Maori Food: promotion of a kai portfolio...

In order to arrest the apparent decline of national and regional economies, novel products are routinely developed for wealthy consumers seeking status-affirming ‘quality’ attributes: ‘Search’ attributes are those generally available to the consumer at the time and point of sale, such as price and presentation. ‘Experience’ attributes are not realised until preparation and consumption, and for food would include taste, moisture, crispness, and so on. ‘Credence’ attributes are those pertaining to environmental health, sustainability, ecological resilience issues and so on. Indigenous ventures, including Maori, now attempt to satisfy these wealthy (generally European or North American) consumers and their values which may include supporting Indigenous ventures, although the resulting niche markets can be very large and difficult to historically impoverished groups to supply.

The latest attempt by Maori to crack this market takes the form of a portfolio of wines, beer, and condiments. 
 

It remains a difficult enterprise, not least because the market is flooded with premium goods from exotic locations, scrambling for attention. At least it is pitched at the right audience, that is those wealthy punters who have most probably seen their personal wealth increase in the past 5 years while the majority of the consumers have put away the wallet for such luxury purchases: kina pate? Paua relish? Like a lot of things in Aotearoa/NZ, such delights are either free or beyond your working class purse!

I do expect to be sampling some of these wares sometime in the near future...

Balancing Innovation and Tradition?

Through the wondrous ways of the world wide web, I linked into a blog on innovation that seems to have emanated from the recent 'Transiting Venus' hui on the East Coast. Being quite partial to a good debate on innovation, I delved in, or is it on, and must confess to being rather disappointed at the pitiful start...


"For a start, put aside labels like “Maori” – we are all just “people”. Many traditions are made to be broken – they are anchoring us to the past. Remember the past, but don’t dwell in it. To achieve progress, boundaries must be pushed, old ideas thrown out or built upon. “Traditional” doesn’t mean “perfect”; change is sometimes required."


This from someone called 'ShadowMind'. For many Maori, this is the sort of conversation that somewhere includes, "I'm not racist, but..."


Anyways, I added my thoughts and awaited, with baited breath, for my post to appear like a wee fly struck in the proverbial www. Unfortunately, there was a hiccup as I made a rather undiplomatic comment about an old researcher I've worked with in the past, a woman who has made a bad habit of playing devil's advocate while the jury was still out. Nice work if you can get it.


Anyways, I removed the offending sentence though left my overly polite comment on ShadowMind's use of anonymity, being 'mindful that shadowy anonymity is an innovation enabled by digital technologies.' I even left a smiley face :) Oh, and I blog under my own name.


I'm quite happy with labels like 'Maori' in relevant contexts, such as a debate on innovation and tradition in NZ. My concern is that there's a huge literature on innovation, as we might expect from something that has been so dominant in modernity (not least through Schumpeters 'creative destruction', the guts of capitalism). Let's tap into it.


So far, no posting from the McDairmid institutes forum. And I must confess I used the opportunity to promote my upcoming paper on 'Innovation, Maori, and the Māori Economy: a flat or lumpy world?' that will be delivered at Nga Pae's conference in Auckland at the end of this month. 


My wider concern is that we just aren't engaged in the debate, although I understand the reasons why. I accuse ShadowMind of racism, the moderator disagrees, afterall, she's already accepted the first posting, presumably thankful to have something to present to the world, I call them a bunch a fcukwits....


You get the pikitia.


Two friends of mine - Pauline harris and Hemi Cummings - have tried to spark debate on a faceBook page dedicated to the Maori Association of Research Scientists. So far, Rob Whitbourne and I have had a nice exchange, Pauline's posted on the Transit of Venus event. Otherwise very little. 


WTF.


One reason might be fear. I know I'm scared to post sometimes. In my early days, I put something out there and got burnt, or is it flamed?! Kinda knocks you for a while, and for some, maybe there's no coming back to the www. Or you keep it inhouse, amongst friends, between Maori and fellow travellers.


Tain't how our tipuna did it.

Innovation, Maori, and the Māori Economy: a flat or lumpy world?

Submitting the following paper for the upcoming Nga Pae o te Maramatanga Traditional Knowledges Conference in Auckland, June 27-30. In it I outline how innovation has been framed in contemporary Maori economic development using a simple dichotomy for landscape. On the one hand, the rapid diffusion of information communication technologies (ICTs) has ‘flattened’ the world, reducing the costs of trade but making greater wealth, and hopefully happiness, possible for those individuals and nation-states that proactively engage with the processes of globalisation. On the other hand, others decry the obvious ‘lumpiness’ of the world where poverty clearly constrains many individuals and communities from benefiting from any such engagement.




The paper pulls together disparate ideas and examples of innovation with the aim of presenting some of the history and cultures of innovation that might be relevant to Māori in navigating what is certainly a bigger world, flat or lumpy.


Innovation, Māori, and the Māori Economy: a flat or lumpy world?

Abstract

This paper outlines how innovation has been framed in contemporary Māori economic development using a simple dichotomy for landscape. On the one hand, the rapid diffusion of information communication technologies (ICTs) has ‘flattened’ the world, reducing the costs of trade but making greater wealth, and presumably happiness and security, possible for those societies and nation-states that proactively engage with the processes of globalisation. On the other hand, others decry the obvious ‘lumpiness’ of the world where poverty clearly constrains many individuals and communities from benefiting from any such engagement. This paper pulls together disparate ideas and examples of innovation with the aim of presenting some of the history and cultures of innovation relevant to Māori in navigating what is certainly a bigger world, flat or lumpy.


Keywords: innovation, Indigenous economies, science, development, Māori communities
Introduction 

Introduction

By standard indicators the NZ economy continues to underperform and its relative decline (especially to neighbouring Australia) has not abated (McCann, 2009). A significant source of future growth is seen to reside with Māori (especially iwi) ventures, particularly in the primary sector where Māori agribusinesses are framed as the ‘sleeping giant’ of the New Zealand (Lambert, 2011).

