Te Nohonga Kaitiaki Guidelines for Genomic Research on Taonga Species (with Background)
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Te Nohonga Kaitiaki Guidelines for Genomic Research on Taonga Species (with Background)
TE KOTAHI RESEARCH INSTITUTE Front Cover Image: Leaf cross-section of Harakeke (New Zealand Flax) Phormium tenax Note. Copyright n.d. by Natura Aura Limited (Anastasia Rickard). Used with permission 2
TE NOHONGA KAITIAKI
Te Nohonga Kaitiaki
Guidelines for Genomic
Research on Taonga Species
(with Background)
September 2021
Assoc Prof Maui Hudson Prof Chris Battershill
Ariane Thompson Assoc Prof Matthew Stott
Dr Phillip Wilcox Robert Tūrongo Brooks
Dr Jason Mika Lisa Warbrick
3
TE KOTAHI RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Acknowledgements
Te Nohonga Kaitiaki refers to the role of kaitiaki In preparing this document, Te Nohonga
and mana whenua in managing Māori interests in Kaitiaki research team wish to acknowledge the
biological samples or genetic resources, and data participants, stakeholders and mana whenua who
relating to taonga species across the full spectrum contributed to the project and these guidelines.
of activities from sample collection to sample
storage, from data curation to data sharing. We would also like to acknowledge that this
work has been fully-funded by Genomics
Genetic and genomic research on taonga species Aotearoa, who recognise the importance of
occurs for a variety of reasons supporting enhancing research relationships and promoting
conservation efforts and contributing to breeding equitable benefit sharing. Genomics Aotearoa
programmes. Kaitiaki need to be involved in is a national platform established to ensure that
decisions about future uses of the information and New Zealand is at the leading edge of genomics
data generated from any of these projects to ensure and bioinformatics research in health, the
mana whenua and/or Māori have the opportunity environment and primary production, with the
to benefit from the value created. aim of supporting New Zealand’s economic,
environmental and social wellbeing.
Published by:
Te Kotahi Research Institute
University of Waikato
Hamilton, New Zealand
ISBN: 978-0-9951290-4-7 (PDF)
ISBN: 978-0-9951290-3-0 (Softcover)
4
TE NOHONGA KAITIAKI
Table of Contents
04
Acknowledgements
31
Background to
the Guidelines
05
Table of Contents 66
References
06
Glossary 73
Appendix A: Te
Nohonga Kaitiaki
09
Executive Summary
Engagement Checklist
79
11
Te Nohonga
Appendix B: List of
Guidelines for Genetic
Research with Māori
Kaitiaki Guidelines
5
TE KOTAHI RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Glossary
Hapū Subtribe
Hui Meeting, gathering
Iwi Tribe
Kaitiaki Guardian, steward, caretaker
Kaitiakitanga Guardianship, stewardship, caretakership
Kanohi ki Face-to-face, in person
te kanohi
Karakia Prayer, invocation
Kaupapa Subject, topic, policy, matter for discussion,
plan, purpose
Kawa Protocol
Mana Authority, prestige, pride
Mana whenua General authority exercised by an iwi, hapū
or individual over a particular area of land
Manaakitanga Support, hospitality, generosity
Mātauranga Knowledge, wisdom
Mātauranga hou New knowledge
Mauri Life force, life essence
Ngā taonga katoa All treasured things
Noa Common, referring to a state of being that is
not sacred
Pūtahitanga Convergence, junction
6
TE NOHONGA KAITIAKI
Pūtaiao Science
Raraunga Data
Rohe Geographical area
Taketake Indigenous, native, original
Takiwā District, territory, region
Tangata whenua People of the land
Taonga Anything of value, treasures
Tapu Sacred, referring to a state of being that is sacred
or restricted
Te Ao Māori The Māori worldview or paradigm
Tika Correct, true, just
Tikanga The customary system of values and practices
developed over time
Tino rangatiratanga Sovereignty, self-determination, autonomy
Tuakana-teina Literal meaning: elder and younger sibling. Used
in reference to a relationship where one party is
older, more knowledgeable and more experienced
than the other. What is implied is a mentor-
mentee relationship.
Wai Water
Wāhi tapu Sacred site(s)
Wairua Spirit
Whakaaro Thought(s), idea(s)
Whakapapa Ancestry, genealogy, heritage
Whakawhānaungatanga Relationship-building
Whānau Family
Whānaungatanga Kinship, relationship, connection
7
TE KOTAHI RESEARCH INSTITUTE Tui Note. Copyright n.d. by University of Waikato 8
TE NOHONGA KAITIAKI
Executive Summary
The Te Nohonga Kaitiaki guidelines apply to Acknowledging that in order to:
genomic research involving taonga species. • Honour the Treaty of Waitangi and affirm
Despite Te Tiriti o Waitangi affirming Māori the mana of hapū and iwi,
rights over taonga, the application of these rights • Support the role of kaitiaki over taonga
to biological samples and data has generally species,
been overlooked within the sciences. The ease • Uphold a high standard of ethics,
of access to genomic technologies has resulted • Comply with relevant domestic and
in widespread proliferation of research, and international policy,
increasing access for the scientific community • Create and benefit from commercial and
as well as tertiary and secondary educational non-commercial opportunities,
institutions. To date there has been little guidance • Continue to advance scientific
in place to ensure that taonga species are being innovation, and
approached in a manner that upholds Treaty • Give effect to conservation of genetic
principles, or specific guidance on how this can resources for future generations.
be done effectively.
A multi-layered and integrative approach
The Waitangi Tribunal has strongly is required.
recommended the protection of kaitiaki interests
over taonga. International instruments such as These guidelines provide a comprehensive
The United Nations Declaration on the Rights framework for research positioned at the
of Indigenous People also affirm these rights. intersection of genomics, innovation and Te
Moreover, documents such as the Convention Ao Māori. The guidelines also highlight the
on Biological Diversity and its supplementary considerations at different levels of a project, from
document, the Nagoya Protocol, prescribe benefit- inception to completion. An engagement checklist
sharing arrangements to be set in place where provides questions to inform the development
traditional knowledge or biological resources have of robust relationships with Māori. It is intended
been used for profit (Secretariat of the Convention that these guidelines be considered a living,
on Biological Diversity, 2010). While not all are evolving document with the understanding that as
yet endorsed by the New Zealand government, technology advances, so too will the specific needs
these international instruments bring a focus to to be addressed.
the conservation of biodiversity, an important
principle at the heart of kaitiakitanga.
