INTRODUCTION
Environmental co-management is difficult to define because a wide variety of partnership arrangements exist around the world. Pinkerton (Reference Pinkerton1992) defines environmental co-management as power-sharing in the exercise of resource management between a power culture and a community or organization of stakeholders. There is a continuum from weak to strong co-management reflecting the degree of real power-sharing involved (Borrini-Feyerabend Reference Borrini-Feyerabend1996). The strength of co-management regimes can be evaluated by the extent of power transfer, the level of community participation, and the community's capacity to exercise its authority and responsibilities (Berkes et al. Reference Berkes, George and Preston1991).
Better environmental outcomes are expected from greater power-sharing between central government and aboriginal communities (Moller Reference Moller, McFagen and Simpson1996; Taiepa et al. Reference Taiepa, Lyver, Horsley, Davis, Bragg and Moller1997). The degree of power-sharing can also be reflected in a community's ability to capture social and justice outcomes and economic sustainability (Berkes Reference Berkes and Pinkerton1989; Rusnak Reference Rusnak1997). While cross-cultural co-management boards have become prominent organizational vehicles for conservation in some countries (for example Canada; Osherenko Reference Osherenko1988; Rusnak Reference Rusnak1997), there are still few examples in New Zealand where Māori have the equitable or primary responsibility for the environment (for example Rakiura Tītī Islands; Taiepa et al. Reference Taiepa, Lyver, Horsley, Davis, Bragg and Moller1997). In New Zealand, power-sharing is not just important for achieving conservation outcomes; it is a fundamental requirement of the Treaty of Waitangi 1840, which guides constitutional affairs (Orange Reference Orange1987). In the absence of environmental co-management models in New Zealand (Newman & Moller Reference Newman and Moller2005), research institutions have established collaborative arrangements within their own programmes.
The objectives of this study were to review two collaborative research partnerships in New Zealand by asking participants to define a collaborative partnership, and identify the conditions required for a successful partnership, the procedures used for working through issues, as well as associated costs and benefits. The recognition and roles of kaitiakitanga (environmental guardianship by Māori) and mātauranga (Māori traditional knowledge) within these partnerships were assessed. The goal was to guide both aboriginal and euro-centric authorities for establishing and operating within cross-cultural environmental partnerships.
The first case study refers to the collaborative research partnership between Rakiura Māori (the southern-most tribe in New Zealand) and the University of Otago to understand the forces that drive changes and trends in tītī (sooty shearwater, Puffinus griseus, muttonbird) populations on the Rakiura Tītī Islands. The Rakiura Tītī Islands Administering Body (RTIAB) is the community authority, which consists of 10 Rakiura representatives elected by Rakiura Māori beneficiaries to manage the Rakiura Tītī Islands and provide research directorship. The second case study refers to a research partnership between Ngāti Hine (a northern New Zealand Māori sub-tribe) and Landcare Research (a Crown Research Institute) to restore a local forest ecosystem and kūkupa (Māori dialectical variation for the native wood pigeon, kererū, Hemiphaga novaseelandiae) population at Motatau, Northland. Two representatives from Ngāti Hine were elected by the community to work with and provide guidance to Landcare Research scientists.
METHODS
Interviews were conducted during February and March 2002 with eight of the 10 Māori members of the RTIAB, two scientists from the University of Otago, two Māori representatives from Ngāti Hine, and two scientists from Landcare Research. The interview structure was adapted to the New Zealand context from Weitzner's (Reference Weitzner2000) questionnaire, which was used to sample board members involved in the co-management of Canada's national parks and reserves. All interviews were conducted in English, independently of other individuals, and lasted 0.75–3.5 h. Each interview was audio taped and converted to electronic files by a contracted transcriber, with a second transcriber checking transcriptions for accuracy.
Interviews were divided into three broad sections. Firstly, participants’ were questioned about what constitutes a collaborative partnership, the role of formal agreements, perceived ownership of the process, building trust, the decision-making process, the permanence of personnel, and the communication of objectives and scientific outcomes to the communities. Secondly, the costs and benefits of the partnerships were sought by questions about the level of financial input to the partnership by each group, time commitments by those involved, capability-building within the Māori communities, and the employment of community members. Thirdly, participants were asked about the roles of kaitiakitanga and mātauranga within the decision-making process and the trust and confidence they had in these traditional teachings.