Innovation in this context is often glossed as advancing technology, the theoretical examination of which roughly begins at the time of Māori colonisation. James Stuart Mill (1848) articulated the role of technology in his Principles of Political Economy when he described four fundamental sources of national wealth (represented by ‘Y’ in the following equations), namely capital (K), labour (L), land (T) and what he labels ‘productiveness’ (p). The relationships are:

Y = K + L + T + p


In plain language, a nation’s wealth is how it combines capital, land and labour, and what has been variously called productiveness/productivity but which we now recognise as ‘innovation’. But as Kiwi economist Brian Easton (1997) points out, this ‘arithmetic residual’ and has no explanatory ability, indeed has been described as a ‘coefficient of ignorance’. For the early capitalists, this theoretical ignorance was of no importance as long as profits could be made. Science and technology were thus harnessed along with land, labour, and capital to enable the supply of new or better products or services to the market, and improvements to the processes by which such things were made or supplied. In simple terms, innovation creates or alters demand or lowers costs, therefore increasing profits.

This coupling of innovation to profit is actually a much reduced conceptualisation of innovation which is better understood as any new idea, object, or activity, or even the rediscovery of an idea, object, or activity regardless of its commercial worth. But the term ‘innovation’ as it is increasingly used in Māori economic discourse broadly follows current commercial usage as “[t]he search for and development of new or improved production, management, sales or marketing processes that have the potential to add value to a firm’s, an enterprise’s, an industry’s, or a sector’s offering to end-users and/or consumers” (Te Puni Kokiri, 2010, p. 36). The role of innovation in increasing profit was promoted by Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter who considered ‘technical change’ central to modern economics and fundamental feature of capitalist economies (Schumpeter, 1928). Such change was destructive in that it consigned existing inventories, techniques, implements and ideas to obsolescence (e.g., the closure of unproductive/old abattoirs across Aotearoa/NZ) but also creative as it laid the foundations for change by forcing the reallocation of capital and resources (e.g., towards eco-tourism or software development), hence Schumpeter’s term ‘creative destruction’.

In order to arrest the apparent decline of national economies, innovative/novel products are continually developed, particularly for consumers seeking ‘quality’ attributes pertaining to environmental health, sustainability, ecological resilience issues and so on (Saunders, Allison, Wreford, & Emanuelson, 2005). Indigenous ventures, including Māori, now attempt to satisfy these relatively wealthy consumers and their values (Chapman-Smith, 2012) although the targeted ‘niche’ markets can still be very large and difficult to supply.

But many so-called markets remain unfulfilled despite considerable demand, not least in health care and environmental management. This inability of market forces to recognise and remedy future threats to national or regional economies is seen to be the primary cause of unsustainability (Becker & Jahn, 1999), further complicating the role of technological innovation which is assumed as the means to improve productivity, as the cause of uncertainty in more broadly ascribed development goals, and as the solution to these concerns.
Is the world flat or lumpy?

So, ongoing innovation is increasingly seen as vital to questions of national comparative advantage, the competitiveness of firms, long-term economic growth, trade, finance, employment, manufacturing and services, and as integral to the sustainable development of Māori resources (Lambert, 2008). Importantly, the current context for economic development is global, with geographical and cultural ‘obstacles’ interpreted as having diminishing effects through ongoing technological advances, particularly with modern ICTs. Thomas Friedman (2005) argues that cheap communication and travel have ‘flattened’ the world, making greater wealth possible for those individuals and nation-states that proactively engage with the processes of globalisation. For Friedman, globalisation is broadly interpreted as increasingly interdependent participation in extensive chains of production that compete for cheap labour and raw materials from the developing world to ‘satisfy’ demand in both the developing world (where there is a growing number of wealthy and self-consciously discerning elites) and the markets of the ‘West’.


Others have decried the obvious ‘lumpiness’ of the world, evident in both developing countries, where extreme poverty constrained many individuals and communities from benefiting from the new global supply chains (Smith, 2005), and the developed world, where less dramatic but similar disparities persist. 

Māori and Innovation
Constraints to Māori participation in innovation are somewhat glaring. When innovation was theorized as residing within research, science, and technology (RS&T) institutions, Māori lacked critical mass in shaping the processes of a period characterised by the ‘science push’ concept (Fig. 1).

In this model, Māori participation has been minor and being part of any ‘value chain’ has proven difficult (Te Puni Kokiri, 2010). This model can be identified in Primary Growth Partnership (PGP) strategy lead by the Ministry of Primary Industries that has invested in programmes on wool, red meat, dairy, aquaculture, mānuka honey and forestry. Government funding is to be matched by industry investment with the aim of ‘boosting economic growth through research and innovation…to transform great ideas into research, development, and ultimately products, jobs and growth’ (Carter, 2011).

This linear ‘science push’ model was challenged by the ‘market pull’ concept in the 1970s as further empirical evidence showed the complexity of the relationship between science, technology and innovation (Martin & Nightingale, 2000). Through the 1980s and 1990s, international research revealed that the ability to innovate was deeply embedded within firms as collectives of people, capital and ideas. This included a realisation of the importance of networks, including education, localised knowledge and the role of tacit knowledge (Gibbons & Johnston, 1974).

As Fagerberg and Verspagen (2009) point out, academia has now formalised ‘Innovation Studies’ although this still amounts to a disparate collection of approaches. Some approaches have coalesced around the methodologies of geography and policy studies; others have been moulded by the ‘free-wheeling discursive voyages’ into capitalism described by Schumpeter. Beyond this, Smits (2002) notes that innovation is now linked to the emergence of a ‘porous society’ in which ‘knowledge intensive intermediaries’ have a fundamental role combining the insights and abilities of both users and producers. Metcalfe (2007) usefully distinguishes between innovation ecologies, comprised of those people that are the ‘repositories and generators of new knowledge’, and innovation systems or ‘connections between the components that ensure the flow of information necessary for innovation to take place’. This holistic interpretation of innovation has several antecedents. Wulf (2007) referred to an ‘ecology’ of innovation, comprising ‘interrelated institutions, laws, regulations, and policies providing an innovation infrastructure that entails education, research, tax policy, and intellectual property protection, among others.’ Dvir and Pasher (2004) list a number of attributes to innovation ecology, including the time and space to muse; an organisational structure with weak boundaries and a low emphasis on hierarchy; tolerance of risk; clear strategies and attention to the future; recognition and incentives; financial capital; human diversity; and conversations – the ‘unifying principle’.

While the term ‘ecosystem’ has been applied to innovation in NZ (see, e.g., New Zealand Institute, 2009), the debate is poorly informed by the research literature, dominated by various statistical analyses (often framed or emanating from the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development, e.g., Statistics New Zealand, 2009). Te Puni Kōkiri has released several interlinked reports that model scenarios of better implementation of science and innovation for developing the Māori economy (Te Puni Kokiri, 2010). Funding remains small and insecure; just $5 million is allocated to the Vision Mātauranga Capability MSI funding.

