Course:CONS370/Projects/Landscape personhood in New Zealand: A review of Mt Taranaki and Maori land ethic
| Country: New Zealand | |
This conservation resource was created by Course:CONS370. | |
Mount Taranaki (Taranaki) in New Zealand obtained legal personhood from the 2019 Record of Understanding for Mount Taranaki, Pouakai and the Kaitake Ranges. Non-human self owning entities are still relatively new, but in the case of Taranaki, New Zealand had already conferred legal personhood onto two other entities, Te Urewera in 2014, and the Whanganui River in 2017. Many see these designations as attempts at collaborative management between government (state), and indigenous rightsholders, further supported by the efforts of countries to distance themselves from the tarnished history of colonialism.
Description
Introduction to Landscape Personhood
Legal personhood in its most basic form is the granting of (within the context of this topic) natural entities a certain set of rights, responsibilities and obligations (O’Donnell & Talbot-Jones, 2018). This concept however does not extend to certain ‘human’ rights such as voting or civil rights but rather is comprised of three primary elements: “legal standing (the right to sue or be sued in court), the right to enter and enforce legal contracts, and the right to own property” (O’Donnell & Talbot-Jones, 2018). In its history, personhood has been used in many other contexts, most notably corporations and it has been only moderately recently when personhood has been granted for natural entities (O’Donnell & Talbot-Jones, 2018). The first example of this was in Ecuador in 2008, where the explicitly stated rights of nature were incorporated into their constitution and government agencies were similarly called to enforce such stated rights (O’Donnell & Talbot-Jones, 2018).
Within the context of New Zealand, personhood first presented itself in the case of the Whanganui river. In the 1840s when New Zealand was first colonized by Britain, laws were put in place that stated that no one can own fresh water (Salmon, 2018). However concurrent laws enacted by the Crown such as in the Treaty of Waitangi guaranteed “the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of the Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess” (Salmon, 2018). In spite of this, management of the land and natural resources since colonization was still in the charge of the Crown (Salmon, 2018). In public forums frustrations surrounding this discrepancy were often brought up by Maori peoples, and finally with the settlement of Claim 167 in 1999, Maori ownership of the Whanganui River was realized and acknowledged (Salmon, 2018; Charpleix, 2018). Despite this however, personhood for the Whanganui was not fully realized in legislation until 2017.
Though the designation of legal personhood was and remains a large step forward in the recognition of Indigenous rights, environmental justice and conservation, it should be still looked at with a critical eye. As noted by an Indigenous lawyer working with the ‘Whanganui River Personhood Case’, personhood of the river as a singular body is still moderately a colonial concept because the river only encompasses a singular ancestor or being in a larger and intertwined community of ancestors embodied by various parts of the New Zealand ecosystem (Salmon, 2018).
General History of New Zealand and Maori Cosmology
Maori cosmology and worldview is one which differs starkly from that of the west, where rather than holding a conquering or objectifying point of view, Maori peoples share core values of reciprocity, mutual respect and compassion, and shared familiar connectivity with each other as well as with the land around them (Charpleix, 2018) (Ruru, 2018). Prior to New Zealand’s colonization in the 1840s, the Maori peoples had a set of unwritten laws which dictated the management of rivers and land. However these did not involve any sort of land ownership (Te Aho, 2018). This was largely because terrestrial features were and still are seen as ancestors who are living and conscious beings by Maori peoples (Te Aho, 2018). By extension, they also acknowledge and appreciate the strong intertwined relationship between the river, its fellow terrestrial attributes, and human communities (Te Aho, 2018). This kinship between Maori and the natural entities around them, such as rivers and mountains, are expressed through their language (Salmon, 2018).
The discrepancies between western and Maori cosmologies have led to disputes over human and natural rights, and more specifically who has the right to govern natural regions and resources (Magallanes, 2015). Currently, it is still the treaty of Waitangi which governs the majority of Maori rights. It states that the Maori hold sovereignty and unique land rights which they can exercise in order to protect their community and surrounding ecosystem (Magallanes, 2015). This also gave Maori people all the rights of a British citizen and allowed them to manage and oversee the land designated as theirs (by the crown) (Magallanes, 2015). However, it was noted that this treaty contained major discrepancies in language used for English and Maori versions where the Maori translation held disproportionately far more rights and protections. The English version thereby presented a misleading view of what protections and rights the Maori peoples would actually receive (Magallanes, 2015). In 1975, a large step was made towards better incorporation of Maori cosmologies because the Waitangi Tribunal reported ongoing breaches of the treaty of Waitangi that had been occurring since its implementation (Magallanes, 2015). These reports not only address financial repercussions, but also recommendations for moving forward and rebuilding the lost relationship between the Maori iwi and the land (Magallanes, 2015).
