BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT Auckland Registry

ENV 2015 AKL 0000134

IN THE MATTER

AND

BETWEEN

AND

of the Resource Management Act 1991

of an appeal under Clause 14 of the First Schedule of the Act

TRUSTEES OF MOTITI ROHE MOANA TRUST

Appellant

BAY OF PLENTY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Respondent

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF DR. TE KIPA KEPA BRIAN MORGAN ON BEHALF OF MOTITI ROHE MOANA TRUST

26th October 2017

Counsel Acting RB Enright

Barrister Level 1, Stanbeth House

28 Customs St East Britomart Auckland

e: rob@publiclaw9.com m: 021 276 5787

496

Introduction

1. My name is Dr. Te Kipa Kepa Brian Morgan. My Bachelor of Engineering was conferred

in 1986 and I received my Doctorate in Civil Engineering in 2008, both from the

University of Auckland. I am a Chartered Professional Engineer (Registered 1991) and a

Fellow of the Institution of Professional Engineers NZ.

2. I have been a practicing engineer since 1985 and am currently employed as General

Manager for Ngati Makino lwi Authority. Prior to February 2017, I was employed as

employed as Senior Lecturer iii the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

at The University of Auckland for approximately 17 years.

3. My Doctoral thesis considered the value of a Hap0 perspective to Municipal

engineering practice, in particular I considered the abhorrence of Maori for

conventional wastewater practice in Aotearoa New Zealand evidenced in many of the

early Waitangi Tribunal reports. I developed the Mauri Model Decision Making

Framework to facilitate improved cross cultural communication and action in the

management of ecosystems in Aotearoa New Zealand. This research necessarily

focused on the management of all four waters acknowledged within the municipal

engineering context; potable water, storm water, waste water, and ground water.

4. In 2016, my research and the creation of the Mauri Model Decision Making

Framework was recognised with the Furkert Award from the Institution of-Professional

Engineers NZ for supreme technical excellence in sustainability and green

technologies.

5. In addition to my General Manager's position, I am Managing Director of Mahi Maioro

Professionals, my own engi(leering consultancy which I formed in 1998. My

consultancy has completed a range of projects at the interface between Maori and

engineering. Projects include advising on holistic water management approaches and

conceptual and specific designs for resource consents such as the SmartGrowth BOP

50 year planning strategy, acting as an expert witness in Environment Court hearings

for wastewater discharge consents and water storage schemes, serving on Technical

497

Advisory Groups developing lake level management and wastewater t reatment and

management strategies in complex cultural contexts, and conducting design reviews

for development proposals such as the House of Tahu, papakainga housing and

geothermal developments.

6. Prior to my appointment at The University of Auckland, I was Operations Manager for

Te RQnanga O Ngati Pikiao for five years following engineering roles with Hamilton City

Council Design Services and the Ministry of Works and Development1 Gisborne

Residency.

7. I am familiar with the Code of Conduct for expert witnesses in the Environment Court

and agree to be bound by it. I confirm that the statements made in this evidence are

within my areas of expertise. I have had opportunity to review the draft proposed

planning provisions prepared by Graeme Lawrence and the associated maps prepared

by Diane Lucas (landscape architect) as relevant background material. I understand

Mr Lawrence and Ms Lucas will update this material as part of their evidence.

Scope of evidence

My evidence is intended to cover:

8. The inclusion of 'mauri1 as a monitoring basis for resource management purposes1 and

managing the restoration process for Motiti Rohemoana / Mot iti Natural Environment

Area in particular;

a. the relevance of research associated with the MV Rena environmental disaster;

b. the inclusion and scope of Mauri Model based evaluation and monitoring;

c. recognising wahi tapu 1 wah i taonga in terms of impacts upon mauri; and

d. effects on lwi and Hapu if mauri enhancing actions are not adequately

provided for;

e. supporting MRMT's proposal to impose waahi tapu and waahi taonga sub­

zones in order to restore mauri.

498

9. To address these matters fully and in a proper context, it has been necessary in my

evidence to identify the context in which the Mauri Model Decision-Making

Framework I have developed has been applied.

Indigenous l<nowledge

10. Indigenous Knowledge systems share an integrated and holistic viewpoint. The

indigenous worldview is a non-dualistic perspective of an integrated natural

environment. Understanding sustainability in terms of Indigenous Knowledge is based

on the holistic viewpoint adopted by Maori in terms of the environment, and may'

have strengths that are absent in the western scientific approach. The indigenous

worldview of Maori and the inherent obligations that result from this view are

presented next.

Holistic Approach

11. The holistic approach of Maori avoids the disjunction between the secular and

spiritual, the inherent compartmentalisation and isolation of one institution from

another, and the piecemeal approach to problem and conflict resolution (Marsden,

2003). The responsibilities of their supernatural ancestry that made Maori guardian

priest of the deities that controlled the relationships among the human, animal,

vegetable, insect, fish, bird, mineral and spirit worlds. These ancestral and spiritual

relationships determined that Maori fished, hunted, and cultivated only to the degree

necessary to secure their well-being (Sinclair, 1992). Thus before natural resources are

appropriated for community1s use, propitiatory rites to the appropriate deity must be

observed. Their observance ensures that nature is treated with care and respect

(Walker, 1978). The references given demonstrate the inseparability of traditional

ecological knowledge from spiritual considerations, however also suggest the

existence of a framework within which holistic decision making can occl!,r.

Connection in the Maori world

12. The environmental management regime of the traditional Maori has as its basis

Whakapapa; knowledge of the interdependencies and relationships of animate and

inanimate things, and includes man a; the spiritual authority and power to manage a

499

resource (Marsden, 2003), kaitiakitanga; the responsibility to manage the resource

appropriately (Matunga, 2001), kawa and tikanga; the protocols and practices

observed to maintain the spiritual integrity and physical balance within the ecosystem,

and mauri; the life principle of animate and inanimate things (Pere, 1982).

13. Whakapapa provides the understanding that allows decision making regarding the

maintenance of spiritual integrity and physical balance of resources in an area relying

on the concept of mauri as the determinant of appropriate practice.

14. Whakapapa is the genealogical descent of all animate and inanimate things and

records the traditional Maori beliefs of creation. Whakapapa identifies the linkages

across all resources, providing the basis for a holistic approach to management of the

environment. Whakapapa is the basis for organising traditional knowledge and

facilitates an order and structure for the various domains of the natural and spiritual

world (Barlow, 1991). Whakapapa also provides a structure for the observance of

respect and responsibility, the reciprocal obligations of humankind.

15. The widely held axiom is that through the many phases of creation as the world

evolved a physical and spiritual element was created when the parental atua (deity),

Ranginui (the sky father) and Papatuanuku (the earth mother) were separated by their

children, specifically Tane Mahuta the god of the forests (Marsden, _1992). Once the

parents were separated, their seventy seven atua children occupied and flourished in

the various realms created, Tane Mahuta covering the land, Tangaroa the oceans,

Tut~wehiwehi the fresh water rivers and lakes, and Tawhirimatea the air spac_e

between their separated parents. Humankind along with the many other things in the

environment all trace their origins from this union.

16. The genealogical descent to homo-sapiens, begins with the act of the atua Tane

breathing life (hau ora) through his nostrils (hongi) into the sculpted earth form of

Hineahuone, the first human created. Tane then procreated with Hineahuone

(Marsden, 1992). Humans are therefore both descended from and created by the

500

atua, and hold both divine (hauora from the atua) and mortal (substance from

Papatuanuku) elements.

17. The creation beliefs of traditional Maori are not consistent with western scientific

knowledge, however provided the beliefs and the knowledge that they maintain is

consistent within their Indigenous Knowledge system of origin, consistency with

beliefs in another knowledge system is less relevant. The important knowledge is the

deeper meaning embodied in the creation beliefs such as the value relationships and

dependencies created within the natural world. Patterson (1992) describes

Tumatauenga, holding his brothers collectively responsible for not defending him

. against the attacks of his brother Tawhirimatea, thus setting down the principle of

whakawhanaungatanga, in which the members of the whanau or extended family are

collectively responsible for supporting each other. The relationships established in the

creation beliefs identify ways that well-being is ensured, and in particular that as each

and every element of the natural world is interrelated both physically and spirit.ually,

the resources of the natural world are notto be abused; even essential food resources

must be treated with care and respect. Thus the atua provided a rational and orderly

way of perceiving and interacting with the environment.

18. l<awharu (1998) states, that Maori conceptualise the existence of the environment on

several different levels at the same time. A mountain can be the personification of a

particular atua, at the same time a rock, a resource to be utilised, and having qualities

such as beautiful or c;old. The connotations for resource gathering and resource

management are that appropriate karakia must be spoken when gathering resources,

for example when felling a tree to ensure the blessing of Tane Mahuta. Desecration of

resources is destruction in a physical sense, but also an insult to the spiritual powers

which created them. The understanding described by l<awharu, means that it is

incumbent upon Maori to make decisions on a holistic level, considering both physical

and spiritual implications.

19. Whakapapa also determines how people organise within traditional Maori society. The

genealogical grouping of the hapO was that most commonly associated with the use

501

and maintenance of natural resources. It is the hapO that is referred to in the text of

the Treaty (Crengle, 1993). It was also the primary social and economic group in Maori

society, and had control over natural resources, food harvesting and fisheries that was

exercised on a daily basis by hapO (ibid). The hapO represents a number of closely

related whanau (extended families) usually associated with a particular marae or

kainga. The meeting house on the marae often carries the name of the ancestor that

the hapO claims descent from, while the marae carries the name of the wate r source

that sustains the hapO relationship with that particular geographic area. lwi are a

larger grouping of several hapO that also share a common ancestor, but organise

collectively for political or defence reasons. Mana whenua is traditionally associated

with a hapO, however in more recent times the traditional relationships with lands,

forests and fisheries have been undermined and there have been attempts to

associate mana whenua with iwi. The exercise of mana whenua by hapO reflects the

traditional relationships that endure through ritual (McCully, 2003) rather than the

greater political emphasis of the resource management roles to which Maori have

adapted.

The relationsh ips established by whakapapa are succinctly summarised in the

following statement: It is for those who hold mana whenua (or mana moana) status to

exercise kaitiakitanga and protect the mauri of significant resources (Environment,

2003). Further definition of the terms mana whenua, mana moana, kaitiakitanga and

Mauri follow.

Mana

20. Barlow (1991) describes mana as the indestructible power of the gods. He explains

humankind do not generally possess mana of this kind but rather the ahi komau was

given only to those persons conforming to sacred ritual and principles. Marsden

agrees, explaining mana as the double aspect of authority and power, defined as

lawful permission delegated by the gods to their human agents and accompanied by

the endowment of spiritual power to act on behalf and in accordance with their

revealed will (1975). In this traditional sense, mana is dependent upon genealogical

502

entitlement combined with an extensive knowledge of matauranga Maori. Mana in

the contemporary sense can vary from this.

21. Williams (1975) translates mana into English as th.e psychic force, spiritual power,

prestige, binding authority, influence or status bestowed upon a person, place or

object. Contemporary definition remains relatively similar in that the authority of

mana is inherited through the senior line from the atua, and being a spiritual gift

delegated by the atua, man remains the agent, never the source of man a (Te Tumu,

2007). Mana gives a person the authority to lead, organise and regulate communal

expeditrons and activities, to make decision regarding political and social matters. An

entity's man a is reflected by the state of their environment, their people, and their

relationships with others, and is therefore closely tied to sustainability. Mana

manifests in a number of ways including man a whenua or man a moana, the power

associated with a particular area of land or water and the authority to exercise

guardianship of the resources contained within these areas. The mana whenua and

mana moana for the lands and seas related to this application are held by Nga Hapu o

te Motere o Motiti; as the appellant in this case, kaitiakitanga is exercised through te

Motiti Rohe Moana Trust.

Relevance of Kaitiakitanga and Mauri

22. One way of understanding when Maori adop.ted the ethic of kaitiakitanga is to

compare matauranga Maori to the indigenous knowledge of the other Pacific Ocean

peoples. Do similar concepts to kaitiakitanga or its base metric, mauri; exist in cultures

located elsewhere in the Pacific Ocean? An equivalent of mauri exists in the languages

and cultures of the peoples from many other South Pacific Island groups; Tonga has

mouri and Nuie has moui (Best, 1917); Hawai'i (Pukui, 2007) and Wallis ('Uvea) Island

have mauli, Futuna tamauri, and in Rotuma (Fiji), Efate (Vanuatu) and the Poumotu

(Tuamotu, French Polynesia) group mauri (Best, 1924). The proliferation of the Mauri

concept throughout the South Pacific, and its continued relevance for the indigenous

peoples of the South Pacific supports its ancient existence for at least a millennium.

503

23. The continued relevance of mauri and the practice of kaitiakitanga in many cultures

indicate the concepts were already important to the ancestors of modern Maori

before their journeys to Aotearoa, and were significantly important to have been

retained throughout the colonisation process. Thus the concept of mauri predates the

migration of early Maori to Aotearoa, a feat achieved at least five centuries prior to

Tupaia and Cook's arrival in 1769. The adoption of kaitiakitahga in Aotearoa therefore

occurred between 800 and 1200 years ago. The significance of this timeframe can be

established by considering the century during which much of the Pacific Ocean was

explored by Cook and the relevance of his achievements to western science.

Reciprocity in Indigenous Practice

24. The reciprocal obligations of responsibility and respect are important. Patterson

(1992) clarifies that the relationship between mankind and the ancestors and gods is a

two-way process. On their part they sustain and protect us and the other beings of this

world. On our part the links must be constantly kept alive by means of ritual.

Patterson also summarises earlier writers' attitudes thus: Sir Apirana Ngata and Sir

Peter Buck (Te Rangi Hiroa) write of the tradition of harmonising with the environment

(1986); Rangi Metekingi mentions how the ancestors inculcated their philosophy of

preservation and conservation as a foundation for future generations to build upon

(1979). Metekingi introduces the concept of inter generational equity, an aspect of

sustainability thinking, and embodied in the ancient Maori proverb;

Whatungaro te tangata, tu tonu te whenua

(People disappear, the land remains forever)

25. John Rangihau (1977) discusses Being Maori in Te Ao Hurihuri and explains that in the

Maori world, a person is aware of the mauri of the land, and how consideration of this

determines appropriate behaviour. He explains that people who live very close to

nature apply a feeling of aura to the things around them. In the case of Maori,

everything is given a mauri. The acknowledgement of mauri imbues conservation, a

strong awareness of the environment and how much is owed to the environment.

Maori do not create imbalance, due to an intrinsic connection to the land based on the

traditional genealogical relationships established in the creation beliefs.

