Bob Edlin: A Treaty signed in 1840, sovereignty and genetic engineering....

.....Maori want a bigger slice of the action

An item on the Scimex website – drawing attention to a new research paper on the history of genetic modification in New Zealand – mentions “Maori” just once.

The paper to which attention is drawn, on the other hand, makes much of the role of Māori (or lack of it, we are led to believe) in the shaping of GM policy over the past 50 years.

The abstract says the authors trace five consistent threads across the complex history of GM,

… including the dominance of narrow economically-driven and technocratic decision-making, the marginalisation of Māori rights and the importance of public deliberation for navigating the significant questions of justice, rights and responsibility at stake.

The introduction says

We situate the GM debates within modern environmental politics and its intersections with nuanced histories of colonisation, democratic politics and social movements. Our analysis draws attention to consistent Māori voice regarding GM, while acknowledging we cannot give full justice to diverse Māori values and experiences within the scope of this paper

And:

We particularly focussed on key changes and actors relating to environmental policy and those of specific relevance to Māori.

Early on, a reference is made to a paper which brings “biocolonialism” into play:

Reynolds (2004, 15) identifies Māori resistance to GM and biotechnology as connected with concepts of whakapapa, kaitiakitanga and mauri, describing how the “new wave of resistance to biocolonialism builds on perspectives and organizational strengths developed in the ongoing anti-colonial resistance by Maori.”

Essentially, the paper is bleating about insufficient Maori involvement in GM policy-making.

But the introduction to the Scimex article goes further than insufficient involvement. It says:

We need to remember the history of gene tech decision-making in NZ if we’re to move forward, say researchers. Laying out 50 years of NZ politics around genetic modification, they identify common threads like the importance of dialogue between the public and scientists, and of partnership with Māori, who have been excluded from decision-making on genetic modification.

Excluded?

Without the luxury of the time and resources put into the paper in question, PoO put a question to Google which replied:

Māori have not been entirely excluded from genetic modification (GM) policy consultation in New Zealand, but there is a long-running and sharp debate over whether that consultation has been meaningful or consistent with Te Tiriti o Waitangi (The Treaty of Waitangi). While official regulatory bodies and legislative reviews have historically included Māori advisory mechanisms, Māori advocates, iwi leaders, and organic groups have frequently argued that governments sideline their perspectives, ignore indigenous data sovereignty, and push through deregulation without broad or genuine consent. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]

But Google also noted how the Treaty of Waitangi – correction, “Treaty principles” – have influenced decisions.

• Māori were significant contributors to the landmark 2001 Royal Commission of Inquiry into Genetic Modification. The Commission acknowledged Treaty principles, noting a Crown duty to actively protect Māori interests and consult on matters of significance. [1, 2]
• The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act required decision-makers to take Māori values into account. The Environmental Protection Authority established a Māori advisory committee (Ngā Kaihautū Tikanga Taiao) to ensure tikanga (customary protocols) and mātauranga Māori (traditional knowledge) were factored into specific GMO applications. [1, 2, 3]
• The Gene Technology Bill, aimed at ending the country’s long-standing restrictions on gene editing explicitly structures a Māori Advisory Committee alongside a Technical Advisory Committee. This statutory committee requires members with deep expertise in mātauranga Māori to advise the regulator on native species and cultural impacts.

It’s worth noting that the treaty was signed in 1840 and makes no mention of science.

Modern genetic engineering has been with us only since the 1970s.

The language in the paper introduced to us by Scimex reflects the nature of the grievances among the Maori (obviously not all Maori) who harbour grouches.

Sovereignty – yep, that thorny old question – comes into play:

The history of GM in Aotearoa demonstrates the dominance of narrow terms of debate around GM that centre economically driven, technocratic decision-making about risk, which continue into the present. It has contributed to the consistent marginalisation of Māori rights and aspirations, the embedding of epistemic hierarchies that sideline mātauranga Māori and the knowledges of the social sciences and humanities. It has led to the dismissal of opposition to GM as a matter of inadequate knowledge, without engaging with the significant questions of justice, sovereignty, rights and responsibility at stake. Concerns about the democratic foundations of science, and the replication of capitalist and colonial values within GM, have been present across the decades and are just as valid today. We call for greater focus on and investment in truly inter-disciplinary cross-cultural approaches and partnerships for GM research and governance moving forward. Progressing vital political and legislative decisions about GM in Aotearoa will require acknowledging the ongoing implications of these histories, rather than treating the past of GM as a static artefact that no longer has relevance.

As a taxpayer, dear reader, you have helped pay for this work.

The “research” was funded in part by the New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment Endeavour Fund: “Whatu raranga o ngā koiora – weaving cultural authority into gene-drives targeting wasps” (project number UOOX2306) and a summer scholarship from Bioprotection Aotearoa, a Tertiary Education Commission-funded Centre of Research Excellence.

Money well spent?

Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE.