Open Spaces Strategic Action Plan (POSSAPs)
이거는 그냥 EXAMPLE이라 다른 plan을 썻구요 저는 아까 이메일에 웹사이트 보냈던Toi Whītiki – Arts and Culture Strategic Action Plan 으로 써야해요. (웹사이트요https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/plans-projects-policies-reports-bylaws/our-plans-strategies/topic-based-plans-strategies/community-social-development-plans/Documents/toi-whitiki-strategic-action-plan.pdf)
이거 8개에 대해서 적어주셔야 해요. 900자로 해주세요. Quote (provision) 부분은
Your analysis of the Auckland Council plans should include the provision of the following interests and values;
- Recognition of Matauranga Maori
- The extent to which the document provides for Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the Treaty of Waitangi
- The extent to which the document supports papakainga development
- The extent to which the document supports Maori Land development
- The extent to which the document supports marae
- The extent to which the document supports the exercise of kaitiakitanga
- The extent to which the document protects waahi tapu and mana whenua cultural heritage sites/areas
- The extent to which the document supports the sustainable management of taonga.
1.0 Maori values and interests: (examples)
1.1 Recognition of matauranga Maori
Provision 1: “We will share our knowledge and expertise with groups who get involved with looking after our parks and open spaces… [including] mana whenua”. (quote from POSSAPs)
Provision 2: “Work with mana whenua to tell stories of Māori cultural heritage throughout our parks and open spaces network, including through place names, interpretation, artwork and memorials.” (quote from POSSAPs)
REVIEW – The Māori value of mātauranga Māori (Māori knowledge) is not referred to explicitly in the POSSAPs provisions. The Council does, however, allude to mātauranga Māori in the provisions presented in provision 1,2.
The Council recognises the importance of allowing Māori to express traditional knowledge in regard to ‘Māori cultural heritage’ surrounding the Council’s parks and open spaces (Prov. 2). However, it is inferred that this knowledge is not equal to the Council’s existing knowledge of resource management and fails to consider that the ownership of the resources in question may still be contested (Prov. 1). The importance of recognising Māori knowledge is explored by Jackson (2015, pp. 258,260) who found that the validation of mātauranga in regard to managing traditional resources is an essential component of pursuing rangatiratanga which in
1.2 Maori land development
REVIEW – Māori interest in Council reserve land for commercial purposes is not acknowledged at any point in the POSSAP.
Knox (2013, pp. 346) determines a close relationship between the pursuit of tino rangatiratanga and the recovery of a Māori land-based economy, by finding that commercial development is an important component of regaining Māori authority over their lives and assets. This idea has since been acknowledged in the Auckland Council Property Limited Māori Responsiveness Plan (2014, pp. 5) that acknowledges commercial development, income from resources and the change of use of Council reserve land are all areas of interest for Auckland Māori. The plan acts on these interests by agreeing to facilitate commercial development of council owned land by mana whenua (pp. 13) among other actions. In these matters, the ACPL Māori Responsiveness Plan directly contradicts the POSSAP and suggests that the latter is out of date.
1.3 Māori papakāinga and marae
REVIEW – Māori interest in Council reserve land for papakāinga (Māori housing) and/or marae (meeting house) development purposes are not acknowledged at any point in the POSSAP.
A current plan by Ngāti Paoa to develop a marae (2ha) and papakāinga housing (12ha) on re- appropriated reserve land (Pt. England) is an example of this interest manifested. In many cases in Auckland, reserve land is the only land available for Te Tiriti infringement settlements (Ngāti Paoa, 2017) and so a reflection of this interest would be expected in a strategic plan that manages Auckland’s parks and open spaces.
Māori papakāinga development is a reflection of the strong relationship that Māori have with their ancestral lands and is central to tribal identity (Webb & Williamson, 2010, pp. 8; Panelli and Tipa, 2007, pp. 450). Hence, barriers to development should be identified and addressed in all relevant Council documents.