The Whanganui River
The Whanganui River is located on the North Island of New Zealand and runs 180 miles down the southern central portion of the island. The Whanganui is also the 3rd longest river in New Zealand, with a channel approximately 290 kilometers in length. As mentioned previously in the ‘Introduction to Personhood,’ the Whanganui River was the first natural entity in New Zealand to be granted personhood. This was granted after 8 years of negotiation between the government of New Zealand and the Maori/Iwi tribes (O’Donnell & Talbot-Jones, 2018). In its final form, Whanganui River Claims Settlement Act acknowledges the Whanganui as a living entity with intrinsic natural and cultural value (O’Donnell & Talbot-Jones, 2018). As an extension of this sentiment, it grants personhood to the river and recognizes the river as a legal entity with a new set of rights, protections, liabilities, and most notably the ability to sue and be sued (O’Donnell & Talbot-Jones, 2018). Te Awa Tupua, the new legal person which is otherwise known as the Whanganui river is represented by a guardian embodied be Maori iwi and legally dubbed the Te Pou Tupua, whose responsibilities involve acting and speaking on behalf of the river and its well-being (O’Donnell & Talbot-Jones, 2018). Though this act was the first formal integration of Maori iwi beliefs into policy, it is ambiguous as to whether or not its implementation has led to a wider acceptance to this type of legal scheme and actually increased managerial agency and capacity of the Maori iwi over the Whanganui River (Charpleix, 2018).
Mount Taranaki and Personhood
.JPG)
Mount Taranaki resides on the western coast of the north island of New Zealand in Egmont National Park. The dormant volcano also functions as the second tallest mountain in the country and is a popular tourist location. To the surrounding Indigenous groups, however, Taranaki is viewed as an ancestor who holds a sacred lifeforce (Studly, 2018). Because of this, it was a location which commonly supported a variety of ceremonies and rituals (Studly, 2018).
On December 20th of 2017, a record of understanding regarding the personhood of Mt. Taranaki between the government of New Zealand and 8 Maori tribes was enacted (Studly, 2018). Since its implementation, the harvesting of different flora and fauna in the area has been restricted to particular areas and seasons. This can only be done when necessary, such as the case of if they are needed for particular rituals or ceremonies (Studly, 2018).
History and Arrangements
The Maori peoples first settled Aotearoa in the thirteenth century, descending from Polynesian voyagers. They established tikanga, or the laws, ethics and social norms based on cultural values and beliefs (Charpleix, 2018). These tikanga are very diverse due to the diversity of Maori origins across the Polynesian islands, but one universal theme is the unity between humanity in nature.
.jpg)
In 1840, the British colonized Aotearoa and established New Zealand. They enacted the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi between Maori Chiefs and British colonial officials to outline the future governance of Aotearoa/New Zealand. It gave Maori all rights of the British citizens and granted Chiefs and Tribes full exclusive rights over their lands, forests, and fisheries with the ability to sell only to the Crown (Magallanes, 2015). This concept has been discussed in Maori forums and found frustrating due to ideologies around kinship that contradict any right of ownership (Salmond, 2018).
Two versions of the Treaty were created: one in English and one in Maori. The British saw the Treaty as an act of Maori cession to the Crown. But Maori saw it as just an agreement granting some authority subject to Maori sovereignty, believing that tikanga would still be respected and used to inform British actions and laws (Charpleix, 2018). Many British legal terms were mistranslated in the Maori version, making the description of rights and obligations very different between the two. It is speculated that these mistranslations were deliberate, to mislead Maori into believing they have more rights than the British version granted them, so that the Maori Chiefs would sign the Treaty. Because the British version is the one used by New Zealand’s federal legislation and judicial system, the Maori peoples are legally given fewer rights than they agreed to.