9
Te Nohonga
Kaitiaki Guidelines
13
Introduction
18
Engaging with Māori
14
Purpose
22
Engagement Framework
Levels of Responsibility
Project Level Responsiveness
16
Guiding Principles
Engagement/Communication:
Project Outcomes
Level of Involvement
Kia tau te wairua o te tangata Intellectual Contribution of Māori/Mana Whenua
Organisation Level Responsiveness
Kia pūmau te mana o te tangata
Sample/Data Access and Governance
Kia hiki te mauri o te kaupapa Benefit Sharing
Capacity Building
Embedding Relationships
17
Operating Principles
System Level Responsiveness
Research Networks and Consortia
International Agreements
He whakapapa tō te taonga Research Funding
He mauri tō te taonga End Users
He kaitiaki tō te taongaTE KOTAHI RESEARCH INSTITUTE 12
TE NOHONGA KAITIAKI
Te Nohonga
Kaitiaki Guidelines
Introduction
Research contributes to the broader developmental (World Health Organization, 2004; World
objectives of society. Ethics plays a specific Health Organization, 2020). Genomics is broader
role in guiding key behaviours, processes and in nature and encompasses all genes and their
methodologies used in research. Māori ethical interrelationships in order to understand more fully
frameworks recognise that all research in New their combined influence on the organism.
Zealand is of interest to Māori and outline
community expectations of appropriate behaviour All research involving genetic resources for the
in research to deliver the best outcomes for Māori purposes of conservation and ecology within
(Atatoa-Carr et al., 2012; Beaton et al., 2017). This Aotearoa is of value and interest to kaitiaki.
extends to research on taonga species. As such, Māori have expressed openness to working with
all research that uses samples of taonga origin genomic researchers where projects can help
creates obligations on the part of institutions to act them meet their kaitiaki responsibilities alongside
ethically and in good faith in relation to specific the use of mātauranga and more traditional
projects and future uses. interventions. Our engagements also identified a
significant desire for mana whenua to understand
Genes are a basic unit of heredity and consist the processes surrounding genomic research for
of a particular sequence of DNA located on a the purposes of either mitigating inappropriate
chromosome. Genetics is the study of genes and applications; or for the purposes of building
the molecular structure of genes, and is primarily knowledge or capacity while ensuring the
concerned with their specific function and integrity of taonga and mātauranga.
inheritance from one generation to another. A
genome is the complete set of genetic information
of an organism, including the spatial arrangement
of that genetic information within a cell. The
World Health Organization defines genomics
as the study of genomes, which looks at the
function of genes, as well as related techniques
13TE KOTAHI RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Purpose
The Te Nohonga Kaitiaki Guidelines for Genomic international practices consistent with the
Research on Taonga Species have primarily been Nagoya Protocol.
developed as a tool to assist in the planning and
execution of genomic research in a manner that The guidelines have been designed with a number
honours taonga, kaitiaki and mātauranga Māori. of objectives. They are:
This document has also been designed with mana • To honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi/The Treaty
whenua in mind, noting that these guidelines of Waitangi,
may serve as a starting point for hapū and iwi to • To affirm the rangatiratanga of kaitiaki over
formulate specific guidance that is relevant to their taonga species,
own tikanga and mātauranga. The development • To reiterate the mana of hapū and iwi,
of this document serves to enhance engagement • To support Māori data sovereignty over data
and dialogue, and in line with the rangatiratanga generated from research,
of iwi, hapū and whānau, is not intended to be • To address the need for benefit-sharing
authoritative in nature. As such, the guidelines arrangements in compliance with the
are named Te Nohonga Kaitiaki, or the place of emerging global standard under the Nagoya
guardians, recognising both the role of traditional Protocol,
guardians of taonga species and the responsibilities • To establish practical guidance for institutions
of institutional stewards. to conduct research in a manner that reflects
cultural responsiveness and ethical science.
This document was designed to further build on
the guidance provided in Te Mata Ira Guidelines ‘Taonga species’ refers broadly to any species or
on Genomic Research with Māori, Te Ara Tika biota that are of value to Māori. The holistic nature
Guidelines for Māori Research Ethics and He of the Māori paradigm means that taonga species
Tangata Kei Tua Guidelines for Biobanking. are viewed in the entirety of their living contexts.
(Hudson et al., 2010; Hudson et al., 2016a; This means that taonga species can be viewed as
Hudson et al., 2016b; Hudson et al., 2016c). Te both independent entities and as interdependent
Nohonga Kaitiaki guidelines were developed with parts of complex ecosystems. This means that
a focus for the future and are oriented towards taonga can be viewed on macro and micro
empowering iwi, hapū and whānau to navigate levels and thus can include bioactives, microbes,
genomic innovation in Aotearoa. The guidelines including bacteria, as well as species of flora, fauna
aim to assist in formulating an approach to and entire ecosystems. This is explained in more
research that is consistent with the Crown’s ever- detail in the Cultural Foundation section of these
emerging response to Wai 262, as well as address guidelines.
the growing need to come into compliance with
14TE NOHONGA KAITIAKI
Kaupapa Māori research has been defined as
research by Māori, for Māori and with Māori
(Smith, 2012). Although not all genomic research
will necessarily fit within all of the parameters
described here, the objectives and characteristics
of furthering rangatiratanga and giving full
recognition to Māori values and systems that are
central to kaupapa Māori research remain key
when dealing with taonga (Collier-Robinson et al.,
2019; Pihama et al., 2002; Walker et al., 2006).
