BEFORE THE EPA
Under the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012
And
In the matter of an application for marine consent made by Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited to mine phosphate nodules from the crest of the Chatham Rise
Statement of Evidence of Deborah Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu
12 September 2014
ANDERSON LLOYD Level 10, Otago House LAWYERS Cnr Moray Place & Princes DUNEDIN Street, Private Bag 1959, Solicitor: Stephen Christensen DUNEDIN 9054 ([email protected]) DX YX 10107 Tel 03 477 3973 Fax 03 477 3184
1
Introduction
1. My name is Maria Bartlett.
2. I joined Toitū te Whenua, the environmental unit of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu (“Te Rūnanga”) on 21 February 2011.
3. I was seconded to Toitū te Whenua from the Consents section of Environment Canterbury for a year as part of the Tuia programme between Ngāi Tahu and the regional council.
4. Prior to my secondment I had spent the better part of ten years processing resource consents for Environment Canterbury, with a focus on surface water consents and river works in the Waitaki catchment and south of the Rakaia river. This included co-ordinating consents for the Project Aqua proposal of Meridian Energy Limited for the Lower Waitaki River, participation in development of the Waitaki Catchment Water Allocation Regional Plan, co-ordination of consents in the Upper Waitaki Catchment and presentation of evidence at the hearings that followed.
5. Since arriving at Te Rūnanga, in addition to engaging in Resource Management Act processes and reforms of the local government sector, I have spent the last three and half years working on the minerals, oil and gas kaupapa, beginning with response to individual mining permit applications notified to Te Rūnanga by NZ Petroleum & Minerals (NZPAM) in accordance with the Crown Minerals Act.
6. I joined the Strategy and Influence unit of Te Rūnanga in early 2012 as a consequence of responding to development of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) legislation (“the EEZ Act”).
7. I have closely followed Crown reforms focussed on mining development, including changes to the Crown Minerals Act, Conservation Act, Maritime Transport Act, Health & Safety in Employment Act, and continued development of policy and regulation associated with the EEZ Act. At each stage of the reform process, I have provided a response to articulate the Ngāi Tahu perspective. I
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 2
have also participated in direct engagement with various government departments and Crown agencies on behalf of Te Rūnanga with the aim of improving expression of Treaty partnership in statute, regulations, processes and decisions.
8. I hold a bachelor’s degree in Literature and Linguistics and Graduate Diploma in Political Science (with Distinction) from the University of Canterbury, which included studies of colonialism, nationalism and NZ public policy.
9. I am currently a Senior Policy Advisor within the Strategy & Influence unit. I am authorised to speak on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu.
Executive Summary
10. This response of Te Rūnanga to the marine consent application of Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited is made in the context of Te Kerēme, the Ngāi Tahu claim, the history of Ngāi Tahu Whānui leading up to the Treaty Fisheries Settlement in 19921, and subsequent tribal development.
11. As stated in the response of Te Rūnanga to the application, on 10 July 2014, Ngāi Tahu did not fight for decades for the return of access to abundant fisheries through Settlement, only to allow erosion of the value of the resource through unsustainable and incompatible practice.
12. Included as Appendix One is the text of the Ngāi Tahu Fisheries Claim (“the Fisheries Claim”). This is an enduring articulation of the relationship of Ngāi Tahu Whānui to sea fisheries and the expectations of Ngāi Tahu rangatira in relation to Crown management of tribal fisheries resources.
13. The text of the Ngāi Tahu Fisheries Claim also appears as Appendix One in the Ngāi Tahu Sea Fisheries Report 1992, produced by the Waitangi Tribunal in relation to the Ngāi Tahu claim, Wai 27. That report was the culmination of a wealth of research, by tribal members and Crown appointed representatives, and resulted in negotiated
1 Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 3
redress with the Crown, including a share of deep water fisheries quota, now managed by Ngāi Tahu Seafood on behalf of the iwi authority and Ngāi Tahu Fisheries Settlement Limited.
14. Te Rūnanga recognises that the direct mining footprint is outside the takiwā boundary of Ngāi Tahu as defined in the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act (“NTCSA”)2 and so falls within the fisheries of Rēkohu/Wharekauri (see Appendix Two). As stated in the Fisheries Claim, Ngāi Tahu has no direct tribal interest in the Chathams fishery, but recognises “the duty of whānaungatanga” requiring support for the Chathams people in relation to their fisheries3. It is also important to note that the quota management areas under the Fisheries Act do not coincide with tribal boundaries. The redress achieved through the Settlement includes the legal right to fish outside the takiwā boundary. As these rights arise through the Settlement, they have cultural as well as commercial value.
15. Ngāi Tahu Whānui understand that the Chatham Rise ecosystem, from Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū (Banks Peninsula) to Rēkohu/Wharekauri is a connected whole. Kaitiakitanga is not limited by an imaginary line on the sea.
16. The conversion of abundant habitat, which has existed for millennia, to a comparative benthic desert, roughly the size of Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū (Banks Penninsula), in the centre of the Rise, immediately to the east of the Ngāi Tahu takiwā boundary4, is expected to have implications for neighbouring Ngāi Tahu fisheries. The area is not expected to recover to its former state. It is clear from the suite of evidence that implications for Ngāi Tahu fisheries are not fully understood and that they cannot be reliably predicted. The fact that the adverse effects of the mining will be intergenerational means that, from the perspective of Ngāi Tahu, the proposal is fundamentally flawed.
2 Refer to Section 2 of the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act and Appendix Two of the 10 July 2014 response of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu to the marine consent application of Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited. 3 Refer to the amended claim of 25 June 1988, point 5 in Appendix One 4 The closest point of the marine consent area to the Ngāi Tahu takiwā boundary is the southwest corner of prospecting permit PP55971, approximately 50 kilometres (27 nautical miles) away
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 4
17. By the applicant’s own admission, destruction of the protected benthic habitat within the mining licence area (MP55549) is unavoidable and will result in significant habitat change5. The area of MP55549 totals 820km2, and is almost entirely within the Benthic Protection Area established under the Fisheries Act 1996, meaning that it is anticipated that a minimum of 10% of the protected area will be destroyed6.
18. Less certain is the extent of physical and biological effects of the sediment plume radiating out from the mining footprint. The applicant talks of a likely 49 square kilometre range of harm, a potential 97 square kilometre range7, and fine particles travelling up to 500 kilometres over a three month period8, which would reach the coastlines of Te Wai Pounamu and Rēkohu/Wharekauri, depending on the currents.
19. Questions have been raised about plume direction by Ngāi Tahu fisherman Greg Summerton who has fished the Chatham Rise for decades and draws on a wealth of mātauranga. Uncertainties also exist around plume content, toxicity and cumulative effects9. Adverse effects have real potential to spread across the Benthic Protection Area, impacting more than the tenth of protected habitat that is expected to be severely damaged, particularly if the prospecting permit PP55971 area is mined within the proposed 35 year duration of marine consent.
20. Further uncertainties are present in relation to species specific responses to the combination of benthic habitat loss and plume effects, and wider food web effects10, relevant to mahinga kai and taonga species of importance to Ngāi Tahu.
5 Refer to Marine Consent Application and Environmental Impact Assessment – Response to Request for Further Information – Request No.6, 8 July 2014, Figure 9: Predicted sediment footprint after 15 years of mining; and refer to the statement of evidence of Paul Kennedy for Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited on Assessment of Environmental Impacts, paras 61 - 62. 6 Refer to statement of evidence of George Clement for Deep Water Group, p 8 7 Refer to statement of evidence of Alistair Dunn for Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited, paras 22 - 23 8 Refer to Marine Consent Application and Environmental Impact Assessment – REVISED Response to Request for Further Information – Request Nos. 3, 4 5 & 7 , 5 August 2014, p 10 - 11 9 Refer to the evidence of Ngaire Phillips 10 Refer to the evidence of Katrin Berkenbusch and Paul Krause
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 5
21. At the time of the Fisheries Claim, 1988, Tā Tipene O’Regan described the prevailing unsustainable approach to fisheries as driven by a “hasty short term profits approach”11. We see similar paralells in the risk to fisheries from the current application. Evidence for Te Rūnanga indicates that economic benefits of the proposal are overstated and the negative economic impacts understated12, so the proposed destruction of unique protected habitat will ultimately be for little or no net gain.
22. Through this evidence I will expand on the origins of the Ngāi Tahu Fisheries Claim and the Treaty Fisheries Settlement from the Ngāi Tahu perspective, as captured in the written record.
23. I will refer to relevant tribal documents, iwi management plans, and policies relevant to the proposal, to articulate more fully the existing interests of Ngāi Tahu and how they are potentially impacted.
24. I will include reference to technical advice provided to Te Rūnanga from experts that are not engaged directly in this hearing process, but whose written statements are incorporated into Ngāi Tahu evidence and relate directly to Ngāi Tahu interests, rights and values.
25. I will respond to the consultation evidence of Linda Sanders with an account of the experience of Te Rūnanga during consultation with Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited.
26. The applicant has not made an active attempt to fully understand the nature of interests, rights and values of Ngāi Tahu, or the origin and significance of the Treaty Fisheries Settlement.
27. I provide this evidence to ensure that the decision-making committee have the best available information upon which to base a decision regarding the existing interests of Ngāi Tahu, and potential impacts on those interests arising from the proposal.
11 Refer to the amended claim of 25 June 1988, point 24 in Appendix One 12 Refer to the evidence of Alex Sundakov
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 6
28. The activity is propsed to take place in a Benthic Protection Area (BPA) established under the Fisheries Act 1996 for the purpose of protecting the benthic environment of the seafloor from the damaging impacts of bottom trawling. Such an area has the same intent as the mechanisms we utilise under Customary Fisheries regulations when tangatai tiaki impose a rāhui. Ngāi Tahu supports such a prohibition because of the protection provides key benthic habitat in the centre of the Chatham Rise. Te Rūnanga endorses the actions of the Treaty partner in establishing the network of closures in the EEZ, utilising a rāhui approach to fisheries management. The consequences of overturning that prohibition will be felt by future generations. The loss of habitat will be permanent, irreversible and that particular habitat is irreplaceable. It follows that the flow-on effects of the loss will also be irreversible.
29. Te Rūnanga does not accept that the Crown can in good faith act to undermine the purpose of the Benthic Protection Area by relying on the fact that the legal protection for the area arises under regulations made under the Fisheries Act, and that those regulations do not expressly prohibit mining.
30. Iwi and imi should be able to rely on the Treaty partner to be consistent in marine management practice, including use of rāhui.
31. Failure to apply appropriate practice and protection in relation to iwi fisheries was determined to be a failure to uphold Article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi, in the precedent setting findings and recommendations of the Ngāi Tahu Sea Fisheries Report 1992.
Ngai Tahu Sea Fisheries Report
32. The Ngāi Tahu Sea Fisheries Report 1992 includes the analysis, findings and recommendations of the Waitangi Tribunal in relation to the Ngāi Tahu claim, Wai 27, with respect to sea fisheries. It was the second report of the Tribunal on Wai 27, following the Ngāi Tahu Report 1991, which covered the “nine tall trees” of Te Kerēme, namely the eight regional purchases of Ngāi Tahu lands over two decades
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 7
between 1844 and 1864, and Ngāi Tahu claims to mahinga kai resources (the ninth tree).
33. The Ngāi Tahu Report 1991 addressed freshwater fisheries and established the failure of the Crown to honour the relationship of Ngāi Tahu Whānui with mahinga kai. In the words of the late Upoko Rakiihia Tau, outlining his inherited understanding of the Treaty, the 1991 report records:
“Article Two of the Treaty would give protection to the Maori and this was to include the protection of Maori property rights, i.e. Rangatiratanga over our mahinga kai that we desired to retain [SIC}”13.
34. The findings of the Ngāi Tahu Report 1991 were informed by the reports of Alan Ward, who examined the history of Ngāi Tahu and colonial interaction, and Dr George Habib, whose four part analysis was focussed on mahinga kai (“the Habib Report”) and included sea fisheries. Ultimately, extensive alienation of Ngāi Tahu from mahinga kai resources was identified in the 1991 Report, as a consequence of lost land access and environmental degradation.
35. Ngāi Tahu understanding of mahinga kai was shared by the late Upoko Rakiihia Tau in the claim process in relation to this whakataukī:
Ngā hua o te whenua
Ngā hua o Tāne me ngā uri o Tangaroa
He explained the meaning as: “the resources of the land, the resources from the bush and forests which includes all birds and animals dependant upon these resources, and the uri o Tangaroa refer to all living things within the waterways which include all water be it lake, river, lagoon or sea water [SIC].”14
36. The Waitangi Tribunal acknowledged the interconnectedness of land and sea from the Ngāi Tahu perspective, and the interdependence of all elements of the Ngāi Tahu claim, but due to the distinct nature of the sea fisheries component of Wai 27, a separate investigation was
13 Preface to the Ngāi Tahu Report 1991 14 Ngāi Tahu Report 1991, Chapter 17, p851
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 8
undertaken. Rather than a series of specific grievances, the Fisheries Claim was, in the words of the Tribunal, based on “Crown neglect and failure to consult and protect iwi in the retention of sea fishing rights”15.
37. Introduction of Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) under the Fisheries Amendment Act 1986, the basis of the Quota Management System (QMS), without recognition of the existing rights of Ngāi Tahu was a fundamental issue behind the Fisheries Claim.
38. Key findings of the Ngāi Tahu Sea Fisheries Report were that:
“In legislating to protect and conserve the sea fishery resource the Crown failed to recognise Ngai Tahu rangatiratanga over their sea fisheries and in particular their tribal rights of self- regulation or self-management of their resource, this being an inherent element in rangatiratanga. Their rights were usurped by the Crown without any consultation with Maori and without any recognition of their Treaty rights in their sea fisheries. This denial of Ngai Tahu rangatiratanga over their sea fisheries was in breach of article 2 of the Treaty.”
“Over time the various statutory regimes intended to protect and conserve the sea fisheries failed to prevent serious depletion of the resource to the detriment not only of Ngai Tahu but Maori generally. The resulting material and cultural deprivation undermined Ngai Tahu mana moana and was the consequence of the Crown’s breach of its Treaty duty to protect and sustain Ngai Tahu tino rangatiratanga. [SIC]”
39. The 1992 Report concluded that Ngāi Tahu have:
a) an exclusive Treaty right to the sea fisheries surrounding the whole of their rohe to a distance of 12 miles or so there being no waiver or agreement by them to surrender such right.
b) a Treaty development right to a reasonable share of the sea fisheries off their rohe extending beyond the 12 miles out to and beyond the continental shelf into the deepwater fisheries
15 Preface to the Ngāi Tahu Sea Fisheries Report 1992
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 9
within the 200 mile exclusive economic zone such right being exclusive to Ngai Tahu. [SIC]”
40. Of those key findings, the second point noted in paragraph 43 and point (b) in paragraph 44 are particularly relevant to the Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited proposal. Statutory failure to protect and conserve sea fisheries, resulting in material and cultural deprivation experienced by Ngāi Tahu Whānui, was identified as a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi. The Tribunal also established that Ngāi Tahu Whānui have a development right to a reasonable share of the sea fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone (“the EEZ”).
41. In the Fisheries Claim, it was made clear that Ngāi Tahu viewed fisheries as comprising of “fish of all species finfish shellfish crustacea seals whales and sea plants existing from time to time in southern waters or on our coasts including migratory species passing through those seas, and including also anadromous and catadromous species migrating between fresh and salt waters [SIC]”16.
42. Following the 1992 Report, redress was provided to Ngāi Tahu and included shares of deep water quota. The evidence of Ngāi Tahu Seafood details potentially affected deep water quota assets within the company portfolio, including those received through Settlement. Treaty Fisheries Settlement assets are owned by Ngāi Tahu Fisheries Settlement Limited, within the structure of Te Rūnanga as the mandated iwi authority, and are managed for the benefit of Ngāi Tahu Whānui by Ngāi Tahu Seafood. The evidence of Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Limited (“Te Ohu Kai Moana”) provides further contextual information on the Treaty Fisheries Settlement and redress given to other iwi, including deep water quota assets, as a consequence of recognition of Crown responsibilities and Treaty breaches in relation to all Māori with interests in deep water fisheries.
43. The businesses of Ngāi Tahu Seafood, Okains Bay Seafood, Whale Watch Kaikōura, presenting evidence to this hearing, and other whānau businesses reliant on the Chatham Rise fisheries, are
16 Ngāi Tahu Fisheries Claim, point 11 of the Amended Claim of 25 Jun 1988
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 10
expressions of the development right of Ngāi Tahu identified by the Waitangi Tribunal.
44. These businesses are dependent on the continued function of the Chatham Rise ecosystem, and all the fisheries contained within its length and breadth. Their continued growth and development will be linked to continued health of the Chatham Rise fisheries. In the past Ngāi Tahu Seafood has engaged in deep water fishing and, as highlighted in the evidence of Rodney Tribe, the company has future aspirations in that area. Okains Bay Seafood is growing and relying on the existing state of the fishery for that growth. For the success of Whale Watch Kaikōura to endure, the function of the system that supports the resident and migrating whales must be protected. Besides the future of these individual Ngāi Tahu businesses, opportunities for Ngāi Tahu Whānui in generations to come, must also be protected. Ngāi Tahu Whānui are entitled to rely on the integrity of their Settlement assets to support future tribal development. This application is irreconcilable with maintaining that integrity.
45. The Quota Management System and mechanisms protecting the sustainability of Chatham Rise fisheries under the Fisheries Act, such as the Benthic Protection Area, are key measures employed by the Crown, in their duties of kawanatanga (governance) to ensure the long term health of the system that supports fisheries business, as well as customary and recreational fisheries. These systems protect Ngāi Tahu fisheries and the development right of Ngāi Tahu. Maintaining the integrity of these fisheries management instruments is a fundamental duty of the Crown as Treaty partner. Destroying the Benthic Protection Area to such a significant extent will undermine the fisheries management system and adversely impact Ngāi Tahu rights in relation to the Chatham Rise fisheries.
Rangatiratanga
46. The decision-making committee are seeking to understand what key terms such as rangatiratanga, kaitiakitanga and tikanga mean in the context of the Chatham Rock Phosphate proposal.
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 11
47. There is a useful analysis in the Ngāi Tahu Sea Fisheries Report of the words of Article 2 of the Treaty and the Māori text17, which is derived from the work of the Muriwhenua tribunal18. The translation is that Māori retained full authority (tino rangatiratanga) of their lands (o ratou whenua), the places where their fires burn (o ratou kainga) and all those things important to them (taonga katoa).
48. Taonga katoa includes the sea fisheries that are expected to be impacted by the seabed mining proposal, including species that move between the Ngāi Tahu takiwā boundary19 and the Rēkohu/Wharekauri fisheries. The takiwā boundary defines the area over which Ngāi Tahu exercises rangatiratanga. A basic expectation of Ngāi Tahu rangatira, in Treaty partnership with the Crown, is that when rangatira speak, the Crown will listen. Where tribal taonga, in this case deep sea fisheries, are at risk, Ngāi Tahu rangatira expect the Crown to actively protect those taonga.