Mount Taranaki and the region surrounding it were designated as a Forest Reserve in 1881, protecting the landscape from resource extraction and development (Taranaki Mounga Project, 2016). The Reserve was expanded and became New Zealand’s second national park under the name Egmont National Park. The name Mount Egmont was used in place of the Maori given name, Taranaki Maunga, and was given by settlers. This name dispute has been a point of contention for centuries, with the name Mount Egmont only being removed recently in 2020.
In 1975, a group called the Waitangi Tribunal was established to advocate for Maori rights and incorporate traditional and local cosmologies into New Zealand law (Magallanes, 2015). The Tribunal functioned to report breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi, with the ability to report issues going as far back as 1840 when the Treaty was signed. Violations of Maori cosmology can be considered violations of the Treaty, so the Tribunal documents these violations using supporting evidence of Maori traditions and ancestral relationships with nature and resources within their territories. These reports do not address financial reparations for violations, but they provide recommendations for ways to restore the relationship between Maori iwi and the resources in question, making this Tribunal the leading political advocate for Maori rights and culture.
This new advocacy for integrating Maori values into law led to decades of discussions on landscape personhood. Finally on March 20, 2017, the Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act was signed into place, beginning a new wave of holistic environmental policies. The Act declared that the Whanganui River would have legal personhood, giving local iwi the right to sue as a representative of the River when its rights were being infringed upon by corporations, individuals, or the government (Charpleix, 2018). It was one of the first times legislations from the New Zealand government formally recognized Maori beliefs in management policy, and it set a precedent that led to the personhood of Mount Taranaki.
On December 20, 2017, A Record of Understanding (Te Anga Putakerongo) between Taranaki iwi and the Crown was signed into place to grant Mount Taranaki legal personhood within the same calendar year of the Whanganui (Studley, 2018). In this, the New Zealand government states that it is committed to continue negotiations in order to reach agreement on various land management issues. It provides a redress deed in respect to the cultural and historical claims relating to the Mountains and acknowledges the Crown’s actions relating to the Treaty of Waitangi, and issues an apology. It also established a joint governance to act as the human face of the land, with half being appointed by Taranaki iwi and half appointed by the Crown.
Because the Mountain is still legally a protected park, the government is committed to protecting and preserving the natural environment and its historical, spiritual, and cultural relationships with the people under the National Parks Act of 1980 (Record of understanding for Mount Taranaki, pouakai and the kaitake Ranges, 2017).
While Park designation and the Record of Understanding are big steps towards the protection of the landscape, local ecosystems, and Maori sacred natural sites, it lacks a firm set of administrative arrangements. It lays out the framework for the half Crown-appointed, half Maori-appointed governing body that can sue in the name of the landscape, however further federal policies and designations from international conservation groups like the IUCN could help further protect and establish the administration for the area.
Stakeholders
Affected Social Actors
The Maori peoples, or Indigenous peoples of new Zealand are an amalgamation of 40 distinct Iwi or subgroups (Ruru, 2018). Because of their proximity and spiritual connection to Mount Taranaki, in the context of this report they are the only group which qualifies as ‘affected’. As mentioned earlier in the 'cosmology' section, one of the most prominent differences between the Maori peoples and those of the west is their fundamental belief of nature as kin rather than potential capital (Magallanes, 2018). This strongly held belief system has led to the formulation of 3 overarching goals regarding legal action: acknowledgment of ancestral territory and cultural value of particular natural features, primary managerial rights over such recognized territory and features, and an increase in overarching legislative power which can mitigate the negative effects of colonialism and capitalism which have been inflicted on their culture and the land.
Interested Social Actors
As there are and has been no involvement from international or local NGOs, the only interested stakeholder group involved in this situation is the New Zealand government. As with many countries and jurisdictions functioning within a western capitalist society, much of the ethics surrounding land use was oriented towards resource extraction and utilization (Magallanes, 2018). Because of this their primary objective is to keep legislation regarding land rights and management status quo.
Assessment of Relative Power For Each Stakeholder Group
Historically, there have been major discrepancies between statements the government has made and actual action and implementation of those laws and statements. As discussed earlier in this wiki, upon the landing of British colonizers it was recognized and established in the Treaty of Waitangi that Maori had exclusive ownership and managerial rights over their land (Salmon, 2018). However, as what was deemed ‘Maori land’ was defined by colonizers, New Zealand became under the primary and sole custody of the British (Salmon, 2018). This disregard of the written agreement over land ownership and management stated within the Treaty of Waitangi led to nearly 160 years of dispute and public outrage from Maori groups as documented in public forums (Charpleix, 2018; Salmon, 2018). Finally in 1999 Claim 167, marked the first legal recognition of Maori ownership over the Whanganui river (Salmon, 2018).