504

26. The wisdom incorporated into the creation traditions of Maori, establishes an

obligation of reciprocity, founded on the concept of an interrelated natural and

supernatural world that is inextricably connected to the Maori by the kinship ties of

whakapapa. These ties define a person 1s identity in the context that the physical

condition and spiritual well-being of a geographic region and the person's Hapu are

one and the same. Mauri provides the basis for determining the appropriateness of

actions by considering the consequences for the mauri of those things impacted upon.

27. The essential point provided in this perspective was reinforced at the Maori Cultural

Landscape Design Strategy Workshop (Hoskins, 2006). Key urban design concerns

included reference to Maori alienation from the urban environment due to

disturbance of the mauri of elements and places. The significance of urban design as a

factor in Maori spiritual, cultural, social and physical well-being was identified along

with a need for indigenous development models.

28. The holistic worldview of Maori offers a different approach to the consideration of

sustainable management of resources that may have distinct advantages when

compared to western scientific approaches in isolation. Mauri is the concept

identified as a potential metric for sustainability. The consideration of mauri in

isolation from the knowledge system within which it has most relevance is not a

consistent approach. Therefore, an exploration of indigenous practice and its primary

concepts in.relation to environmental management is now necessary as this embodies

the values of traditional Maori reflected in the Indigenous Knowledge system,

matauranga Maori.

Kaitiakitanga

29. Among Te Arawa, the prefix hunga is more common than kai (as its essence is a group

with common purpose). Te Hunga manaaki means a group with obligations to look

after others, similarly hunga tiaki involves hospitality but also obligations to manage

and protect with implicit recognition of that group's man a whenua (Mihinui, 2002).

Today, the term kaitiakitanga is generally understood to imply those values in the

505

broader context of Aotearoa NZ. The values; manakitanga and kaitiakitanga are

therefore very important where environmental resource management is concerned.

Paro re (2002) states, that the principles of respect, to care for, and to look after, are

equally important whether people or environmental resources are concerned . This

principle of equal importance reinforces the concept that the people and their

environment are inextricably connected, and in terms of the indigenous perspective,

one and the same. Cooper (2002), links the concepts of Whakapapa, mana, and

kaitiakitanga in the following:

30. Tangata whenua have particular responsibilities as kaitiaki to the atua, the ancestors,

and future generations to ensure a healthy balance between environmental, social

and spiritual domains. The identity and wellbeing of iwi, Hap0, and whanau are

inextricably intertwined with the environment, through the places and landforms,

natural resources and taonga species within their rohe.

31. Therefore kaitiakitanga creates an obligation to protect and enhance the cultural

inheritance (geographic resources and knowledge) of the Hap0, and to pass this on to

future generations in as good or better condition than inherited. Duker (1994)

documents the implicit expectation that the resources entrusted to those holding the

role of kaitiaki will be passed on to future generations in an enhanced state.

Kaitiakitanga thus denotes obligations or responsibilities incumbent on the iwi, its

members and appointed kaumatua, kuia or tohunga to carry out particular functions,

be custodians, protectors, guardians of iwi interest, its taonga and various resources it

owns. The practice of kaitiakitanga, in essence, environmental management is holistic

and encompasses everyone and everything.

32. Mutu (2002) cites the 1997 amendment to the Resource Management Act definition

of kaitiakitanga meaning 'the exercise of guardianship by the tangata whenua of an

area in accordance with tikanga Maori in relation to natural and physical resources1,

and confirms a universal understanding of kaitiakitanga referencing her own people Te

Whanau Moana, Ngati Kahu, Marsden, Minhinnick, Kawharu, and the many

submissions made to the Board of Enquiry into the NZ Coastal Policy Statement in

506

1993 and 1994. Mutu quotes Ngati Kahu rangatira, Mccully Matiu providing an

explanation of kaitiakitanga paraphrased below;

33. Kaitiakitanga is the role played by kaitiaki. Traditionally, kaitiaki are the spiritual

minders of the physical elements of the natural world . These elements are often

referred to as taonga (greatly treasured and respected), and related to each other by

common descent from the supreme god. These taonga are controlled and directed by

the kaitiaki who manifest themselves in spiritual forms such as fish, animals, trees or

reptiles. Each kaitiaki is imbued with mana. There are many forms and aspects of

mana, of which one is the power to sustain life. HapQ are careful to preserve the many

forms of mana, in particular to ensure that the mana of each kaitiaki is preserved.

34. As minders, kaitiaki ensure that the mauri of taonga are protected, including the hau

kainga which carry the airborne essences emanating from both the land and the sea.

When the characteristics of the hau kainga start to change, as in the case of impacts

from major development, tangata whenua are warned of the onset of the depletion in

the mauri of their ancestral lands. A taonga whose mauri becomes severely depleted

presents a major task for the kaitiaki. In order to uphold their own mana, tangata

whenua as kaitiaki do all in their power to restore the mauri of the taonga to its

original strength. Apart from depriving the whanau or Hapu of the life sustaining

capacities of the land and sea, failure to carry out kaitiakitanga roles adequately may

result in the untimely death of members of the whanau or Hapu. Thus kaitiakitanga is

a right, but also a responsibility for tangata whenua (Mutu 2003).

35. Therefore, it follows that kaitiakitanga comprises_a comprehensive set of practices

whose purpose it is to maintain the intrinsic value of the environment. These practices

when effectively applied result in the sustainable management of a resource.

Kaitiakitanga is acknowledged widely as the cornerstone for resource management

practice, however in practice the intended results have been difficult to achieve due to

inadequate recognition of manawhenua by more recently established colonial systems

of authority. In order to complete this brief exploration of matauranga Maori, it is

necessary to provide definitions for tikanga Maori and mauri.

507

Kawa and Tikanga Maori

36. While the understanding of kaitiakitanga is widely accepted and acknowledged in

Aotearoa NZ, regional variations do exist in relation to the names given to some

concepts. Kawa and tikanga Maori are one such example. Tikanga Maori is referred to

in the legislative definition of kaitiakitanga (RMA Amendment Act, 1991). Tikanga

Maori is here understood to mean the specific practices of the manawhenua of a

particular area. An alternative interpretation is that tikanga Maori encompasses the

whole knowledge base of matauranga Maori and the protocols associated with its

correct practice (Mead, 2003).

37. In essence what is referred to as kaitiakitanga represents a regime of social controls

that have developed based on kawa (guiding principles or protocols) and tikanga

(actual practices). The kawa (kaupapa using Marsden's terminology) establish the

primary objectives common to all activities, for example in the context of

kaitiakitanga, the maintenance and enhancement of the mauri in all things. Tikanga is

the correct or appropriate expression of the kawa in a particular geographic location

or situation (TeKiril<aramu, 1975-1997). Kawa and tikanga served to guide

environmental management practice in the broadest sense and assisted in the

maintenance of mauri of-all parts of the natural world. Kawa include approaches to

management that use the traditional protocols of rahui (prohibition), tapu (sacred)

and noa (profane) .

38. For example, the development of tikanga appropriate to new situations was evident

with the kawa that accompanied the taonga taken to other _nations during the

overseas tour of Te Maori. Tikanga, such as the karakia and ritual, used at the dawn

ceremonies held outside foreign museums secured the spiritual safety for the taonga,

ensuring that the appropriate kawa were upheld. Thus tikanga are not geographically

constrained, nor are they constrained in time. Mead {2003) comments that tikanga

Maori are not frozen in time, but continue to have relevance in contemporary society.

That tikanga and kawa. have a strong connection to the past however is one of the

reasons they are so highly valued. Kawa provide the link that transcends whakapapa,

inking Maori to the knowledge and wisdom of his ancestors. The continued use of

508

/

tikanga can sustain kaitiakitanga, whose purpose it is to maintain the intrinsic value of

the environment.

Mauri

39. Mauri is a concept that permeates all Maori thinking, however no equivalent exists in

the knowledge of the western world. As mauri is the base metric of kaitiakitanga, it is

essential that mauri is understood, if the practice of kaitiakitanga is to be consistent

with its indigenous origin within matauranga Maori. Mauri is the binding force

between the physical and the spiritual {Durie, 1998) and a common attribute of all

things. The land, forests, waters, and all the life they support, together with natural

phenomena such as mist, wind and rocks, possess mauri (Marsden, 1975). The

creation story narrative first refers to mauri existing in Te kakano, the original seed,

pulsing as the life principle impelling the shoot to emerge in its quest for being

(Marsden, 2003). Mauri is the force that interpenetrates all things to bind and knit

them together and as the various elements diversify, mauri acts as the bonding

element creating unity in diversity (Marsden, 1992). Mauri is therefore a holistic

concept as broad in its association as to encompass everything, individually and

collectively, in the natural world. The breadth of association is due to its

representation and role in the genealogy of creation, as the impetus or perhaps

justification for existence.

40. In isolation, the description of life principle used by Marsden (also Best, 1924,

Williams, 1957, Patterson, 1992), can be narrowly construed in western thinking to

imply that mauri only applies to things that are alive. A limited perception of Mauri

such as this is incorrect and rather reflects the limitations of the English language to

convey such a concept as any inconsistency on the part of Marsden or others.

Williams' translation equivalent demonstrates this point, including alongside life

principle, the thymos of man. Mead {2003) has commented that the Greek word

mystifies mauri contributing little to understanding the concept.

41. That the concept thymos also creates confusion for the western mind is likely a result

of its lack of contemporary mainstream use, possibly due to the concept being

509

abolished by Christianity (Scaruffi, 2007). Nevertheless thymos is described as

spiritedness or the active soul (Plato), and according to Hegel, man's humanity

flourishes most when he transcends survivalist (reason), materialistic (desire)

inclinations and engages his thymotic side pursuing self-sacrificing higher ends.

Thymos is considered to be a very ancient belief, predating civilisations, the equivalent

conceptual division of thymos from psyche (immanent soul or spirituality), existing in ·

· the ancient cultures of Egypt, China, Judaism, Buddhism, and Zoroastrianism (Scaruffi,

2007). Scaruffi describes thymos as pertaining to the active soul that is pertaining to

thought, consciousness and awareness. Williams definition may then be understood to

refer to Mauri in the context that by binding the physical and spiritual in humankind, it

enables humankind's conscious existence?

42. The generic term 'life principle' is mauri ora in the context of humankind, the binding

force that makes life possible in living things. Marsden explains this. Hihiri is the pure

energy, light or aura, that radiates from matter, especially living things. Hihiri is a

refined form of mauri that exists in a further refined form as Mauri-ora or the life

principle. Hau-ora is the breath of the spirit, infused into the cosmic process to give

birth to animate beings (Marsden, 1992). Due to the less familiar nature of mauri to

western thinking, there are potentially chapters to be written about the concept.

43. In the context of kaitiakitanga, Barlow (1991) provides an alternative definition of

mauri, as a special power only of the gods. Mauri makes existence possible. Mauri is

the force created by the man a of the atua that binds the two parts of body and spirit.

This definition is reiterated in Durie (1998) as the binding force between the physical

and the spiritual.

44. Therefore, maur! is the binding force, the power of the gods (Barlow, 1991), the fusion

that makes it possible for everything to exist, by holding the physical and spiritual

elements of a being or thing together in unison. When actions impact negatively upon

the mauri of something, this essential bond is weakened, and can potentially result in

the separation of the physical and spiritual elements resulting in the death of a living

thing or alternatively the loss of a thing's capacity to support other life.

510

45. Mauri is therefore the base metric, as the mechanism that facilitates kaitiakitanga is

the practice of continuously valuing and enhancing mauri. If the mauri of a forest or

river is not respected it will not flourish, but rather it will lose its vitality and

fruitfulness. The life of the forest or river must not constantly be dominated by that of

man. The natural, healthy and proper state is one of balance (Patterson, 1992).

46. Traditional rituals and practices regarding mauri provide both an indication of the

broad extent of the concept's relevance in Maori life and a deeper understanding for

the reader. Reference is made to the following examples;

47. King {1978) stated that when acquiring knowledge the recipient benefited from the

transfer of the mauri (aura, life force) of the knowledge being given particularly

knowledge of ritual or genealogy, and conversely Rangihau (1977) stated that when

passing on tapu information you shed part of your mauri, reinforcing the notion that

sacred knowledge is a taonga, a valued possession that should not be shared without

consideration of the future implications for the use of that knowledge.

48. Tane planted three mauri in Wharekura, the first whare wananga. Mauri Atua (mauri

of the gods), Mauri Tangata (mauri of the Tangata Whenua), and Mauri Manaki (mauri

of the guests and visitors). Manaki means to bestow a blessing, the presence of

visitors being a blessing on the hosts, and in fulfilling the reciprocal relationship the

tangata whenua giving the best of their provisions in the hakari (shared meal) .

(Marsden, 1992).

49. The carver Rangi Hetet stated that using raw timber rather than milled timber helps

the carver to give his work mauri. The metaphysical message being that processes

such as felling trees without appropriate ritual, sawmilling, and the large scale

conversion of a living forest into lumber for sale, damages the life forces (Mauri) of the

timber (Patterson, 1992).

511

50. The mauri of ecosystems was actively managed to ensure conservation for current and

future generations. Exploitation, depletion, degeneration of a resource and the

pollution of the environment to the extent that pro-life processes within the

ecosystems of papatuanuku might collapse was prevented with the institution of

rahui. To aid the processes of recovery and regeneration, a ritual would be conducted,

concentrating the mauri of the species within a stone which would be placed within

the area encompassed by the rahui or on a fishing ground (Marsden, 1992).

51. Water and water bodies such as rivers, lakes and wetlands, seas and oceans have their

own mauri, which it is important for the Tangata Whenua to protect from pollution,

degradation and damage. Rivers, lakes and wetlands, seas and oceans are also key

elements 'in the identity, whakapapa and man a of the Hapu {Environment, 2001).

52. The relationship between Maori and the environment is specifically provided for in

several places in the RMA. Section 6 sets out matters of national importance and

refers to the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral

lands, water, sites, wahi tapu, and other taonga. Roberts asserts that the recognition

of Maori relationships includes intangible aspects such as the spiritual dimension and

that everything in the natural world possesses mauri (Roberts, 2002).

53. Mauri is a concept that permeates all Maori thinking and is significant enough to non­

Maori almost to have been included in our legislation. The original wording of the

Resource Management Bill introduced into parliament identified the mauri of

ecosystems as a matter of national importance {Durie, 1998). This was subsequently

amended to read the intrinsic values of ecosystems instead, before the bill was passed

into law.

54. The explanations of the core concepts; whakapapa, man a, kaitiakitanga, kawa and

tikanga, and mauri provided are a shadow of their full meaning and weight within

Maori society. Much deeper meanings of these concepts are only possible if

experienced through involvement in the actual practices, in relation to the specific

taonga, of the various hapO of Aotearoa.

512

Indigenous Knowledge and Societal Values

55. Indigenous knowledge must be practiced to retain its relevance. The ability of

manawhenua to continue the application of indigenous knowledge is strongly

influenced by the way Indigenous Knowledge is perceived within society. The efforts of

hapu as mana whenua to influence common development practice in Aotearoa NZ are

often marginalised, the result of contemporary society's perception of Indigenous

Knowledge.

