Māori values in geothermal management and development

Abstract

When Māori arrived at Aotearoa (New Zealand), they enjoyed an exclusive relationship with their country’s geothermal resources, which they valued spiritually and physically. After European settlement, this relationship was no longer exclusive, and Māori thereafter held spiritual, physical, and additionally, political values towards geothermal resources in their attempt to remain relevant in Aotearoa’s geothermal industry. In recent history, these values have been overlooked and forgotten by many, including some Māori, due to a certain ignorance displayed by those who practised modern and more invasive forms of geothermal management and development. The presented study involved a series of wānanga (Māori-based workshops), first to discuss the history regarding these values and thereby recognising where they originated from, and second to reinterpret these values as indicators of cultural sustainability, such that they may be more practically accounted for when considering the management and development of geothermal resources in Aotearoa.

Keywords

cultural geothermal indicators Māori sustainability values

Introduction

In many past projects around the world that have involved the exploitation of natural resources, the Indigenous population has suffered forms of discrimination and omission in conjunction with colonial outlooks on progress that demanded more from the natural environment than what was ever considered sustainable by the Indigenous population (Reisman, 1995). Indigenous opposition has been prominent in examples of coastal developments (Parsons et al., 2021; von der Porten et al., 2019), and extractive operations for freshwater (Parsons & Fisher, 2020), oils (Orta-Martínez & Finer, 2010), minerals (Altman, 2012; Ruckstuhl et al., 2014), and geothermal fluids (Renkens, 2019), primarily as natural resources were being degraded, and as economic benefits arising from such operations were being diverted away from the Indigenous communities. In most instances, this opposition was effectively powerless, and the Indigenous communities suffered losses of land, resources, and cultural identity.

Aotearoa (New Zealand) has an abundance of geothermal resources, and Māori (the Indigenous people of Aotearoa) have lived among and benefitted from such resources since their settlement in the early 1300s. Māori developed both physical and spiritual practices involving geothermal resources, and from these practices, Māori values were held with the principles necessary to maintain such practices and ensure that such practices remained available for future generations. Māori values thus, informed sustainable geothermal practices. Since non-Māori began settling in Aotearoa in the early 1800s, the understanding and application of Māori values has been progressively overshadowed by the implementation of modern methods of geothermal management. This overshadowing was further exacerbated by former legislation that alienated Māori land and actively removed Māori rights to natural resources, diminishing the relevance of Māori values (Boast, 1995).

Aotearoa’s current legislation, namely, the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), recognises Māori values as a matter of national importance and requires that if a project is subject to Māori statutory acknowledgement, then that project must include a form of Māori engagement (Resource Management Act, 1991). The RMA does not provide guidance on how to conduct Māori engagement, or what the outcome of Māori engagement should look like. Consequently, if Māori engagement leads to Māori values being expressed, then there is no legislative guidance or existing mechanism to practically apply those values in the often-science-based practices (M. Savage, personal communication, September 19, 2019). Given this legislative deficiency, Māori engagement is typically conducted in a single phase of a project, rather than ideally as an ongoing requirement throughout various phases, for example, feasibility, design, construction, and operation. Furthermore, Māori engagement is usually approached by non-Māori with a minimum requirement mindset, where pre-conceived notions have already been established (S. Tapuke, personal communication, September 19, 2019). Such an approach causes Māori engagement to become a platform from which Māori must challenge pre-conceived notions, rather than a platform from which Māori can inform and co-develop project solutions.

In the past two decades, Indigenous rights have been increasingly informed by guidelines such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) (United Nations Global Compact, 2007) and the Aashukan Declaration (2017), and have prompted non-Indigenous groups to progressively recognise the value of Indigenous insight. This recognition is evident in Aotearoa where in many industries, entities are increasingly and genuinely attempting to seek Māori input (Bay of Plenty Regional Council, 2020). Consequently, many of the entities that operate in the geothermal industry are now developing internal strategies where the need to implement Māori values is emphasised beyond the Māori engagement requirements of Aotearoa’s legislation (Bay of Plenty Regional Council, 2011). Despite the efforts of such entities, the application of Māori values in their practices remains a difficult challenge because such values are often not communicated directly and are instead embedded in the stories, experiences, and often frustrations told by Māori groups (S. Tapuke, personal communication, September 19, 2019). Consequently, these values can be misinterpreted when the entities, often being non-Māori, attempt the erroneous task of deconstructing what they have heard to apply it to their reductionistic approaches to geothermal management and development.

