Earth Jurisprudence and Mātauranga Māori in New Zealand: The power of integrating indigenous perspectives into institutional science to create capacity for Earth Jurisprudence implementation

Political economists like Bruno Latour explain that a nation-state and its legal apparatus reproduce through legitimized scientific information networks. French political economist Michel Foucault is central to this understanding of networks. According to his piercing observation, knowledge becomes Truth through social collectives. These collectives then engage in the political process where one knowledge system becomes dominant over another; this dominant way of knowing is then identified as Truth. Since knowledge production and power are interrelated, the colonizer’s knowledge system is often called Truth. The political hierarchy of the colonizer over the colonized creates a knowledge hierarchy wherein the knowledge forms of the colonizer—academic institutions and the institutions that reference their networks of experts—take precedence over the alternative forms of knowledge production of the colonized. Through this process, the knowledge system of one cultural group comes to be deemed the only source of legitimized knowledge. This myth persuades lawmakers that the colonizers who hold that knowledge are the foremost valid and reliable experts.

These colonized knowledge systems are then used to craft jurisprudence. Jurisprudence refers to the principles we live on: the norms and rules that govern our lives. The Western governance system is situated within a system of knowledge that constantly determines these norms and regulations. These norms are anthropocentric, meaning they assume humans are superior to nature and, therefore, entitled to acquire property and wealth from nature without reciprocity. Earth Jurisprudence developments, best observed within the Rights of Nature movement, invite Western jurisprudence to integrate ecological relationships into its colonized legal system. Indigenous peoples issue this invitation to those who study their deeply ecological relational governance systems. The academic support of developments in earth jurisprudence in Aotearoa, the territory also known as New Zealand, is exciting. When educational institutions in Aotearoa support scholarship from members of the Māori nation, Indigenous approaches to governance become more possible. This institutional support safeguards the publication of work derived from mātauranga Māori, a knowledge system incorporating Māori philosophical thought, worldview, and practice. Dr. Tara McAllister, a member of the Māori people and freshwater ecologist turned mātauranga Māori advocate, is making strides to ensure Western academic minds consider the Māori knowledge system “real science.” She famously said: “We [the Māori people] did not live successfully in balance with the environment without science. Māori were the first scientists in Aotearoa.” Her efforts also laid the groundwork for courts to use indigenous knowledge to claim that the river, as a legal entity, experiences actionable harm. Harm is a violation of the protections afforded to it by law in Aotearoa. She emphasizes that indigenous science tends to be conducted by community members, including elders, leaders, and others who act as kaitiaki and advocate for biodiversity based on mātauranga and Indigenous ways of being, knowing, and practicing. Importantly, mātauranga incorporates a holistic approach, spanning terrestrial and marine ecosystems and their interface in a way that ecology in Aotearoa seldom achieves. 

McAllister and her research colleagues claim that the sociopolitical process of incorporating mātauranga into ecological research benefits neoclassical science, which might generate better outcomes for society and the environment more broadly. McAllister and her research colleagues claim, “Partnering with Māori and incorporating matauranga into ecological research offers an additional dimension to neoclassical science, which we argue leads to better outcomes for society and the environment.” One way to explore how those better outcomes might manifest is to investigate the extent to which New Zealand executors of earth jurisprudence might reference mātauranga-rooted research while making decisions regarding the rights of the Whanganui River and how the difference between mātauranga and ecological literature of the western academia paradigm could shape decisions. 

Neoclassical scientists can learn from the Māori epistemology without appropriating it by considering the difference between the Māori’s relational understanding of themselves as an integral member of their ecosystem and the Western separatist approach. Each belief system creates a distinct set of knowledge that shapes bodies and landscapes. McAllister’s findings strongly suggest that generating more scientific literature rooted in Indigenous knowledge could secure effective execution of earth jurisprudence that integrates Indigenous worldviews into legal projects. For instance, the ecological studies above spearheaded an intimate understanding of the natural elements of wetlands and amphibian “kin” and allowed the scientists to understand threats to their well-being. Furthermore, the approach of wānanga, consultations with knowledge holders, and emphasis on partnership between mana whenua, residents of a watershed, and Western science renders the literature’s recommendations for executing conservation grounded in sociocultural realities.

One example of the wānanga approach influencing jurisprudence is the Whanganui Settlement Agreement 2017. This settlement secured that rights to ownership of the riverbed are vested in the legal entity Te Awa Tupua. The new legal entity, Te Awa Tupua, is then granted the right to sue and be sued on behalf of its protection, should it be necessary. ” Additionally, Te Awa Tupua is to be represented by a guardian, Te Pou Tupua, who is required to act and speak to the benefit of the river’s health and well-being.” Observers should read the legal provisions of the Te Awa Tupua grant as binding as any other law. Any legislation affecting the river must consult Te Awa Tupua as a legal entity. According to the Agreement, several institutional entities monitor the river’s well-being: the Guardians of the River (Te Pou Tupua) and an advisory and strategy group. These groups perform the function of holding the crown and government accountable for safeguarding the river’s well-being. Yet, the river’s well-being has different meanings for Western and Māori minds: “The remarkable nature of the Act stems from the fact its physical and spiritual health are both considered.” The well-rounded strategy group includes iwi, relevant local authorities, departments of State, commercial and recreational users, and environmental groups, who “act collaboratively to advance the health and well-being of Te Awa Tupua” through developing a strategy for the upkeep of the river and monitoring strategic implementation. To fulfill their charge of “speaking on behalf of the river,” these groups must “develop appropriate engagement and reporting mechanisms for the iwi and hapu.”

While the river’s rights have not yet triggered lawsuits, a few cases have prompted the legislation’s consultation procedures. One example is the Upokongaro Cycle Bridge project, which required removing power lines and adding a bridge over the river. Currently, the energy grid infrastructure scheme proposed by Genesis Power Company for the Whanganui River is expected to initiate consultation because the installation has implications for the river’s well-being. Many believe the power scheme causes environmental, spiritual, and cultural damage to the river. On top of that, the Māori members of the Te Awa Tupua strategy group oppose the extraction of the river’s water, according to Indigenous custom.

This is an interesting case given that the strategy group consists of about 17 key stakeholder representatives, including iwi with interests in the Whanganui River, local and central government representatives, tourism, conservation, recreation, and wild game interests, Genesis Energy Limited, the operator of the Tongariro Power Scheme, which currently diverts 82% of the headwaters of the Whanganui River for hydropower. Determining the status of the health and well-being of the river and developing “engagement and reporting mechanisms” could be an internal struggle if some group members have differing conceptions of health and well-being. 

Māori scientific literature could greatly help harmonize these differing conceptions of well-being and health. The McAllister research team’s thorough literature review of ecological studies performed by Māori scientists reveals an attention to detail that supports a deeper view of the human relationship to ecosystems. Her team describes Kaitiakitanga, “place-based customary responsibilities and practices of Māori whose genealogical history connects them to land, based on principles of reciprocity and the desire to maintain these relationships for future generations,” as the foundational context in which teams led by indigenous scientists, such as Ratana et al. and Cisternas et al., designed and executed their studies. This Kaitiakitanga renders their research illuminating intersectional ecological relationships between the river, wetland ecosystems, and all their non-human inhabitants. For instance, Ratana et al. (2019) developed participatory mapping approaches and wānanga, traditional interviews with traditional knowledge holders, to develop a decision-making framework that prioritizes the restoration of ngā repo o Maniapoto – the wetlands of Maniapoto. Such a study demonstrates the differences between Western and indigenous scientific thought frameworks. Namely, the aim of the former is to master knowledge and the telos of the latter to cultivate an understanding of holistic ecological restoration and process, such as consultations with traditional knowledge holders. Māori scientists were also instrumental in developing a tool currently in use called the mauri compass, derived from mātauranga māori and used to assess the mauri of water. Dr. McAllister explains Mauri as a holistic concept about the life force or essence of all living/non-living things. 

This body of research demonstrates that the upcoming meeting of Genesis Power’s project with Te Awa Tupua would benefit significantly from the results of the Mauri compass. The strategy groups would also benefit from regularly scanning literature produced by Māori scientists to inform their articulations of what development implicating the river should or should not be permitted. Though Genesis Power has a pre-existing agreement granting them development rights through 2039, the concession they are asking for to expand their rights outside this agreement, Te Awa Tupua, is not likely to consent. 

Four years into the implementation of the Act, the low level of litigation on behalf of the river’s rights makes it unclear whether native science might unsettle Western approaches to earth jurisprudence. The suggestion that indigenous science has the potential to shift jurisprudence towards outcomes that indigenous populations would favor has not been thoroughly investigated. Yet the fact that Te Awa Tupua is creating an alternate space where native governance references native-generated science makes it possible to imagine shifts in the nation’s Euro-centric programmatic approach to environmental governance.