Framework for understanding these relationships and impacts (Mauri Model

Decision Making Framework)

56. The Mauri Model Decision Making Framework allows lwi and Hapu to contribute

understanding based on their own knowledge so that they can be effectively included

in resource management decision making processes.

57. The Framework adds a strengthened decision making context due to its ability to

incorporate cultural iy relevant knowledge seamlessly alongside scientific

understandings of a situation, incorporating both quantitative and qualitative data

consistently into the same impact assessment.

58. The starting point to the Framework is Kaitiakitanga, the active protection and

enhancement of the mauri of ecosystems, over time.

59. \J\/hen mauri is defined as the life supporting capacity of the air, water and soil the

theoretical basis is created for relevance in terms of Aotearoa New Zealand law, and a

means to measure and evaluate impacts then exists.

60. The mauri of something is a measure of its 'potential' and 'integrity'.

61. Studies have shown that often economic and social considerations are privileged in

decision making because these results are more readily measured in the base terms

used by cost benefit (and similar) analysis, while environmental and cultural impacts

513

having relevance over different timeframes can not be easily quantified in monetary

terms and are often minimised or ignored on that basis.

62. A more holistic and inclusive way to understand the world other than in monetary

terms exists. Firth (1929) observed more than 85 years ago that mauri appeared to be

the economic currency of traditional Maori society. Mauri is the binding force

between the physical and everything else that makes life possible.

63 . It is the life supporting capacity within a thing or collection of things such as an

ecosystem. The concept can be likened to gravity, as while it may not be observable

directly, it explains observable phenomena, being the force that when sufficiently

diminished or denigrated defines the loss of potential to support life, or the difference

between life and death.

64. With mauri as its focus, the Mauri Model Decision Making Framework inter-weaves

indigenous and scientific understandings of sustainability, specifically the indigenous

conceptualisation of the mauri force (life supporting capacity) and systems thinking.

When the indigenous concepts of mauri and kaitiakitanga, its active enhancement, are

coupled with systems thinking, a means of defining the absolute sustainability of

decision choices and a useful understanding of cumulative impacts is provided.

65. The Mauri Model Decision Making Framework is unique as it provides a culturally­

neutral ontology within which indigenous values are explicitly empowered alongside

scientific data. It is an expert-weighted decision matrix that is holistic, simple to use,

objective and produces repeatable results.

66. The Mauri Model Decision Making Framework combines a stakeholder worldview

analysis (Mauri Model) with an indicator measurement process (Mauri Meter) to

determine the absolute sustainability of the scenario, option or decision under

consideration, using mauri as the base metric. The concept of mauri is used to

represent the potential of phenomena possessing physical and/or metaphysical

characteristics. The.capability to measure both physical quantities and metaphysical

514

qualities allows for a wide inclusive range of sustainability indicators that better

reflects the physically, culturally, psychologically, and spiritually defined reality of

Indigenous Peoples. This can be seen in Figure 1:

•Ontology of Four Mauri Dimensions

•lndicator­sc_ores and Dimensions

Mauri Mode Quantifica tion

of Worldview

1 r;--.,

Trends for

Figure 1: Mauri Model Decision Making Framework

•lnforhis Indicator Selection

Framework for acknowledging different ways of knowing (Mauri Model and Pair­

wise comparison of worldviews)

67. Within the Framework, mauri, the measure of sustainability, has four constituent

dimensions: mauri of the ecosystem, mauri of the indigenous people, mauri of the

community; and the mauri of the base economic unit, typically a household. These

four mauri dimensions are the Mauri Model and reflect the well-beings set out in the

RMA. This is depicted in Figure 2:

515

Community

Mauri of Whanau Er1111 n111 ic wcll-bl'ing

Ecosystem , -,r,·1rornc11/uf U'l'll •l•1·i11q

Figure 2: Mauri Model Ontological Reality

68. As Figure 2 shows, ecosystem mauri represents environmental well-being; hapu mauri

represents cultural well-being; community mauri represents social well-being; and

whanau (family} mauri represents economic well-being. These four constituent

dimensions will be recognised as the traditional triple bottom line (environmental,

social and economic} plus cultural wellbeing. The four separate dimensions portray

important factors for consideration of impact upon sustainability and provide a holistic

measure of the state of mauri (potential life supporting capacity} when considered

collectively.

Framework for including all knowledge (Mauri dimensions)

69. The adoption of these four dimensions for decision-making purposes facilitates more

consistent comparison of impacts and effects, intra-dimensionally, due to the ability to

use the same metric to measure all attributes and factors that are considered relevant

by all stakeholders. That measurement process is done under the Mauri Model

Decision Making Framework through a process that involves the quantification of

different stakeholder worldviews within each of the four Framework dimensions. The

516

relative priorities of the four mauri dimensions are determined as a percentage

weighting using a pair-wise comparison technique adapted from the Analytic

Hierarchy Process. The quantified pdorities are useful as they reflect the inherent bias

·of stakeholders and also reflect the dimensions most strongly influencing a

stakeholders understanding of a situation. For instance, if a stakeholder places greater

emphasis on a particular mauri dimension then it is assumed that this also means that

the stakeholder has a more detailed understanding of the indicators best representing

that dimension.

Framework for measuring impacts (Indicators, thresholds; Mauri Meter)

70. The impact on the mauri of each indicator is then determined using the Mauri Meter

which uses clearly defined thresholds to quantify change. Before an evaluation is

carried out, accurate thresholds are determined that identify 'no change', a 'fully

restored mauri'with maximum potential', and 'totally exhausted mauri'. This process

is visually demonstrated in Figures 3 and 4:

Denigrating ·1

::Vlauri heke

Destroyed "2

.\ilauri noho I moe

1\faintaining 0

\ °"' Enhancing

\ \ M,;~piki

~ \ 7 Restored , ... ' ~2 ~✓ ::'.\iiauritu,'ora

Figure 3: Mauri Meter for Performance Indicator Assessment

517

Impact upon mauri

-- -- - -·-r- - ,.

Negative No impact Positive - 0 +

,--·~. - . --~ -- ..... -··~ -- - --- -- ,------.-. --...... -,- . J. l l .l

Full Partial Partial Full -2 -1 +1 +2

····-- - -· -- - ---- ~-- - -- -

Figure 4: Mauri Model decision tree

71. Once the Mauri Meter thresholds have been defined, the impact upon the mauri of

each indicator is determined using the following rationale:

I. Within the no change threshold in mauri the result is zero;

II. If the result is not zero, the impact must be either enhancing(+) or diminishing

(-) the mauri;

111. Whether enhancing or diminishing if the 'fully restored' or 'totally exhausted'

threshold is reached the result is 2;

72. For all other changes in mauri that do not achieve the defined threshold the result is 1

reflecting a partial change in mauri that is either enhancing(+) or diminishing(-) the I

resilience and potential of the dimension being considered .

73. Although the scoring is coarse, the results are objective and repeatable provided the

indicator thresholds are clearly defined and reasonably similar indicator sets are used

for all evaluations.

74. The indicator scores within each dimension of the Mauri Model Decision Making

Framework can also be averaged to reflect the impact occurring over time, or

comparatively between decision options. The four mauri dimension averages can also

518

be combined in different ways to reflect understandings of the overall changes

occurring as perceived by different stakeholders simply by weighting the combination

of the dimensions in a way that is aligned to the worldview of that particular

stakeholder. In addition, the averaged dimension scores can be plotted over time t_o

reflect retrospective evaluations, to monitor current trends, or predict future impacts

upon mauri.

Constraints

75. Current constraints to applying a Mauri Model Decision Making Framework to

recognise and protect Maori rights, interests and values '

• 76. In my experience, a significant problem with existing RMA processes is that they have

the effect, if not the purpose, of generating a win-lose framing of resources issues and

rights.

77. A Mauri Model Decision Making Framework based approach allows the outcomes to

move away from win-lose framing, and rather identify appropriate compromises from

various parties and stakeholders that can be communicated effectively in ways that

are readily understood by all.

78. I have attached an example of the application of the framework for the Rena event

which describes the potential implication and assessment methodology in a practical

means (attached as ANNEXURE A).

79. The Mauri Model Decision Making Framework could inform more holistic and

integrated approaches to marine resources management as well as potential

applications in relation to other resource management contexts.

80. A second and related problem with existing processes may not result in transparent

decisions on marine resources, in which it is clear to all part ies what weightings have

been given to the different considerations that are relevant to the decision being

made. In my view, the Mauri Model Decision Making Framework is the appropriate

519

decision making framework with the capacity to objectively assist decision making and

evaluation for all required contexts where mauri life force is a central consideration.

As an example, the Crown's decision to remove the exclusion zone on Otaiti would

have benefited from the practical application of this methodology and supported

future management decisions.

Proposal by Motiti Rohe Moana Trust to introduce waahi tapu and waahi taonga

sub-zones

81. It is appropriate to have recognition of these spaces with management regimes that

reflect the importance of spiritual and physical marine environments with people, as

they support and give effect to the mauri.

82. The Mauri Model decision making Framework can accommodate the application of

performance measures for the implementation of waahi Tapu and waahi Taonga as a

management tool.

83. It can inform the strength and relationship of restored environmental effect and the

relationship of activities that may have an impact of mauri, such as loss of taonga flora

and fauna resulting in kina barrens within the Motiti Natural Environment

Management Area, with the consequence that tangata whenua are unable to exercise

kaitiakitanga in relation to taonga species.

Application of Mauri Model to the Motiti Natural Environment Area

84. The science available suggests that there is sufficient evidence regarding kin a barrens

to offer some level of interpretation in terms of the Mauri Meter thresholds. The

scientific data on kina barrens has been interpreted in the following way.

85. Overfishing has the effect of reducing the predation of kina, introducing an imbalance

within the ecosystem, which then manifests as symptoms such as kina barrens. The

extent of t hese kin a barrens reflects the degree to which the habitat mauri has been

520

destabilised (in the 0 threshold range) or diminished (in the -1 threshold range) .

86. For kina barrens less than 1% within the Motiti NEMA reflect a +2 mauri state in that

the conditions are equivalent to or normal in marine reserves.

87. 5% or less kina barrens would reflect the upper 0 threshold, that is the +1 mauri state

would be for kina barrens in the range 1%<extent of kina barrens<5% where the

habitat has sufficient resilience to sustain external impacts and fluctuations over short

periods of time such as seasonal variations.

88. For an extent of kin a barrens greater than 5% but less than 10% within the Motiti

NEMA, a marginalised mauri state of 0 is reflected in that there is no longer any

ecosystem resilience present. This state between +0 and -0 is the equivalent of level 1

described by Vince, and identifies the necessity for caution in how the habitat is

managed.

89. The kin a barrens greater than 10% within the Motiti NEMA reflect a degraded mauri in

that the conditions if left unchanged will lead to continued diminishing of mauri to the

extent that eventually the kina barrens will reach >10%, the -2 threshold where that

habitat was considered mauri noho or that it no longer had the capacity to sustainably

support life. This state between -0 and -2 is the equivalent of level 2 described by

Vince, and identifies the necessity for an intervention(s) to modify the observed trend

in that habitat.

90. That is the ecosystem kelp forest is in decline and the mauri is being diminished if no

change of current behaviour occurs.

91. This could be presented as a Mauri Meter with the relevant thresholds identified and

the states of mauri representing level 1 and level 2

Conclusion

521

92. The Mauri Model Decision Making Framework is a potential improvement over current

tools as it is an integrated decisfon-making tool that draws from indigenous knowledge

while also being simultaneously aligned with Aotearoa New Zealand environmental

policy, methods and supporting Rules.

93. The Framework acknowledges that a time durable solution cannot separate out

cultural values in an assessment tool that is to be holistic and therefore consistent

with the indigenous knowledge base of its origin. )

94. Sustainability is synonymous with enhancing and restoring the mauri of our coastal

. areas and therefore strategically important for all New Zealanders by the shared

benefit of providing resilient environmental values.

95. The physical and spiritual health of our waters, whether fresh water or marine is linked

inextricably to that of our people, and this underpins the identity and place to Tangata

Whenua, as well as that of the many other peoples that make up the Aotear9a New

Zealand community of today.

96. Providing a pathway for community should include lwi and HapO values and their

shared knowledge systems in the management of our most precious resource such as

the moana. This knowledge should be consistent with generating conditions of

abundance historically experienced.

97. The Mauri Model Decision Making Framework is a specific example that could be

effectively applied in many contexts to ensure the sustainable management of marine

environment and associated values for present and future generations.

98. I am aware that Motiti Rohe Moana Trust proposes to introduce waahi tapu and waahi

taonga sub-zones within the Motiti Environment Natural Management Area. I

understand these will be described in detail in Graeme Lawrence's evidence. These

sub-zones will prevent fishing techniques and methods (waahi tapu) and limit ability to

undertake fishing techniques and methods pending restoration of brown kelp species,

522

removal of kina barrens, as an indic~tor of ecosystem health and therefore mauri

(waahi taonga)

99. As outlined above, the mauri of Otaiti Reef was significantly adversely impacted by the

MV Rena . The MV Rena is now part of the existing environment for the reef. Mauri can

be restored and enhanced through protection of taonga species at the reef, given their

indigenous biological diversity values and cultural values, as measured by the mauri

model.

Dated this 26th day of October 2017

Dr Te Kipa Kepa Brian Morgan

523

524 I -- - •- ---- -- ,· l~ lr l1rr-'llll •~----rfl•t\:Y~ 0 jiii1lrif<,:@\ L I -, 11~ I "- L!=~' 11 °' I ,j\'-:. ~)f J[D: EOR .... - - .·--•· ·. - - . ·-· ·~ - · -· ·· · ·- - - - --·

·-- ~ --- ------ l ·- · ---·· ·- - - -I (m5G;June 6, 2017;20:25]

European Journal of Operational Research 000 (2017) 1- 12

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

European Journal of Operational Research

ELSEVIER journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ejor

Empowering indigenous voices in disaster response: Applying the Mauri Model to New Zealand's worst environmental maritime disaster

Te Kipa Kepa Brian Morgan•, Tumanako Ngawhika Fa'aui Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Faculty of Engineering, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland Mail Centre, Auckland 1142, New Zealand

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Article history: Received 9 August 2016 Accepted 12 May 2017 Available anline xxx

Keywords: Community operational research Mauri Model Environmental management Indigenous ·knowledge Kaupapa Maori

Just after midnight on October 5, 2011, the MV Rena ran aground on Otaiti, a reef situated 27 kilometers off the coast of New Zealand. The clean-up process has now been underway for more than four years, and is aclmowledged as the second most expensive wreck recovery in the world, at more than half a bil­lion US dollars. In October 2015, a resource consent hearing was concluded, and this sought approval to abandon the remaining sections of the Rena wreck on Otaiti. Maori submissions to the hearing process were divided between opposition to the applicant's request and support from others, including the Te Arawa ki Tai tribal grouping. Te Arawa !ct Tai have adapted the Mauri Model Decision Malting Framework to provide a better understanding of the recovery process, and the holistic understanding it provides is of relevance to other international contexts. This paper shares how the Mauri Model Decision Malting Framework, in conjunction with an indigenous based methodology, empowered Te Arawa !ct Tai in the re­covery process and facilitated an enhanced Te Arawa lci Tai understanding. Since the grounding, Te Arawa lci Tai have co-created indicator sets that are inclusive of all of the relevant scientific and indigenous knowledge available. The impact upon mauri (life force or life supporting capacity) since the MV Rena grounding has been evaluated using the same indicator sets, with quarterly assessments. Reflections on how the concerns of the disadvantaged and marginalized Maori communities have been addressed are included.