Much research has been undertaken on geothermal resources to identify their potential to be used to generate electricity (DiPippo, 2012), and to identify their potential direct heat use for spatial heating and recreation (Climo et al., 2016). However, considerations in such research mostly include the environmental and economic effects of the potential uses, with their effects on Indigenous communities being largely unconsidered. Studies that have explored Indigenous values associated with these uses provide some guidance that will help to achieve favourable outcomes for Indigenous communities when practising geothermal management and development. Hikuroa et al. (2011) identified indicators of well-being for a geothermally active area in Kawerau (Supplementary Figure 1), which had been taken from local hapū (sub-tribes) in 1954 and then heavily polluted. With the area being returned in 2013, the hapū wanted to identify the indicators that required consideration to restore the well-being and future potential of the area. The indicators included those related to the natural characteristics of the area, the cultural customs practised in the area by hapū, the social activities and social dynamics facilitated by the area, and its economic value for hapū. Bargh (2012) characterised existing Māori geothermal enterprises and found a common adoption of four ethical coordinates being mana (integrity), utu (reciprocity), kaitiakitanga (guardianship), and whakapapa (genealogical connections), and proposed that if these coordinates were upheld in business undertakings, then such business would be ethical from a Māori perspective.

The reported study contributes to the body of literature in which the above-mentioned studies are found by drawing attention to the relevance of Māori values and defining their practical components that may inform how modern geothermal practice can preserve what is most important to Māori communities. The study is novel in its production of a comprehensive list of Māori values relevant to the use of Aotearoa’s geothermal resources, and innovative in its ability to articulate those values as a means by which to inform the cultural impacts of geothermal management and development. It is intended that the outputs of the study serve as an effective reference from which other Indigenous communities around the world can develop more effective means of communicating their values to prevent any further degradation of their rights.

Research methodology

Aotearoa’s geothermal resources are primarily located in the Taupō Volcanic Zone (TVZ), beneath cities such as Rotorua, Kawerau, and Taupō (Supplementary Figure 1) (Waikato Regional Council, 2019). The hapū that reside in these cities hold a wealth of mōhiotanga Māori (Māori knowledge) regarding geothermal resources. When conducting the study, insights were obtained from over 50 members of these hapū who acknowledged their social, cultural, and financial interests in geothermal resources, with a goal to arrive at interpretations of mōhiotanga Māori that will improve its practicality for integration into modern geothermal practices in Aotearoa.

The adopted research methodology followed the principles of a traditional educative Māori gathering, known as wānanga (Māori-based workshops). Wānanga is the term used to describe any interaction between Māori in which the development of further understandings of mōhiotanga Māori is the goal. Wānanga may be considered a form of participatory action research (Dickens & Watkins, 1999). However, wānanga are unique in that their structure incorporates Māori protocol to establish a sense of belonging in the participants, a sense of relationship, and a sense of formality to differentiate wānanga as a legitimate research methodology rather than casual discussion. First, a sense of belonging is established by welcoming guests to the meeting location and acknowledging that they shall consider the location as their own home following the proceedings of the welcome. After such proceedings, participants are free to speak without restrictions of authority. Second, relationships are solidified, and connections are identified as participants each introduce themselves using their pepeha (descriptions of lineage, tribes, and homelands). Finally, discussions are officiated by acknowledging the presence of ancestors who oversee the discussions to ensure that while the goal is to develop further understandings of mōhiotanga Māori and to adapt such mōhiotanga for modern contexts, the origins and foundations of such mōhiotanga are preserved.

The wānanga first involved discussions regarding the three components of mōhiotanga Māori, known as Ngā Kete e Toru ō te Mātauranga (The Three Baskets of Knowledge) (K. Watene, personal communication, February 25, 2019). It is understood that the first basket entails knowledge related to spiritual practice and spiritual connection, that the second basket entails knowledge related to the attainment of physical benefits from the environment, and that the third basket entails knowledge related to conflict and loss. The histories associated with each of these components as they relate to geothermal resources were discussed, where these histories are considered to be the foundations for all the Māori values presented herein.

The following activity was the identification of Māori values, and the defining of their associated indicators of cultural sustainability. Participants were separated into groups of five to brainstorm and explain as many Māori values as possible. At the outset, each identified value was discussed among all the participants to first, categorise each value into one of three sets presented herein based on its association with one of the three baskets of mōhiotanga Māori, and second to define the quantifiable parameters from which to measure the retention of each value. These parameters are presented herein as indicators of cultural sustainability. Following the wānanga, a drafted list of the values and indicators was reviewed for feedback by wānanga participants. These reviews ensured that each value was relevant to geothermal practices, that each indicator was sufficiently specific to avoid vagueness and possible misinterpretation, and that indicators that were considered to be outside the scope of what geothermal practices would impact were removed.

Goals

The goals of the reported study were collaboratively finalised by the authors and the research participants. Three goals were identified, each contributing to the revitalisation of Māori values and the improved practicality in the way they are communicated. The first goal was to highlight the importance of Māori values by discussing the foundations from which they originate, ensuring that the origins of mōhiotanga Māori are preserved amid efforts to adapt it. The second goal was to identify relevant Māori values in geothermal management and development. The third goal was to define each value in measurable terms, where these definitions are termed herein as indicators of cultural sustainability as if the consideration of these indicators would ensure that the values held by Māori are sustained while geothermal resources are managed and developed.

The three foundations of Māori values

Māori values are founded on the histories associated with each of the three components of mōhiotanga Māori: spiritual knowledge, knowledge of natural resource utilisation, and knowledge of conflict and loss. In the following sections these three components are discussed and the underlying reasons for the existence of their corresponding Māori values are highlighted. These discussions are based on those held at the wānanga, augmented by literature reviews, with the scholarly novelty of this narrative being derived from their profound role in underpinning an awareness of the importance of Māori values.

Histories associated with Māori spirituality

The history of Māori spiritual practices and traditions as they relate to geothermal resources informs the foundation of Māori values that represent interests in preserving spiritual connections to geothermal environs, Māori ancestors, and gods. In addition, this history informs many of the consequences that Māori consider to be associated with misusing geothermal resources. Therefore, these histories also influence the moral compasses of Māori when considering geothermal use. In discussions regarding this history, participants described their understanding of the origins of geothermal resources, the exploits of ancient Māori ancestors interacting with these resources, and the consequences of misbehaving around such resources.

Māori oral history recalls that Ranginui the Sky Father and Papatūānuku the Earth Mother shared 70 sons, some of which are: Tāne Māhuta, who is the god of forests, provider of wood, and protector of plant life and terrestrial animals; Tāwhirimātea, who is the god of wind, and provider of air; Tangaroa, who is the god of the ocean, provider of seafood, and protector of aquatic life; and finally Rūaumoko, who is the god of earthquakes, volcanoes, and provider of geothermal resources (Keane, 2011). The Māori gods are the providers of all the natural resources that people extract, and manipulate to their benefit. However, it is well known that if these gifts are not respected then consequences such as hurricanes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, or earthquakes may ensue. It is said that the 1886 Tarawera eruption was a response by Rūaumoko to vandalism at the former Pink and White Terraces when they were being visited by tourists (Stokes, 2000). Similarly, it is said that the 2011 Canterbury earthquake was a response by Rūaumoko to Christchurch city being built on sacred swampland (I. Morehu, personal communication, June 20, 2019).

Rūaumoko is the most notable god in the context of the study. Noting that there are alternative understandings of his existence, some oral histories recall that Rūaumoko is unborn and still in Papatūānuku’s womb. The shaking of the lands is a result of Rūaumoko kicking and moving around, volcanic eruptions are the cause of his mother’s pregnancy illnesses, and geothermal surface features are the results of his mother’s varying body temperatures. It is said that Rūaumoko becomes agitated inside the womb when human interventions harm his mother.

Alongside the gods, many ancestors are credited with supplying their rohe (regions) with natural resources. Many depictions of ancestral exploits are known throughout Māori communities and are fundamental in the establishment of many hapū-specific values regarding natural resources. The demigod Māui is the most well-known demi-god ancestor among Māori and Pasifika (Pacific peoples). Many children are told the stories of how Māui slowed-down the sun to lengthen days, how he stole fire from the fire goddess, Mahuika, and gifted it to people to burn wood and produce light, or how he fished up the giant stingray known as Te Ika a Māui (Māui’s fish; The North Island of Aotearoa) (Gossage, 2016). The actions of ancestors such as Māui have given Māori a deep appreciation for how fortunate the people are to have such resources at their disposal. These resources are protected in respect for not only Māui, but also for the goddess Mahuika and the giant stingray, who suffered for human prosperity.

Many geothermal-related Māori values are derived from the depicted exploits of ancient Māori ancestors, Ngātoroirangi, and his sisters. It is said that their exploits resulted in the abundance of the geothermal, earthquake and volcanic activity in the TVZ (Hohepa-Watene, 2016). Noting that there are alternative depictions of these exploits, following his arrival at Aotearoa, Ngātoroirangi embarked on a journey inland to claim land for his descendants. During his journey, Ngātoroirangi endeavoured to the mountain summit of Tongariro (Mount Tongariro) where he neared death due to the cold, so he called upon his sisters Kuiwai and Haungaroa who were in Hawaiki (the original land from which Māori came) to bring him fire. He recited a prayer from which Mount Tongariro was named:

Kuiwai e! Haungaroa e! ka riro au i te Tonga. Tukuna mai te ahi!

