Akaroa Harbour Marine Farms Cultural Impact Assessment - (c) June 2000 Te Aohuri (Diane) Crengle Together with Te Rünanga o Onuku, Wairewa Rünanga
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Akaroa Harbour Marine Farms
Cultural Impact Assessment
(c) June 2000
Te Aohuri (Diane) Crengle
Together with Te Rünanga o Onuku, Wairewa Rünanga
And
Te Rünanga o Ngäi Tahu2
KARAKIA
Uea waerea kahura ra ka takata a tai, Me turaki atu a takata ki uta
Ka tu tenei ahau ki te Pito o Rehu, I raro nei i te maru o Tuhiraki
I te taha o te ara moana o Te Tohora Tapu
Ka titiro atu ahau ki ka tihitihi o ka Pariwhero, o tenei moana o Whakaroa
Whakatau mai ra te mauri o te moana o Takaroa
Ki ka mauri tuturu o Marukore raua ko Te Rakihorahina
Mai ea, mai ea, mai te tipua, Mai ea, mai ea, mai te tawhito
I haere mai ra koe i a Whakahotunuku, i a Whakahoturaki
Ko tou Manawa, ko toku Manawa
Ko Tane ka irihia
Whakatau mai ra te hihiri o Io o te Raki, No te Kahu o te Aoraki
Kokiritia ra ki te Ara-a-Raki, Ki te maioha o Tawhirimatea
Kia kaha ai koe, kia toa ai koe, Tena te kaha ka whiwhi
Tena te kaha ka rawe, Tena te kaha ka mau
Takiritia ra te huhiri ki ruka i, Te mauri o te moana a Takaroa
Whano koe ki te mauri kohatu, a Maui Tikitiki a Taraka e
Aua kia eke, eke Panuku
Eke Takaroa
Tuturu mai kia
Whakamaua kia tina!
Tina, Haumi e, Hui e!
Taiki e!3
Akaroa Harbour Marine Farms
Cultural Impact Assessment
Table of Contents
Objectives...................................................................................................................... 4
Methodology ................................................................................................................. 4
Summary of Concerns ................................................................................................. 5
Property Rights in Occupation of Coastal Space ...................................................... 7
Täkata Whenua Objectives for Akaroa Future ........................................................ 8
Resource Management Act 1991 Requirements ....................................................... 9
The Ngäi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998............................................................ 10
Ngäi Tahu Cultural and Customary Relationship – First Principles ................... 11
Whanaukatanga ............................................................................................................ 11
Mauri ............................................................................................................................ 11
Kaitiaki Wairua ............................................................................................................ 12
First Principles Issues and Concerns ....................................................................... 13
Specific Cultural Interests......................................................................................... 14
Wähi Tapu and Wähi Taoka ........................................................................................ 14
Mahika Kai................................................................................................................... 15
Täkata Whenua Status and Turangawaewae................................................................ 17
Kaitiakitanga (Human Kaitiaki) ................................................................................... 18
Specific Environmental Effects – Täkata Whenua Concerns ................................ 18
Natural Character and Visual Beauty .......................................................................... 19
Water Quality ............................................................................................................... 19
Sedimentation and Shell Drop ..................................................................................... 20
Introduction of Species into the Harbour ..................................................................... 21
Stripping of Phytoplankton Food Source..................................................................... 22
Shellfish and other Kaimataitai species ....................................................................... 23
Finfish .......................................................................................................................... 24
Hectors Dolphins ......................................................................................................... 24
Community Effects – Recreational Fishing ............................................................. 25
Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 25
Appendix 1: Taiäpure Objectives ................................................................................ 27
Appendix 2: Traditional Kaimataitai Species (Shellfish) ............................................ 28
Appendix 3: Traditional Ikarere Species (Finfish) ...................................................... 294
Akaroa Harbour Marine Farms
Cultural Impact Assessment
Objectives
The objectives of the Cultural Impact Assessment (“the report”) were:
• to review the application by Ngäi Tahu Fisheries Ltd and Kuku Partnership for a
complex of 13 marine farms within the Akaroa Harbour and the applicant’s
assessment of environmental effects (“AEE”);
• to consult with Te Rünanga o Onuku, and Wairewa Rünanga (“ngä Rünanga ”),
täkata whenua for the Akaroa area; and
• to provide information to the applicant and Canterbury Regional Council on the
nature and extent of cultural interests in the coastal marine area of Akaroa
Harbour protected by the provisions of the Resource Management Act, and that
may be adversely affected by the marine farms proposal.
To the extent that it is relevant to the proposed marine farms development, the report
has reviewed information on cultural effects and interests in the Harbour provided by
ngä Rünanga during the assessment of recent Marine Reserves proposals for the Dan
Rodgers and Pohatu areas, and the subsequent application by täkata whenua for a
Taiäpure Local Fisheries Management area within Akaroa Harbour.
Where possible, the report has suggested potential avoidance, remedy, or mitigation
actions that might be taken to reduce identified cultural effects from the marine farms
proposal, as suggestions for further negotiation between the applicant, ngä Rünanga ,
and Te Rünanga o Ngäi Tahu.
Methodology
In preparing this report the authors have reviewed the applicant’s information
provided to the Canterbury Regional Council, and consulted with representatives from
Te Rünanga o Onuku and Wairewa Rünanga (“ngä Rünanga”), who share traditional
authority and responsibility for the Akaroa Harbour and surrounding lands and waters,
in consultation with Te Rünanga o Koukourarata.
Ngä Rünanga also deem it a part of their kaitiaki and manaaki (host) responsibilities
to consider the views of the wider local community of Akaroa on the application and
its potential effects in the Harbour, consistent with the collaborative advocacy and
management approach taken to the Dan Rodgers and Pohatu Marine Reserve
proposals and the Taiäpure application. To this end, a hui to discuss the marine farm5 proposal and the cultural impact assessment was hosted at Onuku Marae on Sat 10th of June, and attended by representatives from a range of local interest groups including: Canterbury Marine Fishers Association Akaroa Recreational Fishing Club Akaroa Cruising Club Royal Forest and Bird Department of Conservation Longtime local residents Local commercial fishers Te Rünanga o Ngäi Tahu (via the Natural Resources Unit) was also present at the hui in support of the Kaitiaki Rünanga. Existing submissions and policy prepared by ngä Rünanga during the recent Marine Reserves and Taiäpure processes were reviewed, and advice was also sought from a variety of expert and local sources on the potential ecological effects of longline mussel and other shellfish farming in the harbour. Summary of Concerns Mana Whenua There is a need for the application to more strongly reflect the Te Rünanga o Ngäi Tahu Act 1996, the mana whenua/mana moana status of Te Rünanga o Onuku and Wairewa Rünanga, and the role of Te Rünanga o Ngäi Tahu as the iwi authority. Taiäpure Ngä Rünanga are particularly concerned that nothing in this application should detract from the application by the iwi for a Taiäpure in the Harbour. Tapu and Taoka Values Sites K and L immediately adjacent to Onuku Marae raised the most objections amongst ngä Rünanga representatives and are likely to be vigorously opposed by ngä Rünanga should the application for consents in those two sites proceed. Täkata whenua concerns over these two sites can only be addressed by the applicant agreeing not to proceed with siting farms there. Sites A-C lie off tapu coastline peppered with submerged ana (caves) of high wähi tapu value. Traditionally, Akaroa Ngäi Tahu did not use those areas for kaimoana gathering, and avoidance of physical impacts on the tapu by siting offshore may not be sufficient to avoid cultural offence caused by production of food in a spiritually tapu area. Sites H and I are sited adjacent to land and seabed areas of high tapu. Again, although physical disruption of the wähi tapu values of the area (through disturbance of the koiwi täkata for example) is not a likely result of this application, this may not be sufficient to avoid cultural offence caused by production of food in a spiritually tapu area.
6
Te Taiao (ecology)
Täkata whenua strongly object to any introduction into Akaora Harbour of spat, algae,
or “new” species not already present within the Harbour, that may be sourced from
other areas, including Te Oneroa a Tohe (Ninety Mile Beach) and Marlborough
Sounds. Ecological concerns about such introductions are significant, including the
threat of spread of invasive undaria. Such introductions also raise spiritual issues
(mixing of the mauri of other places) and are culturally unsound, given the different
tribal areas from which they are sourced and the relationship between the iwi of those
areas and Ngäi Tahu.
The majority of other outstanding concerns focus on habitat quality and the
predictability of effects given the lack of existing research on the effects of marine
farming on the coastal environment of the Harbour, and particularly the cumulative
impacts of multiple site proposals and multiple other use demands. Provided
avoidance measures suggested by ngä Rünanga are adopted, and the applicant’s
predictions are proven by subsequent experience in the Harbour, adverse impacts on
cultural values of Ngäi Tahu from marine farm sites outside of tapu areas should be
minimal.
However, the applicant’s research lacks adequate information and fails to supply
research data for a number of potential effects that include:
• Cumulative effects
• Actual tidal mixing, flushing, and circulation patterns in and around each of site
areas
• Sediment under and around the farm – dispersal, reef, rock, and adjacent habitat
effects
• Habitat Competition effects – habitat space, food capture, and mussel re-
attachment
• Actual water quality baselines for the site areas – effects on water quality
• Effects on Hectors dolphins and marine birds
• Effects on existing natural character, visual and amenity values.
As the effects on cultural values from the proposal depends on the outcomes of
research being proven in factual experience, ngä Rünanga representatives were keen
to see more research undertaken before the proposal proceeds. In addition to the
cultural and spiritual issues raised herein, ngä Rünanga focused their concerns on the
establishment of Conditions that require the applicant to keep to the standards of non-
effect suggested by the application, and requiring monitoring on an ongoing basis
through the life of the consents.7
Property Rights in Occupation of Coastal Space
This is a an application for occupation rights by a commercial enterprise over a
significant part of the available sheltered bay inshore coastal marine space in Akaroa
Harbour, together with the associated right to use the natural ecology of the Harbour
to feed commercial aquaculture production. The application represents a major
expansion of existing marine farming activities in the Harbour, and introduces a
further demand on the ecological resources of the Harbour. Those resources are
already under significant pressure from existing uses and sewage discharges, and the
management of areas of space in the Harbour is the subject of intense attention from
interest groups. The regulatory environment concerning Akaroa Harbour is crowded
with alternative proposals and competing demands, including:
• Application from conservation interests for Marine Reserve designation for the
Dan Rodgers area (and Pohatu in adjacent Flea Bay);
• Application from iwi for a Taiäpure Local Fishery Management designation over
the whole of the Harbour, with potential for future mahika mataitai area/s;
• Crown recognition of the cultural relationship and customary interest in property
rights to coastal space in the Akaroa Harbour area in the Ngäi Tahu Claims
Settlement Act 1998;
• Mäori Appellate Court proceedings to determine the extent of Mäori customary
land in the Marlborough Sounds coastal marine area, if any, with possible
implications for other coastal areas;
• Marine Mammal Sanctuary restrictions on fishing activity currently in place in the
Harbour;
• Proposals for fisheries management plans from recreational fishing interests with
respect to the Harbour;
• Burgeoning demand throughout New Zealand (and especially in Banks Peninsula)
for marine farming space, with sheltered bay areas such as the Akaroa Harbour at
a premium and highly sought after; and
• Uncertainty over the Canterbury Regional Coastal Environment Plan provisions
with respect to Marine Farming, with the Department of Conservation seeking to
raise the designation of marine farming in the Plan from a discretionary to a non-
complying activity, via the Environment Court.