The amount of time it took to get to that legal recognition as well as the framework of land or management rights having to be ‘granted’ by the Crown is just one example of the great disparity in power between the New Zealand Government and Maori peoples. However the New Zealand Government is making steps to reconcile with Maori groups and in 2010 announced its support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) (United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2021). Generally the fundamental pillars and goals of UNDRIP include human rights, action to combat racism and inequality, and particularly rights regarding land and territory among others (United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2021). Their support was subsequently followed by the publication of a specific declaration plan in 2019 that will be carried out by the New Zealand government within a designated period (which was not stated) (United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2021). These actions included
- "contribute to enhancing the self-determination of Māori as the indigenous peoples of Aotearoa / New Zealand
- contribute to improving intergenerational Māori wellbeing
- demonstrate ambitious actions as opposed to business as usual" (United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2021)
Though none of these items specifically mention reallocation or reassessment of land ownership, the signing of UNDRIP complied with the recent uptick in political pressure to address reconciliation and has shifted some of the power to Maori peoples.
Assessment and Discussion
Conferring legal personhood onto natural areas in New Zealand, through the 2014 Te Urewera Act, the 2017 Te Awa Tupua Act, and the 2019 Record of Understanding for Mount Taranaki, Pouakai and the Kaitake Ranges was intended to “recognize, reclaim, and facilitate the resurgence of Māori culture” (Rogers, 2017), while strengthening the relationship between the Maori and the Crown. Rogers’ findings show the intent of the acts, but it’s important to remember intents don’t always match what happens in practice (Klassen & Melser, 2020).
The decisions from the government of New Zealand for Te Urewera, Te Awa Tupua, and Taranaki are a major steppingstone for Maori people across New Zealand, as it has improved legal prospects for the protection of natural features of cultural importance to the Maori peoples in a couple of important ways. The Crown has accepted, in theory, the Maori Cosmological Narrative (Knauß, 2018). Due to the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal. The tribunal supports reports using evidence of Maori traditional and ancestral relationship with nature and resources within their territories (Magallanes, 2015). Due to that, violations of Maori cosmology can be considered violations of the Treaty of Waitangi (a founding document of New Zealand sovereignty) (Magallanes, 2015).
These Acts also set precedent for the crown to accept a “plurality of reasoning”, by combining both Western-Scientific and cultural/religious (of the indigenous Maori) knowledge, in conferring legal personhood (Knauß, 2018). With this precedent, Indigenous groups can now argue for the use of Traditional Maori Law as legal backing in future legal proceedings, and in the development of new laws (Knauß, 2018). However, this doesn’t grant free rein in using Maori law within the New Zealand Judicial system. All new cases must still either be ruled on by a judge or decreed by the government, both of which are still based upon the colonial framework within their legal system (O’Donnell, Talbot-Jones, 2018). The concept of legal personhood has other shortcomings associated with it.
Although Taranaki is now a person in the eyes of the law, it has some inherent limitations, a large one being that Taranaki does not possess the entire bundle of rights that a New Zealand Citizen does. Of these missing rights, some of the most notable happen to be some of the most important rights for conservation purposes. For example, per the record of understanding, exclusion rights have not been granted, as the government has informed the public that access to Taranaki will not change. In a similar vein, management rights have not left the control of the government as they had the authority in determining exclusion rights. Had this right been conferred it seemed logical that the designated protectors of Taranaki would’ve decided. These cases bring attention to the disconnect between the belief/value systems of the Maori peoples and the Crown. Maori peoples view humans as a part of and connected to, nature in a very fundamental way (Magallanes, 2015). While the views of the crown are of a far more western perspective, which is traditionally more anthropogenic (Magallanes, 2015). These cases of granting personhood to natural features, follow the western ideology of granting humans the rights to dominate and use nature, instead of the Maori perspective views their relationship to these places as an obligation to the community, as these places are a part of their communities (Magallanes, 2015). Because of this settlement has been seen to be the dominant legal system attempting to incorporate Maori ideals, instead of vice versa (Charpleix, 2018). This line of thinking extends past the specific case of Taranaki, most examples of legal personhood to important indigenous locations and features have many of the same conceptual weaknesses. Provide some examples and references.
