Towards

Abstract

In Aotearoa New Zealand, the government has set a target for the country to become predator-free by 2050, largely as a response to the threat of extinction that introduced mammals pose to native birds. Current pest management tools lack the scalability required to reach pest eradication; thus, new technologies are being explored through public research funding, including controversial techniques such as gene drive. While the need to listen to Māori perspectives on genetic technologies is broadly recognised, the Treaty relationship between government and Māori demands more, including attention to rangatiratanga (autonomy for Māori) and tikanga (Māori customary protocols). A ‘social licence to operate’ is argued to be key to getting public support for such technologies, but is that consistent with a Māori approach? To address this question, we gathered Māori perspectives on novel biotechnological controls for pest wasps through three distinct studies. Study participants included tertiary students, businesses, and spiritual or religiously affiliated groups. All participants drew from their identities as Māori people to help identify their position on these issues. Their perspectives on issues of consent and Social Licence suggest a preference for processes based upon rangatiratanga. Participant perspectives were also organised according to a take utu ea decision-making framework. This exercise suggests that this framework continues to be a relevant and useful contribution to how biotechnology discussions are framed. Rangatiratanga and tikanga are underlying considerations for Māori in relation to novel biotechnologies, and, if recognised more widely, have potential to transform conservation biology in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Invasive alien species as simultaneous benefits and burdens: trends, stakeholder perceptions and management

“…The economic benefits of such species may often be clear and readily measurable, whereas the negative impacts on biodiversity and indigenous values can be far harder to quantify given the potentially longer timescales involved and the less tangible economic effects often associated with these impacts (Ens et al 2015;Woodford et al 2017;Shackleton et al 2019c;Palmer et al 2020). In recognition of the limited understanding of biotic interactions triggered by alien species (Goodenough 2010) and the lack of comprehensive and systematic efforts to document benefits across environments and sectors (see for example Gozlan 2015 for aquatic species) as well as across all ecosystem services including cultural ones (Dickie et al 2014), trade-offs become difficult to pin down further hampering clear management objectives.…”

Towards resilience in the Anthropocene: transforming conservation biology through Indigenous perspectives

“…Critical to achieving transformation in the field of conservation biology is the integration of diverse knowledge systems into governance, conservation planning and education (e.g. Aitken et al 2021;Belcher et al 2021;Palmer et al 2021;Reihana et al 2021;Winter et al 2021). Collaborations among multiple stakeholders in a social-ecological system often means that there is diversity in roles, knowledge systems, and expertise.…”

“…From an Aotearoa Ma ¯ori context, Symon Palmer, Ocean Mercier and Alan King-Hunt focus on a Ma ¯ori understanding of sovereignty through rangatiratanga in their paper 'Towards rangatiratanga in pest management? Ma ¯ori perspectives and frameworks on novel biotechnologies in conservation' (Palmer et al 2021). They question whether a social license to operate is in alignment with a Ma ¯ori approach.…”

Adequacy and sufficiency evaluation of existing EFSA guidelines for the molecular characterisation, environmental risk assessment and post‐market environmental monitoring of genetically modified insects containing engineered gene drives

“…Oye et al, 2014;WHO, 2014;Akbari et al, 2015;NASEM, 2016;Adelman et al, 2017a,b;Emerson et al, 2017;Esvelt and Gemmell, 2017;Lunshof and Birnbaum, 2017;Baltzegar et al, 2018;James et al, 2018;Thompson, 2018;Backus and Delborne, 2019;Bartumeus et al, 2019;Kuzma, 2019;Cisnetto and Barlow, 2020;Warmbrod et al, 2020); 11) Assessing the desirability and ethics of engineered gene drives (Pugh, 2016;Thompson, 2018;Jones et al, 2019;Thomas et al, 2019;ECNH, 2019;Sandler, 2020; WHO, 2020); 12) Developing guidance/best practices on societal/stakeholder engagement and communication (e.g. Bartumeus et al, 2019;Brossard et al, 2019;Buchthal et al, 2019;George et al, 2019;Hartley et al, 2019;Schairer et al, 2019;Singh, 2019;Thizy et al, 2019;MacDonald et al, 2020;Palmer et al, 2020;Serr et al, 2020); 13) Developing effective management and implementation of disease vector control programmes (e.g. Feachem et al, 2019).…”

“…This has led to the establishment of recommendations on phased testing (e.g. WHO, 2014;NASEM, 2016;Hayes et al, 2018;James et al, 2018James et al, , 2020, the responsible and sustainable deployment of the technology (James et al, 2018(James et al, , 2020Warmbrod et al, 2020), and effective engagement of all concerned parties/stakeholders (Oye et al, 2014;Caplan et al, 2015;NASEM, 2016;Adelman et al, 2017a,b;Emerson et al, 2017;Najjar et al, 2017;James et al, 2018;Barnhill-Dilling et al, 2019;Bartumeus et al, 2019;Brossard et al, 2019;Buchthal et al, 2019;CSS-ENSSER-VDW, 2019;George et al, 2019;Hartley et al, 2019;Kofler, 2019;Kuzma, 2019;Rabitz, 2019;Singh, 2019;Thizy et al, 2019;Kelsey et al, 2020;Palmer et al, 2020;Serr et al, 2020;Warmbrod et al, 2020;WHO, 2020). Since some engineered gene drives may eventually spread across jurisdictional boundaries, regional approaches that would facilitate multi-country/international regulatory oversight and governance have been suggested (Marshall, 2010;Brown, 2017;James et al, 2018;Rabitz, 2019;Kelsey et al, 2020;Reynolds, 2020;Warmbrod et al, 2020).…”