Oh Kui, Oh Hau, I have been captured by the southern winds. Send me fire! (Brown, 2005, paras 4–5)

Kuiwai and Haungaroa then travelled to Aotearoa each with a source of heat, personified as Te Hōata and Te Pūpū, the maids of Rūaumoko (Supplementary Figure 2(a)). The sisters travelled an underground route from Hawaiki to Tongariro, which consisted of a direct path between Whakaari (White Island) and Tongariro (Supplementary Figure 1). To navigate themselves they surfaced at various places, and in doing so they broke the earth’s crust and created weak grounds filled with heat. All geothermal areas and volcanoes in the TVZ indicate where the sisters surfaced (Hohepa-Watene, 2016). Because of this story, Māori in the region protect geothermal resources, not just in respect for Rūaumoko, but also in honour of the memory of Ngātoroirangi, Kuiwai, and Haungaroa. This story also demonstrates the correctness of early Māori observation, with Māori realising that the area now known in the scientific community as the TVZ is a single inter-connected geological system originating from the subduction of the Pacific Plate beneath the Australian Plate (Supplementary Figure 2) (B. Scott, personal communications, February 25, 2019).

Histories associated with customary uses

The history of Māori uses of geothermal resources informs the foundations of Māori values that represent interests in preserving the physical benefits afforded to Māori by geothermal resources. Next to forests and coastlines, geothermal resources were the most sought-after resources for Māori because they provided easy access to warmth, cooking and healing capabilities (Kawharu, 2000) (Supplementary Figure 3). Early Māori settlers who were fortunate enough to encounter geothermal features would hastily establish a settlement around such features. Indeed, many battles were fought between various hapū to gain or to retain geothermal lands.

The Māori communities situated in the TVZ used geothermal resources for a variety of applications. Waiāriki (hot pools) provided warm water for bathing. Boiling water and hot steam were used for cooking hāngi (traditional steamed food), boiling kūmara (sweet potato) and potatoes, scalding pigs, and rendering-down mutton bird fat. Hot soils were utilised to create underground umu (ovens), and fumaroles and steam vents provided steam that was channelled into steam boxes (Stokes, 2000). Mud pools possessed medicinal properties and were used for the treatment of the endemic skin infection known as ngerengere (leprosy). Geothermal heat provided a means by which to heat and cure tree sap to create a resin that coated wooden weapons and increased their stiffness. Kūmara tubers were buried near geothermal features because the ground was warm and protected the tubers from freezing in the winter months before they were replanted in the spring (Maxwell, 1990). Māori also used geothermal resources for their therapeutic properties. Some resources were useful for treating rheumatic and arthritic ailments, and muscular disorders. These therapeutic properties are still frequently relied upon where many people make their way to their local geothermal bath after a tough rugby game, or where people make regular visits to their bath for recovery or relief from pain following an injury. Some geothermal features are said to have healed spiritual and mental disorders (J. Schuster, personal communication, June 20, 2019), resourced ceremonial proceedings, and facilitated prayer. Others were used to spiritually clean warriors after a battle and to speed-up the decay of deceased bodies (Stafford, 1995).

Histories associated with governance, conflict, and loss

A history of conflict between Māori and non-Māori, and the resulting loss of both Māori geothermal lands and access to geothermal resources, together are the drivers of Māori values that relate to remedying past losses and retaining specific representation in geothermal governance amid Aotearoa’s multi-ethnic society. Prior to European settlement Māori values consisted only of those relating to preserving spiritual and customary capabilities, where Māori values relating to specific Māori governance were not of much concern, given that Māori already held sovereignty over geothermal recourses. Since the introduction of additional worldviews beyond those of Māori as Aotearoa became increasingly diverse, Māori have needed to expand their interests to include appropriate representation of Māori in the co-management of geothermal resources to remain relevant during the inevitable economic progress of Aotearoa via geothermal utilisation. These interests ensure that spiritual and customary capabilities are preserved while Māori retain a front-row position to receive opportunities in Aotearoa’s economic growth. Consequently, Māori values in geothermal management and development now include the same benefits commonly aspired to by non-Māori, namely monetary and social benefits.

In discussions regarding the history of conflict between Māori and non-Māori, it was described that despite the early definition of Māori sovereignty in Aotearoa’s founding document, Te Tiriti ō Waitangi (The Treaty of Waitangi) 1840, hereafter Tiriti, such sovereignty was seldom respected by the European settlers who breached the Tiriti numerous times to acquire land and natural resources. These breaches were enabled by inadequacies of the Tiriti that derived from differences between its Māori and English versions, where legitimate actions taken under the English version were illegitimate under the Māori version (Ministry of Culture and Heritage, 2012; Orange, 2012). Breaches of the Tiriti by non-Māori continued for over 150 years where today many of the capabilities of early Māori communities that were provided by geothermal resources have been lost, either by confiscation of geothermal land, or by the diminishing of geothermal features due to poorly managed geothermal engineering endeavours.

An example of geothermal loss occurred in 1954 after the Tasman Pulp and Paper Company Enabling Act 1954 was enforced to take Māori land in Kawerau. Thereafter, a paper mill was commissioned with consent to dump its waste into a thriving geothermal lake, once relied upon by hapū, but is now a chemically hazardous area (Hikuroa et al., 2011). Kawerau is now an industrial hub of geothermal development, and it has been expressed by hapū that the benefits of these developments, such as job creation and energy security, have failed to offset historical traumas, and have eliminated the possibility of replenishing once thriving geothermal features (K. Savage, personal communication, June 20, 2019). Other geothermal loss occurred in 1958 when the Wairakei geothermal power plant was built in Taupō by Contact Energy following their purchase of Māori land in 1954 (Engineering New Zealand, 2019). This purchase appeared to be founded on deceit towards the landowners, where immediately prior, the Geothermal Energy Act 1953 was hastily written and enacted several months before its intended completion date. It appeared that this Act was fast-tracked to terminate a dispute between the landowners and the Crown before the landowners could build momentum in their argument. This Act excluded Māori customary practices and allowed the Government to compulsorily purchase geothermal lands at very low costs under a public works agreement. Other geothermal loss included the Karamuramu Hot Springs, which were covered by concrete to build the Rotorua Airport in 1964 (Maxwell, 1990). Finally, losses were experienced by whānau (families) in Rotorua when access rights to geothermal fluid via private boreholes were relinquished in 1987. The Rotorua Council had placed priority towards tourism over residential well-being (Kinita, 2015).

This oppressive past justifies Māori grief towards previous practices of geothermal management and development, and likewise their scepticism towards the future of such practices (I. Morehu, personal communication, September 19, 2019). This scepticism is often viewed as an innate opposition adopted by Māori against any form of non-Māori controlled resource management. However, this innateness is not true, where instead Māori simply observe a more holistic range of considerations than the often exclusive monetary, environmental, and social factors considered by non-Māori (B. Taute, personal communication, June 20, 2019).

With the inception of the RMA the Tiriti’s inadequacies began to be remedied, repealing legislation such as the Geothermal Energy Act 1953 (Environment Guide, 2018; Joseph & Bennion, 2002). The RMA is now Aotearoa’s sole legislation relevant to geothermal resources, and it enforces the principles of the Tiriti more robustly than the Tiriti did, and adds other clauses that recognise tikanga Māori (Māori protocol) and the importance of Māori values. The RMA thus, sets a culturally accountable foundation for entities who govern the TVZ’s geothermal resources.

Before the RMA, the Waitangi Tribunal was established in 1975 to hear claims by Māori of historical Tiriti breaches, with the aim of reversing the repercussions of those breaches (The Waitangi Tribunal, 2019). The tribunal, however, did not deal with geothermal-related breaches until 1993 when three claims first, regarding the taking of geothermal lands from Māori, second, regarding the use of geothermal resources by the Crown, and third, regarding restrictions placed on Māori for the use of their own lands and resources, were reviewed and responded to in the Tribunal’s WAI 153 report to the Government. The report suggested general policy reforms, and clarified which geothermal items within the claimants’ regions were classified as taonga (treasures), where entities were to recognise that the claimant’s and their hapū held rangatiratanga (chieftainship) and kaitiakitanga (guardianship) over these taonga (The Waitangi Tribunal, 1993). More recently, in light of government plans to replace the RMA with a series of Bills, Māori representatives have submitted another geothermal related claim that commissions the tribunal to enquire into the proposed Bills, addressing three questions, being: (1) what Māori rights and interests in geothermal resources are guaranteed? (2) is the current law in respect of geothermal resources consistent with the principles of the Tiriti? and (3) if the current law in respect of geothermal resources is not consistent with such principles, then what recommendations should be made for the new Bills? (The Waitangi Tribunal, 2022).

Māori values and indicators of cultural sustainability

It is difficult to apply Māori values in geothermal management and development because they are mostly intangible and qualitative, embedded in the stories, legends, histories, and experiences told by Māori people, while geothermal management and development is a highly technical practice that is typically informed by scientific understanding. The proposition underpinning this study was that if Māori values were to be communicated in a definitive way that effectively allowed them to be measured, then these values would be more readily applicable. Each value, which is often a qualitative concept, was broken down into its practical components expressed as measurable parameters. These parameters are termed herein as indicators of cultural sustainability. The measurement of each indicator contributes to the measured extent to which their associated value is retained. Supplementary Tables 1 to 3 contain the Māori values in the first column, and their indicators of cultural sustainability in the second column. Within the tables, the term Māori refers to representatives of the Tangata Whenua (People of the Land), or hapū whose boundaries extend over the geothermal resource in question.

In some contexts, not all these indicators would need to be considered. In the context of planning a management scheme for a deep geothermal resource which has no overlying surface features, the indicators in Supplementary Table 2 would serve little purpose. Similarly, in the context of planning for the development of a geothermal resource that was not associated with any Māori legends or was not perceived by Māori as having any sort of spiritual presence, then the indicators in Supplementary Table 1 might be irrelevant. In a current context, the Bay of Plenty Regional Council is developing a new Geothermal Management Plan for Rotorua (Doorman & McLeod, 2018). Indeed, in this context where there is evident physical and spiritual connection between Māori and geothermal features, where there is a rich history of Māori geothermal legend, and where the economic opportunities involving geothermal resources are vast, all the indicators must be adopted.

Conclusion

There was a governing presence of Māori values in Aotearoa’s pre-European geothermal management practices, but this presence progressively diminished after European settlers arrived and began to introduce their science-based methods for such practices. Consequently, Māori values have received limited recognition in geothermal utilisation over previous decades. Due to a positive shift towards recognising the value of Indigenous insight, entities in the geothermal industry are now genuinely attempting to apply Māori values in modern geothermal management and development, but are failing to do so appropriately. From the reported study it was concluded that there are two issues hindering the appropriate application of Māori values. First, while legislation enforces minimum standards for the inclusion of Māori in any geothermal practice, there is a lack of guidance in facilitating such inclusion, nor are there minimum standards set for the outcome of such inclusion. These legislative deficiencies allow for Māori inclusion to become a box ticking activity in which outcomes may not necessarily benefit Māori to the extent that Māori had expected. Second, while Māori inclusion may provide a means for Māori to share their values with non-Māori, the often qualitative manner in which these values are communicated is incompatible with the scientific approaches to geothermal management and development.

The first goal of the study was to highlight the importance of preserving Māori values by discussing their foundations. These discussions concluded that geothermal resources are often perceived as a physical representation and a point of remembrance for some of the historical occurrences described in Māori mythology. As such, geothermal resources facilitate a spiritual connection between Māori, their ancestors, and the gods. The discussions also highlighted the significant diversity in how Māori utilised geothermal resources prior to European settlement, thereby highlighting the extensive decline of such diversity throughout Aotearoa’s colonisation. The discussions finally highlighted many injustices that had occurred to Māori and provided justification for Māori distrust and scepticism towards modern geothermal management regimes. While this Māori scepticism may look like innate opposition, this scepticism arises from a concern that decision makers responsible for modern geothermal management and development may not consider the impacts of their decisions as holistically as Māori do. Many Māori today are open to progress via geothermal utilisation, appreciating many of the same benefits commonly aspired to by non-Māori. However, given the holistic ethos of Māori, such benefits would be subject to the preservation of spiritual and customary values.

The second goal of the study was to compile a list of Māori values that represent what Māori care most about with regard to geothermal management and development. The third goal was to communicate these Māori values in a manner that technical professionals can understand and more accurately take account of in modern geothermal management and development. To achieve the third goal, each Māori value was assigned indicators of cultural sustainability that measure the retention of each value. These indicators are interpretations of the practical components of Māori values, describing the physical parameters that a geothermal practitioner can accommodate to preserve such values.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-aln-10.1177_11771801221118629 – Supplemental material for Māori values in geothermal management and development

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-aln-10.1177_11771801221118629 for Māori values in geothermal management and development by Nona Taute, Kēpa Morgan, Jason Ingham, Rosalind Archer and Tūmmanako Fa’aui in AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-aln-10.1177_11771801221118629 – Supplemental material for Māori values in geothermal management and development

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-aln-10.1177_11771801221118629 for Māori values in geothermal management and development by Nona Taute, Kēpa Morgan, Jason Ingham, Rosalind Archer and Tūmmanako Fa’aui in AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge those from the Māori communities of Rotorua, Kawerau, and Taupō, and representatives of Ngāti Mākino Iwi Authority, the New Zealand Geothermal Association, GNS Science, and The University of Auckland, for identifying and reviewing the cultural indicators presented herein. Furthermore, they acknowledge GNS Science and the Alexander Turnbull Library for permission to reproduce images presented herein.

