Data, data everywhere, nor any a datum to think...

Data runs through everything I do, or am meant to do, as a researcher.

Data are pieces of the world, and they are people. We have a relationship with data that is, or should be, intimate.

Data have whakapapa.

Tahu Kukutai and friends have just published a free (!) book on the issues for us as Maori: Indigenous Data Sovereignty. Tahu has also been interviewed by Dale Husband on Waatea news, here.

"...if my data been linked up all over the show how do I know that that data is going to be used for my benefit or the benefit of my whanau or iwi. I think without having Maori right at the forefront of those conversations it's not going to benefit us."

Colleague Karaitiana Taiuru (blogging at http://www.taiuru.maori.nz/ ) has worked tirelessly in forging more space - and safer space - for Maori in the digital world. Check out his digital whakapapa thoughts here.

"It is/was common to hide and preserve whakapapa so that outsiders could not make claims to mana and land. Yet Māori in the digital area do not have the same concerns."

I'm always tussling with data: how to store it, who to show it to, what I can do with it at the end of a project. A timely reminder of the importance of proper data control in times of crises (and when are Indigenous peoples not in a crisis?!) has come from Nathaniel A. Raymond and Ziad Al Achkar of the Signal Program on Human Security and Technology, Harvard.

Nate and Ziad are that data are a central component of humanitarian response. Too often, however, "there is a disconnect between data, decision-making and response." The pressures on decision makers to make informed decisions in the first hours and days of an emergency are extreme,

"and if the elements to effectively gather, manage and analyse data are not in place before a crisis, then the evidence needed to inform response will not be available quickly enough to matter. What's more, a lack of readiness to use data can even cause 'big data disasters'".

There thoughts are available here, also free!

Te Kahui Manu Hokai: PLACE 2015, 5th national Maori GIS conference..

A panui from Te Kahui Manu Hokai who are pleased to announce PLACE 2015, their fifth national Maori GIS conference

Where: The Copthorne, Bay of Islands, Waitangi
When: June 10th – 12th, 2015

This conference will complete a northward journey commenced in Christchurch (2009), Wellington (2010), Rotorua (2012) and then Auckland in 2013. We anticipate it will be as exciting and interesting for Māori practitioners and/or those Roopu interested in its application as it was at Sky City in 2013.

A call for presentations will be made soon. Te Kahui Manu Hokai remain committed to being 'software neutral' so feel free to design a korero about what you feel passionate about, whether it is QGIS or ESRI or Google (and there’s plenty of others too). If you feel like sharing what your roopu has been up to in the Maori Geospatial Space; then this is a perfect venue and forum for you.

The komiti is busy working on details for online registrations and we want to get all that information out as soon as they can. I will pass on all their panui :)

Cultural Law, a text and a cautionary tale...

Cambridge text on Cultural Law that has some interesting chapters on Indigenous Peoples, including Maori, on the basis that 'legal issues lead multiple lives.. they can be political, economic, social, historical, and cultural' (p. 1).

A New Zealand example is legislation to regulate against offensive marks in the Trade Marks Act of 2002 that prevents trade marks being registered if they are likely to be offensive to a significant section of the community, including Maori.

Of course, there is always a test case to rattle the cage. I recall an application for Tiki Wines being declined by the Maori Trade Marks Advisory Committee on the basis of this offense clause with 'TIki' being interpreted as an atua of humankind, generic to all Maori and thus protected by this legislation.

Permission was finally given when it was pointed out that 'Tiki' was a tipuna of Royce McKean and the whanau who owned and operated the vineyard, and they had the perfect right to use the name!

Iwi Development As-It-Is: the Maori economy, capitalism, and democracy

Increasing chatter from the 2011 BERL report which cemented the 30-sumpin' billions we are worth ;)  Innovation (and science) drive a lot of this re-positioning of the so-called Maori economy. (My thoughts on this are out there). I think we need to get our facts right too...I was at an international conference where a Maori researcher argued the Maori economy was now 25% of the NZ economy.

'No,' says I, 'surely it's just 5-6%?'

'No,' sez she, 'it's $36 billion...'

'Yes,' sez I, 'from the 2011 Nana report...' which usefully provides a piechart showing Maori contributing 5-6%, which includes self-employed Maori ($5.4 billion) and Maori employers ($20.8b) taken from Stats NZ data. The guts of the 'Maoriness' of this economy is that encompassed by Maori trusts et cetera: $10.6 billion.

Heoi ano. Of course economic activities can - and I would argue, should - be interpreted as all-encompassing, a subset of our mythical and environmental parameters. (Don't panic, Judeo-Christians have thought this way through generations of capitalists...). The back story is that mainstream NZers have been on a nice little earner here in Aotearoa.

Circumstances have changed.

The capitalist mode of production still rests on the fact that the material conditions of production are in the hands of non-workers in the form of property - capital and land - while the masses are only owners of the personal condition of production, their labor power.

Further, the peculiar evolution that is neoliberalism now appears in all its stunted glory. Aotearoa/NZ's strategy seems to be a state of 'not-being': not being Spain, not being Ireland, not being Greece.

But as we stumble into a post-settlement era, Maori have a unique position: increasing numbers of us are capital owners (land and assets), albeit as often (very) small-shareholders, while remaining reliant on selling what labour power we possess to survive.