RESULTS
Defining a collaborative partnership
Ninety per cent of Māori participants (n = 10) defined a collaborative relationship as a 50:50 partnership characterized by equal input and joint decision-making with a willingness of parties to work together and respect each other's mana (integrity/prestige) and ideology. Two Māori participants expressed the view that partnerships should operate under the guiding principles of New Zealand's Treaty of Waitangi 1840 with the opportunity for iwi (tribes) to practise their tikanga (custom and culture). All of the scientists reported that the term ‘collaborative’ was an ambiguous term, which could mean many things to different people. The scientists defined collaborative partnerships as the transfer of responsibility, decision-making authority, problem definition and solution identification from government or institutional authorities to iwi. One scientist believed that a 50:50 split in power-sharing was a minimum requirement for a collaborative partnership and anything less would denigrate the mana of Māori as equal partners.
Establishing the partnership
Formal contracts guided both research partnerships; however three participants suggested that higher levels of agreement did not necessarily guarantee a working relationship. They suggested even though Memoranda of Understanding could act as an umbrella document and indicate goodwill and the willingness to work together, the fundamental determinants of a partnership's success should include equitable involvement in the research decision-making process and access to resources to sustain that involvement.
Three RTIAB members reported that they were unsure if they had control of the research process when the tītī programme first began. One member felt that the University science team was ‘leading them by the nose’ with respect to management of the research. These members attributed this perspective to their own lack of experience with the collaborative process and the technical nature of the research. The two University scientists reported that crossing the cultural barrier was extremely unnerving at times, although they recognized that the Rakiura Māori community were also required to place a large amount trust in a scientific process in which they had limited understanding. All of the participants emphasized the importance of face-to-face contact early in the relationship and throughout the decision-making process, indicating that this assisted immensely with building trust and respect amongst the individuals directly involved. The importance of distilling and explaining complex results (for example population modelling) so that non-scientific members could make an informed decision was emphasized by all the Landcare Research and University scientists. Most of the decisions regarding the tītī research were made by the RTIAB or at the community level by vote. The University scientists acknowledged that many of the decisions made by Rakiura Māori were based on their knowledge of the birds, harvest regulations, local custom and cultural perspectives. Decision-making in the Motatau programme involved the representatives from both parties, but needed to be by consensus or else the proposed action did not proceed. Even so, one Landcare Research scientist stated that the Motatau partnership represented two groups (Ngāti Hine and Landcare Research) working towards a common goal, but each with their own agenda.
Maintaining the relationship
One Landcare Research scientist indicated that the strength of the Motatau partnership was the permanent personnel involved from the beginning of the programme. Seven of the eight RTIAB members reported that the permanence of a small core group from the University meant the institutional memory of the project was intact and communication was predominantly through a few known and trusted individuals. However, half of the RTIAB expressed a general feeling of frustration and exhaustion with the high turnover of University technical field staff. Two RTIAB members reported that there seemed to be a continual re-education process for both parties whenever someone new arrived on their islands. One University scientist reported that a change in RTIAB members could also have a destabilizing effect on the relationship until that person and their priorities became known, stating that it was difficult to build a relationship when committee members were regularly being replaced. He also perceived it was challenging for new members to become informed of past decisions, research direction and results as the programme progressed.
Annual meetings, committee meetings, hui (gatherings) and education programmes provided essential face-to-face contact between scientists, iwi representatives and the local Māori community in both programmes. Non-scientific newsletters were used to report research objectives, results, and current and historical items of interest to the communities and were recognized by three-quarters of participants as significant to both programmes. One University scientist emphasized that communication with the wider Rakiura community was crucial if they were to take responsibility for what the research revealed about the sustainability of their tītī management and harvest. He felt that if at the end of the research, the programme was still perceived as a University agenda and not a community consensus-driven project, the fundamental benefit of the collaboration would not have been realized.
Costs and benefits of collaborative research
All Māori participants indicated that they were not required to directly contribute to the cost of research or management in either programme. Both University scientists recounted that on average 8–9% of the annual budget for tītī research was assigned to the RTIAB as a directorship fee, which was in part used by RTIAB members to attend and deliver presentations at conferences relevant to the research. Both University scientists perceived this had significantly built scientific capacity and confidence within the RTIAB over the last decade. A similar proportion of the annual research budget was available to Ngāti Hine, however it was specifically designated for logistics and communication, employing local support, facilitating hui and accessing the field site. In both programmes, the Māori representatives chose not to remunerate themselves for their time spent directing the research.
All four scientists indicated that they had high expectations at the beginning of their programmes to build scientific capability within the local community. The vision was for the communities to assume the role of monitoring as soon as possible. However, one scientist acknowledged that local technicians needed core competencies such as numeracy, measurement and written skills. He said that in hindsight it had been a mistake to expect that individuals with no history in science could immediately provide consistent data acquisition and management, recording and measurement.