49. The 1992 Report mentions a number of species specifically in the discussion of Ngāi Tahu rights, interests and values associated with sea fisheries. Midden remains that form part of the archaeological record are reported to include species commercially fished on the Chatham Rise and potentially impacted by the mining proposal, including ling, hapuka, jack mackerel, barracouta, and tarakihi20, showing the historic reliance on these species by tūpuna. Hoki caught off the Kaikōura coast has customarily been used as bait fish for hapuka by Ngāi Tahu fishermen21, which provides useful insight into the difference between cultural value and commercial value, as hoki is now the primary commercial species earning income for Ngāi Tahu Seafood, and also indicates the availability of hoki in deep water off the Kaikōura coast. Besides the deep water species, the significance of kōura and whale species are specifically mentioned in the report, both of which are commercially and culturally valuable. These are useful references, but do not take away from the basic point of the Ngāi Tahu Fisheries claim, that fisheries include all species present
17 Section 4.2.2, p95 of the Ngāi Tahu Sea Fisheries Report 18 Report of the Waitangi Tribunal on the Muriwhenua Fishing Claim 1988. 19 As defined in the Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu Act 1996, Section 5 20 Section 3.5, p52 and 62 of the Ngāi Tahu Sea Fisheries Report 1992 21 Ibid. Section 3.8.2, p72
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 12
within the marine environment in the Ngāi Tahu takiwā, which as a whole are taonga.
50. Within the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998 are Statutory Acknowledgement Areas within the coastal marine area (Schedules 100 to 104) that include the coastlines of Kaikōura (Te Tai o Marokura), Te Pataka o Rakaihautū (Te Tai o Mahaanui), Ōtākou (Te Tai o Atai Te Uru), Rakiura/Fouveaux Strait (Te Ara a Kiwa) and Fiordland (Te Mimi o Tū Te Rakiwhānoa). These Schedules have been included in Appendix Three to this evidence as they describe the cultural, spiritual, historic, and traditional relationship of mana whenua to these connected marine environments.
51. Since Settlement there have been four significant iwi management plans produced that record the mana whenua perspective across the Ngāi Tahu takiwā, and the aspirations, objectives and policies agreed by representative Papatipu Rūnanga. Each of these plans expands on the relationship of mana whenua with their sea fisheries. Contained in Appendix Four are relevant excerpts from these iwi management plans. These plans further explain the nature of existing interests of Ngāi Tahu in relation to the Chatham Rock Phosphate application. None of these plans, however, envisaged seabed mining or contain specific references to seabed mining activity.
52. Te Pōhā o Tohu Raumati was produced by Te Rūnanga o Kaikōura representing Ngāti Kuri. This plan includes a good summary of rangatiratanga and how that links to kaitiakitanga, echoing the content of the Ngāi Tahu Sea Fisheries Report:
“Kaitiakitanga is inextricably linked to rangatiratanga and independence. Rangatiratanga and independence, as core values, are about the ability of tangata whenua to exercise customary authority over things Māori: over mahinga kai, wāhi tapu and other taonga tuku iho. Effective rangatiratanga and independence enable manaakitanga (hospitality, taking care of visitors), by ensuring that Ngāti Kuri has access to local resources that are healthy and abundant.”22
22 Te Pōhā o Tohu Raumati, Te Rūnanga o Kaikōura Environmental Management Plan, p33
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 13
53. The evidence of Kauahi Ngāpora for Whale Watch Kaikōura refers to what it means for mana whenua to have full control over business direction, using Ngāi Tahu values to guide the whole enterprise, and providing a foundation for manaakitanga that invites the world to enjoy what Ngāti Kuri have taken care to nurture. That is rangatiratanga.
54. In preparation of evidence, Raewyn Solomon of Te Rūnanga o Kaikōura shared the frequent saying of the late Upoko Bill Solomon that Takahanga marae and Whale Watch Kaikōura are like “two legs of the same body” walking together. Te Rūnanga o Kaikōura, working with other agencies, was instrumental in establishing Te Korowai o Te Tai o Marokura, the Kaikōura stakeholder group including Whale Watch Kaikōura, that ultimately led to the recent passing of special legislation protecting Te Tai o Marokura, the coastal waters of Kaikōura, establishing marine mammal sanctuaries (see Appendix Five). They acted as mana whenua in partnership with the whole community to achieve that goal, exercising rangatiratanga and creating a local marine management framework based on kaitiakitanga principles and Ngāi Tahu values, utilising rāhui to achieve long term sustainability, including restrictions on seismic surveys23 . That goal would not have been achieved without willingness of the Crown to hear the concerns of mana whenua and the Kaikōura community and support their aspirations for marine protection.
55. Within the Ngāi Tahu Sea Fisheries Report, there was a specific remedial action requested by Ngāi Tahu rangatira, which was for the Crown to:
“Amend mining legislation to prevent pollution by permitted discharges of debris, tailings and waste water.”24
The Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited proposal will pollute the Benthic Protection Area and the wider Chatham Rise fisheries over hundreds of square kilometres. Although the full extent of the sediment plume has not been established with any certainty, at a
23 Kaikōura (Te Tai o Marokura) Marine Management Act, Section 16 24 Section 2.7, p29 of the Ngāi Tahu Sea Fisheries Report 1992
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 14
minimum the pollution will severely damage 820km2 of those fisheries within the protected area.
56. Destruction of fisheries habitat and pollution of fishing grounds within the marine environment to the east of Te Tai o Marokura, affecting Ngāi Tahu fisheries, is inconsistent with the aspirations of Ngāi Tahu rangatira at the time of Settlement, and inconsistent with the on-going aspirations of mana whenua, as demonstrated by Ngāti Kuri during development of the Kaikōura (Te Tai o Marokura) Management Act 2014.
57. Te Rūnanga has not yet seen any sediment plume modelling results that show increased TSS above baseline levels across the Chatham Rise to get a better understanding of the full spatial distribution of the plume, and the radius of effects at varying concentrations of sediment. Such a picture overlaying distribution of fish species and spawning grounds would be genuinely useful in order to better understand the interaction of tailings discharge with Ngāi Tahu fisheries. Te Rūnanga does not believe that the decision-makers will be able to fully determine the impact on Ngāi Tahu interests, rights and values without this information. The picture is further complicated because it is unclear how the modelled current directions can be reconciled with the actual currents as described in the evidence of Greg Summerton who has many years of experience in how the currents operate in the area of the Chatham Rise under consideration.
58. Assumptions are made in the evidence of the applicant and Dr Krause that fish avoid an area when 3mg/L of sediment is present in the water column, which is also the threshold used to input to stock modelling for hoki, ling and hake25. Presumably, then, fish may be feeding and breeding in areas with 1 – 3mg/L of sediment present, which is relevant to toxicity effects of the suspended sediment, as investigated in the evidence of Ngaire Phillips. This is a significant concern for the health of Ngāi Tahu fisheries and needs more attention than has been given by the applicant to date.
25 Refer to the evidence of Paul Starr and David Middleton
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 15
59. On the advice of Katrin Berkenbusch, it is not clear at what level benthic communities will be impacted by suspended sediments. Understanding the spread of the plume at concentrations of 1 mg/L or 2mg/L would assist in considering the sensitivity of benthic communities to TSS levels outside of the 820km2 area of the initial mining footprint and within the Ngāi Tahu takiwā. Wider loss of function within benthic habitats has the potential to trigger trophic level impacts, as identified by Dr Burkenbusch and Paul Krause, so the wider the TSS distribution above background sediment levels, the greater potential impact through the food web.
60. In addition, a number of limitations appear to exist with the plume modelling inputs that approximate the tailings discharge, including lack of modelling of chalky fines (which may not be able to be avoided by applicant), lack of inclusion of organic material (which may be of varying sizes and densities and is likely to be a considerable proportion of the material released), assumptions about the location of release within the water column (at the seabed, rather than 10m above the seafloor), assumptions about near-bed current direction (which do not correspond with the knowledge of Chatham Rise fishermen such as Greg Summerton), and assumptions about re- suspension potential of fines resulting in cumulative or recurring effects.
61. In order for the decision-makers to have the best available information to assess the impacts on Ngāi Tahu fisheries, Te Rūnanga asks that any modelling limitations be addressed by the decision-makers in order to gain the most accurate possible picture of the likely range of plume effects across the Chatham Rise ecosystem and within the Ngāi Tahu takiwā.
Kaitiakitanga
62. The Mahaanui Iwi Management Plan, articulating the positions of six Papatipu Rūnanga representing mana whenua from Hurunui to Hakatere/Ashburton, includes the following description of kaitiakitanga:
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 16
“Kaitiakitanga is fundamental to the relationship of Ngāi Tahu and the environment. The responsibility of kaitiakitanga is twofold: first, there is the ultimate aim of protecting mauri and, second, there is the duty to pass the environment to future generations in a state which is as good as, or better than, the current state. To Ngāi Tahu, kaitiakitanga is not a passive custodianship, nor is it simply the exercise of traditional property rights, but entails an active exercise of responsibility in a manner beneficial to the resource.”26
63. Kaitiaki act as guardians over fisheries resources, in freshwater, coastal and deep water environments. In the evidence of Okains Bay Seafood and in the Cultural Impact Assessment Report27, Greg Summerton describes the need to protect the fisheries, the ling spawning ground and the fossil bone beds that mark the abundant fisheries adjacent to the proposed mining area. He is expressing his duty as kaitiaki, which comes from whakapapa and the passing down and gathering of knowledge (mātauranga). He has a responsibility to pass that knowledge on to the next generation. Potential for significant harm to the spawning grounds, the fossil beds and the fisheries will not only affect his business, but his mana as kaitiaki, and his ability to transfer what he knows and what he has protected to his descendants.
64. The applicant has excluded the prospecting permit PP55967 area from the revised marine consent, which contains a substantial proportion of the ling spawning area and the eastern extent of the known fossil beds. The western mark where fossil remains are known to have been fished up is now included within the exclusion areas that are part of the revised marine consent area28. The effort to avoid direct destruction of the fossil beds from the crushing impact of the draghead is acknowledged and appreciated. It should be noted, however, that the marks provided were known locations where fossil remains have been fished up, as opposed to a concrete definition of the extent of the fossil beds. In the proposed Condition 36(a), which
26 Mahaanui Iwi Management Plan, p51 27 Cultural Impact Assessment Report – Potential effects of the Chatham Rock Phosphate proposal on Ngai Tahu values and interests related to marine mammals on the Chatham Rise, Dyanna Jolly, p8 28 Refer to Page 53 of the evidence of Carmen Taylor
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 17
refers to actions required prior to mining, there is no requirement for the mining block to be surveyed for the presence of fossil beds. This should occur, and in the event that there are fossils present within the mining block, they should be spared from the destructive impact of the activity and effectively excluded from the direct effects of mining. This is included as Recommendation 2 in the Cultural Impact Assessment Report, but has not carried through into conditions.
65. More significant, though, are the wider impacts of the activity on the fisheries and spawning grounds marked by the tohu of the fossil beds. Kaitiaki seek to protect the existing abundance of this place, which is largely undisturbed by human activity and has evolved over millenia, for future generations. Attached as Appendix Six is the advice of Dr Ewan Fordyce in relation to the geological history of the area that resulted in creation of the fossil beds. During the July hui attended by Dr Fordyce, there was discussion of why the fossils were concentrated in this area, and he offered the most likely scenario, that the animals dropped where they were feeding millions of years ago29.
66. The evidence of Paul Krause concludes the likelihood of long-term changes to the Chatham Rise ecosystem as a consequence of the proposed activity, which does not align with kaitiaki responsibilities to this place and to the associated fisheries.
67. The evidence of Tara Ross-Watt addresses specific impacts on marine mammals from the proposed activity, picking up on further recommendations made in the Cultural Impact Assessment Report. He refers to the area as a likely feeding ground, and potential breeding ground, and discusses avoidance behaviour, as well as concern about ecosystem change impacting marine mammal presence in the mining area. From the Ngāi Tahu perspective, this is a serious threat to taonga species, to their habitat and well-being. I refer the decision- makers to Recommendations 3, 4 and 5 in the Cultural Impact Assessment Report. Species that have relied on the area for generations are likely to be displaced. There is significant uncertainty about the extent of food web effects, but certainty that benthic habitat
29 Dr Ewan Fordyce, 1 July hui at Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, Wigram, pers. comm.
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 18
will be permanently altered at the base of the food chain. To quote from the report:
“In order to exercise the principle of Kaitiakitanga with regard to the sperm whale, we must exercise kaitiakitanga and protect all the children of Tangaroa, as “what begets the smallest, begets the largest that is the food web.” (Te Rūnanga o Kaikoura, 2013).30
68. In relation to kōura (crayfish), after which Kaikōura is named (a contraction of Te ahi kai kōura a Tama-ki-te-raki31 , see Appendix Three, Schedule 100), Te Rūnanga sought advice on potential impacts of the activity on kōura, due to the significance of crayfish to the business of Ngāi Tahu Seafood and to mana whenua as a mahinga kai staple. Te Rūnanga approached the Rock Lobster Industry Council, fisherman Joe Cave, and Dr John Booth (ex-NIWA scientist), whose written response is attached as Appendix Seven. Dr Booth agreed with the analysis of Dr MacDiarmid that there were low risks to three species of kōura, including deep water kōura, primarily because of the depth of the Rise at the point of mining activity, which he considered too deep for red rock lobster and too shallow for packhorse and deep water lobster. There is no discussion within his comment on the NIWA assessment around migration theory. While there is no specific scientific evidence in support of the migration theory, the submission of the CRA6 Rock Lobster Industry Council indicates that fisheries management presumes a migrating population of CRA 6 lobster32, although the migration pathway is unknown. Fisherman Joe Cave shared recollections of the marches of kōura down the east coast of Te Wai Pounamu, at great depths over great distances, and catching kōura on the Mernoo Bank33. Any uncertainty regarding potential impacts on kōura would appear to be related to a lack of consensus around migration habits, and potential food web effects. Te Rūnanga expects a precautionary approach to be taken in relation to this significant mahinga kai species.
30 Cultural Impact Assessment Report – Potential effects of the Chatham Rock Phosphate proposal on Ngai Tahu values and interests related to marine mammals on the Chatham Rise, Dyanna Jolly, p8 31 Ngāi Tahu Sea Fisheries Report 1992, Section 3.8.3, p74 32 CRA 6 Rock Lobster industry Council submission, p4 33 Joe Cave, pers.comm to Maria Bartlett, June 2014
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 19
69. The Mahaanui Iwi Management Plan contains a number of Ngā Paetae (Objectives), including that water and land are managed as interrelated resources, embracing the practice of Ki Uta Ki Tai, which recognises the connection between land, groundwater, surface water and coastal waters34. The plan is clear in Ngā Kaupapa (policy) that the cumulative effects of land use on the health of soil and water resources requires a precautionary approach35. Nowhere in the plan is radioactivity specifically mentioned, although the plan was completed in late 2013, because the issue of radioactivity levels in soil and water was not envisaged as a threat by mana whenua.
70. Included as Appendix Eight is an investigation completed by Dr Jim Cooke on behalf of Te Rūnanga that raises concerns about the uranium content of the Chatham Rise phosphate, which the applicant proposes to market as a direct application fertiliser for New Zealand soils. Dr Cooke finds little evidence that there is a market for this fertiliser, which calls in to question the economic benefits claimed by the applicant (a matter covered in the evidence of Alex Sundakov). In the event that it does find a market, however, Dr Cooke concludes that radioactivity levels in New Zealand soils can be expected to increase at a faster rate than with use of existing fertilisers, at about ten times the rate. He notes that some soils are better than others at preventing radioactivity levels from increasing in groundwater and surface water, but that risk exists of release to water from certain types of soils, particularly free draining soils in Canterbury36. From a mana whenua perspective, this is further cause for concern and Te Rūnanga asks the decision making committee to take great care to ensure that there is no risk to the whenua as a result of this proposal.
71. The Chatham Rock Phosphate proposal fails on two counts to respect the duty of kaitiaki to “pass the environment to future generations in a state which is as good as, or better than, the current state”. Destruction of fisheries habitat and introduction of high concentrations of uranium to New Zealand soils, with limited understanding of
34 Mahaanui Iwi Management Plan, p75 35 Mahaanui Iwi Management Plan, p83-84 36 Statement of Dr Jim Cooke, paras 31-32
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 20
potential risks to freshwater, are not suitable legacies for Ngāi Tahu Whānui.
72. Within the Mahaanui Iwi Management Plan is a whakataukī (proverb) connected with Te Roto o Wairewa (Lake Forsyth), of Te Pataka o Rakaihautū, recording the importance of tuna (eels) to the health of the people:
“Ka hāhā te tuna ki te roto
Ka hāhā te reo ki te kāika
Ka hāhā te takata ki te whenua”37
Translated this means that if the lake is full with eels, and if the home resounds with speaking, then the land will be filled with people. Tuna are harvested every year from Te Roto o Wairewa and whānau come from all around the country to exercise their customary rights.
73. The applicant has concluded that seagoing tuna will be unaffected by the activity38. While Te Rūnanga has reservations regarding food web effects and the extent of plume effects across the Chatham Rise, which has the potential to impact the condition of seagoing tuna, potential for increased radioactivity levels in freshwater is a particular concern in relation to this fundamental mahinga kai species. As with other freshwater mahinga kai, myriad threats exist to their health and survival. There must be no new threat introduced to mahinga kai species already struggling to maintain existing condition and abundance. Degradation of freshwater mahinga kai resources was identified as a breach of Article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi in the Ngāi Tahu Report 1991. A potential increase in radioactivity levels in freshwater would exacerbate issues for degraded mahinga kai resources. Chatham Rise phosphate, with higher than average concentrations of uranium39, represents a new and unacceptable risk.
74. Te Tangi a Tauira (The Cry of the People) is the iwi management plan articulating the objectives and policies of Murihiku (Southland) hapu.
37 Mahaanui Iwi Management Plan, p83-84 38 Evidence of Paul Kennedy, para 117 39 Appendix 8, Statement of Dr Jim Cooke, para 21
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 21
Every year, mana whenua travel to the Tītῑ Islands for harvesting of tῑtī (muttonbirds). The Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act contains a schedule of taonga species (see Appendix Nine), which includes a number of seabirds, including all harvested varieties of tῑtī. Te Tangi o Tauira records concern that the interconnected nature and success of breeding and recruitment of tītī is heavily reliant on the availability of food40. The following observation is made:
“One important migratory marine bird for Ngāi Tahu ki Murihiku is the Tītī (sooty shearwater or muttonbird). The main breeding colonies are located on the Snares, Chatham Islands and the Tītī Islands adjacent to Rakiura, Stewart Island. Most tītī return to these Islands in late September, early October to prepare for the new breeding season. While feeding young, adult tītī feed on squid, fish crustacean and salps in the southern waters. It is estimated that tītī spend 90-95% of their life at sea coming ashore only for breeding. At sea tītī are prone to changes in weather patterns, changes to the biodiversity found within coastal water, pollution and fishing practices.”41
75. In addition to the significance of southern tῑtī are Kaikōura tῑtī (Hutton’s Shearwater) breeding in the Seaward Kaikōura Ranges, which is the only breeding site in the world for this species. Once harvested by mana whenua, the role of Ngāi Kurī now is to bring the populations back to health. In 1999, Whale Watch Kaikōura bought a key property on Kaikōura Peninsula which the late Upoko Bill Solomon desired to become a base for resurgence of the Kaikōura tῑtī population. Numbers of Kaikōura tῑtī are on the increase as a result of local commitment42.