The confusion created by these competing management demands is exacerbated by a
general lack of sustainable management research data for the Harbour (and the
Peninsula as a whole) that would allow the assessment of environmental health,
carrying capacity, and cumulative effects from all these use and demand pressures.
The coastal space that is the subject of this application can therefore be considered
high premium, likely to be hotly contested, and offering a significant economic right
to the applicants relative to the potential environmental effects and the potential
exclusion of other use interests in the areas under and adjacent to the sites. Given the
likelihood of permit renewal for an existing use, Ngä Rünanga consider that a
successful application for these consents will have the effect of the applicant retaining
use and occupation rights to a large and valuable area of coastal space for several
generations and/or the capacity to alienate that property right to others as
commercially desired.8
There are serious public policy issues raised by the allocation of such a resource to
one applicant, particularly in the absence of a research-based sustainable management
plan for the Harbour as a whole. Ngä Rünanga and Te Rünanga o Ngäi Tahu also
have a standing interest in influencing the principles applied to, and participating in,
the granting of property rights in coastal space within the Ngäi Tahu rohe (tribal area).
Although ngä Rünanga are not themselves involved in the proposed development,
some representatives did favourably note the investment of Ngäi Tahu Fisheries Ltd
as a positive indication of Ngäi Tahu participation in the venture.
Täkata Whenua Objectives for Akaroa Future
Attitude to Marine Farming
Aquaculture is an activity that has long been an element of täkata whenua experience
in the Akaroa Harbour. Pre-European use by täkata whenua included deliberate
seeding and contained cultivation of kaimoana species using traditional methods that
are akin to elements of modern marine farming. These included kaimataitai seeding
via the use of poha (kelp containers), and the raising of shellfish in artificial
environments such as taiki (storage pits). Aquaculture is therefore known to the täkata
whenua as a traditional use in the Akaroa Harbour, although not on the present or
proposed scale.
Marine farming not involving artificial discharges or introduced organisms is also
regarded by ngä Rünanga as a relatively natural ecological use, in contrast to the
deeply offensive discharges of effluent, leachate and chemicals into the waters of the
Harbour and the degradation of fisheries stocks over the last 50 years.
However, marine farming is also considered an extractive use, occupying habitat
space, and creating localised areas of intensive uptake of phytoplankton food sources
and sediment smothering. Täkata whenua believe that restitution must be made for
any extractive use of the environment and its resources.
Priorities and Objectives
During consultation, ngä Rünanga representatives spoke of priorities for the future of
Akaroa Harbour. Review of existing written material, including the application for a
Taiäpure Local Fishery Management area, supported the korero during consultation.
Täkata whenua hold a set of consistent objectives for the waters and resources of the
Akaroa Harbour. Summarised, those objectives include:
• Commitment to informed and inclusive integrated management of the Harbour
waters and fisheries, with strong täkata whenua and community participation
• Restoration of the ecology to remedy existing degradation and restore the health
of the mauri of the Harbour and its resources, on a long term timeframe of 50-100
years so as to meet obligations to tupuna (ancestors) and uri whakatupu (future
generations)
• Elimination of offensive discharges to the waters and restoration of degraded
water quality
• Maintenance and enhancement of the character of the Harbour as a well-loved,
beautiful and productive natural environment.9
• Conservation and protection of shellfish beds, spawning and fishing grounds, wähi
tapu, mahika kai sources, and all species; and
• Preserving customary uses and traditions of kaitiaki, manaaki, and mahika kai,
and community uses of recreational fishing and tourism.
Ngä Rünanga would welcome any support, advocacy, or assistance that the applicant
could provide towards promoting the priorities and objectives that täkata whenua hold
with respect to the Harbour.
[For a full set of täkata whenua objectives, see Appendix 1: Extract from the
application for an Akaroa Taiäpure (Local Fishery Management Area).]
Resource Management Act 1991 Requirements
The Ngäi Tahu position is that customary and cultural interests under the Resource
Management Act (“the Act”) are statutorily protected primarily by ss. 6(e), 7(a) and 8
of Part II of the Act, but the iwi is not limited to those protections where other
provisions of the Act support the environmental interests Ngäi Tahu are seeking to
protect. Amongst general provisions relevant to this application and the protection of
Ngäi Tahu interests are:
s.6(a) preserving the natural character of the coastal environment;
s.6(c) protecting significant habitats of native species;
s 6(d) maintenance and enhancement of public access to and along the coastal marine
area;
s.7(b) efficient use and development of natural resources;
s.7(c) maintenance and enhancement of amenity values;
s.7(d) protecting the intrinsic values of ecosystems; and
s 7(f) maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment
s. 6 (e) The relationship of Mäori and their culture and traditions with their
ancestral lands, waters, sites, wähi tapu and other taonga.
Case law on the application of s.6(e) and its predecessor s.3(1)(g) of the TCPA has
established the following principles:
• The protection offered by s 6(e) to the customary relationship does not depend on
legal ownership of the lands, waters, sites etc remaining in Mäori ownership.
• There must be a nexus between the cultures and traditions and the relationship
being protected.
• The relationship has a spiritual component which transcends scientific health and
safety matters (for example, the discharge of human wastes into waters is
offensive spiritually, regardless of scientific standards for pollution being met).
In the context of Akaroa Harbour, the ancestral relationship protected by s. 6(e)
incorporates protection of the environment generally, a preference towards non-
disturbance of natural ecology and character, commitment to restoration of the coastal
ecology and coastal water quality, a requirement to guard wähi tapu against
disturbance, and the preservation of customary usage such as kaimoana gathering and
fishing.10
s. 7(a) Kaitiakitanga
The Act defines kaitiakitanga as guardianship and stewardship, and Ngäi Tahu
maintain their obligations as Kaitiaki for the Akaroa Harbour area include the
obligation to preserve the integrity of the environment, to restore degraded
environmental quality, to preserve customary resources and cultural activities, and to
guard the interests of future generations in all those matters.