Almost three-quarters of Ngāti Hine and Rakiura representatives reported that their people had under-used the employment and training opportunities provided by the research. One RTIAB member suggested there should have been greater opportunities for the community to be involved in the tītī research and that more should have been done to encourage participation, although it was acknowledged by another member that it had been difficult to find local people to participate effectively.
A large time commitment initiating dialogue and maintaining collaborative partnerships was identified by both tītī scientists. One University scientist estimated 50% of his time was spent on non-scientific issues, such as corresponding with the RTIAB and the Rakiura community, writing minutes of meetings, publishing a community newsletter and organizing hui. Both University scientists reported that working within different cultural boundaries and systems greatly extended their time commitments. Even so, the University team leader advised that if they were to again develop a project where similar levels of mistrust existed, they would proceed much more slowly and commit more time to communication. Both scientists involved in the Motatau programme acknowledged that relatively little time had been devoted to explaining objectives and outcomes from the kūkupa research to the Ngāti Hine community. They reported that communication of research information was largely left to the two Ngāti Hine representatives, and that this system worked because there was a high level of trust between partners; however the scientists were unsure what level of support and understanding for the research existed within the wider Ngāti Hine community.
Roles of kaitiakitanga and mātauranga within the collaborative process
The concept of kaitiakitanga was defined by the majority of participants (86%, n = 14) as the guardianship or stewardship of the environment, which if practised appropriately would provide the same or better resource opportunities for future generations. One RTIAB participant felt that his role as a kaitiaki (guardian) was not a privilege, but an obligation on him as a Māori. Ninety per cent of Māori participants believed their collaborative partners recognized their status as kaitiaki and had some understanding of the concept, which strengthened over the course of their programmes. Landcare Research scientists felt that members within their team understood the concept of kaitiakitanga, stating that the larger vision for kūkupa and forest restoration came from Ngāti Hine and that they were responsible for steering the programme. The University scientists acknowledged that the understanding of the kaitiakitanga concept varied considerably between its members, although conscious attempts had been made to ensure that individuals joining the research were aware of, and supportive of this Māori conservation ethic.
All the Māori participants reported they had grown up with mātauranga and therefore had a great deal of trust and confidence in the knowledge system. For one RTIAB member, mātauranga was considered to be part of their mauri (life force). A third of Māori participants also considered the scientific community to be cynical of mātauranga and reluctant to categorically accept mātauranga constructs. Scientists from Landcare Research reported they had little contact with mātauranga through their programme, but generally believed the knowledge was useful for describing ecological processes, but had less power when identifying mechanisms of change or understanding complex ecological systems. Both University scientists expressed confidence in mātauranga, but acknowledged they were selective about what knowledge constructs were used and who provided the information. They expressed some concern about how a community filters reliable information from the less reliable. Three RTIAB members acknowledged that different levels of understanding about mātauranga occurred between muttonbirders and muttonbirding families because of the various methods used for monitoring and interpreting ecological patterns, but did not elaborate how knowledge was scrutinized.
All the Māori participants accepted that science was the dominant knowledge system being used in their respective programmes, although half felt mātauranga could have played a larger role. One RTIAB member acknowledged that there were no barriers to Rakiura Māori incorporating as much mātauranga as they wanted into the project. Even so, another RTIAB member was sceptical that mātauranga would be used in the research conclusions and suggested that government and non-government conservation organizations would lack trust in the process if mātauranga were the dominant knowledge system used. Both University scientists estimated that 20–30% of the tītī research thus far had addressed mātauranga. They explained that, unlike many other projects, Rakiura Māori mātauranga had guided and directed the project from the beginning.
DISCUSSION
Perceptions and role of collaborative research partnerships
Based on the responses of participants in this study, strong collaborative research partnerships in New Zealand should be characterized by the transfer of responsibility to Maori communities for problem definition, if one exists, decision-making and solution identification, leaving research organizations to facilitate the science. In this way, communities receive the responsibility, pleasure, commitment and mana that go with fulfilling their kaitiaki role. A partnership might include minimal requirements from wider society which, according to the legislation of the country, might not be negotiable, such as the sustainability of a natural resource. It might also be guided by principles about equity, fairness, transparency and respect for cultural ideology and knowledge systems.
Despite most major acts of parliament and research institute charters in New Zealand giving reference to the Treaty of Waitangi, which recognized Māori authority and governance over their lands and resources (Orange Reference Orange1987), the legislation still leaves considerable room for interpretation, and the level of involvement by Māori in conservation and natural resource management remains debatable (Newman & Moller Reference Newman and Moller2005). For example, the director of Fish and Game New Zealand, an organization primarily responsible for the management of sports fish and game resources, believed that the automatic statutory appointment of Māori representatives to Fish and Game Councils was inappropriate and that suggestions of ‘power-sharing co-management was going too far' (Johnson Reference Johnson1999). As part of the Ngāi Tahu Settlement Act 1997, Fish and Game agreed to invite a Ngāi Tahu representative to be a co-opted member of each South Island Council, however these representatives have only an advisory role and no voting rights.
Co-management of the environment presents a greater sacrifice at a fundamental power-sharing level for governmental authorities than collaborative research partnerships. The transfer of power in a research partnership that has short-term goals and a foreseeable end-point involves less of a political concession than the transfer of co-management rights to the environment or resources in perpetuity. Even so, collaborative research projects have a role to play in initiating dialogue and partnership-building, encouraging personnel from different cultural backgrounds and world-views to work together, and indirectly building a consciousness with government and the conservation community about problem definition and potential solutions that could lead naturally to co-management of the environment.
Requirements for a robust collaborative partnership
It was advised by participants that higher-level agreements should be developed in conjunction with community participation in research or management. It is possible that the establishment of formal guidelines (for example Memoranda of Understanding) in a collaborative vacuum without a specific project or goal may result in a pointless exercise or further denigrate the spirit in which the agreement was entered into. Establishing an appropriate decision-making process is crucial to the successful management of a collaborative partnership and is largely determined by existing tribal governance structures and the perceived sensitivity of the research. In the tītī programme, Rakiura Māori were the kaitiaki and owners of the islands and already had management systems in place for the islands and harvest. The Rakiura Māori community gave the mandate to the RTIAB to direct the research and make decisions on their behalf, however the sensitivity of some issues (for example access by the research team onto the islands outside the harvest season) were taken to the community for consideration and a decision. This put the obligation on the University scientists to ensure that the RTIAB and Rakiura community understood and had considered the salient points of the research. Regular hui and research-based community newsletters can assist with this process immensely. In the Motatau programme, having only two Ngāti Hine representatives with the mandate to make decisions on behalf of the iwi made the process of consensus possible. There were also fewer sensitivities and division of views surrounding this research, than the tītī research, so there was no need for a formal decision-making authority or process.
Ample time should be given to develop trust and confidence with a community through regular face-to-face contact and explanation of the science, especially where there is initial distrust and opposition to a partnership, as was the case in the Rakiura tītī programme. The permanence of members within a partnership is crucial for alleviating suspicion and relationship building as individual priorities become known, the understanding of science and kaitiakitanga develop, and those involved become acquainted on a personal basis rather than just at a professional level. When determining the motives for distrust and the pace at which a programme should proceed, scientists might need to consider one or more factors such as the community's history of colonialism, the relevance of the resource to the people, a different set of value judgements, the level of science capability within the community and previous experiences the community might have had with government, industry or scientific organizations.
Participants in this study felt that ownership and the perceived value of research was crucial if Māori communities were to assume responsibility for decisions and outcomes that arise from a programme. Māori representatives need to understand and feel comfortable presenting the scientific explanations back to their own people. In the early stages of the tītī programme, the RTIAB lacked a comprehensive understanding of the research objectives and results and the scientific explanation was left largely to the University scientists at community meetings. This created the impression that the research was a University agenda and not owned or controlled by the community. In the Motatau study, reporting back to the community was primarily left to two Ngāti Hine members, so the Landcare Research scientists were unsure what level of scientific detail was being reported. This issue was also highlighted in a critique of Canadian co-management boards, where representatives from user groups often did not fully understand scientific explanations presented and subsequently few felt comfortable repeating the explanations back to their own communities, meaning that few community members were aware of the board and its mandate, goals and operations (Kruse et al. Reference Kruse, Klein, Braund, Moorehead and Simeone1998).
Balancing the costs and benefits of collaborative research
Directorship fees built into a research budget provided communities with the financial capacity to actively participate in the programmes, and were used to develop scientific capability through conference attendance. As the tītī programme progressed, RTIAB members perceived their sense of scientific understanding, control and confidence grew. However, it is likely stronger cross-cultural partnerships would emerge if communities could enter partnerships with their own Māori scientists capable of leading the science process from the outset. Opportunities for community employment existed within the research programmes reviewed, although they were limited by the availability of individuals with core scientific competencies. Scientists need to be realistic about training opportunities within a programme and communicate this early in the partnership to avoid unrealistic expectations from the community. Cross-cultural partnerships may require a scientist to spend up to half of their time on non-scientific issues, which can represent a significant sacrifice when careers are measured by scientific outputs (for example publications).
Respect for alternative ‘ways of knowing’
Kaitiakitanga is a Māori environmental ethic intended to ensure resource sustainability, rather than preserving the resource for its sanctity or intrinsic value (Roberts et al. Reference Roberts, Norman, Minhinnick, Wihongi and Kirkwood1995). The practice of being a kaitiaki is one of the most fundamental acts performed by Māori for conservation within their own system of governance. However, this role is not always recognized within the conservation system in New Zealand. For some non-Māori, their initial contact with kaitiakitanga and the Māori worldview can provide a challenge and an adjustment to their own ideology or understanding of conservation. In a strong collaborative partnership, scientists and managers may be required to abide by another culture's ethical constraints and customs. However, this does not involve surrendering one's own values or identities, but rather recognizing the validity of a partner's reality or worldview (Moller Reference Moller2001). For example, Rakiura Māori kaitiakitanga prohibits access onto the Tītī Islands between 1 June and 14 March to prevent the disturbance of breeding adult tītī. This required the University scientists to adjust their research design because they were not permitted access onto the islands in the early phases of the tītī breeding season. Only after extensive discussions with the RTIAB and Rakiura community over the years to build understanding about the importance of measuring early-season productivity, was this custom temporarily relaxed to allow for short early-season visits by the research team.
In strong collaborative research partnerships, communities may stipulate that mātauranga is integral to all aspects of the research. This can create issues of who decides what, and how, this knowledge is used within the programme. For example, scientific doctrine is enshrined in hypothesis-testing and repeatability of results, whereas aboriginal cultures feel the knowledge has already undergone hundreds, even thousands, of years of testing and it would be disrespectful to the elder or tribal authority to subject their knowledge to a process of falsifiability. This issue remains both an environmental and political challenge for partnerships because community rules about how traditional knowledge is filtered or scrutinized are rarely declared or made obvious to outsiders (Newman & Moller Reference Newman and Moller2005). This issue is compounded by the way aboriginal communities have become increasingly politicized in the use, misappropriation and commercialization of their traditional knowledge (Posey et al. Reference Posey, Dutfield and Plenderleith1995), and for some, like Rakiura Māori, the release of knowledge into the public domain can be contentious. Historically for Maori, access to knowledge even within their own traditional societal structures has been restricted to privileged individuals (K. Prime, personal communication 2002). In contrast, scientists consider the release of knowledge allows for critique and is an essential measure of their careers (for example peer-reviewed publications). Therefore, collaborative partnerships may benefit by adopting the cultural precautionary principle and developing very clear guidelines, principles, and codes of conduct for collection, data access, knowledge release and benefit sharing from the outset (Posey et al. Reference Posey, Dutfield and Plenderleith1995; Taiepa et al. Reference Taiepa, Lyver, Horsley, Davis, Bragg and Moller1997).
CONCLUSIONS
The Rakiura tītī and Motatau kūkupa programmes were characterized by the equitable transfer of problem definition, decision-making responsibility and solution identification from research institutes to Māori communities. These programmes have played important roles within New Zealand's environmental sector by demonstrating to the conservation authorities and community, the social, economic, justice and environmental benefits that can emerge from cross-cultural partnerships. Substantial time commitments initiating dialogue, developing trust, distilling and communicating objectives and results, and building scientific capability within communities are fundamental to strong collaborative partnerships, but can limit other scientific priorities. However, this can be compensated by the satisfaction of seeing the relevance and importance of research to a community. In some cases, kaitiakitanga and mātauranga may be at the core of decision-making, which can require scientists to adapt and work within unfamiliar cultural structures and ideology. Most of all, collaborative research demonstrates that given the opportunity and fiscal resources Māori can become a strong ally committed to the restoration and co-management of many of New Zealand's species and conservation lands.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I thank the Rakiura Tītī Island Administering Body members Ron Bull, Jane Davis, Margaret Bragg, Leslie Rewi, Stewart Bull, Michael Skerrett, Shane McManus and Tane Davis, Ngāti Hine hapū members Kevin Prime and Pita Paraone, University of Otago scientists Henrik Moller and Jamie Newman, and the Landcare Research scientists Graham Nugent and John Innes for the opportunity to interview them and their review of this paper. This project was funded by New Zealand's Foundation for Research, Science, and Technology. Thanks also to Graham Nugent for his institutional support, Julia Stroud for transcribing the interviews, and the journal editors and anonymous referees for reviewing the paper.