In practice, the implementation of personhood for Taranaki has also seen some issues, in part due to the century of private ownership around it, and partly due to the differences between Maori and the Crown’s ideological perspectives. According to the Record of Understanding that created personhood for Taranaki, although the river owns itself [which river?], areas that were privately owned prior to the ruling will maintain their ownership. The Record of understanding also outlines that redress will be available with respect to cultural and historical claims but will not include any financial or commercial redress. Outside of a public apology, the decision to grant Taranaki does little to address previous breaches of the treaty of Waitangi. Its biggest reconciliatory function is implementing a system to prevent future breaches and build a better relationship between Maori Peoples and the Crown.
The record of understanding that conferred legal personhood onto Taranaki is less protective than the ‘Te Awa Tupua Act’ that conferred legal personhood onto the Whanganui River. This is supported by analyzing the systems that granted each their personhood. Te Awa Tupua, which granted the Whanganui River its rights is an act from the legislative assembly of New Zealand. Taranaki’s legal personhood was established with a ‘Record of Understanding’, not backed by the power of an ‘Act’, making far more vulnerable to reversal should a government, current or future, have a change of heart (O’Donnell & Talbot-Jones, 2018). Additionally, Te Awa Tupua went further in providing a broader context to the acceptance of Maori cultural values. For example, Te Awa Tupua states four intrinsic values;
1. The river is a source of spiritual and physical sustenance
2. The great river flows from the mountains to the sea
3. I am the river and the river is me
4. the small and the large streams that flow into one another and form one river
The lack of broader context, and acceptance of Maori ideology in the documentation conferring personhood onto Taranaki, can be seen as hesitancy from the Crown to more broadly accept shared jurisdiction with Maori Peoples.
The establishment of Taranaki, and its predecessors (Te Urewera, and Te Awa Tupua), as legal persons have created opportunities for broader legal protections. Some have argued that the Anthropocene has helped to secure legal protections for ‘big name’ locations or features (Knauß, 2018). Cases such as Taranaki, from both domestically (New Zealand), and abroad have set a precedent that courts do not need meta-physical attributes to confer legal personhood (Knauß, 2018). This presents opportunities for indigenous groups to pursue legal protections for things not as distinct, to outside or western perspectives, like a mountain, or a river. In New Zealand, this can have specific applications for Sacred Natural Sites (SNS). These Sites are of immense importance to the local Iwi’s and can be harder to get protections because they lack perceived value for outsiders, like the crown. (Studley, 2018) Decisions like Te Urewera, Te Awa Tupua, and Taranaki who have provided the legal context that metaphysical attributes are not required for legal protection, have also increased the potential for broader protections for less visible sites such as SNS (Studley, 2018).
The Waitangi Tribunal has been widely credited for providing a basis for legal personhood in New Zealand, including the case of Taranaki (Charpleix, 2015). Resulting personhood designations have allowed for reconciliation for breaches caused by the writing and existence of the Waitangi Treaty (Charpleix, 2018). This has set the precedent that the Treaty of Waitangi is flawed and that new legislation or can create new relationships between Maori Law and Western-New Zealand Law. (O’Donnell & Talbot-Jones, 2018)
Irrespective of their shortcomings, cases for legal personhood in New Zealand have provided experience upon which to improve future decisions for all parties (Charpleix, 2018). As has begun with the current examples of legal personhood, it has been widely supported to use the experience gained to better foster bottom-up collaboration with local communities (Armitage, 2010; Charpleix, 2018).
It is difficult to judge if this is the best solution to the issues surrounding conservation, and the historic, systemic exclusion of indigenous peoples in New Zealand and abroad. The reality is it’s unlikely that one system of governance solves all the issues. What is clear is that the steps taken in the decisions surrounding all three cases of personhood in New Zealand provide a strong starting point, and the ability to improve as they progress.