1. Introduction

just after midnight on October 5, 2011, the MV Rena ran aground on Otaiti, otherwise known as the Astrolabe Reef, situ­ated 27 kilometers off the coast of New Zealand (The Transport Accident Commission, 2014). Fig. 1 provides a map. During the ensuing clean-up, the Minister for the Environment identified the grounding as New Zealand's worst environmental disaster (Sharpe, Johnston, Watkins, Migone, & Cooke, 2011 ). In December 2011, one of the affected indigenous tribal groups, Te Arawa ki Tai, made submissions on the draft recovery plan, stating that the goal of the plan did not recognize and provide for a Maori (indigenous peoples of New Zealand) cultural perspective to environmental restoration. They suggested that the word "mauri" (life force or life supporting capacity) be inserted, or a new goal added to properly encompass a Maori worldview of environmental restoration. The Ministry for the Environment issued the Rena Long-Term Environ­mental Recovery Plan on 26 January 2012, with the stated goal to

• Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: k.morgan@auckland.ac.nz (T.K.K.B. Morgan),

tfaa018@aucklanduni.ac.nz (T.N. Fa'aui).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.05.030 0377-2217/© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

"restore the mauri of the affected environment to its "pre-Rena" state" (Ministry for the Environment, 2012). This is significant, as it is the first instance in New Zealand that an indigenous concept was given as the goal of a government-Jed strategy (Morgan, Fa'aui, & Bennett, 2015).

The disaster and its associated impacts have been a divisive is­sue in New Zealand, which historically has had a 'clean, green' im­age associated with the landscape and coastline. The differences in opinion regarding the recovery and fate of the wrecked vessel and debris have culminated in the resource consent process started by the Rena's owners. In May 2014, the owners of the Rena lodged

. several resource consent applications under the Resource Manage­ment Act (RMA, 1991 ) to abandon sections of the wreck and asso­ciated debris on Otaiti (Beca, 2014). The resource consent applica­tion also included provisions for future discharges of contaminants from the remnants of the vessel and remaining cargo, within the period of the ten year consent applied for Bay of Plenty Regional Council, 2014.

The different stal<eholder groups with vested interests in the reef and affected areas have varying views on the recovery and resource consent application. These differences are evident in the submissions received by the Bay of Plenty Regional Council, the

Please cite this article as: T.K.K.B. Morgan, T.N. Fa'aui, Empowering indigenous voices in disaster response: _Applying the Mauri Model to New Zealand's worst environmental maritime disaster, European Journal of Operational Research (2017), http:J/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.05.030

525 Li \f~Ti°C(L I~----:t~ [~i_R~~:-~~ -- - - - - -----~~ - ·- --····-------- --- . - .. ·· - ·--- [iiisG;Jifrie ·c,: 2011;20:2sJ

2 T.K.K.B. Morgan, T.N. Fa'aui/Europeanjoumal of Operational Research 000 (2017) 1-12

.. Ka-JBWI lslaod

·() 'Ct,UJIU~#Jl.2bt2'0l toll

IO la = =<;==== ....... 5fU\6'caJnil::s

-~~~~

; .... .. ,. _ .,.,. .. .. __ ___ _._,.. _ _ 1

V I , . ,~' -- -- !

I I "' , f , ' I

,; ., : Olalti ! ,' • "" (Astra/ab• Reef}

, \ ' 1 . , , '

11 Otapan,Reef~ 1 _ _ _ ., .. . . , ~,,. ,,, ,;,;;,_,

••• • Th!LU!.o'ml!nlll3dt>1r~lr.'!nO!!lllll

• • • • Tlee,cW:n,o.-.,m1Sep-J2012

I . ' u-ta.,in.s

= Mt• lig.....,,

Mot/ti Island D-

, ,

' ,

, , ,

, / ' ,

, '

• I ,, J . ' ,

, UoM>•lu Island

Uotuna11 Island

Fig. 1. Location of astrolabe reef and nautical exclusion zones (Waitangi Tribunal, 2015).

local Governmental body taslced with assessing the resource con­sent application. The submissions received from different affected stakeholders were presented at the resource consent hearing in Tauranga (New Zealand) in 2015, with different groups taking sup­porting, opposing or neutral stam;es regarding the Rena owner's resource consent application. The opinions, views and the impacts experienced by/of the different affected stakeholder groups regard­ing the Rena recovery and associated impacts can be linked to their ontological worldviews. Their differing ontologies are relevant to how solutions are perceived. There are multiple factors that shape these ontological differences, resulting in a wide array of differing and at times adversarial worldviews.

One of these affected stakeholder groupsis Maketii-based Te Arawa ki Tai, who have collaborated with a community operational research project using the Mauri Model Decision Making Frame­work to inform their stance regarding the resource consent pro­cess. Te Arawa ki Tai (the coastal branch of Te Arawa) represent the majority of Te Arawa interests impacted by the Rena disaster. The relationships to Otaiti are set out later in this paper, which presents the assessment of the mauri impacts within this com­munity by forming a working relationship and effectively adapting an action research based methodology into a communal, indige­nous post-disaster context. Within this methodology, one of the key aspects has been the compilation of the performance indica­tor sets, to use within the assessment of the mauri impacts. The process to select these indicators is a crucial phase of the com­munity operational research, establishing the criteria by which im­pacts upon mauri are measured, directly influencing how enhance­ments or diminishments in mauri are defined. It is therefore im­portant that the methodology dictating this process is sound, as the criteria effectively set the boundaries of subsequent interven­tion. Within systemic interventions, boundary critique can be ap­plied prior to and during the intervention· to help in the process of identifying and placing boundaries, and selecting the appropriate methods (Midgley, 2000).

Boundary critique theory highlights the importance of explor­ing the boundaries that are being used within an intervention, with emphasis placed on considering the participant's views to­wards these boundaries (Ulrich, 1983). Foote et al. (2007) defines a 'boundary' as " ... a conceptual marker that identifies the peo­ple and issues induded in, marginalized by or excluded from OR projects" (Pg 1 ). Therefore exploration of these boundaries, or the 'critique' aspect, can be thought of as consideration of the inter­connections of all the relevant factors, different perspectives of stakeholder groups, the interactions between the groups involved (including the researchers) and the overall evaluation of potential points of interest within the system (Foote et al , 2007; Midgley, Munlo, &. Brown, 1998, 2007; Ulrich, 1996). This process is un­dertaken prior to the selection of systems methqds to be used, as well as mid intervention, to allow for an appropriate definition of the intervention as well as to avoid superficial diagnoses of issues, which can often result in unnecessary complications during the intervention (Midgley, 2000; Midgley et al., 2007; Ulrich, 1983 ). More details of boundary critique are provided in the next section.

The Mauri Model Decision Making Framework (Morgan, 2006a, 2006b, 2008) incorporates similar processes, with seemingly par­allel goals to boundary critique, in that, as a decision support tool, it provides a framework for practitioners and participant groups to consider and reflect on the views of those groups involved, prompting critical examination of what needs to be included or excluded as well as an exploration of the potential marginalization of people or other factors (Foote et al., 2007). Ulrich (1983) notes the importance of meaningful engagement with affected commu­nities when setting boundaries. This involves providing a 'rational' analysis, rather than allowing external entities to impose bound­aries upon affected communities. The boundaries must have some verification from those within the affected community, with these groups identifying the factors and information that will be of most use, thereby providing validity and rationality to the intervention and boundaries used. Providing more 'rational' boundaries through meaningful engagement, as well as ensuring that the set bound­aries and outcomes have community verification, have been in built into the methodology employed for this study through the use of the Mauri Model, a Kaupapa Maori based community re­search ethos and culturally relevant community engagement meth­ods. A Kaupapa Maori methodology essentially promotes 'research for Maori, by Maori and with Maori' (Smith, 2005), placing Maori communities at the forefront of the intervention and research for­mation.

As . well as considering who should dictate the placement of boundaries, i.e., deciding what information is important and rele­vant to the context, Midgley (2000) and Midgley et al. (2007) state that some stakeholder groups can become marginalized within this process: either not included or not fully included. This can result in the devaluing of factors relevant to the marginalized groups, and can be a contributing factor to misrepresentation of informa­tion as well as problems within the intervention. Maori communi­ties in New Zealand have often been marginalized within research projects in the past, as-is the case with many other indigenous groups globally (Cochran et al., 2008; Midgley et al., 2007: Smith, 1999). With the Mauri Model Decision Maldng Framework being conceptually rooted in an indigenous epistemology, it empowers the indigenous voice within the intervention and decision making process by providing a conceptual framing consistent with their own, as well as providing an equal footing for inclusion and com­parison of culturally and locally relevant factors within the process (Morgan, 2006a, 2006b, 2008).

The results of this assessment of mauri were timely, with the resource consent application being granted in February 2016. With the consent granted, additional conditions have been applied for monitoring, apd ensuring that measures to mitigate potential

Please cite this article as: T.K.K.B. Morgan, T.N. Fa'aui, Empowering indigenous voices in disaster response: Applying the Mauri Model to New Zealand's worst envirorunental maritime disaster, European Journal of Operational Research (2017),

http://~cl_oi.org/10.1016/j:ejor.2017.05.03~- ----- - ----~---

526 r---- - --

~ID: EbR-

---· ---q~·•1;:,Pr~n fi r~ ~ ,ID=Jrs=-~---,-~~~-~ -------· _____ -··- - -----·- l ""-: ": _ _ -' '-'=i...c: 5 .: .. J -- · "_!..':::.:;.? -;;.· ____ --- ---- · [msG;.liiiie6,20f7;20:25

T.K.K.B. Margan, T.N. Fa'aui/Europeanjoumal a/Operational Research 000 (2017) 1- 12 3

contamination from the vessel or trapped . cargo are in place, in­cluding a culturally aligned mauri monitoring programme, which initially proposed (in the consent application) the use of the Mauri Model Decision Maldng Framework as the monitoring mechanism. The Mauri Model Decision Maldng Framework's inclusion has since been challenged, but may need to be used regardless, as no other alternative has at this time been identified.

2. Operational research - boundary critique and the Mauri Model

As mentioned earlier, the process of utilizing the Mauri Model Decision Making Framework (Morgan, 2006a, 2006b), whilst work­ing with a community as the participant group, shares close sim­ilarities to processes associated with the theory of boundary cri­tique. The term 'boundary critique' was first used by Ulrich (1996), drawing on the previous works of Churchman (1970) and Ulrich (1983, 198.7). and was later developed and consolidated by Midgley et al. (1998). A brief summary of boundary critique theory is given here, and for a more detailed examination of the relevant literature see Midgley and Pinzon (2011 ). Boundary critique is the process of exploring the boundaries of the system being studied, as part of a systemic intervention (Midgley, 2000; Midgley et al., 1998, 2007; Ulrich, 1996). Churchman (1970) notes that the placement and identification of boundaries is significant, as it essentially dic­tates what factors are considered as relevant and are the result of subjective and inter-subjective processes in the participating group. Therefore, the boundaries placed within an intervention dictate the problem definition as well as how improvements or denigrations · within the system are to be measured (Churchman, 1970),

Boundary identification is therefore an important consideration regarding a systemic intervention, as depending on what bound­aries are set, how narrow or broad they are, what may have been identified as an improvement in one configuration may rather be viewed as detrimental within another. Churchman (1970) argues that boundaries should be pushed out, to allow for a large amount of relevant information to 'be swept in', therefore providing bound­aries that are as inclusive as possible (Midgley et al., 1998). This idea also opens the possibility of expanding who may be consid­ered as a legitimate decision maker (Churchman, 1970). Building upon Churchman's work, Ulrich (1983) states that, whilst inclu­sivity (i.e., pushing out the boundaries to incorporate the maxi­mum amount of information) is ideal in theory, in practice this process has to be limited. Therefore, a critical issue is how to set boundaries rationally, rather than seeking to be all inclusive. Ulrich (1983,1996) discusses the process of exploring and defin­ing the placement of boundaries within a system through debate and dialogue within and between the affected stakeholder groups, and a boundary is therefore set rationally when it accounts for all relevant perspectives. Ulrich (1983) provides a methodology to support the rational identification of boundaries through dialogue with stakeholders, which is termed Critical Systems Heuristics.

This dialogue aims to ensure that the boundaries of an inter­vention will be both ethical and useful, and they are more likely to be acceptable to stakeholders than those imposed by an exter­nal researcher or authority figure (Ulrich, 1983 ). Ulrich (1996) also notes that, within the context of a Critical Systems Heuristics dia­logical engagement with stakeholders, the input from the affected community (lay people) has just as much validity, if not more, than that provided by 'experts'. This paper suggests that Ulrich's in­sight is especially important in relation to indigenous peoples who maintain place-based identities with long-term knowledge associ­ated with particular locations.

Building on the preceding works of Churchman and Ulrich, Midgley (2000) notes that, while it is important to identify the right boundaries of the system of concern to use, issues of the

marginalization of particular groups or issues also often needs to be addressed. This marginalization can be the result of coriflict­ing boundary judgments between different groups of people, re­sulting from the different values and views regarding the system and problem definition (Midgley· et al., 1998). The marginalized groups or issues are neither fully included in nor excluded from the system, and are subject to "strong labeling and ritual treat­ment" (Foote et al., 2007; Midgley, 2000; Midgley et al., 2007). Midgley et al. (1998) explains further that the marginalized ele­ments are often regarded as 'sacred' or 'profane' by stakeholders, and these terms indicate the valuation or devaluation of these ele­ments respectively. Midgley (2000) argues that, although all identi­fied stak~holders may be actively involved in decisions on bound­ary judgments, there must stiU be consideration of what will be marginalized within the current boundary configuration.

The Mauri Model Decision Maldng Framework presents a lay­ered methodology, incorporating a stakeholder analysis of world­views as well as an assessment of performance indicators (Morgan, 2006a, 2006b, 2008), which seems to reflect the theoretical con­cepts pertinent to boundary critique. Midgley (2000) suggests that interventions informed by the theory of boundary critique most of­ten result in multi-layered interventions, which are customized to the context and employ the mixing of methods in response to the identified boundaries (Foote et al., 2007). Midgley (2000) also im­plies that an intervention informed by boundary critique ls more flexible, adaptable and relevant to the participant communities than many 'off the shelf methods. Whilst the Mauri Model Deci­sion Maldng Framework presents a set structure, and may there­fore be considered an 'off the shelf method, it does not easily fit into this category: although there are set processes included within its methodology, the boundaries and assessment criteria within it are customized for each context, to include and accurately repre­sent the relevant information and factors that matter to the af­fected groups. Just as the Mauri Model Decision Making Frame­work facilitates the evaluation of impacts on both qualitative and quantitative indicators, it can also provide an understanding of the relevance of boundary identification within wicked problem situa­tions.

3. Maori community research

Maori are the indigenous peoples of New Zealand, comprising 17.5% of the nation's population. The density of the Maori popula­tion varies between regions, with Maori being a minority group in larger cities and some areas having Maori as the majority (mainly rural communities). The remaining 82.5% of New Zealand's pop­ulation comprises mainly those of European decent (the majority being descendants of British and European colonists who came to New Zealand in the 1800s), as well as more recent immigrants from Asia, the Pacific and other parts of the world (Statistics New Zealand, 2013 ). Maori identify with iwi (tribal groupings) and hapii (sub-tribal groupings), depending on where in the country they are from, and from whom they are descended.

The epistemologies of indigenous peoples are commonly based on principles of interconnectedness, holism, relevance over long periods of time, inter-generational equity, uniqueness to place and reciprocity (Durie, 2005; Kuokkanen, 2007). Few places in the world still exist where these epistemologies continue to define the dominant reality. Rather, as in the case of New Zealand, Maori have adapted to a colonized societal context where their values and be­liefs, the basis of their identity, and their ways of being have been systematically undermined and. oppressed over more than one and a half centuries. As a result, Maori have, out of necessity, had to develop ways of retaining their values and beliefs while accommo­dating th_e enforced changes associated with destructive coloniza-

Please cite this article as: T.K.K.B. Morgan, T.N. Fa'aui, Empowering indigenous voices in disaster response: Applying the Mauri Model to New Zealand's worst environmental maritime disaster, European Journal of Operational Research (2017), http:/Jdx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.05.030

527 ~ 0 'Y l,(r p f"' llftf r0,rn r~,~rst -·7

_;!c._ ..!''. - ~-""0 ·=°"-~~ - ~ ~ ! .'.':.~- ~..:.~..:.'.c.~ '-- - · ·- - - - . - -· - [m5G;Juiie6~ 2bf7;20:25]

4 T.K.K.B. Morgan, T.N. Fa'aui/Europeanjoumal of Operational Research 000 (2017) 1-12

tion processes, also experienced by indigenous peoples in many other parts of the world.

Similar to most indigenous groups, Maori have their own lan­guage, cultural history and traditions, which can differ slightly be­tween different iwi and hapii groups. Being the indigenous peo­ples within a colonized context, Maori have been the subject of research interest of non-Maori anthropologists and researchers, as is seen with almost all other colonized indigenous groups glob­ally (Geertz, 1983; Midgley et al., 2007). Generations of coloniza­tion and poor treatment from non-Maori researchers of Maori communities as 'objects of inquiry', with uneven relationships of power or benefit from research, has left many Maori communities wary of authority figures, especially those who derive their author­ity from an identity of 'researcher' (Smith, 1999). In response to this attitude seen within past community-based research involving Maori, and coinciding with Maori development over the past four decades, Maori have been developing their own research tradi­tions. The overarching methodological paradigm, termed Kaupapa Maori, has Maori leading these initiatives and studies, recogniz­ing the importance of the researcher's identity as Maori to their work (Bishop, 1996; Smith, 1999). As well as being led by Maori, Kaupapa Maori based research should seek to advance the aspira­tions of the participant communities as well as all Maori in gen­eral, from a methodological base rooted in Maori values, thinking and culture; i.e., the research should come from a uniquely Maori epistemology, compared to a Western epistemology attempting to measure and represent Maori (Mane, 2009).

Kaupapa Maori research views Maori from a holistic perspec­tive, more consistent with a Maori based epistemology, applying this view to both the individual and the collective community (Smith, 1999). Another key characteristic of Kaupapa Maori re­search is that it is carried out using culturally appropriate meth­ods, holding the incorporation of the Maori language and cul­tural values as integral components of successful implementa­tion and development of the methodology (Bishop & Glynn, 1999; Mane, 2009; Smith. 1999). This uniquely Maori research method­ology addresses concerns harbored by Maori in the past regard­ing community-based research projects, which are concerns shared with other indigenous groups globally: who benefits from the re­search? And is traditional knowledge being represented accurately, within its original context (Bishop & Glynn, 1999; Cochran et al., 2008)7 These concerns can be quelled when considering Irwin's (1994) description of a Kaupapa Maori research model, provided by Cunningham (1999): " .. . research which is culturally safe, which involves the mentorship of kaumatua (elders), which is culturally relevant and appropriate, while satisfying the rigor of research, and which is undertaken by a Maori researcher, not a researcher who happens to be Maori" (Pg 67); or, more succinctly, remov­ing the formalized western academic allusion, described simply as: research by Maori, for Maori and with Maori (Smith, 1995, 1999; Walker, £ketone, & Gibbs, 2006). With discourse regarding Kau­papa Maori approaches being held mainly within the academic realm, there must be constant reassertions and actions to develop and grow the methodology from the Maori world as a collective, especially including the community voice: i.e., those at the grass roots, living and experiencing these issues and impacts being stud­ied (Smith, 1999, 2005; Mane, 2009). This iterative and reciprocal relationship between researcher and participants within Kaupapa Maori methodology is essential to its success and building of ca­pacity, as both researchers and Maori communities need to confi­dently contribute to this discourse.

Jt is within this Kaupapa Maori based context that the research team collaborated with a Rena affected iwi group, Te Arawa ki Tai (the coastal branch of Te Arawa, based in Maketii) to assess the impacts of the Rena disaster, and to inform the decision making process regarding the future of Otaiti.

Table 1 Wellbeing criteria and mauri dimension equivalent (Morgan and Te Aho, 2013 ).

Well-being criterion

Environmental wellbeing Cultural wellbeing Social wellbeing Economic wellbeing

Mauri dimension equivalent

Mauri of ecosystem Mauri of hapii/Iwi Mauri of community Mauri of whanau (family unit)

4. The Mauri Model Decision Malting Framework

A more holistic and inclusive way to understand · the world, compared with just monetary terms, exists in Maori communities (Morgan, 2006a). Firth (1929) observed more than 85 years ago that mauri appeared to be the economic currency of traditional Maori society. Mauri is the binding force between the physical and everything else that makes life possible. It is the life supporting capacity within a thing or collection of things such as an ecosys­tem. The concept can be likened to gravity: while it may not be observable directly, it explains observable phenomena, being the force that, when sufficiently diminished or denigrated, defines the loss of potential to support life, or the difference between life and death.

The Mauri Model Decision Making Framework combines a stakeholder worldview analysis with an indicator assessment to determine the absolute sustainability of the scenario, option or de­cision being assessed, using the Maori concept of mauri as the base metric (Morgan, 2006a, 2008). Mauri can be defined as a life force; the force which binds the physical to the spiritual, or the capac­ity to support life, having similarities with other concepts such as qi, chi or ki in parts of Asia (Mak & So, 2014) and mauli, maoli or moui in parts of the Pacific (Best, 1934). This concept of mauri can be used to explain the well-being and potential of phenomena with physical and/or metaphysical characteristics. The capability to measure both physical quantities and metaphysical qualities allows for a widely inclusive range of sustainability indicators that better reflects the defined physical, cultural, psychological and spiritual realities of indigenous peoples than most Western sustainability indicators. The Mauri Model Decision Making Framework is unique as it provides a template within which indigenous values are ex­plicitly empowered alongside scientific data.

Within this framework, mauri, the measure of sustainability, has four constituent dimensions: the mauri of the ecosystem, the mauri of the hapii (sub-tribal grouping), the mauri of the com­munity (non-culturally based community aspects) and the 11Jauri of the whanau (family unit). These four mauri dimensions mir­ror traditional triple bottom line thinking: environmental, or the mauri of the ecosystem; social, or the mauri of the community; and economic, or the mauri of the whanau. A fourth dimension, cultural well-being (aligned with the mauri of the hapii), is also added, as within New Zealand the indigenous peoples have cer­tain rights and considerations afforded to them legally through The 1840 Treaty of Waitangi, New Zealand's founding document. These four mauri dimensions also reflect the well-beings set out in Part 2, Section 5 of New Zealand's Resource Management Act (1991 ), which has the purpose of the legislation "promoting sustainable management of natural and physical resources ... in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being" (Ministry for the Envi­ronment, 1991 ). The alignments between these well-beings and the dimensions of mauri are shown in Table 1.

4.1. Stakeholder worldview quantification

The worldview quantification within the Mauri Model Deci­sion Malting Framework uses a modified version of Saaty's (1980)

Please cite this article as: T.ICICB. Morgan, T.N. Fa'arn, Empowering indigenous voices in disaster response: Applying the Mauri Model to New Zealand's worst environmental maritime disaster, European Journal of Operational Research (2017),

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.05.030

528 i.~.-rmrO(t'.[r[ C JfJ ~!_~l?~~~~ ------- - - - -~

- · -------- - ------- -- · · =--- ··- -·-· - ·- • --- - - --~----- ---- -- Tm5G;June6; 2011;20:25]

T.K./CB. Morgan, T.N. Fa'aui/European]oumal o/Operotional Research 000 (2017) 1-12 5

Extremely less Strongly less Moderately less Of equal Moderately more Strongly more Extremely more important important important important importance important important

+2 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +3

Fig. 2. Pairwise comparison scale (analytical hierarchy process) used in Mauri Model.

Table 2 Analytical hierarchy process example.

Stakeholder Environmental Cultural Social Economic ~row

Environmental 0 a Cultural -a 0 Social -b -x Economic -c -y

Table 3 Analytical hierarchy process calculation example.

Stakeholder Environmental Cultural Social

Environmental 0 0 2 Cultural -0 0 2 Social -2 -2 0 Economic -3 -3 -2

Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). The AHP is a multi-criteria de­cision making approach, within which factors of importance are ar­ranged in a hierarchal structure. This tool utilizes a pairwise com­parison of these arranged factors, using a scale of 1/7th to 7, pivot­ing about 1, to determine the relative importance of the selected criterion (Saaty, 1980, 1990). The Mauri Model Decision Making Framework utilizes a simplified version of this process (Fig, 2), pre­senting a pairwise comparison of the Mauri Model's four mauri di­mensions, to determine the priority given to each mauri dimension relative to the others, for a particular stakeholder.

An example Mauri Model AHP matrix is given in Table 2. Each cell is scored by comparing the importance of the cell's corre­sponding column dimension, to the importance of the cell's cor­responding row dimension, using the pairwise comparison scale. Due to the layout and order of dimensions being compared, each dimension will essentially be compared twice, with different refer­ence points. Therefore each comparison scored is the inverse of its corresponding opposite comparison, as shown in Table 2.

The outcomes of this matrix can be further processed to better interpret the outcomes and understand the relative importance of each dimension. This is achieved through a normalization process of the sum row totals, by adding nine to the sum score. This nor­malization transforms all the sum totals of each row, correspond­ing to each dimension, into a non-negative integer. With all the dimensional totals from the AHP normalized, weightings for the mauri dimensions can then be calculated by dividing by 36 (as the total of the normalized scores will always be 36, due to the in­verse scoring in the dimension comparison matrix, and then the normalization process) (see Tables 2 and 3). The weighting can also be converted into a percentage, by multiplying the weighting score by 100.

On their own, these scores can highlight the areas of high and low importance for a particular stakeholder, potentially explain­ing the reasoning behind certain observed actions, reactions and stances taken. This could be considered to be a reductionist in­terpretation of the stakeholder's entire worldview, attempting to encapsulate and represent the worldview of a particular group in terms of the four mauri dimensions. However, without modeling of this kind, an attempt to accurately map and represent the sub­tleties of the entire worldview of a particular stakeholder group would be very difficult to achieve in a way that facilitates compar-

b C

X y 0 z -z 0

Economic ~row

3 3 2 0

5 5 -2 -8

Denigrating -1

Mauriheke

Deslroycd -2

Mauri noho / moe

a+b+c -a+x+y -b+(-x)+z -c+(-Y)+(-z)

+9

14 14 7 1 36

% weighting

14/36'100 = 38.9% 14/36'100 = 38.9% 7 /36'100 = 19.4% 1/36'100=2.8% 100

Maintaining 0

Enhancing +1

Mawipiki

Restored +2

Fig. 3. Mauri meter for perfonnance indicator assessment (Morgan and Te Aho, 2013).

isons between stakeholders and better mutual understanding (see. Cronin, Midgley, & Skuba Jackson, 2014, for another example of modeling priorities between values that facilitates improved mu­tual understanding). Therefore, within the confines of the Mauri Model Decision Making Framework, the representation and assess­ment of stakeholder worldviews provides a relatively simple mea­sure of the priority placed on the four mauri dimensions, so each stakeholder can easily see how others view sustainability. This numerical representation of a stakeholder's worldview provides a useful Jens to review the outcomes of the aggregated mauri me­ter indicator assessment for each dimension, showing the effect that individual perceptions can have on perceived individual stake­holder impacts.

4.2. Mauri meter indicator assessment

The Mauri Model Decision Making Framework uses an indicator assessment to evaluate the sustainability or impacts of a particu­lar option, scenario or decision in terms of mauri. This i~ achieved by deciding on a set of indicators for each mauri dimension, which can be considered as influencing factors contributing to the mauri of that particular dimension. Once indicator sets have been com­piled for each mauri dimension, each of the different scenarios is scored using the Mauri Meter (Fig. 3). The score given for each in­dicator reflects the mauri impact of the scenario being tested on that particular indicator. These indicator scores are averaged within each dimension to give the sustainability in terms of the Mauri Meter for each of the four mauri dimensions (see Table 4).

Please cite this article as: T.K.K.B. Morgan, ltN. Fa'aui, Empowering indigenous voices in disaster response: Applying the Mauri Model to New Zealand's worst enviroomenral maritime disaster, European Journal of Operational Research (2017),

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.05.Q30

529 [- - - - .