1.4 The exercise of Kaitiakitanga
Provision 3: “Supporting groups that help to look after parks and open spaces… [including] mana whenua” (quote from POSSAPs)
Provision 4: “Support and undertake initiatives to enhance the biodiversity value of our parks, open spaces and waterways through partnerships with mana whenua” (quote from POSSAPs)
REVIEW – The Māori value of kaitiakitanga (guardianship) is not directly stated but is inferred in provisions 3 and 4 of the POSSAP.
The exercise of kaitiakitanga over traditional resources is a key component of expressing rangatiratanga in a modern context (Bargh, 2007, pp. 12; Jackson, 2013, pp. 262). Therefore, the POSSAPs recognition of the importance of mana whenua in their capacity to care for the land and enhance its environmental value is a positive advance toward Māori empowerment. However, it can be critiqued as a very easy advance to make as it is the Council that will benefit from additional reserve management services delivered by mana whenua.
Furthermore, Roberts, Norman, Minhinnick, Wihongi and Kirkwood (1995, pp. 8) present a need for caution in incorporating Māori ethics into a Eurocentric planning model, as without a proper introduction and understanding of Te Ao Māori (Māori world view) and tikanga (culture and protocol), misunderstandings and misuse of terminology is likely. Referring vaguely to a Māori ethic of environmentalism without using Te Reo or discussing the ethic in-depth suggests that the POSSAP is in breach of this protocol.
1.5 Wāhi tapu and mana whenua cultural heritage sites
provision 5: “We will work in partnership with mana whenua to understand and protect the values of places of significance to mana whenua, including wāhi tapu and other taonga” (quote from POSSAPs)
Provision 6: “[Volcanic cones]… are of particular significance to the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau” (quote from POSSAPs)
Provision 7: “Work with mana whenua to identify, protect, preserve and manage wāhi tapu and other places of significance within the public open space network.” (quote from POSSAPs)
REVIEW – The POSSAP successfully recognises the close relationship between mana whenua and wāhi tapu (sacred places) and accounts for this in provisions 5 to 7.
As mentioned in section 4.3, Māori have a unique connection to their ancestral land. Protecting, preserving and respecting culturally significant sites is an important element of Māori cultural wellbeing (Webb & Williamson, 2010, pp. 8; Panelli and Tipa, 2007, pp. 450). Particularly relevant to this notion is the identification and strict management of urupā (Māori burial sites) that may be located on Council reserves land, so that no harm or disrespect may be inflicted (Huddleston, 2012, pp. 454). It has been observed that it is at the local authority decision-making level that Māori resources are most significantly affected, including wāhi tapu (Hayward, 2011, pp. 187). Hence, it is commendable that the POSSAP agrees to actively identify, protect and preserve these sites within the Council’s jurisdiction. ß
1.6 Sustainable management of taonga
Provision 8: “Work with mana whenua to tell stories of Maori cultural heritage throughout our parks and open spaces network, including through place names, interpretation artwork and memorials.” (quote from POSSAPs)
REVIEW – Māori interest in the management of taonga is not directly stated in the POSSAP but is inferred in provision 8.
In this provision the Council recognises the importance of preserving oral history and culture that relates to sites under Council ownership (Hill, 2012, pp. 34). However, this does not refer directly to the fact that Māori knowledge, sacred sites, the use of cultural symbols and the Te Reo language itself are all considered as taonga by Māori, and are hence guaranteed under the right of tino rangatiratanga in Article 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Meijl, 2009, pp. 344; Goldsmith, 2009, pp. 330).
Furthermore, the POSSAP does not raise the Māori interest of harvesting native vegetation for cultural purposes. It has been stated that Māori consider the use of indigenous vegetation for traditional weaving, medicinal and ceremonial purposes to be a taonga (Patterson, 1999, pp. 128; Meijl, 2009, pp.344) and hence the facilitation of access and use of these resources is a particular concern that should be addressed.
The post Open Spaces Strategic Action Plan (POSSAPs) appeared first on My Assignment Online.