Awhile ago, after the NZ government had replaced the democratically-elected (regional) Environment Canterbury councillors. Local iwi authority, Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu, support this usurpation. And why wouldn't they? The previous arrangement hardly worked in their favour and now that the government is hell-bent on opening up water for dairying, TRoNT are well-positioned to milk this for all its worth through Ngai Tahu Farms.

Our economy is sexy at the moment, not least as the global capitalist system has squeezed all the low hanging fruit and is looking to drill down - pun intended -and move into the peripheries, literally and philosophically, with Indigenous land and resources now being revisited for ongoing commodification and capitalist economic growth.

Hard rain's gonna fall...

Google erases First Nations reserves 2

Seems Google is aware of the issue of rez names in North America...this response from Mano Marks, Maps Developer Advocate

"I've run this past some folks internally who were surprised to hear that we had ever surfaced reservation names. As far as we can tell, we haven't. Turns out it is a known issue and we're working on it, hopefully will be fixed soon. You may know that last year we started sourcing our own data for the United States, we previously had relied on providers like NavTeq and Teleatlas. Now that we're getting better data, we should be able to turn these labels on.

BTW, you and anyone else can contribute to making sure that we have good data by using Google Map Maker: http://www.google.com/mapmaker "

Google erases First Nations

Thanks to fellow Indigenous geographers Zoltan Grossman and Renee Pualani Louis for bringing this to my attention. Seems Google - company motto 'Don't be evil' have erased labels to First Nations reservations in the US and Canada.

Noted in 2011 in this blog The Case of the Missing Indian Reservations by Steven Bridenstine, it seems Google has simply taken away the labels, leaving nameless tan spaces, in contrast to Bing maps where the boundaries and names remain.

As Renee says, "These are not alternatives to the political system that is supposed to recognize tribes sovereign right to name the features on their own federally recognized lands…actually I believe regardless if tribal lands are federally recognized or not they should start recording their own names based on their historical record (oral or written)."

Zoltan has contacted Google with this message:

"Where are the names of the Indian reservations? Tribes have a political status just below the federal government, above the states, and far above municipalities and villages that are shown on Google Maps. The rules and regulations are quite different within a reservation than outside, so someone is going to get in trouble not knowing what the tan area is. That's not counting the moral and ethical issues of erasing the existence of peoples and their historical presence on the landscape. This is going to be very, very bad P.R. for Google unless the names are restored. You need someone who is educated about political geography and cartography to be making decisions about place names that are this important."

Guess any corporate that claims the moral high ground can only go down...

Update on Indigenous Mapping controversy in Oaxaca

I posted on this controversy a while ago, and now thanks to Kieren McKenzie, have been sent a link of an interview with Aldo Gonzalez, the Indigenous Rights Officer of Union of Social Organizations of the Sierra Juarez of Oaxaca (UNOSJO). 


The geographers' sin in this case seems to be one of omission by not informing Indigenous participants of one of the studies sponsors - Radiance Technologies -  a company that specializes in arms development and military intelligence. Resulting and data was also hoovered up by Human Terrain System, a United States Army unit, for their global database that forms an integral part of the US counterinsurgency strategy.  


Serious teko comrades.


Anyways, like Kieren says, all maps are liars so best we geographer always tell the truth.

WAI 262 website

Have found this very good site that gives the history, contents, commentary, interviews and photographs of all things 'Wai 262', the huge, 23-years-in-the-preparation report that began as the flora and fauna claim but soon extended into cultural property rights and processes.

Love this picture of the kawe roimata for those who leapt from Te Reinga before the report was released...



Love too this pikitia from the 1988 ethnobotany hui at Rehua, here in Christchurch/Otautahi. Hohua Tutengaehe (centre, moustacheod) was kaumatua of CPIT when I was studying te reo there in 1994.

Maori branding no guarantee...

And lest we forget the tough world of global trade, Maori labelling is no guarantee of economic sustainability. After something like 16 years in the game, Upper Hutt company, Kia Kaha clothing, is folding into the great laundry basket of global capitalism.


Michael Campbell's much trumpeted (trumpeted here in Aotearoa/NZ) clothing label switch from Nike to Kia Kaha, and the appearance of future king William, in the threads must've given some global exposure......and it's intentions were certainly honorable:"Kia Kaha Clothing is a 100% Maori-owned company, specialising in providing high quality New Zealand- made apparel with authentic and distinctive Maori designs.

From a concept conceived in 1985, our kaupapa (concepts/ beliefs/aims) have remained the same.

Our kaupapa is simply to provide a quality-clothing brand that all New Zealanders will feel proud to wear. Proud because of the quality of product this country can produce and proud because of our unique and proud heritage as a nation.

We, the team at Kia Kaha feel very strongly about keeping New Zealand growing and believe that being New Zealand- made assists in the country's growth and development.

Our point of distinction is that we are 100% focused on the local market and what the people of Aotearoa want. Although we are pleased that overseas visitors like our clothing, designs are not altered to suit their preferences. In fact we find that they often prefer to have something to remember Aotearoa by which is made in New Zealand and which the locals wear, rather than a "touristy tee" made overseas."

But in a world awash with logo's, and some drawing on 'indigeneity', scale still secures more than niche many marketeers can bare.

