Disaster? No surprise

ABSTRACT

I argue environmental disasters are an inevitable outcome of the underdevelopment of Western philosophy. Human induced environmental disasters are unfortunate, an unintended consequence of focusing on economic maximization in a culture without comprehensive, clearly accepted, and operationalized frameworks for environmental and intergenerational justice. However, they are of no surprise to Indigenous Peoples relegated to margins of political influence. Grounding this claim, I examine the New Zealand High Court case Greenpeace and Te Whanau-ā-Apanui vs the Minister for Energy. Case documents afford comparisons between the complex philosophic, legal, and cultural framework of Māori, that protect human and nonhuman from human-induced environmental disaster, and the dominant Anglo framings. I observe a philosophical deficit underpinning the legal and political system of Aotearoa that impedes environmental intergenerational justice. These philosophic foundations, intentionally or not, promote environmental disaster and – nationally and internationally – claim a dominant position over Indigenous systems.

KEYWORDS:

• Disasters
• liberalism
• Maori
• multispecies justice
• intergenerational environmental justice

Acknowledgments

My sincere thanks to Susan Park for encouraging me to write this and for her insightful review of multiple drafts. The case study research was undertaken as part of my PhD thesis: thanks are due David Schlosberg for hours of discussion, critique and encouragement. Thanks, too, to three anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful suggestions and positive reception of this endeavor.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. I am a New Zealander of Anglo-Celtic-Ngāti Kahungunu descent, and a settler in Australia living and working on the unceded lands of the Gadigal People of the Eora Nation.

2. In accordance with decolonial practice Māori words will not be italicised. Wherever they are first used they will be contextually or parenthetically defined or explained.

3. See for instance the Resource Management Act (1991) and the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011.

4. The source materials are affidavits and documents accompanying testimonies in CIV-2011-485-1897 [2012] NZHC 1422, Greenpeace of New Zealand Incorporated and Te Runanga o Te Whanau-a-Apanui vs. The Minister for Energy and Resource and Petrobas International Braspetro BV heard in 2011–2012.

5. Petrobas International Braspetro BV is a subsidiary of Petrobas a Brazilian energy company. On 1 June 2010 Petrobas and the New Zealand government formalized an agreement that granted Petrobas 100% of rights to Block 2. In return Petrobas agreed to undertake a minimum work program, including two stages of seismic testing followed by the drilling of one exploratory well. On 5 December 2012, Petrobas announced it was withdrawing from New Zealand and handed back its license a move prompted by their global financial losses (New Zealand Herald 2012).

6. This flotilla may be seen as a continuation of an earlier campaign of beach protests on 27 June 2010 which were followed by a series of bonfire protests on the beaches of the East Cape.

7. Mana moana comes with a set of reciprocal obligations and responsibilities to maintain and care for the territory and to pass it on to the next generation in a better condition. This is the heart of the obligations of kaitiakitanga.

8. Whakaari/White Island was the site of a violent eruption in December 2019, a disaster which killed 21 tourists and injured and maimed 26 more while they were exploring its crater – part of a steady stream of visitors taken to the island daily.

9. I have not engaged with the procedures undertaken by the Department of Environment. While they too may make an interesting case-study, Te Whanau-a-Apanui did not take that department to court and I have restricted my examination to this particular legal battle.

10. Which I will refer to as ‘the government’ or ‘the Crown’.

11. Taonga: treasures, valuable possessions, property, goods.

12. Much of the following section is drawn from my PhD thesis – Winter (2018).

13. See Jeremy Bendik-Keymer for an examination of the relational dimensions of morality. Applying his account of evil to this Māori worldview would then mean an ‘unacceptable rending of human relationships’ to all things, ‘forests and oceans, fish and fowl, the rivers and the soil and between people and the elements’ (in Mason Durie’s words). That is, if evil results from destruction of the intrinsically valuable, it results from the pointless, or unjustifiable destruction of any part of the natural world (Bendik-Keymer 2013).