"Ma mua ka kite a muri"- "Those who lead give SIGHT to those who follow"
"Ma muri ka ora a mua" - "And those who follow give LIFE to those who lead".
This highlights the reciprocal relationship between leaders and followers, with leaders providing vision and guidance into the unknown, and followers helping to keep the mauri of the kaupapa alive.
Regardless of the position or title that we hold we are part of a collective, each with our own role, and we need everyone to keep the kaupapa alive.
"We were stoked to present our results at the conference. Our core argument is that while eDNA technology provides valuable data about what species are currently present, Mātauranga-a-Ngai-Tai offers the essential context about what should be there and what has been lost over time.
We presented a case study from back home at Tōrere, for instance, eDNA confirmed what oral histories already told us – that treasured species like kākahi and giant kōkopu were absent from the river.
Our central message is clear: eDNA doesn't replace traditional knowledge; instead, it strengthens it, allowing for a more holistic and culturally grounded approach to restoring mahinga kai."
They are pictured here with Ian Ruru Alternate Director Te Wai Maori Trust and Te Wai Maori Trust Chairman, Rawiri Faulkner.
Mauri Compass AI pioneers a first for Aotearoa: integrating Tikanga Māori with AI-enhanced drone technology and VIRTUAL REALITY DRONE 360 for rapid habitat assessments. Led by Ngai Tai kaitiaki in Torere, this innovative solution revolutionizes ecological monitoring, deepening our understanding of mauri, and fostering stronger conservation connections.
'Have a tutu' with the live demo: AI Habitat Assessment Demo.
The monitoring programme focuses on two key sites within the Tōrere River system, selected to provide comprehensive coverage of the catchment from the ngahere (forest) to the moana (sea).
Aerial view showing the two primary monitoring sites within the Tōrere River catchment
Located at the coastal interface where the Tōrere River meets the moana, this site represents the final destination of all catchment influences. Torere Pūahatanga is critical for monitoring the cumulative effects of upstream activities and serves as a key habitat for diadromous fish species including inanga and tuna. This site provides insights into the overall health of the entire catchment system and the effectiveness of restoration efforts throughout the awa.
Situated within the forested upper catchment, this site represents the more pristine conditions of the Tōrere River system. Located in the ngahere, this monitoring location provides baseline data for natural ecosystem function and serves as a reference point for restoration goals throughout the catchment. The site offers insights into the mauri of the awa in its more natural state, supporting both cultural and scientific understanding of healthy freshwater ecosystems.
Our monitoring work involves hands-on field activities that combine traditional knowledge with modern scientific methods. The following video showcases our team conducting monitoring activities at the Tōrere River sites:
Our monitoring team conducting field work at Tōrere River monitoring sites
Comprehensive eDNA analysis showing species diversity across both monitoring sites
The eDNA analysis revealed remarkable biodiversity across both monitoring sites, with distinct species compositions reflecting the different ecological conditions from ngahere to moana. This comprehensive species identification demonstrates the value of combining traditional knowledge with modern molecular techniques to understand ecosystem health.
- Shortfin tuna (eels)
- Longfin tuna (eels)
- Redfin bully
- Bluegill bully
- Torrentfish
- Inanga
- Kahawai
- Common bully
- Cattle
- Norway rat
- Common brushtail possum
- Red deer
- Rainbow trout
- Capra hircus goat
- Australian longfin tuna
Environmental changes in water flows, biodiversity patterns, and soil health are recognized through tohu - natural indicators that are carefully interpreted by our knowledge holders.
This traditional observation system provides crucial insights that complement scientific monitoring approaches. Our knowledge holders read subtle changes in plant phenology, animal behavior patterns, and seasonal variations that indicate broader ecosystem shifts.
The ability to observe and respond appropriately to these environmental shifts represents a cornerstone of our cultural resilience, maintaining the vital connection between people and place that has sustained us for generations.
How this global framework applies to small coastal Māori communities in New Zealand.
Background on the UAE Framework for Global Climate Resilience and the two-year work programme
How 78 technical experts refined and developed the indicators through collaborative review
Comprehensive overview of the 100 globally applicable indicators across all targets.
Assessment of methodologies, data availability, and disaggregation capabilities.
Key insights and recommendations for implementation and future development.
This report represents the culmination of extensive collaborative work by international experts to create a robust foundation for measuring climate adaptation progress globally.
For us, adapting global indicators means embedding them within our worldview. We can’t just import them wholesale. It's about taking these frameworks and making them relevant to our tikanga and our whakapapa to land and sea.
Mātauranga Māori, our traditional knowledge, is paramount. It offers crucial insights for climate adaptation measurement, often providing solutions that Western science is only beginning to understand. Our tupuna observed environmental shifts for generations; that knowledge is invaluable for today’s challenges.
Our communities are inherently vulnerable. Sea level rise and coastal erosion threaten our homes, our urupā , and sacred cultural sites. These aren't just physical losses; they are deeply spiritual and cultural losses that impact our identity.
The Mauri Compass framework offers opportunities for hapu / iwi to lead. By aligning global indicators with our local needs and practices, we can drive adaptation efforts that are culturally appropriate and highly effective.