Te Rünanga o Ngäi Tahu has generally applied the s 7(a) provision in resource
consent matters to support requirements for active participation by ngä Rünanga in
environmental management decisions, avoidance of adverse effects on cultural
interests, ongoing monitoring of environmental effects, and participation by Ngäi
Tahu in that monitoring and the design of any remedial works revealed by monitoring.
s. 8 Principles of the Treaty
The major principles considered relevant to this application and the obligations of the
consent authority and consent applicant are:
• Partnership in terms of the allocation of space, the making of informed decisions,
and the identification of mutual interests and those that require negotiated
compromise; good faith and reasonable co-operation on both sides.
• Rangatiratanga in the sense of preserving Ngäi Tahu customary interests, values,
and associations, and supporting Ngäi Tahu participation in activities that may
impact on those values e.g. consultation, conditions setting, monitoring and
review.
• Active protection as the requirement to maintain and enhance the interests of Ngäi
Tahu in the Akaroa Harbour environment.
The Ngäi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998
The Ngäi Tahu Claims Settlement Act (“the Settlement Act”) contains a number of
provisions directly relevant to the issue of coastal space occupation in Akaroa
Harbour. These include:
• Statutory Acknowledgement of the traditional relationship, affected party
standing, and special notification status with respect to the coastal area of Banks
Peninsula, that incorporates Akaroa Harbour.
• Statutory Acknowledgement of the Ngäi Tahu relationship and interests in the use,
management and protection of taoka native species including fisheries and
kaimoana species.
• Agreed future rights to 10% of coastal space within five designated areas
(including Akaroa Harbour) in the event of the Crown establishing a market via
tendering (see section 316(2)(a) of the Settlement Act).
In addition to general obligations on consent authorities with respect to extra regard
for Ngäi Tahu interests over the provisions of the Resource Management Act, the11 Department of Conservation’s role in the coastal marine area is subject to obligations in its relationship with Ngäi Tahu as set out in the Statutory Acknowledgements and Protocols negotiated in the Settlement Act. Those Protocols include the protection of Ngäi Tahu heritage, archaeology, and fisheries interests. Ngäi Tahu Cultural and Customary Relationship – First Principles Whanaukatanga Täkata whenua believe that the world of immediate sense perception, the natural world before human eyes, came into being during the Ages of Te Po, through the generation of Ranginui, the Sky Father, and Papatuanuku, the Earth Mother. These parents then gave birth into the world of night to many children who became the rulers and guardians of elements of the natural world, including Tane forests, Takaroa sea, and others. Ranginui and Papatuanuku prevented light from reaching their children because of their close embrace until some of the sons decided that their situation could be remedied only if they separated their parents. By this separation of Ranginui and Papatuanuku the world of light, of existence, Te Ao Marama, came into being. Following the principles of Mauri and Whanaukatanga (kinship), all elements of the natural environment, animate and inanimate, possess a life force whose source is the energy blueprint of all existence, and all forms of life are related. The interconnectedness of all things means that the well being of any part of the environment will directly impact on the well being of all other parts, including people. Harmony is attained through respect for the sacred union between people and the natural world. Papatuanuku and Ranginui work hand in hand to nurture and protect all creatures and beings that are connected by the family ties of blood and kinship. People seek and receive nourishment and support from the children of the Gods, the trees and plants, the fish, the fruits and birds of the forest, and cultivated crops. In return for the nurturing and support of physical existence that the Kin provide to people, people must act in ways that reflect respect, mutual care, and reciprocity towards the Mother Earth and her other children. Mauri Täkata whenua believe that separation of Ranginui and Papatuanuku completed the process whereby divine force was issued from the Creator into the domains of their children, the natural elements. This divine force imbued all parts of the environment with Mauri. Mauri represents the essence that binds the physical and spiritual elements of all things together, generating and upholding all life. As the various elements diversify, Mauri acts as the bonding element creating unity in diversity. Although rooted in spiritual belief about sacred life energy, Mauri may also be observed by humans as a physical life essence manifested in ecological abundance
12 and robust productive environmental health. All animate and other forms of life such as plants and trees owe their continued existence and health to Mauri – when the Mauriora is strong, fauna and flora flourish; when it is depleted and weak, those forms of life are sickly and weak. Balance in the relationship between people and the natural world, and the approval of the Gods, is thus expressed via the health of Mauri in the physical environment, including forest and fisheries abundance, fruitfulness, sustenance of the community, and the protection of the environment and resources from tampering and misfortune. To the extent that it is manifested as physical abundance, the health of the Mauri of a place, an ecosystem, a resource, or a species is the benchmark against which resource management outcomes are judged by täkata whenua. Protection and restoration of Mauri is the first principle of ngä Rünanga aspirations for management of Akaroa Harbour. Kaitiaki Wairua [This section was prepared by Rev Maurice Grey on behalf of ngä Rünanga, and is reproduced here with permission]. In earlier times, the understanding of “kaitiaki wairua o te moana me te whenua” featured as an important aspect of management control systems in relation to aquatic life forms and their respective mauri, both of inland and coastal waters. The mauri of the land, and their respective kaitiaki, were also important as protective measures in the preservation of wähi tapu, urupä and wähi taoka sites. The kaitiaki wairua for these mauri took many forms. The giant-like human forms seen by some are referred to as “Turehu”, and others took the form of natural life forms, such as sharks, whales, birds, fish and others. The preservation of the mauri moana was important for the regeneration and replenishment of kaimoana. One mauri moana refers to a talisman, a white, whale- shaped stone, which was the life force for the wellbeing of all shellfish, fish and other marine life of the area. This mauri moana was a replica of a living whale, which was the kaitiaki of the mauri. This particular mauri was also the kohatu on which the Treaty of Waitaki was signed by Piuraki Tikao (John Love) and Iwikau, immediately in front of the site where Onuku Marae now stands. In addition to this was the mauri of Takaroa, in which tohi and waituhi rituals were performed over Pia (neophytes), Taura (acolytes) and Tauira (proselytes) in the rituals of initiation pertaining to Te Muna Matauraka, the teachings of esoteric lore. The two kaitiaki referred to as taniwha by Poua Teone Taare Tikao, are Te Wähine- Marukore and Te Raki-Horahina, both of whom had their own rua. The first was located in front of Opukutahi, near where Poua Tamati Tikao and Taua Rahera Te Hua (Tikao) are buried. The other was near Te Ruahine. These taniwha carried out important roles and functions in the protection of wähi tapu and wähi taoka sites around the coastline.
13
The dolphin and the whale were also important at a cultural level in some places
along and around the coastline. This was because certain species also acted as
kaitiaki of caves which were repositories for koiwi.
In energy terms, leylines are also located in particular areas on the land and sea in this
area. There are historical and mythological references which refer to the energetic
linkages to this area, through to Whakatu (Nelson) and leading up to Ruapehu and
Taupo. These leylines also relate to ohaki (prophecies) of our tipuna, and are
protected by kaitiaki. The lines also mark the places on high points of the land, where
the koiwi were placed, with the belief that their wairua acted as sentinels for the area.
First Principles Issues and Concerns
Concerns relevant to Marine Farms proposal:
• Past and continuing degradation of the Akaroa marine environment, deterioration
of ecological health, abundance, and water quality
• Lack of an integrated management framework for the lands, resources, and coastal
waters of Akaroa Harbour
• Lack of priority for the protection element in sustainable management, in favour
of development, use, and commercial interests
• Ad hoc decision making with respect to consent applications without sufficient
information on cumulative effects
• Lack of priority for restoration principles and actions in the management of the
Akaroa Harbour, to restore the natural ecology of the Harbour’s lands and waters
• Potential introduction of waters and/or organisms from other places, degrading the
mauri within the Harbour
• Interruption of the spiritual balance and interference with wairua kaitiaki within
the Harbour
Potential Measures:
• Development of a research programme for the proper assessment of the ecological
health, carrying capacity and cumulative effects from all uses of the waters and
fisheries resources of the Harbour
• Development of an holistic integrated management plan for the Harbour, with
strong täkata whenua and community participation
• Advocacy, support and assistance in promoting restoration principles and actions
in the management of the Akaroa Harbour to restore the natural ecology of the
Harbour’s lands and waters
• Avoidance of interference with wähi tapu values within the Harbour
• Further consultation with ngä Rünanga on the nature of the values at wähi tapu
sites, and appropriate measures for avoiding impacts on those values
• Protection for any sensitive cultural information on wähi tapu values disclosed to
the applicant or Canterbury Regional Council in the course of this consent
• Exclusion of spat and/or seaweeds sourced from outside of Akaroa Harbour, and
exclusion of farming species that do not presently occur within Akaroa Harbour.14 Specific Cultural Interests Wähi Tapu and Wähi Taoka Interest: For täkata whenua, certain waters and areas within the Akaroa Harbour and their contents have a special character because of their spiritual status. Water may be considered to be tapu or sacred because of its mauri and properties, relationship to guardian spirits, tapu places, koiwi täkata (burials), or tapu objects, or for its close association with the gods and ancestral events. In other instances, water bodies will have special taoka value because of special uses for those waters. Concerns: Tapu waters within the Akaroa Harbour are impacted by the application. The waters and coastline affected are important to täkata whenua as: • dwelling places for taniwha kaitiaki (protective guardian spirits) • burial places • safe repositories for taoka artefacts, and cultural objects; and • the site of chiefly deaths in intertribal warfare Information about wähi tapu specific locations and contents is highly sensitive and can be protected from public disclosure under the Resource Management Act. Although some general information on specific site concerns is given below, further consultation with ngä Rünanga is strongly recommended. Tapu Sites Sites A-C lie off tapu coastline peppered with submerged ana (caves) of high wähi tapu value. Traditionally, Akaroa Ngäi Tahu did not use those areas for kaimoana gathering, and avoidance of physical impacts on the tapu by siting offshore may not be sufficient to avoid cultural offence caused by production of food in a spiritually tapu area. Sites H and I are sited adjacent to an area of high tapu (the cliffs), used for chiefly burials. On the Harbour floor opposite is said to be a rua, dwelling place for one of the Harbour’s kaitiaki wairua (guardian spirits). Again, although physical disruption of the wähi tapu values of the area (through disturbance of the koiwi täkata for example) is not a likely result of this application, this may not be sufficient to avoid cultural offence caused by production of food in a spiritually tapu area. Taoka Sites Sites K and L immediately adjacent to Onuku Marae raised the most objections amongst ngä Rünanga representatives and are likely to be vigorously opposed by ngä Rünanga should the application for consents in those two sites proceed. Täkata whenua concerns were extensive and included loss of traditional and present day mahika kai values, interference with tapu, turangawaewae, and rakatirataka, visual disruption, disturbance of the cultural environment on the marae, and curtailment of future options for the täkata whenua with respect to their marae and its surrounding environment.
15
It is unlikely that täkata whenua concerns over these two sites can be avoided,
remedied, or mitigated. It is recommended the applicant agree to withdraw the
application with respect to those sites.
Potential Measures:
• withdraw application for sites K and L adjacent to Onuku Marae
• avoid interference with wähi tapu values within the Harbour
• further consultation with ngä Rünanga on the nature of the values at wähi tapu
sites, and appropriate measures for avoiding impacts on those values
• protection for any sensitive cultural information on wähi tapu values disclosed to
the applicant or Canterbury Regional Council in the course of this consent.
Mahika Kai
Interest: Mahika kai has been literally translated as “food works”. The terms refers to
the production and gathering of food and other natural resources, such as raranga
(weaving) materials or other cultural materials. Mahika kai involves the management
and utilisation of all the resources of the land and waters for the sustenance of life,
human wellbeing, and mauri, be they resources sourced in lake, river, lagoon or sea
water, or from the bush and forests, and including all fish, birds and animals
dependent upon these resources.
However, mahika kai resources are significant to ngä Rünanga for more than their
sustenance of physical life, health and well-being, cultural artworks, or their economic
use value as trade items. A range of other cultural associations also apply.
The ability to provide hospitality to visitors is a primary cultural tenet, reflecting on
the status, economic power, reputation and social standing of the host people. The
abundance of the food able to be supplied by hosts to visiting people signifies the
wealth and mana of the iwi, and their success as rangatira and kaitiaki in preserving
their local resources and cultural traditions. In most instances, individual iwi are
known for special local foods that represent part of their tribal identity and association
with the lands and waters of their traditional territory. Those species have a value
which cannot be replaced by substitutes.
Participation in mahika kai activities is also an important expression of cultural
continuity, and a means of experiencing collective activity as a coherent social group.
Food and cultural materials gathering is governed by cultural practices that express
the ethics mentioned in this report, and reflect the rights and obligations of people
under those ethics. Continuation of these practices is an important means of passing
those cultural values down to children and grandchildren, ensuring their survival
through the generations.
For Akaroa Ngäi Tahu, fish were regarded as the most important of marine resources.
Onuku, a traditional kaika in the Akaroa harbour, was well situated for harvesting a
range of species within the intertidal zones, as well as deep-sea fishing. Excellent
fishing grounds were found in the harbour, and the adjacent bays. The rocky
shoreline of the peninsula and its beaches, were papatipu, containing many varieties16
of kaimataitai, rimurimu species, bubu species, patiki species, köura and other
seafood. The freshwater species of mata, inaka, tuna and köura were present in the
tributaries of Akaroa, in abundance.
A wide variety of shellfish were traditionally collected by täkata whenua from the
sandy and rocky shorelines around Akaroa Harbour. These included paua, kuku, pipi,
huai, bubu, tio kina, kakihi and papaka. [For a more extensive list of kaimataitai
species utilised by täkata whenua in the Harbour see Appendix 2: Extracts from the
application for an Akaroa Taiäpure]. The use of shellfish as a food source was due to
its abundance in the locality of a particular settlement.
Similarly, ikarere (finfish) form an important component of traditional and
contemporary mahika kai practice for Akaroa Ngäi Tahu. The Ngäi Tahu economy
was largely based on fishing, sea and bush bird processing and shellfish gathering.
Maka and Mako were the most common fish taken, but Hoka, Hapuka, and Hokarari
were also commonly used. [For a more extensive list of kaimataitai species utilised by
täkata whenua in the Harbour see Appendix 3: Extracts from the application for an
Akaroa Taiäpure]. Oral traditions and historical maps maintain that there were
numerous pä (villages) within the Akaroa harbour, and indeed right throughout
Horomaka, these coastal villages being able to sustain their populations through close
proximity to food resources utilised according to seasonal availability.
Concerns:
• disruption to the customary relationship and exercise of mahika kai
• interference with customary access to traditional mahika kai resources
• degradation of existing natural fish and shellfish populations through habitat
competition and displacement by the marine farms
• proximity of sites to important customary kaimoana resources.
• reef and rocky shore habitat integrity and reef species may be affected by
sediment drop under the farms, from food and faeces harvesting debris, and
sediment captured by the lines.
• nutrient capture by farms reducing food supply to adjacent species.
Potential Measures:
• Further research on potential tidal circulation, existing water quality, and sediment
dispersal patterns
• Further research on the potential for adverse effects on food supplies to adjacent
wild populations via uptake of phytoplankton from the farms
• Avoidance of effects from competition for food sources between the farms and
wild populations of kaimataitai
• Avoidance of valuable reef rock or cobble habitat by adjusting the inshore
boundaries of several sites to ensure the area covered by the marine farm rests
over muddy harbour bed
• Siting each farm so as to create a buffer zone between the inshore boundary of the
farms and the boundary of sensitive habitat
• Standards in Conditions re avoidance of effects on existing water quality and
adjacent mahika kai stocks; monitoring and remedial action requirements17
• Advocacy, support, and assistance in promoting the restoration of degraded water
quality and mahika kai stocks within the Harbour
• Cooperative protocol with ngä Rünanga for participation in ongoing management,
monitoring, and any remedial design.
Täkata Whenua Status and Turangawaewae
Interest: There have been a number of successive migrations and settlements in the
Akaroa area with occupation by the peoples of Waitaha, Kati Mamoe, and, for
approximately 13 generations, of Ngäi Tahu, who arrived with the landing of the
Makawhiu waka (canoe) and established several significant kaika and pä in the
Harbour, including Onuku and Opukutahi.
The social order of the Peninsula, in terms of iwi and hapu, has changed several times
as a consequence of these migrations and as a result of internal and external tribal
warfare. The ‘Kai Huaka feud’, a period of strife between Ngäi Tahu hapu which took
place early in the nineteenth century, influenced the names and landscape of portions
of the Akaroa coastline, which bear witness to this period of history.
Following on from this feud were a number of external influences, the first of which
was the invasion by Te Rauparaha of these lands, and the resulting scarring of both
the landscape and the people who held kaitiakitaka over it. The places touched by the
Ngäti Toa invasion form the basis of many wähi tapu, wähi taoka, and ana koiwi sites
today.
Restoration of mana whenua and mana moana status in relation to this area is of
paramount importance to the people of the various Banks Peninsula Runaka.
Concerns:
• Recognition of ngä Rünanga mana whenua/mana moana status.
• Alienation of property rights in coastal space (occupation rights and right to take
from natural ecology for commercial production)
• Interruption of the customary relationship and experience of that relationship with
site areas and adjacent coastline and wild resources, due to the proposed marine
farms
• Derogation of Ngäi Tahu Claim Settlement Act interests.
