by Metiria Turei
Jeanette has blogged today on the Emissions Trading Scheme submissions from iwi and hapu. She talked about how it is necessary to treat Treaty settlement land and resources differently under the scheme, particularly forestry. This is a crucial point, especially in light of the issues discussed at the Indigenous Peoples’ Global Summit on Climate Change in Alaska last week.
400 indigenous representatives gathered in Alaska for the Summit, hosted by the Innuit Circumpolar Council. The ICC are an international non-governmental organization (NGO) that represents the interests of approximately 150,000 Inuit of the United States, Canada, Greenland and Chukotka. The purpose of the conference was to enable indigenous representatives to discuss the issues and share solutions, and to develop a common position for Copenhagen at the end of the year. And of course the issues were complex and difficult to negotiate.
There was real objection by some to the use of market mechanisms to manage emissions because of the commodification of essential natural resources. There was from the younger representatives a committment to taking the strongest possible action to reduce emissions. And there was considerable concern from those whose only economic resource is oil and who still want the option of developing it. The duress of poverty suffered by many indigenous communities must not be dismissed. As we know from the submissions on the ETS, the Treaty settlement forestry concerns held by Maori are serious for similar reasons.
Global warming has very different impacts on indigenous communitites and the solutions needed will be very different.
Here in Aotearoa we are very aware of sea level rise on the Pacific Islands. The Maldives have a fund for the purpose of purchasing land in order to relocate the entire island. Kiribati are following suit.
In the Arctic, indigenous Yup’ik are looking to relocate an entire village because of rising water levels caused by climate change.
The community of the tiny coastal village of Newtok voted to relocate its 340 residents to new homes 9 miles away, up the Ninglick River. The village, home to indigenous Yup’ik Eskimos, is the first of possibly scores of threatened Alaskan communities that could be abandoned.
Warming temperatures are melting coastal ice shelves and frozen sub-soils, which act as natural barriers to protect the village against summer deluges from ocean storm surges.
We are seeing the erosion, flooding and sinking of our village right now,” said Stanley Tom, a Yup’ik Eskimo and tribal administrator for the Newtok Traditional Council.
Meanwhile in other parts of the world water scarcity is the issue
In the African nation of Kenya, the Samburu tribe is on the verge of a food and economic crisis, the U.N. said, as lengthy droughts kill livestock that provides income and sustenance for the community. In Mexico, highland Mayan farmers are fighting to survive amid decreasing rainfall, unseasonal frost and unprecedented changes in daytime temperatures, the U.N. reported. These conditions are forcing the farmers to plant alternative crops and to search for other sources of irrigation.
The Indigenous Peoples’ Global Summit on Climate Change was an excellent start to developing an international indigenous position for Copenhagen. Solutions to climate change issues cannot avoid dealing with the self determination of indigenous people, that is the right to have control over thier own resources, economic development and cultural practice. Neither can the solutions take a one size fits all approach nor rely solely on market mechanisms to provide a just outcome. The long term economic inequities imposed on many indigenous communities must also be addressed
If indigenous people are not at the table from the beginning of the discussions the solutions will be neither effective nor fair. We have long experience of failure in this in Aotearoa. Lets hope that the rest of the world learns from our mistakes.
Published in Justice & Democracy by Metiria Turei on Wed, April 29th, 2009
Tags: arctic, change, climate, ETS, global, indigenous, Maori, pacific, summit, warming
More posts by Metiria Turei | more about Metiria Turei
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Loading...
She talked about how it is necessary to treat Treaty settlement land and resources differently under the scheme, particularly forestry.”
Racism in Enviromentalism now…..golly.So Maori Carbon is different to everyone elses?
Carbon atoms with moko….heh!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sorry slightly off topic, but there’s a lot of word going around that people who made submissions on the RMA Amendment Bill were not informed of the hearing times. I made a submission and certainly was not informed that the hearings were today and tomorrow until I read yesterday’s newspaper.
Luckily I emailed the select committee organiser last night and I have organised a teleconferencing time. However, if I hadn’t acting quickly then I would not have had the chance at all.
It seems like this is VERY unusual for people to not be informed about this kind of thing. Sounds like the govt realised heaps of people wanted to submit but they want to rush through the legislation. To avoid the “annoyance” of hearing so many submitters we just haven’t been told.
What’s up with that????
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
She spoke rubbish. After all the words about how New Zealanders are as involved in this as the east Europeans, Chinese, etc., to suggest that some of us are equally involved but to be unequally treated is ridiculous.
.
.
More rubbish. If Pakeha and Maori live next to each other the impact on them will be the same. To suggest otherwise is absolute racism and has no place in New Zealand.
.
.
Last time I looked the Maldives were in the Indian Ocean, and not a Pacific Island.
.
.
Enough! This is blatant racism and, in my opinion, should not be given space on a blog dedicated to Green issues! Who is not indigenous to somewhere? Should the English have their indigenous rights respected and those of immigrant ethnicities (such as the tens of thousands of New Zealanders who have settled in Great Britain, be ignored? This position is untenable in a world that has seen so much migration that finding a land that couldn’t claim special ‘indigenous’ rights for a portion of its population is almost impossible.
Beware all who think this is a reasonable position – the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam {LTTE}, (Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka actually though LTTE is the name they gave themselves) started out on exactly this ‘indigenous’ track, even though it was and is provably erroneous, as is the claim of Maori to “originating or occurring naturally in a particular place”, i.e. New Zealand. (OED Definition of indigenous.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Groan. Yet more racist bilge.
>>Global warming has very different impacts on indigenous communitites and the solutions needed will be very different.
The Chinese are indigenous. As are Indians.
They like coal.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sorry for responding to the side issue, but Jarbury, it might be worth making a complaint to the either the Chair of the Committee or the Speaker. Selecxt committees can get very manipulative in the way they manage submitters if they want to avoid hearing contrary views. Those on the committee who are not the majority have very little capacity to change the decisions of the majority because it always comes down to a vote. I have heard other complaints too about this process and I know exactly how difficult it is to protect submitters from a poor process.
So good luck with your submission, be careful and respectful when you give it, because some members use any excuse to shut you down and support those members who are trying to give you a fair deal.
Metiria
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
talk, talk talk – where’s the action!
BTW – What’s up with that cool eel icon – its it Metiria’s blog avatar or something? Just a friend wants to use it as an illustration on her site and doesn’t want to step on any toes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thanks for the advice Metiria, I have emailed Russel Norman about the issue and also talked to someone from a newspaper so hopefully it gets a decent airing. I have done a fair resource consent hearings before, but this will be different so it’s good to know what to be aware of.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Meyt,
Why would forests on treaty settlement land need to be treated any differently than forests on publicly owned land? Why should the practice of carbon trading be applied differently to different people?
The emmision of carbon by maori is no different to the emmision of carbon by europeans, likewise a tree on maori land will absorb just as much carbon as the same tree on european land if raised in the same manner.
While it is important that a mutually agreeable arangement is settled on between maori and non-maori, to treat the peoples as different under the law is only inviting more racism than is already present, more racial hatred, and further proliferates any disadvantage minorities may face.
Why do you claim to care for maori and their well-being if you actively promote policies that will only act to disadvantage them? Why do you encourage racist policy that only increases strife? Why do you take a path that cannot have a positive resolution? Why do you take a path that would bring about a situation where the imaginary actions hitler attributed to jews would find real embodyment in iwi? Why do you disadvantage me as one of maori blood when you say you seek to help me?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
@Sapient.
“Why do you disadvantage me as one of maori blood when you say you seek to help me?”
As I am sure you are aware there are only 4 blood types, A,B, AB or O. Which one of these is exclusive to Maori?
Also the point of this blog seems to me that as cultures are different one approach will not be applicable to them all. On that note, I am reading into your message that the most beneficial scenario for Maori is to be assimilated and to suffer ethnocide. Is this a correct reading into your comment?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Reddeath,
. lol.
Only when one talks about ABO blood types but it is also very important to take into acount Rhesus positive and negative which brings it to 8 and then the, at least, 28 other systems which means there is hundreds,
The point is that while seeking an approach that benefits maori, a people defined by lineage and thus the concept of *blood*, meyt is taking a position which would in all likelyhood disadvantage maori and result in poorer outcomes for all parties concerned; as such her approach is counterproductive to her stated goals.
The point of this post, as I read it, is not that differnet cultures require different approaches but that certain, ethnicity based, sub-groups have resources that they would not be able to exploit under a carbon trading schemme to the same degree as they would without one. The arguement being that this results in these ethnicity based sub-groups being disadvantaged. I do not see this as any reason to apply policies selectivly in such a way that their entire purpose is voided and strife is proliferated.
As to assimilation and ethnocide; where in this thread did I suggest this should be the case? The world is faced with peril, if it is the best way to safeguard against or minimise that peril then small modifications is perfecty acceptable; infact the whole purpose of the legislation is to change our actions and culture to allow for sustainability, why should they be exempted?
I assume the election went well then?
oh, I take it this means the election went well then?
. But that is irrelivant.
You would be correct if there were only ABO blood types but there is also rhesus blood systems which brings the total to 8 and then atleast 28 more systems which means there is hundreds. Im sure some would find higher prevalence among maori
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)