JID: E"OR- -- - - --- - ---;.i_l~t'[ltelU~ O[~_]'[~lf?~~~"" -- - - - l

- --- - · - - ·- - - - - - ·- · - - -- · · - - - ·-- · --· -· - -- - - --·- ·---- · -- ·[msG;June6~ 2011;20,2sl

6 T.K.K.B. Morgan, T.N. Fa'aui/Europeanjoumal of Operational Research 000 (2017) 1-12

Full -2

Table 4 Performance indicator scoring example.

Ecosystem mauri/Environmental wellbeing

Indicator Mauri meter score

ENVl Xl ENV2 X2 ENV3 X3 ENVn Xn

Ecosystem mauri, MENVJRONMoo= "I:.Xn/n (which is then repeated for the other dimensions). Overall mauri (equally weighted) M=

(MENVJRONMENT + McuLTIJRAL + M,coNOMJC + MsOOAL)/4

Impact t,1pon mauri

No impact 0

Partial +1

Full +2

Fig. 4 . Mauri Model decision tree (Morgan, SardeUc, & Warelinl, 2012).

Table 5 Sensitivity analysis, using AHP calculated weightings.

With the dimensional weigh_lings, WoiMENSJON weightings.

Dimension

Ecosystem mauri Hapii mauri Community mauri Whanau mauri

Weighting

WEN\/JRONMENT WcuLTIJRAL WsOCIAL W,coNOMIC

World view weighted ecosystem mauri dimension score, M'ENVJRONMENT = M£N\/JRONMENl'.w£N\/JRONMoo. World view weighted Overall mauri score M' = M' NVIR0NMEITT + M'cuLTIJRAL +M'soa& +M',coNOMJC,

The Mami meter is used to determine the overall sustainability rating of each option being evaluated against a given mauri dimen­sion. It uses a five point integer Likert scale, indicating possible states of mauri representing a neutral impact ('O'), partial impacts ('-1' or '+1') or full impacts ('-2' or '+2') (Fig. 4). The result is four overall ratings of the mauri of each decision maldng option being evaluated; one for each of the mauri dimensions.

The dimensional mauri scores can then be multiplied by a weighting, with the default being evenly weighted (25% across all four dimensions), representing the legally consistent position of equally important well-beings. The scoring conditions, dictat­ing what can be appropriated as neutral, partial or full mauri im­pact, are also defined for each indicator as a set of thresholds. These ensure the repeatability of scoring and remove any un­certainty in the scoring of the indicators. The weightings gained from the worldview quantification can be used to perform a sen­sitivity analysis of the indicator assessment, replacing the default equal weightings with the defined weightings from the AHP (see Table 5). The sensitivity analysis applies the lens of the stakehold­ers of interest and can aid in facilitating inter-stakeholder com­munication, especially in adversarial relationships, providing some understanding and background to particular stances taken and the options/decisions supported.

5. Woddng with Te Arawa Id Tai

The basis of this stu'dy was an assessment of the impacts of the Rena disaster from an indigenous perspective. The unique cultural

factors present within this context have provided an opportunity to assess the impacts of this disaster using an indigenous-based methodology (Kaupapa Maori), with an indigenous-based decision support tool (the Mauri Model Decision Malting Framework) as its platform, in conjunction with a partnership relationship with the tribal groups of the Rena-impacted regions. This kind of partner­ship approach is in line with the thinldng of Midgley, Johnson, and Chichirau (2017), who say that the meaningful engagement of the community is essential if a project is to legitimately be con­sidered as Community OR. The approach was designed to ensure that the indigenous voice within this disaster context would be accurately represented, ensuring the ethos of Kaupapa Maori re­search traditions was upheld: "research for Maori, by Maori and with Maori" (Smith, 1999). This was facilitated through two of the three research team members sharing whakapapa (genealog­ical links) with some of the affected iwi, as well as the third re­searcher being Maori, but without genealogical links to any of the impacted iwi (tribes). It is well !mown in Kaupapa Maori research circles that whakapapa enables the establishment of trust by the community, as people will generally assume that someone who is related to them as part of a large extended family is more likely to act with integrity than someone who is not a relative. The ge­nealogical links between the researchers and participant communi­ties provided a catalyst for the formati'on of a working relationship, and meaningful participation was enhanced by the fact that the re­search team was able to understand and comprehend the types of issues that would arise within this context that would be unique to the iwi of the affected region.

In March 2012, a 'cultural framework workshop' was held with representatives from iwi within the five Rena impacted areas (Matakana Island, Miititi, Maketii, Mauao/Papamoa and Eastcape) to potentially form a unified iwi response and submission regard­ing The 2012 Rena Long Term Environmental Recovery Plan and the proposed recovery processes ahead, with the Mauri Model be­ing used as the basis for the representation of experienced im­pacts (Morgan, 2012). This workshop ended up being the first 'of­ficial forum' in the five months following the disaster that some of the iwi had been given to share their grievances and experiences of the disaster and recovery processes. There was an overwhelm0

ing response from the iwi that there were feelings of exclusion within their communities, or inefficient communication from au­thorities regarding the decision making process following the dis­aster. Therefore that initial workshop had the unforeseen effect of facilitating the start of the healing process for some of these com­munities. Following this workshop, all attending iwi were inter­ested in pursuing a unified approach regarding the recovery using the presented Mauri Model met)10dology. However, due to changes in the project funding arrangements and political tensions, only an iwi from Maketii, Te Arawa ld Tai, continued to participate in this research.

Te Arawa have historical links to Otaiti, the reef which the Rena ran aground on, tracing a cultural and spiritual connection back to when it was first discovered and named. In Nga.ti Whakaue (a sub tribe of Te Arawa) oral traditions, towards the end of the tribe's waka (canoe) journey migrating from Hawaiki (the Maori ancestral homeland), when they were rowing along the east coast of the North Island, the travel-weary Te Arawa people sought a moment of respite on a reef, close to Miitifi Island. Sensing his people's fatigue, the great tohunga (priest) Ngatoroirangi recited a karalda (incantation) imploring the gods to give his people strength to complete their voyage. Immediately, schools of different fish species were seen just below the water's surface. This sight was taken to be a good omen by those on board, giving them the nec­essary motivation to complete their journey. In commemoration of this event, Ngatoroirangi named the reef 'Te taunga o ta iti o nga tangata' or 'the resting place of the people', which is now short-

Please cite this article as: T.K.J<.B. Morgan, T.N. Fa'aui, Empowering indigenous voices in disaster response: Applying the Mauri Model to New Zealand's worst environmental maritime disaster, European Journal of Operational Research (2017),

http://ax.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.05.030 _______ __ _ ___________ _ _ __ __J

~ --- - ________ ~i\[R?lf_~_l](t;[i~ [][I~ _ lY,: R<_J~::?S ___ _ _ JID7 EbR·- ·- -- - -- - - - --- -- - - - - - - - - --- -

·- -- - - ··- - -- 530

T.K.K.B. Morgan, T.N. Fa'aui/Eurapean Journal of Operational Research 000 (2017) 1-12 7

Establish relationship with participant group

l Hold meetings and workshops with group

l Identify indicators within Mauri Model

l I Iterative process I Identify key impacts of the plan for the ReAa using the indicators

l Incorporate indicators and impacts into Mauri Model Decision Making Framework

l Conduct Mauri Meter assessment for identified time periods

l Finalise inputs for Mauri Model Decision Making Framework assessment

Fig. 5, Simplified overview of Mauri Model decision making framework assessment process.

ened to Otaiti (Te Riinanga o Ngati Whakaue Id Maketii, 2015). Other iwi in the surrounding area also have their own oral tra­ditions regarding Otaiti, being prized for its physical characteris­tics: providing an important fishing ground, as well as being con­sidered an important gateway to the 'spiritual realm' of the gods. It is because of the event associated with its naming that Otaiti is said to be imbued with the mana (prestige or spiritual power) of Ngatoroirangi, thus holding an important position as a wahi tapu (sacred site), as well as being a place of practical use, providing marine food species for sustenance.

A participatory action research based methodology was used to work with Te Arawa Id Tai to identify the relevant impacts and how these directly affected the mauri of the iwi. The spedfic pro­cess used was adapted from the methodology used by Morgan (2008) to assess the impacts and implications of the 2007 Bay of Plenty spatial plan's management of wastewater (Environment Bay of Plenty, 2007). The methodology uses a combination of work­shops, community hui (meetings) and GIS techniques to gather the relevant local and traditional knowledge, and assess the direct im­pacts upon the mauri of a given area, identifying particular areas of importance. The methodology employed in this context was al­tered from the 2007 version where necessary due to difference in contexts and different lnput variables. The flow chart above (see Fig. S) gives an overview of the process used by the researchers when working with Te Arawa Id Tai.

The establishment of a partnership with the participant group was an important aspect of the process, as it defined the roles and expectations of all who were involved; the participants and research_ers alike. One of the first actions as part of this research project in January, 2013, was to charter a launch vessel to take the participant group to the wreck site. This was significant, as it was the first time that any iwi were allowed within the exclusion zone to visit the Otaiti, as the early recovery stages were still underway. Also, this allowed the kaumatua (elders) to recite the appropriate karalda (incantations/prayers) associated with Otaiti, in order for the spiritual recovery of the reef and iwi to begin. This first post Rena visit to the reef provided the necessary cultural and spiritual platform for which the research and work could be completed with the participant iwi group.

With this relationship established, several meetings were held with Te Arawa ki Tai in the following year. These meetings con­sisted of reviewing the previous meetings findings and outcomes, discussing newly gained information regarding the wredc and re­covery, and identifying the key inputs to be used for the Mauri Model impact assessment of the disaster. The researchers uti­lized a 'top dowri, bottom up' (Reed, Fraser, & Dougill, 2006) ap- · preach, where information would be generated in these meetings by the participants, with contributions from the researchers. Pre­liminary inputs for the assessment would be discussed (perfor­mance indicators, key impacts experienced, important sites and the time periods for assessment) and the researchers would take the generated information, process it and conduct a prelimi­nary assessment of the impacts, with expertize gained from pre­vious experience with using the Mauri Model in similar con­texts (Morgan 2006a, 200Gb, 2008; Hikuroa, Slade, & Gravley, 2010). The meetings were set up and hosted by the participant group, most often at a marae (traditional Maori communal com­plex), following the established tikanga ( cultural protocols) of that place. Karalda (incantations/prayers), whaikorero (formal speeches) and waiata (song) were incorporated within these meetings, fol­lowing appropriate kawa (marae protocols). From a Maori per­spective, these practices ensured the spiritual integrity of the all participants, as well as the research being conducted, was upheld.

Spiritual and cultural integrity has been at the forefront of all of the work being done with the participant group. These meet­ings provided participants with an opportunity to contribute to the research, through the sharing of their knowledge, experiences and opinions regarding the disaster, its impacts and the recovery pro­cess. The active inclusion of the Te Arawa ki Tai participants, effec­tively as leaders and partners within the research helped to ensure meaningful participation. A key objective of these meetings was to generate discussion regarding the impacts of the disaster, incorpo­rating the local and traditional knowledge of the Te Arawa Id Tai participants, to compile performance indicator sets which would dictate how assessments would be undertaken for each mauri di­mension.

Please cite this artide as: T.K.K.B. Morgan, T.N. Fa'aui, Empowering indigenous voices in disaster response: Applying the Mauri Model to New Zealand's worst environmental maritime disaster, European Journal of Operational Research (2017),

_http://~doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.20l7.05.030

531 r D---EOR -- ___________ _______ /~_i_Dfl~•C<I:'.l~f'._0~ 10f~.l~ ----- ---------- ----------_ 2 .. 71 './Tl : lm5G;June 6, 2017; 0:25

T.K.K.B. Morgan, T.N. Fa'aui/Europeanjoumal a/Operational Research 000 (2017) 1-12

A technique used to facilitate the identification of impacts and Te Arawa ki Tai specific factors, was a G!S based technique, 'cul­tural mapping' or 'cultural opportunity mapping' (Tipa and Nelson, 2008). This process used large printed maps (A3- A2 size) of the disaster affected areas, upon which participants marked out areas of cultural significance directly on the map. This tool provided a vi­sual prompt to facilitate discussion and visualization of the impacts experienced, as well providing a tangible sense of scale. Informa­tion from these exercises and the general meeting discussions were recorded on flip charts, directly onto the printed regional maps and in notes taken by the researchers. Once the indicator sets had been brain-stormed, discussed and chosen, they were also further revised by the researchers to ensure that relevance to the decided scope was maintained. Once the revisions had been presented back to the community and agreed, the indicator sets were used to con­duct a Mauri Meter assessment of the plan for the Rena, using the available data to score the impacts using the indicators. The re­sults of the assessment were circulated to the participant group and discussed during the next meeting. Presenting the updated work back to the participants provided an opportunity for them to provide feedback on what inputs were included and what did not accurately reflect their understanding of the context. This dia­logue also provided the opportunity for the researchers to explain and share their thoughts on the current iteration of the assessment and information used, allowing for a shared understanding and a gradual growth of both the researchers' and participants' under­standing. The sharing of lrnowledge between the researchers and participants was especially effective as the participants, being tan­gata taketake (indigenous people), provided the expert insights and interpretations on the cultural and localized impacts, while the re­searchers provided the expertize regarding the analysis of informa­tion and use of the decision support tools.

6. Outcomes

The process of conducting meetings, workshops and prelimi­nary Mauri Model Decision Making Framework assessments with Te Arawa Id Tai was an iterative process, constantly improving on the previous input variables for the Mauri Model and updating and including any new information that had been made available or gained regarding the recovery, always encouraging and allow­ing for open dialogue between participants within a culturally ap­propriate setting. Through this process, a preliminary set of input variables were used to conduct an assessment of the post Rena impacts during the first year, seen in relation to a 100 year ret­rospective assessment of the pre-Rena mauri (Fa'aui and Morgan, 2014; Morgan, Manuel, & Fa'aui, 2013). The retrospective analysis was used to identify the pre-Rena state, as defined as the Ministry for the Environment's goal for the recovery process, to be used as the baseline to compare the post-Rena impacts. Continuing to fol­low the iterative methodology established, the input variables were again revised and updated, reflecting the dynamic and uncertain nature of the research context. The final indicator set and input variables were decided upon in 2015, almost four years after the disaster (Fa'aui, Morgan, & Hikuroa, 2017). The updated variables therefore required an updated analysis of the 100 year retrospec­tive mauri assessment of the impacted region, which identified the pre-Rena state as +0.48 on the Mauri Meter, indicating that the mauri of the Rena affected area, prior to the disaster, was in a sus­tainable state. The post Rena impacts assessment was also updated using the finalized indicator set and the timeline extended to cover the four year period post disaster from October 2011 - 0ctober 2015 (see Fig. 7). The worldview analysis results for _Te Arawa ki Tai are also presented below, which were calculated following the process outlined in Tables 2 and 3.

Te Arrawa ki Tao

• Environmental Cultural • Social Economic

Fig. 6. Outcomes of worldview quantification for Te Arawa ki Tai.