Genomics Aotearoa funded the development of
the Te Nohonga Kaitiaki guidelines. The first round
of consultation involved a review of literature as
well as series of nationwide hui¹, presentations
and wānanga² held between 2018 and 2019.
These hui were attended by both science and
community stakeholders, including representation
from various government departments and Crown
entities. Interviews with key informants were
also carried out in a manner that captured the
diverse nature of taonga species research and its
potential applications. Eleven formal submissions
were received in the first consultation round from
a range of institutions and individuals³, and five
further submissions were received in the second
consultation round⁴.
¹ These initial hui were held in Auckland, Ngaruawaahia, Hamilton, Christchurch and Dunedin between June and November 2018, with a total
of 193 participants.
² This overnight wānanga was held from 30th September to 1st October 2019 at the Waikato-Tainui Research College in Hopuhopu,
Ngaruawaahia.
³ Submissions from institutions were received from the Genomics Aotearoa Kāhui Māori, Species Aotearoa, NIWA, The University of
Auckland, Te Papa Atawhai, New Zealand’s Biological Heritage Challenge, Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research and four individuals.
⁴ Submissions were received from Species Aotearoa, Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research and three individuals.
15TE KOTAHI RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Guiding Principles
The guiding principles have been set in place to In the absence of guidelines, falling back on
guide the thinking around genomic research. guiding principles should inform good decision-
They speak primarily to the importance of how making. The guiding principles in this document
communities relate to the nature of the project. reflect those set out in the Te Mata Ira Guidelines.
Kia tau te Wairua represents the spirit in which a taonga is shared and used. It
wairua o encompasses the intentions, expectations and duties of care that are embedded
in the use of the taonga. It requires a level of trust between traditional kaitiaki
te tangata
and the institutional stewards to whom the taonga is being entrusted for the
purposes of the research.
‘Kia tau te wairua o te tangata’ sets the standard of comfort that communities
should have with a given research project. The level of comfort may change
over time and therefore it is important for researchers to maintain ongoing
communication with mana whenua in order to keep mana whenua informed
and engaged at every phase of the research.
Kia pūmau Mana translates to power and authority and refers to the authoritative ability of
te mana o kaitiaki to exercise their tino rangatiratanga.
te tangata
‘Kia pūmau te mana o te tangata’ speaks to maintaining a level of control
that enables kaitiaki to exercise their self-determination over their taonga. More
specifically, it relates to the level of control that participants and communities
have with regard to the research project.
Kia hiki te mauri As described earlier, mauri is a core concept that underpins the Māori paradigm.
o te kaupapa It is the essence of life and encapsulates ecosystemic balance and the biological
integrity of life-sustaining systems and conditions.
‘Kia hiki te mauri o te kaupapa’ makes clear the importance of ensuring that
the integrity of systems that contribute to research endeavours is enriched, or
at the very least maintained throughout the course of the research.
16TE NOHONGA KAITIAKI
Operating Principles
The operating principles are reflective of the are to be navigated when planning research
nature and relationship of whānau, hapū and iwi and are of particular utility in the absence of
with taonga. The operating principles provide applicable guidance.
clarity around how relationships with the taonga
He whakapapa Taonga have relationships with people and place.
tō te taonga ‘He whakapapa tō te taonga’ acknowledges the vast and extensive reaches
of whakapapa that contribute to the unique history of a taonga and its state
of being. In this sense, whakapapa is not exclusively tied to ancestry, but
encompasses each connection that enriches it with relational identity. From this
perspective, we view any taonga not only as a treasure or resource, but in the
light of all relationships that have culminated in its existence. ‘He whakapapa tō
te taonga’ describes the genealogical, social, ecological, spiritual and historical
relationships that cumulatively shape the highly nuanced identity of a taonga.
He mauri tō Taonga are essential components of the ecosystem.
te taonga ‘He mauri tō te taonga’ encompasses the delicate interplay between all
organisms, which in turn form the foundations of ecosystem balance. Mauri as
it relates to genomic research speaks to the importance of the preservation of
distinct populations, the preservation of biodiversity, the preservation of roles
within ecosystems and the preservation of mātauranga. ‘He mauri tō te taonga’
is the acknowledgement that taonga are central to ecosystemic health.
He kaitiaki tō Taonga are protected through intentional action.
te taonga As described throughout this document, one of the key underpinning aspects
of Te Ao Māori is the taonga-kaitiaki relationship. ‘He kaitiaki tō te taonga’
speaks to the significance of this relationship and reinforces that taonga should
be actively protected. It is an acknowledgement that whether through the self-
determined actions of kaitiaki or the responsibility of institutional stewards,
taonga are to be given due care and regard.
17TE KOTAHI RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Engaging with Māori
An important part of conducting genomic research The following table summarises who researchers
that involves taonga species is the need to engage could engage with in the development of research
with the right people. Māori have repeatedly projects. Though not an exhaustive list, it identifies
expressed their desire to be involved in research where discussions may need to happen and where
conversations from the earliest stage possible. agreements might need to be made.
While whānau, hapū and iwi are able to identify
appropriate connections between taonga and Through engagement with the appropriate
kaitiaki, the nature of this involvement may vary people it is possible to develop research projects
from case to case. that enhance relationships based on good faith
and mutual understanding (Te Arotūruki, 2009).
It should be noted that genomic research has a Engaging with Māori in the design process
fraught and often controversial history for Māori enables:
and Indigenous communities. Many will assert • an acknowledgement of rangatiratanga status
their right to say NO, in line with the Aashukan as Treaty partners
Declaration (NZAIA, n.d.). Others will only • an acknowledgement that mātauranga Māori
participate if their cultural intellectual property can make an important contribution
rights, as reflected in the Mataatua Declaration, are • an acknowledgement that Māori have
upheld (The Mataatua Declaration on the Cultural resources and capability to contribute; and
and Intellectual Property Rights of Indigenous • an acknowledgement that for some issues
Peoples, 1993). Māori are better placed to develop the
solutions (Te Arawhiti, 2018a; Te Arawhiti,
The responsibility to engage with an appropriate 2018b).
voice lies with the entity seeking engagement
and this should begin at the earliest possible time. Others examples of guidelines to support effective
Before beginning consultation, it is important engagement include Bay of Plenty Regional
to apply careful thought regarding who is being Council (2011), Auckland Council (2016) and
consulted and whether they have the mana Waikato Regional Council (2017).
or authority to represent the interests of their
community. It may also be wise to consider
concurrent consultation. In some instances,
individual iwi or hapū may opt to be represented
by a rūnanga or iwi collective that may be
better resourced or oriented, in order to represent
their needs.
18TE NOHONGA KAITIAKI
Who to engage with
Mana Whenua
Individual whānau Engage with whānau and/or hapū that have exclusive and well-defined
or hapū kaitiakitanga interests for a specific variant of a taonga species.
Rūnanga or an Engage with iwi to gain support for projects and to identify their
iwi entity kaitiakitanga interests in specific taonga species.
Mātauranga holders Kaitiaki (guardians) have a responsibility to care for the taonga and will
– Kaitiaki and Tohunga often be experts (tohunga) or hold expert knowledge (mātauranga) that
can add value to projects.
Multiple iwi and/or Multiple iwi may share kaitiakitanga responsibilities for certain taonga
multiple collective species, and instances such as this should involve engagement with all
iwi entities interested parties.
Māori
Māori researchers Māori researchers with expertise in the project or whakapapa to iwi within
the rohe.
Māori networks Māori networks with an interest in the project or Māori liaisons affiliated
and liaisons with relevant organisations.
Māori commercial Māori commercial entities may have an interest in ascertaining the novelty
and non-commercial or bioactivity of a certain taonga species in order to develop commercial
entities enterprises based on the authenticity or provenance of the taonga, or to
prevent non-Māori and off-shore entities from doing the same.
19TE KOTAHIKōura
Freshwater RESEARCH
(crayfish)INSTITUTE
collected from Lake Rotoiti
sitting in bracken fern.
Used with permission
Copyright 2018 by A. Pearson
20TE NOHONGA KAITIAKI
21TE KOTAHI RESEARCH INSTITUTE Engagement Framework Levels of Responsibility The Te Nohonga Kaitiaki Engagement The question of ‘what constitutes good framework outlines effective engagement with engagement’ is challenging from the outset. Māori across three levels of responsiveness; at the While Māori have expressed views of being Project Level, the Organisation Level and Systems ‘over consulted’, what has also been expressed is Level. Each level of responsiveness is detailed in a keen desire to be involved and engaged with following pages. early in a manner that is both comprehensive and meaningful. One of the limitations of Crown- imposed requirements for consultation embedded in policy is that engagement with Māori has become more about procedural compliance than an opportunity to build mana-enhancing relationships as a foundation for a project. The Te Nohonga Kaitiaki Engagement Framework has been developed to illustrate the considerations that lay the foundation for effective engagement. Satisfactory engagement is not one-dimensional and comprises different levels of responsiveness, with each level encompassing its own considerations. The various levels illustrated have been highlighted to bring attention to the nuances involved in planning research involving Māori and their taonga. 22
TE NOHONGA KAITIAKI
Project Outcomes
Level of Involvement
Project Level Intellectual Contribution
Responsiveness of Māori/Mana Whenua
Engagement/
Communication
Capacity Building
Embedding Relationships
Organisation Level Sample/Data Access and
Responsiveness Governance
Benefit Sharing
End Users
Research Networks
System Level and Consortia
Responsiveness International Agreements
Research Funding
23TE KOTAHI RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Project Level
Responsiveness
Project Level Responsiveness encompasses issues • What are the potential benefits to Māori?
that are directly relevant to the project itself. • What are the potential risks?
• Have there been conversations with Māori
The four main aspects as indicated previously to establish what their long term vision and
include: priorities may be?
• Whether good engagement and • Is there an alignment of desired outcomes
communication practices have been set from this project?
in place • What efforts have been made to ensure all
• Whether project outcomes are mutually parties have a mutual understanding of those
beneficial and understood outcomes?
• An understanding of involvement for all • Is there a future vision for collaboration?
parties involved
• How the intellectual contribution of Māori Level of Involvement
and mana whenua will be recognised. • What
are the roles and responsibilities for
kaitiaki within this collaboration?
Useful questions can include the following: • What expectations do Māori have of
researchers?
Engagement/Communication: • What expectations do researchers have of
• When should engagement occur? Māori?
• How is engagement conducted? • Are roles, responsibilities and expectations
• Is there an adequate level of cultural practicable?
understanding prior to engagement? • What is the level of project resourcing?
• Is there an adequate level of understanding of
the Treaty prior to engagement? Intellectual Contribution of
• What are the parameters of consent or denial? Māori/Mana Whenua
• Will kaitiaki have the resources made • W hat is the level of understanding in relation
available to them to be fully informed about to mātauranga Māori?
the project and what it aims to achieve? • Is there an understanding of Māori approaches
• Who absorbs the cost of engagement? to protecting their mātauranga and taonga?
• How has mātauranga Māori strengthened
Project Outcomes research?
• What are the intended project outcomes? • How can the project support/substantiate/
• Who benefits from these outcomes? confirm mātauranga Māori?
24Taonga Species
System Level Responsiveness
Internat
International Research networks agreem
agreements and consortia
Intellectual
Level of Contribution of Be
Level
Involvement Māori/Mana Whenua involvem
Project Level
Responsiveness
Taonga Species
Project Outcomes Engagement/
an
Project ou
Communication
Research funding End Users Research
Taonga SpeciesTE KOTAHI RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Organisation Level
Responsiveness
Organisation Level Responsiveness speaks to Benefit Sharing
the organisation’s roles and responsibilities in • What benefit-sharing processes are in place?
navigating the ‘how’ of the project. • Has thought been given to new knowledge
that may emerge from the project?
This level of responsiveness covers the following • What entity gets to benefit from
four aspects: new knowledge?
• Data access and governance of data has • What, if any, IP rights are there over the
been considered knowledge generated and how was this
• A plan for fair and equitable benefit sharing negotiated?
• Consideration of capacity-building aspirations • Are there agreements or mechanisms in place
and mechanisms that allow for sharing of benefit in relation
• Relationships established in good faith. to any potential new knowledge that may
emerge from research?
Useful questions can include the following: • How are original agreements maintained if
‘parties’ change or are terminated?
Sample/Data Access and Governance
• A re there any legal or moral requirements Capacity Building
for data from research to be made public or • W hat initiatives support scientists to better
shared with a third party? understand Te Ao Māori?
• Where are data derived from and is there any • What initiatives support Māori to better
secondary usage of data? understand Science?
• What are the data access protocols? • Are there any absorptive capacities (human,
• Who gets to design data access protocols? technical, relational – kaupapa, mātauranga,
• How does that process take place? tikanga) built into the project?
• Are Māori involved in decisions about access
and use of new data? Embedding Relationships
• How will samples be obtained? • H ow are Māori involved in making
• What are the protocols around sample decisions in the project?
management? • Is Māori input valued?
• Are Māori involved in the decisions about • Is open communication supported on
sample management? both ends?
26s
search networks
and consortia
Intellectual
Capacity building
contribution of Benefit Sharing Capacity Building
ori/mana whenua
cies Organisation Level
veness Responsiveness
Taonga Species
Sample storage Embedding
Engagement/ Sample/Data Access
and uses Relationships
and Governance
Communication
End UsersTE KOTAHI RESEARCH INSTITUTE
System Level
Responsiveness
System Level Responsiveness pertains to aspects Research Funding
external to the project that are beyond the scope • W hat funding opportunities may arise from
of the organisation. These aspects can include the this project for follow-on projects?
national and international legal parameters of • Do the opportunities for funding come
the research, or the extent to which the research with conditions that may conflict with
can be disseminated. System Level Responsiveness kaitiaki values?
is important to be aware of at the project and
organisation levels in order to mitigate any End Users
potential limitations that the project may have as • What is the end use of the project?
a result. • Is there foreseeable potential for other uses
from the outputs of this project?
The four aspects to be taken into account include: • Do the foreseeable potential uses align with
• Research Networks and Consortia the values and aspirations of kaitiaki?
• National Policies and International • Are there foreseeable uses that may harm
Agreements kaitiaki, their values or their aspirations?
• Research Funding and Publications • Has there been consideration of the potential
• End Uses and End Users. unforeseen future uses that may arise from
the project?
Useful questions can include the following: • Who are the primary end users of the project?
• Who are the potential secondary users of
Research Networks and Consortia the project?
• W
hat interests will other networks and
consortia have in data generated from
the project?
International Agreements
• W hat effect does domestic policy have on
the project?
• What international agreements have an
impact on the project?
• How do international agreements affect
the project?
28Project Responsiveness
Project outcomes Engagement/
an
Communication
Research Funding End Users
System Level
Responsiveness
Taonga Species
International Research Networks
Agreements and ConsortiaBackground to
the Guidelines
33
Genomic Research
48
Taonga and Genomic Research
Mauri
Whakapapa
34
Māori Interests in Genomic Research
Mana (in relation to taonga)
Wairua (in relation to taonga)
Tapu
Te Tiriti o Waitangi/The Treaty of Waitangi Kaitiakitanga
The Wai 262 Claim Taonga Species
Te Pae Tawhiti
40 54
Taonga Relationships Table
International Agreements and Indigenous
Interests in Genomic Research
The Mataatua Declaration
The United Nations Declaration on the Rights
of Indigenous Peoples
56
Kaitiakitanga
Convention on Biological Diversity Control over Indigenous Data
The Nagoya Protocol
42 60
Pathways for Innovation
Taonga and Taonga Species Moving up the Value Chain
Key Issues
Capacity and Capability
44
Cultural Foundation
End-to-End Investment
Intellectual Property Recognition and Protection
Commercial Agreements
Ongoing Engagement
45
Cultural LogicsTE KOTAHI RESEARCH INSTITUTE A scanning electron microscope image of a thermophilic bacterium, Chthonomonas calidirosea. The bacterium optimally grows at 65°C in geothermally heated soils in Aotearoa NZ. Each bacterial cell is approximately 2/1000th of a mm in length (2 µm). In this image the stringy material surrounding the cells is a mixture of carbohydrates and proteins excreted by the cells. Copyright n.d. by Kevin Lee Used with permission 32
TE NOHONGA KAITIAKI
Background to
the Guidelines
Context
Genomic Research Organization, 2004; World Health Organization,
Genetic and genomic research comprise a 2020). As mentioned earlier in the document,
research continuum that uses gene technology genomics is broader in nature than genetics and
to examine the nature of living things. Genes, in encompasses all genes and their interrelationships
the simplest of terms, can be considered the most in order to understand more fully their combined
basic unit of heredity. More specifically, a gene influence on the organism⁶.
is a sequence of DNA that codes for the synthesis
of RNA and subsequently of proteins. These
proteins may either play a role in the biochemical DNA Molecule of life
processes necessary in the functioning of the living
organism, or yield more direct phenotypic⁵ effects
(Portin & Wilkins, 2017). Genetics is the study of
genes and the molecular structure of genes, and
is generally concerned with heredity. A genome
is the complete set of genetic information of an
organism, including the spatial arrangement of
that genetic information within a cell. The World
Health Organization defines genomics as the
study of genomes, which looks at the function of
genes, as well as related techniques (World Health
Office of Biological and Environmental Research of the
U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science, n.d.
⁵ A phenotype represents the observable characteristics or physical traits of an organism.
⁶ As an example of the distinction between genetic and genomic research, a population genetics study of a native species using microsatellite
markers would not necessarily be considered a 'genomic' project, however, a whole-genome sequencing or transcriptome (gene expression) study
would be. Presumably any study for which molecular information is utilised (even more broadly for biochemical analyses) would likewise be
considered as such.
33TE KOTAHI RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Māori Interests in
Genomic Research
• T he Treaty of Waitangi guarantees tino document. It holds immense significance not
rangatiratanga over all taonga. only in establishing relations between the Crown
• Taonga species include all Indigenous flora and Māori but also New Zealand’s identity as a
and fauna. bicultural nation (Orange, 2015).
• The Waitangi Tribunal affirmed, in the Ko
Aotearoa Tēnei report (Waitangi Tribunal, The Treaty of Waitangi was signed between
2011), that genetic material of taonga species the British Crown and rangatira of Māori hapū
falls within the purview of kaitiakitanga, and across Aotearoa. This document was made
therefore, any research in relation to taonga available in both English and Māori texts; the
species and its genetic material is of interest English Treaty of Waitangi (the Treaty) and
to Māori. the Māori Tiriti ō Waitangi (te Tiriti). The
• Tino rangatiratanga entitles Māori to Treaty of Waitangi has been criticised for its
decision-making authority, rights to many inconsistencies with its Māori counterpart.
participation, rights of protection and rights Article 2 of the Tiriti guarantees Māori tino
to the wellbeing of taonga. rangatiratanga over lands, forests, fisheries and
• Kaitiaki are to have their mātauranga “ngā taonga katoa”. The Treaty describes “ngā
recognised as well as their interests in its use. taonga katoa” as “all treasured things”. Though
• Kaitiaki are also entitled to the reasonable the significance of taonga was acknowledged
control over the use of their mātauranga. with its inclusion in the Treaty, the journey of
taonga through New Zealand’s evolving body
Māori interest in genomic research is reflective of legislative understanding has historically
of the development of tino rangatiratanga over subjected the concept to misunderstandings, and
taonga. As specific rights have been carved out oversimplifications in law. This has caused the
over time, the interests Māori have in genomic Crown’s view of taonga to fall far short of Māori
research have also become more and more clear- expectations, with definitions often being at odds
cut. This section summarises the most significant with each other. This raises a greater question of
documents that shape the tangible interests in compatibility between the Western legal system,
genomic research that Māori have. which operates on specificity and consistency,
and the Māori worldview that honours the
Te Tiriti o Waitangi/The Treaty of Waitangi subjective and philosophical diversity in different
Te Tiriti o Waitangi – the Treaty of Waitangi iwi and hapū.
is New Zealand’s founding constitutional The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 instructs the
document and as such, is a contemporary living Crown to adhere to Treaty principles. These
34TE NOHONGA KAITIAKI
principles subsequently emerged from the Lands development and associated Indigenous, cultural and
case (New Zealand Māori Council v Attorney- customary rights in relation to such taonga
General, 1987) comprising: (Waitangi Tribunal, 2011).
• Partnership including good faith and
cooperation According to the claim, tino rangatiratanga
• The Crown duty of active protection entitled Māori to such things as:
• Participation underscored by the Crown’s • Decision-making authority over
right to govern, qualified by respect for conservational and proprietary interests in
tino rangatiratanga. natural resources including Indigenous flora
and fauna;
The right to development has emerged from these • The right to participate in and benefit from
principles⁷. Just as Māori have an interest in taonga existing and future technological advances in
and new uses for taonga, they also have an interest relation to the breeding, genetic manipulation
in new knowledge and discoveries pertaining and other processes relevant to the use of
to taonga. taonga that include Indigenous flora and
fauna;
The Wai 262 Claim • The right to participate in and benefit
The Waitangi Tribunal’s 262nd report summarised from existing and future development
one of the largest and most complex claims in and commercial use of taonga including
the Tribunal’s history. Covering flora, fauna and Indigenous flora and fauna;
artistic expressions of every kind, the claim sought • The right to protect, enhance and transmit
to recognise and give effect to the second part of the cultural, medicinal and spiritual
Article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi, in which iwi knowledge and concepts found in the life
and hapū were guaranteed tino rangatiratanga over cycles of Indigenous flora and fauna; and
“ngā taonga katoa”. • A right to environmental wellbeing
dependent upon the nurturing and wise use
In the claim, the claimants maintained that the of Indigenous flora and fauna.
Crown had denied Māori the full exercise of their
tino rangatiratanga over their taonga; in particular, The Tribunal favoured the flexible concept of tino
natural resources including Indigenous flora and rangatiratanga above that of the rigid concept of
fauna. The claimants also sought recognition of undisturbed possession. The Tribunal considered
their tino rangatiratanga over the full breadth of that the principle of tino rangatiratanga made
their taonga as assured within the Treaty. This allowance for the recognition and protection of
included such things as, but was not limited to: the kaitiaki relationship with taonga species and
Mātauranga, whakairo, wāhi tapu, biodiversity, mātauranga Māori.
genetics, Māori symbols and designs and their use and
⁷ New Zealand Māori Council v Attorney-General (1987), commonly referred to as the ‘Lands‘ or the ‘SOE case’ was the seminal case that
articulated the Treaty principles, modeled a wide interpretation of the Treaty in law, and helped facilitate the development of Crown-Māori
relations.
35TE KOTAHI RESEARCH INSTITUTE
In respect of mātauranga Māori, the Tribunal Te Pae Tawhiti
concluded that kaitiaki have three rights: On 29 August 2019, Te Puni Kōkiri released Te
1. T
he right to proper recognition (what Pae Tawhiti, a proposed approach to addressing
constitutes proper recognition would vary the Wai 262 report (Te Puni Kōkiri, 2019). Te
depending on a range of factors) Pae Tawhiti is a work programme that entails a
whole-of-government approach in addressing
2. T
he right to a reasonable degree of control the issues raised in the report. The plan is broad
over the use of mātauranga Māori in scope and involves the participation of a wide
3. T
he proper recognition of the interests range of government departments. The proposed
of kaitiaki for any commercial use of plan establishes three workstreams and their
mātauranga Māori. corresponding ministerial working groups. The
As Wai262 relates to taonga species relationships, workstreams are summarised below:
it also states that the meaning and purpose of Kete 1: Taonga works and mātauranga Māori
those relationships are defined within mātauranga Kete 2: Taonga species and mātauranga Māori
Māori, noting that “no two iwi, hapū, or whānau Kete 3: Kawenata aorere/kaupapa aorere
will have the same mātauranga or the same kōrero Of greatest interest to this document is the
about a particular taonga species” (Waitangi proposed approach to dealing with taonga species
Tribunal, 2011). and mātauranga Māori. The document adopts the
Waitangi Tribunal’s definition of taonga species,
The Te Nohonga Kaitiaki guidelines were being “the species over which whānau, hapū or
developed with the principal understanding that iwi claim kaitiakitanga (guardianship) obligations,
each hapū and iwi have unique mātauranga and and whose basis, history and content are set
therefore, unique relationships with their taonga out in mātauranga Māori” (Waitangi Tribunal,
species. As such, these guidelines were designed 2011). The document frames taonga within
not to be authoritative, but to provide a basis for considerations of kaitiakitanga as well as the treaty
further engagement and dialogue. principles of protection and partnership, and poses
Kete 1: Taonga works me te Mātauranga Māori manage its metadata to enable access to the mātauranga Māori
What is the scope of this Kete? it holds?
Some of the options for future collaborative work between Māori and What are the existing work programmes that sit within this Kete?
the Crown in Kete 1 might include: The Government has so far identified the following workstreams as
a) Kaitiakitanga being likely to involve issues related to those considered in Ko Aotearoa
How can we better enable kaitiaki to more fully exercise Tēnei in Kete 1 (Taonga Works me te Mātauranga Māori):
kaitiakitanga over taonga works and mātauranga Māori? a) The review of the Copyright Act 1994
b) Protection b) The review of the Haka Ka Mate Attribution Act 2014
Should there be a new legal framework to protect taonga works c) Government data stewardship and Māori data governance
and mātauranga Māori? What should it look like? d) The review of the Statistics Act 1975
c) Partnership e) National Archival and Library Institutions (NALI)
How should we make decisions affecting taonga works and Ministerial Group
mātauranga Māori in New Zealand and who should make them? f) Government Digital Strategy
d) Stewardship g) Refresh of Tau Mai Te Reo
How should the Crown manage taonga works and mātauranga h) Review of the Te Ture mō Te Reo Māori Act 2016
Māori it holds? How should the Crown approach Māori data i) Māori Media Sector Shift
stewardship and governance issues? How can the Crown better
36TE NOHONGA KAITIAKI
questions around how each of those principles Kete 3 demonstrates the importance of establishing
can be enacted and enhanced. meaningful relationships and considers Māori
Also of relevance is Kete 3, which covers the interests at an international level, Māori
relationships that create the setting within which engagement and the representation of Māori in
taonga species are to be dealt with. international forums.
Kete 2: Taonga species me te Mātauranga Māori Tribal Trust v Minister of Conservation
c) Improving access to cultural materials
What is the scope of this Kete?
d) Comprehensive review of the resource management system
Some of the options for future collaborative work between Māori and
e) Essential freshwater
the Crown in Kete 2 might include:
f) Developing a National Policy Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity
a) Kaitiakitanga
g) Zero Carbon Bill
How can we better enable kaitiaki to more fully exercise
h) Emissions Trading Scheme
kaitiakitanga over taonga species and mātauranga Māori?
i) Mātauranga Māori when presented as evidence in a decision-
b) Protection
making hearing
How should we protect taonga species and mātauranga Māori?
j) Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental
How might better information systems about taonga species and
Effects) Act 2012
mātauranga Māori be developed?
k) Three Waters Review
c) Partnership
l) Review of the Plant Variety Rights Act 1987
How should we make decisions affecting taonga species and
m) Consideration of whether there should be a ‘disclosure of origin’
mātauranga Māori in New Zealand and who should make them?
requirement in the patent system
How we might transition Māori-Crown engagement on taonga
n) Development of a Resource Strategy
species and mātauranga Māori from a transactional, issue-by-issue
o) Review of the Crown Minerals Act 1991
approach to a relationship-based model?
p) Health Services and Outcomes Inquiry Kaupapa Inquiry (Wai 2575)
What are the existing work programmes that sit within this Kete?
q) Māori Health Action Plan
The Government has so far identified the following workstreams as
r) Fisheries Change Programme
being likely to involve issues related to those considered in Ko Aotearoa
s) Review of the Biosecurity Act 1993
Tēnei in Kete 2 (Taonga Species me te Mātauranga Māori):
t) Forestry Strategy
a) Development of a new national biodiversity strategy
b) Responding to the Supreme Court’s decision in Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki
Kete 3: Kawenata Aorere/Kaupapa Aorere Māori, consistent with their role as a Treaty partner”.
As set out above, this kete is primarily focused on the Crown
What is the scope of this Kete?
relationship with Māori in the area of international instruments. To
The proposed focus for Kete 3 (Kawenata Aorere / Kaupapa Aorere) is:
provide further context, the following are examples of existing or
a) Māori interests at international level
potential future international instruments and related kaupapa on
How should the Crown should work with Māori to identify Māori
which the Crown is currently engaging with Māori and will need to
interests and the nature and strength of those interests when negotiating
be mindful of the issues raised in the Wai 262 claim and Ko Aotearoa
international instruments and participating in international forums?
Tēnei:
b) Engaging with Māori
a) New Zealand’s development of a plan on the United Nations
How should Government agencies engage with Māori when
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
representing New Zealand?
b) World Intellectual Property Organisation negotiations in the
c) Māori representation
Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic
How Māori should be represented in international forums?
Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore
What are the existing work programmes that sit within this Kete?
c) New Zealand’s participation in the United Nations Permanent Forum
In Kete 3 existing, recent and upcoming Government workstreams of
d) Convention on Biological Diversity
particular relevance include:
e) United Nations Agreement on Biodiversity Beyond National
a) Implementation of the 2001 Strategy for Engagement with Māori on
Jurisdiction negotiations
International Treaties
f) UNFCCC/Paris Agreement/climate change negotiations
b) The development of the Māori Crown Engagement Framework and
g) E-Commerce negotiations at the World Trade Organization
Guidelines led by Te Arawhiti
h) Digital Economic Partnership Agreement (DEPA) negotiations with
c) The development of a Trade for All agenda. One of the Trade for
Chile and Singapore
All agenda’s key principles is “the creation of a genuine conversation
i) Various free trade agreements and related work
with the public and key stakeholders around the future direction of
New Zealand’s trade policy; this will include consultation with
37TE KOTAHI
Leaf RESEARCH
cross-section of INSTITUTE
Harakeke (New Zealand
Flax) Phormium tenax
Copyright n.d. by Natura
Aura Limited (Anastasia
Rickard). Used with
permission
38Harakeke (New Zealand TE NOHONGA KAITIAKI
Flax) Phormium tenax
Copyright n.d. by University
of Waikato
39TE KOTAHI RESEARCH INSTITUTE
International Agreements
and Indigenous Interests
in Genomic Research
• T he Mataatua Declaration recognised that Peoples (1993) was developed to affirm a number
Indigenous peoples are the exclusive owners of Indigenous rights including the right to
of their intellectual property. self determination. In exercising that right,
• This was again affirmed by The United Indigenous communities must be recognised as the
Nations’ Declaration on the Rights of exclusive owners of their cultural and intellectual
Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) (United property. The document carried many of the
Nations General Assembly, 2007). same themes as the Wai 262 claim, discussing a
• The Nagoya Protocol lays the foundation range of Indigenous intellectual property rights in
for the emerging global standard, as member relation to Indigenous knowledge, biodiversity,
states are to encourage non-member states biotechnology and traditional environmental
to comply with the Protocol in order to management, to name only a few. The declaration
collaborate. was signed by Indigenous representatives from
• Use of genetic material is subject to the fourteen countries, and was largely a precursor to
requirement for fair and equitable sharing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
of benefit (Secretariat of the Convention on Indigenous Peoples.
Biological Diversity, 2002).
• The Nagoya Protocol does not formally apply The United Nations Declaration on the
to digital sequences; however, benefit sharing Rights of Indigenous Peoples
is expected by Indigenous communities as a The United Nations Declaration on the Rights
demonstration of good faith. of Indigenous Peoples was signed in 2007 and
is a comprehensive document that affirms the
Approaches to the recognition and protection rights of Indigenous peoples over a wide range of
of traditional knowledge through intellectual issues. UNDRIP sets standards for the recognition,
property rights have largely laid the foundations protection and promotion of Indigenous
for Indigenous interests in genomic research. intellectual property rights on both individual and
These rights have been articulated through a range collective levels.
of both binding and non-binding international
instruments to which New Zealand has displayed The declaration serves as a robust elaboration of
varying levels of commitment. previously established international human rights
laws as applied to Indigenous intellectual property.
The Mataatua Declaration
The Mataatua Declaration on Cultural and New Zealand was not initially a signatory, but
Intellectual Property Rights of Indigenous later came on board in 2010.
40TE NOHONGA KAITIAKI
Convention on Biological Diversity Nagoya not only encourages collaboration
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and cooperation between parties, but also sets
covers three broad objectives: a requirement that parties to the agreement
1. The conservation of biological diversity encourage non-parties to adhere to the Protocol.
This means that despite not being a party, New
2. T
he sustainable use of the components of
Zealand will, to some extent, be forced to comply
biological diversity
with the Protocol in order to participate fully
3. T
he fair and equitable sharing of the benefits in the international community, and likewise
arising out of the utilization of genetic participate in global scientific and economic
resources. activities relating to genomic resources.
New Zealand is a party to the convention,
having ratified it in 1993 (Convention on The objective of the Nagoya Protocol is the “fair
Biological Diversity, 1992). and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from
the utilization of genetic resources...” (Secretariat
The Nagoya Protocol of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010).
The Nagoya Protocol is a supplementary Benefit sharing under the Protocol can only arise
agreement to the Convention on Biological when genetic resources are utilised⁸. It is important
Diversity. It covers the fair and equitable sharing to note that while there is no requirement in the
of benefits arising from the utilisation of genetic Nagoya Protocol to share benefits arising from the
resources. New Zealand is not a signatory to the utilisation of genomic data, Indigenous researchers
agreement due to the overriding importance of the advocate for the acknowledgement of Indigenous
Treaty of Waitangi in domestic affairs (Scheele, rights to genomic data to build trust, enhance
2015). accountability and improve equity (Caron et al.,
2020; Hudson et al., 2020).
There are three primary obligations set out in
the Protocol. Also of note is that many commercialising agencies
• First, the contracting parties may regulate globally prefer to work with Nations that are a
access to biological materials (“genetic party to the Nagoya Protocol, as provenance for
resources”) originating from their territories. use of genetic resources is available and recognised
States that choose to do so, are called internationally. This is important considering
“provider countries”. the financial risk of working on material where
• Second, these provider countries may intellectual property (IP) ‘ownership’ is silent
also require that “benefits” from using the or vague (Evans-Illidge & Battershill, 2007). At
biological materials are fairly shared with this point in time, the Nagoya Protocol does not
them. Together, these requirements are formally apply to digital sequence information;
known as access and benefit sharing however, Indigenous communities have an
(“ABS”) rules. expectation that any value generated from
• Third, all contracting parties must monitor genomic data also be subject to benefit-sharing
the use of biological material on their territory arrangements (Ambler et al., 2020; Hudson et
to ensure that companies comply with the al., 2020). Moreover, Indigenous peoples are
ABS rules where the material originated formulating ethical frameworks for genomic
(Secretariat of the Convention on Biological research to ensure the rights and interests in their
Diversity, 2010). taonga species are protected (Garrison et al., 2019).
⁸ Utilisation is defined in the Nagoya Protocol as the “conduct of research and development on the genetic and/or biochemical composition of
genetic resources, including through the application of biotechnology as defined in Article 2 of the Convention” (Secretariat of the Convention on
Biological Diversity, 2010).
41You can also read
