Thursday March 10th

Environment Aotearoa 9 Co-governance




Co- management and Co-governance

Whatever solution is taken up by government regarding the foreshore and seabed there will probably be power sharing of some kind. The most desirable aspect for many iwi might be a form of co-governance or co-management.
A set of important elements of co-management arrangements are set out in a Local Government New Zealand publication entitled Co-management case studies involving local authorities and Maori (2007). These include the acknowledgement of iwi history and circumstances, common goals and objectives, strong leadership and the importance of planning.
When defining co-management the 2007 document says it describes decision-making processes where more than one party is involved in this process. There is a continuum from minimal involvement of an interested party to devolution of power to an interested party. At the lower end of the continuum the community is informed about decisions already made. This might progress to communication, consultation, co-operation and then the participation in advisory committees, management boards and finally in partnership or community control at the higher end of the continuum.
Some of the things that might be seen on a co-management continuum would be points of benefit for both parties, aspiration building processes, information sharing and partnership, testing and policing.

At the half way point there is, perhaps, communication involving the start of two way information exchange with local concerns beginning to enter management plans.
At all points on the continuum social capital is involved. A great deal of the discussion of social capital below is to do with co-governance but many of the arguments involved apply also to co-management and a high degree of social capital might be found at the level of shared responsibility, partnership or information sharing.
Putnam (1993) talks of social capital and the performance of public institutions. Yasao gives the following definition;
the institutionalised participation of citizens, such as through administrative evaluation, elections, information disclosure, omsbudsman systems and referenda systems at the local level comprises this medium for the physical materialisation of social capital.
Takao, Y 2006:2
A number of contributors have sought to refine the explanation of determinants for social capital formation. Fukuyama and Putnam see the origins of social capital in centuries of cultural evolution and both argue that government policies hardly contribute to social capital formation (Putnam 1993, Fukuyama, 1995). Others argue that social capital formation can be produced and accumulated in a rather short period of time to solve the problems of political and economic development (Fox 1994, Brown and Ashman 1996, Lowndes, Stoker, Pratchett, Leach and Wingfield 1998).
There are many examples of co-management and co-governance from around the world. The treaty system in Poland is one such example. The United Nations has had a strong interest in the area for some time as shown in the first case study discussed below to do with the importance of such leaders as mayors.
Peter Hall (1999, 2002:21-57) specifically emphasises the importance of government policies in influencing levels of social capital. In his view the case of post WWII Britain demonstrates that government policies which emphasised social policy and egalitarian education policy were able to maintain the level of existing social capital.
A key factor which would explain variation in stocks of social capital across localities and countries is the degree of both social inequality among citizens in the act of co-operation and political inequality among citizens in meeting public demand (Boix and Posner 1998: 688).
Part of social capital formation is the sharing of respect for differing world views and value systems. It is important that any consultative committee for co-management or co-governance recognises where the values and priorities of management varies from Maori to European world views and vice versa.
One example of social inequality and differing world view involves environmental risk due to erosion and pollution. Dymond and Shepherd (2006) suggest that 500 of 5000 farms in the Manawatu contribute nearly half of the sediment going into the Manawatu River. There are few Maori farm owners involved as the percentage of Maori farm ownership in the Manawatu generally is not high. This is comparable to Maori ownership of farms near the foreshore and seabed around the country.
In fact, Maori have little or no say in the farming community. It is also possible, given the earnings of farmers generally in this country to suggest that there are differences of a socio-economic kind between these farmers and the rest of the population including Maori.
With the differences above in mind co-governance or co-management of the water quality in the Manawatu River involves the management of the 500 farmers who discharge nearly half of the sediment into the river. Following the readings above, to do this effectively social capital would need to be created between Maori and the group of farmers involved in order for people to listen to one another.
Another way to look at this might be to suggest that the local council or some other quasi-governmental agency forms a bridge between the two groups. In some ways though this approach also involves social capital as all parties in such a serious matter need to know and trust one another.
It is also important when considering such examples as that of Dymond et alia above to suggest that the consultative committee on co-management note that strategies involve varying scientific views. The iwi have a scientific model.
The kind of environmental co-management sought by Maori must not only be defined in ecological or environmental terms. Co-management of the kind desired must also relate to indigenous cultures and the models and examples of government found in those cultures.
This might be taken to a higher plane. In the resource management context co-management involves the resource manager involving the community in decision making. In some situations this means sharing power and decision making with the community.
Co-management and co-governance may mean some sharing of responsibility for a resource between the resource manager and the community. It also involves drawing on a range of knowledge systems, including local knowledge to inform management and focussing on negotiation and consensus rather than adversarial approaches.
