHI
components and identify priority issues.
4. For each river site, rūnanga identify the sensitive information that is to be protected by
silent files (or a similar type of system).
5. Rūnanga members work with the Council to identify priority issues within each
catchment.
6. The Council and rūnanga members discuss ways of addressing these issues and set
objectives.
7. Remedial actions are initiated.
8. Monitoring requirements are identified and the rūnanga/Council undertake monitoring at
appropriate intervals.
5.4.2 Process for deriving and applying the CHI on other rain-fed hill
country rivers in the Ngai Tahu rohe
Because the five indicators that best describe stream health in the Taieri and Kakaunui Rivers
apply to rain-fed hill country rivers, the CHI is ready to be implemented on this type of river
throughout the rest of the Ngāi Tahu rohe. The following process outlines the steps involved to
achieve this.
1. Inform the relevant rūnanga about the CHI.
2. The rūnanga approves the use of the CHI and selects the rūnanga team that will apply the
tool and determine the CHI scores at selected river sites.
3. Train the rūnanga team in the use of the CHI.
4. Inform the resource managers about the CHI.
46 A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways
5. Select sites on the river(s) of interest. Site selection will depend on the reason the CHI is
being applied. However, selection will require identifying traditional sites, and should
include sites that reflect ki uta ki tai. Other factors that might be important in site
selection include: land use, channel manipulation, water abstractions and discharges.
(Note: sites may be selected in conjunction with the water managers.)
6. The rūnanga compiles available information about mahinga kai and stream health for the
sites of traditional significance.
7. The rūnanga team carries out the CHI evaluations. For the stream health component only
the five indicators need to be rated.
8. Electric fishing is carried out to identify mahinga kai fish species present.
9. Each component of the CHI is rated/calculated and the CHI determined for each site.
10. Rūnanga members interpret the scores assigned to each component of the CHI and
identify priority issues, if this is relevant.
11. For each river site, rūnanga identify the sensitive information that is to be protected by
silent files (or similar type of system).
12. Rūnanga members work with regional councils to identify priority issues, if this is
relevant.
13. Regional council and rūnanga members discuss ways of addressing these issues and set
objectives.
14. Remedial actions are decided and implemented.
15. Monitoring requirements are identified and the rūnanga / regional council undertakes
monitoring at appropriate intervals.
5.4.3 Process of deriving the CHI for other river types within the Ngai
Tahu rohe
For other river types, such as gravel braided rivers or glacial-fed rivers, the mix of indicators
defining stream health may be different to the five identified for rain-fed hill country rivers. To
check this, the 18 indicators identified by kaumātua and rūnanga members (section 3.3.2) need
to be validated, and the form to be used in the field finalised on the basis on the validated
indicators. The final list of indicators will be rated by the rūnanga team at each stream site on a
different river type. For the comparison between stream health indicators on rain-fed hill-
county rivers and other river types to be valid, the sampling design must be comparable.
Accordingly, site selection must conform to the criteria used for selecting sites on the hill-
country rain-fed rivers: small, medium and large, traditional sites and a variety of land uses.11 If
the same five key stream health factors are identified from the analysis it indicates that the CHI
can be applied with confidence on rivers throughout the Ngāi Tahu rohe irrespective of river
type.
11 This requirement is necessary because the CHI is still under trial. Selecting a range of sites of differing
sizes and land uses may not be needed in the future when iwi are choosing the sites they want to assess.
A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways 47
The steps required to validate the stream health component of the CHI are as follows:
1. The rūnanga approves the development of the CHI for different river types and selects the
rūnanga team that will evaluate river sites for stream health.
2. Train the rūnanga team in the use of the CHI.
3. The kaitiaki rūnanga and regional council select a river that is different to a hill-country
rain-fed river and is culturally significant.
4. Select sites on the basis of stream size (ki uta ki tai), traditional association and land use
that will provide sufficient data to identify key stream health indicators.
5. The rūnanga team records their ratings of the 18 stream health indicators at each site.
6. The regional council samples invertebrates and determines the MCI at each site (optional,
but recommended).
7. Rūnanga stream health ratings are analysed according to the process described in section
4.3 and significant indicators are identified.