One approach to interpreting how Māori participate in the networks of innovation is through the active insertion of alternative cultural logics - ‘Kaupapa Māori’ - to directly or indirectly influence research, science, and technology. Consider Figure 2:

This model explicitly builds the ‘cultural environment’ into the innovation process by increasing the spectrum of creativity available for problem-solving. Where identified, it could be argued there is an opportunity for an ‘Indigenous turn’ in which localised communities and their cultures interrogate ‘outsiders’ according to cultural traditions that may include, for example, holistic interpretations of the world and self-determined strategies in which there is no ‘bottom-line’ to cultural aspirations.

But what are the implications for Māori of this ‘innovate or die’ mentality? Although the latest iteration of innovation strategies incorporates mātauranga Māori, is the landscape any smoother? It could be argued that for Māori, fundamental insights come from our communities and their ‘non-certified’ experts. Assimilating or even simply accessing their knowledge is difficult, although the rise of non-certified expertise in many areas indicates how historical boundaries between scientific expertise and a wider citizenry have been eroded (Figure 3).






Some critics have expressed either reservations or complete scepticism about the rigour or applicability of mātauranga Māori in contemporary settings. Wider ideological opponents describe Indigenous methodologies as ‘irrational’ and ‘unscientific’, standard insults against the contagion of native cultures threatening so-called rational European philosophy. However, such controversies merely emphasises the ethical, philosophical, and practical challenges posed when multiple knowledge bases collide and collaborate.

The predominant context for contemporary Māori development is one of highly fluid capital and knowledge that moves through extensive transnational networks, a feature of the modern agribusiness supply chains Māori already engage with. Participants in these networks continually re-imagine and re-orient their personal and collective involvement according to such decisions as the utilisation (or not) of natural resources, how such utilisation proceeds, and the intergenerational transfer of assets and liabilities. Much of the expansion of the Māori economy is in primary production through a number of agri/forestry/aquaculture and fisheries ventures, some of considerable size. Other ventures seek large-scale development of urban and peri-urban lands for residential and commercial uses in the face of growing ecological and social barriers (Wright, 2008).

The recently elevated ‘science and innovation’ platform on which the country might ‘close the gap’ with Australia is a dubious national goal for Māori, many of whom emigrate to Australia to close their own gaps! Again, this state strategy attempts to frame innovation for Māori without including all the people, processes or places we ourselves might bring to the table. Māori connect more dots, much like the current models of innovation that emphasise the interconnectedness or ‘ecology’ of innovation. Connecting more dots seems to be what is needed for the country’s – indeed the planet’s – sustainable development.

The personal abilities of the tactical players – often called ‘knowledge workers’ - is thus at the heart of any strategy. Serious concerns have been raised about the retention of young researchers (Ihaka, 2009; Massaro, Yogeeswaran, & Black, 2012); post-doctoral research positions are reported to have declined by 25% (Hendry, 2012). Many knowledge workers are subject to increasingly vulnerable and temporary employment conditions, and the lure of international research positions is a natural outcome of the economic model followed. Further, many Māori postgraduates are young wāhine who face additional risk factors in a work environment where chauvinist and racist attitudes persist despite the clearly negative effects on completion, outputs, rigour, professionalism, and retention. Fig. 4 represents a generic social network in which an individual student might inhabit. This network would include whānau, friends, possibly one or more Māori communities as participants, mentors, and collaborators, as well as university or wānanga staff and colleagues and possibly Crown Research Institute, corporate and industry participants. The array of issues and challenges are considerable.

This view of innovation emphasises what Māori educationalist Wally Penetito called the ‘sophistication of relationships’, an acknowledgement of fundamental influences on the success or failure of so much of our social world. It could be said that what Māori bring to innovation is the requirement that programmes and projects require occasionally intensive, possibly ongoing, intergenerational, international interaction. The challenges faced by Māori are not ours alone, although we bring our own history, culture and aspirations to the debate. Ultimately, any innovation strategy is implemented by individuals and groups with various agendas and abilities. Finding, engaging, trusting and supporting them will be as challenging as figuring out what they should do.
Smoothing out the lumps

Global extant forces now directly affect the location and practice of innovation in a way quite distinct from previous periods. The resulting economic spaces impact on the growth and influence of the Māori economy, challenging Māori as drivers, practitioners, and purchasers of innovation. The assertion of Māori cultural logics within innovation ecosystems also challenges universities, funding bodies, ethics committees, corporations, voters, and tax payers. Lumpiness as far as the eye can see!

While accusation and controversies abound in collaborative projects involving non-Māori, by accepting and using mātauranga and Kaupapa Māori – even superficially - Pākeha exhibit an essential modern skill: the skill and pragmatism to assimilate ‘all forms or aspects of social activity without exception’, to understand and apply, not only of one particular methodology but any methodology or variation (Feyerbend, 1975, p. 10).

Likewise innovators must be able to pass from one approach to another ‘in the quickest and most unexpected manner’ (ibid.). Further, good innovation is supported from above and below, is networked both here and overseas, and the benefits will be disseminated to all who have contributed, and all who need those innovations for their collective health and security. At all levels this requires understanding, vision, commitment, courage, cooperation, and perseverance, in other words leadership. Innovation will draw on iwi capital (economic, environmental, social, and cultural) through education, training and mentoring programmes, and be reliant on the sophistication of their public and private, local and global relationships. In this sense, it might be said some innovation (particularly in the environmental sciences, community sustainability programmes, biodiversity etc.) is taking an Indigenous turn to navigate what lumps exist on our innovation landscape. The challenge remains to improve the combination of land, labour, capital through social innovation to better contribute to the growth of the Aotearoa/New Zealand economy and, by a still contested association, the development of Māori society.


References
Becker, J., & Jahn, T. (Eds.). (1999). Sustainability and the Social Sciences: A cross-Disciplinary Approach to intergrating environmental considerations into theoretical reorientation. London: Zed.

Carter, D. (2011). Primary Growth Partnership nears $500m. Retrieved May 23, 2012,from http://beehive.govt.nz/release/primary-growth-partnership-nears-500m

Chapman-Smith, B. (2012, August 16). Maori cuisne cluster eyes offshore markets. NZ Herald. Retrieved from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/small-business/news/article.cfm?c_id=85&objectid=10827312

Collins, H. M., & Evans, R. (2002). The Third Wave of Science Studies. Social Studies of Science, 32(2), 235-293.

Dvir, R., & Pasher, E. (2004). Innovation engines for knowledge cities: An innovation ecology perspective. Journal of KnowledgeMmanagement, 8(5), 16-27.

Easton, B. (1997). The Commercialisation of New Zealand. Auckland: Auckland University Press.

Fagerberg, J., & Verspagen, B. (2009). Innovation studies: The emerging structure of a new scientific field. Research Policy, 38, 218-233.

Feyerbend, P. (1975). Against Method. London and New York: Verso.

Friedman, T. (2005). The World is FLat: A Brief History of the Twenty First Century. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Gibbons, M., & Johnston, R. (1974). The Roles of Science in Technolgical Innovation. Research Policy, 3(3), 221-242.

Hendry, S. (2012). Budget 2012: What’s in it for science? Retrieved May 28, 2012,from http://sciblogs.co.nz/griffins-gadgets/2012/05/24/budget-2012-whats-in-it-for-science/

Ihaka, J. (2009, July 17th). Science community fading, says PM's adviser. NZ Herald. Retrieved from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10584991

Lambert, S. (2008). The Expansion of Sustainability through New Economic Space: Maori Potatoes and Cultural Resilience (Doctoral thesis). Lincoln, Christchurch.

Lambert, S. (2011). Te Ahuwhenua and the ‘Sons’ of the Soil’: A history of the Māori-Farmer-of-the-Year award. MAI Review, 6(1).

Martin, B. R., & Nightingale, P. (2000). Introduction. In B. R. Martin & P. Nightingale (Eds.), The Political Economy of Science, Technology and Innovation (pp. xiii-xlii). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.

Massaro, M., Yogeeswaran, K., & Black, A. (2012). Trapped in the postdoctoral void: lack of postdotoral opportunities in New Zealand forces emerging reseacrhers to exit science or seek employment overseas. New Zealand Science Review, 69(2), 30-39.

McCann, P. (2009). Economic geography, globalisation and New Zealand's productivity paradox. New Zealand Economic Papers, 43(3), 279 - 314.

Metcalfe, S. (2007). Innovation systems, innovation policy and restless capitalism. In F. Malerba & S. Brusoni (Eds.), Perspectives on innovation (pp. 441-454). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mill, J. S. (1848). Principles of Political Economy: With Some of Their Applications to Social Philosophy. London: J.W. Parker.

New Zealand Institute. (2009). New Zealand's innovation ecosystem - emerging conclusions. Auckland: New Zealand Institute. Retrieved from http://www.nzinstitute.org/Images/uploads/NZs_innovation_ecosystem_-_emerging_conclusions.pdf

Saunders, C., Allison, G., Wreford, A., & Emanuelson, M. (2005). Food Markets: Trade Risks and Trends (05/04): Agricultural Research Group on Sustainability.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1928). The instability of capitalism. The Economic Journal, 38, 361-368.

Smith, N. (2005). Neo-Critical Geography Or, The Flat Pluralist World of Busienss Class. Antipode, 37(5), 887-899.

Smits, R. (2002). Innovation studies in the 21st century;: Questions from a user's perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 69(9), 861-883.

Statistics New Zealand. (2009). Innovation in New Zealand. Wellington: Statistics New Zealand. Retrieved from http://www.stats.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/4D070B56-8EFB-4DFD-A351-3C145AC7B51C/0/5511SNZinnovationreportffweb.pdf

Taatila, V. P., Suomala, J., Siltala, R., & Keskinen, S. (2006). Framework to study the social innovation networks. European Journal of Innovation Management, 9(3), 312-326.

Te Puni Kokiri. (2010). The Maori economy, science, and innovation. Wellington: Te Puni Kokiri/ Ministry of Maori Development/ BERL.

Wright, J. (2008). State of the Environment: “Prioritising Environmental Challenges: What Matters Most?”. Retrieved from http://www.pce.govt.nz/news/speeches/State_of_the_Environment_28_Aug_2008.pdf

Wulf, W. (2007). Changes in innovation ecology. Science, 316(5829), 1253.

Ziman, J. (1984). An Introduction to science studies: The philosophical and social aspects of science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ultra Fast Broadband: when's your whare getting wired to the rest of the world?

This map by Chorus - the UFB provider - will give an indication of when you can expect to be get a big pipe for data wired to your house. Disappointingly for me,  Leeston doesn't feature at all (i recall the governments original plan was wire-up only towns of 15,000 people and over), and the time needed for this roll- raises concerns for exactly how this government expects to change our economy (which is still largely driven by agriculture) in line with the need to realign from housing boom (and bust).

Debt-driven consumerism to the sustainable land-use that will buttress our economy in the medium-term?

One case study from my 'End-users innovation' project while working for AERU talked about her driveway being dug up for the broadband connection which she herself couldn't access!

Other info...
Koorindates website (All broadband connections) http://koordinates.com/maps/BroadbandMap/collections/#/

Otautahi kura connections: http://gcsn.school.nz/community/news/revealed-governments-broadband-plan-your-kids-school

Maori grower group heads to Tokyo to promote kiwifruit

Maori grower group heads to Tokyo to promote kiwifruit - Business - NZ Herald News

Te Awanui Huka Pak Ltd (Huka Pak) was incorporated way back in 1991 but is now reaching out in a more direct manner to its international buyers. As the largest shareholder in Seeka Industries, the largest post-harvest operator of kiwifruit in the world, Maori landowners make up between 8-10 per cent of the industry.What we're seeing is the explicit linkage between our culture and our business. In the words of CEO Hemi Rolleston:
"We need to demonstrate what's different about us and our culture is part of our difference. They love it - that we can move from the kapa haka stage to the boardroom."

An item on Maori news fills some gaps, and I found the 2004 accounts on TPK's 'Wall of Honour' page:

However, such ventures also speak of the growing gap between corporately connected Maori - business elites and large shareholders - and the economically disconnected such as those resident in Kawerau where
Ministry of Social Development figures show 1324 of the town's residents are working-age beneficiaries: 19% of the population of 6940. The mayor wants to stop beneficiaries moving there, a further constraint upon those who don't exactly have a lot of freedom to start with...

Innovation flat in NZ - latest report...

New figures just released for NZ innovation, showing some interesting stuff. First, the headlines - Innovation resilient in face of global crisis - is an admission of failure: you need MORE innovation in a financial crisis.

Research I'm currently working on that looks at technology users as innovators confirms the difficulties for inventors in this country, lack of finance being the main obstacle (confirmed in the SNZ report). Within the results (Table 1) we see declining innovation activity over three financial years (2005, 2007, 2009)...less money = less innovation = less money = less innovation...

Our flagship sector (agriculture, fisheries and forestry) which between them contribute 5% of GDP with an innovation rate of 32%. I recall from somewhere our farming sector was ranked 15th or 16th in the world for innovation, a case of resting on our laurels (and indicative in the ongoing malaise of the meat and wool sectors).

Not good....

Gallagher's HQ, Hamilton. Started with Bill Gallagher, Waikato farmer and inventor of electric fencing, and an old horse that kept rubbing up against Bill's truck...

Ready, SET, Go...

A new FRST contract has started within the Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit at Lincoln University. Under the rubric of Innovation Governance, the research team will be investigating the conditions under which socio-technical networks best foster technology development, adoption and commercialisation. The aim is to substantially improve innovation outcomes and innovation governance by providing this critical knowledge to enhance policy decision-making by key sector organisations and government, leading to increased development and uptake of innovative technologies within New Zealand.

The research addresses Theme 2, Priority 2 of the Foundations SET portfolio – Enabling sustainable technology development through understanding technologies in context. The three year study will undertake an international comparison, examine three sectorts (energy, building and Maori agribusiness) and also closely investigate selected innovations.

On a personal note i have been engaged as a fulltime Research Officer for this project, and hope to contribute a greater understanding of the technological context for Maori development. At a recent workshop on New Maori Ventures hosted by FOMANA Capital Ltd., the arena of innovation governance was fleshed out by Professors' Mark Ahn and Michael Meeks. The worksshop outlined the broader commercial context of innovation - Angel investors, Venture Capital - and presented case studies of successful and unsuccessful commercial innovation. This context is the important front-end of innovation. What we in the SET project are wanting to describe and analyse is the all-important end-user, the farm labourer who has to dress the pastures with nitrogen-inhibitors, check stock health, or the builder who chooses the insulation method (or not).

Anyways, the workshop was great fun, a good group, and everything to play for! Nga mihi nui ki a koutou!

‘Indigenous Research Ethics and Agro-ecological Development: Raising the IRE in Biotechnology Transfer’

Paper presented to the Matauranga Tuku Iho Tikanga Rangahau/Traditional Knowledge and Research Ethics Conference, Te Papa, June 10th-12th, 2004.

Abstract
Although biotechnology has been an integral component of human history, contemporary research now operates with a precision and level of expertise that marks a significant break from previous understanding. By enabling the manipulation of the basic ‘building blocks’ of life, biotechnology sciences have had profound impacts in the humanities, including challenges to property rights, economic strategy, research and development policy, and – not least - ethics. In this context, previously isolated eco-social groups have experienced increasing contact and exchange as both purposeful and accidental transfers of biotic components occurs, and the potential for ‘recombination’ (of DNA, agricultural landscapes, political economies and ecosystems) has dramatically increased.

These new technologies and methods have provoked wide concern as well as hope and excitement. This last point is driven by the coincidence of two developments - advanced biotechnologies and the completion of a 'sociotechnosphere' in which novelty is a commodity. These developments infer two fundamental resources upon indigenous peoples, revolving around biotic and cultural concepts of capital. This paper examines the interplay of agro-ecological and cultural development as it effects the participation of Maori in local and global genetic information networks, and seeks to extend our ethical participation. It does this by locating significant sites in the utilisation of genetic information, thereby identifying the relevant ecosocial institutions to which Maori belong and with whom we should engage.

Key words: biotechnology, ethics, agri-business, Maori development, Plant Genetic Resources.

Introduction
While the reliance of humankind on biotic resources is axiomatic, their actual utilisation is the focus of disputes within and between societies. In this regard, New Zealand shares a common history with a small group of countries characterised by extensive 19th century white-settler small farm agro-ecology (Fairweather, 1985). This beginning has seen an ongoing commitment to a generic assemblage of crops and an associated array of cultivation methods, supplied to increasingly environmentally conscious markets. The phylogenic basis of New Zealand’s land-based industries is around 50 species, with just 28 accounting for 99% of cultivated land by area (Halloy, 1994).

Maori participation in this 'biopolitical-economy' of New Zealand has been problematic from the outset of post-contact experiences. By occupying a multiplicity of niches within European thought and capitalist production, Maori have struggled to regain the initiative in self-determination. The Maori economic base is heavily dependent on biotic resources, predominantly agricultural commodities (see Table 1). Much of this is committed to export, resulting in many iwi and hapu ventures being overly exposed to market volatility and environmental change (Te Puni Kokiri, 2002; NZIER, 2003).

Table 1: Maori Commercial Asset Base (c. 2000-2002):

Sector value (1) % % Maori prod.(2)
Agriculture $3,074m 59% 36% ($700m)
Fisheries $671m 13% 16% ($299m)
Forestry $501m 10% 2% ($43m)
Business $945m 18%
$5,191m 100%

1. Although returns were improved for the financial year 2000, much of this is attributable to favourable climatic conditions and the depreciation of the New Zealand currency (Te Puni Kokiri, 2002: 18).
2. NZIER (2003: 9). NB: this table is based on two separate sources and is indicative only.


State-induced research (via government and industry-backed institutes such as the recently established Centres’ for Research Excellence) explicitly acknowledges two things. The first is that a vibrant future for New Zealand's economy requires adopting and innovating new technologies. Much of this still focuses on the country's biotic resources, although with the now ubiquitous proviso that it be ‘sustainable’. The second is that Maori have a role in processes by which this is to be achieved, explicitly in calls for research and development to be responsive to Maori.

Implicit in this is that Maori be responsive to research. This paper argues that if a robust ethical framework is desired, then the potential(s) of modern biotechnology and their fundamental elements must be identified. To summarise, New Zealand's economy - and Maori disproportionately so - is increasingly dependent on sustainable agricultural and horticultural production and the novel marketing of the resulting produce in a global market. Maori must be able to recognise the implications of research that utilises the genetic information implicit in biotic resources. While some attention has been given to indigenous flora (culminating in the Wai 262 Claim, see Harris and Kapoor, 1990; McLean and Smith, 2001; Williams, 2001), the reliance on introduced species is rarely noted (see however Roskruge, 2001, and Halloy, 1994). The ethical implications of the reliance of agri-biotechnology research and development processes on Plant Genetic Resources have now reached the fullest global reach that was first 'promised' in 1492 by the great Colombian exchange (Crosby, 1986).

Biotechnology, Ecosociality, and Aotearoa/New Zealand
Technology is a broad term, the defining characteristic of which is that it is never really complete. Ferré (1988: 1) refers to the 'technosphere' - the space touched or reached by human artifacts that stretches from several miles below the earth's surface or sea-level to many hundreds of thousands of kilometers above the atmosphere. This technosphere is comprised of many interrelated sociotechnical systems that enable ‘the linkage of techniques and material culture to the socio-coordination of labour’ (Pfaffenberger, 1992: 497). This is best understood as an activity system that involves a wide range of decision-making processes and various communities, both professional and lay.

Looking into Ferre’s technosphere we observe a mass of biotic and components whose interaction can be said to form a ‘genosphere’. This phenomenon has a history that increasingly revolves around manipulation by a highly advanced genotype – Homo sapiens. In this world, as David Harvey reminds us, any ecological debate is always a commentary on political-economic organisation (Harvey, 1996). Kloppenburg (1988) and Lyson (2002), among others, have argued that the advanced techniques now available to agricultural researchers are analogous to the reductionist nature of neoclassical economics and provide the framework for turning the traits of plants and livestock into property. As perhaps the most rapidly advancing technology, biology is drawn into the political arena as biodiversity fractures into variously valued resources while remaining a fundamental component of sustainability.

Criticism of modern biotechnology has two main planks. The first stems from the inherent reductionism alluded to above that sees researchers accused of ignoring or seriously underestimating the actual complexities of its subject matter. This criticism extends the analogy of frontier science - a complex research area that is subject to rapid changes in understanding – to ‘cowboy’ scientists that dismiss or ignore the possibilities of negative environmental impacts (Ho, 1998). The second criticism concerns its relevance, with accusations that this technology seeks to provide answers ‘to a false set of questions’ (Campbell, 2000: 32). In many respects this echoes the first criticism by drawing attention to the obscurity of processes by which genetic engineering (GE) or modification (GM) is to deliver on (the originally hyperbolic) promises. These concerns have coalesced into an array of political movements that are vociferously opposed to such techniques, particularly in the food chain and in the area of human reproduction where advances now challenge what it means to be human (Mauron, 2001; McKibben, 2003). The domain of ecosociality is facing unique challenges that call for creative debate. In this context, genetic reductionism can be subverted, exposing moral and ethical choices within a political-economic framework: who gets what?

These observations highlight the unique position of Maori in the literature on indigenous peoples and technology which is dominated by case studies that examine the often extreme disparities of knowledge and power evident in technology transfer in developing countries where indigenous groups maintain (not necessarily through choice) a much more separate existence. The research arena has thrown up a number of subdisciplines that include access to Appropriate Technology (AT), the role of Indigenous Knowledge (TK) and Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) and the political alliances between indigenous communities and environmentalists (see Willoughby, 1990; Berkes et al., 1995; Gillespie, 1998).

Briefly then, technology can be defined as a process (incorporating political economic and socio-cultural elements as well as scientific institutions) that crystallizes into things, but only with effort. The point of this paper is that the most valuable of these 'things' - the material outcomes of large-scale, interdisciplinary research and development projects - are increasingly biotic in character, challenging assumptions within those networks that New Zealand’s economy (and with it Maori) operates. The survival of eco-social institutions in this context is perhaps more remarkable than their initial establishment. In what ways could advancing biotechnologies force change on the ecosocial institutional context within which hapu and iwi ventures exist? Although the potential of modern biotechnologies has yet to be clearly characterised, it is increasingly clear that the 'public' or lay communities hold a nuanced position (Marris et al. 2001). In order to identify where such challenges might originate for Maori, two models are presented as attempts to describe the arena in which conflicting interests interact.

Model I: Tracking Genetic Information.
The first model presents the utilisation of genetic information as a number of stages involving various specialties, not all of which necessarily use or require the presence of genetic material. These stages provide a useful analytical tool as shown in Figure 1. Such a framework needs also to be situated within the macro agro-ecological context of Aotearoa/New Zealand: what ecosocial groupings to Maori belong to and engage with? From this we can identify relevant biotic resources and their threats, and (because biodiversity is genetic diversity) begin understanding the extended networks of genetic information to which we belong and utilise.

Although space precludes in-depth analysis, the following attempts to reflect the current situation in New Zealand, a situation that is primarily a consequence of the white-settler farming history alluded to earlier. For example, the pastoral history initiated by colonisation means that forage plants are the single most important Plant Genetic Resource (PGR) for the New Zealand economy. Although some native species do contribute to pastures in areas of low fertility, preferred species are exotic (Warmington et al., 1996). Their value lies with their fundamental contribution to the livestock industry, again a range of exotic species (primarily Eurasian in origin, see Diamond, 1997) that have been bred for various qualities revolving around meat and fibre.


Fig. 1. The utilisation of genetic material
Stage Disciplines Examples

Identification and Collection fieldwork, taxonomy, GIS,Te Kete a Tini Rauhanga (1) bioinformatics, ethnobotany, gastric cancer research (2)

Storage and Maintenance ex situ conservation,Lake Waikaremoana Hapu
engineering, public sector Restoration Trust (3)
management, in situ preservation Rene Orchiston collection(4)

Trade and Transfer corporate affairs, trade negotiations, Te Hikoi mai o te kumara(5)
biosecurity

Research and Development genomics, proteomics, traditional ornamental development (6)
breeding, software design, marketing eg Hebe & Phormium spp.


1. A research project in collaboration with Crop and Food, funded by FRST ($960,000) to investigate rongoa Maori (native medicinal plants), headed by Dr Meto Leach and Hohepa Kereopa (Ngai Tuhoe).
2. Research lead by Dr. Parry Guilford into the relevant genes for a type of gastric cancer was conducted using a Maori family (see Guilford, et al., 1998).
3. A 10-year project investigating the decline of kiwi at Waikaremoana, a collaboration between Manaaki Whenua, DoC and tangata whenua.
4. Held by Manaaki Whenua and originating with 50 cultivars of harakeke/Phormium. Now known as the National New Zealand Flax Collection.
5. A hikoi by kaumatua to Japan in 1988, led by Del Wihongi, to seek the return of 9 varieties of kumara ‘delivered’ to Japanese researchers in 1969 following concerns of maintaining the collection in New Zealand.
6. Extensive collections are in private ownership, both overseas and domestically.


Securing these industries, let alone actually advancing them, will require ongoing experimentation with genetic recombination, driven by both the need for market novelty and sustainability in an increasingly changeable environment. Although valuable collections of globally important PGR exist in New Zealand (particularly of apple and kiwifruit germplasm), international collaboration must continue in what has been described as the Red Queen race, after that character in Alice in Wonderland who must run to stand still (Swanson, 1998). Maori are members of the very same ecosocial interactions as non-Maori, both in Aotearoa/New Zealand and overseas, that engage in the utilisation of similar genetic parcels of flora and fauna.

Model II: Mapping Genetic ResourcesThe following diagram attempts to broadly reflect the theorised markets of relevance to iwi and hapu ventures, by which I mean not so much the place (although physical locations certainly exist) but the scale of management, the nature and extent of networks within which genetic information could be expected to travel (Fig. 2). Such ‘business’ does not necessarily rely on the actual presence of genetic material but may revolve around the legal right to claim royalties from use of historical germlines or patented techniques. No deeper analysis is attempted here although there is an ever-expanding range of complex interests acting to secure or utilise genetic information. Some institutions may act to support private biotic interests in order to secure indirect economic benefits, e.g. the provision of publicly funded biosecurity for industry or sectoral interests by government agencies. Further, there could be great emotional security provided to the individual by the provision of relatively simple DNA identification.

This second model highlights the difficulty that any disempowered community would face in engaging on an equal footing those institutions that control aspects of development needed for self-determination. First there are the usual disparities, in knowledge, power, support. Secondly, there is now global extent of control and influence over an increasingly strategic resource, variously declared a global commons or the property of nation-states, corporations or indigenous peoples. Access to PGR have been blocked before (to 'the usual suspects', enemies of the 'West', see Querol, 1993; Frankel, 1988: 29), local communities continue to experience biopiracy, and the illicit trade in rare organisms continues (Gower, 2004). This model describes a genosphere where access to and benefits from genetic information is dominated by nation-states over sub-national communities, multinational corporations over local businesses, or supranational organisations over democratically elected legislative bodies.

Fig 2. Market scales
Increasing scale
of market

Development Fonterra (1)
Margot Forde Germplasm Centre (2)
Landcare (3)

Trade & transfer MAF Biosecurity (4)


Maintenance ESR (5)
& Storage National Testing Centre (6)
Otari Native Botanic Garden (7)

Collection &
Identification
Increasing Scale of Ownership
individual community state global
firm corporate

1. Fonterra is engaged in a number of projects that involve genetic information although thus far they have disavowed genetic modification in their research (Dann, 2004).
2. Est. 1930s, based in Palmerston North and maintained by AgResearch. Holds approx. 60,000 seed samples (mainly grasses and legumes). 1,500 spp/58 plant families including 18,000 varieties of white clover. An important genebank for New Zealand land-based industries.
3. Landcare maintain the largest herbarium in New Zealand, containing over 500,000 specimens, representing NZ and the South Pacific.
4. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forests administers the Hazardous Substance and New Organisms Act (1996) and is the lead government agency in the implementation of Biosecurity strategy.
5. Environmental Science Research hold approx. 40,000 human DNA samples for criminal profiling (Source: Courtney, 2004: A15)
6. Stores the majority of human DNA samples collected in NZ (from newborns), numbering around two million samples. Owned and managed by the Auckland District Health Board (Source: Courtney, 2004: A15).
7. A significant reserve dedicated to NZ native plants. Established in 1906, it covers 75 hectares and is implicated in two (now amalgamated) Waitangi Tribunal claims, no.’s 145 and 474.


Discussion
Like other agri-business participants, Maori are committed to a global network whose purpose is to effect the development and implementation of a range of strategies involving the utilisation of genetic information. This immediately locates us with other beneficiaries of global trade in PGR, a trade that has been criticised as theft by many indigenous groups. While Maori can effectively avoid blame, this paper presents a case for acknowledging where we have benefit from inherited genetic information, and including those dissenting ecosocial institutions within our network of participants.

The sources of vulnerability and the means to attain resilience are multi-scalar, involving linkages to new locations (and therefore previously unknown ecosocial institutions) as well as altering the relationship with historically connected locations (via advancing technologies) and challenging existing ecosocial institutions. Conceptually, significant locations could be mapped by tracing the relevant genetic information, its origins, threats to access or even the survival of viable germplasm, and contradictory interests in its actual or perceived properties, and so on. The ethical and moral issues attendant on the identification, collection, storage, maintenance, trade, transfer, research and (all going well!) socially just development must also be acknowledged. Model I presents a template for tracking where such obligations might exist, which can be only the first step in truly successful development; Model II describes nothing more than the obvious, that as a resource (in this case genetic information) increases in value, its control will be sought and amalgamated by more powerful players.

Conclusion
Marx claimed that ‘the tradition of the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the minds of the living’. By this he meant the constraints of previously solid institutions that were neither willing nor able to aid the ‘revolutionary transformation’ of people and their environments in ‘the creation of something which does not yet exist.’ (cited in Harvey, 1996: 94). Challenges to existing ecosocial institutions, whether Maori or non-Maori, local, national or global, result from and contribute to change and that is evident in the utilisation of genetic information. The 'best practice' (i.e. ethical) ecosocial arrangements cannot yet exist, and their development will require broader sources of input than has been apparent so far.

Notwithstanding the cultural heritage and emotional connections to indigenous flora and fauna (an aspect of Aotearoa/New Zealand that is also claimed by pakeha) the resilient development of Maori agri-business is increasingly dependent on advanced technology and improved marketing that is global in extent. Like pakeha, Maori are entwined within the neoliberal-ordered exchange of commodities and must be cognisant of supranational regulations concerning, among other things, production methods, marketing labels and intellectual property that explicitly uses ‘culture-tags’. International traders must also be aware of their target market's idiosyncrasies that will include moral and ethical judgements. By engaging in modern agri-food business, Maori are complicit in the appropriation and manipulation of genetic information that is generally held (ex situ or in situ), maintained and disseminated according to rational, capitalist demands. Let Maori be proactive in defining the debate. Our complicity needs to be acknowledged, if for no other reason than to raise the IRE in future agri-biotechnology research.

References
Berkes, F., Folke, C. and Gadgil, M. ‘Traditional Ecological Knowledge, Biodiversity, Resilience and Sustainability’ pp 281-299 in Perrings, C., Maler, K.G., Folke, C., Holling, C.H. and Jansson, B.O. (eds) Biological Diversity, Kluwer.
Brown, D. 2004 ‘The Whare as Exhibition’ pp 65-79 in Smith, A. and Wevers, L. (eds) On Display: New Essays in Cultural Studies, Victoria University Press.
Campbell, H. 2000 'Between Abstract Promise and Concrete Reality: Will GM Feed the Third World?', pp 32-43 in Davis, R. (ed) Will the ENZ Justify the Genes Proceedings from the Symposium on the Ethics of Genetic Engineering, August 2000, Capital City Forum, Joint Methodist Presbyterian Public Questions Committee: Wellington.

Courtney, D. 2004 ‘Who’s in charge of the DNA bank?’ The Press, April 28th, 2004, A15.

Crosby, A.W. 1986 Ecological Imperialism: The Biological Expansion of Europe, 900-1900, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, xiv; 368 pp.

Dann, L. 2004 ‘Putting a toe in the GM pool’ NZ Herald, May 14th, 2004.

Diamond, J. 1997 Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, New York: W.W. Norton & Co.

Fairweather, J. R. 1985 ‘White-Settler Colonial Development: Early New Zealand Pastoralism and the Formation of Estates’ The Australian Journal of Sociology, Vol. 21(2): 237-257.
Ferre, F. 1988 The Philosophy of Technology, Prentice Hall: Eaglewood Cliff, New Jersey, x, 147 pp.
Frankel, O.H. 1988 ‘Genetic resources: Evolutionary and Social Responsibilities’ Chapter 1 of Kloppenburg, J. (ed) Seeds and Sovereignty: The Use of Control of Plant Genetic Resources, Durham: Duke University Press.
Gillespie, A. 1998 'Environmental Politics in New Zealand/Aotearoa: Clashes and Commonality Between Maoridom and Environmentalists' New Zealand Geographer, Vol. 54 (1): 19-25.

Gower, P. 2004 ‘Czech politician questions case after meeting orchid smugglers for a beer’ NZ Herald, February 16th, 2004.

Guildford, P., Hopkins, J., Harraway, J., McLeod, M., McLeod, N., Harawire, P., Taite, H., Scoular, R., Miller, A. and Reeve, A.E. 1998 ‘E-cadherin germline mutations in familial gastric cancer’ Nature, Vol 392 (6674): 402-405.
Halloy, S. 1994 ‘Long term trends in the relative abundance of New Zealand agricultural plants’, pp 125-142 in Fletcher, D.J. and Manly, B.F.J. (eds) Statistics in Ecology and Environmental Monitoring, Otago Conference Series 2, Dunedin: University of Otago Press, vii, 269 pp.

Hancock, J.F. 2004 Plant Evolution and the Origin of Crop Species, 2nd edition, Wallingford: CABI Publishers.

Harris, W. and Kapoor, P. (eds) 1990 Nga Mahi Maori o te Wao Nui a Tane: Contributions to an International Workshop on Ethnobotany, Botany Division, DSIR: Christchurch.

Harvey, D. 1996 Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference, Blackwell Publishers.
Ho, M. 1998 Genetic Engineering: Dream or Nightmare?, Gateway.
Kloppenburg, J.R. (ed) 1988 Seeds and Sovereignty: The Use and Control of Plant Genetic Resources Duke University Press: Durham, 368 pp.
Lyson, T.A. 2002 ‘Advanced agricultural biotechnologies and sustainable agriculture’ Trends in Biotechnology Vol 20(5): 193-196.

Marris, C., Brian Wynne, B., Peter Simmons, P., Weldon, S., Cárceres. J., De Marchi, B., Klinke, A., Lemkow, L., Pellizzoni, L., Pfenning, U., Renn, O., and Sentmartí, R., 2001 Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe. Also known as the PABE Report, Dec. 2001, Commission of European Communities.

Massey News 2003 ‘Hui unearths taewa potential’, Massey News, Issue 11, http://masseynews.massey.ac.nz/2003/at_massey/National/issue11.html
Mauron, A. 2001 ‘Is the Genome the secular equivalent of the soul?’ Science, Vol. 291: 831-832.
McLean, R.A. and Smith, T 2001 The Crown and Flora and Fauna: Legislation policies and practices, 1983-98 Waitangi Tribunal, 760 pp.
McKibben, B. 2003 Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age, Times Books, Henry Holt and Co.; New York, xiii; 271 pp.

New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (Inc.) 2003 Maori Economic Development/Te Ohanga Whaneketanga Maori, Wellington (A Report prepared for Te Puni Kokiri).

Posey, D.A. and Dutfield, G. 1996 Beyond Intellectual Property: Toward Traditional Resource Rights for Indigenous peoples and Local Communities, International Development Resource Centre: Ottawa.

Querol, D. 1993 Genetic resources: a practical guide to their conservation [Other title Recursos geneticos] London; New Jersey: Zed Books; Penang, Malaysia: Third World Network.

Roskruge, N. 2001 'Taewa Maori: Their Management and Commercial Viability' in Howard, M. L. & H. Moller (eds.) He Minenga Whakatü Hua o Te Ao, Murihiku Marae 25 – 27 August 2000. Online at
Swanson, T. 1998 ‘The source of Genetic Resource Values and the reasons for their management’ pp 67-81 ion Evenson, R.E., Gollin, D. and Sananiello, V. Agricultural Values of Plant Genetic Resources,
Te Puni Kokiri 2002 Maori in the New Zealand Economy 3rd edition June 2002, Wellington.
Warmington, B., Cole, G. and King, G. 1996 Conservation and Use of Plant Genetic Resources: National Report for New Zealand June 1996 Wellington: Ministry of Agriculture.

Williams, D.V. 2001 Matauranga Maori and Taonga: The Nature and Extent of Treaty Rights held by Iwi and Hapu (regarding) Indigenous Flora and Fauna, Cultural Heritage Objects, Valued Traditional Knowledge, Waitangi Tribunal Report.
Willoughby, K.W. 1990 Technology Choice: A Critique of the Appropriate Technology Movement, Westview Press: Boulder & San Francisco, xii, 350 pp.