76. Te Rūnanga notes that the Environmental Protection Authority43 and the Crown44 are considering the impact of food web effects on seabirds utilising the Chatham Rise. Given the amount of time that tītī spend foraging at sea, it is crucial that their foraging grounds are maintained, so that they return to breed in good condition. Attached
40 Te Tangi o Tauira, p72 41 Te Tangi o Tauira, p196 42 Te Pānui Rūnaka, Kāi Tahu Monthly Newsletter, August 2014 43 EPA Staff Report, August 2014, para 314 44 The Crown’s Submission to Environmental Protection Authority 2624224, para 19
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 22
as Appendix Ten is reference material provided by Dan Govier of Environmental Offshore Services, which shows migration pathways of southern tītī, and includes discussion of foraging in preferred fishing grounds. If the Pinkerton model is not sufficient to predict food web changes, as noted in the evidence of Paul Krause, then Te Rūnanga cannot be certain that impacts on tītī foraging opportunities on the Chatham Rise are well understood at this time. A precautionary approach is required in relation to the needs of tītī and other seabirds recorded as Ngāi Tahu taonga species.
Tikanga
77. The existing prohibition on bottom trawling within the Benthic Protection Area, and its purpose to protect significant benthic habitat, is consistent with tikanga. The proposal to remove the surface of this habitat and leave behind an entirely altered seafloor, which will lower biodiversity and the productivity of the area, is inconsistent with tikanga.
78. Tikanga ensures sustainable utilisation of resources, kaitiakitanga, so that the chain of whakapapa and mātauranga remains strong. As already mentioned, in order for Greg Summerton of Okains Bay Seafood to be able to pass down what he knows, the resource must remain in its current state. Knowing where to go to find mahinga kai and taonga species is as important as how they are gathered or treated, as articulated in this repeated phrase from the Kāi Tahu ki Otago Natural Resource Management Plan:
“The tūpuna had considerable knowledge of whakapapa … places for gathering kai and other taonga …, and tikanga for the proper and sustainable utilisation of resources.”45
79. In the Ngāi Tahu Sea Fisheries Report, the late Upoko Bill Solomon is quoted regarding long-lining, as follows:
“’Our Dad told us that we were never to use those [nylon] nets – because they would eventually destroy the resource. Nets cannot
45 Refer to Kāi Tahu ki Otago Natural Resource Management Plan, Kakanui River example on pg 101
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 23
discriminate between mature and immature fish. This is the reason why we do not use nets today. We were long liners and still are today. Long line fishermen catch a superior quality of groper. Long lines have no impact on young groper, it is therefore desirable in terms of conservation and the survival of the species. (H7 :5)’
He contrasted this traditional practice, and its underlying conservation principle, with contemporary fishing methods which, in his view, were based on short-term maximum economic gain rather than long-term sustainability of resources.”46
80. In his evidence, Greg Summerton describes his choice to switch to long-lining as a cultural choice, founded in whakapapa. For him, long- lining fits with Ngāi Tahu tikanga, and is the right way to fish for sustainability. To succeed at long-lining, he must know where the fish are, their habits and preferences at different stages of their life-cycle. The Chatham Rock Phosphate proposal will have a devastating impact on his ability to employ mātauranga, passed to him, and gathered over many years, in his long-lining business. Fish are considered likely to permanently avoid the area. Impacts on the ling spawning ground are very much dependant on the size and direction of the sediment plume, which remains uncertain. Okains Bay Seafood will no longer be able to rely on existing practices and known fishing grounds to continue with growth and development of the business, raising considerable uncertainties over the longer term about what will be able to be passed on. It is no answer to suggest that overall stock numbers of ling (and hoki and hake) may only be affected by a small percentage. Even if the assumptions made in the fish stock modelling are accurate (and Te Rūnanga has considerable reservations about that because of limitations with the inputs and assumptions) the modelling does not address changes in fishability or the way the fishery functions.
46 Ngāi Tahu Sea Fisheries Report 1992, Section 2.5.2, p20
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 24
Consultation
81. Te Rūnanga remains unconvinced that the applicant has fully understood the nature of Ngāi Tahu interests through the limited consultation that has occurred.
82. As a result of responding to the development of EEZ Regulations, Te Rūnanga was aware of a high level risk assessment undertaken by NIWA in 2011 in relation to phosphate mining on the Chatham Rise when Te Rūnanga first met with Chatham Rock Phosphate representatives in June 2013. Following is a key excerpt from that NIWA report:
“In areas being actively mined probably close to 100% of the benthic organisms will be killed during the mining or nodule concentration process … As the total area affected is likely to be a significant proportion of the total nodule habitat, the functional impact on the benthic ecosystem as a whole, as well as impacts on key species, such as sponges, and protected benthic species, such as deepwater corals, is likely to be severe … If species are dependent on the presence of phosphorite nodules then recovery may never occur because these fauna relie up [sic] the nodules for attachment in an otherwise soft sediment environment …”47
83. As noted in our 10 July 2014 written submission, when meeting with the applicant Te Rūnanga staff sought to understand how the applicant might overcome concerns regarding the NIWA assessment and explain how the mining activity could be undertaken without significant impacts on fishing activity and Ngāi Tahu existing interests, rights and values.
84. Toko Kapea of Tuia Group and Linda Sanders of Chatham Rock Phosphate came to speak with a number of Te Rūnanga staff representatives, along with Okains Bay Seafood director Greg Summerton on 24 May 2013. A copy of the application was requested in advance of the hui, in order to get the best out of the kōrero. The
47 Refer to pages 65-72 of “Expert Risk Assessment of Activities in the New Zealand Exclusive Economic Zone and Extended Continental Shelf” prepared by NIWA for the Ministry for the Environment, NIWA Client Report No. WLG2011-39, September 2011
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 25
applicant provided in advance a powerpoint presentation containing limited information and incorrect statements (see Appendix Eleven), as well as early reports on kōura and tuna impacts. Te Rūnanga did not receive any answers of substance to concerns raised regarding the 2011 NIWA assessment, including queries regarding restoration trials and the capacity for the environment to recover, which still remain largely unanswered48. At that hui, Te Rūnanga made it clear that the application should be provided to us in advance of lodging, which was promised. The reason given for not providing the application in advance of the hui was that reports were not yet completed. Ahead of the hui, Toko Kapea gave the following assurance on 22 May 2013:
“the company is nearing completion on various other reports – these can be provided to you in due course”
85. On 4 June 2013 the contents pages of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) were provided by Tuia Group, and it was acknowledged that Te Rūnanga wanted more information about CRP plans to use an adaptive management approach, mapping of plume effects in relation to fishing grounds and stocks, information about similar activities undertaken by Boskalis and a further meeting with more technical information available. None of these things were ever provided and Te Rūnanga later discovered that the applicant had lodged their application with the EPA in July 2013, without sharing any further information with Te Rūnanga. That application was subsequently withdrawn.
86. In September 2013, four months after first meeting with CRP, Te Rūnanga was able to access July EIA material obtained by Deep Water Group through an Official Information Act request to the EPA. The material was missing significant information in relation to key areas of interest.
48 Refer to the evidence of Dan Govier
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 26
87. Five and half months after first meeting with CRP, Toko Kapea made contact on 8 November to request a follow up meeting for 13 November, which elicited the following response from Te Rūnanga:
“It has been five months since our last contact from you, and in the meantime we are aware that application has been made to the EPA, which we were not given access to. We were forced to rely on an Official Information Act request by the Deep Water Group to obtain a fraction of the material lodged with the EPA, despite assurances when we met with you last that we would be provided with a copy of your EIA at the time of lodging the application.
Needless to say, none of the above puts us in a place to be well disposed to meet at short notice at a very busy time of year. Such a request appears very much to be about the needs and timeframes of the applicant, and to have very little to do with recognition of the needs and resources of Ngāi Tahu.
Having said that, we do want the opportunity to sit down and work with you around the detail of the proposal, including detailed information regarding mitigation measures to address the concerns we raised with you last time. Those concerns were around the extent of habitat destruction, some of which we understand may be permanent, as well as the proximity of the activity to treasured fishing grounds, likely to be impacted by both seafloor destruction and tailings discharge. The combination of these things will directly impact the commercial and customary activities of Ngāi Tahu Whānui, which contribute fundamentally to the foundation of tribal mana. We need to know that when we do meet, that you are ready to answer the hard questions in detail, and that you are ready to work with us to incorporate Ngāi Tahu’s concerns, interests and values into your assessment and mitigation measures.
Anything less than a full and frank exchange, that provides the opportunity for active input from Ngāi Tahu to the design of mitigation measures and detail of the proposal, will not work at this end, so CRP need to be aware of this and be prepared for that when they do meet with us.”
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 27
88. Adrian Wilson of Tuia Group subsequently made contact regarding the proposal. There was an exchange of e-mails in late December 2013, which included Te Rūnanga providing the list of areas of interest noted in paragraph 47 of the evidence of Linda Sanders. Preceding the list was the following communication:
“As discussed with Adrian earlier in the week, we thought it would be valuable to provide you with areas of interest for us, and particular questions that we would like answered, so that you have an appreciation of our current level of knowledge around the project and our expectations of any meeting.
I’d like to reiterate that there were a number of things promised the last time we met that did not eventuate, including access to the EIA. One thing we discussed at that point was an exchange of technical experts. When we meet this time, we would like there to be technically competent members present on both sides to discuss our particular areas of concern and interest.
I would also like to note that the draft EIA misrepresented our concerns, which are not limited to plume discharge. We were very clear at the time that direct impacts of excavation on benthic fauna and the surface of the BPA were a primary interest, as well as the effects of suspended sediments and sedimentation resulting from the tailings discharge.
In order to avoid any further misunderstanding around our interests and concerns, we will provide you with greater clarity when we meet, and ensure that we establish an agreed record of the meeting, as well as an agreed approach to on-going engagement.”
89. A teleconference was held in early February 2014, almost nine months from the first hui, at which time the applicant released the July 2013 EIA to Te Rūnanga after considerable prompting, and on the caveat that the content was not shared with others, which was respected.
90. On 4 March 2014 representatives of the applicant from Golder & Associates met with Ngāi Tahu representatives, to discuss areas identified for discussion by Te Rūnanga (see Appendix Twelve). It
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 28
was made clear by the applicant at that time that further work was being done, but the results were not available to share. The ling report and NIWA zonation report were shared prior to lodging (on 10 April and 9 May respectively), and draft conditions (on 9 April), although planned stakeholder discussions regarding the zonation report did not occur. Te Rūnanga appreciates the opportunity to have provided the applicant with further information regarding the relationship of Ngāi Tahu to marine mammals, resulting in the Cultural Impact Assessment Report.
91. The evidence of Linda Sanders, paragraph 49, repeats the assertion made in the July EIA and corrected in December correspondence (see paragraph 88) that the primary concern noted by Te Rūnanga was to do with plume discharge. Sedimentation and plume effects are concerns, but throughout engagement with the applicant Te Rūnanga has raised primary concerns regarding benthic habitat destruction, the lack of potential for restoration and the limitations of an adaptive management approach to address the issue. Those concerns remain, and overall it is not clear to Te Rūnanga that the approach of the applicant to date represents industry best practice49.
92. Te Rūnanga remains unconvinced that the applicant has fully understood the nature of Ngāi Tahu interests. This is evidenced by the concluding statement in the evidence of Linda Sanders, paragraph 51, that the proposed mining activity will not conflict with fishing and that Ngāi Tahu cultural concerns have been addressed. We are in fundamental disagreement.
Conclusion
93. The words of the late Upoko Rikiihia Tau as quoted in the Ngāi Tahu Fisheries Report 1992 set the foundation earlier in this evidence, in support of the position of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu that the marine consent application of Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited be declined. He passed away during preparation of the Cultural Impact Assessment Report commissioned for this process. In a recent pānui
49 Refer to the evidence of Andrea Rickard and Tara Ross-Watt
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 29
(message) to Ngāi Tahu whānui, kaiwhakahaere Tā Mark Solomon had this to say:
“Rik was one of the many kaumātua who set us on the path to regaining our tribal footprint on this land, enabling us to build our resources and breathe life into our vision and aspirations for our people. In 1986, Rik filed a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal on behalf of the Ngāi Tahu Māori Trust Board and Ngāi Tahu Whānui. He was a lead negotiator with the Crown for the 1998 Ngāi Tahu Settlement, and played a key role in the establishment of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu. He reminded us of our on-going responsibility to defend and protect our statutory rights, as Ngāi Tahu, for future generations.”50
94. There are many Ngāi Tahu kaumātua who have now passed, like Rik Tau and Bill Solomon, who inspired the next generation of Ngāi Tahu leaders and innovators, including those growing sustainable businesses based on Ngāi Tahu fisheries.
95. It is the responsibility of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu to continue to protect the integrity of Settlement with the Crown, and the inherent and enduring rights of Ngāi Tahu Whānui.
96. The proposal of Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited is a direct threat to the system of fisheries management and to sustainable Ngāi Tahu businesses, due to certain destruction within the Benthic Protection Area and significant uncertainties around wider ecosystem effects on the Chatham Rise.
97. A grant decision on this application threatens to erode the integrity of Settlement with the Crown and negatively impact on Ngāi Tahu interests, rights and values.
98. The level of environmental damage and level of environmental risk are not commensurate with the level of return to the Crown, and entirely incompatible with Crown responsibilities to Ngāi Tahu as Treaty partner.
50 Te Pānui Rūnaka, Kāi Tahu Monthly Newsletter, August 2014
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 30
99. Only a decline decision will address the concerns of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, acting on behalf of over 55,000 existing Ngāi Tahu Whānui, their tūpuna and uri (descendants).
Maria Bartlett 12 September 2014
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 31
APPENDIX ONE: NGĀI TAHU FISHERIES CLAIM
Following is the text of the Ngāi Tahu Fisheries Claim as contained in Appendix One of the Ngāi Tahu Sea Fisheries Report 1992.
“ATTENTION : DR MAARIRE GOODALL.
I write to notify you of the basis of the Ngai Tahu fisheries Claim in respect of WAI 27 currently proceeding before the Waitangi Tribunal.
The content of this claim was communicated to the Minister of Fisheries by the Secretary of this Board by FAX on September 24.1987.
You should note that the fisheries component of WAI 27 is contained within the “Mahinga Kai” section of the case. It is anticipated that this component will be dealt with separately pending the outcome of the Muriwhenua Claim currently being considered by the Tribunal.
The Ngai Tahu Fisheries Claim is as follows:
1. Ngai Tahu claim sole ownership of the fishery off their tribal coasts out to the twelve mile limit under the Treaty of Waitangi.
2. In the light of the partnership principle implicit in the Treaty and developed in some detail in the recent Court of Appeal decision, Ngai Tahu are prepared to grant to their Treaty Partner, the Crown, a full half share in that fishery.
3. Without prejudice to its position on the question that the Crown may have been in breach of the Treaty in imposing both general legislation in fisheries and the recently imposed ITQ system in particular, Ngai Tahu accept that the ITQ system is now a commercial and practical reality.
4. Ngai Tahu therefore retains for itself 50% of all ITQ for all species out to the twelve mile limit and grants to its Treaty partner, the Crown, the right to 50% of all ITQ within the twelve mile limit. This retention and grant apply only to those waters offshore from the tribe’s traditional boundaries. Those boundaries are currently being considered by the Tribunal.
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 32
5. On account of its Treaty partner’s action in unilaterally imposing its own stewardship on the fishery described in past years with the effect that the fishery has become seriously depleted, Ngai Tahu claims compensation for its losses so sustained.
6. The tribe is prepared to accept such compensation from its Treaty partner in the form of an allocation of ITQ in the fishery beyond the twelve mile limit. The quantum of such allocation is regarded as being negotiable.
7. Should the negotiation on the quantum of ITQ beyond the twelve mile limit be acceptable to Ngai Tahu then the tribe is prepared to abandon its prosecution of the question that the Crown has acted in breach of the Treaty and the principles of the Treaty in respect of Ngai Tahu fisheries.
The above Claim is filed with you without prejudice to its substance being filed in a more formal way at a later date.
It is further filed without prejudice to Ngai Tahu consideration of a proposed MAORI FISHERY PROGRAMME currently being considered by Government but on which the tribe has not as yet been consulted.
Tipene O’Regan”
Amended Claim in Respect of Fisheries (J7) 25 June 1988
“Tena koutou nga Kaiwhakawaa o te Taraipiunara nei, tena koutou nga Rangatira o te Roopu Whakamana i te Tiriti. Tena koutou.
Anei matou e tu ake nei ko Ngai Tahu Whanui.
Kia whakarongohia a matou tangi mo nga uri a Takaroa i ngaro ai.
In accord with our earlier reservations and notice given that we would in due time bring our fishing claim up to date with events to the time of hearing we now seek leave to amend our claim as follows.
We previously stated to the Tribunal in written and also verbal submissions the kind of negotiated agreement with the Crown we then contemplated as possible as to sharing of the resource in various zones, but that we recognise
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 33 no seaward limit to our fishery nor do we concede any derogation from our tribal tino rangatiratanga in the seas off our coasts. Because of the many significant changes in the New Zealand fisheries and in their management since our claim was first filed, and particularly due to recent developments in the work of the Courts, Government and the Waitangi Tribunal itself, it is necessary now to reformulate the detailed principles of the Ngai Tahu fishing claim.
We have already given evidence on our inland fishing claims, and further detail relating that information to our whakapapa and land usage rights will be given at this hui. Although it will be convenient to the Tribunal to deal with our sea fishing claim as a separate and major issue in itself, we would emphasise to you that Ngai Tahu consider their lands and seas to be a physical and spititual unity, a seamless whole which cannot properly be divided into parts. Within that unity is our mahika kai, which cannot be separated from our mana as a Tribe.
We therefore now assert our marine fishing claim :
Ngai Tahu Whanui encompasses all the hapu of Kaitahu, Kati Mamoe, Waitaha, and all of the earlier tangata whenua tribes or hapu of Te Waipounamu. For brevity in our claim we just say Ngai Tahu, which includes us all.
1. Ngai Tahu own the marine fishery adjacent to their Tribal territory. That fishery is our property and has been since time immemorial.
2. The geographic extent of our fishery is bounded laterally by perpendicular projection into the sea of our tribal land boundaries with other tribes at the coast at Parinui-o-whiti on the east, and at Kahuraki on the west, and sweeping southwards around the coast of Te Waipounamu and offshore islands including those to the south of Rakiura.
3. No seaward boundary offshore is recognised. Our traditional and customary tribal fishery is not limited by any past or present law or custom of Britain or of the Crown in New Zealand as regarding 3, 12, 200 or any other number of miles offshore, nor the alleged projectile strength of their cannon. We have the right to go to sea as far as we must, or are able, in order to obtain the fish that we require.
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 34
4. Our fishery includes inshore waters, beaches, inlets, fjords and tidal rivers and estuaries, as well as littoral swamps, and it includes submarine fishing grounds without any limitation as to their depth.