From the data collected during the meetings and workshops with Te Arawa ki Tai, and from the resource consent application prqcess, the Mauri Model Decision Making Framework's process was completed and their worldvlew was calculated, in terms of the mauri dimensions (Fig. 6). The two dimensions of highest con­cern were the mauri of the ecosystem ( 42%) and the mauri of Te Arawa Id Tai (33%). This standing is not consistent with all the iwi within the affected area, some of whom said that the mauri of the hapii, or the cultural considerations within this context, were of the highest importance). These differences in the iwi worldviews have affected their position regarding the application by the Rena's owners for a resource consent to leave the remnants of the Rena on Otaiti, following the required recovery. Te Arawa ki Tai and Motiti based Te Kahui Kaumatua o Te Patuwai, have determined that the mauri of Otaiti can be regenerated, with the remnants .of the Rena left in place, and were therefore in support of the re­source consent, looking for other avenues to recuperate the mauri of Otaiti and the surrounding area (Ranapia, 2015). Other iwi have likewise determined that, whilst the Rena is on Otaiti, with the possibility of future contamination its mauri can never be recov­ered, deeming the only fit solution is for the wreck to be removed in its entirety. These iwi were in opposition to the resource con­sent (Smallman, 2015; Te Riinanga o Ngati Awa, 2014; Te Riinanga o Ngai te Rangi, 2015).

Te Arawa ki Tai initially had the_ same mindset as the iwi look­ing to oppose the resource consent, but through direct consulta­tion with the Rena's owners, insurers and the process of work­ing with the researchers, saw that the most beneficial outcome in this instance required the resource consent to be given. The re­source consent covers ten years of potential contaminant releases, but also incorporates monitoring plans, both for the environmen­tal aspects, as well for the cultural aspects (Bay of Plenty Regional Council, 2016). These provisions within the resource consent pro­vide the best possible outcome, in the eyes of Te Arawa ki Tai. The Bay of Plenty Regional Council, as the consenting body, do not have the power to order full removal of the Rena from Otaiti. Therefore, Te Arawa Id Tai have identified (through the process of using the Mauri Model Decision Making Frameworl<) other Rena-impacted factors that can be enhanced, regardless of the continuing contam­inant releases, thereby improving mauri despite the legacy of the wreck.

Using the indicator sets developed with the Te Arawa Id Tai participants, the mauri of the Rena-affected environment was

Please cite this article as: T.K.K.B. Morgan, T.N. Fa'aui, Empowering indigenous voices in disaster response: Applying the Mauri Model to New Zealand's worst environmental maritime disaster, European Journal of Operational Research (2017), http:/Jdx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.05.030 _ _ ____ ___ _____ ___ _ ______ _ _________ H _ _ _ ___ _ ,

532 ti\R:.7/ G©l@ l~~J~<l~°J~ _______ ------·--

·rmsG;Juiie-6: 2oi1;20,2s1

T.K.K.B. Morgan, T.N. Fa'aui/Europeanjaumal of Operational Research 000 (2017) 1- 12 9

Mauri impacts October 2011 • Ocotber 2015 2.00 ·--· - ·---- -·- - ------.. - •-----,·--·---------------

1.50 ------------- - ---- ---- -

1.00 ·-----~

0.50 ----------------------- ... ----------·---·------- -------- Z -

-2.00 ---------- - - --- - - - - -------- Ecosystun maurt (Envlronm,nt.l)

--Wh•naum,uri (Economic} --o.,uall~taurl

.- H~pumauri (CUIW~I} Community mwri (Soda!)

----- Pre-rtn1 stat@

Fig. 7. Mauri Model decision making framework assessments, showing overall im­pact upon mauri October 2011-2015.

measured across a four year period, in three month intervals. The dashed line in Fig. 7 shows the previously determined pre­Rena state, which is the goal state for the recovery as outlined in the Rena Long Term Environmental Recovery Plan. The black solid line shows the overall mauri across the assessed time pe­riod, the equally weighted average of the four mauri dimensions (which are also shown on the graph). In October 2015, the over­all rnauri pushed above the pre-Rena state, indkating that at that time the environment had actually been enhancing (see Fig. 3 for Mauri Meter scoring).

However, it is not sufficient to consider only the current mauri: there must be some consideration of the cumulative impacts expe­rienced across the assessed time period. An estimation of the cu­mulative effects can be calculated by finding the area between the overall mauri curve and the time axis, with areas above the time axis being positive and areas below being negative. In this case, as the pre-Rena state was set as the baseline, cumulative effects with reference to this pre-Rena state should be considered rather than the default setting with the mauri meter score axis at 'O'. For restoration to this pre-Rena state to occur, there must be an equiv­alent amount of cumulative mauri effects, equal to or above the pre-Rena state line i.e., there must be a net equivalence or s·urplus of area that is above the pre-Rena.

The process of using the Mauri Model Decision Maldng Frame­work has helped Te Arawa ki Tai to identify areas where it is possible to make some meaningful progress towards furthering their iwi's aspirations regarding the recovery and the future of Ota.iti. Looking at the individual dimensional mauri impacts, .it is clear that the most negatively affected dimension is the mauri of Te Arawa ( cultural wellbeing). There is an opportunity to en­hance other culturally affected aspects; i.e., look for opportunities to enhance the other performance indicators within the resource consent process. The diminishment of mauri due to the presence of the Rena on Otaiti could be 'offset' with the enhancement of mauri using other key performance indicators. Enhancing the cul­tural dimension would provide the greatest increase in the over­all mauri, as it is the lowest. There are some 'simple' enhance­ments to cultural wellbeing that could be contemplated (although these are simple in theory, but more difficult to implement in prac­tice), such as recognition by the statutory authorities of traditional roles as kaitiaki (guardian or custodian) of the affected environ­ment, and/or the effective involvement of tangata whenua (local iwi) within future decision making processes regarding the envi­ronment.

7. Reflections

The !Caupapa Maori based methodology utilized in this process provided an avenue where the participants were considered more as partners within the research than people who were merely be­ing involved in a practitioner-led OR project. The idea of working 'with' the community, rather than 'on' the community has been a major part of the methodology, as seen in the 'top down, bottom up' approach, and the iterative process of utilizing each parties' strengths within the research context. Overall, the systemic inter­vention resulted in positive outcomes, with the participant group having a sense of ownership and active contribution to this re­search, heavily influencing key aspects of the model's formation and assessment. The resultant co-dependent relationship, between researchers and participants, has provided a meaningful outcome for the participant group who have gone on to successfully pursue their iwi's interests with the Rena's owners regarding the mauri of the reef and their iwi, using the Model as part of their own sub­missions regarding the resource consent to leave the remnants of the wreck on the reef. With the research team being Maori, with shared whakapapa with the participant group, there was an extra motivation to produce meaningful outcomes, both within the re­search a_nd for the community also:

"What I was most impressed with was how the process en­sures a meaningful linlc between the researchers and ahikaroa (iwi with long undisturbed occupation of land) . . . that conver­gence between the academics and those at the 'grass roots' is important for gaining a better understanding of what the com­munities are experiencing, and the capacity of the community is actually increased also." (Comment from Te Arawa participant at research findings seminar Morgan et al., 2015).

The process of working through the relevant issues with the participants to identify and place the relevant boundaries within the intervention, through the compilation of the performance indi­cator sets, was incorporated within a culturally familiar setting fa­cilitating the generation of valuable and relevant information. With the use of mauri as the metric (an indigenous concept that en­compasses the tangible and intangible), researchers and partici­pants were able to consider both qualitative factors (the majority of the cultural aspects) and quantitative factors of the disaster or perceived impacts, side by side. This ability to consider and ade­quately represent both the 'soft' and 'hard' has allowed for a holis­tic assessment of the disaster. The incorporation of both qualita­tive and quantitative data allows for a representation of the expe­rienced impacts in a way that is understandable to all parties, both 'experts' and lay alike, from all epistemological backgrounds:

'There was an immediate connection and understanding ( of the Mauri Model) . .. it accurately and appropriately expresses cul­tural values in a way that scientists can understand and vice­versa. So the story it tells is a story grown from the tangata whenua experiences, and it can be expressed in a way that ev­eryone understands." (Comment from Te Arawa participant at research findings seminar Morgan et al., 2015)

It must be said that the relationship the research team has built with Te Arawa, born out of the successful outcomes of the project, was not initially foreseen or intended. The ideal situation for this research was to have all the impacted iwi involved as research par­ticipants, thereby having a broad representation of the different iwi experiences and worldviews directly influencing the interven­tion and impact assessment of the disaster and its associated ef­fects. However, due to a myriad of political pressures, changes in funding, internal conflicts within iwi and the dynamic conditions accompanying a disaster of this complexity, there was little inter­est in joining the study at the time of commencement from iwi

Please cite this article as: T.K.K.B. Morgan, T.N. Fa'aui, Empowering indigenous voices in disaster response: Applying the Mauri Model to New Zealand:s worst environmental maritime disaster, :European Journal of Operational Research (2017),

http://dx.doi.org/10.l016/j.ejor.20l7.05.030

533 -7 [m5G;June o, 2017;20:25)

10 IK.K.B. Morgan, IN. Fa'aui/Europeanjoumal of Operational Research 000 (2017) 1- 12

other than Te Arawa ki tai. This was in stark contrast to the inter­est shown in the initial cultural framing workshop held following the disaster, with the majority of the attendees wishing to partic­ipate in a unified response. Therefore the researchers knew that there was at least a seed of interest somewhere within these other iwi that perhaps did not have a chance to germinate within the turbulent circumstances in the months following the workshop. The initial interest from the other iwi prompted Morgan and Fa'aui (2013) to launch a digitized version of the Mauri Model, mau­riometer.com, a free-to-use web-based version of the framework that would allow people to undertake their own (simplified) as­sessments. The intent was for those who were not currently partic­ipating in the research, but were interested, to conduct their own assessments and 'try it out', with the possibility of including these other participants and iwi within the study at a later stage.

With the resource consent to leave the remnants of the Rena wreck on Otaiti being granted in February 2016, there may be an opportunity to make attempts again to include the other iwi within this research. The methods used to form the intervention and its boundaries can be directly adapted for use within these other communities: the process used with Te Arawa for identifying relevant boundary conditions, which are essentially the assessment criteria, can be directly used without much modification. Many of the previously identified Te Arawa indicators would most likely be relevant to the other iwis' views on the impacts and appropriate boundaries. Also their different worldviews can be accounted for and represented with the AHP process, and directly compared us­ing the sensitivity analysis of the results. The challenge in this in­stance would be to gain a consensus on the use of a single set of indicators, and the thresholds for scoring used in the assessments. It would also be a challenge to get representatives from multiple iwi together at this late stage, as it is approaching five years fol­lowing the disaster, and stakeholder 'burnout' regarding anything pertaining to the Rena is a likely scenario, especially with many iwi seeing the resource consent outcome as unfavorable, so they are generally dissatisfied with the present course of action being pursued by those managing the wreck.

7.1. Framework applications and recognition

Assessed against the OECD BellagioSTAMP process (Pinter, Hardi, Martinuzzi, & Hall, 2012), and singled out from a short­list of internationally recognized sustainability indicator sets, the Mauri Model Decision Making Framework is the only approach considered relevant regardless of the community it is applied within (Challenger, 2013). The Mauri Model is holistic and cultur­ally derived (Berkett et al., 2013 }, having a matauranga Mami (tra­ditional Maori knowledge) conceptual basis. It has now been in use for more than a decade, taught since 2009 as an Engineering post­graduate elective and introduced as a core curriculum component in 2015 in Part II of the BE(hons) at the University of Auckland. The Mauri Model Decision Making Framework has also been acknowl­edged by the Institution of ·professional Engineers NZ through a Furkert award for sustainability and green technologies in 2016, meaning that it has been judged to represent "supreme technical excellence".

Known for a millennia within Polynesia, and having resonance with Asian continental epistemologies (Mak & So, 2014), mauri has now been incorporated as a measure for environmental re­porting in New Zealand. The Environmental Reporting Act 2015 (Ministry for the Environment, 2015) provides for te ao Maori (the Maori world} to be an impact category to ensure synthesis and domain reports are informed by a Maori perspective. Mauri is expected to become better understood, as the understanding of mauri presently could be likened to the understanding of grav­ity prior to Newton's Principia Mathematica (Whitehead & Russell,

1962). Mauri is the foundation principle of the Mauri Model, thus enhanced understanding of how mauri is measured provides in­sights into how it can be better measured into the future, which is fundamentally important to more fully understanding the global survival of humanity. .

The Mauri Model Decision Making Framework allows Indige­nous peoples to contribute understanding based on their own knowledge so that they can be effectively included in resource management decision making processes. The Framework adds a strengthened decision making context due to its ability to incor­porate culturally relevant knowledge seamlessly alongside scien­tific understandings of a situation, incorporating both quantitative and qualitative data consistently into the same assessment. When mauri is defined as the life supporting capacity of the air, water and soil, the theoretical basis is created for relevance in terms of New Zealand law, and a means to measure and evaluate impacts in a holistic way then exists.

The transferability of the Mauri Model Decision Maldng Frame­work identifies it as a potential pathway to more sustainable de­cisions and actions. Thus, through integrating systems techniques and the indigenous concept of Mauri, the Mauri Model Decision Making Fr,amework creates a new approach to cross-cultural com­munication and action.

8. Conclusions

While 'boundary may be key' (Midgley, 2000), despite evolv­ing understandings in systems science, there remains considerable uncertainty and indecision about where to place boundaries in re­lation to complex 'wicked' problems. Boundary definition has been achieved relatively well in the case of the Rena recovery, however, using the Mauri Model Decision Maldng Framework. The definition of boundaries in the Rena research has been refined throughout, drawing understanding primarily from analysis of the mauri im­pacts at the boundary, without the boundary, and those evidenced across the boundaries.

The clean-up process has now been underway for more than four years and is acknowledged as the second most expensive wreck recovery in the world, at more than half a billion US dol­lars. In October 2015 a Resource Consent hearing concluded which sought approval to abandon the remaining sections of the Rena wreck on Otaiti. Maori submissions to the hearing process were divided between opposition to the applicant's request and support from others, with Te Arawa Id Tai included among the latter. The Te Arawa ki Tai position was thoroughly researched and informed by combined lmowledge sources: scientific data (including under­water digital recordings) alongside Maori values. Discussions with the resource consent applicant (the owner of the Rena) identified willingness for the inclusion of mauri monitoring using the Mauri Model Decision Making Framework in the consent conditions. Te Arawa Id Tai consider this to be essential to ensure that the im­pacts upon mauri continue to be understood and influence the management of Otaiti over at least the next ten years. The use of the Mauri Model Decision Maldng Framework remains a moot point, yet no other alternative has been identified.