Authors’ note

Nona Taute of Te Arawa whānui, Tainui, Ngāti Uenukukōpako, Ngāti Rangiteaorere, Ngāti Te Roro-ō-te-Rangi, and Ngāti Koroki Kahukura is a doctoral candidate and lecturer in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at The University of Auckland, New Zealand. His interests include integrating Indigenous knowledge, interests, and needs, with all aspects of engineering project management.

Kēpa Morgan (PhD) of Ngāti Pikiao, Te Arawa whānui, Ngāti Kahungunu, and Ngāi Tahu is the Pou Hautū (Managing Director) for Mahi Maioro Professionals Limited. Kēpa and his team combine mōhiotanga Māori, science and engineering technologies to evaluate and communicate ecosystem impacts using the mauri0meter and the Mauri Model Decision Making Framework. Their focus is Te Mana o Te Wai, and the creation of monitoring systems for communicating changes in the mauri (life-force) of freshwater bodies, and the holistic assessment of impacts resulting from municipal infrastructure and other environmental and civil engineering challenges.

Jason Ingham is a Professor of Structural Engineering at The University of Auckland. His research interests include assessment and preservation of heritage construction, and sustainable construction material technologies.

Rosalind Archer is a Professor and the Head of the School of Engineering & Built Environment at Griffith University and is an honorary academic at The University of Auckland where she is the former Director of the Geothermal Institute. Her research interests focus on the integration of knowledge and data from a range of sources for the sustainable management of geothermal systems.

Tūmanako Fa’aui (PhD) of Te Arawa, Ngāti Uenukukōpako, Ngāti Whakahemo, and Ngāti Te Roro-ō-te-Rangi is a lecturer in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at The University of Auckland, New Zealand. He is interested in the integration of Indigenous knowledge systems and mōhiotanga Māori within western-based methodologies and the engineering decision-making processes best applied within Indigenous contexts.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and publication of this article: This work was funded by the New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [GNS-MBIE00090]. Additional financial support was provided by Ngāti Mākino Iwi Authority and The University of Auckland.

ORCID iDs

Nona Taute

Kēpa Morgan

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Aashukan Declaration. (2017). Aashukan Declaration. https://aashukandotcom.wordpress.com/

Altman

(2012). Indigenous rights, mining corporations, and the Australian State. In Sawyer

Gomez

E. T.

(Eds.), The politics of resource extraction: International political economy series (pp. 46–74). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230368798_4

Bargh

(2012). Rethinking and re-shaping Indigenous economies: Māori geothermal energy enterprises. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 6(3), 271–283. https://doi.org/10.1108/17506201211258423

Bay of Plenty Regional Council. (2011). Engaging with Māori: A guide for staff of the Bay of Plenty Regional Council. https://cdn.boprc.govt.nz/media/717746/engagement-toolkit.pdf

Bay of Plenty Regional Council. (2020). Te Hononga: Regional Māori engagament plan for implementing the NPSFM (2020). https://atlas.boprc.govt.nz/api/v1/edms/document/A3586278/content

Boast

(1995). Geothermal resources in New Zealand: A legal history. Canterbury Law Review, 6, 1–24.

Brown

(2005). The Story of Ngatoroirangi Toa Matarau (pp. 2). Taupō District Council.

Climo

Milicich

White

(2016). A history of geothermal direct use development in the Taupo Volcanic Zone, New Zealand. Geothermics, 59, 215–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2015.07.004

Dickens

Watkins

(1999). Action research: Rethinking lewin. Management Learning, 30(2), 127–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507699302002

10.

DiPippo

(2012). Geothermal power plants: Principles, applications, case studies and environmental impact. Butterworth-Heinemann.

11.

Doorman

McLeod

(2018, November 14–16). The changing face of geothermal system management plans in New Zealand. New Zealand Geothermal Workshop, Taupo, New Zealand.

12.

Engineering New Zealand. (2019). Wairakei geothermal power development. https://www.engineeringnz.org/programmes/heritage/heritage-records/wairakei-geothermal-power-development/

13.

