Mauri is a word that has been bandied around a lot lately when dealing with what we are doing to our backyard here in the Bay that has plenty - none more so than the mauri of our harbour, our waterways and the whenua we live on and the effects dredging and agrichemicals are having on them.
The mauri argument has almost overshadowed the more important environmental issues than what tribe is right and wrong when it comes to what is culturally and environmentally accepted as best practice.
The long-term effects of agrichemicals can and should be measured inside the harbour as they are on the outside and if the same best practice can be applied by monitoring and then removing copper-based chemicals our generation and more importantly future generations will benefit big time.
The primary concerns for the removal of copper is that it does not break down, it is toxic to fish and aquatic species and overexposure can cause what is known as Wilson's disease (brain damage, aneurysms, memory loss, demyelination, liver damage and renal diseases causing failure of eyesight).
The same can be scientifically said about the effects of copper on the land and here is the rub for me when it comes to protecting the mauri of all Maori and non-Maori reefs, harbours and waterways, including our whenua. If protecting the mauri is paramount then surely protecting the mauri of the whenua and the inner harbour from dredging and "paru" (poisons) is equally paramount to protecting the outer harbour.
If the principal concern is copper and its effects on the mauri then let's be consistent with these concerns.
At the same time Rena ran aground on the outside of the Tauranga Harbour, on the inside the saturation of kiwifruit orchards affected by Psa with copper sprays was happening, right under the radar of those who had deep concerns for the mauri of the reef.
The argument of mauri is well founded in 1000 years of kaitiakitanga, or the guardianship of the environment of Aotearoa New Zealand, and I fully support and understand its importance to Maori as it is to many environmentally aware caretakers of our planet.
But can mauri or, in fact, tikanga (cultural practices) be cut and pasted to suit the cause?
Kiwifruit orchards apply on average 2.5kg of pure copper for every hectare of orchard they spray for Psa and at up to 20 times per year the amount of "kino" copper is in the hundreds of tonnes entering our watertable, our waterways and our harbour.
When the reality hits home of this environmental disaster (copper sprays have a shelf life of some 65 years, meaning they will still have half the toxicity then as they do today) memories of Rena will be long gone.
The Kiwifruit Journal published in October 2011 at the same time the Rena hit the reef and the ABs hit the headlines for winning the World Cup says: "Copper residues from sprays will remain indefinitely and will continue to influence the health of the soil. Too many copper sprays will result in the chemical Cu (copper) making its way into water systems and waterways".
What will our response be in four years' time, or in 40, when our kids inherit a disaster we could and should be standing up and addressing right now if we truly are kaitiaki of the environment.
Who will stand up in court and argue about the mauri of our moana and whenua then?
-broblack@xtra.co.nz
Tommy Wilson is a best selling author and writer.
