Skip to main content

Farm planning for Māori land

Start with what the whenua is for​

A farm plan on Māori land should not begin as a compliance document with Māori considerations added later. Start with the whenua, the people connected to it and what they want the land to sustain over time.

For some whānau, trusts or incorporations, commercial production will be a major part of that kaupapa. It may sit alongside papakāinga, mahinga kai, cultural sites, ngahere, waterways, biodiversity, access, employment, education and obligations to uri whakaheke.

The plan should help people make those relationships and choices visible. Council and national requirements are important constraints and obligations, but they are not the reason the whenua exists.

Questions to settle first​

Before building a farm map or action register, ask:

  • What are the aspirations for the whenua over the next ten, twenty and fifty years?
  • What relationships with wai, whenua and taiao must the plan protect or restore?
  • What places or kōrero should not appear in a general farm-management layer?
  • What productive uses are important and what trade-offs do they create?
  • What responsibilities sit with trustees, shareholders, whānau, farm managers or kaitiaki?
  • What decisions need collective mandate rather than day-to-day management authority?
  • What capability and knowledge should remain for the next generation?

A good plan can then connect those questions to practical actions, budgets and monitoring.

A simple structure​

A practical plan can use six parts:

  1. Kaupapa and long-term aspirations
  2. Whenua and wai map pack
  3. Pressures, opportunities and obligations
  4. Actions, responsibilities and timing
  5. Monitoring, mātauranga and other evidence
  6. Records, review and succession

This structure can also accommodate regulatory farm-plan requirements without letting the regulatory template become the whole plan.

Build the map pack around the whenua​

Useful layers may include:

  • the management boundary and relevant legal land context
  • awa, puna, drains, wetlands and catchments
  • slope, aspect, soils and land-use capability
  • vegetation, indigenous cover and restoration areas
  • paddocks or productive management units
  • infrastructure such as tracks, culverts, fences, sheds, water takes and troughs
  • marae, papakāinga or other relevant facilities where appropriate
  • sensitive places such as wāhi tapu, urupā or taonga species areas in a separate controlled layer if they need to be mapped at all

A cadastral or farm boundary is a useful management geometry. It should not be mistaken for the full meaning of the whenua.

Iwi and hapū plans belong near the beginning​

Iwi and hapū environmental or management plans can provide an important foundation for decisions about wai, biodiversity, cultural landscapes, resource use and relationships with councils.

Examples include:

Use material that is relevant to the whenua and mandate involved. Do not copy restricted cultural information into a public-facing farm plan merely because it appears in an internal planning document.

Pressures and opportunities​

A conventional farm plan often starts with risks. That is useful for some decisions, but it can narrow the view.

Map both pressures and opportunities, for example:

  • erosion-prone slopes and places where vegetation could be restored
  • stock access to waterways and opportunities for fencing or alternative watering
  • sediment pathways and places where wetland or riparian work could help
  • nutrient loss pathways and management options
  • water takes, drought pressure and water-storage options
  • habitat and taonga species areas where appropriate
  • access constraints and track improvements
  • land suitable for papakāinga, forestry, horticulture or other agreed uses
  • places where current land use conflicts with longer-term aspirations

The map should support choices rather than simply list everything a regulator might inspect.

Freshwater and Te Mana o te Wai​

Freshwater farm-plan requirements are part of the current regulatory setting and should be checked against current official guidance.

Useful sources include:

Treat these as statutory and policy requirements the plan must interface with. They do not replace local tikanga, iwi or hapū direction, or the relationships people already hold with wai.

Resource-management change​

The resource-management system changes over time. Keep the compliance part of the plan modular so legislation or council rules can be updated without rewriting the kaupapa and long-term direction of the whenua.

Current official sources should be checked when decisions are being made, including MfE, MPI, councils and New Zealand Legislation.

Actions that are useful beyond compliance​

For each pressure, opportunity or obligation, record only what will help people act:

  • location or management area
  • why it matters to the kaupapa
  • action
  • responsible role or group
  • timing
  • resources required
  • evidence or monitoring method
  • status

Where an action requires a governance decision, distinguish that from a farm-manager task.

Monitoring should include more than audit evidence​

Photos, measurements and inspection records are useful. So are observations held by people who know the whenua over time.

Depending on the kaupapa, monitoring may include:

  • water-quality measurements
  • vegetation or habitat change
  • mahinga kai observations
  • erosion or sediment photographs
  • farm production indicators
  • whānau access and use
  • cultural or ecological indicators defined locally

Do not force mātauranga into a numeric field simply to make the plan look measurable. Record it in the form appropriate to the knowledge and authority involved.

Regulatory evidence​

Councils and national agencies may require evidence about stock exclusion, nutrient loss, wintering, water takes, wetlands, critical source areas or other matters.

Meet those requirements clearly, but keep a distinction between:

  • evidence required by the regulator
  • information needed to manage the farm
  • information needed by trustees or shareholders
  • Māori-held knowledge used for the wider kaupapa

They may overlap, but they do not have to be stored or published in the same layer.

Use public data carefully​

Useful technical sources include:

  • LINZ Data Service for imagery, elevation and national spatial layers
  • council environmental and planning data
  • soils and land-use capability datasets
  • catchment and freshwater monitoring information

Public layers can provide useful context. They do not replace field knowledge, iwi or hapū plans, or the experience of people who know how the whenua behaves through different seasons.

Review as a living plan​

Review the plan when:

  • governance or farm-management roles change
  • the whenua use changes
  • new whānau aspirations are agreed
  • monitoring shows a different problem or opportunity
  • a major weather event changes the land
  • legislation or council rules change
  • an important map or dataset becomes outdated

A plan that survives only while one consultant or farm manager remembers how it works is not a sustainable plan.

A practical final test​

If most of the document is organised around what the council wants and the Māori context fits into one separate section, the frame is still backwards.

The plan should first make sense to the people responsible for the whenua. It should then be able to demonstrate, clearly and efficiently, how relevant external requirements are being met.

Connect the farm map to wider whenua and taiao context​

A farm-plan GIS can become more useful when it connects paddock-scale observations to Taiao data, awa and catchment mapping and Field GIS. That keeps the map useful for restoration, monitoring and whenua decisions rather than only compliance reporting.

Last updated on