Predator Free 2050: Social and Ethical Challenges

Abstract

Projects aiming to suppress or eradicate introduced species often encounter social conflicts, which may be products of competing value systems [30, 31, 47]. Social, cultural, and ethical values are therefore increasingly recognised as necessary considerations in introduced species management projects [81, 14]. Where they have not been adequately considered, conflict has followed and projects delayed (e.g. Lord Howe Island) [163, 68]. Predator Free 2050 (PF2050) – Aotearoa New Zealand’s (NZ’s) bid to eradicate rats, possums, and mustelids by 2050 – will be vulnerable to such conflicts. New Zealanders hold a diverse array of attitudes towards animals, nature, predator control tools, and the state, not all of which necessarily align with PF2050 [14, 142, 163]. Yet because PF2050 is a nationwide campaign requiring active support from communities across the country, it requires an especially high level of support over a long period [14]. An initial step towards mapping social and ethical challenges was taken by the BioHeritage Challenge Bioethics Panel of academic, industry, and community experts [14]. This was an important horizon-scanning exercise, but more empirical research is needed to understand what New Zealanders might object to or disagree about in relation to PF2050, why, and whether any pro-active resolutions are possible. The goal of this research was to begin to provide some of this information using qualitative research and a choice modelling survey.