The Resource Management Act 1991, is the principal planning and management statute in New Zealand. Its purpose is the sustainable management of natural resources. More recently the Fisheries Act 1996, has been enacted with a similar provision. In each of these acts the notion of ‘sustainability’ is directed primarily at the natural environment. Social considerations are not given a prominent position, although economic issues of efficiency, and compliance costs of regulation, are an important consideration.

These statutes do, however, give status to kaitiakitanga, a term that is interpreted by the legislation as meaning ‘the exercise of guardianship, in relation to a resource, including the ethic of stewardship based on the nature of the resource itself’. Kaitiakitanga derives from the word tiaki, which means to foster, to preserve and to protect. The prefix kai with the verb indicates the agent of the act. A kaitiaki is a guardian, conservator, foster parent, or protector. The suffix tanga added to the noun means guardianship, fostering, conservation and protection. In relation to environmental management kaitiakitanga is regarded as an ethic. It does not involve Maori having authority over natural resources independent of the statutory regime, but the incorporation of Maori terminology into the statutory lexicon has been seen as a triumph for Maori environmental values. It allows Maori to require formal environmental decision-makers to take into account a wider range of interests when natural resource decisions are made.

The pursuit of sustainability through improved environmental decision-making represents an interesting situation for Maori. Sustainability is associated with the imposition of limits to growth. The problem arises when these limits are measured and then imposed on Maori developments. More often than not, Maori communities will stress that they have a better approach to the protection of the environment than pakeha. This is often met with disdain by the members of the environmental movement, who quickly point out that large numbers of birds were wiped out by Maori prior to the arrival of pakeha. The application of the principles of sustainability is quickly overtaken by a political debate as to whether Maori resource-use decisions should be subject to legislative provisions. There have been cases where Maori have sought to mill native timber, which is a particularly scarce resource and an important habitat. Earlier generations of pioneers milled the vast majority of the native forests. Current Maori landowners assert that they should be permitted to use their resources to improve the parlous socioeconomic status of their communities. In their view it is an equity issue. Why should they bear the full costs of retaining the final vestiges of the flora and fauna? There has been a range of formal responses, including the establishment of a fund to compensate forest owners. The level of milling has dropped off considerably. The conundrum, however, remains. In order for Maori to pursue the development of such resources they must run the gauntlet of public opprobrium. If the Crown agrees to compensate them for lost opportunity they are likely to be branded as carpetbaggers, but if they proceed to mill the resources, they are attacked as brown capitalists using the ethic of sustainability to suit their personal circumstances.

The conservation estate, those resources administered by the Department of Conservation under the Conservation Act, 1987, is the new theatre of conflict. This is where political debates between the environmentalists, tribes, tourism operators and the Crown are taking place. As the historical claims process gathers pace, the pressure to open up the conservation estate and transfer parts of it into Maori ownership grows. The majority of environmentalists view the estate as sacrosanct. For the Crown, however, it is of mixed importance, as not all of it is of high conservation value.

For Maori it has a range of values. It is a source of valuable material for arts and crafts. It also the location of many of important sites that represent identity, and the resting place of the ancestors. In addition, it is of economic value as a location for tourism. Such agendas for development are seen as a threat to sustainability. The environmentalists frequently criticise the Maori conservation agenda as being primarily driven by commercial motives. The tribes in response insist that they have been fine stewards of their resources and the public need not have any concerns. The debate about the conservation estate take places in many cases because there are precious few other blocks of economic resource which can be used to recompense the tribes for historical loss. The other resources such as the exotic forestry plantations developed by the Crown over the twentieth century have been sold as a part of the restructuring of the national economy. The former farms developed by successive governments have been corporatised, and are administered as state owned enterprises. This incenses the environmental constituency, who see the conservation estate as having to bear the freight of Maori development aspirations.

This is a reasonable fear given the pressure on Maori leaders to create employment for their people, but the employment potential of the conservation estate is very limited. In fact many of the resources likely to be included in the Treaty of Waitangi settlements, including the fisheries settlement, are not capable of generating great numbers of jobs. The pressure on the conservation estate to yield employment opportunities is likely to force owners to consider projects that are threatening to environmentalists. Redressing historical resource loss may result in asset transfers; such transfers of resources, however, will require ongoing sustainable management. There will not be a separate regime for the tribes to manage their resources as they see fit. Decisions will be made and bound by the standards contained in the Resource Management Act and associated planning schemes.

As Maori adopt more of a corporate approach to the organisation and development of their resources, the costs of sustainability will begin to bite. This has already begun to take place within the fishing industry. Maori shareholders are increasingly uneasy about the depletion of fish stocks. Their concerns, however, are not easily translated into management action. Competitors are not obliged to follow suit and desist from fishing in certain areas or for certain species. The fishing techniques are capital intensive, the markets are fickle and the margins are tight for the owners of fishing assets. Inevitably the fishing activities of large companies are a threat to customary and non-commercial Maori fishing. This is unavoidable as the fisheries cannot cope with the expectations of the recreational sector, as well as those of commercial investors. The resource, like all fisheries, is continuing to decline. Maori custom might advise a reduction of effort but the commercial costs may require an intensification of effort. In this sense the injunction of sustainability has an impact on Maori in an orthodox, commercial, sense as well as a customary sense. This is a consequence of attempting to redress historical claims by transferring assets which require participation in industries which have been viewed with scepticism by Maori in the past. The commercialisation of customary resources has been the outcome of the developments flowing from the Treaty of Waitangi settlement process, bringing about the accelerated involvement of Maori in the economy after many years of marginal participation. Maori leadership is opposed to a development process that does not have Maori at heart, and eventually driving it—but the process is international and highly competitive.