Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T06:14:41.178Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Co-managing environmental research: lessons from two cross-cultural research partnerships in New Zealand

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2006

P.O'B. LYVER
P.O'B. LYVER*
Affiliation:
Landcare Research, PO Box 69, Lincoln, 8152, New Zealand
*
*Correspondence: Dr Philip Lyver Tel: +64 3 325 6700 Fax: +64 3 325 2418 e-mail: lyverp@landcareresearch.co.nz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Few cross-cultural environmental research partnerships exist in New Zealand where Māori have been given the autonomy or resources to govern the decision-making process. Māori representatives and scientists from two collaborative research partnerships in New Zealand were interviewed to determine conditions required for successful partnerships, the costs and benefits involved and the roles of kaitiakitanga (environmental guardianship by Māori) and mātauranga (Māori traditional knowledge). Ninety per cent of Māori participants reported that a collaborative partnership should be defined by equitable power sharing and decision-making responsibility, however all the scientists perceived the term was ambiguous and was represented in New Zealand by a continuum of weak to strong power-sharing relationships. Developing trust, distilling and communicating scientific concepts and results, facilitating access to traditional knowledge and building scientific capability within a community can be fundamental to the success of a strong collaborative partnership, but demands a large time commitment, and at times a re-evaluation of priorities, from scientists. Kaitiakitanga and mātauranga can be key to directing and guiding research, but may require scientists to adapt and work within unfamiliar cultural systems. Strong collaborative research has a role to play initiating dialogue and partnership-building, demonstrating environmental, justice, economic and social outcomes, and indirectly building a consciousness in society about problem definition and potential solutions could that lead naturally to co-management of the environment by aboriginal communities and local or central governments.

Keywords

aboriginal communitiescollaborative partnershipspower-sharingresource guardianshiptraditional knowledgetrust
Type
Papers
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 32 , Issue 4 , December 2005 , pp. 365 - 370
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Berkes, F. (1989) Co-management and James Bay Agreement. In: Co-operative Management of Local Fisheries, ed. Pinkerton, E., pp. 189–207.Vancouver, Canada: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Berkes, F., George, P. & Preston, R.J. (1991) Co-management: the evolution of theory and practice of the joint administration of living resources. Alternatives 18 (2): 12–18.Google Scholar
Borrini-Feyerabend, G. (1996) Collaborative Management of Protected Natural Areas: Tailoring the Approach to the Context. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN: 67 pp.Google Scholar
Johnson, B. (1999) ‘Power-sharing’ not on. Fish and Game New Zealand 24: 75.Google Scholar
Kruse, J., Klein, D., Braund, S., Moorehead, L. & Simeone, B. (1998) Co-management of natural resources: a comparison of two caribou management systems. Human Organization 57 (4): 447–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moller, H. (1996) Customary use of aboriginal wildlife – towards a bicultural approach to conserving New Zealand's biodiversity. In: Biodiversity: Papers from a Seminar Series on Biodiversity, Hosted by Science and Research Division, Department of Conservation, Wellington 14 June–26 July 1994, compiled McFagen, B. & Simpson, P., pp. 89–125. Wellington, New Zealand: Department of Conservation.Google Scholar
Moller, H. (2001) Co-management of a bicultural research project? A scientist provider's perspective [www document]. URL http://www.otago.ac.nz/zoology/hui/talks2/hmoller.htmGoogle Scholar
Newman, J. & Moller, H. (2005) Use of mātauranga (Māori traditional knowledge) and science to guide a seabird harvest: getting the best of both worlds? Senri Ethnological Studies: 67: 303–321.Google Scholar
Orange, C. (1987) The Treaty of Waitangi. Wellington, New Zealand: Allen and Unwin, Port Nicholson Press: 312 pp.Google Scholar
Osherenko, G. (1988) Sharing power with native users: nuco-management regimes for Arctic wildlife. Canadian Arctic Resources Committee, Ottawa, Canada: 44 pp.Google Scholar
Pinkerton, E.W. (1992) Translating legal rights in management practice. Overcoming barriers to the exercise of co-management. Human Organization 51 (4): 330–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posey, D.A., Dutfield, G. & Plenderleith, K. (1995) Collaborative research and intellectual property rights. Biodiversity and Conservation 4: 892–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, M., Norman, W., Minhinnick, N., Wihongi, D. & Kirkwood, C. (1995) Kaitiakitanga: Maori perspectives on conservation. Pacific Conservation Biology 2: 7–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rusnak, G. (1997) Co-management of natural resources in Canada: a review of concepts and case studies. Minga Working Paper No. 2, International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: 21 pp.Google Scholar
Taiepa, T., Lyver, P., Horsley, P., Davis, J., Bragg, M. & Moller, H. (1997) Co-management of New Zealand's conservation estate by Maori and Pakeha. Environmental Conservation 24 (3): 236–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weitzner, V. (2000) Taking the pulse of collaborative management in Canada's national parks and national park reserves. Voices from the field. Final Report for an independent research project, Natural Resources Institute, University of Maintoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada: 61 pp.Google Scholar