5. Ngai Tahu do not claim mana whenua on Rekohu-Chathams Island or the smaller offshore islands of that group, and therefore we do not claim that mana moana nor the Chathams fishery. Ngai Tahu do claim and acknowledge their blood and historical relationship with many Chathams people of mixed Moriori, Maori or Pakeha descent. Accordingly we do not ourselves claim in the Chathams fishery, instead we recognise the duty of whanaungatanga requiring us to support the Chathams people in making their own claim. Ngai Tahu do not wish to intrude on the mana of the Chathams and only offer their support on such terms and at such times as those people might request from the Chathams Islands community itself, so long as we are satisfied their runanga genuinely represents the Chathams community itself rather that [sic] any external mainland group. Ngai Tahu expects in due time to negotiate directly with the Chathams people agreements for the boundaries and regulation of their respective fisheries where they abut. Equally we expect to negotiate suitable agreements with the tribal authorities to the north of us on west and east coasts of Te Waipounamu.
6. The Ngai Tahu fishery includes all property and user rights inherent in the business and activity of fishing within their tribal waters defined above.
7. The Ngai Tahu fishery includes commercial sustenance and cultural aspects and is not subdivided into compartments by such categories as listed in the Fisheries Acts or Regulations made by the Crown purportedly for the general NZ fishery ; instead our fishery is one whole entity or taonga controlled by our tribal authorities for the benefit of all and for those who come after us according to our traditional values.
8. The Ngai Tahu fishery includes the right to fish without any interference or restriction whatever by the Crown or by other British subjects or New Zealand residents or by foreign persons.
9. Ngai Tahu fully recognise the conservation and management duties inherent in their rights of ownership usage and control of their fishery, for the continuing benefit of themselves and all other citizens of New Zealand. In that
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 35 respect the expensive but disastrously ineffective management methods of the Crown intruded on our fisheries during the past half century or more must be modified to include the more sophisticated approach of Southern Maori tradition.
10. Ngai Tahu are entitled to the protection of the Crown against any interference in their fishery by other citizens including Maori of other tribes, or by other residents or foreigners.
11. The Ngai Tahu fishery comprises fish of all species finfish shellfish crustacea seals whales and sea plants existing from time to time in southern waters or on our coasts including migratory species passing through those seas, and including also anadromous and catadromous species migrating between fresh and salt waters. Certain particular species such as squid, barracouta, hoki, hapuku seals whales or shellfish had especial traditional economic importance for Ngai Tahu but all species without exception are part of our fishery.
12. The fish in our fishery include all those species now found there whether or not they were all used at any particular date in the past, and also included are any other species of fish or plant life which might be newly discovered there at any time in the future. We are conscious that various species have been newly commercially exploited after findings by independent fishermen, including foreigners in the famous case of orange roughy which we understand was first found by Japanese invited by the Crown for a substantial fee payable to themselves, into our fishery. Ownership of those fish resources has nevertheless been arrogated to itself by the Crown, in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and our ownership and control rights guaranteed to us in the Treaty.
13. The Ngai Tahu fishery includes all those places within our tribal seas where fish can from time to time be caught whether or not they were all used at 1840 or at any other date. Our property belongs to us no matter what particular use we might choose to make of it at any time.
14. Ngai Tahu fisheries include all the gear that is apparatus nets lures pa weirs hinaki lines hooks navigational aids and the like used in fishing, and it includes all the methods of fishing which were at any time used or which may
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 36 in future be used for the species and places accessible to our fishermen at any time past in the future. Our fishing property is in no way limited by past technology and we have every right to utilise modern knowledge in its development.
15. The Ngai Tahu fishery includes all the cultural and spiritual values held to be important by Ngai Tahu and its various hapu whether or not those values are recognised or considered important by the Crown in its legislation, or by other Maoris or other citizens residents or foreigners, or by corporations. Ngai Tahu are entitled under the Treaty to have those spiritual or non-material values identified by them protected by the Crown.
16. The managment and control of their fishery is guaranteed exclusively to Ngai Tahu by the Treaty of Waitangi, and further by s 88(2) of the Fishing Act in our view of the law. Ngai Tahu were also entitled to the income and other benefits that may from time to time accrue from the activity and business of fishing in our tribal seas.Furthermore the entire property in the fishery was guaranteed to Ngai Tahu however that property title might be expressed in modern legal terms following legislation by the Crown whether it is now in real or such abstract forms as “quota” “licences” or any other form of title or right to fish. In our view the Crown has never had any right to interfere in the management or control of the fishery, nor to divert away from the rightful owners the income and benefits of fishing, nor to issue “quota” “licences” or other forms of purported title in property or user rights in the fisheries that in right belong to Ngai Tahu. The fishery property still belongs to Ngai Tahu.
17. Ngai Tahu have long recognised the need to develop a conjoint Maori– Pakeha society based upon mutual respect and reasonableness as between partners in accordance with the Treaty of Waitangi. The file of submissions by the Deputy Chairman and the Chairman of our tribal Trust Board to the Minister of Fisheries clearly shows a responsible attitude, acknowledged by the Minister himself, in regard to management and sharing in the fishery resource. Such submissions have been made by our Tribe over a long period of time, but so far with no satisfactory result, requiring us now to prosecute our claim to the fullest.
18. Ngai Tahu historically as shown in evidence to this honourable Tribunal have always been generous in their view of the needs and reasonable wishes
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 37 of manuhiri peoples coming within our tribal boundaries in peace and friendship or for trade or mutual benefit. Long before the Treaty of Waitangi our tribal leaders recognised and encouraged trading educational and religious interrelationships both with other Maori and with Pakeha. The reasonable needs of those manuhiri for sustenance fishing were always allowed and protected under our tribal mana, continuing right through to the landmark 1986 case acquitted from the District Court by Williamson J in which the learned Judge saw clearly that the accused person belonging to a northern tribe was in fact exercising a Ngai Tahu fishing right under our approval and control through our hapu leaders of Ngai Tuahuriri. Thus the law acknowledged that our fishing rights had not been extinguished, even though only a small part of those rights were in issue in that case. In fact that case turned on the aboriginal rights under British and New Zealand common law, and not at all upon our much greater rights reserved to us under the Treaty of Waitangi.
19. Ngai Tahu alone has the authority to give, and to revoke, fishing rights to manuhiri peoples coming into our rohe. We have in fact granted such rights since ancient times, which we call tuku whenua or tuku moana and which my colleagues will have referred to in other evidence. Any such grants are exercised under the mana of Ngai Tahu and have always been protected by us from intrusion by others, Pakeha or Maori, and equally may be revoked by us for good cause.
20. The policy of Ngai Tahu is no different today and we intend as a people to negotiate fair and reasonable arrangements with all those persons, Crown officers or foreign interests who will properly recognise our prior rights to do so, and our right to determine the best use of our inherent property in fishing. Therefore the single most essential requirement for those wishing to negotiate settlements within the Ngai Tahu fisheries as our Treaty partners will be that they need to acknowledge the fundamental fact that Ngai Tahu continue to hold the full and exclusive property and user rights in their tribal fishery as defined earlier and in their tribal activity and business of fishing. The Treaty of Waitangi guarantees nothing less.
21. Those who do acknowledge the proper basis to begin negotiations with Ngai Tahu as equals and as responsible Treaty partners, but only then, can expect honest negotiations for some share in the southern fishery to reach
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 38 meaningful and practical results. In earlier pro forma and draft versions of this fishing claim we indicated the type of arrangement that Ngai Tahu might be willing to contemplate as a basis for negotiation.
Due to the significant developments in this field nationally following High Court orders, the issue of the Muriwhenua Fishing Report by the Waitangi Tribunal, and the executive negotiations between Crown and Maori representatives, we have reserved the right to modify our earlier offers (filed 25 September 1987) to negotiate, in light of the latest information. Hence our definition now of our full marine claim for your consideration.
However the principle earlier indicated, remains unchanged, that Ngai Tahu has always sought and still seeks proper recognition of our tribal property in the fishery, a fair and equitable negotiation with our Treaty partners in the Government representing the Crown today, and an equitable and practical arrangement in our fisheries. In seeking such a fair resolution Ngai Tahu cannot agree to abandon any of our fundamental rights, especially the clear property right in fishing guaranteed to us by the Treaty.
22. With acknowledgement of Ngai Tahu rights to at the least an equal share in the management and control of the southern fishery, an equal or at least very substantial share in the income and benefits of fishing and similarly in the equity or property involved, we foresee a constructive and peaceful relationship developing for the benefit of Maori and all others in this country. We say at least an equal share in the management and control Mr Chairman, and that is a very considerable concession by my tribe, bearing in mind that the Treaty of Waitangi guaranteed to us the total and exclusive rights to control, indeed to own, the fishery, and bearing in mind that both the English and the Maori versions of the Treaty were written by Crown agents. If there were any doubt in this matter, and it is hard for reasonable people to see how there can be, it must be construed in favour of the Maori ownership and control of the property so clearly reserved to us in Article Two of our Treaty.
If such fundamental values are to be further denied despite the Treaty of Waitangi signed in all good faith by Ngai Tahu, despite specific reservations of our mahika kai in our land sale Deeds in Te Waipounamu, despite findings of the Waitangi Tribunal, despite orders and determinations of the High Court
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 39 and Court of Appeal, then New Zealand will be condemned to unending conflict.
Ka whawhai tonu matou, ake ake ake !
The best time for peaceable settlement, is now.
23. Ngai Tahu continue to reserve their right to claim compensation at law in the Courts, and under the Treaty in this Tribunal, for damages to their fishery and for the exclusion of our tribesmen from fishing and the tribal benefits of our traditional activity and business of fishing caused by the wrongful actions of the Crown during past years. While our Tribal leaders hope that successful negotiations with our Treaty partners might make it unneccessary to pursue that course we give notice that such claims will be prosecuted if no fair agreement is reached.
24. Because of its importance to all New Zealand we emphasise again the importance of conservation as raised in paragraph Nine above. Ngai Tahu acknowledge the responsibility to so manage their fisheries on soundly based conservation principles that there is assurance the fishery will provide a sustainable resource for future generations. Ngai Tahu consider they have a valid position in conservation based on traditional Maori values, and supplemented by modern scientific knowledge and expertise. We do not deprive ourselves of any technical progress or discoveries in the modern scientific world, and we are not afraid to employ the best brains of other Maori, of Pakeha, or of foreign experts when we think they will be able to assist us in the management of this most valuable resource.
You will recall the official motto in the seal of our Ngai Tahu Maori Tribal Trust Board :
Mo tatou, a, mo ka uri a muri ake nei.
Therein lies a difference from the hasty short term profits approach so prevalent today in the way fisheries are being mismanaged. You must have found amongst all the other Maori tribes which your Tribunal has heard throughout the land, the same thing that I say to you now on behalf of Ngai Tahu
Maori take a very long view.
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 40
We are grown from the seeds of Ra’iatea planted here, ours is a very great canoe, and we shall not disappear.
25. We thus look far to the future, as we do to the past when the taniwha Poutini brought to our tribal lands Waitaiki, the mother of the taonga pounamu by which we are known throughout the Maori world.
Kia whakarere iho au ko toku mokai Tapu,
Ko Poutini tena kei te tahu o te uru
Here ai toku kupenga ki te Taramakau
Ara ki te Ara hura hei awhi e ei ano toku whakaaro ki nga roto tapu . . . e aue Taiki e “
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 41
APPENDIX TWO: NGĀI TAHU TAKIWĀ
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 42
APPENDIX THREE: STATUTORY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AREAS
Schedule100
Statutory acknowledgement for Te Tai o Marokura (Kaikōura Coastal Marine Area)
Statutory area
The area to which this statutory acknowledgement applies is Te Tai ō Marokura (the Kaikōura Coastal Marine Area), the Coastal Marine Area of the Kaikōura constituency of the former Nelson Marlborough region, as shown on SO 14497, Marlborough Land District, extended northwards (but not eastwards) to the Takiwā of Ngāi Tahu Whānui, such boundary determined in the same manner as for the northern boundary of the Ngāi Tahu Claim Area, as shown on Allocation Plan NT 505 (SO 19901).
Preamble
Under section 313, the Crown acknowledges Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu's statement of Ngāi Tahu's cultural, spiritual, historic, and traditional association to Te Tai o Marokura as set out below.
Ngāi Tahu association with Te Tai o Marokura
The formation of the coastline of Te Wai Pounamu relates to the tradition of Te Waka o Aoraki, which foundered on a submerged reef, leaving its occupants, Aoraki and his brothers, to turn to stone. They are manifested now in the highest peaks in the Kā Tiritiri o Te Moana (the Southern Alps). The bays, inlets, estuaries and fiords which stud the coast are all the creations of Tū Te Rakiwhānoa, who took on the job of making the island suitable for human habitation.
For Ngāi Tahu, traditions such as these represent the links between the cosmological world of the gods and present generations. These histories reinforce tribal identity and solidarity, and continuity between generations, and document the events which shaped the environment of Te Wai Pounamu and Ngāi Tahu as an iwi.
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 43
The Kaikōura Coastline took its name from Tama Ki Te Rangi, an early explorer in the time of Tamatea Pōkaiwhenua, who decided to explore the South Island. On his way from the North Island, Tama ki Te Rangi stopped in the area now known as Kaikōura and ate some of the crayfish that populate the area over an open fire. From Tama Ki Te Rangi's feast on crayfish, the area was named, Te Ahi Kaikōura a Tama ki Te Rangi—the fires where Tama Ki Te Rangi ate crayfish.
Because of its attractiveness as a place to establish permanent settlements, including pā (fortified settlements), the coastal area was visited and occupied by Waitaha, Ngāti Mamoe and Ngāi Tahu in succession, who through conflict and alliance, have merged in the whakapapa (genealogy) of the Ngāi Tahu Whānui. Battle sites, urupā and landscape features bearing the names of tūpuna (ancestors) record this history. Prominent headlands, in particular, were favoured for their defensive qualities and became the headquarters for a succession of rangatira and their followers.
One of the leading sites in Kaikōura in pre-contact times was Takahaka marae, which is still occupied by Ngāi Tahu. From the time the Ngāi Tahu leader Maru Kaitātea took Takahaka Pā for Ngāi Tahu occupation, the site acted as a staging site for Ngāi Tahu migrations further south. Other pā in the area included Pariwhakatau, Mikonui, Ōaro and Kahutara. Place names along the coast, such as the gardens of Tamanuhiri and the Waikōau River, record Ngāi Tahu history and point to the landscape features which were significant to people for a range of reasons.
The results of the struggles, alliances and marriages arising out of these migrations were the eventual emergence of a stable, organised and united series of hapū located at permanent or semi-permanent settlements along the coast, with an intricate network of mahinga kai (food gathering) rights and networks that relied to a large extent on coastal resources.
As well as the crayfish for which the area is famous, the whole of the Kaikōura area offered a bounty of mahinga kai including a range of kaimoana (sea food); sea fishing; eeling and harvesting of other freshwater fish in lagoons and rivers; marine mammals (providing whale meat and seal pups); waterfowl, sea bird egg gathering and forest birds; and a variety of plant resources including harakeke (flax), fern and tī root.
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 44
A particular feature of the Ngāi Tahu relationship with the Kaikōura coastal area is the special connection with the whales which frequent the area. This relationship has its basis in tradition. The well-known rangatira (chief) and brave warrior of the Kāti Kurī hapū of Ngāi Tahu, Te Rakaitauneke, was said to have a kaitiaki whale, named Mata mata, who dwelt in the sea opposite Te Rakaitauneke's home in Tāhuna Tōrea (Goose Bay). Mata mata's sole duty and purpose in life was to do Te Rakaitauneke's bidding, to serve all his needs and to guard him against harm. Everywhere Te Rakaitauneke went, Mata mata went too. When Te Rakaiteuneke went to Takahanga, Mata mata could be seen blowing outside the garden of memories, as close to shore as he could possibly get. Te Rakaitauneke's love for Mata mata was as great as the whale's love for him.
After Te Rakaitauneke's death, Mata mata was not seen along the Kaikōura coast for some time, and it was rumoured that he had gone away and died of sorrow at the loss of his master. There were those, however, who remembered Te Rakaitauneke's prediction that after his death Mata mata would only return when one of his descendants was facing imminent danger or death. There are many stories since that time of a Mata mata appearing to foretell the death of one of Te Rakaitauneke's descendants. It is also said that many of the descendants of Te Rakaitauneke, when faced with peril on the high seas, have been saved by the timely intervention of a whale.
The Kaikōura coast was also a major highway and trade route, particularly in areas where travel by land was difficult. Travel by sea between settlements and hapū was common, with a variety of different forms of waka, including the southern waka hunua (double-hulled canoe) and, post-contact, whale boats plying the waters continuously. Hence tauranga waka (landing places) occur up and down the coast in their hundreds and wherever a tauranga waka is located there is also likely to be a nohoanga (settlement), fishing ground, kaimoana resource and rimurapa (bull kelp), with the sea trail linked to a land trail or mahinga kai resource. The tūpuna had a huge knowledge of the coastal environment and weather patterns, passed from generation to generation. This knowledge continues to be held by whānau and hapū and is regarded as a taonga. The traditional mobile lifestyle of the people led to their dependence on the resources of the coast.
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 45
Numerous urupā are being exposed or eroded at various times along much of the coast. Water burial sites on the coast, known as waiwhakaheketūpāpaku, are also spiritually important and linked with important sites on the land. Places where kaitāngata (the eating of those defeated in battle) occurred are also wāhi tapu. Urupā are the resting places of Ngāi Tahu tūpuna and, as such, are the focus for whānau traditions. These are places holding the memories, traditions, victories and defeats of Ngāi Tahu tūpuna, and are frequently protected in secret locations.
The mauri of the coastal area represents the essence that binds the physical and spiritual elements of all things together, generating and upholding all life. All elements of the natural environment possess a life force, and all forms of life are related. Mauri is a critical element of the spiritual relationship of Ngāi Tahu Whānui with the coastal area.
Purposes of statutory acknowledgement
Pursuant to section 215 and without limiting the rest of this schedule, the only purposes of this statutory acknowledgement are—
(a) to require that consent authorities forward summaries of resource consent applications to Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu as required by regulations made pursuant to section 207 (clause 12.2.3 of the deed of settlement); and
(b) to require that consent authorities, Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga, or the Environment Court, as the case may be, have regard to this statutory acknowledgement in relation to Te Tai o Marokura, as provided in sections 208 to 210 (clause 12.2.4 of the deed of settlement); and
(c) to enable Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu and any member of Ngāi Tahu Whānui to cite this statutory acknowledgement as evidence of the association of Ngāi Tahu to Te Tai o Marokura as provided in section 208 (clause 12.2.5 of the deed of settlement).
Limitations on effect of statutory acknowledgement
Except as expressly provided in sections 208 to 211, 213 and 215,—
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 46
(a) this statutory acknowledgement does not affect, and is not to be taken into account in, the exercise of any power, duty, or function by any person or entity under any statute, regulation, or bylaw; and
(b) without limiting paragraph (a), no person or entity, in considering any matter or making any decision or recommendation under any statute, regulation, or bylaw, may give any greater or lesser weight to Ngāi Tahu's association to Te Tai o Marokura (as described in this statutory acknowledgement) than that person or entity would give under the relevant statute, regulation, or bylaw, if this statutory acknowlegement did not exist in respect of Te Tai o Marokura.
Except as expressly provided in this Act, this statutory acknowledgement does not affect the lawful rights or interests of any person who is not a party to the deed of settlement.
