Similarities and differences in level two – principles of sustainability

Robért et al (2002) argue that sustainability only became an issue when society became

unsustainable. Therefore the principles of sustainability define unsustainability. If society avoids these it must be sustainable (Robért et al. 2002). Walker (2011 p.9) believes that Māori values and beliefs are similar to the principles, stating, “a Māori view of natural sustainability supports conditions which focus on the elimination of unsustainable principles and practises.” The basis on which both TNS principles and Māori beliefs and values were developed is another similarity. Evidence suggests that the “depletion crisis model” (Berkes & Turner 2006 p. 482), where change in behaviour results from resources becoming depleted, has caused a change of behaviour in both

society (Robért et al. 2002). Anderson (2002) argues that the unsustainable behaviour of early Māori society, in contrast to their present beliefs and values, drove their society to alter behaviour and cites archaeological findings of the unsustainable harvesting of Moa by early Māori as evidence5.

More specifically, the similarities between TNS principles and kaitiakitanga become more obvious when the following quotes are compared. First from Marsden (2003 p. 50), describing that the need for exercising kaitiakitanga over the environment is “to prohibit exploitation, denudation,

degeneration and pollution of the environment and its resources beyond the point of no return, where the latent ‘pro-life’ processes within the biological functions and ecosystems of Papatuanuku collapse”. The second quote is from Robért et al (1997 p. 86) who are describing the rationale for the third sustainability principle, “in a sustainable society we cannot harvest or manipulate the

ecosystem in such a way that productive capacity and diversity systematically deteriorate.” That there are similarities between the sustainability principles and Māori beliefs and values was expressed by all three hui, a hui two participant stating, “certainly there is a Māori thinking around the concepts that you put up and it’s just that they have different processes and different names” and a hui one participant that the principles “make sense, but my comment about them is they don't capture any sort of emotion. They don't grab you here [your heart], it’s not that they aren't true and right, but it doesn't resonate with us.” Like previous statements, these recognise the similarities, but at the same time express the need for the principles to be articulated through a Māori voice. A hui three participants echoed the idea that the first three principles are akin to kaitiakitanga, for example, “I think kaitiakitanga sits right above it all, so these are just specific issues but kaitiakitanga thing’s right above it all” and the sustainability principles are “sort of kaitiakitanga for us, isn’t it? In a word.” The fourth principle was also seen as akin to Māori values such as whanaungatanga and manaakitanga. A hui two participant expressing this as follows, “if you as kaitiaki, for example, if you come up with some specific things, some ideas , that are really at the forefront of your mind, are there ones that wouldn’t fit within those four [sustainability principles]? You guys might be able to think of some that don’t come in here”.

In terms of the differences between the principles and Māori values and beliefs, one difference stems from the framing of the principles within a Western scientific construct. Hui two participants felt this resulted in principles that were entirely biophysical and lacking in spirituality and that this was “a very deliberate difference and it comes from the Western science construct”. They also felt that the sustainability principles “are very biophysical” and “spirituality is not there, it might be in

5

Others, however, argue that indigenous cultures learnt sustainability as much from the “ecological

understanding model” and observing nature and the behaviour of other species, as from depleting resources (Turners and Burkes 2005 496).

number four, but it’s not in your face” and “to get you there [your emotions], it’s more about the impact on say the wairua”. The principles were also seen as very cold and academic to all hui

participants, a participant of hui three stating “it’s more the way it’s presented is the issue to me, it’s kind of cold”, and hui one that “like if you talk about taniwha as an environmental tool, you talk about the destruction of his or her home, whether it’s a river or underground whatever, it’s more of a relationship with the entity or the environment than just those [principle], they’re sort of sterile scientific ways of describing your relationship with the earth” and “the language is quite, it would be hard for people to interpret I think, to grasp it”.

Another difference is in the holistic nature of the Māori worldview. The principles were seen as broad, but in a limited and less holistic manner than similar Māori values, a hui two participant commenting as follows, “I think they are quite specific, except for number four the others are very specific and I think from a kaitiakitanga perspective there would be other things, it’s almost like a subset of maybe other things that would exist on a radar of a kaitiaki for example. From a Māori perspective they are quite limited those first three.” Also, “I don’t think anybody would say you were wrong, but they might say have you considered [this or that], and it wouldn’t be limited to just those four conditions.”

A final comment from a hui two participant sums up both differences in one statement: “I think there is a fundamental difference here, this [TNS] is very focussed, whereas Māori are encompassing. I think they [principles] are broad, but in the physical spectrum. It’s about physical processes, whereas in a Māori sense there are other layers to that spectrum, there is a physical one, but in Māori it’s spiritual and there are a whole lot of things in there.”