Environment Guide. (2018). Māori and the RMA. http://www.environmentguide.org.nz/rma/maori-and-the-rma/

14.

Gossage

(2016). Māui and other Maori legends. Penguin Group (NZ).

15.

Hikuroa

Slade

Gravley

(2011). Implementing Māori Indigenous knowledge (mātauranga) in a scientific paradigm: Restoring the mauri to Te Kete Poutama. Mai Review, 3. http://www.review.mai.ac.nz/mrindex/MR/article/download/433/433-3375-1-PB.pdf

16.

Hohepa-Watene

T. K.

(2016). Te Pātaka Kōrero ā Te Hiko-o-te-rangi Hohepa [A storage of the knowledge of Te Hiko-o-terangi Hohepa]. Microfilm Digital Print Limited.

17.

Joseph

Bennion

(2002, October 9–10). Maori values and Tikanga consultation under the RMA 1991 and the local government bill: Possible ways forward. Inaugural Maori Legal Forum Conference, Wellington, New Zealand.

18.

Kawharu

(2000). Kaitiakitanga: A Maori anthropological perspective of the Maori socio-environmental ethic of resource management. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 109(4), 349–370.

19.

Keane

(2011). Story: Traditional Māori religion—ngā karakia a te Māori. http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/traditional-maori-religion-nga-karakia-a-te-maori

20.

Kinita

(2015, July 4). Geothermal heating “not feasible” for all. Rotorua Daily Post. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/rotorua-daily-post/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503438&objectid=11475780

21.

Maxwell

(1990). The Maori use of geothermal energy: Report for the Waitangi Tribunal. Waitangi Tribunal.

22.

Ministry of Culture and Heritage. (2012). Read the treaty; Differences between the texts. New Zealand History. https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/treaty/read-the-Treaty/differences-between-the-texts

23.

Orange

(2012). Story: Treaty of Waitangi—Interpretations of the Treaty of Waitangi. http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/treaty-of-waitangi/page-2

24.

Orta-Martínez

Finer

(2010). Oil frontiers and Indigenous resistance in the Peruvian Amazon. Ecological Economics, 70(2), 207–218.

25.

Parsons

Fisher

(2020). Indigenous peoples and transformations in freshwater governance and management. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 44, 124–139.

26.

Parsons

Taylor

Crease

(2021). Indigenous environmental justice within marine ecosystems: A systematic review of the literature on Indigenous peoples’ involvement in marine governance and management. Sustainability, 13(8), 4217.

27.

Reisman

W. M.

(1995). Protecting Indigenous rights in international adjudication. American Journal of International Law, 89(2), 350–362.

28.

Renkens

(2019). The impact of renewable energy projects on Indigenous communities in Kenya: The cases of the Lake Turkana Wind Power Project and the Olkaria Geothermal Power Plants. International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs. https://www.iwgia.org/images/publications/new-publications/IWGIA_report_28_The_impact_of_renewable_energy_projects_on_Indigenous_communities_in_Kenya_Dec_2019.pdf

29.

Resource Management Act 1991. (1991). https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1991/0069/latest/DLM230265.html

30.

Ruckstuhl

Thompson-Fawcett

Rae

(2014). Māori and mining: Indigenous perspectives on reconceptualising and contextualising the social licence to operate. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 32(4), 304–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2014.929782

31.

Stafford

D. M.

(1995). Te Whakarewarewa: A brief guide to the place and its people. Rotorua Printers.

32.

Stokes

(2000). The legacy of Ngatoroirangi: Maori customary use of geothermal resources. Department of Geography, University of Waikato. https://hdl.handle.net/10289/6323

33.

United Nations Global Compact. (2007). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Resolution / adopted by the General Assembly. https://www.unglobalcompact.org/library/

34.

von der Porten

Ota

Cisneros-Montemayor

Pictou

. (2019). The role of Indigenous resurgence in marine conservation. Coastal Management, 47(6), 527–547.

35.

Waikato Regional Council. (2019). Geothermal resources. https://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/environment/geothermal/resources/

36.

The Waitangi Tribunal. (1993). Preliminary report on the Te Arawa representative geothermal resource claims. GP Publications. https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/WT/wt_DOC_68451679/Te%20Arawa%20Preliminary%20Geothermal%201993.pdf

37.

The Waitangi Tribunal. (2019). Claims processes. Ministry of Justice. https://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/claims-process/

38.

The Waitangi Tribunal. (2022). The Stage 1 Report on the National Freshwater and Geothermal Resources Claim:WAI 2358. https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/WT/wt_DOC_59941926/Wai2358W.pdf

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.01 MB

3.95 MB