Except as expressly provided in this Act, this statutory acknowledgement does not, of itself, have the effect of granting, creating, or providing evidence of any estate or interest in, or any rights of any kind whatsoever relating to, Te Tai o Marokura.
Schedule101
Statutory acknowledgement for Te Tai o Mahaanui (Selwyn – Banks Peninsula Coastal Marine Area)
Statutory area
The statutory area to which this statutory acknowledgement applies is Te Tai o Mahaanui (Selwyn – Banks Peninsula Coastal Marine Area), the Coastal Marine Area of the Selwyn – Banks Peninsula constituency of the Canterbury region, as shown on SO Plan 19407, Canterbury Land District as shown on Allocation Plan NT 505 (SO 19901).
Preamble
Under section 313, the Crown acknowledges Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu's statement of Ngāi Tahu's cultural, spiritual, historic, and traditional association to Te Tai o Mahaanui as set out below.
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 47
Ngāi Tahu association with Te Tai o Mahaanui
The formation of the coastline of Te Wai Pounamu relates to the tradition of Te Waka o Aoraki, which foundered on a submerged reef, leaving its occupants, Aoraki and his brothers, to turn to stone. They are manifested now in the highest peaks in the Kā Tiritiri o Te Moana (the Southern Alps). The bays, inlets, estuaries and fiords which stud the coast are all the creations of Tū Te Rakiwhānoa, who took on the job of making the island suitable for human habitation.
The naming of various features along the coastline reflects the succession of explorers and iwi (tribes) who travelled around the coastline at various times. The first of these was Māui, who fished up the North Island, and is said to have circumnavigated Te Wai Pounamu. In some accounts the island is called Te Waka a Māui in recognition of his discovery of the new lands, with Rakiura (Stewart Island) being Te Puka a Māui (Māui's anchor stone). A number of coastal place names are attributed to Māui, particularly on the southern coast.
There are a number of traditions relating to Te Tai o Mahaanui. One of the most famous bays on the Peninsula is Akaroa, the name being a southern variation of the word “Whangaroa”. The name refers to the size of the harbour. As with all other places in the South Island, Akaroa placenames recall the histories and traditions of the three tribes which now make up Ngāi Tahu Whānui: Waitaha, Ngāti Mamoe and Ngāi Tahu.
Waitaha traditions tell that after Rakaihautu had dug the southern lakes with his kō (a tool similar to a spade)—Tūwhakarōria—he and his son, Rokohouia, returned to Canterbury with their people. On the return, Rakaihautu buried his kō (a tool similar to a spade) on a hill overlooking the Akaroa harbour. That hill was called Tuhiraki (Bossu). Rakaihautu remained in this region for the rest of his life.
For Ngāi Tahu, traditions such as these represent the links between the cosmological world of the gods and present generations. These histories reinforce tribal identity and solidarity, and continuity between generations, and document the events which shaped the environment of Te Wai Pounamu and Ngāi Tahu as an iwi.
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 48
Because of its attractiveness as a place to establish permanent settlements, including pā (fortified settlements), the coastal area was visited and occupied by Waitaha, Ngāti Mamoe and Ngāi Tahu in succession, who through conflict and alliance, have merged in the whakapapa (geneology) of Ngāi Tahu Whānui. Battle sites, urupā and landscape features bearing the names of tūpuna (ancestors) record this history. Prominent headlands, in particular, were favoured for their defensive qualities and became the headquarters for a succession of rangatira and their followers.
Ngāi Tahu connections to Akaroa came after the settling of Kaiapoi Pa in North Canterbury. Akaroa harbour was soon allocated to a number of chiefs by Tūrākautahi of Kaiapoi. One chief, Te Ruahikihiki, settled at Whakamoa near the Akaroa Heads at the south east end of the habour. Te Ruahikihiki fell in love with the elder sister of his wife, Hikaiti. As it was customary at that time for chiefs to have several wives, Te Ruahikihiki took the elder sister, Te Ao Taurewa, as his wife.
Hikaiti fell into a deep depression and resolved to kill herself. She arose early in the morning, combed her hair and wrapped her cloak tightly around herself. She went to the edge of the cliff where she wept and greeted the land and the people of her tribe. With her acknowledgements made, she cast herself over the cliff where she was killed on the rocks. The body remained inside the cloak she had wrapped around herself. This place became known as Te Tarere a Hikaiti (the place where Hikaiti leapt). After a long period of lamentation, Te Ruahikihiki and his people moved to the south end of Banks Peninsula to Te Waihora (Lake Ellesmere).
Another one of the senior chiefs within the Akaroa harbour was Te Ake whose hapū was Ngāi Tuhaitara. Ōtokotoko was claimed by Te Ake when he staked his tokotoko (staff) at that end of the bay. Te Ake's daughter, Hine Ao, is now represented as a taniwha that dwells with another taniwha, Te Rangiorahina, in a rua (hole) off Opukutahi Reserve in the Akaroa Harbour. Hine Ao now carries the name Te Wahine Marukore. These taniwha act as (kaitiaki) guardians for local fisherman.
The results of the struggles, alliances and marriages arising out of these migrations were the eventual emergence of a stable, organised and united series of hapū located at permanent or semi-permanent settlements along the
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 49 coast, with a intricate network of mahinga kai (food gathering) rights and networks that relied to a large extent on coastal resources.
The whole of the coastal area offered a bounty of mahinga kai, including a range of kaimoana (sea food); sea fishing; eeling and harvest of other freshwater fish in lagoons and rivers; marine mammals providing whale meat and seal pups; waterfowl, sea bird egg gathering and forest birds; and a variety of plant resources, including harakeke (flax), fern and tī root.
The coast was also a major highway and trade route, particularly in areas where travel by land was difficult. Travel by sea between settlements and hapū was common, with a variety of different forms of waka, including the southern waka hunua (double-hulled canoe) and, post-contact, whale boats plying the waters continuously. Hence tauranga waka occur up and down the coast in their hundreds and wherever a tauranga waka is located there is also likely to be a nohoanga (settlement), fishing ground, kaimoana resource, rimurapa (bull kelp) with the sea trail linked to a land trail or mahinga kai resource. The tūpuna had a huge knowledge of the coastal environment and weather patterns, passed from generation to generation. This knowledge continues to be held by whānau and hapū and is regarded as a taonga. The traditional mobile lifestyle of the people led to their dependence on the resources of the coast.
Numerous urupā are being exposed or eroded at various times along much of the coast. Water burial sites on the coast, known as waiwhakaheketūpāpaku, are also spiritually important and linked with important sites on the land. Places where kaitāngata (the eating of those defeated in battle) occurred are also wāhi tapu. Urupā are the resting places of Ngāi Tahu tūpuna and, as such, are the focus for whānau traditions. These are places holding the memories, traditions, victories and defeats of Ngāi Tahu tūpuna, and are frequently protected in secret locations.
The mauri of the coastal area represents the essence that binds the physical and spiritual elements of all things together, generating and upholding all life. All elements of the natural environment possess a life force, and all forms of life are related. Mauri is a critical element of the spiritual relationship of Ngāi Tahu Whānui with the coastal area.
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 50
Purposes of statutory acknowledgement
Pursuant to section 215 and without limiting the rest of this schedule, the only purposes of this statutory acknowledgement are—
(a) to require that consent authorities forward summaries of resource consent applications to Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu as required by regulations made pursuant to section 207 (clause 12.2.3 of the deed of settlement); and
(b) to require that consent authorities, Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga, or the Environment Court, as the case may be, have regard to this statutory acknowledgement in relation to Te Tai o Mahaanui, as provided in sections 208 to 210 (clause 12.2.4 of the deed of settlement); and
(c) to enable Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu and any member of Ngāi Tahu Whānui to cite this statutory acknowledgement as evidence of the association of Ngāi Tahu to Te Tai o Mahaanui as provided in section 211 (clause 12.2.5 of the deed of settlement).
Limitations on effect of statutory acknowledgement
Except as expressly provided in sections 208 to 211, 213, and 215,—
(a) this statutory acknowledgement does not affect, and is not to be taken into account in, the exercise of any power, duty, or function by any person or entity under any statute, regulation, or bylaws; and
(b) without limiting paragraph (a), no person or entity, in considering any matter or making any decision or recommendation under any statute, regulation, or bylaw, may give any greater or lesser weight to Ngāi Tahu's association to Te Tai o Mahaanui (as described in this statutory acknowledgement) than that person or entity would give under the relevant statute, regulation, or bylaw, if this statutory acknowlegement did not exist in respect of Te Tai o Mahaanui.
Except as expressly provided in this Act, this statutory acknowledgement does not affect the lawful rights or interests of any person who is not a party to the deed of settlement.
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 51
Except as expressly provided in this Act, this statutory acknowledgement does not, of itself, have the effect of granting, creating, or providing evidence of any estate or interest in, or any rights of any kind whatsoever relating to, Te Tai o Mahaanui.
Schedule 102
Statutory acknowledgement for Te Mimi o Tū Te Rakiwhānoa (Fiordland Coastal Marine Area)
Statutory area
The statutory area to which this statutory acknowledgement applies is Te Mimi o Tū Te Rakiwhānoa (Fiordland Coastal Marine Area), the Coastal Marine Area of the Te Anau constituency of the Southland region, as shown on SO Plan 11503, Southland Land District, as shown on Allocation Plan NT 505 (SO 19901).
Preamble
Under section 313, the Crown acknowledges Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu's statement of Ngāi Tahu's cultural, spiritual, historic, and traditional association to Te Mimi o Tū Te Rakiwhānoa as set out below.
Ngāi Tahu association with Te Mimi o Tū Te Rakiwhānoa
The fiords of this region represent, in tradition, the raised up sides of Te Waka o Aoraki. The waka (canoe) foundered on a submerged reef and its occupants, Aoraki and his brothers, Rāraki, Rakiroa and others, were turned to stone. They stand now as the highest peaks of Kā Tiritiri o te Moana (the Southern Alps). The fiords at the southern end of the Alps were hacked out of the raised side of the wrecked waka by Tū Te Rakiwhānoa, in an effort to make it habitable by humans. The deep gouges and long waterways that make up the fiords were intended to provide safe havens on the rugged coastline, and stocked with fish, forest and birds to sustain travellers.
For Ngāi Tahu, traditions such as these represent the links between the cosmological world of the gods and present generations, these histories reinforce tribal identity and solidarity, and continuity between generations, and
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 52 document the events which shaped the environment of Te Wai Pounamu and Ngāi Tahu as an iwi.
Particular stretches of the coastline also have their own traditions. The visit of Tamaahua to Piopiotahi (Milford Sound) in search of Poutini, who had absconded with his wife Waitaiki, is linked to the creation of Pounamu further north on Te Tai Poutini (the West Coast). The koko-takiwai which is found in Piopiotahi has its basis in a visit to Piopiotahi by the waka Tairea. A woman, Koko-takiwai, and her children, known as Matakirikiri, were left behind by the Tairea and were turned into varieties of pounamu.
Place names along the coast record Ngāi Tahu history and point to the landscape features which were significant to people for a range of reasons. For example, in his voyage around the Sounds in the waka Takitimu, Tamatea gave the chiselled terrain the name “Te Rua-o-te-moko”, likening the deep gouges adorning the impressive cliff faces of the fiords to the tattoos on a chief's face. Martins Bay (Whakatipu-waitai or Kōtuku) to the north of the fiords was the site of an old settlement, located to control the pounamu resources to be found here. An area of Doubtful Sound is known as Kahui-te- kākāpō, while Dagg Sound had a canoe harbour known as Te Rā. Breaksea Island (within Breaksea Sound—Te Puaitaha) is known as Te Au Moana, referring to the ocean current that sweeps around the inlet. Cape Providence is known as Ōrariki, a cliff near here is called Taka-o-te-karehu-Tamatea, referring to an episode when some tattooing ink belonging to Tamatea washed over board. Chalky Sound is known as Taiari and a rock in the Sound is known as Te Kakahu-o-Tamatea, a place where Tamatea had his clothes spread out to dry after being drenched by the salt spray. Preservation Inlet has the name Rakituma.
The area was visited mainly by Ngāti Mamoe and Ngāi Tahu, who had various routes and nohoanga for the purpose of gathering koko-takiwai and manu (birds), particularly the kākāpō. The area played a significant role in the history of conflict between Ngāi Tahu and Ngāti Mamoe, with a number of Ngāti Mamoe taking refuge in the isolation of the fiords in order to escape the unforgiving attitudes of some sections of Ngāi Tahu. The noted rangatira Tarewai from Otago Heads met his end here at the hands of Ngāti Mamoe, having pursued them from the Otago Peninsula to Rakituma. Tarewai and his warriors were successfully ambushed by those they were pursuing, with the
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 53 result that no one ever returned to Otago from this battle. Te Whare Pā in Rakitimu was the scene of one of the last major battles between Ngāti Mamoe and Ngāi Tahu.
Another dark piece of history occurred at Te Tauraka o te Hupokeka (Anita Bay). Hupokeka and his whānau (family) regularly visited Piopiotahi, travelling from Murihiku to gather koko-takiwai, and staying at a nohoanga in Anita Bay. It was here, in the 1820s, that he and his whānau were slaughtered by sealers in retribution for an incident of which they were quite innocent.
Because of its attractiveness as a place to establish permanent settlements, including pā (fortified settlements), the coastal area was visited and occupied first by Ngāti Mamoe and later by Ngāi Tahu. Through conflict and alliance these two iwi have merged in the whakapapa (genealogy) of Ngāi Tahu. Battles sites, urupā and landscape features bearing the names of tūpuna (ancestors) record this history. Prominent headlands, in particular, were favoured for their defensive qualities and became the headquarters for a succession of rangatira and their followers. Notable pā and nohoanga occurred in many areas on the Fiordland coast including: Milford (Lake Marchant) and Caswell Sounds; Kahui-te-kākāpō (Doubtful Sound), known as the gathering place of the kākāpō, in reference to the gathering of kākāpō meat and feathers which was one of the key reasons that Ngāi Tahu Whānui regularly travelled to the fiords; Dagg Sound gets the sun all day, and consequently is well known as a nohoanga site, it also has a good canoe harbour known as Te Rā; Rakituma is the site of several pā or nohoanga, including one at Matauira and another at Te Whare Pā.
It was the koko-takiwai and kākāpō which primarily attracted Ngāi Tahu to Fiordland. The koko-takiwai is favoured as a softer type of pounamu, more easily shaped into a finer quality of end product. It was therefore particularly sought-after for the making of ornaments, such as hei-tiki. The area also offered many other mahinga kai to sustain parties on their arduous expeditions, including a range of manu (birds), fish and kaimoana resources.
The tūpuna had considerable knowledge of whakapapa, traditional trails and tauranga waka, places for gathering kai and other taonga, ways in which to use the resources of the area, the relationship of people with the coastline and their dependence on it, and tikanga for the proper and sustainable
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 54 utilisation of resources. All of these values remain important to Ngāi Tahu today.
There are two principal trails linking the Fiordland coast with the rest of Te Wai Pounamu (the South Island). A sea route around the fiords links Piopiotahi to Murihiku, and was the main route by which the koko-takiwai gathered from that end of the fiords was transported. The inland route for transporting koko-takiwai by backpack lay over what is now known as the Milford track, over Ōmanui (McKinnon Pass), down the Waitawai (Clinton River) to the head of Te Ana-au (Lake Te Anau). From there, the pounamu would be transported by mokihi to the head of the Waiau River, and from there down the Waiau to Te Ara a Kiwa (Foveaux Strait). In addition, a trail from Martins Bay, up the Hollyford Valley and over into the Routeburn Valley to the pounamu source at the head of Lake Whakatipu-wai-māori, was commonly used by Tai Poutini iwi, who regularly travelled south via this route to obtain koko-takiwai.
Hence tauranga waka (landing places) occur up and down the coast and wherever a tauranga waka is located there is also likely to have been a nohoanga, fishing ground, kaimoana resource, with the sea trail linked to a land trail or mahinga kai resource. The tūpuna had a huge knowledge of the coastal environment and weather patterns, passed from generation to generation. This knowledge continues to be held by whānau and hapū and is regarded as a taonga. The traditional mobile lifestyle of the people led to their dependence on the resources of the coast.
The fiords are the repository of many kōiwi tāngata, secreted away in keeping places throughout the region. There are also many other wāhi tapu in the area, including examples of rock art in Chalky Sound. Urupā are the resting places of Ngāi Tahu tūpuna and, as such, are the focus for whānau traditions. Urupā and wāhi tapu are places holding the memories, traditions, victories and defeats of Ngāi Tahu tūpuna, and are frequently protected in secret locations.
The mauri of Te Mimi o Tū Te Rakiwhānoa represents the essence that binds the physical and spiritual elements of all things together, generating and upholding all life. All elements of the natural environment possess a life force,
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 55 and all forms of life are related. Mauri is a critical element of the spiritual relationship of Ngāi Tahu Whānui with the area.
Purposes of statutory acknowledgement
Pursuant to section 215, and without limiting the rest of this schedule, the only purposes of this statutory acknowledgement are—
(a) to require that consent authorities forward summaries of resource consent applications to Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu as required by regulations made pursuant to section 207 (clause 12.2.3 of the deed of settlement); and
(b) to require that consent authorities, Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga, or the Environment Court, as the case may be, have regard to this statutory acknowledgement in relation to Te Mimi o Tū Te Rakiwhānoa, as provided in sections 208 to 210 (clause 12.2.4 of the deed of settlement); and
(c) to enable Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu and any member of Ngāi Tahu Whānui to cite this statutory acknowledgement as evidence of the association of Ngāi Tahu to Te Mimi o Tū Te Rakiwhānoa as provided in section 208 (clause 12.2.5 of the deed of settlement).
Limitations on effect of statutory acknowledgement
Except as expressly provided in sections 208 to 211, 213, and 215,—
(a) this statutory acknowledgement does not affect, and is not to be taken into account in, the exercise of any power, duty, or function by any person or entity under any statute, regulation, or bylaws; and
(b) without limiting paragraph (a), no person or entity, in considering any matter or making any decision or recommendation under any statute, regulation, or bylaw, may give any greater or lesser weight to Ngāi Tahu's association to Te Mimi o Tū Te Rakiwhānoa (as described in this statutory acknowledgement) than that person or entity would give under the relevant statute, regulation, or bylaw, if this statutory acknowlegement did not exist in respect of Te Mimi o Tū Te Rakiwhānoa.
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 56
Except as expressly provided in this Act, this statutory acknowledgement does not affect the lawful rights or interests of any person who is not a party to the deed of settlement.
Except as expressly provided in this Act, this statutory acknowledgement does not, of itself, have the effect of granting, creating, or providing evidence of any estate or interest in, or any rights of any kind whatsoever relating to, Te Mimi o Tū Te Rakiwhānoa.
Schedule 103
Statutory acknowledgement for Te Tai o Arai Te Uru (Otago Coastal Marine Area)
Specific area
The statutory area to which this statutory acknowledgement applies is Te Tai o Arai Te Uru (the Otago Coastal Marine Area), the Coastal Marine Area of the Moeraki, Dunedin Coastal and Molyneaux constituencies of the Otago region, as shown on SO Plans 24250, 24249, and 24252, Otago Land District, and as shown on Allocation Plan NT 505 (SO 19901).
Preamble
Under section 313, the Crown acknowledges Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu's statement of Ngāi Tahu's cultural, spiritual, historic, and traditional association to Te Tai o Arai Te Uru as set out below.
Ngāi Tahu association with Te Tai o Arai Te Uru
The formation of the coastline of Te Wai Pounamu relates to the tradition of Te Waka o Aoraki, which foundered on a submerged reef, leaving its occupants, Aoraki and his brothers, to turn to stone. They are manifested now in the highest peaks in the Kā Tiritiri o Te Moana (the Southern Alps). The bays, inlets, estuaries and fiords which stud the coast are all the creations of Tū Te Rakiwhānoa, who took on the job of making the island suitable for human habitation.
The naming of various features along the coastline reflects the succession of explorers and iwi (tribes) who travelled around the coastline at various times.
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 57
The first of these was Māui, who fished up the North Island, and is said to have circumnavigated Te Wai Pounamu. In some accounts the island is called Te Waka a Māui in recognition of his discovery of the new lands, with Rakiura (Stewart Island) being Te Puka a Māui (Māui's anchor stone). A number of coastal place names are attributed to Māui, particularly on the southern coast.
The great explorer Rakaihautu travelled overland along the coast, identifying the key places and resources. He also left many place names on prominent coastal features. Another explorer, Tamatea, sailed along the Otago coast in the waka Takitimu. After the waka eventually broke its back off the coast of Murihiku, Tamatea and the survivors made their way overland back to the North Island, arriving at the coast by the place Tamatea named Ō-amaru (Ōamaru).
Place names along the coast record Ngāi Tahu history and point to the landscape features which were significant to people for a range of reasons. For example, some of the most significant rivers which enter the coastal waters of Otago include: Waitaki, Kakaunui, Waihemo (Shag), Waikouaiti, Kaikarae (Kaikorai), Tokomairiro, Mata-au (Clutha), and Pounawea (Catlins). Estuaries include: Waitete (Waitati), Ōtākou (Otago), Makahoe (Papanui Inlet), Murikauhaka (Mata-au and Kōau estuaries), Tāhaukupu (Tahakopa Estuary), and Waipātiki (Wapati Estuary). Islands in the coastal area include Ōkaihe (St Michaels Island), Moturata (Taieri Island), Paparoa, Matoketoke, Hakinikini, and Aonui (Cooks Head).
Particular stretches of the coastline also have their own traditions. The tradition of the waka (canoe) Arai Te Uru and its sinking at the mouth of the Waihemo (Shag River) has led to the coastal area of Otago being known as Te Tai o Araiteuru (the coast of Arai Te Uru). Accounts of the foundering, the wreckage, and the survivors of this waka are marked by numerous landmarks almost for the length of the Otago coast. The boulders on Moeraki coast (Kai Hīnaki) and the Moeraki pebbles are all associated with the cargo of gourds, kūmara and taro seed which were spilled when the Arai Te Uru foundered.
For Ngāi Tahu, traditions such as these represent the links between the cosmological world of the gods and present generations. These histories reinforce tribal identity and solidarity, and continuity between generations, and
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 58 document the events which shaped the environment of Te Wai Pounamu and Ngāi Tahu as an iwi.
Because of its attractiveness as a place to establish permanent settlements, including pā (fortified settlements), the coastal area was visited and occupied by Waitaha, Ngāti Mamoe and Ngāi Tahu in succession, who, through conflict and alliance, have merged in the whakapapa (genealogy) of Ngāi Tahu Whānui. Battle sites, urupā and landscape features bearing the names of tūpuna (ancestors) record this history. Prominent headlands, in particular, were favoured for their defensive qualities and became the headquarters for a succession of rangatira and their followers. Notable pā on the Otago coast include: Makotukutuku (Oamaru), Te Raka-a-hineatea (Moeraki), Te Pā Katata, Pā a Te Wera, (Huriawa Peninsula), Māpoutahi (Pūrākaunui), Pukekura (Taiaroa Head), and Moturata (Taieri Island). The estuaries from the Waitaki River to the Chaslands also supported various hapū.
Tūpuna such as Waitai, Tukiauau, Whaka-taka-newha, Rakiiamoa, Tarewai, Maru, Te Aparangi, Taoka, Moki II, Kapo, Te Wera, Tu Wiri Roa, Taikawa, and Te Hautapanuiotu are among the many illustrious ancestors of Ngāti Mamoe and Ngāi Tahu lineage whose feats and memories are enshrined in the landscape, bays, tides and whakapapa of Otago.
The results of the struggles, alliances and marriages arising out of these migrations were the eventual emergence of a stable, organised and united series of hapū located at permanent or semi-permanent settlements along the coast, with an intricate network of mahinga kai (food gathering) rights and networks that relied to a large extent on coastal resources. Chiefs such as Kōrako (several), Tahatu, Honekai, Ihutakuru, Karetai, Taiaroa, Pōtiki, Tuhawaiki, and Pokene being some among a number who had their own villages and fishing grounds. Otago Peninsula (Muaupoko) had many kāinga nohoanga with a multitude of hapū occupying them. At one time up to 12 kāinga existed in the lower Otago harbour, some larger and more important than others.
The whole of the coastal area offered a bounty of mahinga kai, including a range of kaimoana (sea food); sea fishing; eeling and harvest of other freshwater fish in lagoons and rivers; marine mammals providing whale meat and seal pups; waterfowl, sea bird egg gathering and forest birds; and a
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 59 variety of plant resources including harakeke (flax), fern and tī root. In many areas the reliance on these resources increased after the land sales of the 1840s and 1850s, and the associated loss of access to much traditional land- based mahinga kai.
Many reefs along the coast are known by name and are customary fishing grounds, many sand banks, channels, currents and depths are also known for their kaimoana. One example is Poatiri (Mt Charles - Cape Saunders) the name of which refers to a fish hook. Poatiri juts out into the Pacific, close to the continental shelf, and is a very rich fishing ground. Another example is Blueskin Bay which was once a kōhanga (breeding ground) for the right whale, although it is well over 150 years since it has seen this activity.
Other resources were also important in the coastal area. Paru (black mud used for dyeing) was obtained from some areas. Some of the permanent coastal settlements, such as those at the mouth of the Mata-au (Clutha River), and at Ōtākou and Pūrākaunui, were important pounamu manufacturing sites. Trading between these villages to the south and north via sea routes was an important part of the economy.
The Otago coast was also a major highway and trade route, particularly in areas where travel by land was difficult. Pounamu and tītī were traded north with kūmara, taro, waka, stone resources and carvings coming south. Travel by sea between settlements and hapū was common, with a variety of different forms of waka, including the southern waka hunua (double-hulled canoe) and, post-contact, whale boats plying the waters continuously. Hence tauranga waka (landing places) occur up and down the coast in their hundreds and wherever a tauranga waka is located there is also likely to be a nohoanga (settlement), fishing ground, kaimoana resource, rimurapa (bull kelp - used to make the pōhā, in which tītī were and still are preserved) with the sea trail linked to a land trail or mahinga kai resource. The tūpuna had a huge knowledge of the coastal environment and weather patterns, passed from generation to generation. This knowledge continues to be held by whānau and hapū and is regarded as a taonga. The traditional mobile lifestyle of the people led to their dependence on the resources of the coast.
Numerous urupā are being exposed or eroded at various times along much of coast. Water burial sites on the coast, known as waiwhakaheketūpāpaku, are
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 60 also spiritually important and linked with important sites on the land. Places where kaitangata (the eating of those defeated in battle) occurred are also wāhi tapu. Urupā are the resting places of Ngāi Tahu tūpuna and, as such, are the focus for whānau traditions. These are places holding the memories, traditions, victories and defeats of Ngāi Tahu tūpuna, and are frequently protected in secret locations.
The mauri of the coastal area represents the essence that binds the physical and spiritual elements of all things together, generating and upholding all life. All elements of the natural environment possess a life force, and all forms of life are related. Mauri is a critical element of the spiritual relationship of Ngāi Tahu Whānui with the coastal area.
Purposes of statutory acknowledgement
Pursuant to section 215, and without limiting the rest of this schedule, the only purposes of this statutory acknowledgement are—
(a) to require that consent authorities forward summaries of resource consent applications to Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu as required by regulations made pursuant to section 207 (clause 12.2.3 of the deed of settlement); and
(b) to require that consent authorities, Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga, or the Environment Court, as the case may be, have regard to this statutory acknowledgement in relation to Te Tai o Arai Te Uru, as provided in sections 208 to 210 (clause 12.2.4 of the deed of settlement); and
(c) to enable Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu and any member of Ngāi Tahu Whānui to cite this statutory acknowledgement as evidence of the association of Ngāi Tahu to Te Tai o Arai Te Uru as provided in section 208 (clause 12.2.5 of the deed of settlement).
Limitations on effect of statutory acknowledgement
Except as expressly provided in sections 208 to 211, 213, and 215,—
(a) this statutory acknowledgement does not affect, and is not to be taken into account in, the exercise of any power, duty, or function by any person or entity under any statute, regulation, or bylaw; and
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 61
(b) without limiting paragraph (a), no person or entity, in considering any matter or making any decision or recommendation under any statute, regulation, or bylaw, may give any greater or lesser weight to Ngāi Tahu's association to Te Tai o Arai Te Uru (as described in this statutory acknowledgement) than that person or entity would give under the relevant statute, regulation, or bylaw, if this statutory acknowlegement did not exist in respect of Te Tai o Arai Te Uru.
Except as expressly provided in this Act, this statutory acknowledgement does not affect the lawful rights or interests of any person who is not a party to the deed of settlement.
Except as expressly provided in this Act, this statutory acknowledgement does not, of itself, have the effect of granting, creating, or providing evidence of any estate or interest in, or any rights of any kind whatsoever relating to, Te Tai o Arai Te Uru.
Schedule 104
Statutory acknowledgement for Rakiura/Te Ara a Kiwa (Rakiura/Foveaux Strait Coastal Marine Area)
Statutory area
The statutory area to which this statutory acknowledgement applies is Rakiura/Te Ara a Kiwa (Rakiura/Foveaux Strait Coastal Marine Area), the Coastal Marine Area of the Hokonui and Awarua constituencies of the Southland region, as shown on SO 11505 and 11508, Southland Land District, as shown on Allocation Plan NT 505 (SO 19901).
Preamble
Under section 313, the Crown acknowledges Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu's statement of Ngāi Tahu's cultural, spiritual, historic, and traditional association to Rakiura/Te Ara a Kiwa as set out below.
Ngāi Tahu association with Rakiura/Te Ara a Kiwa
Generally the formation of the coastline of Te Wai Pounamu relates to the tradition of Te Waka o Aoraki, which foundered on a submerged reef, leaving
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 62 its occupants, Aoraki and his brother to turn to stone. They are manifested now in the highest peaks of the Kā Tititiri of Te Moana (the Southern Alps). The bays, inlets, estuaries and fiords which stud the coast are all the creations of Tū Te Rakiwhānoa, who took on the job of making the island suitable for human habitation.
The naming of various features along the coastline reflects the succession of explorers and iwi (tribes) who travelled around the coastline at various times. The first of these was Māui, who fished up the North Island, and is said to have circumnavigated Te Wai Pounamu. In some accounts the island is called Te Waka o Māui in recognition of his discovery of the new lands. A number of coastal place names are attributed to Māui, particularly on the southern coast. Māui is said to have sojourned at Ōmaui (at the mouth of the New River Estuary) for a year, during which time he claimed the South Island for himself. It is said that in order to keep his waka from drifting away he reached into the sea and pulled up a stone to be used as an anchor, which he named Te Puka o Te Waka o Māui (Rakiura or Stewart Island).
The great explorer Rakaihautu travelled overland along the coast, identifying the key places and resources. He also left many place names on prominent coastal features. When Rakaihautu's southward exploration of the island reached Te Ara a Kiwa, he followed the coastline eastwards before heading for the east coast of Otago.
Particular stretches of the coastline also have their own traditions. Foveaux Strait is known as Te Ara a Kiwa (the pathway of Kiwa), the name relating to the time when Kiwa became tired of having to cross the land isthmus which then joined Murihiku (Southland) with Rakiura (Stewart Island). Kiwa requested the obedient Kewa (whale) to chew through the isthmus and create a waterway so Kiwa could cross to and fro by waka. This Kewa did, and the crumbs that fell from his mouth are the islands in Foveaux Strait, Solander Island being Te Niho a Kewa, a loose tooth that fell from the mouth of Kewa.
The waka Takitimu, captained by the northern rangatira (chief) Tamatea, travelled around much of Te Wai Pounamu coast, eventually breaking its back at the mouth of the Waiau River in Murihiku. Many place names on the coast can be traced back to this voyage, including Monkey Island near Ōrepuki which is known as Te-Punga (or Puka)-a-Takitimu. While sailing past the cliffs
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 63 at Ōmaui it is said that Tamatea felt a desire to go ashore and inspect the inland, and so he turned to the helmsman and gave the order “Tārere ki whenua uta” (“swing towards the mainland”), but before they got to the shore he countermanded the order and sailed on. Subsequently the whole area from Ōmaui to Bluff was given the name of Te Takiwā o Tārere ki Whenua Uta. In olden days when people from the Bluff went visiting they were customarily welcomed on to the hosts' marae with the call, “haere mai koutou te iwi tārere ki whenua uta”. One of the whare at Te Rau Aroha marae in Bluff if also named “Tārere ki Whenua uta” in memory of this event.
The Takitimu's voyage through the Strait came to an end and when the waka was overcome by three huge waves, named Ō-te-wao, Ō-roko and Ō-kaka, finally coming to rest on a reef near the mouth of the Waiau (Waimeha). According to this tradition, the three waves continued on across the low lying lands of Murihiku, ending up as permanent features of the landscape.
For Ngāi Tahu, traditions such as these represent the links between the cosmological world of the gods and present generations. These histories reinforce tribal identity and solidarity, and continuity between generations, and document the events which shaped the environment of Te Wai Pounamu and Ngāi Tahu as an iwi.
Because of its attractiveness as a place to establish permanent settlements, including pā (fortified settlements), the coastal area was visited and occupied by Waitaha, Ngāti Mamoe and Ngāi Tahu in succession, who through conflict and alliance, have merged in the whakapapa (genealogy) of Ngāi Tahu Whānui. Battle sites, urupā and landscape features bearing the names of tūpuna (ancestors) record this history. Prominent headlands, in particular, were favoured for their defensive qualities and became the headquarters for a succession of rangatira and their followers.
The results of the struggles, alliances and marriages arising out of these migrations were the eventual emergence of a stable, organised and united series of hapū located at permanent or semi-permanent settlements along the coast, with an intricate network of mahinga kai (food gathering) rights and networks that relied to a large extent on coastal resources.
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 64
Mokamoka (Mokomoko or Mokemoke) was one such settlement, in a shallow inlet off the Invercargill estuary. It was here that Waitai was killed, the first Ngāi Tahu to venture this far south, well out of the range of his own people, then resident at Taumutu. This settlement was sustained by mahinga kai taken from the estuary and adjoining coastline, including shellfish and pātiki (flounder).
Ōue, at the mouth of the Ōreti River (New River Estuary), opposite Ōmaui, was one of the principal settlements in Murihiku. Honekai who was a principal chief of Murihiku in his time was resident at this settlement in the early 1820s, at the time of the sealers. In 1850 there were said to still be 40 people living at the kaik at Ōmaui under the chief Mauhe. Honekai's brother, Pukarehu, was a man who led a very quiet life, and so was little known. He is remembered, however, in the small knob in the hills above Ōmaui which bears his name. When he passed away he was interred in the sandhills at the south end of the Ōreti Beach opposite Ōmaui. Ōue is said to have got its name from a man Māui left to look after his interests there until his return. It was also here that the coastal track to Riverton began. From Ōue to the beach the track was called Te Ara Pakipaki, then, when it reached the beach, it was called Mā Te Aweawe, finally, at the Riverton end, it was known as Mate a Waewae.
After the death of Honekai, and as a consequence of inter-hapū and inter- tribal hostilities in the Canterbury region, many inhabitants of Ōue and other coastal villages on Foveaux Strait relocated to Ruapuke Island, which became the Ngāi Tahu stronghold in the south. The rangatira Pahi and Tupai were among the first to settle on the island. Pahi had previously had one of the larger and oldest pā in Murihiku at Pahi (Pahia), where 40 to 50 whare (houses) were reported in 1828. The Treaty of Waitangi was signed at Ruapuke Island by Tuhawaiki and others. No battles however occurred here, the pā Pā-raki-ao was never fully completed, due to the realisation that Te Rauparaha could not reach this far south.
Other important villages along the coast included: Te Wae Wae (Waiau), Taunoa (Ōrepuki), Kawakaputaputa (Wakaputa), Ōraka (Colac Bay), Aparima (Riverton—named Aparima after the daughter of the noted southern rangatira Hekeia, to whom he bequeathed all of the land which his eye could see as he stood on a spot at Ōtaitai, just north of Riverton), Turangiteuaru, Awarua (Bluff), Te Whera, Toe Toe (mouth of the Mataura River) and Waikawa.
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 65
Rarotoka (Centre Island) was a safe haven at times of strife for the villages on the mainland opposite (Pahi, Ōraka and Aparima). Numerous artefacts and historical accounts attest to Rarotoka as having a significant place in the Ngāi Tahu history associated with Murihiku.
Rakiura also plays a prominent part in southern history, the “Neck” being a particularly favoured spot. Names associated with the area include: Kōrako- wahine (on the western side of the peninsula), Whare-tātara (a rock), Hupokeka (Bullers Point) and Pukuheke (the point on which the lighthouse stands). Te Wera had two pā built in the area called Kaiarohaki, the one on the mainland was called Tounoa, and across the tidal strip was Kā-Turi-o- Whako.
A permanent settlement was located at Port Pegasus, at the south-eastern end of Rakiura, where numerous middens and cave dwellings remain. Permanent settlement also occurred on the eastern side of Rakiura, from the Kaik near the Neck, south to Tikotaitahi (or Tikotatahi) Bay. A pā was also established at Port Adventure.
Mahinga kai was available through access from the coastal settlements to Te Whaka-a-te-Wera (Paterson Inlet), Lords River and, particularly for waterfowl, to Toi Toi wetland. In addition, the tītī islands off the northeastern coast of the island, and at the mouth of Kōpeka River and the sea fishery ensured a sound base for permanent and semi-permanent settlement, from which nohoanga operated.
Te Ara a Kiwa, the estuaries, beaches and reefs off the mainland and islands all offered a bounty of mahinga kai, with Rakiura and the tītī islands being renowned for their rich resources of bird life, shellfish and wet fish. The area offered a wide range of kaimoana (sea food), including tuaki (cockles), paua, mussels, toheroa, tio (oysters), pūpū (mudsnails), cod, groper, barracuda, octopus, pātiki (flounders), seaweed, kina, kōura (crayfish) and conger eel. Estuarine areas provided freshwater fisheries, including tuna (eels), inaka (whitebait), waikōura (freshwater crayfish), kōkopu and kanakana (lamprey). Marine mammals were harvested for whale meat and seal pups. Many reefs along the coast are known by name and are customary fishing grounds, many sand banks, channels, currents and depths are also known for their kaimoana.