8. Scores are calculated for the stream health component of CHI at each site.
9. Relationships between stream health component scores and MCI scores are investigated.
If the same five indicators describe stream health in this type of river, one process can be used
to implement the CHI on all rivers within the Ngāi Tahu rohe (see 5.4.1 above).
If different indicators are identified, they will make up a different stream health component of
the CHI to be used for that type of river throughout the rohe.
5.4.4 Process of deriving the CHI for other iwi
It is necessary to determine whether another iwi feels the three components of the CHI
appropriately reflect their values. The CHI component that requires particular attention is the
stream health measure (component 3). If differences are revealed, these will probably originate
in the beliefs of kaumātua about what makes a healthy stream. However, it is important to
validate the overall design of the CHI if it is to provide iwi around the rest of the country with a
useful tool.
Only those steps that are required to validate the stream health component of the CHI with
different iwi are documented below. Please note that focus groups will be used to assess the
overall design of the CHI.
1. Observe protocols to gain entrance to the iwi. Time should be taken to ensure that
appropriate mandates are obtained.
2. Inform the iwi about the CHI in a forum of their choice.
3. Iwi support the extension of the CHI into their rohe.
4. Kaumātua and other iwi members are interviewed, and the transcripts used to identify
stream health indicators. Once iwi mandate is obtained, guidance should be sought as to
which kaumātua or iwi members should be interviewed.12
5. A list of possible indicators is compiled, refined, and listed on recording sheets.
12 A list of the questions used for this project is included in Appendix 3.
48 A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways
6. Iwi select the team that will evaluate river sites according to the list of indicators.
7. The iwi team is trained in the use of the recording sheets.
8. Inform the regional council about the CHI.
9. The iwi select a culturally significant rain-fed hill-country river (this could be in
conjunction with the regional council).
10. Select sites on the basis of stream size (ki uta ki tai), traditional association and land use
that will provide sufficient data to identify key stream health indicators. Where possible,
it would be advantageous to utilise the databases of resource management agencies, in
particular regional councils.
11. Iwi team records their ratings of the listed stream health indicators at each site.
12. Regional council samples invertebrates and determines the MCI at each site (optional but
recommended).
13. Iwi stream health ratings are analysed according to the process described in section 4.3
and significant indicators are identified.
14. Scores are calculated for indicators that make up the stream health component of the CHI
at each site.
15. The relationships between stream health component scores and MCI scores are
investigated.
If the indicators making up the stream health component are the same as those identified by
Ngāi Tahu, the current CHI for rain-fed hill-country rivers can be applied to other rivers of that
type throughout the country. If the indicators differ, it implies that the stream health component
of the CHI must be tailored to individual iwi.
Assuming the stream health component of the CHI proves common across river types and
across iwi, the relevant process for working with the regional councils on water resource issues
is documented in 5.4.1. The CHI is a tool that potentially can be applied throughout the country
to facilitate the input and participation of iwi into resource management planning and decision-
making processes.
A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways 49
6 Combining Cultural and Scientific
Perspectives
Two distinct knowledge bases were combined in this study to develop a resource management
tool that has the potential to significantly enhance the effectiveness of freshwater management
practice. Participation in a collaborative process has enabled the project team to identify the
advantages and benefits of such an approach, and we have taken the opportunity to outline these
below.
Neither Ngāi Tahu nor the Stream Team could have developed the CHI on their own.
One of the major advantages of this project was the way the two knowledge systems
complemented each other. Linking Western scientific design and analytical skills and
cultural knowledge has been shown to be an innovative way of developing a potentially
effective tool for iwi.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
It helps to think laterally about the organisations that can assist in the realisation of iwi
goals. Ngāi Tahu, if asked at the start of the project to identify a ‘partner’ that could help
advance their management aspirations, would have concentrated on fostering
relationships with the regional councils. However, developing the CHI required cultural
knowledge and scientific skills rather than management skills. The need for collaboration
with resource managers comes at the implementation stage – after the tool has been
developed. This highlights the need to clearly identify the skills required for the task
rather than assuming the agency with responsibility for the area will be able to provide
them.