A recent study by a local bodies group (Local Government New Zealand, 2007) showed that in New Zealand twenty four percent of local authorities interpreted co-management on a spectrum of involvement. This includes a high level of control by Maori (for example where Maori have authority and control over a resource or have the ability to have a casting vote on a committee that manages the asset). Also included is the situation where an equal local authority/Maori level of control (for example where local authority and Maori jointly collaborate and assist with input into a local authority led process).
As well as these situations there is that where there is a low level of Maori involvement (for example where Maori are assured opportunities to input into a local authority process in what could be called enhanced consultation).
At the other extreme there is mention in the 2007 document of a Maori owned resource with local authority involvement in management. The case study of Lake Horowhenua discussed below might afford an example of this.
We need co-management in New Zealand as there are different cultures with different connections and responsibilities to the land. Conflicting world views also result in differing understandings of the level of participation and ownership.
It might be asked whether there is an existing framework in NZ for co-management? If not it might then be asked who might supply the methods or incentives to do so or how this might happen. Is this a question of local or national government? The questions raised above about social capital would seem to apply here and across the board in discussions of co-management and co-governance.
Closer to home than some of the field work undertaken by the commentators above is Tuvalu. This small Pacific island state is an interesting and important case. There are issues of self government and issues of environmental risk. The title of Michael Goldsmith’s work in this area is salutary; Theories of governance and Pacific microstates: The cautionary tale of Tuvalu (Goldsmith 2003a).
Goldsmith questions the popularity of governance frameworks in explaining development failures and proposing new models of development for Pacific states. Other work by Goldsmith on the use of terms like bi-culturalism and his cautionary thoughts on how terms like this can become different to their original meaning may apply to ‘co-governance’ and ‘co-management’(Goldsmith 2003b).
Regarding the last two terms, co-governance and co-management, the latter is a milder version of the former. At least that is the way it seems at first. Co-management though is a matter of exercising power clearly and effectively with another party and this is an exacting process. The devil, as they say, is in the detail.
With the theoretical points above in mind, next week a set of case studies in co-management and co-governance will be presented.
Bibliography
Adler, P & Kwon, S W 2002, "Social Capital: Prospects for a New Concept", Academy of Management Review, 27(1).
Agrawal, A., Gibson, C.C., 1999. Enchantment and disenchantment: the role of community in natural resource conservation. World Development
27, 629–649.
Aldridge, S, Halpern, D & Fitzpatrick, S 2002, Social Capital: A Discussion Paper, London: Performance and Innovation Unit
Arnstein, S., 1969. A ladder of participation. Journal of the American Planning Association 35 (4), 216–224.
Bailey, S 1999, Local Government Economics: Principles and Practice, Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Beck, P., 2000. Collaboration and credible commitments: experiments with collaborative resource management in Uganda, Paper presented at the 2000 meeting of the International Association for the Society of Common-pool Property (IASCP), May 31–June 4, Bloomington, IN, USA.
Bekesi, G. (1996) Nitrate-Nitrogen in Horowhenua Groundwater, Manawatu- Wanganui Regional Council, May, 1996.
Berkes, F., 2002. Cross-scale institutional linkages: perspective from the bottom up, in: Ostrom, E., Dietz, T., Dolsˇak, N., Stern, P.C., Stonich, S., Weber, E.U. (Eds.), The Drama of the Commons. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp. 293–321.
Berkes, F., George, P., Preston, R., 1991. Co-management: the evolution ofthe theory and practice of joint administration of living resources. Alternatives 18 (2), 12–18.
Berkes, F., Davidson-Hunt, I., Davidson-Hunt, K., 1998. Diversity ofcommon property resource use and diversity of social interests in the western Indian Himalaya. Mountain Research and Development 18, 19–33.
Berkes, F., Folke, C. (Eds.), 1998. Linking Social and Ecological Systems, Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Berkes, F., Colding, J., Folke, C. (Eds.), 2003. Navigating Social-Ecological Systems, Building Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Bird, Jon, Curtis, Barry, Putnam, Tim, Robertson,
George and Tickner, Lisa, eds 1993 Mapping the
future; local cultures and global change Routledge
London New York

Boix, C & Posner, D 1998, "Social Capital: Explaining its Origins and Effects on Government Performance", British Journal of Political Science, 28(4).
Borrini-Feyerabend, G., 1996. Collaborative Management of Protected Areas: Tailoring the Approach to the Context IUCN, Gland (Switzerland) http://www.iucn.org/themes/spg/Files/tailor.html.