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 66
A range of bird life in the coastal area also contributed to the diversity of mahinga kai resources available, including tītī, seabirds such as shags and gulls, sea bird eggs, waterfowl, and forest birds such as kiwi, kākā, kākāpō, weka, kukupa and tieke. A variety of plant resources were also taken in the coastal area, including raupō, fern root, tī kōūka (cabbage tree), tutu juice and kōrari juice. Harakeke (flax) was an important resource, required for the everyday tasks of carrying and cooking kai. Black mud (paru) was gathered at Ocean Beach for use as dye. Tōtara bark was important for wrapping pōhā in, to allow safe transport of the tītī harvest. Pōhā were made from bull kelp gathered around the rocky coast.
The numerous tītī islands are an important part of the Ngāi Tahu southern economy, with Taukihepa (Te Kanawera) being the largest. Tītī were and are traded as far north as the North Island. The “Hakuai” is a bird with a fearsome reputation associated with the islands. No one has ever seen this bird, which appears at night, but it once regularly signalled the end to a birding season by its appearance at night. Known for its distinctive spine-chilling call, the hakuai was a kaitiaki that could not be ignored. At the far western edge of Foveaux Strait is Solander Island (Hau-tere), an impressive rock pinnacle rising hundreds of feet out of the sea, on which fishing and tītī gathering occurred.
The coast was also a major highway and trade route, particularly in areas where travel by land was difficult. Foveaux Strait was a principal thoroughfare, with travel to and from Rakiura a regular activity. There was also regular travel between the islands Ruapuke, Rarotoka and other points.
The tītī season still involves a large movement across the Strait to the islands, in addition large flotillas of Ngāi Tahu once came south from as far afield as Kaikōura to exercise their mutton-birding rights. Whenua Hou (Codfish Island) and the Ruggedy Islands were important staging posts for the movement of birders to the tītī islands off the south-west coast of Rakiura. Whenua Hou had everything that the birders required: shelter, proximity to the tītī islands, kai moana, manu (birds) and ngahere (bush). From Whenua Hou, the birders would camp at Miniti (Ernest Island), at the end of Mason Bay, where the waka-hunua (double-hulled canoes, or canoes with outriggers) were able to moor safely, ready for the final movement to the various tītī islands. Waka- hunua were an important means of transport on the dangerous and treacherous waters of Foveaux Strait and the Rakiura coast. After dropping
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 67 birders and stores on the tītī islands the waka hunua generally returned immediately to Aparima and other tauranga waka along the mainland of Foveaux Strait, due to the paucity of safe anchorages among the tītī islands.
Travel by sea between settlements and hapū was common, with a variety of different forms of waka, including the southern waka hunua (double-hulled canoe) and, post-contact, whale boats plying the waters continuously. Hence tauranga waka occur up and down the coast, including spots at Pahi, Ōraka and Aparima, and wherever a tauranga waka is located there is also likely to be a nohoanga (settlement), fishing ground, kaimoana resource, rimurapa (bull kelp - used to make the pōhā, in which tītī were and still are preserved) and the sea trail linked to a land trail or mahinga kai resource. Knowledge of these areas continues to be held by whānau and hapū and is regarded as a taonga. The traditional mobile lifestyle of the people led to their dependence on the resources of the coast.
The New River Estuary contains wāhi tapu, as do many of the coastal dunes and estuarine complexes for the length of the Foveaux Strait. Many urupā are located on islands and prominent headlands overlooking the Strait and the surrounding lands and mountains. The rangatira Te Wera, of Huriawa fame, is buried at Taramea (Howells Point), near Riverton. There are two particularly important urupā in Colac Bay, as well as an old quarry site (Tīhaka). From Colac Bay to Wakapatu, the coastal sandhills are full of middens and ovens, considered to be linked to the significant mahinga kai gathering undertaken in Lake George (Urewera). Urupā are the resting places of Ngāi Tahu tūpuna and, as such, are the focus for whānau traditions. These are places holding the memories, traditions, victories and defeats of Ngāi Tahu tūpuna, and are frequently protected in secret locations.
The mauri of the coastal area represent the essence that binds the physical and spirtual elements of all things together, generating and upholding all life. All elements of the natural environment possess a life force, and all forms of life are related. Mauri is a critical element of the spiritual relationship of Ngāi Tahu Whānui with the coastal area.
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 68
Purposes of statutory acknowledgement
Pursuant to section 215, and without limiting the rest of this schedule, the only purposes of this statutory acknowledgement are—
(a) to require that consent authorities forward summaries of resource consent applications to Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu as required by regulations made pursuant to section 207 (clause 12.2.3 of the deed of settlement); and
(b) to require that consent authorities, Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga, or the Environment Court, as the case may be, have regard to this statutory acknowledgement in relation to Rakiura/Te Ara a Kiwa, as provided in sections 208 to 210 (clause 12.2.4 of the deed of settlement); and
(c) to enable Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu and any member of Ngāi Tahu Whānui to cite this statutory acknowledgement as evidence of the association of Ngāi Tahu to Rakiura/Te Ara a Kiwa as provided in section 208 (clause 12.2.5 of the deed of settlement).
Limitations on effect of statutory acknowledgement
Except as expressly provided in sections 208 to 211, 213, and 215,—
(a) this statutory acknowledgement does not affect, and is not to be taken into account in, the exercise of any power, duty, or function by any person or entity under any statute, regulation, or bylaws; and
(b) without limiting paragraph (a), no person or entity, in considering any matter or making any decision or recommendation under any statute, regulation, or bylaw, may give any greater or lesser weight to Ngāi Tahu's association to Rakiura/Te Ara a Kiwa (as described in this statutory acknowledgement) than that person or entity would give under the relevant statute, regulation, or bylaw, if this statutory acknowlegement did not exist in respect of Rakiura/Te Ara a Kiwa.
Except as expressly provided in this Act, this statutory acknowledgement does not affect the lawful rights or interests of any person who is not a party to the deed of settlement.
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 69
Except as expressly provided in this Act, this statutory acknowledgement does not, of itself, have the effect of granting, creating, or providing evidence of any estate or interest in, or any rights of any kind whatsoever relating to, Rakiura/Te Ara a Kiwa.
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 70
APPENDIX FOUR: IWI MANAGEMENT PLAN EXCERPTS
Te Pōhā o Tohu Raumati - 2005
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 71
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 72
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 73
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 74
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 75
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 76
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 77
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 78
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 79
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 80
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 81
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 82
Mahaanui Iwi Management Plan - 2013
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 83
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 84
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 85
Kāi Tahu ki Otago – Natural Resource Management Plan – 2013
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 86
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 87
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 88
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 89
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 90
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 91
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 92
Te Tangi a Tauira – The Cry of the People - Natural Resource Management Plan – 2013
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 93
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 94
APPENDIX FIVE: KAIKŌURA (TE TAI O MAROKURA) MARINE MANAGEMENT ACT EXCERPTS
3 Purpose
The purpose of this Act is to—
(a) recognise the local, national, and international importance of the coast and sea around Kaikōura (Te Tai o Marokura) as a consequence of its unique coastal and marine environment and distinctive biological diversity and cultural heritage:
(b) provide measures to assist the preservation, protection, and sustainable and integrated management of the coastal and marine environment and biological diversity of Te Tai o Marokura:
(c) acknowledge the importance of kaitiakitanga and local leadership:
(d) establish an advisory committee to provide advice regarding biosecurity, conservation, and fisheries matters within a marine management area:
(e) establish, within Te Tai o Marokura,—
(i) a marine reserve:
(ii) a whale sanctuary:
(iii) a New Zealand fur seal sanctuary:
(iv) various mātaitai reserves and taiāpure-local fisheries:
(f) amend the Fisheries (Amateur Fishing) Regulations 2013 to provide specific regulation of amateur fishing in the marine management area.
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 95
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 96
APPENDIX SIX: NOTES OF DR EWAN FORDYCE
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 97
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 98
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 99
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 100
APPENDIX SEVEN: COMMENTS OF DR JOHN BOOTH
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 101
APPENDIX EIGHT: STATEMENT OF DR JIM COOKE
Review of Chatham Rise Phosphorite Application with respect to Uranium Pollution of (a) seawater, and (b) land/freshwater after application of CRP directly, or as a component in manufactured fertiliser.
Dr Jim Cooke - Streamlined Environmental
Marine environment
1. Appendix 11 of the AEE provides information on the chemistry of the material that is proposed to be mined. In summary it consists of phosphorite (the target mineral) and surrounding sediment (mainly glauconite sands and muds). As explained in the AEE, phosphorites are formed by precipitation of carbonate-apatite minerals from pore- waters at the suboxic-anoxic interface. Uranium, and other heavy metals, can substitute for calcium in the apatite lattice and hexavalent uranium can also adsorb to the surface of the apatite. However the bulk of the uranium is locked within the fluroapatite mineral structure.
2. From my reading of the geochemical literature (e.g. (Burnett et al. 1982; Djogic et al. 1986; Veeh & Turekian 1968) I agree that the interpretation of phosphorite formation in the AEE is correct and that impurities such as uranium are essentially ‘locked up’ within the mineral structure.
3. Phosphorite deposits of the seafloor are particularly common in regions of upwelling. Isotope dating by Burnett et al. (1982) showed that the growth rate of the nodules is very slow (<1 – 10 mm/thousand years). Thus they are a unique resource and cannot be considered renewable (except over geologic time).
4. The key issue is “Will phosphorite mining using the method described in the AEE liberate sufficient uranium to be a risk to marine life?” The applicant used principally a combination of elutriate tests and dispersion modeling to address this question. My colleague, Ngaire Phillips, addresses methodological problems with the elutriate testing, and others address issues with the dispersion modeling, particularly as it relates to initial dilution. However from a chemical perspective, I
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 102
agree with the conclusion in the AEE that any effects will be less than minor.
5. I reach this conclusion because (i) the uranium is concentrated within the phosphorite – concentrations in the surrounding sediment, which will be the bulk of material returned to seafloor, are low; (ii) the mining method is physical, consisting of cutting, suction, abrasion (logwasher), pumping, dispersion and settling, There is no chemical processing involved that could lead to solubilisation of uranium within the phosphorite; (iii) the sediment in which the phosphorite is embedded is largely oxic to the depth that will be mined (based on descriptions of core logs in which black bands that might indicate anaerobic conditions were largely absent) – thus it is unlikely there will be major changes in redox potential or pH that might result in desorption of hexavalent uranium from the surface of the phosphorite; (iv) even if this minor (compared with the tetravalent uranium within the phosphorite) source of uranium were desorbed, there is a large dilution capacity (arguments about initial dilution notwithstanding) as well as opportunity for formation of insoluble uranyl-carbonates with the disturbed sediment slurry.
6. I agree with the conclusions reached in the AEE, that any minor effects of uranium release from surrounding sediment will be chemical, rather than radiological.
Land/Freshwater
Direct fertiliser application of phosphorite
7. The raison d’être for the CRP application is to sell the mined phosphorite granules as fertiliser. Their economic analysis suggests imported phosphorite imports will be reduced by $85M /y as well as generating export receipts of $265M.
8. Given that estimated RPR imports are $185M/y , CRP expect that their product will (initially) replace ~46% of imports. CRP also predicts that domestic consumption of their product will increase to net benefit (in terms of import substitution) of $130M (equivalent to 70% of imports).
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 103
9. For this degree of market penetration to occur there will need to be a significant price advantage to fertiliser companies and/or the market will need to be convinced there are other agronomic or environmental advantages that imported RPR does not impart.
10. The economic assessment (Section 4.2.4 of Appendix 2) states that CRP has a lower phosphate content per volume (22%) than imported phosphate rocks (32%), the tonnage of CRP used will displace a lesser tonnage of imports. It also states that of the 0.35 million tonnes of Chatham Rise phosphate expected to be sold within New Zealand, 0.1 million is expected to be used for direct RPR application and 0.25 million tonnes as input for superphosphate manufacture.
11. There are two aspects to the above findings that I wish to highlight: (i) Having a lower phosphate content per unit volume may make the product less attractive to mainstream fertiliser manufacturers as it will increase their manufacturing costs relative to higher ‘strength’ raw materials, (ii) the greater bulk of the raw material will make shipping costs to export markets higher than competitors products on a per kilometre travelled basis. Thus the relative distance to export markets of NZ CRP and Middle Eastern Rock Phosphate will be crucial. NZIER cite India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brazil/Argentina and Australia as being the principal export markets and undertake an
analysis of the net change in CO2 emissions from exporting CRP as opposed to Moroccan rock phosphate to these destinations and conclude the net effect is positive (i.e. less emissions from CRP export) , however the they qualify their conclusion of benefits by stating: “The effect on greenhouse gas emission restraint will be positive with respect to emissions on phosphate used in New Zealand, but could be either positive or negative with respect to overall global
emissions.” In any case I note that CO2 emissions will only be part of the decision-making process by buyers of fertilizer raw materials.
12. The NZIER analysis also examines the ‘environmental benefits’ of using CRP for direct application to pasture in the NZ market through reducing eutrophication. They were unsuccessful in finding any NZ studies that quantified such economic benefits probably because unlike Northern Hemisphere lakes, the majority of NZ lakes are
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 104
nitrogen limited. Whilst not disputing the overall environmental benefits of reducing phosphorus runoff to streams and lakes, it should be noted that reactive rock phosphate (RPR) of which CRP is representative, has been marketed in NZ since the 1980s, and despite the promotion of its environmental benefits has achieved at most ~10% market share of P fertilisers.
13. The reason for the lack of market penetration has been the lack of consensus amongst agricultural scientists on the agronomic cost- effectiveness compared with superphosphate (SSP) or other manufactured fertilisers.
14. Investigations on the agronomic effectiveness of CRP were carried out in the 1980s. Studies carried out at Massey University (Mackay et al. 1980; Mackay et al. 1984) showed that the agronomic responses from CRP could equal the response from SSP in both pot trials and field experiments for some, but not all soil types. Soils with high P retention were the exception. In addition there was a significant ‘lag’ in response, with SSP generally outperforming CRP in first years of application but CRP ‘catching up’ in subsequent years. Overall Mackay et al. (1984) were of the view that the economics in favour of CRP material stacked up for low P retaining soils where a single application of CRP in year 1 gave an equivalent response to 3 annual SSP applications. Rajan (1982) investigated beneficiating CRP material by granulating ground phosphorite with flowers of or molten sulphur (Biosuper). He reported this fertiliser (Biosuper) to be more effective than SSP in high P fixing soil thus potentially overcoming the problems identified by Mackay.
15. However after extensive field trials, MAF did not endorse direct application of rock phosphates in general (including CRP) because of the lag effect (Quin & Zaman 2012) citing up to a 4 year lag. The market share of reactive rock phosphate peaked at ~10% of the P fertilizer market in the 1990s (Quin & Zaman 2012) but has since declined to ~5% (Ants Roberts, Ravensdown, pers. Comm.) partly because Balance bought out Summit Quinphos, the major promoter of direct RPR application, partly the entry of new ‘multi-purpose’ fertilisers, and partly because of lack of traction in the market. Thus
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 105
without a major cost advantage, a sustained marketing push backed by new demonstration of agronomic effectiveness of direct application (including resolving the lag effect) , my view is that it will be very difficult for CRP to do more than replace the existing market share of reactive rock phosphate. This has a bearing on the economic viability of the project.
16. For CRP to gain a significantly higher market share in NZ without wider acceptance of direct application of their material, then it will need to be beneficiated, i.e. made more available and incorporated into manufactured fertilizer. For this to occur, established fertilizer manufacturers will need to be convinced that CRP has material advantages over their current sources. Not only does there need to be major advantages to disrupt existing supply contracts for what is a relatively short supply period (15 years) but there also needs to be no significant disadvantages.
Effects of Uranium
17. CRP advocate the use of phosphorite direct to pastures citing the low Cd level gives it an advantage over imported rock phosphate. The AEE states “Chatham Rise phosphorite contains significantly lower concentrations of cadmium than the phosphate rock imported from Morocco, reducing the potential for soil contamination by cadmium, an issue which has recently arisen in some intensively-farmed areas of New Zealand. Therefore, the Chatham Rise phosphorite deposits can provide a major source of phosphate fertiliser for New Zealand as an alternative to importation from overseas countries, many of which are not politically stable, while also having significant environmental benefits over imported phosphate rock.”
18. I agree the cadmium content of the CRP material is significantly lower than imported materials and as pointed out by Reiser et al. (2014) cadmium (Cd) occurs at above- background concentrations in many New Zealand pasture soils. However most of this Cd is due to the historical application of single superphosphate that was made from Nauru phosphate rock, which contained containing between 400 and 600 mg Cd kg−1 P. However since 1995 the NZ fertilizer industry has
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 106
been adhering to a voluntary code of practice (Rys 2011) that places voluntary limits on the level of cadmium in fertiliser. The levels have been stepped down gradually to an upper limit of 280 mg Cd/kg P from Jan 1997 onwards. Major fertiliser companies importing rock phosphate for SSP manufacture are purposefully avoiding high Cd sources, even though it entails higher cost. As a result, the industry has consistently been below the voluntary limit and now averages about 180 mg Cd/kg P.
19. Even without these voluntary reductions, calculations of the likely exposure to Cd by sheep and cattle from 69 pastures throughout NZ with a range of Cd contamination in the soil, Reiser et al. (2014), showed that no pastures tested resulted in sheep and cattle ingesting Cd at a rate that would result in breaching muscle-tissue food standards. In other words the ‘Cd’ problem is under control and whilst adoption of the CRP material as a fertilizer source would continue the trend towards lower Cd levels, there is no existing problem that requires a solution.
20. While CRP have highlighted that Chatham Rise phosphorite is lower than imported RPR in terms of cadmium content they have neglected to mention that it is significantly higher in terms of uranium. This is potentially a much greater problem than that of cadmium, particularly for market perception.
21. When sedimentary marine phosphorite deposits are exposed to subaerial conditions, weathering may disrupt the radioactive equilibrium within the deposits and, under certain conditions result in release of radiogenic materials to the environment (Cowart & Burnett 1994), even without the ‘concentrating’ and solubilisation processes inherent in fertilizer manufacture discussed later.
22. CRP’s own data (Table 5, AEE) shows that the median concentration of total uranium in their phosphorite is 240 mg/kg (range 20-480) which compares with a range reported for phosphorites globally of 64- 140 mg/kg.
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 107
23. All phosphorites contain some uranium and as noted in the AEE they occur in carbonate fluorapatite minerals by tetravalent uranium substituting for calcium in the apatite and hexavalent uranium adsorbing to the surface of apatite.
24. An assessment of the CRP by ESR found that the average predicted radioactivity (based on total uranium levels rather than measured) was 35 kilobequerels/kg compared with the NZ Standard for a radioactive material which is any substance with a specific activity greater than 100 kBq/kg. Even the higher recorded uranium concentration in CRP of 524 mg/kg (which we note is higher than the maximum given in Table 5) would have a specific activity (based on secular equilibrium with 238U) of 91 kBq/kg.
25. Whilst I accept the ESR assessment in terms of the NZ standard I note that other jurisdictions where U in phosphorites is lower than for CRP, are concerned about the effects of long term radiation exposure to workers in the fertilizer industry (Righi et al. 2005). For example Bejaoui et al. (2013) measured activity of 238U in Tunisian and Algerian phosphorite of 527 ± 49 Bq kg−1 1,315 ± 65 Bq kg−1 which they noted was significantly higher than the background value of 110 Bq kg−1 in soils of the various countries of the world (note 1 kilobequerel = 1000 bequerels so the ESR estimates for CRP are ~1000 times higher than Algerian phosphorite and 2000 times higher than Tunisian phosphorite).
26. Phosphorites are the principal raw material for superphosphate manufacture. The standard treatment of phosphate rock is utilization of wet processing acidulation, normally using sulphuric acid. This is especially the case in New Zealand because many of our soils are deficient in sulphur. The acidulation solid byproduct formed as a
resultant of this process is phosphogypsum (CaSO4.2H20), which also entrains the majority of other radioactive byproducts such as radium, polonium, thorium and other insoluble radionuclides are precipitated as sulphate salts (Pérez-López et al. 2007). Phosphogypsum is filtered out from the acid and retains up to 30% of the 238U present in the phosphate rock.
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 108
27. The remaining ~70% of the 238U is retained in the liquid which is further concentrated by evaporation to form superphosphate (SSP) 238 with an enrichment of ±150% of the initial U (18-20% P2O5) (LeMone & Goodall, P 2009; Khater 2008). The superphosphate acid concentrate treats further phosphate rocks to form triple
superphosphate (TSP) fertilizers (40-48% P2O5). The addition of
ammonia (NH3) forms ammonium phosphate (46-48% P2O5). Thus the processing of phosphorites into manufactured fertilisers concentrates 238U and increases its availability.
28. One would therefore expect uranium accumulation in pasture soils that have received sustained SSP (or TSP or ammonium phosphate) application relative to non-pasture soils. Taylor (2007) demonstrated this to be the case in New Zealand through comparing the uranium content of freshly collected soil samples, with those collected at the same sites in and archived 36-43 years previously. He showed that all soils tested accumulated uranium and that this could be related to the fertilizer application rate. The largest increase in total U concentration was in a peat soil (from 0.79 to 2.48 μg g-1, an annual increase of 0.046 μg g-1 a-1), though other mineral soils had similar accumulation rates.
29. Taylor (2007) compared the uranium accumulation rate with the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) residual contamination criterion for natural uranium in soil of (equivalent to 30 μg U g-1) and calculated that it would take 563 years to exceed the USNRC criterion in the highest accumulating soil.
30. However Taylor (2007) noted that prior to 1980 the fertilizer industry sourced raw material (guano) from Nauru and Christmas Island, which had naturally high uranium content (31 - 56 mg U kg-1 for Christmas Island and from 64 - 121 mg U kg-1 for Nauru Island) whereas current (in 2007) levels were only 22 mg U kg-1 because fertilizer companies deliberately sourced raw materials with low levels of heavy metals. This, he stated, would slow down the rate of uranium accumulation.
31. If CRP with an average uranium content of 240 mg kg-1 totally replaced imported material then we could expect uranium accumulation rates to
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 109
increase again (to about 10 times the current rate and 2- 3 times the rate when Nauru and Christmas island sourced material was used).
32. Taylor (2007) also noted that in New Zealand’s largely acidic and organic-rich soils uranium is likely to be ‘bound’ to soil particles and unlikely to mobilise offsite and transported to groundwater or surface waters (Yamaguchi et al. 2010). The main transport mechanism would therefore be erosional (Batson et al. 1996) and bound to soil particles in storm runoff, which is also the main transport mechanism for phosphorus (Cooke 1988). This contrasts with the situation described in European or North American studies where transport of soluble uranium to groundwater and surface waters has been documented (Bradford et al. 1990; Jaques et al. 2008). However should SSP or TSP manufactured from a source high in uranium be applied to freely draining undeveloped soils (such as those being developed for large scale irrigated dairying in Canterbury), there would be potential in my view for offsite transport of uranium to surface of groundwaters. If that were to occur then there would also be potential for ecotoxic effects from the uranium because freshwater species are much more sensitive than marine species (Bradford et al. 1990; Linsalata 1994).
Summary
33. I conclude that from a chemical perspective the effects of CRP’s mining activities on liberating uranium into the marine environment are less than minor. However my view is that its not a sustainable practice at this point in time, because: (i) alternative phosphorite supplies from land-based mining are available and there is no real threat to supply, (ii) CRP are unlikely to gain significant market share for direct application of their product to New Zealand pastures, (iii) if CRP were incorporated into manufactured fertilisers such as superphosphate , this would lead to significantly higher concentrations of uranium being applied to NZ pastures which would accelerate uranium build-up in soils, (iv) because of the characteristics of NZ soils most uranium would stay in the soil and not migrate to surface or groundwaters.
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 110
References
Batson, V.L., Bertsch, P.M. & Herbert, B.E., 1996. Transport of anthropogenic uranium from sediments to surface waters during episodic storm events. Journal of Environment Quality, 25(5), pp.1129–1137.
Bejaoui, J. et al., 2013. New information on radionuclides concentration in phosphorites originating from Tunisia and Algeria. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 6(7), pp.2685–2689.
Bradford, G.R., Bakhtar, D. & Westcot, D., 1990. Uranium, vanadium, and molybdenum in saline waters of California. Journal of Environment Quality, 19(1), pp.105–108.
Burnett, W.C., Beers, M.J. & Roe, K.K., 1982. Growth rates of phosphate nodules from the continental margin off peru. Science (New York, N.Y.), 215(4540), pp.1616–1618.
Cooke, J., 1988. Sources and Sinks of Nutrients in a New Zealand Hill Pasture Catchment: II. Phosphorus. Hydrological processes, 2, pp.123– 133.
Cowart, J.B. & Burnett, W.C., 1994. The distribution of uranium and thorium decay-series radionuclides in the environment—a review. Journal of Environment Quality, 23(4), pp.651–662.
Djogic, R., Sipos, L. & Branica, M., 1986. Characterization of uranium (VI) in seawater. Limnol. Oceanogr.;(United States), 31(5).
Jaques, D. et al., 2008. Modelling the fate of uranium from inorganic phosphorus fertilizer applications in agriculture. 2008) Loads and Fate of fertlizer-derived uranium. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden. ISBN/EAN, pp.978–990.
Khater, A.E., 2008. Uranium and heavy metals in phosphate fertilizers. pp.193–198.
LeMone, D. & Goodall, P.C., 2009. Phosphate Rocks: Sustainable Secondary Source for Uranium and their Agricultural Impact. WM2009 Conference, March 1 – 5, 2009, Phoenix, AZ, pp.1–12.
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 111
Linsalata, P., 1994. Uranium and thorium decay series radionuclides in human and animal foodchains—a review. Journal of Environment Quality, 23(4), pp.633–642.
Mackay, A.D., Gregg, P.E.H. & Syers, J.K., 1980. A preliminary evaluation of Chatham Rise phosphorite as a direct-use phosphatic fertiliser. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research, 23(4), pp.441–449.
Mackay, A.D., Gregg, P.E.H. & Syers, J.K., 1984. Field evaluation of Chatham Rise phosphorite as a phosphatic fertiliser for pasture. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research, 27(1), pp.65–82.
Pérez-López, R., Álvarez-Valero, A.M. & Nieto, J.M., 2007. Changes in mobility of toxic elements during the production of phosphoric acid in the fertilizer industry of Huelva (SW Spain) and environmental impact of phosphogypsum wastes. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 148(3), pp.745– 750.
Quin, B.F. & Zaman, M., 2012. RPR revisited (1): Research, recommendations, promotion and use in New Zealand. 74, pp.255–268.
Rajan, S.S.S., 1982. Availability to plants of phosphate from“biosupers” and partially acidulated phosphate rock. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research, 25(3), pp.355–361.
Reiser, R. et al., 2014. Cadmium Concentrations in New Zealand Pastures: Relationships to Soil and Climate Variables. Journal of Environment Quality, 43(3), p.917.
Righi, S., Lucialli, P. & Bruzzi, L., 2005. Health and environmental impacts of a fertilizer plant – Part I: Assessment of radioactive pollution. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 82(2), pp.167–182.
Rys, G.J., 2011. A national cadmium management strategy for New Zealand Agriculture. Proceedings of Fertiliser and Lime Workshop 2011, pp.1–14.
Taylor, M.D., 2007. Accumulation of uranium in soils from impurities in phosphate fertilisers. Landbauforschung Volkenrode, 57(2), p.133.
Veeh, H.H. & Turekian, K.K., 1968. Cobalt, silver, and uranium concentrations
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 112
of reef-building corals in the Pacific Ocean. Limnol. Oceanogr., 13: 304-8 (Apr. 1968)., 13(YALE--2912-15).
Yamaguchi A, N., KawasakiB, A. & IiyamaC, I., 2010. What soil constituents contribute to the accumulation of fertilizer-derived U? Proceedings of 19th World Congress of Soil Science. Brisbane Australia. http://www.iuss.org/19th%20WCSS/Symposium/pdf/2447.pdf
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 113
APPENDIX NINE: SCHEDULE OF TAONGA SPECIES
Schedule 97
Taonga species
Birds
Name in Māori Name in English Scientific name
Karoro Black-backed gull Larus dominicanus
Kōau Black shag Phalacrocorax carbo
Phalacrocorax melanoleucos Little shag brevirostris
Kororā Blue penguin Eudyptula minor
Tara Terns Sterna spp
Tītī Sooty Puffinus griseus and Puffinus shearwater/Muttonbird/Hutton's huttoni and Pelecanoides shearwater urinatrix and Pelecanoides Common diving petrel georgicus and Procellaria South Georgian diving petrel westlandica and Pachyptila Westland petrel turtur and Pachyptila vittata Fairy prion and Pelagodroma marina and Broad-billed prion Pterodroma cookii and White-faced storm petrel Pterodroma inexpectata Cook's petrel Mottled petrel
Toroa Albatrosses and Mollymawks Diomedea spp
Plants
Rimurapa Bull kelp Durvillaea antarctica
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 114
Marine mammals
Ihupuku Southern elephant seal Mirounga leonina
Kekeno New Zealand fur seals Arctocephalus forsteri
Paikea Humpback whales Megaptera novaeangliae
Parāoa Sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus
Rāpoka/Whakahao New Zealand sea lion/Hooker's Phocarctos hookeri sea lion
Tohorā Southern right whale Balaena australis
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 115
APPENDIX TEN: TĪTĪ REFERENCE MATERIAL
Introduction
Sooty shearwaters (Puffinus griseus) are a medium-large shearwater in the seabird family Procellariidae. They are a native NZ species known also as Titi or muttonbird which is recognised by Department of Conservation (DOC) as “at risk”, “declining” and “secure overseas” (Figure 1). While the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) classifies the status of Titi as “near threatened”.
Figure 1: Adult Titi (sooty shearwater)
Cultural Significance
Titi is among the taonga species recognised by the Ngai Tahu Claim settlement in 1998.
The harvest of Titi is the only remaining native wildlife harvest managed entirely by Māori. In particular, the species has a key cultural, economic and social significance for Rakiura Māori and they hold the rights to gather Titi on 36 islands surrounding Stewart Island/Rakiura (also known as Titi Islands). Eighteen of these islands are named “Beneficial Islands” to which only certain Rakiura Māori families hold the ownership and right of access. The remaining 18 islands are known as the Rakiura Titi Islands and, since the Ngai Tahu Claim Settlement Act in 1998, are owned and controlled by Rakiura Māori (Te Ara, 2014b).
Titi harvesting is known as mutton-birding. The harvest takes place between 1st April and 31st May each year. There are two stages of harvesting, 1st-22nd April is the nanao. This is when mutton-birders take chicks from their burrows during daylight. The second stage is called rama and lasts from 23rd April to
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 116
31st May. During rama, mutton-birders work at night and catch chicks as they emerge from their burrows to exercise their wings (Te Ara, 2014b). The daily take is limited by the time it takes to pluck and process the birds the next day. The total estimate of chicks taken per annum is 400 000 (NZ Birds online, 2014).
Distribution and Population
Breeding colonies are distributed around the south of NZ and Stewart Island. Stewart Island and its outliers host numerous sooty shearwater breeding colonies as does the Otago coastline (12 mainland colonies with up to 620 burrows (Hamilton et al., 1997). Internationally, the species also breeds on islands off Australia, Chile and the Falklands. The breeding season in NZ extends between September/October and May (NZ Birds online, 2014).
The species is monogamous and both sexes share the tasks of incubation and chick care. Every year, a single egg is laid in a chamber at the end of a burrow. Although birds return to the same area to breed from one year to the next, they may not use the same burrows. Breeding pairs mate at an average age of six years and lay the egg between the end of November and the beginning of December, and like most other petrels they dig a burrow in the ground to lay their egg. Incubation takes 53-56 days; and chicks will fledge at around 86-106 days at which point they are independent (NZ Birds online, 2014).
Feeding
During breeding, adult Titi will take regular “foraging trips” out to sea. These trips can either be “long trips” during which the birds will feed in sub-Antarctic waters (Raymond et al., 2010; Shaffer et al., 2009) or “short trips” during which foraging is concentrated along the NZ continental shelf edge (with activity concentrated along the SE coast of NZ) (Shaffer et al., 2009). It is thought that the purpose of these two types of trip (also observed in other seabird species) is to balance both adult and offspring energetic demands.
During feeding, the birds will dive to depths of around 15 m for up to 100 seconds (Shaffer et al., 2009); however, they have been recorded to dive to depths of 68 m (Shaffer et al., 2006). Most of this diving activity will take place during the day (Shaffer et al., 2009).
Titi’s diet consists of fish, cephalopods and crustaceans (Cruz et al., 2001). At sea, Titi’s abundance has been observed to correlate with rich zooplankton communities available in the sub-Antarctic, where foraging sites have been correlated to upwelling, primary production, prey availability and wind patterns. In addition, foraging site fidelity has been demonstrated in this species with animals returning to the same sites from one year to the next (Raymond et al., 2010).
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 117
Figure 2: Titi foraging trips in the sub-Antarctic waters and along the NZ continental shelf (dots=dives) (Raymond et al., 2010)
Migration
Titi are known to undergo a post-breeding migration which sees them travel up to the waters of the Northern Pacific (either central, eastern or northern pacific) (Figure 3). This Pacific migration phase is understood to last 192 ± 17 days (Shaffer et al., 2006). Birds travel northwards between March-May and return to NZ breeding colonies in September-December (Spear and Ainley, 1999). During this migration, the birds follow a figure of eight pattern which is thought to be influenced by global phenomena such as wind circulation and the Coriolis effect (Shaffer et al., 2006) (Figure 4). The birds’ arrival in the Northern Pacific is timed with an increase in oceanic productivity in the area which exceeds that of the Southern Ocean. It is thought that this species seeks biologically productive areas both during its breeding season (in the Southern Ocean) and during winter (in the North Pacific). Titi do not migrate as a flock but rather as single individuals, associating only opportunistically. Tagging studies have shown that Titi breeding in New Zealand may travel 74,000 km in a year, reaching Japan, Alaska, and California, averaging more than 500 km per day (Shaffer et al., 2006).
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 118
Figure 3: Tracks of 19 Titi. Blue: foraging trips to the southern ocean. Yellow: beginning of the northward migration. Orange: foraging in the North Pacific and return southwards (Shaffer et al., 2006)
Figure 4: ‘Figure of eight” Titi migrations (Te Ara, 2014a)
References
CRUZ, J. B., LALAS, C., JILLETT, J. B., KITSON, J. C., LYVER, P. O. B., IMBER, M., NEWMAN, J. E. & MOLLER, H. 2001. Prey spectrum of breeding sooty shearwaters (Puffinus griseus) in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 35, 817-829.
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 119
HAMILTON, S. A., MOLLER, H. & ROBERSTON, C. J. R. 1997. Distribution of Sooty Shearwater (Puffinus griseus) breeding colonies along the Otago Coast, New Zealand, with indication of countrywide population trends. Notornis, 44.
MACDUFF-DUNCAN, C. & DAVIES, G. 1995. Managing seismic exploration in a nearshore environmentally sensitive areas. In: ENGINEERS, S. O. P. (ed.) Society of Petroleum Engineers Technical Paper.
NZ BIRDS ONLINE. 2014. Sooty shearwater [Online]. Available: http://nzbirdsonline.org.nz/species/sooty-shearwater.
RAYMOND, B., SHAFFER, S. A., SOKOLOV, S., WOEHLER, E. J., COSTA, D. P., EINODER, L., HINDELL, M., HOSIE, G., PINKERTON, M., SAGAR, P. M., SCOTT, D., SMITH, A., THOMPSON, D. R., VERTIGAN, C. & WEIMERSKIRCH, H. 2010. Shearwater foraging in the Southern Ocean: the roles of prey availability and winds. PLoS One, 5, e10960.
SHAFFER, S. A., TREMBLAY, Y., WAEIMERSKIRCH, H., SCOTT, D., THOMPSON, D. R., SAGAR, P. M., MOLLER, H., TAYLOR, G. A., FOLEY, D. G., BLOCK, B. A. & COSTA, D. P. 2006. Migratory shearwaters integrate oceanic resources across the Pacific Ocean in an endless summer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States, 103, 12799-12802.
SHAFFER, S. A., WEIMERSKIRCH, H., SCOTT, D., PINAUD, D., THOMPSON, D. R., SAGAR, P. M., MOLLER, H., TAYLOR, G. A., FOLEY, D. G., TREMBLAY, Y. & COSTA, D. P. 2009. Spatiotemporal habitat use by breeding sooty shearwaters Puffinus griseus. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 391, 209-220.
SPEAR, L. B. & AINLEY, D. G. 1999. Migration routes of sooty shearwaters in the Pacific Ocean. The Condor, 101, 205-218.
STEMP, R. & GREENRIDGE SCIENCES 1985. Observations on the effects of seismic exploration on seabirds. In: A pilot sutdy of possible effects of marine seismic airgun array on rockfish plumes. Report prepared for the Seismic Steering Committee. Santa Barbara, CA, USA.
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 120
TE ARA. 2014a. Sooty Shearwater Migration [Online]. Available: http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/map/5484/new-zealand-sooty-shearwater- migration.
TE ARA. 2014b. Titi - muttonbirding [Online]. Available: http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/titi-muttonbirding/page-1.
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 121
APPENDIX ELEVEN: CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE POWERPOINT
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 122
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 123
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 124
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 125
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 126
APPENDIX TWELVE: MARCH 2014 HUI AGENDA
Attendees: For TRoNT:
Maria Bartlett
Nigel Bradley
On behalf of CRP:
Ray Wood, Chief Operating Office (Teleconference - 0800 447 081 Pin 282722#)
Paul Kennedy, Golder Associates (NZ) Limited
Carmen Taylor, Golder Associates (NZ) Limited
Venue: The Control Tower, TRoNT Offices (45 Harvard Avenue, Wigram, Christchurch)
Time: 10.00 am to 4.00 pm.
The following table provides a proposed agenda for the CRP and TRoNT technical meeting to be held on Tuesday 4 March 2014. The proposed agenda reflects, albeit paraphrased to a degree, the ‘first set of technical questions / comments’ emailed by TRoNT to CRP on 17 February 2014. Provision to discuss other matters has also been included as part of the agenda.
The agenda also provides, where appropriate, an initial response to the matters raised by TRoNT. However, generally it is proposed the meeting should be used to informally talk through the matters identified.
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 127
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 128
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 129
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 130
ASR-514610-33-154-V1
Statement of Evidence of Maria Bartlett on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu