Biotechnologies in pest wasp control: taking the sting out of pest management for Māori businesses?

Abstract

In Aotearoa New Zealand, the government’s ambitious target of becoming “predator-free” by 2050 has reignited public discussion on biotechnologies. The disproportionate abundance of German and common wasps in New Zealand disrupts native biodiversity and costs $133 million annually to the economy, making exotic wasps an expedient trial pest species for novel biotechnological controls. Māori businesses occupy primary industries said to benefit from wasp control. A Māori-centered mixed-method study gauged the perceptions of eight Māori businesses about the potential use of five specific new biotechnological controls in pest management. Participants raised concerns about risk and side effects; called for further information and a reconfiguring of how information is presented; reflected on previous pest challenges; and took positions in reference to Māori customary concepts. While all agree that doing nothing is not an option, careful, informed deliberation is required on whether and how best to move forward with these new biotechnological controls.

Keywords:

• Māori business
• biotechnology
• pest control
• wasps
• New Zealand
• biodiversity and conservation

Introduction

In Aotearoa New Zealand (hereinafter Aotearoa) the government’s ambitious Predator Free 2050 campaign (PF2050) aims to eliminate three mammalian predators (rats, stoats, and possums) by 2050, with an interim goal to “achieve a breakthrough science solution capable of eradicating at least one small mammal predator” by 2025 (Predator Free 2050 2018, 29). Meanwhile the exotic invertebrates German Vespula germanica and Common wasp Vespula vulgaris prevail in beech forests in the north of the South Island, where the natural beauty of the surrounding lakes and tramping tracks through the bush draw national and international tourists. Behind this seemingly idyllic scene, these introduced wasps outcompete native species for food sources, have a negative impact on Aotearoa’s biodiversity and hamper conservation efforts. Caterpillars, moths, spiders, and vertebrates are among wasp food sources, amounting to 1.4–8.1 kilograms per hectare, each season (Lester 2018, 49–50). Combined wasp biomass is calculated to be greater than all the insects and native birds in the same region (Thomas, Moller, and Plunkett 1990 cited in Lester et al. 2013). Wasps also accrue an economic cost to New Zealand of $133 million annually (MacIntyre and Hellstrom 2015). These costs are spread across primary industries: in apiculture $57.8 million is estimated to be lost due to honeydew foregone to wasp populations annually, pastoral farming incurs a $62 million annual cost, and arable cropping loses $0.7 million annually (MacIntyre and Hellstrom 2015).

Current pest wasp management strategies include poisoning and manually extracting wasp nests. The recent tool, Vespex^® contains the poison Fipronil embedded in a protein-matrix that is attractive only to German and Common wasps and is transported by wasps to their nest. Vespex^® is endorsed by the Department of Conversation (Department of Conservation 2015) and is very effective for limited scale control, near tramping tracks, for example. Elsewhere, mammalian predators – core to PF2050 goals – are currently targeted by Broadifacoum poison, administered in bait stations, and 1080 (Sodium fluoroacetate), a controversial broad-spectrum aerial poison that has at times polarized public opinion (Green and Rohan 2012). 1080 is generally not favored by Māori communities, and has previously highlighted issues of communication and consultation with iwi (Ogilvie, Miller, and Ataria 2010). Community organized trapping groups such as Pest-Free Upper Hutt have consolidated and built significantly upon long-term backyard mammalian trapping efforts, by drawing in new trappers under the PF2050 umbrella. Some new products have entered the market: for instance Good Nature traps (https://goodnature.co.nz/) is a self-resetting trap that can be synced with mobile software to perform multiple kills. However, all current pest management tools rely on human deployment, monitoring, and considerations of land accessibility.

Moving beyond current modes of pest management are potential scientific solutions like CRISPR (cluster regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) Cas 9, more commonly known as gene drive, a technology capable of preferential gene inheritance, “ … use gene repair mechanisms to insert, remove, replace or modify genes at predetermined sites in the genome” (Royal Society Te Apārangi 2018b, 6). Passing on the self-replication mechanism forces these traits through subsequent generations. The potential application of gene drive raises ethical considerations both globally and locally, as well as logistical questions (Dearden et al. 2018). Scientists are urging caution in moving forward with such technology (Esvelt and Gemmell 2017), particularly where gene drive is being considered for use beyond controlled conditions and environments. Internationally, the potential use of gene drives in animals poses risk to Indigenous peoples due to inadequate policy and protection, which may undermine Indigenous autonomy (Meghani 2019). While just one of many potential next generation tools in pest management, gene drive and gene editing revive previous Aotearoa debates on genetic modification (GM), genetic engineering (GE), and genetically modified organisms (GMO’s) in food. These technologies have historically been opposed by some Māori (Royal Commission on Genetic Modification 2001; Hutchings and Reynolds 2004), thus propelling the need for new discourse on the subject area.

The economic impacts of wasps, married with historically contentious technology for Māori, converges on Māori businesses that work at the “coalface” of these issues. In this paper, we focus on a subset of Māori businesses that may benefit from the introduction of biotechnologies in pest wasp management. Recalling previous research on Māori views on genetic related subject areas, we establish the application of a Māori centered mixed methodology to ask: How do Māori businesses perceive the potential use of novel in pest management, with particular regard to wasps? Furthermore, under what conditions might novel pest control techniques be acceptable? While no biotechnology surfaces as a unanimous favorite for deployment in pest wasp management, it is also not an option to “do nothing.” The implications of this are then discussed in the context of Aotearoa and the aim to reach a Predator Free 2050.

Literature review

Aotearoa’s last nationwide debate on genetic advancements manifested in the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification (RCGM) (2001), where diverse views surfaced from various groups including organic food organizations, primary sector producers, and Māori. Māori, or tangata whenua (people of the land) are the Indigenous people of Aotearoa, are made up of more than 70 iwi (tribes) and numerous hapū (sub-tribes). Māori hold a special relationship with the British Crown and all subsequent governments, as signatories to Te Tiriti o Waitangi (the Treaty of Waitangi) in 1840, New Zealand’s founding document. In 2018 Māori constituted 16.5% of Aotearoa’s total population (Statistics New Zealand 2019). This relationship was recognized in the RCGM (2001), along with the need to consult with iwi on significant issues such as genetic modification. Shortly after, an attempt to grant a genetic modification trial in Aotearoa was met with opposition from iwi, which Kurian and Wright (2012) argue were undermined in the submission process. Research since has examined views on genetic biotechnologies from various iwi and Māori interest groups. Roberts and Fairweather (2004) have researched with South Island Māori; Te Momo (2007) interviewed Māori doctors, community organizations, academics, and students; Haar (2007) interviewed 12 Māori scientists; Taupo (2012) engaged with rongoā (traditional Māori medicine) practitioners, lawyers, and members of the Church of Latter Day Saints; and Mercier et al. (2019) generated an informed cohort of Māori Studies students and engaged them in the debate.

Across these studies are concerns stemming from tikanga (Māori philosophical concepts and practices) including: whakapapa (genealogy), mauri (life-force) tapu (sacredness), kaitiakitanga (guardianship), taonga (cultural treasure), and tino rangatiratanga (self-determination). Whakapapa describes genetic connections between people (thus is similar to a family tree), but it is also a way of charting and understanding connections in nature. Whakapapa charts – human and non-human – connect backwards in time to cosmological creator beings and is thus seen as sacred. Many cite the need to uphold the inherent dignity and protect the integrity of whakapapa: an imperative which is seen as being at odds with those that motivate genetic advancements (Hudson et al. 2007; Hutchings and Reynolds 2004; Roberts et al. 2004; Taupo 2012). Mead (2003, 344) explains that while certain Māori creation narratives may resemble attributes of genetic modification (e.g. demi-god Māui who had the ability to shapeshift), a legitimate whakapapa is still required to rationalize such events.

Tikanga concepts frequently overlap with one another. This is amplified by complex topics such as GM, GMO and biotechnology. Some Māori view genetic material (including DNA, cells, tissue) to be taonga (Taupo 2012), therefore necessitating the protocols of kaitiakitanga (Beaton et al. 2017, 346); which require further kawa (protocol or rituals) to protect and safeguard these (Hudson 2016). Kaitakitanga reflects an intergenerational responsibility held by hapū and iwi to maintain land and waterways for future generations (see Jones 2016, 72–73). Taonga is cited in Article 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi (the Māori text of the Treaty of Waitangi) which states that the Crown guarantees hapū control over their taonga (treasure, property, and resources) (McFarlane and Roberts 2005; Te Tiriti o Waitangi 1840). Elsewhere, Hutchings (2004) has argued that protecting mauri (life-force) is key to kaitiakitanga. Mauri is the life-force that sustains both human and non-human objects, including rivers, fish and trees (Barlow 1991). For Māori, damage to mauri is both physical and spiritual (Durie 1998). Within a GM context, mauri can be employed to question the risk a new technology poses to life (Mead 2003, 338). Submissions to the RCGM (2001) referred to transgenics as a culturally inappropriate mixing of mauri. Similarly, Roberts and Fairweather (2004) found some participants concerned that mauri might be disrupted by GM.

Tino rangatiratanga, often translated as sovereignty, is also guaranteed to Māori in Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Lack of autonomy and sovereignty for Māori people in a colonized nation manifests in multiple ways. Cram (2005, 55) argues that genetic engineering undermines tino rangatiratanga by denying Māori the ability to act as kaitiaki (traditional stewards) for the environment. Additionally, there are examples of private companies undermining mana whenua (Māori territorial rights) in the pursuit of GM testing, resulting in poor consultation and ill-equipped policy (see C. Smith 2006; Satterfield and Roberts 2008). These scenarios are mirrored elsewhere in research asking what value genetic research might have for Māori communities (Hudson et al. 2019, 3), and how Māori will access the benefits of genetic research (Baker 2012),

While these previous studies sought perspectives from a variety of Māori sectors, people working in industries at the “coalface” of biotechnologies, specifically Māori business owners, have not featured. Given the financial stakes and limitations of current wasp control strategies, we need to further understand the views of those directly negotiating these tensions and challenges within their business practice. It can be assumed that industries will be early adopters of pest control advancements, however, what concerns, or priorities might engage or conflict with new technologies is unclear. Māori are bicultural by necessity, often operating consciously or subconsciously in Māori ways, yet usually constrained by dominant Western systems. Māori business owners thus offer a range of perspectives on these tensions from an Aotearoa context.

Methodology

This study is located in a Māori-centered mixed-method methodology and comprised of interviews with eight Māori businesses across Aotearoa, totaling ten participants. Māori-centered research is a qualitative approach that draws on the principles of Kaupapa Māori (KM) to ensure safe and culturally sensitive research practices. KM is Māori-led research, conducted for Māori benefits. KM re-centers Māori views, privileging ethical and cultural concerns, where tikanga (protocols) and te reo Māori (the Māori language) are validated (Durie 2012; G. Smith 1990; L.T. Smith 2012). Employing a KM philosophy contributes to decolonization (L.T. Smith 2012) thus allowing Indigenous people to “speaks back” to the academy (Tengan 2005).