Kia Kaha Clothing had a minor spat with T-shirt manufacturers over the use of Kia kaha' for a Christchurch earthquake fundraiser. Not an issue we lose sleep over in chch to be honest...
But a great shame, especially for those staff who will lose their jobs. In these times, this is a serious test to individual, whanau, and community resilience.

Maori King

With the release of the long-awaited WAI 262 claim into, among other things, intellectual property rights and culture, we have clarification on how a new IP regime might look in Aotearoa/NZ. Essentially Maori lack control of much of what goes on in the world of branding, niche marketing, and logo mash-ups. Check this new beer from Funkwerks, a US brewing company...



Apart from using NZ Rakau hops, there's precious little connection to Maori or the Kingitanga movement. And people are upset, or rather some people are upset.

Of course, such appropriation is testimony to our success in self-promotion, collective presence in the worlds media (particularly through sport) and the rather well-developed tourism sector in and around Rotorua.

Life goes on. Check this haka performance...

International Day of the World’s Indigenous People

Tomorrow, August 9th, is the International Day of the World's Indigenous Peoples, which is marked annually in recognition of the first meeting of the UN Working Group on Indigenous Populations in Geneva in 1982. The theme of the Day this year is 'Indigenous designs: celebrating stories and cultures, crafting our own future'.

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights' statement for the Day is below, and there is a video by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, James Anaya. The UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues' page with information about the Day.

This message is available online.

High Commissioner for Human Rights: “Let us ensure that development for some is not to the detriment of the human rights of others”

5 August 2011

Following is the statement by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay on the occasion of the International Day of the World’s Indigenous People which is commemorated on 9 August:

“As we celebrate the International Day of the World’s Indigenous People this year, many of the estimated 370 million indigenous peoples around the world have lost, or are under imminent threat of losing, their ancestral lands, territories and natural resources because of unfair and unjust exploitation for the sake of ‘development.’ On this day, let us ask the crucial question: who actually benefits from this so-called development, and at what cost is such development taking place?

When indigenous communities are alienated from their lands because of development and natural resource extraction projects, they are often left to scrape an existence on the margins of society. This is certainly not a sign of development. Many such projects result in human rights violations involving forced evictions, displacement and even loss of life when social unrest and conflict over natural resources erupt. This is certainly not what we mean by development. Natural resource extraction projects such as mining are land-intensive and water-intensive and often directly affect the collective rights of indigenous peoples to their lands and territories.

All too often we see conflict between corporations, indigenous peoples and the State over development projects which are initiated without consultation or consent of the very people who are dispossessed of their land.

In Malaysia, for example, planned hydroelectric dam projects in Sarawak and Sabah have caused great concern for indigenous peoples, who are either being displaced or dispossessed of their lands. The Penan people have received threats and there are reports of harassment of the Penan by workers of logging companies. Various complaints and claims have prompted SUHAKAM, Malaysia’s human rights commission, to initiate a national inquiry on the land rights of indigenous peoples.

In India, social unrest and conflicts over land acquisition for development and mining projects have increased in recent years. Adivasis defending their ancestral lands and community forests are often subject to threats and harassment, despite the existence of constitutional protections, Supreme Court judgments and progressive national legislation requiring consent of tribal communities, and community rights over forest use. In a positive development in 2010 the Ministry of Environment and Forests in India stopped the Orissa government and Vedanta, a multinational mining company headquartered in the United Kingdom, from mining in the Niyamgiri hilltop in Kalahandi district, since such an operation would severely affect the ecology of the area and the situation of the Dongria Kondh Adivasi people living in the mountains.

Threats against anti-logging activists working to protect the Amazon forest in Brazil have been long ongoing. Recently, José Claudio Ribeiro da Silva and his wife Maria de Espirto, both anti-logging activists and defenders of indigenous peoples’ rights were killed in the Brazilian state of Para. My Office continues to directly monitor the impact of extractive industries and development projects in a number of other countries, including Bolivia, Cambodia, Guatemala and Mexico.

In many cases, extractive activities in indigenous territories are pursued by multinational companies headquartered in developed countries. Moreover, extractive industries are often present in the areas inhabited by indigenous peoples in these nations. For example, intensive oil and gas development continues in northern Alberta, Canada in the areas where the long-standing land claims by the Lubicon Lake Nation remain unresolved. In the Nordic countries, the Sami are concerned about the impact of mining, forestry and other natural resource extraction on reindeer husbandry.

Many States maintain contradictory or antiquated laws on mining and land acquisition for development. These laws must be re-assessed to determine if they are consistent with international human rights standards and principles. Such reviews must be conducted in consultation with indigenous peoples and in good faith.

Indeed, proper consultations must be conducted with indigenous peoples at all stages of the development and natural resource extraction cycle. They are entitled to full disclosure of environmental, social and human right impact assessments in a language of their choice. States should also provide financial and technical support to enable indigenous peoples to consult with corporations. When indigenous peoples consent to such projects, they should have a right to a fair share of benefits from activities on their lands. And where projects proceed without consent, mechanisms for redress are required. International and national institutions financing such projects must ensure their operational policies and guidelines are consistent with international human rights standards and principles.

On their part, extractive companies have a responsibility to respect human rights. This was affirmed in June 2011 by the UN Human Rights Council when adopting the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples makes explicit reference to free, prior and informed consent. It is very clear about this requirement for the “development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources”. This is further reinforced by international treaties such as ILO Convention No. 169 and in the jurisprudence of human rights treaty bodies, in particular the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

The right to development is a human right for all, and indigenous peoples have the right to define and determine their own development. On this International Day of the World’s Indigenous People, let us ensure that development for some is not to the detriment of the human rights of others. Let us work together to ensure true development for all.” - HC11/071E

Ko Aotearoa Tenei: WAI 262 preamble...

Love the intro which begins with ...'Aue e te mate, kei hea tau wero, aue e te reinga kei hea tou wikitoria?' which is translated as ...'Oh death where is thy sting; grave, where is your victory', nice allusion to both Corinthians 15:55 and a sonnet by Shakespeare.

Then follows a parade of faces, many having shuffled off this mortal coil.

The report then gives a potted history of Kupe's People, then Cook's People - sailors one and all (useful 101, even 201, histories). Then a number of quite revisionist statements:
" Maori culture locates us in the Pacific and gives us our deep roots here. Pakeha culture locates us at the same time in the West and gives us our right to the West's heritage."

Then quickly comes the following: "Bicultural fusion gives our vibrant multicultural reality a solid core with enough gravity to pull immigrant cultures into orbit around its vision, values, and expectations. A nation cannot sustain itself without that solid core" (p.16).

Of course WAI 262 was never a standard claim, if indeed its possible to speak of such a thing. It is acknowledged that the claim always asked 'novel questions' about who owns or controls
1. matauranga Maori;
2. the tangible outputs of matauranga Maori;
3. 'things that are important contributors to matauranga Maori, namely
i) taonga species
ii) and the natural environment of Aotearoa/New Zealand.

I see these as posing ontological, epistemological, and empirical challenges, respectively, to Maori and Pakeha; What can be known; how do we know and use this knowledge; and what does this knowledge result in, how is it manifested in our lifeworlds?

Indigenous Geography Dot Net: a new website for IP geogers

A great new website is up and running to represent Indigenous Geographers in 'e' space. Its mission statement?

"To foster pure and applied geographic research and geographic education that involves the indigenous peoples of the world, past and present. To encourage approaches to research and teaching that empower indigenous peoples, and to help build relationships of mutual trust between communities of indigenous peoples and academic geographers."

While not wanting to be accused of biological essentialism, there are great affinities between indigenous people and the discipline of geography, ironic given the strong role geography and its maps had in colonisation. Great to see this, and we all, I'm sure, look forward to contributing and seeing it succeed.

toi iho/Maori made

The trademark initiated to promote Maori arts and crafts - Toi Iho - has been scrapped by its State agent, Creative New Zealand. I wrote a paper on Geographical Indicators some time ago (June 2004 I'm surprised to see...). I think it is an area worth more attention.

Concerns over intellectual property issues expressed by Maori seem to be lie primarily within patent/copyright/trademark tradition, although Plant Variety Rights feature in the Wai 262 claim. In February 2002 a trademark was created by Creative New Zealand to ‘maintain the integrity’ of Maori art, and to assist in promoting this art and recognised artists nationally and internationally. The toi iho™ trademark marks a significant development in Maori IP. The mark is restricted to works by artists (individuals or groups) who are of Maori descent and whose work is of acknowledged quality (Creative NZ, 2004). The trademark is in many ways a response to Maori embarrassment and anger at blatant ‘rip offs’ in the tourism industry but should equally be interpreted as efforts by ‘Brand NZ Inc.’ to secure added value production for the New Zealand economy.

As in Europe, it is the wine and gourmet foods sectors that provide the most sophisticated examples. Tohu Wines has proven a successful brand for Wakatu Inc./Wi Pere Trust/Ngati Rarua Atiawa Iwi Trust to market $4 million of wine, principally to U.K. and U.S. consumers (Tohu Wines, 2004). In the words of James Wheeler, CEO, the main point of difference for their marketing is “being Maori…it makes their experience of our product superior” (Anon, 2003: 25). The attributes of ‘freshness’ and ‘naturalness’ have been attached to other Maori agri-food ventures, often embedded in organic practices; seafood is a significant example, especially in the South Island. Medicinal products stemming from traditional herbal remedies also feature; Tairawhiti Pharmaceuticals have commercially developed a product based on manuka oil that is unique to the region (Cooper, 1995; Cooke and Cooke, n.d.; Tairawhiti Pharmaceuticals, 2004). It is becoming apparent that ‘Maoriness’ is a component of added value, not just for the country as an ‘eco-destination’, but for individual hapu and iwi land-based ventures.

My reasoning for explicitly connecting hapu and iwi land-based industries to what is now a global intellectual property regime via Geographical Indicators is based on sustainability theories that likewise link local communities – their biotic resources and knowledge thereof, as well as lifestyles and livelihoods – to global sustainability, i.e. the actual continuation of human civilisation (with the presumed added benefit of increasing social justice along the way; see Goodman and Redclift, 1991; Berkes et al., 2003). My position is also based on a pragmatic realisation that while it is easy to clench a fist against global capitalism, it’s very hard to turn down extra money when this thing called moni solves so many mundane problems.

The continued growth of cultural and agricultural industries will see ongoing contests for property rights, not just over physical resources but for the ephemeral concepts of intellectual property; the phenomenon has been termed yet another ‘enclosure’ of a global commons (May, 2000). These contests are played out along extended networks that incorporate both social and technical elements. For indigenous peoples, these ‘sociotechnical’ networks have always been difficult to negotiate from a position that is in many ways subversive to state and corporate organisations from the outset. Although concerns ranging from access to markets and trade disparities to food safety and social justice issues, affect and afflict people of all nations, the negative impacts fall disproportionately on the poor. This is a challenge to Maori development that is geared towards that great Brand Kiwi tradition, pampering the puku of the global rich (see Ingrid D. Rowland's review of Feast: A History of Grand Eating by Roy Strong for an insight into the global history of this bioculture...)

That both cultural and biological diversity present themselves as not only desirable but necessary for the long-term survival of the human race underpins important discourses on sustainability. The philosophical position on the appropriation of wealth from the sheer novelty of indigenous food and drink is worthy of more serious discussion. The opportunity for indigenous land owners anywhere to state their commitment to sustainable methods cannot be denied. If this commitment can then justify a premium price in a global market - given that a global aesthetic as well as simple survival is dependent on economically marginal peoples - that is to be applauded.

What's in a name: Indigenous place names in America

Name the land, name the people.
Renee Louis (Hawaii, and on the Hawai'i Geographic Information Coordinating Council) was quick to add the following corrective:

Aloha,
Interesting and typical. Don't know if it is worth the bother to correct them of all the good work currently being done by Indigenous scholars including the planning of an International Conference on Indigenous Place Names.

I know it is Saami, but there are 5 of us currently (as in right now today) planning a conference to bring together Indigenous peoples working on preserving the place names in their respective homelands. It will be the first of its kind and it will be recurring every 3 years in various parts of the world."

Carve the land, carve the people.

Geographic Survey Project of the Sierra Juarez Mountains Stirs Protests

The mapping scandal continues to bubble with this post from Nancy Davies on the Narco news Bulletin. It is an interesting read and is not without parallels in two projects I have participated in Aotearoa/NZ (blogged mercilessly in the early days of this blog...). Indigenous peoples are intellectually 'interesting' and potential very profitable (for private companies and governments) but also profitable to those academicians who manage to wheedle or conspire some form of collaboration.

Anyways, the debate looks to continue...

Zapotec Indigenous People in Mexico Demand Transparency from U.S. Scholar

The Union of Organizations of the Sierra Juarez of Oaxaca (UNOSJO) - a longtime partner of Grassroots International based in Mexico - denounced a recently conducted study in the Zapotec region by U.S. geography scholar Peter Herlihy. Prof. Herlihy failed to mention that he received funding from the Foreign Military Studies Office of the U.S. Armed Forces. The failure to obtain full, free and prior informed consent is a violation of the rights of indigenous communities as codified in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples adopted by the United Nations in 2007. In addition, UNOSJO fears that this in-depth geographical mapping of indigenous communities may be used in some harmful manner by the military.

The México Indígena project forms part of the Bowman Expeditions, a more extensive geographic research project backed and financed by the US Foreign Military Studies Ofice, among other institutions. The FMSO inputs information into a global database that forms an integral part of the Human Terrain System (HTS), a United States Army counterinsurgency strategy designed by FMSO and applied within indigenous communities, among others.

Since 2006 the Human Terrain System HTS has, since 2006, been employed with military purposes in both Afghanistan and Iraq and according to the Union of Organizations of the Sierra Juarez of Oaxaca, further Bowman Expeditions are underway in Mexico, the Antilles, Colombia and Jordan.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Zoltan and Renee of the Indigenous Peoples' Specialty Group (a part of the Association of American Geographers) put this together. There's some excellent guidelines at the bottom on ethical approaches to working with Indigenous communities.

"After sitting and thinking on this for several days Zoltan and I are compelled to call upon the membership to forge a document/statement regarding the larger issues involved here. Many people have been affected/effected by the whirlwinds of controversy this has generated on many listservs. Those of you that responded to my initial email have posed some serious questions that no doubt should be answered.

However, the IPSG is not the authoritative body best suited to judge individuals' research projects. Institutional review processes are the fairest venues to address violations of research ethics while giving researchers a forum to defend their work. In focusing only on an individual geographer as such, we may not be changing the overall research process and instead limiting ourselves to an episodic, tit-for-tat conflict.

We feel that best way to go forward is not to focus only on this situation, but to rise above it and use it as a teaching and learning opportunity about the larger and lasting lessons of the controversy. We would like to inform as many geographers as possible that this situation is NOT NEW to Indigenous communities around the world. (In fact, similar controversies often happen with other academic researchers doing field research in politically marginalized communities.) We also would like to discuss the larger political/economic context of any research project--especially in volatile times and places--and point toward positive models of respectful cooperation between researchers and indigenous communities.

Zoltan and I are willing to work with anyone interested in writing a formal statement, and have drawn up the following notes to help begin a subcommittee's discussion:

1. Research ethics in indigenous geography
• Free Prior and Informed Consent (UN Declaration Article 11/2)
• Indigenous Methodologies (L. T. Smith)

2. Use of research
• Emphasis not on intentions but on effects of research
• Unintended consequences
• Data used by government forces or corporate interests against Indigenous
• Geopiracy
• Geoproperty—-privatization, “stability” concepts, etc.

3. Larger political/economic context
• Indigenous role in government change (Bolivia, Ecuador) and rebellions against globalization (Chiapas, Oaxaca, etc)
• Extreme government repression of indigenous (Colombia, Oaxaca, Peru)
• US military aid to government militaries, as US military studies indigenous
• Targeting of indigenous movements as against “democracy,” lumped with insurgent/terrorists in “war on terror”

4. Positive research models
• Approach communities with capabilities; but community determines research priorities
• Linda Smith—serving indigenous communities’ survivance
• NMAI report, "Guidelines for Research with Indigenous Peoples"
• AAAS Science and Human Rights—proactive, support indigenous
• Don’t avoid working with indigenous due to sensitivity; honest mistakes can be forgiven
• If you assume you’re a guest, you may be welcomed. If you assume you’ll be welcomed, you’re no longer a guest.
• Principles of Reciprocity
• Looking at hearts of researchers , not only minds.

Please let us know if you can help us put together this statement for our website prior to the Annual Meeting in Mar 22-27."

Zoltan and Renee,

Co-chairs, Indigenous Peoples' Specialty Group (IPSG)
of the Association of American Geographers (AAG)

Technology Transfer and Indigenous Peoples: The Diffusion of Advanced Biotechnologies and Maori Horticulture

Abstract
The role of technology in any society is difficult to isolate. First, it is all pervasive: no society lacks technology (although some certainly lag in their attempts to acquire specific technologies). Secondly, it is constituted of tangible innovations – pots, metal implements, buildings, computers – and intangible knowledge – pottery, metallurgy, architecture, programming. Innovative technologies are indicators of ‘civilisation’. They are also integral to contemporary development, now promoted in terms of a ‘Knowledge Economy’.

The sheer pace and scale of technological change has meant that although technology is ‘intentionally and systematically’ put in place, it is now experienced as a somewhat ‘alien and uncanny force’ (Rapp 1981: 2). The very ‘success’ of certain technologies (revealed in their comprehensive diffusion) is implicated in threats to the sustainability of various communities and even humanity itself. How can sustainable technologies to be diffused in order to ‘avoid, remedy or mitigate’ adverse effects on the environment?

In this phenomenon, indigenous peoples are almost generically described as ‘laggards’, that is slow to adopt new technologies. While remaining the originators of (acceptably quaint) traditions, indigenous peoples are incessantly targeted as potential receptors of new and therefore beneficial technologies. In this paper I present data from a research project revolving around the innovation of sustainable biotechnologies to Maori horticulturalists. These technologies are distinguished from unsustainable technologies in a number of ways, not least the requirement that they be comprehensively diffused in order to ‘work’.

Inputting this data into a classical diffusion model reveals the phenomenon of ‘reverse cascade’ diffusion where innovation can be observed diffusing from Maori growers acting as case studies and/or collaborators. This flow contributes to the academic standing of a Centre of Research Excellence; ultimately it is to contribute to the Centre’s ‘financial independence’. Subsequent innovations will therefore be mediated by neo-liberal market forces, further hindering the vital diffusion of sustainability on to Maori land.

Keywords: technology transfer, diffusion of innovation, sustainable Maori horticulture, Maori bioprotection.

Introduction
This paper treats innovation as any idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new: it can also be the rediscovery of an idea, practice or object. Adoption is the singular decision - whether by an individual, institution, firm or other ‘adoptive unit’ - to take up an innovation. Diffusion is the process whereby the adoption of an innovation is transferred through certain channels over time among the members of a social system.

The technology has been identified as the very human activity of positing ends and procuring and utilizing the means to them (Heidegger, 1977). This description is echoed by Rogers (2003: 12) who considers technology to be the “…design for instrumental action that reduces the uncertainty in the cause-effect relationships involved in achieving a desired outcome” (Rogers 2003). Technology has been variously posited as the means to improve productivity and reduce uncertainty in economic development (Schumpeter 1928), as the cause of uncertainty in more broadly ascribed development goals, and as solution to these concerns.

Given the absolute importance of diffusion in the ultimate success of any technology, the lack of diffusion of sustainable technologies, where they exist, speaks of their failure regardless of their efficacy in isolation. This fact must be kept in mind during the following discussion.

The Diffusion of Innovations
The diffusion of innovations exhibit a number of empirical regularities (Brown and Cox 1971). Of these, one of the more commonly acknowledged is that such diffusion can be represented on a graph where an item’s diffusion can be expressed as a cumulative level of adoption whereby it will approximate an S-shaped curve. It seems to have been initially promoted by French sociologist Gabriel Trade (1903) who saw the task of the sociologist as tracing “…the curve of the successive increases, standstills or decreases in every new or old want and in every new or old idea, as it spreads out and consolidates itself, or as it is crushed back and uprooted”. History for Trade “…is a collection of those things that have had the greatest celebrity…those initiatives that have been the most imitated.” (cited in Katz, p 149).

The relationship of indigenous peoples to modern technology is commonly treated as a development problem - how to transfer appropriate technology to indigenous groups - or an ethical dilemma where indigenous culture is somehow threatened by new technology and yet cannot be wholly protected from its influence (Grim 2001; Stephenson 1994). In the words of the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research report (2003) “A common feature…of all successful economies is the degree to which innovation – in the widest possible sense – permeates everything people do.” This report goes on to say that Maori openness to innovation may be constrained due to the “…strange influence of traditions, culture and spiritual values.” The inference is that Maori are slow on the uptake and hinder the uptake of new technologies in general. The diffusion of innovative crop protection methods through the ‘social system’ that is Maori horticulture is critically evaluated in this paper.

The phenomena of innovation and diffusion have been described by James Blaut as being associated with core/periphery relationships that originate within European imperial strategies (Blaut 1993). Blaut notes that ‘cross-diffusion’ is also evident, by which he means that the ‘core’ (e.g., Britain) benefits from peripheral (e.g., New Zealand) innovations.

In this paper I examine the transfer of sustainability to Maori land by utilising the model of hierarchic diffusion. This occurs through a sequence of institutions and/or hierarchies. Such diffusion is generally assumed to be ‘downward’, for example from large to smaller cities and towns. However examples of ‘reverse cascade’ occur where innovations diffuse ‘upward’, from smaller to larger centres.

Case Study: The National Centre for Advanced Bioprotection Technologies
The data on which this paper is based has been gathered from within a network established for the innovation of agri-biotechnologies. The National Centre for Advanced Bioprotection Technologies (NCABT) won funding set aside for the establishment of Centres of Research Excellence (CoREs) in the 2002 NZ government budget. This Lincoln-based CoRE is comprised of four themes: Biosecurity, Biocontrol, Agri-biotechnology and Matauranga Maori Bioprotection. This last theme is to be conducted in accordance with Kaupapa Maori and Participatory Action research principles (Environment Society and Design Division 2004; Harris 2003; The Royal Society of New Zealand 2003). The transfer of NCABT technologies - promoted as ‘sustainable’- is an explicit objective.

Recently the NCABT released its first commercial innovation (commercial innovations being an important goal of government-funded research of this type). The product is an organic fungicide (‘Sentinel’) designed to protect grapes from botrytis. It is marketed by Agrimm Technologies of Christchurch (Collins 2005).

The NCABT proposal was quite explicit as to where innovation was to originate with respect to Maori:

Research at the border between Maori science, matauranga Maori, traditional ecological knowledge and Western science will lead to innovation, the creation of new knowledge and a new paradigm – one that is better equipped to deal with many of the issues confronting agricultural and horticultural development in NZ.
(CoRE Fund Application Number 02-LIN-501, p. 22; emphasis in the original).

Innovations involving Theme 4/matauranga Maori Bioprotection in the first two years of operation of this CoRE are noted below. They are taken from publications, presentations, the CoRE website, and participant observation.
• Kaupapa Maori/Participatory research practices.
• Databases that will include archiving aspects of ‘matauranga Maori’ such as maramatanga and other Traditional Ecological Knowledges (TEKs) relevant to horticulture.
• Intellectual Property
• Novel foods (notably taewa or Maori potatoes)
• tertiary education (including ‘staircasing’ for Maori students and two doctoral scholarships).

Discussion
Maori are now returning to the proactive adoption/diffusion practices of the 19th century. In health (Durie 1998), education (Simon 1998; Walker 1996), and business (New Zealand Institute of Economic Research 2003), Maori as individuals and groups are seeking new ways of doing things. A willingness to embrace innovation in horticulture is also evident (Lambert 2004; Roskruge 2004). Historical precedents exist for this adoption of agricultural and horticultural innovations that involved interacting with government and private institutions and individuals. This ubiquitous development strategy now involves increasing collaboration with new research institutions, such as the CoREs and their strategic positioning of matauranga Maori themes.

An examination of the operation of the NCABT from the perspective of innovation reveals Maori – as individuals and groups – are actually the source of a number of important innovations. This includes criteria to satisfy the controversial requirement for ‘responsiveness to Maori’ in the government research funds (see Benfell 2003; The Royal Society of New Zealand 2003).

Conclusions
Approaches to Maori in the context of ‘partnership’ and ‘responsiveness’ have positioned Maori as collaborators and participants in a manner quite distinct from historically racist research programmes which sought to study indigenous peoples as passive subjects. Maori will originate as well as adopt innovations. However where funding and research priorities are to commercialise the resulting technologies – especially those designed with sustainable development of land-based industries as a goal – they are ultimately placed on the global market for such technological innovations. This method of diffusion has never been easy for indigenous peoples to access. Where such technologies are supposed to enable sustainable production on Maori land, the risk must be that diffusion is delayed, consigning Maori land-based production to extended unsustainable production.


References
Benfell, Peter. 2003. "Maori factors minor in R&D funding criteria." Pp. A7 in The Press. Christchurch.
Blaut, James. 1993. The Colonizers Model of the World; Geographical Diffusionism and Eurocentric History. New York and London: The Guildford Press.
Brown, Lawrence and Kevin R. Cox. 1971. "Empirical Regularities in the Diffusion of Innovation." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 61:551-559.
Collins, Ian. 2005. "Quick commercial response to University research." vol. 2005. Christchurch: Lincoln University.
Durie, Mason. 1998. Whaiora: Maori Health Development. Auckland: Oxford University Press.
Environment Society and Design Division 2004. "Maori values infuse agriculture project." Environment, Society and Design Division Research Profile, pp. 12-13.
Grim, John A. 2001. "Indigenous Traditions and Ecology." Pp. 754. Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard University Press.
Harris, Nigel. 2003. "Team presentation." edited by T. F. colleagues. Christchurch.
Lambert, Simon. 2004. "Indigenous Research Ethics and Agro-ecological Development: Raising the IRE in Biotechnology Transfer." Te Papa, Wellington.
New Zealand Institute of Economic Research. 2003. "Maori Economic Development/Te Ohanga Whaneketanga Maori." Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington.
Rapp, F. 1981. Analytical Philosophy of Technology, vol. 63, Edited by R. S. Cohen and M. W. Wartofsky. Translated by S. R. Carpenter and T. Langenbruch. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Rogers, Everett M. 2003. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press.
Roskruge, N. 2004. "Snapshot of Maori Horticulture." in Te Ohu Whenua. Massey University.
Schumpeter, Joseph Alois. 1928. "The instability of capitalism." The Economic Journal 38:361-368.
Simon, Judith A. 1998. "Anthropology, 'native schooling' and Maori: the politics of cultural adaption' policies." Oceania 69.
Stephenson, Rebecca A. 1994. "'Traditional Technologies' Structures and Cultures of the Pacific: Five Papers from the Symposium "Technology and Cultural Change in the Pacific"." Pp. 87 in Technology and Cultural Change in the Pacific XVII Pacific Science Congress, edited by R. A. Stephenson. Honolulu: University of Guam/Micronesian Area Research Centre.
The Royal Society of New Zealand. 2003. "Selection Criteria for Centres of Research Excellence." vol. 2004.
Walker, Ranginui. 1996. "Education and Power." Pp. 161-169 in Nga Pepa a Ranginui: The Walker Papers. Auckland: Penguin.

Indigenous Knowledges Conference

I've submitted the following abstract to this conference. One of my advisors, Dr. Jay Johnson at Canterbury University is also attending. I'm hoping to see some of the other usual suspects, and hoping the big one lays off a bit longer...

Anyway, here's what I'm talking on:

Technology Transfer: The Diffusion of Advanced Biotechnologies to Maori Horticulture

Abstract
The role of technology in any society is difficult to isolate. First, it is all pervasive: no society lacks technology (although some certainly lag in their attempts to acquire specific technologies). Secondly, it is constituted of tangible innovations - pots, metal tools, buildings - and intangible knowledge - pottery, metallurgy, architecture. innovative technolgies are indicators of 'civilisation'. They are also integral to contemporary development, now promoted in terms of a 'Knowledge Economy'.

The sheer pace and scale of modern technological change has meant that althouggh technology is intentionally and systematically put in place, it is now experienced as a somewhat 'alien and uncanny force' (Rapp, 1981). The very 'success' of certain technologies (revealed in their comprehensive diffusion) is implicated in threats to the sustainability of various communities and even humanity itself. In this context, how can sustainable technologies be diffused in order to 'avoid, remedy or mitigate' adverse effects on the environment?

In this phenomenon, indigenous peoples are almost generically described as 'laggards', that is slow to adopt new technologies. While remaining the originators of (acceptably quaint) traditions, indigenous peoples are targeted as potential receptors of new and supposedly beneficial technologies. In my paper I present data from a research project revolving around the innovation of sustainable biotechnologies to Maori horticulturalists. These technologies are distinguished from unsustainable technologies in a number of ways, not least the requirement that they be comprehensively diffused in order to 'work'.

Inputting this data into classical diffusion models reveals 'reverse cascade' diffusion in which the initial innovations are sourced from Maori discourse, and from Maori individuals acting as case studies and/or collaborators. The flow of subsequent innovations appears to be mediated neo-liberal market structures, further hindering the vital diffusion of sustainability on to Maori land.

...I'm four fifths through writing the bastard up and will post it in draft form sometime on the 'morrow...

Lincoln University's IP debate

Discussion on Lincoln University’s policy for intellectual property – deemed worthy of its own acronym IP (also IPR where the ‘R’ stands for ‘Rights’ which perhaps indicates the, um, sensitivity of the issue) – is wending its way through the bureaucratic labyrinth. Maori students are invited to engage in this debate as contributors, mediators and kaitiaki of matauranga Maori or Maori knowledge. Of course whether we (and our whanaunga) can engage in such a debate in a manner cognisant with our needs and wants is perhaps too tortuous a challenge for students and staff to take up (again).

What is clear is that IP originates from what German philosopher of technology, Friedrich Rapp, calls the ‘psychological event’ of invention, a separate phenomenon from the concrete embodiment, i.e. the construction (and sale) of things with ownership rights defined in patents, copyright etc. Debate following the recent (and most excellent) Post Graduate Conference revolved around this subtle change, from intellectual ‘capital’ to ‘property’. Post-grad students have a significant role as researchers and therefore inventors of IP and (potential) wealth which, as history does record, can be variously and viciously appropriated.

There seems to be an unspoken assumption that our physical science colleagues are the ones to be most affected by any policy. I think any such a process is surely worth the professional attention of any social scientist worth her salt. Who gets what, and how is such a decision reached? Well, once German philosophers are involved, we can assume that clarity is akin to an earthy suspension in dihydrogen oxide.