How the Mauri Model Decision Maldng Framework has empow­ered Te Arawa ki Tai in the recovery process and facilitated an enhanced Te Arawa Id Tai understanding of this 'wicked' problem has been discussed. Since the grounding, Te Arawa Id Tai have co­created indicator sets that are inclusive of all of the relevant sci­entific and indigenous knowledge available. A retrospective eval­uation of impacts upon the mauri of indicator sets representing each mauri dimension over a period of one hundred years prior to the MV Rena grounding was necessary to identify the pre-Rena state. The impact upon mauri since the MV Rena grounding has also been evaluated using the same indicator sets, with quarterly

£lease cite this article as: T.KICB. Morgan, T.N. Fa'aui, Empowering indigenous voices in disaster response: Applying the Mauri Model to New Zealand's worst environmental maritime disaster, European Journal of Operational Research {2017),

http: /Jdx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.05.030

534 [~ JID: EOR {m5G;June 6, 2017;20:

IK.K.B. Morgan, IN. Fa'aui/ European Journal of Operational Research 000 (2017) 1-12 11

assessments; thus the current mauri state is !mown, as is the cu­mulative impact upon mauri in the 48 months since October 2011.

Admowledgment

This work was supported by Nga Pae o te Maramatanga, Auck­land, New Zealand [Research Contract: 12RF01 ].

References

Bay of Plenty Regional Council. (2014). MV Rena resource consent process. Bay of Plenty Regional Council Retrieved from http://www.Renaresourceconsent.org. nzf.

Bay of Plenty Regional Council. (2016). Decision of panel on MV Rena resource con­sent applications. Tauranga, New Zealand: Bay of Plenty Regional Council Re­trieved from http://www.renaresourceconsent.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2016/ 03/2016-02-23-MV- Rena-Decision-Volume-One-and-both-Appendices2.pdf.

Beca. (2014). Application for resource consent (MV Rena). Tauranga, New Zealand: Beca Carter Hollings & Ferner Ud.

Berkett, N., Challenger, I., Sinner,]., & Tadaki, M., (2013). Values, collaborative pro­cesses and indicators for freshwater planning. Cawthron Report, Cawthron 2353.

Best, E. (1934). The Maori as he was: A brief account of Maori life as it was in pre-Eu­ropean days. Wellington, New Zealand. Dominion Museum.

Bishop, R. (1996). Addressing Issues or self-detennination and legitimation in Kau­papa Maori research. Research Perspectives in Maori Education (pp. 143-160). Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.

Bishop, R., & Glynn, T. (1999). Researching in Maori contexts: An interpretation or participatory consciousness.Journal of lnterrultural Studies, 20(2), 167- 182.

Challenger, I. (2013). A process for developing sustainability indicator sets. Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment Cawthron Re­port No. 2224 http:lfwww.cawthron.of&112/publication/science-reports/ process-developing-sustainability-indicator-sets/.

Churchman, C. W. (1970). Operations research as a profession. Monagemmt Sdence, 17(2), B-37.

Cochran, P. A .. Marshall, C. A., Garcia-Downing, C.. Kendall, E. Cook. D,, McCubbin, L, et al. (2008). Indigenous ways or knowing: Implications fo r panlcipatory re­search and community, American Journal of Public Heal!h, 98(1), 22-Xl.

Cronin, K., Midgley, G, & Skuba Jackson, L (2014). Issues mapping: A problem struc­turing method for addressing science and technology conflicts. European Jou ma I of Operational Research, 233, 145- 158.

Cunningham. C. (1999). A framework for addressing Maori knowledge in research, science and technology. In Proatdings of Te Dru Rangahau Maori mmrrh and development conference (pp. 7-9).

Durie, M, (2005). Indigenous knowledge within a global knowledge system. Higher Education P!l(iey, 18(3), 301-312.

Environment Bay of Plenty. (2007). SO-year strategy and implementation plan. En­vironment Bay of Plenty Retrieved from https://wwwsmartgrowthbop.org.nz/ media/1358/SmortGrowth-Strotegy-2051-Revlsed-May-2007-.pdf .

Fa'aui, T, N., & Morgan, T. I<. I<. B. (2014). Disaster recovery options: Restore Mauri to pre-Rena state. MAJ Journal, 3(1 ). http://www.joumal.mai.ac.nz/sites/default/ files/MAU ml V3J ssl_FaauLO.pdf.

Fa'aui, T. N., Morgan, T. I<. K.B., & Hikuroa, D. (2017). A new methodology for the in­tegrated impact assessment of New Zealand's worst marine environmental dis­aster: Applying the mauri model decision making framework. In press.

Firth, R. (1929). Primitive economia of the New Zealand Maori (pp. 1901-2002), Lon­don: George Routledge & Sons,

Foote, J. L, Gregor, J. E., Hepi, M. C.. Baker, V. E., Houston, D, J., & Midgley, G. (2007). Systemic problem structuring applied lo community involvement in water con­servation. Journal of the Operational Research Sodety, 58(5), 645-654.

Geertz, C. ( 1983). Fact and law in comparative perspective. Local knowledge: Further essays in interpretive anthropology (pp. 167-234). New York, United States: Basic Books.

Hikuroa, D., Slade, A .. & Gravley, D. (2010). Implementing Maori indigenous knowl­edge (matauranga) in a scientific paradigm: Restoring the mauri to Te Kete Poutama. Mai Review, 3.

Irwin, K. (1994). Maori research methods and processes: An exploration. Sites Jour­nal, 28, 25-43.

Kuokkanen, R. J. (2007), Reshaping the university: Responsibility. Indigenous epis­temes. and the logic of the gifc p. 284. Vancouver: UBC Press.

Mak, M. Y., & So, A. T. (2014). Scientific Feng Shui for the built environment: Theories and applications. City Universi ty of Hong Kong Press,

Mane, J. (2009). Kaupapa Maori: A community approach. Ma( Review, 3(1 ), 9. Midgley, G. (2000). Systemic intervention: Phi(asaphy, methodology, and practice. New

York: Kluwer/Plenum. Midgley, G., Ahuriri-Driscoll, A., Foote, J., Hepi, M., Hone, T .. Rogers-Koroheke, M., &

Veth, J. (2007). Practitioner identity in systemic intervention: Renections on the promotion of environmental health througli Maori com.munity development. Systems Research and Behavioral Sdence, 24(2), 233- 248.

Midgley, G., Johnson, M. P. , & Chichirau, G. (2017). What is community operational research? European Journal of Operational Research in press.

Midgley, G., Munlo, I., & Brown, M. (1 998). The theory and practice of boundary cri tique: Developing housing services for older people.journal of the Operational Research Sodety, 49(5), 467-478.

Midgley, G., & Pinzon, L (2011). The implications of boundary critique for connict prevention. Journal of the Operational Research Sodety, 62, 1543-1554.

Ministry for the Environment (1991 ). Resource Management Act 1991. Ministry for the Environment Retrieved from http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1991/ 0069/latest/DLM230265.html.

Ministry for the Environment. (2012). Rena long-tenn environmental recov­ery p(an.. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry for the Environment Re­trieved from http://www.mfe.govtnz/publications/hazardous/Rena-recovery/ Rena-long-tenn-environmental-plan.pdf.

Ministry for the Environment. (2015). Environmental Reporting Act 2015. Welling­ton, New Zealand: Ministry for the Environment Retrieved from http://www. legislation.govtnz/act/public/2015/0087/latest/DLM5941105.html

Morgan, T. I<. K. B. (2006a). Lifting the lid on LID in Aotearoa NZ. In Proceedings of the NZWWA stormwater 2006 conference (pp. 1- 13 ).

Morgan, T. K. K. B. (2006b). An indigenous perspective on water recycling. Desalina­tion, 187(1), 127- 136.

Morgan, T. I<. K.B. (2008). The value of a hapii perspective to municipal water man­agement practice: Mauri and potential contribution to sustainability decision making in Aotearoa New Zealand. Doctoral dissertation, ResearchSpace@ Auck­land.

Morgan, T. K. K. B. (2012). Cultural framework workshop. Tauranga City Council Morgan, T, K. K. B .. & Fa'aul, T. (2013). Launch of the new mauriOmeter website with

a seminar on returning the mauri to pre-Reno state. Auckland, New Zealand: Nga Pae o te Maramatanga.

Morgan, T. I<. K. B .. Fa'aui, T .. & Bennett, P. (2015). Mission Impossible? Returning the Maurl of the ecosystem to its pre-Rena state. Auckland, New Zealand: Nga Pae o te Maramatanga. ·

Morgan, T, K. K. B., Manuel, R. D., & Fa'aui, T. N. (2013). Decision making at the interface: Mauri and its contribution to the rena recovery. In Proceedings of the SCANZ 2013 Third nature - Hui and symposium.

Morgan, T, K. K. B., Sardelic, D. N., & Waretinl, A. F. (2012). The three gorges project: How sustainable? Journal of Hydrology, 460, 1-12.

Mo~n, T. K. ~ B,, & Teaho, L (2013). Walkato raniwharau: Prioritising compet­ing needs m co-management of the Waikato river. Advances in Environmental Research, 29, 85-106.

New Zealand Government (1991). Resource Management Act. http:/fwww. legislation.govt.nz/act/publlc/1991/0069/larest/DLM230265.html.

Pinter, L. Hardi. P .. Martinunl, A.. & Hall, J. (2012), Bellagio STAMP: Principles for sustainability assessment and measurement Ecological Indicators, 17, 20-28.

Ranapia, N. (2015). Evidence of Nepia Ranapia on behalf of Korowai Kiihui o Nga Pakeke o te Patuwai. Tauranga, New Zealand: Te Kahui Kaumarua 0

te Patuwai Retrieved from http://www.renaresourceconsentorg.nz/wp-conlent/ uploads/2015/09/N_Ranapia-evidence-for-Rena-he.iring-finalpdf.

Reed, M. S.. Fraser, E. D., & Dougill, A. J. (2006). An adaptive learning process for developing and applying sustainability indicators with local communities. Eco­logjca/ Eamomla, 59( 4), 406-418.

Russell B. & Whitehead, A. N. (1962). Prlndpia Mathematica. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. ·

Saaty, T. L (1980). Analytical hierarchy process: Planning. priority setting. resource al­location. ~ York: Maaw-Hill.

Saaty, T. L (1990). How to make a de<:lslon: The analytic hierarchy process. Europeqn Journal of Operational Raearrh, 48(1), 9- 26.

Sharpe, M., Johnston, I<., Watkins, T., Migone, P., & Cooke, M. (2011 ). Rena 'wo:st maritime environmental disaster'. Retrieved from http:/fwww.stuff.eo.nz/ envrronment/5763630/Rena-worst- maritime-environmentaJ-dlsaster.

Smallman, R. (2015). Submission of support - rehua smallman of Ngiiti pukenga. Tauranga, New Zealand: Massey University Retrieved from http://www.

. renaresourceconsentorg.nz/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Rehua-Smallman.pdf. Smtth, L T. (1995). Toward kaupapa Maori research. In Matawhanul conference

(Miiorl teachers' conference). Smith, LT, (1 999). Decolonizing methodologies: Researrh and indigenous peoples. Lon­

don. United Kingdom: Zed Books, Smith, L T. (2005), Building a research agenda for indigenous epistemologies and

education, Anthropology and Educarion Quarterly, 36(1 ), 93 -95, Statistics New Zealand. (2013). 2013 Quick stats about Maori. Statistics

New Zealand, Wellington, http://www.stats.govt.nz/Census/2013-census/ P_rofi le-and-summary-reports/quickstats-about-Maori-english.aspx.

Te Runanga O Ngai Te Rangi Iwi Trust. (2015) Before The Rena Panel: Submissions For Te Runanga O Ngai Te Rangi fwi Trust-Tauranga, New Zealand: Retrieved from https://www.google.co.nz/url7sa• t&rct•j&qo&esrc•s&source=web&cd-4& cad• rja&uact=8&ved•OahUKEwjG59-jSqbOAhWMpJQ)(HQR3B48QFgguMAM&url =http%31\%2F%2Fwww.renaresourceconsent.org.nz%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F 2015%2FI0%2FNgai-Te-Rangi- legal-submissions.docx&usg=AFQjCNEnOrehmSF tG24NHEKnNS_Bjz2C9Q&bvm=bv.128617741,d.dGo.

Te Riinanga o Ngati Awa. (2014). Regional consent application number 67891 As­trolabe Community Trust - lo abandon remains of the MV Rena and' fur­ther discharges of contaminants, Te Runanga o Ngati awa Tauranga, New Zealand: Retrieved from http://www.ngatiawa.iwi.nz/cms/CM5Files/file{TRoNA% 20Submission%20(pdl).pdf.

Te Runanga o Ngati Whakaue ki Maketii. (2015). Ngati Whakaue Cul­tural Values Assessment Maketu, New Zealand: Retrieved from http:// www.renaresourceconsent.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/67891-Brief-of­evidence-Hemi-Bennett-Maria-Home-Culrural-Values-Assessment2l.pdf.

The Tr~nsport Accident Investigation Commission. (2014). Final report marine in­qmry 11-204: Containership MV rena disaster on astrolabe reef, The Transport Accident Investigation Commission 5 October 2011.

Please cite this article as: T.K.K.B. Morgan, T.N. Fa'aui, Empowering indigenous voices in disaster response: Applying the Mauri Model to New Zealand's worst environmental maritime disaster, European Journal of Operational .Research (2017),

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.05.030

535 r ·-·-·- ----·-

~D: EOR ____ --_____ ,_f.~lfDrt:ILrn U~D [~l~ffi _______ --___ _ ---·----- 7

[mSG;June o, 2017;20:25]

12 IK.K.B. Morgan, IN. Fa'aui/European}aumal of Operational Research 000 (2017) 1-12

Tipa, G., & Nelson, K. (2008). Introducing cultural opportunities: A framework for in­corporating cultural perspectives in contemporary resource management. Jour­nal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 10(4), 313-337.

Ulrich, W, (1983). Critical heuristics of social planning: A new approach ta practical philasaphy, Berne: Haupt.

Ulrich, W. (1987). Critical heuristics of social systems design. European Jaumal of Operational Research, 31(3), 276-283.

Ulrich, W. (1996), A primer to critical syscems heuristics far action researchers, Hull: Centre for Systems Shldies.

Waitangi Tribunal. (2015 ). The final report an !he MV Rena and Miitfti Island claims. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Justice.

Walker, S., Eketone, A., & Gibbs, A. (2006). An exploration of kaupapa Maori re­search, its principles, processes and applications. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 9(4), 331- 344.

Please cite this article as: T.K.KB. Morgan, T.N. Fa'aui, Empowering indigenous voices in disaster response: Applying the Mauri Model to New Zealand's worst environmental maritime disaster, European Journal of Operational Research (2017), http:/Jdx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.05.030 ____________________________________ _]