Applying global indicators to our small, isolated communities presents a scale challenge. What works for a nation might not directly apply to a hapū of a few hundred people. We need flexibility and a nuanced understanding of local realities.
Protecting our cultural heritage and integrating traditional knowledge isn't an add-on; it's fundamental. Our adaptation strategies must weave together modern science with ancient wisdom, safeguarding our past for future generations.
Practically, this framework can help us prioritise actions, secure funding, and demonstrate the impact of our efforts. It provides a common language for reporting while allowing for local methodologies to gather data that truly matters to us.
Finally, the intersection of Indigenous rights and climate adaptation measurement is critical. Our rights to self-determination and to protect our cultural landscapes must be at the forefront of any framework that seeks to measure climate progress.
It's about ensuring these global conversations genuinely serve and uplift those most directly impacted, allowing our voices and unique knowledge systems to shape the solutions for a resilient future.
The 78 experts were strategically allocated across eight expert groups - one for each thematic target and one for the adaptation cycle targets. Following guidance from CMA.6 in Baku, experts could participate in multiple groups to enhance cross-collaboration.
Expert groups convened and began systematic review of 9,529 compiled indicators
Hybrid workshop in Bonn facilitated peer review and collective assessment
Final expert meeting in Nairobi refined indicators to 100 globally applicable measures
Experts invested substantial amounts of time beyond their regular responsibilities. Many participated across multiple time zones, with some attending climate negotiations in Baku and daily meetings in Bonn.
- Rationale and Relevance: Global applicability and adaptation significance
- Cross-Target Connections: Indicators relevant to multiple targets
- Metadata Status: Availability of methodologies and data sources
- Data Availability: Current status and accessibility of required data
- Measurement Units: Specific units or qualitative descriptors
- Means of Implementation: Access, quality, and finance considerations
- Operationalisation: Steps needed for Party reporting
The indicators connect climate impacts, risk context, adaptation actions, and measurable results through a logical framework that supports comprehensive monitoring and evaluation.
Impact, vulnerability, and risk evaluation
National adaptation strategies and policies
Action delivery and means of implementation
Evaluation and learning systems
Many indicators can be disaggregated across multiple dimensions, including social, livelihood, ecosystem, and geographic categories, enabling nuanced analysis of adaptation progress.
The water-related indicators address the reality that most climate-related disasters are water-related, and most adaptation measures involve water in some form.
Indicators measuring reduction in water stress and improved access to safe, affordable potable water
Resilience measures for floods, droughts, and emerging hazards like glacial lake outburst floods
Water supply and sanitation systems designed to withstand climate impacts
These indicators draw from established global frameworks including the SDGs and Sendai Framework, whilst incorporating modifications to ensure relevance to climate resilience goals.
The health indicators address three critical dimensions of climate-health adaptation:
Monitoring progress in reducing climate-related morbidity and mortality from heat, infectious diseases, and occupational injuries
Tracking coverage of essential health services and mental health support for climate-sensitive events
Measuring early warning systems, vulnerability assessments, and health workforce capacity building
These indicators enable monitoring of both climate-related health risks and the effectiveness of adaptation measures, with emphasis on social and geographic disaggregation.
The seven infrastructure indicators focus on essential services and adaptive planning that reduces climate risks and impacts on communities, acknowledging both formal and informal settlement needs.
Adaptive basic infrastructure availability across diverse communities
Climate-informed infrastructure and settlement planning processes
Participatory design of adaptation plans and infrastructure
These indicators acknowledge the importance of adaptation planning for temperature goal overshoot scenarios and capture complex risk dynamics that may signal adaptation limits requiring transformative change.
The eight cultural heritage indicators focus on protection from climate-related risks whilst promoting the integration of traditional, Indigenous, and local knowledge systems in adaptation planning.
Climate adaptation measures for vulnerable heritage sites and infrastructure retrofitting
Enhancing resilience of cultural practices and digitisation of vulnerable heritage
Emergency preparedness plans and adaptation policies including heritage safeguarding
Training programmes engaging Indigenous Peoples and local knowledge systems
These indicators emphasise climate-resilient infrastructure guided by traditional building practices and the meaningful engagement of Indigenous Peoples in heritage protection efforts.
The planning indicators assess the quality and comprehensiveness of national adaptation planning processes through three critical components.
The indicators evaluate whether Parties have national adaptation plans and strategies, whether these are developed through participatory and gender-responsive processes, and whether adaptation considerations are systematically integrated into broader development frameworks.
These measures capture relevant enabling factors for adaptation implementation, focusing on policy and institutional structures that support long-term resilience building.
The expert assessment reveals that metadata is available for nearly a quarter of indicators, with established methodologies from global frameworks providing a strong foundation.
Available with minor modifications expected
Existing metadata needs adaptation-specific adjustments
Completely new indicators requiring fresh methodologies
Key sources include SDG metadata repositories, Sendai Framework monitoring systems, and databases from FAO, WHO, UNFCCC, and other UN agencies. This foundation enables rapid operationalisation whilst ensuring consistency with established global monitoring systems.
Principal Authors