Principles of KM were accommodated throughout the research process: whakawhanaungatanga (establishing relationships), kanohi kitea (preferring face to face interactions) and manaakitanga (hospitality) (Cram 2005). These tikanga resemble Western methods of research in which remuneration for a person’s interview time, in-person interactions and general hospitability are standard methods to encourage in-depth discussion. Arguably, a distinction between KM and Māori-centered research is from whence the kaupapa (topic) originates. Did a community raise the need, or was it prescribed by an external organization? In this project, we align with the National Science Challenge (NSC) BioHeritage theme, meaning that this project is not driven directly by a specific local community. However, the project aims to find novel ways to enhance and protect taonga, native flora and fauna. Can it also enhance kaitiakitanga and mātauranga – something Māori communities have long fought for – through biotechnologies?

The concerns leading to this research had their origins in community. Raising and supporting these concerns is one of the aims of Te Kāhui Māori, a panel comprising select Māori leaders and researchers, who also provide cultural guidance within NSC themes. Aspects of Māori community interests are thus represented, although these are weighed up against many other concerns in the NSC programs, and inevitably, in spite of the process being guided by Treaty of Waitangi principles, can become de-prioritized. Thus, while not Māori community-led in the Tiriti o Waitangi sense of tino rangatiratanga, Māori voices and priorities are represented and heard in this process. Also competing against the drift from Te Tiriti partnership-led process and strongly aligned to community interests through national networks with iwi and hapū (tribes and subtribes) is Te Tira Whakamātaki (the Māori Biosecurity Network) who work closely with NSC: BioHeritage, with one of Te Tira Whakamātaki’s founders, Melanie Mark-Shadbolt also co-directing the NSC: BioHeritage challenge. Connected BioHeritage projects include the involvement of kaumātua (elders) in creating transformative and transdisciplinary opportunities to protect Aotearoa’s biological heritage (see Ataria et al. 2018). The conflation of Māori interests across the NSC: BioHeritage space means that this research may be argued as either KM or “Māori-centered.” More than ever, research engages with Vision Mātauranga policy in government funded projects, which means that Māori researchers leading future projects are likely to grapple with similar questions about whether their research is KM or Māori-centered. Increasing involvement of Māori researchers and communities in mainstream science will continue to push the boundaries of research protocols and ethics, requiring reflexivity and adaptations in how we currently understand KM methodologies.

In this study, one Pākehā (non-Māori) participant was interviewed. Jones (2012) argues that the inclusion of non-Māori within KM does not conflict with its founding principles, as the research is still carried out by Māori. Thus, a similar stance can be taken in a Māori-centered approach, as it draws from KM. The participant held a specialized role at the Māori business, making them the most informed person regarding pest management issues. They thus arguably occupy the role of Māori ally (Jones 2012), working in a partnership mode, consistent with Treaty principles.

Following the aims of this research, we presented five novel biotechnologies for consideration in future pest management to participants, these were (for further explanation see Mercier et al. 2019):

• pheromone lure: an artificial pheromone that manipulates pest behavior;

• gene drive: a genetic modification that is inherited by all offspring;

• RNA interference (RNAi, gene silencing): enables interruption of expression of certain functions – such as fertility;

• Trojan female: a genetically modified lab reared queen wasp that produces sterile males; and

• Trojan mite: a mite vectors a pathogen to its wasp host, reducing wasp nest health and viability.

Participants were emailed a short 5 page “primer” document that explained each biotechnology. The primer was developed by a Research Assistant for the purpose of being used in several related studies on perceptions of biotechnologies in pest management. Information on each novel biotechnology was sourced from peer reviewed journal articles and summated. Some biotechnologies included images, for example, one explained genetic inheritance scenarios for gene-drive. The primers were emailed prior to interviews and physical copies were made available during interviews.

Complimenting KM was the inclusion of Likert ranking exercises (LRE) were included in this research to compliment KM and draw out participant views on the five novel biotechnologies and pest priorities. Two LRE (LRE1 and LRE2) helped to gauge immediate impressions of participants and familiarize them with the interview content. The data collected speaks directly to the small sample in this study and is not intended to be generalized. Nonetheless, the incorporation of LRE did generate findings regarding pest perceptions and acted as a springboard for discussion with participants. Both LRE1 and LRE2 utilized a numerical response continuum of “horizontal ascending,” meaning the scale ascended from left to right, reflected numerically as −4 to +4 (Maeda 2015). In LRE1, participants were given nine “statements” on small pieces of paper called stems to arrange in order of preference on the response continuum. Each stem was required to be placed on a square that represented a single degree of the Likert scale. Participants were not allowed to leave any square blank on the response continuum, or, place two stems on a single square.

LRE1 asked participants to rank pests that we perceived as potentially influential on their business. Seven “set stems” were given to participants: wasps, possums, stoats, rats, feral cats, rabbits, and the great white butterfly. These pests are identified by the PF2050 campaign as threats to New Zealand biodiversity (Department of Conservation 2015). Two blank stems were added to the mix to provide participants with an opportunity to identify any other pests. Most participants took the opportunity to identify and write down other pests. The few participants that did not suggest supplementary pests used their blank stems as buffers between pests that were more or less of a priority.

LRE2 invited participants to rank their preferred pest wasp control methods, however, some participants expressed wasps to be low priority and in such cases were asked to extend their ranking to what they considered their priority pest. In addition to the five novel biotechnology foci, current pest control methods were included in the exercise. These “non-biotechnology” categories were: manual extraction of nests, species-specific poison (e.g. Vespex^®), non-species-specific poison (e.g. 1080), and “do nothing.”

Self-identifying Māori businesses were invited to take part in this research based on the industries identified to be economically impacted by wasps: apiculture, agriculture and horticulture (MacIntyre and Hellstrom 2015). An exception was made to include viticulture. MacIntyre and Hellstrom (2015, 20) cite no significant financial benefit to the eradication of wasps in viticulture. Elsewhere, it is suggested that organic vineyards may actually benefit from wasps (New Zealand Wine n.d.). Hence, two viticulture participants were included in this study to elaborate upon the contrasting literature. We define Māori business to be a business that is owned and or directed by one or more people who identify as Māori. Businesses interviewed range in size from small (fewer than 10 employees) to large enterprises (more than 50 employees). Some businesses were owned collectively, located in iwi or whānau trusts; others were private companies.

Although some participants were happy to identify themselves in any publication of this research, others wished to remain anonymous. To accommodate this, all participants have been assigned pseudonyms. Given the biodiversity and conservation links in this research, birds native to Aotearoa have been selected and randomly assigned to participants. Table 1 shows the variety of participants that were involved in this research.

Table 1. List of Participants.

Interviews were semi-structured and varied in length from 30 to 90 min. Ethics approval was obtained from Te Herenga Waka – Victoria University of Wellington’s Human Ethics Committee (HEC#24885). The majority of interviews were one-on-one; two interviews featured two participants simultaneously. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and imported into NVivo software for analysis. Thematic analysis was employed to develop code definitions (referred to as nodes in Nvivo software) from which themes developed (Bazeley 2018). Two “phases” of coding occurred. Firstly, an initial coding of each interview with broad themes identified. This was followed by a second analysis of the data to narrow themes and ensure even coding between interviews.

Results

Given the variety of industries included in this study, participant views on pest control methods were at times vast. These have been organized into three umbrellas of thought. The first, Gauging Perspectives addresses participant thoughts on pest priorities and the potential for acceptability of the five novel biotechnologies. Secondly, Contextualizing Perspectives sheds light on the specificity of these issues for Māori businesses. Finally, Technology Tensions outlines key themes that limit participant capacity to make decisions on these technologies.

Gauging perspectives

Participant views on pest management was assessed via LRE’s and qualitative interviewing. In this section, the results form LRE1 and LRE2 are presented, followed by participant statements that gauge feeling towards the five novel biotechnologies discussed in interviews. Comments on specific biotechnologies have been assembled in Table 4 to provide insight to the reasons why certain biotechnologies are set apart from another.

As mentioned, two LRE’s were utilized to gauge immediate impressions on pest prioritization and acceptability of pest management tools. What became evident during data analysis is that some participants developed their stance throughout the remainder of the interview. Questioning probed the ethical standpoint of participants and provided space to flesh out opinions. Consistent in both stages of interviews was a desire to know more before reaching a concrete position. The data presented in Tables 2 and 3, should thus only be treated as an indicative baseline. The mean and median of nine participants’ Likert rankings are presented. Standard deviation is also presented to indicate the levels of consensus for each pest (Table 2) and method of control (Table 3). “Other A” and “Other B” in Table 2 represent the “optional stems” given to participants. 17 additional pests were identified by participants including Argentine ants (Linepithema humile), greater wax moth (Galleria Mellonella), and the brown beetle (Costelytra zealandica). Six participants ranked an optional pest as most concerning to their business; two ranked an optional pest as −4 (least concerning). Wasps were not ranked as the highest concern (+4) by any participants, including apiculturists. It is interesting that two participants in the industry said to financially benefit the most from wasp control, are more concerned by other pests.

Table 2. Likert Ranking Exercise 1: Mean and median of all participants’ rankings of which “pests are of concern or disturbance to participant’s business” (−4 least concerned to +4 most concerned).

LRE1	Mean	Median	Std Dev
Wasps	1.00	1	2.06
Stoats	−0.22	0	2.86
Possums	−0.56	−1	2.40
Rats	0.22	1	1.99
Cats	−1.11	−1	2.42
Rabbits	−1.33	−3	2.69
Great white butterfly	−0.67	−1	2.55
Other A	2.00	3	2.55
Other B	1.00	0	3.08

Table 3. Likert Ranking Exercise 2: Mean and median of participants’ ranking of pest management tools in Aotearoa, from “least acceptable” (−4) to “potential to adopt” (+4).

LRE2	Mean	Median	Std Dev
Do nothing	−2.67	−4	1.73
Manual extraction	−1.00	−2	2.83
Non-species-specific poison	0.22	1	3.19
Species-specific poison e.g. Vespex	2.44	3	1.81
Trojan-mite	−0.78	0	2.44
RNAi	−0.33	−1	2.35
Gene drive	1.11	1	1.76
Trojan female	−0.78	−1	2.22
Pheromone lure	1.67	2	1.50

LRE2 shows that the most preferred pest management technique is a species-specific poison. Pheromone lures ranked as the next most preferred pest management method and are thus the most preferred biotechnology. The highest level of participant consensus occurs here. Gene drive has a positive ranking also and is the next most preferred biotechnology. Both the Trojan mite and Trojan female rank equally least favorable among the biotechnology options.

Among participants, any pest management action is seen as better than none, evident in the majority of participants ranking “do nothing” as the least favorable option of all (median = −4). That participants on the whole would rather do anything, including using biotechnologies, than “do nothing,” is also a finding of our companion studies (Mercier et al. 2019; Palmer 2019; King Hunt 2019). Manual extraction is also unpopular here, with all of the biotechnologies considered a more favorable solution. The group mean of 0.22 indicates relative neutrality in relation to a non-species-specific poison, but a large standard deviation for the rankings indicates divided opinions. Two participants had previously had positive experiences with 1080, leading them to rank non-species-specific poison highly (+4). Both LRE’s provide an interesting platform for discussion, however, it must be reiterated that the limited participant numbers consequently restrict these results to the context of this study and should not be generalized elsewhere. Following the LRE’s, semi-structured interviews surfaced more details on the perspectives of these biotechnologies.

Few participants were strongly against or in favor of biotechnologies. Only one participant was consistently open to proceeding with next generation tools such as biotechnologies.

… we’re dealing with an issue that essentially post-dates many of the essential elements of the kaupapa we work with … some of the pests are things that our old people wouldn’t have necessarily had the tools to deal with. They wouldn’t have necessarily had the issues to deal with anyway. The pests weren’t there. We can’t see any conflict with the adoption of new approaches to control. (Pūkeko)

Pūkeko supports the use of contemporary technologies to meet contemporary needs. By reflecting on the elders, and current state of kaupapa and tikanga, Pūkeko allows room for modern tools to address modern situations. This pragmatic approach, which does not discount the continuing relevance of tikanga, was isolated and did not reflect other participant views. Pūkeko ranked gene drive as +2 in LRE2, while a traditional method species-specific poison was still preferred (ranked +4).

Like, I know we’re saying we don’t want to do this sort of stuff [biotechnologies], but actually with a wasp. (Kākāpō)

A moderate stance was frequently observed. This was often expressed in themes of uncertainty and a need for more information. This grouping also negotiated the positives and negatives of pest management tools, sometimes appearing ambivalent towards biotechnologies. “We’re not actively seeking alternatives, but we’re interested in alternatives” (Pūkeko).

At times, other participants leant towards a reluctant acceptance, acknowledging democratic process. This appeared in phrases like: it might hurt some people but in the end if it’s for the greater good … then you have to have some trust in the government (Mātātā). Diverging from these views were two participants that strongly opposed any biotechnology. Tūī found biotechnologies to be unnatural and posing serious risk to the environment and Māori values. They advocated for natural processes and dismissed any technological intervention, saying:

Nothing where there’s DNA splicing. Nothing where there’s gene characteristics changing. Nothing that inserts or modifies a queen or anything like that. (Tūī)

Kererū expressed disapproval in terms of what others would prefer:

I think the public perception would not agree to that, or you know, we wouldn’t think that that is probably the best solution, to go and start mucking around with genes and modifying these pests and animals to kill themselves. (Kererū)

Specific comments on the five novel biotechnologies are collated and presented in Table 4, showing positive and negative statements. Comments that were overtly positive did not always surface, therefore, the most optimistic comments have been selected in lieu. Taking into account the earlier perspectives gathered in LRE 2 (Table 3), the standard deviation across the five novel biotechnologies indicates a spectrum of views regarding acceptability, which is reiterated in the varied comments displayed in Table 4. With the exception of pheromones, negative statements reiterate concern for risk associated with these biotechnologies. In the positive statements, uncertainty can still be read in statements from Pūkeko and Kākā, highlighting that participants were cautious to elect a novel pest control technology. These statements provide a snapshot of the spectrum of perspective on pest management techniques displayed throughout interviews.

Table 4. Participant responses in relation to the five novel biotechnological controls alongside a thematic analysis.

Biotechnology	Theme	Negative statements	Positive statements
Pheromone	Insufficient, in-use	“We’ve had that for years” – (Kākā).	“Can I write ‘if organic’ [referring to LRE2]” – (Tūī)
Trojan Mite	Concern, logistical issues, unfavorable	“What’s to say that disease might not mutate into something else we can’t control” – (Kārearea)	“Probably the Trojan [unspecified] treatment. So, if we can get in and control the breeding going forward” – (Kererū)
RNAi	Least discussed, cost	“RNA is purported to be relatively cheap, and I put, is that the driver?” – (Tūī)	“I don’t know enough about them, but the RNA interference or gene drive seem to me to be clever” – (Kākā)
Trojan Female technique	Risk, inaccuracy, impractical, expensive	“You would have to be extremely sure that whatever genetic manipulation that had gone on within that Trojan was not going to affect anything off target” – (Kākā)	“The Trojan female is interesting but … it would be very expensive and the same with the Trojan mite” – (Kākā)
Gene Drive	Unknown impact, risk, slow uptake, concern, convenient	Concerned with what the “ … potential harm something like this would have” – (Mōhua)	“I don’t know what the ramification to the sector would be, but if the technology was aimed at reducing or eliminating the wasp issue, then that would be the end of thought process as far as we were concerned” – (Pūkeko)

Contextualizing perspectives

As signaled in the introduction and literature review, Māori businesses are uniquely placed at the “coalface” of novel biotechnologies in pest management. The Māori worldview is ever present in decision making, illustrated in the previous research with Māori in genetic fields (Cram 2005; Hudson et al. 2019; Hutchings and Reynolds 2004). The following themes exhibit these distinctions through specific comments on tikanga, expectations on research, and previous pest management challenges to respective industries, which are largely framed within a Māori worldview.

Participant discussion on tikanga was prompted by interview questions and often surfaced during descriptions of their business values. Direct associations of tikanga and biotechnology was limited, for example, Kārearea expressed that biotechnologies  … probably wouldn’t sit too well …  within traditional Māori values, although specific values were not discussed. However, some participants did explore in depth:

DNA modification, gene slicing or whatever they call it, is around the whakapapa, the mauri, the life force that everything has. We are just worried about that. Because everything has a life force. Once you start playing with it, what does it mean? (Mōhua)

This comment contrasts with Pūkeko’s argument that new and unforeseen problems justify developing and deploying new technologies. Here instead, cultural considerations drive the development and decision-making process. In Mōhua’s choice of the word “play,” experimentation is suggested to be an immature practice that could invoke changes beyond our comprehension and control. Impacts on whakapapa and mauri are key concerns to Mōhua. Western scientific knowledge is thus challenged by Indigenous knowledge, highlighting the value but also tension of hearing and reconciling a multiplicity of voices.

While some participants queried what value wasps might possess, Mātātā was the only participant who endorsed the presence of wasps on the vineyard. In statements like but wasps are good for us, Mātātā also highlighted the industry specific viewpoint.

They are actually quite beneficial to eating pests. I think they do actually eat the light brown apple moth. There are other bugs, like the mealy bugs … lady birds are good as well … they eat things like aphids and mites, and bits and pieces like that. The lady birds and wasps are the best things you can have. (Mātātā)

Wasp presence in the vineyard meant less reliance on pesticides. In this instance a wasp as a bio-control may prove useful to organic converts or producers that wish to restore soil health like Mātātā. However, Mātātā was unsure what type of wasp acted as a biocontrol, presenting a gap for further investigation. Likewise, the usefulness of wasps to other organic producers might also be a place for further study.

Participants looked back on previous pest management challenges during interviews. The degree of reflection varied between interviews, as did the experiences. It is important to note that discussion involving participant experience with the tools below surfaced naturally during interviews, with the exceptions of 1080, which was prompted at the beginning of interviews as an example of a species-specific poison for a stem to be ranked in LRE 2.

Calicivirus

Rabbit haemorrhagic disease (RHD), commonly known as calicivirus, was intentionally released in Aotearoa by farmers struggling with pest rabbit control in 1997 (O’Hara 2006). Four participants recalled and reflected on calicivirus during interviews, all of which were located in the South Island of Aotearoa. Tūī and Mōhua deliberated on the ineffectiveness of the virus; Kārearea highlighted that rabbit populations remain a problem in the Mackenzie region. Kākā, also familiar with calicivirus made the point that:

… with any biocontrol strategy that’s put in place, you know, the effectiveness is dependent on a whole lot of factors that may or may not be in the control of the people who released it. You know, there’s a whole lot of unintended consequences in biocontrol systems, as you’re probably well aware. (Kākā)

Kārearea was the only participant to rank rabbits as their most concerning pest (+4) in LRE1. This was due to the destruction rabbits caused to their native planting schemes on their site, bringing attention to the value of kaitiakitanga. The other participants who recalled Calicivirus ranked rabbits in low to moderate parts of the response continuum e.g. −3 and +1.

1080

Toutouwai And Kākāpō were positive about their experience with 1080, which might also inform their position on biotechnologies. Kākāpō specified that any decision process would require full research, and data, and everything, I guess, and collaboration. They valued research, saying, pour the money into the research. Most of their comments stemmed from previous interactions with 1080, in which they experienced a productive consultation and outcome. This involved hui on marae (tribal meeting grounds) and clear information. Ultimately, their experience enhanced mana (prestige) and tino rangatiratanga (self-determination).

If it wasn’t for our tikanga and wasn’t for our iwi and our hapū, I mean, we wouldn’t have got that 1080 drop done … so that’s empowering tikanga to look after our ngāhere (forests). (Kākāpō)

Elsewhere, Kererū expressed discomfort with 1080. Kererū emphasized they did not know enough about 1080 and were not involved with any groups (in reference to protesting organizations). However, they did not support its use based on what they had seen on social media. Kererū ranked possums and rats as a moderate priority (+2; +1, respectively), after wasps and their nominated pest, greater wax moth (Galleria Mellonella). Pests directly impacting their business were prioritized, followed by the environment external to their operations. This demonstrates an acknowledgement of the negative impact mammalian predators have and a sense of kaitiakitanga to maintain the natural environment.

Pheromones

Pheromones were also frequently contemplated by participants. Five people expressed familiarity with pheromones, some from an industry standpoint. Mātātā and Kākā both were experienced with pheromone traps for moths. Kākā showed ambivalence towards pheromones saying, “we’ve had that for years.” Kākāpō and Toutouwai drew comparison to a technique they had developed to lure and kill wasps using sardines and “Spot-on” (a flea treatment for dogs).

Mites

Mātātā expressed several concerns regarding Trojan mites based on previous experience introducing predatory mites to control pest mites that infested blackcurrant crops. One issue with this was deploying the predatory mites at the correct time, as their life cycle needed to be accounted for. Additionally, it was “hard to gauge whether they work or not,” suggesting it was an unreliable option for future pest management techniques. Mātātā’s description of the Trojan mite was likened to a bio-control as opposed to the disease-carrying mite that was described in the primer given to participants.

We would be slightly miffed if we weren’t consulted and had the discussion. (Pūkeko)

The majority of participants expected iwi consultation regarding the release of any biotechnology. Inadequate consultation with Māori has the potential to form strained relationships with government agencies and the private sector, while undermining a myriad of cultural concepts (see Mutu 2010). In this study, views on consultation were nuanced between organizations, reflecting specific local experiences and contextual differences between each group (e.g. geographical location, organization, size, and mandate). Consultation is ultimately the responsibility of government agencies. Māori and these agencies have a unique relationship embedded in Te Tiriti o Waitangi (1840) in which a formal relationship was established with the Crown monarchy. However, science will play a major role in how this is communicated in order for it to be effective consultation. Mōhua and Tūī emphasized an “on the ground” approach with iwi members in decision-making, where people talk in-person about an issue, rather than using mail (or other forms of one-way communication), highlighting the principle of kanohi kitea (face to face) as an important feature when working with Māori. They also had an advantage of understanding of their memberships’ views due to the smaller size of the iwi, which enabled easier communication channels. When evaluating risk, Pūkeko spoke of the need for a strong argument to approve or disapprove any decision which would require evidence driven information and modeling. Kākāpō and Toutouwai set a high standard for consultation processes based on previous pest management challenges, in which unanimous consent was required, they all had to give consent, all the marae [traditional meeting house]  … there were no votes (Kākāpō). Such an approach speaks to the principle of tino rangatiratanga and self-determination. This scenario has the potential to enhance Te Tiriti o Waitangi relationships with government organizations. The varied approaches to decision-making for Māori businesses highlights the structural complexities of these organizations and the stratified nature of consent. These will need to be factored for adequate consultation to take place.

Technology tensions

Following the perceptions gauged and their unique context, factors that will enhance dialogue on novel biotechnologies surfaced. Strong messages included the need for more information and concern regarding potential side-effects and risk, each representing tension when considering these technologies. Ultimately, this umbrella of thought indicates the current limitations for Māori businesses when discussing the potential use of biotechnologies in pest management.

Unsurprisingly, virtually all participants described a need for more information on the topic before coming to a concrete decision. The need for more information was coupled with some suggestions, but details of components or form where not always clear. Although, a strong emphasis was placed on the need for information clarity and a balanced narrative. Mōhua said they would require  … expert advice in front of us, which is from both sides of the argument … . Implying not only that more than one scientific voice is required – perhaps each presenting a “side,” but that views from another “side,” such as those external to the technical sciences are also important. Kārearea shared a similar view, wanting to see good science behind it and some independence to verify what we’re being told is going to deliver. Social scientists may provide a voice that is separate from laboratory-orientated science. Kākāpō said “it would have to be clear.” The onus is upon scientists to develop clear, balanced communication strategies.

An overwhelming majority of participants did not read the novel biotechnological controls information primer, and only two of the ten participants referred to it. Primers were emailed well in advance to interviews along with consent forms and information sheets. These were normally re-sent with a reminder email about the upcoming interview. Physical copies of the primer were available at interviews for reference. However, this did not stop participants from interrogating specific novel biotechnologies, as demonstrated in Table 4. It is important to understand that many of the participants in this study are key contributors to businesses in competitive global and domestic markets. How to communicate effectively with a diverse audience invites the consideration of alternative mediums to the written word.

Several participants mentioned the risks involved with the release of biotechnologies. When asserting the need for a targeted approach in the use of biotechnologies, Kākā also touched on the notion of “side-effects,” emphasizing the importance of there being  … no chance of inadvertent spread into the native population, and to ensure that a biotechnology was  … not going to affect anything off-target. Kākā also spoke frankly about public perceptions, stating:

The notion of a – you know – a Franken bug – getting out there, is – I mean, that scares the willies out of everyone. (Kākā)

Participants freely speculated on what types of risk might be involved, with the word “mutation” appearing in two separate interviews. Tūī also theorized the possibility of a mutation over time, putting forward the idea of a super wasp evolving a type of resistance to biotechnologies. Tūī also raised the possibility of asexual reproducing species in the event of the eradication of one of the sexes.

The Trojan mite evoked several responses concerning potential risk. Six participants in four separate interviews expressed discomfort with the technique. Concerns ranged from mutations in the disease that the mite is carrying, crossbreeding with Varroa mite (an established pest in apiculture), and off-target effects to other species like bees. Whereas RNAi and the Trojan female were seldom talked to.

Discussion

A potential benefit in wasps?

Lester (2018) draws on “net harm” to weigh up the positives and negatives attributed to wasps. Certainly, there is substantial evidence of wasps’ negative impact, however Mātātā strongly suggests that wasps are beneficial to their vineyard. They make the point that wasps act as a bio-control against pests that would otherwise require the use of pesticides or insecticides which accumulate cost and negate organic farm status. Additionally, by avoiding the use of chemicals, soil health is said to benefit (Sihi et al. 2017). How far this benefit extends is unclear. Do organic producers encourage wasp presence, and if so which wasps? Even if the beneficial wasps were our two target species, this benefit is likely to be outweighed by the negative impacts already identified.

Biotech communication

PF2050s interim goal of establishing a technology capable of eradicating a mammalian predator is only five years away. The results from this study show a clear desire to know more regarding biotechnologies in pest management. However, what type of information and how to deliver it is less clear. For most participants in this study, this was their first encounter with these biotechnologies. Communication efforts thus far have stemmed from the Royal Society Te Apārangi (2018a, 2018b) in a series of workshops, lectures, and discussion documents. Public engagement is limited but entered the mainstream briefly in the format of news media items and discussion panels facilitated by Radio New Zealand personalities in association with the Royal Society. Nonetheless, these sessions and discussion documents are circulated in the sphere of scientists, science enthusiasts, government officials, and curious citizens, resulting in a fairly insular conversation. This raises the issues of how to communicate with people in primary industries who are potential frontlines to biotechnologies. This is further complicated when considering there may be a need for multiple strategies in communication due to diverse producers including Māori, non-Māori, conservationists, and organic movements, as shown in the RCGM (2001). Likewise, state funds will be required to reach the wide audience that will voice opinions on this issue.

Careful consideration of what mediums might be used to convey biotechnologies will be required. Evident in this study is the ineffectiveness of the primer intended to inform participants on the intricacies of five novel biotechnologies. Creative solutions could extend to comic book style influenced media or video animation. Media has already proven influential in biotechnology perceptions (Roberts and Fairweather 2004) and 1080 (Green and Rohan 2012). Social media advertisements will likely be crucial to disseminating these topics to a broader audience.

A new approach will be required for a successful dialogue on pest management issues. Standard discourse on genetic engineering has proven unsuccessful internationally, recapitulating the need for scientific transparency and productive modes of disseminating complex information (Weitze and Pühler 2013). Transparency should aim to alleviate concerns for Māori, for example, the potential value biotechnologies might have for Māori communities (Hudson et al. 2019) and how to access it (Baker 2012). Internationally, Brossard (2019) argues that communication of biotechnologies extends beyond the scientific information, demanding ethical, political and social factors of the public to be prioritized. Framed in an Aotearoa context, this should inspire authentic engagement with Māori communities and organizations. Honoring Te Tiriti will provide a foundation for such a dialogue to take place.

Learning from the past

Evident in interviews was a tendency to “look back” on pest management issues in the past when discussing the potential use of biotechnologies. Drawing on the viewpoints and experiences with 1080 could construct a foundation to discuss biotechnologies in the future. Pertinent to this is the polarizing nature of 1080. The participants in this study occupied two polarizing opinions in apiculture. Investigation of how these views are formed, with a focus on rural Māori might better prepare a conversation on biotechnology. Similarly, calicivirus was reflected upon, however, due to the specific nature of this pest control, only businesses who had issues with pest rabbits recalled it. Nonetheless, opinions on the ineffectiveness of calicivirus still provided a counterpoint of discussion during interviews, questioning what impact novel technology like gene drive might be able to achieve.

Beneficial here might be further consideration of the Māori worldview, illuminated in the whakataukī (proverb) “ka mua, ka muri” – “walking backwards into the future while looking to the past.” This proverb acknowledges that a Māori worldview has eyes on the past when moving forward into the future. The expression highlights the value of tradition and the history Māori have endured. Rameka (2016) argues that authentic engagement with whakataukī can provide an entry point to the Māori world view and inform education pedagogy. The value of this proverb is evident in the thoughts shared by participants in this research.

The need for more information was a strong theme to emerge from interviews, echoing previous concerns raised by Māori during public submissions on the use of 1080 (Ogilvie, Miller, and Ataria 2010). Such concerns intersect with kaitiakitanga and taonga (cultural treasures), also paralleled in previous research on biotechnologies, and in this study. Kākāpō looked back on a time when they and their hapū granted a 1080 drop in their region. This event sought to protect and uplift taonga species, was an act of kaitiakitanga, and ultimately shows an example of tino rangatiratanga. The significance of this example should not be lost. The genuine uptake of customary concepts in legislation informs political agency and are key objectives for recognizing the Māori worldview post-European settlement (see Jones 2016; Mead 2003). This means that authentic engagement with Māori frames of reference will be essential in future dialogue regarding novel biotechnologies. Biotechnologies present an opportunity for agencies to establish a positive relationship with Māori. This could be achieved through genuine partnership, honoring Te Tiriti o Waitangi (the Māori text).

Conclusion

Biotechnology will inevitably remain a subject for discussion in years to come. In Aotearoa, the PF2050 campaign encourages the development of next generation technologies like biotechnology for the control of mammalian predators. Wasps present an opportune pest to gauge perceptions on novel control methods; however, this study shows that a release of such technology is not clear-cut. Participants in this study are Māori, working at the “coalface” of pest management issues, thus crucial to preparing any potential course of action. This article reveals the tensions in understanding five novel biotechnologies and reiterates the need for consideration of Māori concerns in this domain as Te Tiriti partners. Meaningful engagement and understanding of the cultural context in which Māori businesses operate will be essential to reaching PF2050 goals. How to communicate these technologies in a sincere manner is the next challenge in conservation efforts. Guidance on how this conversation might proceed may be present in previous controversial pest control methods like 1080. As the development of new pest management strategies continues, research with Māori communities should too. There is an opportunity to establish partnership and meaningful engagement with Māori on these issues going forward. With the interim goals only a few years away, it is clear that for the success of PF2050 an open conversation must begin immediately, however, a multiplicity of voices with balanced views that are informed by more than technical science will be required.

Acknowledgements

This study would not have been possible without the interest from Māori businesses. The authors thank those who gave up valuable time to be a part of this study. We are also grateful for the reviewer comments that strengthened this paper. This research is part of Project 2.2 Novel wasp control technologies, funded by the National Science Challenge: New Zealand’s Biological Heritage theme.

Disclosure statement

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

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by National Science Challenge: New Zealand’s Biological Heritage [grant number C09X1501].