Bourdieu, P 1986, "The Forms of Capital", in John Richardson (ed), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, New York: Greenwood Press.
Brosius, J.P., Tsing, A., Zerner, C., 1998. Representing communities:histories and politics of community-based resource management. Society and Natural Resources 11, 157–168.
Brown, D & Ashman, D 1996, "Participation, Social Capital, and Intersectoral Problem
Burger, J., Ostrom, E., Norgaard, R.B., Policansky, D., Goldstein, B.D., 2001. Protecting the Commons. A Framework for Resource Management in the Americas. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Campbell, Tracy 1996, Co-management of Aboriginal Resources, Information North Vol 22. No 1, March, Arctic Institute of North America
Carlsson, L, Berkes, F Journal of Environmental Management 75 (2005) 65–76 74
Carlsson, L., 2000. Policy networks as collective action. Policy Studies Journal 28 (3), 502–520.
Carlsson, L., 2003. Managing commons across levels of organizations, in: Berge, E., Lars C. (Eds.), Commons Old and New, Proceedings from a workshop on Commons: Old and new, Centre for Advanced Study, Oslo 11–13, March 2003, pp. 23–34.
Cash, D.W., Moser, S.C., 2000. Linking global and local scales: designing dynamic assessment and management processes. Global Environmental Change 10 (2), 109–120.
Cleave, Peter, 1997 Rangahau pae iti kahurangi; research in a small world of light and shade, Campus Press, Palmerston North
Cleave, Peter 2009 Starting Points, Campus Press, Palmerston North
Cleave, Peter 2011 Takutai, the foreshore and seabed, Second Edition Campus Press
Colding, J., Elmqvist, T., Olsson, P., 2003. Living with disturbance: building resilience in social-ecological systems, in: Berkes, F., Colding, J., Folke, C. (Eds.), Navigating Social-Ecological Systems, Building Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 163–185.
Dymond, J.R., Ausseil, A-G., Shepherd, J.D., Buettner, L. (2006). Validation of a regionwide landslide risk model. Geomorphology, 74, pp 70-79.
Dymond, J., Shepherd, J. (2006). Highly erodible land in the Manawatu/Wanganui region. Landcare Research contract report 0607/027 (September 2006). 10pp
Fukuyama, F 1995, Trust: the Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity, London:Hamish Hamilton.
Gant, J, Ichniowski, C & Shaw, K 2002, "Social Capital and Organisational Change in High-Involvement and Traditional Work Organizations", Journal of Economics
and Management Strategy, 11(2).
Feeny, D., Berkes, F., McCay, B.J., Acheson, J.M., 1990. The tragedy of the commons: twenty-two years later. Human Ecology 18 (1), 1–19.
Goldsmith, M 2003a Theories of governance and Pacific microstates: The cautionary tale of Tuvalu in Asia Pacific Viewpoint Volume 46 Issue 2 Victoria University of Wellington
Goldsmith, M 2003b, pp280-294, Culture, for and against: patterns of “culturespeak” in New Zealand, in Van Mejl and Goldsmith
Goldsmith, Michael 2005 Culture in Safety and in Danger. In Michèle D. Dominy and Laurence M. Carucci (eds), Special Issue: Critical Ethnography in the Pacific: Transformations in Pacific Moral Orders. Anthropological Forum 15(3): 257-265
Gunderson, L.H., Holling, C.S. (Eds.), 2002. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Hall, P 1999, "Social Capital in Britain", British Journal of Political Science, 29(3). Contemporary Society, New York: Oxford University Press.
Harmsworth, G.R, Barclay, Kerr, K, Reedy, T (2002a) Maori Sustainable Development in the 21st Century: the importance of Maori values, strategic planning and information systems, He Puna Korero, Journal of Maori and Pacific Development
Harmsworth, G.R. (2002) Indigenous concepts, values and knowledge for sustainable development: New Zealand Case Studies, Presentation at the 7th Joint Conference, Preservation of Ancient Cultures and the Globalization Scenario
Hasegawa, K 2003, Kankyo Mondai to Atarashii Kokyoken (Environmental Problems and a New Public Sphere), Tokyo: Yuhikaku.
Holling, C.S., Meffe, G.K., 1996. Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management. Conservation Biology 10, 328–337.
Ife, Jim (1995) Community Development: creating community alternatives- vision, analysis and practice, Longman, Melbourne
Imperial, M.T., 1999. Institutional analysis and ecosystem-based management: the institutional analysis and development framework. Environmental Management 24 (4), 449–465.
Ka'ai, Tania 2004 Te mana o te tangata whenua: Indigenous assertions of sovereignty. In: Ki te whaiao: An introduction to Mäori culture and society. Pearson Education, Auckland, New Zealand, pp. 181-189.
Kawachi, I, Kennedy, B, & Glass, R 1999, "Social Capital and Self-Rated Health: A Contextual Analysis", American Journal of Public Health, 89(8
Kawharu, Merata 2010 Environment as a marae locale in Selby, Moore and Mulholland
Khulmann, Carola and Cleave, Peter 2000 ‘Language and Mutual Aid’, in Cleave (edit) The Nurturing Shield pp159-176 Campus Press
Kim, K 2005, "Social Capital and the Role of Local Government: A Virtuous Cycle between Institution and Culture", Journal of Public Policy Studies, 5.
Kymlicka, W 1995 Multicultural Citizenship: a Liberal Theory of Minority Rights, New York, Oxford: Clarendon Press
Kymlicka, W 2001 Politics in the vernacular: Nationalism, Multiculturalism and Citizenship, Oxford, Oxford University Press
Little, A., 2002. The Politics of Community. Theory and Practice. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
Macpherson, C.B. 1962 The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to Locke. London: Oxford University Press (cited in Goldsmith 2009: 327)
Mutu, Margaret 2010 Ngati Kahu kaitiakitanga in Selby, Moore and Mulholland (13-36)
Plummer, R., FitzGibbon, J., 2004. Some observations on the terminology in co-operative environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management 70, 63–72
Pomeroy, R.S., Berkes, F., 1997. Two to tango: the role of government in fisheries co-management. Marine Policy 21, 465–480.
Putnam, R 1993, Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Robinson, L, Schmid, A, & Siles, M 2002, "Is Social Capital Really Capital?" Review of Social Economy, 60(1).
Ruru, Jacinta 2009 The legal voice of Maori in Freshwater Governance. A Literature Review, Lincoln University, Landcare Research
Taylor, C 1992 Multiculturalism and the “Politics of Recognition”, Princeton, Princeton University Press Tipa G, Tierney L (2005a) A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways- Applying the CHI Framework to the Hakatere (Ashburton River): a Different River Type (unpublished)
Tipa G, Tierney L (2005b) A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways- Applying the CHI Framework to the Tukituki River: a Different Iwi (unpublished)
Tipa G, Tierney L (February 2006) Using the Cultural Health Index: How to assess the Health of Streams and Waterways Available at;
Scott, J., 1994. Social Network Analysis. Sage, London.
Selby R, Moore P, Mullholland, M 2010 Maaori and the environment:Kaitiaki Huia Publishers
Singleton, S., 1998. Constructing Cooperation: the Evolution of Institutions of Comanagement. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Toonen, A.J 2009 The unitary state as a system of co-governance: the case of the Netherlands Public Administration Volume 68 Issue 3 Pages 281 - 296 Blackwell Publishing
Turia, Tariana, March 27 2010 ‘Restorative Justice : turning the tide’ speech to National Restorative Justice Aotearoa Practitioners Conference
Brentwood Hotel, Kilbirnie, Wellington
Van Meijl, Toon, 2003:260-279 Conflicts of Redistribution in Contemporary Maori Society: Leadership and the Tainui Settlement In Van Meijl and Goldsmith
Van Meijl, Toon and Goldsmith Michael, Postcolonial dilemmas: reappraising justice and identity in New Zealand and Australia, Journal of the Polynesian Society, Volume 112, September 2003, No3
Van Meijl, Toon and Goldsmith, Michael, 2003: 205-218 Introduction: Recognition, Redistribution and Reconciliation in Postcolonial Settler Societies. In Van Meijl and Goldsmith
Warren, Kay, B. and Jackson, Jean E., (Eds) 2003, Indigenous Movements, Self-Representation, and the State in Latin America, University of Texas Press
Winiata, W. (2000) Some thoughts on managing Mana a hapu and mana a iwi Relationships: The Long Term Survival of the ART Confederation as a Case Study, Te Wananga o Raukawa, Otaki
Woolcock, M 1998, "Social Capital and Economic Development: Towards a Theoretical Synthesis and Policy Framework", Theory and Society, 27.
Whare, Tracey, 2010: 59-75 The Foreshore and Seabed Act: Five years on, where to from here? in Maori and the environment:Kaitiaki Edited Selby, Moore andf Mulholland
Huia Publishers
Young, O., 2002. The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change: Fit, Interplay and Scale. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Papers and Policy Documents
Local Authority Engagement with Maori, 2004, Local Government New Zealand publication
Co-management: case studies involving local authorities and Maori, 2007, Local Government New Zealand publication


Written by Peter Cleave