Recommendations
In the case of New Zealand, significant gains have been made over the last decade. Since 2014, New Zealand has been conferring personhood onto natural features roughly once every 2 years (Te Urewera in 2014, Te Awa Tupua in 2017, and Taranaki in 2019). These three cases have spurred a movement, not only in New Zealand but around the world (O’Donnell & Talbot-Jones, 2018). These acts have been ground-breaking in some senses. They’ve set precedent for using Māori law and culture as a legal basis, allowed for a combination of Māori and New Zealand laws to be used in New Zealand Court, and clarified that physical attributes are not needed to similarly confer these rights in the future (Knauß, 2018). However, with these being some of the earliest cases in the world of creating legal entities which theoretically own themselves, there have been some issues. There are fundamental differences between Māori and western/New Zealand culture, which have led to unbalanced compromises. The staging of these acts attempt to fit Māori rules into New Zealand rules. To some this has been a win, for others, it brings the question of why it should happen that way, and not the other.
For future acts or records of understandings, some things have space to be improved. While to the New Zealand government, a feature self-ownership seems like a strong way to ensure protection, the idea of ownership, in this manner, does not align itself with traditional Māori belief systems of stewardship. By aligning the defining attribute of the act with a western ideal, it also diminishes the legitimacy of the Māori perspective in that instance. Future legislation could also seek to reduce the rigidity of the management to certain local Iwis as others may be affected as well.
As a whole, Taranaki joins a grouping of two other self-owning entities, that are providing a strong basis for stronger relationships with the indigenous Māori peoples, and strengthened conservation mechanisms through legal protections.
References
Armitage, D. (2010). Adaptive capacity and environmental governance (1203620939 898031443 R. Plummer, Ed.). Springer-Verlag Berlin An.
Cano Pecharroman, L. (2018). Rights of nature: rivers that can stand in court. Resources, 7(1),13. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources7010013
Charpleix, L. (2018). The whanganui river as te awa tupua: place‐based law in a legally pluralistic society. The Geographical Journal, 184(1), 19-30.https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12238
History and consequences of conferring legal personhood on the whanganui river in New Zealand. (2017). Retrieved from https://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:CONS370/2019/History_and_consequences_of_conferring_legal_personhood_on_the_Whanganui_River_in_New_Zealand
Knauß, S. (2018). Conceptualizing human stewardship in the anthropocene: The rights of nature in Ecuador, New Zealand and India. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 31(6), 703–722. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-018-9731-x
Catherine J. Iorns Magallanes. (2015). Maori cultural rights in aotearoa New Zealand: protecting the cosmology that protects the environment. Widener Law Review, 21(2), 273.
O’Donnell, E. L., & Talbot-Jones, J. (2018). Creating legal rights for rivers: lessons from australia, New Zealand, and india. Ecology and Society, 23(1). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09854-230107
Record of understanding for mount taranaki, pouakai and the kaitake ranges, (2017). Retrieved from https://www.govt.nz/assets/Documents/OTS/Taranaki-Maunga/Taranaki-MaungaTe-Anga-Putakerongo-Record-of-Understanding-20-December-2017.pdf
Rodgers, C. (2017). A new approach to protecting ecosystems: the te awa tupua (whanganui river claims settlement) act 2017. Environmental Law Review, 19(4), 266–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461452917744909
Ruru, J. (2018). Listening to papatūānuku: a call to reform water law. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 48(2–3), 215–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/03036758.2018.1442358
Salmond, D. A. (2018, July 11). Rivers as ancestors and other realities: governance of waterways in aotearoa/New Zealand. responsibility. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429467622-13
Studley, J. (2018). Indigenous sacred natural sites and spiritual governance: the legal case for juristic personhood (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429455797
Taranaki Mounga Project. (2016). History. Retrieved from https://taranakimounga.nz/the-project/about-taranaki-mounga/history/
Te Aho, L. (2018). Te mana o te wai: an indigenous perspective on rivers and river management. River Research and Applications, (April), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.3365
Te AWA TUPUA (WHANGANUI RIVER Claims settlement) Act 2017. (2017, March 20). Retrieved April 14, 2021, from https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2017/0007/latest/whole.html
Te Urewera Act 2014. (2014, July 27). Retrieved April 14, 2021, from https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2014/0051/latest/whole.html
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. (2021). Retrieved from https://www.tpk.govt.nz/en/whakamahia/un-declaration-on-the-rights-of-indigenous-peoples