Potential Measures:
• Acknowledgement of ngä Rünanga mana whenua and Te Rünanga o Ngäi Tahu
iwi authority status in application and consent conditions
• Participation in the holding and management of coastal space and fisheries in the
Harbour
• Continuation of customary relationship and fisheries uses of the Harbour, or
mitigation for effects on those uses and relationship
• Recognition in protecting ecological, heritage and wähi tapu values of the
Harbour, through participation in ongoing management, conditions setting,
monitoring, and any required remedial measures.18
Kaitiakitanga (Human Kaitiaki)
Interest: The term kaitiakitanga derives from the verb tiaki. In a natural resource
context, the term incorporates notions of guarding, keeping, preserving, fostering,
sheltering and watching over resources. Kaitiaki are the agents of this preservation
and guardianship.
Kaitiakitanga denotes the responsibility of specific appointed iwi representatives to
carry out particular functions, to keep and guard iwi interests and taonga resources.
The obligations of kaitiaki include enforcement of the practices of tikanga, or those
customary practices established to nourish and control the relationship between
people and the natural world.
Kaitiaki are directly accountable back to the iwi, and their responsibilities as kaitiaki
can only be discharged by outcomes which sustain the spiritual and physical integrity
of the resources and their relationship with the people, so that the resources and the
cultural values they support are passed down to future generations. Ngä Rünanga
measure the effectiveness of opportunities provided for their participation in resource
management as kaitiaki against the environmental outcomes that are achieved. Those
outcomes will be represented by physical resource health and opportunities for
continuing cultural usage according to iwi customary preferences and priorities.
Concerns:
• Interruption of the customary relationship and experience of that relationship with
site areas and adjacent coastline and wild resources
• Exclusion of täkata whenua from management participation.
Potential Measures:
• Täkata whenua participation in the holding and management of coastal space and
fisheries in the Harbour
• Continuation of customary relationship and fisheries uses of the Harbour, or
mitigation for effects on those uses and relationship
• Recognition in protecting ecological, heritage and wähi tapu values of the
Harbour, through participation in ongoing management, conditions setting,
monitoring, and any required remedial measures.
• Advocacy, support and assistance in promoting the application by täkata whenua
for a Taiäpure (Local Fishery Management) Area for Akaroa Harbour.19
Specific Environmental Effects – Täkata Whenua Concerns
Natural Character and Visual Beauty
Concerns: Ngä Rünanga support the overall principle of preserving the natural
character of the coast and are reluctant to support developments that significantly alter
the natural character and its ecosystem, amenity and landscape values.
Täkata whenua consider the marine farms proposal would create a significant change
to the natural character of the Akaroa Harbour, largely through landscape, visual
amenity, and aesthetic effects. Local Ngäi Tahu and all present at the community
consultation hui for this report strongly refuted the AEE statements that natural
character values in the Harbour are not significant, and that certain areas subject to the
application have “no natural character”. Locals were unanimous that the natural
character value of the Harbour is extremely high, and noted that the relatively
unspoiled coastal area is a major aesthetic drawcard for tourism, residents, and
community users within the Harbour.
While locals agreed that the natural character of surrounding lands within the Harbour
has been significantly reduced by land modification over past decades, significant
efforts at regeneration are already underway within the Harbour and community
values support longterm restoration of the natural and visual environment and
removal of visual eyesores from the coastline. Locals felt that existing loss of natural
character was not a reason to support further reduction in those values by mirroring
land farming uses in the coastal waters.
Potential Measures:
• Further research on the nature and extent of landscape and natural character values
in the Harbour impacted by the marine farm sites
• Avoidance of impacts on natural character and visual values of the coastline of the
Harbour (difficult if consent proceeds)
• Consideration of submerged technology or other methods of reducing visual
impact from the sites
• Advocacy, support, and assistance in promoting the restoration of natural land
character within the Harbour (and thus water quality and tourism values),
regeneration of native bush, and the reafforestation of cleared land areas.
Water Quality
Concerns: Effects on water quality from the farms is less significant than the effects
of present sewage discharges. However, the AEE does not mention Conditions
requiring maintenance of existing water quality, or monitoring of this quality.
Although the AEE notes that water quality relies on “tide, wind and waves”
movement to disperse waste and replenish the phytoplankton food source in the water
column, no data on these tide conditions has been obtained by the applicant, or at least
none of substance is provided in the AEE.20
The Department of Conservation dive survey at the Pinnacle Rock site reveals
significant ecological change that is strongly indicative of eutrophication in the water
environment, i.e. the presence of high concentrations of nutrients, attributable to the
sewage and wastewater discharges into the Harbour. This ecological change includes
massive proliferation of green marine algae/s and sea slugs. The conclusions are that
water quality is significantly degraded in that area and the ecology is degrading
accordingly. Canterbury Regional Council water quality testing reveals effects from
the discharges throughout the Harbour.
Although the AEE makes assertions of “high” and “good” water quality with respect
to the various sites, the applicant has failed to provide actual research data on existing
water quality, and does not address the potential for contamination of the farm
product by faecal coloforms, or the potential for pseudofaeces from the mussel farms
to add to the enrichment load in the water (although it is accepted that this effect is
likely to be minimal next to the direct discharges and runoff from pastoral land.)
Täkata whenua also questioned the viability of marine farming in the present water
quality conditions, noting that investment in the bays on Banks Peninsula for marine
farming has been limited to date by viability concerns and traditional iwi seeding
activities have fallen into abeyance partly because of the drop in ecological health
within the Harbour. It was felt that increased interest in the Peninsula harbours may
be more a function of the highly competitive national market for marine farming
space than indicative of any improvement in the viability of local Akaroa water
quality to sustain healthy farm production.
Scientific research reveals a potential for mussel marine farming to improve local
water quality through the conversation of excessive nutrients. However it is expected
that this beneficial effect would be as localised as phytoplankton uptake by the farms
(i.e. restricted to the immediate area of the farm) and therefore is not likely to offer
significant improvement to overall water quality in adjacent areas.
Potential Measures:
• Further research on the existing water quality in and around each site
• Further research on potential tidal circulation and sediment dispersal patterns
• Standards in Conditions re avoidance of effects on existing water quality
• Monitoring and remedial action requirements
• Advocacy, support, and assistance in promoting the restoration of degraded water
quality within the Harbour.
Sedimentation and Shell Drop
Concerns: The AEE accepts that marine farming results in a reduction of natural
habitat values immediately under and around the farm site, due to the deposit of layers
of sediment and dropped mussel shells. The applicant’s ecological consultant
recommends that loss of valuable reef rock or cobble habitat should be avoided by
adjusting the inshore boundaries of several sites to ensure the area covered by the
marine farm rests over muddy bottom.21
However, the applicant is reliant on tidal currents ensuring distribution of the
sediment but has not provided any data from research of the tidal circulation patterns
at each site. Information on tidal patterns in the AEE is restricted to statements that
sites enjoy “strong” or “strong or moderate” tidal flows. Reliable predictions of the
distribution of sediment from the farms cannot be made in the absence of actual on-
site research information on those tidal patterns. Information from Akaroa locals
emphasised the slow flushing nature of many Harbour areas, raising questions about
the applicant’s assertion that “strong or moderate” tidal flows will successfully carry
away and disperse sediment from the farms away from the adjacent shore area.
The risk to täkata whenua is that more than the habitat immediately under each farm
site will be lost or degraded if sediment from the farms washes onto adjacent rocky
shoreline, clogging natural kaimataitai beds, kohanga habitat, and feeding areas.
Shell drop is included with sediment in the AEE discussion, but no mention is made
of the potential for attachment and survival of fallen mussels under the farms, which
may result in spread and competition with naturally occurring mussels adjacent to the
sites.
Täkata whenua also noted that the benthic survey provided in the AEE did not include
a full survey of the bottom under each intended site, restricting investigations to an
inshore boundary dive, and visual examination of the surface waters for signs of reef
rock. Given that there are several areas within Akaroa Harbour where isolated small
reefs and rocky outcrops occur some distance from the general rocky shore boundary,
and these outcrops provide rich habitat, full survey of the bed under each site using
sounder technology is recommended.
Potential Measures:
• Further research on potential tidal circulation and sediment dispersal patterns
• Colour sounder surveys to ensure that rock outcrops do not occur under the
intended farm sites
• Avoidance of valuable reef rock or cobble habitat by adjusting the inshore
boundaries of several sites to ensure the area covered by the marine farm rests
over muddy harbour bed
• Siting each farm so as to create a buffer zone between the inshore boundary of the
farms and the boundary of cobble habitat, as a precaution against sediment drift on
to that habitat
• Establishing an acceptable sediment distribution profile for each site
• Standards in Conditions re avoidance of effects outside of the profile area
• Monitoring and remedial action requirements
• Cooperative protocol with ngä Rünanga for participation in establishing profile,
monitoring, and any remedial design.
Introduction of externally sourced, new or invasive species into the
Harbour
Concerns: Although the consent includes spat collection within the Harbour, the AEE
does not specify where spat to seed the farms will be sourced. Täkata whenua are22
aware that the vast majority of spat used on Marlborough mussel farms is sourced
from Te Oneroa a Tohe (Ninety Mile Beach) in the North Island. Ngä Rünanga
consider that use of spat and other resources from areas under the mana of other iwi is
culturally inappropriate in the context of the traditional relationship between iwi. Ngäi
Tahu also believe that all waterways, places, and living beings have their own distinct
mauri, and are opposed to mixing of waters, or the despoilment of mauri within the
Harbour through introduction of organisms or natural materials from outside of the
Harbour environment.
In addition, spat sourced from Marlborough marine farms is believed to carry
significant risk of the further introduction and spread of undaria spore, an invasive
and ecologically destructive Asian seaweed. Undaria is believed to be present within
Akaroa Harbour, but the extent of its establishment is not known. Undaria
contamination in the Harbour constitutes a serious ecological threat, and is a
significant Department of Conservation concern.
Täkata whenua noted that the application seeks permission to cultivate a variety of
species on the farms in addition to green lipped mussels, which is expected to be the
primary species produced. Those species include dredge oysters that are not currently
present within the natural Harbour and may include introduced varieties of other
species, such as scallops, differing from those that do presently occur within the
Harbour. Ngä Rünanga support the restriction imposed by the Environment Court
with respect to the marine farm consent for Pigeon Bay (excluding dredge oysters and
scallops not found within the Bay), and would prefer a similar exclusion for these
consents.
Potential Measures:
• Restrictions on the introduction of spat and/or seaweeds to exclude those sourced
from outside of Akaroa Harbour
• Exclusion of farming species that do not presently occur within Akaroa Harbour
Stripping of Phytoplankton Food Source
Concerns: Ngä Rünanga were concerned that the removal of food from the water by
concentrated rafts of bivalve mussels may result in reduced supply of food to wild
communities immediately inshore of the farms. The AEE makes no mention of known
ecological effects from longline mussel farming on the distribution of phytoplankton
to adjacent bivalve feeders.
For the most part, marine farming research in the Marlborough environment does not
suggest significant effects on wild stocks from food nutrients use by farmed mussels,
with farms, even in concentrated numbers, estimated to remove less than 5 percent of
the total natural source of phytoplankton. Some studies have shown, however, that
significant reductions of food concentrations do occur within mussel farms,
suggesting concentrated uptake of available phytoplankton, but these effects were
highly localised, confined to the environment immediately within the farms, and
unlikely to cause impacts on the adjacent ecology.You can also read
