Last week Taranaki Mounga (mountain) joined a growing family of natural entities given legal personhood in Aotearoa New Zealand. Te Urewera was the first natural entity in the world to be granted legal personhood in 2014 and the Whanganui River was granted legal personhood in 2017. The granting of legal personhood in all three instances occurred as part of the Crown’s settlement with local Iwi (indigenous tribal groups) over breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi. The Treaty is the founding document of Aotearoa New Zealand and was signed in 1840 between indigenous people and the Crown. This constitutional and indigenous rights context is crucial for properly understanding and engaging with the granting of legal personhood to natural entities in Aotearoa New Zealand.
There are eight Iwi in the Taranaki region who had submitted claims to the Waitangi Tribunal for historic breaches of the Treaty. Those breaches include use of military forces to complete land purchases, land confiscation and renaming of the mountain, failure to set up reserves that were promised, and banning traditional Māori practices while promoting tourism. The Waitangi Tribunal, established in 1975 investigates Crown breaches of the Treaty. Iwi bring claims to the tribunal. Generally, there is an investigation and hearing(s) the tribunal issues two reports. The first report serves a fact-finding purpose. The second provides several recommendations for redress. The reports inform and provide the basis for negotiations between the Crown and Iwi to reach a settlement that is then enacted through legislation. As Paul Goldsmith, Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, explained in parliamentary debate, “through the eight individual settlement for the Iwi of Taranaki, the Crown promised that it would return to negotiate collective redress over the maunga.” The granting of legal personhood is the enactment of that promise.
The granting of legal personhood to these natural entities must be understood in the context of indigenous peoples, their rights and their relationship with the Crown. The granting of legal personhood should be understood as largely constitutional in nature. The Treaty is regarded as the founding document of Aotearoa New Zealand and a key part of our unwritten constitution. It is in redressing breaches of this agreement that legal personhood is granted.
Further, although protecting the wellbeing of natural resources is one aim of granting legal personhood, it should not be understood solely as a mechanism for granting rights to nature. In te ao Māori (the indigenous world view) the concept of whakapapa (genealogy) is significant. Mountains and other natural entities represent a vital part of this ancestral lineage and identity and local Iwi regard Taranaki Mounga as their tipuna (ancestor). The granting of legal personhood is significant in recognising this personification of the mounga.
Additionally, one purpose of legal personhood is to facilitate and regulate the interactions of people – in this case Iwi and the Crown. The granting of legal personhood and the various co-governance mechanisms it enables is a compromise between the Crown and Māori to share and distribute ownership, management, access and other rights. It is a mechanism to utilise both te ao Māori and western knowledge “of how to care for a place” explains Māori law professor Jacinta Ruru. Like the Whanganui River and Te Urewera, Taranaki Mounga will be jointly managed by the Crown and Iwi – although the exact structure, legal entities and their functions are unique across these three examples.
Now that there have been three settlements of this nature over a 10-year period, the granting of legal personhood could start being considered more of a trend or norm as opposed to novel or innovative. Additionally, it appears that such settlements are continually building upon and learning from one another. Jamie Tuuta, lead negotiator for the Iwi, said that lessons learnt from prior legal recognitions have been invaluable.
As the rights of nature movement grows and more examples emerge of legal personhood being conferred to natural entities, there is often much excitement about what those examples may mean and how they can be utilised in different contexts. Taranaki Mounga reminds us that care must be taken to ensure that those examples are considered and analysed with acknowledgement to their whakapapa (genealogy) and the context in which they arise – through consultation with local knowledge. In the case of Aotearoa New Zealand and Taranaki Mounga that context is one of redress for constitutional breaches. And for Ngā Iwi o Taranaki (the tribes of Taranaki) it is a context of grievance and healing.
0 Comments