Ensuring the project team has the mandate to work with iwi is a prime consideration. Of
equal importance is the need to have individuals within the project team who can operate
within the Western scientific domain. This project benefited from having personnel who
could ensure entry to either domain – cultural or scientific.
Respecting the values and beliefs of each party is fundamental. For instance, when
respect of sensitive tribal knowledge was demonstrated, mutual trust and respect grew,
which enhanced relationships.
A shared commitment to stream health and to the kaupapa was a key underlying
component of the collaboration.
Capacity building is a logical consequence of projects such as this, in that it:
– enabled rangatahi and pakeke to learn from kaumātua
– enabled iwi members and scientists to increase their understanding of each other’s
values and perspectives
– sought to build linkages between cultural and Western scientific perspectives.
The relationship between the CHI and Western health measures confirmed that iwi
members are an invaluable resource and their knowledge can add a positive element of
major significance to resource management.
For any new resource management tool to be accepted, the research design on which it is
based needs to be comprehensive and robust. Seeking advice on methodology and design
helps to develop the foundations for a collaborative relationship.
Validation is necessary before broadening the application of a tool.
50 A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways
Photograph 9: A headwater stream in the
Taieri Catchment. The CHI score was
B–0 / 1.38 / 3.86.
Photograph 10: A site on the
Waipori River – a reach that is
regulated by the dams
upstream. The CHI score was
A–0 / 2.38 / 3.81.
A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways 51
Photograph 11: The team
having morning tea in the field.
Photograph 12: Two of our team (rangatahi
and kaumatua) discussing a site in the
Upper Taieri.
52 A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways
7 Conclusion
For generations, Māori have voiced their concerns at the continual development of the
waterways within their rohe. Māori perceive many as being degraded as a result of
inappropriate use and development. In the last two decades Māori have been seeking greater
recognition of their cultural beliefs, values, and practices. They are concerned that a failure to
recognise their cultural values, and their customary and Treaty rights, will constrain tribal
development and could damage many of the foundations of their culture and identity. This
concern has surfaced in many forums in recent years, particularly resource consent hearings.
Here Māori, as kaitiaki, are obligated to identify the effects (positive and negative) of resource
use and development on their cultural, beliefs, values and practices.
There are major benefits for resource managers of working with iwi and applying the CHI.
Irrespective of these, Māori remain committed to:
protecting sensitive headwater catchments •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
supporting abundant mahinga kai resources, particularly in important wetlands,
backwaters, tributaries and mainstem rivers
protecting the quality of the waters
protecting other wāhi tapu / wāhi taonga
protecting cultural landscapes
developing more appropriate flow regimes
ensuring variability in river levels
providing a sufficient buffer, or safety margin, to mitigate the adverse effects of changing
land uses on waters
undertaking the restoration, enhancement and creation of wetland areas, to act both as
flow moderators and habitats for mahinga kai species
enhancing access throughout the river system
addressing issues relating to changing land uses in catchments
protecting habitats in estuaries.
Many Māori associate their well-being as individuals and as members of whānau, hapū and the
iwi with maintaining the health of the natural environment. The following philosophy underlies
the desire by iwi to deliver on kaitiakitanga obligations: if you do not sustain the waterways, the
mahinga kai sourced from them, and sites of significance in the wider environment, then you
cannot sustain yourself, honour your ancestors, or provide for the children of your children into
the future. Thus sustainability and the long-term well-being of Māori are seen by some Māori
as one and the same thing. We consider that this study shows that the CHI is a move towards
enabling Māori and resource management agencies to fulfil their obligations to manage New
Zealand’s freshwater resources sustainably.
A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways 53
Glossary
Hapū Sub-tribe, extended whānau.
Iwi Tribe.
Iwi authority The authority that represents an iwi, and which is recognised by that iwi as having
authority to do so. Pursuant to section 15 of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu Act 1996,
resource management agencies are to consult with Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, as
the iwi authority.
Kaitiaki Specifically appointed guardians who are responsible for protecting taonga
resources. Their obligations include enforcement of tikanga and customary
practices.
Kaitiakitanga The exercise of guardianship.
Kaumātua A respected elder within the tribe.
Ki uta ki tai From the mountains to the sea.
Kōhanga A breeding and rearing ground for young mahinga kai species.
Mahinga kai Food and other resources, and the areas that they are sourced from or in which
they are propagated.
Mana whenua Those who hold rangatiratanga for a particular area or district.
Mauri The essential life force or principle; a metaphysical quality inherent in all things,
both animate and inanimate.
Ngāi Tahu whānui The wider tribal membership base (i.e. all Ngāi Tahu).
Nohoanga Settlement.
Pakeke Adult.
Papatipu rūnanga The First Schedule of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu Act 1996 lists the 18 papatipu
rūnanga of Ngāi Tahu whānui and their respective takiwā.
Papatuanuku Earth Mother.
Rāhui Restrictions or controls that are put in place by kaitiaki to manage a resource or
area.
Rangatahi Teenager, young adult.
Rangatira Chieftainship.
Ranginui Sky Father.
Rohe Area.
Takiwā Area/region/district.
Tapu Sacred.
Taonga Treasured possessions, both tangible and intangible.
Tikanga Customary values and practices.
Tino rangatiratanga Full chiefly authority.
Wāhi tapu Places of sacred and extreme importance.
Wairua Life principle; spirit.
Whānau Family.
Whakapapa Genealogy.
54 A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways
References
Crengle (2002) “Legal Basis for the Consideration of Cultural Values” in Tipa, Crengle, Davis,
Allingham, Symon (eds) Cultural Impact Assessment Project Aqua.
Duker R (1994). Deciding on customary use: An analysis of conflicting values in customary use decision
making. Thesis Lincoln University, pp. 9–12.
Marsden, Mäori (1992) “God, Man and Universe” in Micheal King (ed) Te Ao Hurihuri. Reed
Publishers, Auckland.
Massey University Course Notes (1990) New Zealand’s Natural Heritage. Paper 21.103. Case Study
No. 3 Manukau Harbour.
Ministry for the Environment (1997) Environmental Performance Indicators: Proposals for Air,
Freshwater and Land. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington.
Ministry for the Environment (1998) Flow Guidelines for Instream Values. Ministry for the
Environment, Wellington.
Ministry for the Environment (1994) Environment 2010 Strategy: a statement of the government’s
strategy on the environment. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington.
Mutu M (1994) Maori Participation and Input into Resource Management and Conservation in
Aotearoa/New Zealand / Margaret Mutu. A paper presented at the Ecopolitics VIII Conference held at
Lincoln University.
Te Runanga O Ngai Tahu (1999) Freshwater Policy Statement. Te Runanga O Ngai Tahu, Christchurch.
Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu (2001) Submission of Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu to the Royal Commission on
Genetic Modification.
Tipa G (1999) Taieri River Case Study. Technical Paper No. 58. Ministry for the Environment,
Wellington.
Waitangi Tribunal (1991) Ngai Tahu Report. Brooker & Friend, Wellington.
Waitangi Tribunal (1995) Ngai Tahu Ancillary Claims Report. Brooker & Friend, Wellington.
A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways 55
Appendix 1: Draft River Health Assessment Form
Indicators Unhealthy Health y
1. Catchment land use 1 Land and margins grazed 2 3 4 5 Appears in an unmodified condition
2. Riverbank condition 1 Banks eroding 2 3 4 5 Banks appear stable
3.13 River shape 1 Shape modified 2 3 4 5 Natural shape (pools, riffles, etc)
4. Riparian vegetation 1 Little or no riparian vegetation 2 3 4 5 Complete cover of indigenous margin
Exotic vegetation visible: Indigenous vegetation visible:
1 on adjacent land 2 3 4 5 on adjacent land
5. Indigenous species
1 on riparian margins 2 3 4 5 on riparian margins
6. Mahinga kai species (birds) 1 No birds are present 2 3 4 5 Range of native birds present
7. Riverbed condition 1 Mud and sands present 2 3 4 5 Cobbles and gravels appear clear
8. Use of the river 1 Evidence of modification (e.g.
stopbanks, straightening, etc)
2 3 4 5 Appears unmodified
9. Use of the river 1 Evidence of takes/discharges 2 3 4 5 No takes or discharges
10. River flow 1 Cannot see movement 2 3 4 5 Movement of water is visible
(whitewater and ripples)
11. River flow 1 Flow cannot be heard 2 3 4 5 Noise of the flow is obvious
12. Water quality 1 Unpleasant odours present 2 3 4 5 Clean freshwater smell
13. Water quality 1 Appears polluted (e.g. foams, oils
etc)
2 3 4 5 No pollution evident
14. Water clarity 1 Water badly discoloured 2 3 4 5 Water is clear
15. Sediment 1 Sediment covering riverbed 2 3 4 5 Riverbed free of sediment
16. Use of the riparian margin 1 Margins grazed 2 3 4 5 Margin appears unmodified
17. How safe would you feel tasting the water at this site?
1 Completely unsafe 2 3 4 5 Completely safe
Please explain your answer:
18. How would you feel about fishing at this site?
1 I would not fish here 2 3 4 5 This is a great place to fish
Please explain your answer:
19. How safe would you feel eating fish caught at this site?
1 Completely unsafe 2 3 4 5 Completely safe
Please explain your answer:
13 Factors 3 and 20 were removed from the analysis because they could not be rated consistently. Factor 6
was included in the mahinga kai component.
56 A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways
20. When you look at the adjacent land and the waterway together, does everything seem to be in balance?
1 No continuity – no balance
between land and river
2 3 4 5 Continuity – land and river in
balance
Please explain your answer:
21. How would you describe the overall health of the river at this site?
1 Very unhealthy 2 3 4 5 Very healthy
Please explain your answer:
Birds
22. Please list the mahinga kai bird species that you can see at this site.
1. _____________________________ 2. ________________________________ 3. __________________________________
4. _____________________________ 5. ________________________________ 6. __________________________________
7. _____________________________ 8. ________________________________ 9. __________________________________
23. Are there abundant numbers of birds present at this site?
1 No birds present 2 3 4 5 Abundant numbers of birds present
24. Is there a diverse range of birds present at this site?
1 No diversity of species 2 3 4 5 Very diverse range
Plants
24. Please list the mahinga kai plant species that you can see at this site.
1. _____________________________ 2. ________________________________ 3. __________________________________
4. _____________________________ 5. ________________________________ 6. __________________________________
7. _____________________________ 8. ________________________________ 9. __________________________________
25. Are there abundant numbers of mahinga kai plants birds present at this site?
1 No mahinga kai present 2 3 4 5 Abundant numbers present
26. Is there a diverse range of mahinga kai plants present at this site?
1 No diversity of species 2 3 4 5 Very diverse range
Fish
27. What mahinga kai fish species would you expect to find here?
1. _____________________________ 2. ________________________________ 3. __________________________________
4. _____________________________ 5. ________________________________ 6. __________________________________
A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways 57
Access
28. Do you feel as if you have access to this site to harvest mahinga kai?
1 Not able to harvest at this site 2 3 4 5 Able to harvest – no restrictions
Please explain your answer:
29. Would you harvest mahinga kai at this site?
1 Not harvest at this site 2 3 4 5 Yes, definitely harvest
Please explain your answer:
Final comments
Any other comments about this site?
58 A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways
Appendix 2: Data Collected at Five Sites
The pages that follow show how the information can be collated and presented to iwi.
Scores for each of the indicators
Each of the indicators was scored in the field by rūnanga members. What is shown in the table
that follows is the average of the rūnanga members’ scores. For example, the individual scores
for catchment land use were 4, 5, 4, and 4.5, resulting in an average score of 4.6.
Calculating component 2 of the CHI
Two of the indicators are used for assessing the mahinga kai component:
•
•
suitability for mahinga kai
access to the site.
The species listed are also used to determine the 1–5 measure for the number of species present.
Calculating component 3 of the CHI
The five factors that are then used to calculate the CHI are shaded. In the case of McRaes
Creek, the five factors scored 4.6, 4.75, 5, 5 and 5. These five scores are then averaged. The
average for the stream health component, as shown in the CHI, is 4.87.14
Other comments
Each assessor is able to write comments on the assessment form. Comments are then collated
and made available to the rūnanga.
For convenience the MCI and SHMAK scores for the sites are included at the bottom of the
page. These would not normally form part of the assessment. They have been included here for
the information of the rūnanga given that MCI and SHMAK were part of the study design.
14 See the description of McRaes Creek in section 5.2.
A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways 59
McRaes Creek
Taieri Catchment: Site Name: McRaes Creek
Stream order: 1 Map sheet: I44 Map reference: 99862
Indicators Rating
1–5
Comments on the site
Catchment condition 4.6
Riverbank condition 5
River shape –
Riparian vegetation 4.75
Indigenous vegetation
(on adjacent land)
4.75
Mahinga kai birds 3.6
Riverbed condition 4.25
Use of the river
(modifications)
4.75
Use of the river
(takes / discharges)
5
Flow visible 5
Flow heard 5
Odours present / absent 5
Water quality 5
Water clarity 5
Sediment present / absent 5
Use of riparian areas 5
Safety tasting water 4
Suitability for fishing 4.5
Safety eating fish 4.75
Balance between land and
water
4.75
Abundance of birds 2.5
Diversity of birds 2.25
Rūnanga comments, when they visited the site, were as follows:
Safety drinking the water
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Tasted great (upstream over rocks).
Natural.
Fishing at the site
For kōura probably.
This small stream condition is good.
Eating the fish
Just great.
Balance
Really nice wee creek and great bush around.
Native bush, nice clear flowing tributary, limited space present
though – much of the same.
Overall health
Popular walking track through creek.
This is exactly where human cross the creek.
Access at the site
Can access by foot.
However it’s a long way to come on foot.
Harvesting mahinga kai from the site
Fish. Probably can’t take plants etc.
Access problems means that this would not be a destination.
Final comments
Really nice area. With lots of bush and water sounds.
It is a shame that sites like this are not available closer to home.
Very nice natural site. Currently a reserve let’s hope it stays this
way.
We will visit again. Native flora and fauna.
Abundance of plants 4
Diversity of plants 4.75
Access to the site 3.5
Suitability for harvesting
mahinga kai
1.75
Species that were present when the site was surveyed were:
•
•
•
kōura (5)
fern, kānuka, mānuka, toetoe, broadleaf, aruhe
kererū, tūī, blue heron.
Overall score 4.5 MCI score 121 SHMAK score 5
60 A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways
Photograph 13:
Looking upstream.
Photograph 14: Looking downstream.
A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways 61
Barbours Stream
Taieri Catchment: Site Name: Barbours Stream
Stream order: 1 Map sheet: H44 Map reference: 645913
Indicators Rating
1–5
Comments on the site
Catchment condition 2.5
Riverbank condition 4.5
River shape –
Riparian vegetation 2.5
Indigenous vegetation
(on adjacent land)
3.6
Mahinga kai birds 1
Riverbed condition 2.6
Use of the river
(modifications)
2.6
Use of the river
(takes / discharges)
4
Flow visible 5
Flow heard 5
Odours present / absent 3
Water quality 4
Water clarity 4.5
Sediment present / absent 3
Use of riparian areas 1
Safety tasting water 1
Suitability for fishing 1
Safety eating fish 1
Balance between land and
water
1.3
Abundance of birds 1
Diversity of birds 1
Rūnanga comments, when they visited the site, were as follows:
Safety drinking the water
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
No.
Fishing at the site
No.
Eating the fish
No.
Balance
Both not good.
Slime is unappealing.
Overall health
Water quality not good at all. A lot of human interference on
banks.
The slime trails are yuck.
Water detracts from the catchment.
Access at the site
Locked gates. DOC land.
Not really, this is private property. No I would not fish here.
Locked gates.
Harvesting mahinga kai from the site
Access and lack of quality.
We did not see any fish, maybe kōura?
Too far. Too remote. Locked gates.
Final comments
Really horrible site.
Not a place to fish from. Most tussocks. Not a viable proposition.
Too far from home.
Abundance of plants 3.6
Diversity of plants 3.6
Access to the site 1
Suitability for harvesting
mahinga kai
1.3
Species that were present when the site was surveyed were:
• tussock, wawa, taramea, harakeke.
Overall score 1.6 MCI score 143 SHMAK score 3
62 A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways
Photograph 15:
Looking upstream.
Photograph 16:
Looking
downstream.
A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways 63
Owhiro Creek
Taieri Catchment: Site Name: Owhiro Creek
Stream order: 2 Map sheet: I44 Map reference: 994749
Indicators Rating
1–5
Comments on the site
Catchment condition 1
Riverbank condition 2.5
River shape –
Riparian vegetation 1.25
Indigenous vegetation
(on adjacent land)
1
Mahinga kai birds 1
Riverbed condition 1
Use of the river
(modifications)
1
Use of the river
(takes / discharges)
1
Flow visible 4
Flow heard 2
Odours present / absent 1
Water quality 1.25
Water clarity 1.5
Sediment present / absent 1.3
Use of riparian areas 1
Safety tasting water 1
Suitability for fishing 1
Safety eating fish 1.25
Balance between land and
water
3
Abundance of birds 1
Diversity of birds 1
Rūnanga comments, when they visited the site, were as follows:
Safety drinking the water
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
No.
Water colour, discharge, grazed.
Dirty, grazing, discharge.
Fishing at the site
No.
Eating the fish
No.
Balance
Grasses only; this is just a stream.
Both bad.
Both bad.
Overall health
Because of discoloration. Unfit for anything.
Access at the site
No.
Private farmland.
Harvesting mahinga kai from the site
No.
Abundance of plants 1
Diversity of plants 1
Access to the site 2
Suitability for harvesting
mahinga kai
1
Species that were harvested in the 19th century include:
•
•
•
eels.
Species that were present when the site was surveyed were:
tuna (long finned) (4)
inanga(7).
Overall score 1 MCI score 71 SHMAK score 1
64 A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways
Photograph 17:
Looking upstream.
Photograph 18:
Looking
downstream.
A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways 65
Taieri River – Ferry Bridge
Taieri Catchment: Site Name: Taieri River – Ferry Bridge
Stream order: 3 Map sheet: H45 Map reference: 891646
Indicators Rating
1–5
Comments on the site
Catchment condition 2
Riverbank condition 2
River shape –
Riparian vegetation 2.3
Indigenous vegetation
(on adjacent land)
1.6
Mahinga kai birds 2
Riverbed condition 1
Use of the river
(modifications)
1
Use of the river
(takes / discharges)
5
Flow visible 5
Flow heard 5
Odours present / absent 5
Water quality 3
Water clarity 2.3
Sediment present / absent 1
Use of riparian areas 2.6
Safety tasting water 2
Suitability for fishing 3.6
Safety eating fish 3.3
Balance between land and
water
3.3
Abundance of birds 2
Diversity of birds 1
Rūnanga comments, when they visited the site, were as follows:
Safety drinking the water
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Discoloured. High recreational use – boats etc. Tidal.
Is tidal.
Farms are near.
Fishing at the site
When clean.
Fast, flowing.
Eating the fish
Would need to know when it was caught.
Balance
Flows into a native reserve – but could be tidied up more.
Overall health
Discoloration. Too much human activity. Modification.
Good, fast-flowing river. No livestock present. Good deep water.
Access at the site
Yes have access but have a struggle.
Harvesting mahinga kai from the site
Fishing only.
Is tidal but also heavy influence of upstream areas.
Final comments
Exposed to winds, etc.
Abundance of plants 2
Diversity of plants 1
Access to the site 3.6
Suitability for harvesting
mahinga kai
2.6
Species that were harvested in the 19th century include:
•
•
eels, whitebait, fernroot, kāuru.
Species that were present when the site was surveyed were:
harakeke, tussock.
Overall score 3.3 MCI score 80 SHMAK score 5
66 A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways
Photograph 19:
Looking upstream.
Photograph 20:
Looking
downstream.
A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways 67
Island Stream – Maheno
Taieri Catchment: Site Name: Island Stream – Maheno
Stream order: 2 Map sheet: J42 Map reference: 390582
Indicators Rating
1–5
Comments on the site
Catchment condition 1
Riverbank condition 2.6
River shape –
Riparian vegetation 2
Indigenous vegetation
(on adjacent land)
1
Mahinga kai birds 1.25
Riverbed condition 1
Use of the river
(modifications)
1.3
Use of the river
(takes / discharges)
1.25
Flow visible 1
Flow heard 1.25
Odours present / absent 1.25
Water quality 1
Water clarity 1
Sediment present / absent 1
Use of riparian areas 1
Safety tasting water 1
Suitability for fishing 1
Safety eating fish 1
Balance between land and
water
1
Abundance of birds 1.5
Diversity of birds 1
Rūnanga comments, when they visited the site, were as follows:
Safety drinking the water
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
No way!!
Fishing at the site
No.
Eating the fish
Pollution evident.
Balance
Beautiful rich farmland well watered at the river’s expense. The
farmland is healthy while the river suffers.
Shitty land use, shitty river.
Overall health
Polluted, smelly, area changed heaps.
Access at the site
Site has been destroyed.
Runoff from surrounding lands. This is a dairying area.
Harvesting mahinga kai from the site
Polluted.
Final comments
I said Yuck for an earlier river. God knows what I could say here.
The worst water quality I have seen so far.
Abundance of plants 1.5
Diversity of plants 1
Access to the site 2.75
Suitability for harvesting
mahinga kai
1
Species that were harvested in the 19th century include:
•
•
•
•
eels, kanakana, whitebait.
Species that were present when the site was surveyed were:
wīwī, tussock
ducks
tuna (short finned) (15), tuna (long finned) (4), inanga (1).
Overall score 1 MCI score 78 SHMAK score 1
68 A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways
Photograph 21:
Looking upstream.
Photograph 22:
Looking
downstream.
A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways 69
Appendix 3: Recommended Recording Form for Future Use
Cultural Stream Health Assessment
Indicators Unhealthy Healt hy
Catchment land use 1 Land heavily modified (e.g. grazed) 2 3 4 5 Appears unmodified
Use of the river margins
(100 m either side)
1 Margins heavily modified 2 3 4 5 Margins unmodified
Use of the river channel 1 Evidence of modification (e.g. stopbanks,
straightening, gravel removal, stock damage)
2 3 4 5 Appears unmodified
River flow 1 Cannot see movement 2 3 4 5 Obvious movement of water
(riffles, whitewater)
Water quality 1 Appears discoloured or polluted
(sediment/foams evident)
2 3 4 5 Water clear, no pollution evident
How would you describe the overall health of the river at this site?
1 Very unhealthy 2 3 4 5 Very healthy
Please explain your answer:
Birds
Please list the mahinga kai bird species that you can see at this site.
1. ______________________________ 2. ________________________________ 3. __________________________________
4. ______________________________ 5. ________________________________ 6. __________________________________
7. ______________________________ 8. ________________________________ 9. __________________________________
Plants
Please list the mahinga kai plant species that you can see at this site.
1. ______________________________ 2. ________________________________ 3. __________________________________
4. ______________________________ 5. ________________________________ 6. __________________________________
7. ______________________________ 8. ________________________________ 9. __________________________________
Access
Do you consider access to this site is sufficient to harvest mahinga kai?
1 Not able to harvest at this site 2 3 4 5 Able to harvest – no restrictions
Please explain your answer:
70 A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways
Would you return to this site in the future?
1 Yes 2 3 4 5 No
Final comments
Please describe the health of this site:
A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways 71
Appendix 4: Questions Asked
Sample questions
The following questions were used to identify indicators that Maori would use to assess
freshwater resources. The intention was to have an interactive ‘conversation’ free of jargon,
rather than a structured interview. The list of indicators was drawn principally from Questions
1 and 2. Question 6 enabled us to revalidate the sites that had been chosen.
1. If you drove up beside a beautiful healthy stream, what would it look like?
2. How do you assess a site and decide whether to fish there or not?
3. What has impacted on the health of streams and rivers?
4. What has impacted on your mahinga kai?
5. What traditional monitoring techniques have you heard of – specific to rivers?
6. What are some of the sites that you use or used in the past in the Taieri / Kakanui
catchments? What was harvested from these areas?
7. What could iwi add to the management process?
8. What are the barriers that stop us participating now?
72 A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways
