Centring Indigenous knowledge systems to re-imagine conservation translocations

1. Conservation translocations—particularly those that weave diverse ways of know ing and seeing the world—promise to enhance species recovery and build ecosystem resilience. Yet, few studies to date have been led or co-led by Indigenous peoples; or consider how centring Indigenous knowledge systems can lead to bet ter conservation translocation outcomes. 2. In this Perspective, as Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers and practitioners working in partnership in Aotearoa New Zealand, we present a novel frame work for co-designing conservation translocations that centre Indigenous peoples and knowledge systems through Two-Eyed Seeing. 3. We apply this framework to Aotearoa New Zealand's threatened and under-prioritized freshwater biodiversity. In particular, we highlight the co-development of conservation translocations with Te Kōhaka o Tūhaitara and Te Nohoaka o Tukiauau that are weaving emerging genomic approaches into mātauraka Māori (Māori knowledge systems), including customary practices, processes and language. 4. We envision the Two-Eyed Seeing framework presented here will provide a criti cal point of reference for the co-development of conservation translocations led or co-led by Indigenous peoples elsewhere in the world to build more resilient biocultural heritage.


| INTRODUC TI ON
Researchers, practitioners and communities around the world are exploring creative strategies to enhance resilience in threatened species (Suding et al., 2015). The fate of our biological diversity is closely tied to cultural and linguistic diversity, and many are looking beyond Western science to bring together diverse ways of knowing and seeing the world (e.g. McAllister et al., 2019;Mercier, 2018;. Mi'kmaq Elder Dr Albert Marshall describes the Mi'kmaq principle of Etuaptmumk or 'Two-Eyed Seeing' as 'learning to see from one eye with the strengths of Indigenous knowledge and ways of knowing, and from the other eye with the strengths of Western knowledge and ways of knowing … and learning to use both these eyes together, for the benefit of all' (Bartlett, Marshall, & Marshall, 2012;Kutz & Tomaselli, 2019;Marshall, 2004). Indigenous communities sustain a vast portion of the world's remaining biodiversity through knowledge systems (knowledge-practice-belief complexes) that are carefully and iteratively adapted to local landscapes over generations, and often millennia (Gadgil, Berkes, & Folke, 1993;Garnett et al., 2018;Ginsberg, Chieza, Frank, Rands, & Vilutis, 2019;Reed, Brunet, Longboat, & Natcher, 2020). Yet, despite promising dialogue, Indigenous knowledge, processes and practices are often side-lined from conservation decision-making (Box 1; IUCN, 2016;Mistry & Berardi, 2016;Reed et al., 2020).
Conservation translocations-that is, the movement of organisms from one location to another for conservation benefitpromise to build resilience across threatened populations, species and ecosystems (Seddon, 2010). While translocations to enhance biodiversity are not novel, nor unique, to Western science (e.g. Ross et al., 2018;Silcock, 2018), few publications reflect on how Indigenous-led approaches could inform conservation translocations . In this Perspective, as Indigenous and non-Indigenous scientists and practitioners working in partnership under Aotearoa New Zealand's Tiriti o Waitangi (the Māori version of the Treaty of Waitangi, 1840)-a critical founding document that frames the relationship between Māori (Indigenous peoples of Aotearoa New Zealand) and the Crown-we consider Two-Eyed Seeing in a conservation translocation context. In particular, we reflect on how conservation translocations can be enhanced by decentring Western perspectives to co-develop approaches that centre Indigenous people, knowledge, process and practices.

| WHY TR AN S LO C ATE?
Threatened species often exist as small, fragmented populations leading to increased inbreeding and reduced genetic diversity (Frankham, 2005). Over time, this can limit their ability to respond-or adapt-to a changing environment (de Villemereuil et al., 2019). Thus, conservation strategies generally seek to build resilience such that populations can respond to future change; in part by promoting large, genetically diverse metapopulations (Frankham et al., 2017;Galla et al., 2019). Evidence-based conservation translocations can build resilience by increasing genetic, biological and functional diversity (Malone et al., 2018;Parker, 2008;Polak & Saltz, 2011;Seddon, Griffiths, Soorae, & Armstrong, 2014 Translocations may also seek to re-establish species where they have been lost from an ecosystem entirely (population restoration).
These may be particularly important in fragmented landscapes where habitat rehabilitation does not guarantee that biodiversity will return naturally (e.g. the 'build it, and they will come' Field of Dreams hypothesis; Bond & Lake, 2003;Palmer, Ambrose, & Poff, 1997;Sudduth, Hassett, Cada, & Bernhardt, 2011).
Conservation introductions may also be performed outside of natural ranges, either to prevent focal species extinction (assisted colonization) or to replace ecological function (ecological replacement). Out-of-range translocations such as these are increasingly considered in the context of climate change; for instance, where a species' present range is predicted to become unsuitable (Bay et al., 2018;Chauvenet, Ewen, Armstrong, & Pettorelli, 2013).
Mitigation translocations further seek to move populations to new habitat-either within or outside the species' current range-in response to impending local extirpation (e.g. due to urban development or habitat loss).
To increase the likelihood of success, best-practice guide-

BOX 1 Conservation treaties and agreements reflect a shift towards biocultural approaches
Conservation biology is entangled with the marginalization of Indigenous communities from ancestral lands and natural resources (Wehi & Lord, 2017). Increasingly, Western conservation policy, research and practice recognize the inclusion of Indigenous rights and knowledge is central to realizing biodiversity aspirations (Artelle et al., 2019;Bridgewater, Rotherham, & Rozzi, 2019;Gavin et al., 2018;Moola & Roth, 2019). The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity calls on signatories to preserve biological diversity, including for sustainable use, and to maintain equitable sharing and use of genetic resources (IUCN, 2016;United Nations, 1992, 2015a, 2015b; although the extent to which global treaties such as the above Convention have realized meaningful legislative change is debatable (Koutouki, 2011). A number of countries-Aotearoa New Zealand, the United States of America and Canada included-have yet to sign the Nagoya Protocol, which is arguably the most pertinent to recognizing Indigenous sovereignty over biodiversity. Nonetheless, treaties and agreements such as these can provide platforms for conservation policy, research and practice to realize Indigenous needs and aspirations.
Te Tiriti o Waitangi (the Māori version of the Treaty of Waitangi, 1840) is a critical founding document of Aotearoa New Zealand.
The original document affirms and protects the tino rakatirataka (self-determination, sovereignty) of iwi Māori, and further upholds the rights of both Māori as tākata whenua (people of the land) and non-Māori as tākata Tiriti (people of the Treaty). Breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi over the past 250 years have significantly eroded mātauraka Māori (Māori knowledge systems) and sought to separate Māori from the natural environment (e.g. Ngāi Tahu Settlement Claims Act, 1998;Ruru, O'Lyver, Scott, & Edmunds, 2017;Wehi & Lord, 2017). In particular, Ko Aotearoa Tēnei (This is New Zealand)-the Waitangi Tribunal report into the WAI 262 claim-found that Māori, and Māori cultural values, have been side-lined 'from decisions of vital importance' to te Ao Māori (the Māori world; Waitangi Tribunal, 2011). Although the Crown has yet to respond to Ko Aotearoa Tēnei, many Māori and non-Māori have moved towards 'an era of growth and partnership' since the Waitangi Act (1975) and the establishment of the Waitangi Tribunal (Collier-Robinson, Rayne, Rupene, Thoms, & Steeves, 2019;Walker, 1990 Whether these taxonomic trends-which are conservative estimates, at best-reflect lower rates of reporting or fewer translocations overall is unclear. Regardless, we anticipate these trends can partially be attributed to the complex and varied motivations that underlie translocations (Brichieri-Colombi & Moehrenschlager, 2016).

BOX 2 Freshwater conservation translocations: Underwater and out of mind?
Freshwater ecosystem restoration often proves challenging due to dynamic and degraded habitat (Reid et al., 2019). Many freshwater conservation translocations are further complicated by limited biological or ecological data, and social challenges-for example, reconciling conservation outcomes for threatened species with commercial or recreational harvest of protected introduced predators (e.g. trout Salmo trutta; McIntosh et al., 2010). Further, measuring freshwater conservation translocation success is difficult; partially due to challenges in monitoring translocated individuals, but also due to a general lack of post-translocation monitoring (Lintermans, Lyon, Hammer, Ellis, & Ebner, 2015). As a result, estimated success rates of freshwater conservation translocations are low, both globally (Palmer, Hondula, & Koch, 2014) and locally in Aotearoa New Zealand (Aldridge, 2008;O'Brien & Dunn, 2007;Pham, West, & Closs, 2013). Although mitigation translocations are increasingly common, these are generally performed by contracted commercial companies and rarely observe best-practice guidelines. Instead, most published empirical evidence relating to freshwater translocations is restricted to North America, or to commercially or recreationally valued species. While these studies can inform freshwater conservation translocations elsewhere, the extensive heterogeneity of freshwater systems limits the degree to which lessons learned can be extended to other species or catchments (Olden, Kennard, Lawler, & Poff, 2011).
For the reasons described above, freshwater species tend to have fewer comprehensive evaluations, protocols and empirical evidence to inform conservation translocations compared to terrestrial vertebrates. In Aotearoa New Zealand, challenges related to freshwater conservation translocations are further exacerbated by non-responsive legislation (Box 2 Figure): while the National Threat Classification System considers 76% of freshwater fish and 26% of freshwater invertebrates to be Threatened with or At Risk of extinction, the only legally protected indigenous freshwater species is the long extinct upokororo (grayling Prototroctes oxyrhynchus; Dunn et al., 2018;Grainger et al., 2018). With a significant proportion further listed as Data Deficient under national and international (IUCN) threat classification systems, the decline of many freshwater species likely remains undocumented or poorly addressed (Betts et al., 2020;Nelson et al., 2019).

BOX 2 FIGURE
Aotearoa New Zealand's freshwater fish (represented by kōwaro) and invertebrates (represented by kēkēwai) share a similar percent of threatened species with terrestrial biota (vertebrates represented by kākā; and invertebrates by wētāpunga) according to the National Threat Classification System; but this is not reflected by their legal protection (data from Ministry for the Environment; https://data.mfe.govt.nz/table s/) reviewed correlates of success relating to native freshwater fish reintroductions-to our knowledge, a comprehensive review for all freshwater conservation translocations is lacking; but examples in this Perspective and elsewhere suggest that ecological, rather than species, considerations tend to be prioritized (Germano et al., 2015).

| IND I G ENOUS -LED APPROACHE S BU ILD MORE RE S ILIENT B I O CULTUR AL H E R ITAG E
Whereas Western science has often prioritized an 'either-or' approach to ecosystem restoration and threatened species recovery, Indigenous-led approaches are more likely to integrate both (Hudson et al., 2016;Kutz & Tomaselli, 2019;Long, Tecle, & Burnette, 2003).  (Morishige et al., 2018;Sterling et al., 2017). These frameworks incorporate biocultural monitoring, customary management and social mechanisms that are informed by native Hawaiian knowledge systems (e.g. Huli ʻIa, a platform for recording 'place-based cycles of productivity' as they relate to seasonal indicators and lunar cycles; Winter et al., 2018). Further, ample evidence demonstrates that Indigenous knowledge systems are highly sensitive and adaptable to novel challenges such as climate change (Berkes, 2009;Ginsberg et al., 2019). For instance, Skolt Sámi in Finland have taken adaptive measures to preserve Atlantic salmon Salmo salar numbers in response to rising water temperatures and reduced catch rates, including by increasing harvest of pike to reduce predation pressure (Mustonen & Feodoroff, 2018;Nakashima, McLean, Thulstrup, Castillo, & Rubis, 2012;Pecl et al., 2017).  (Baird, 2007). These include measuressuch as size-selective harvest, establishment of Fish Conservation Zones and restrictions on catching methods-that are grounded in local knowledge, including comprehensive taxonomic systems and understanding of foraging or migratory behaviour (Baird, 2007). In Aotearoa New Zealand, Māori are revitalizing traditional harvesting methods for kōura (freshwater crayfish Paranephrops spp.) as a monitoring tool and for customary management (Kusabs, Hicks, Quinn, & Hamilton, 2015;Whaanga, Wehi, Cox, Roa, & Kusabs, 2018).
The inclusion of Indigenous knowledge in Western science and conservation management enables more nuanced insights (Wehi, Whaanga, & Roa, 2009). For instance, Seri Indian knowledge holds that the diversification of spiny-tailed iguana Ctenosaura hemilopha spp. in the Sea of Cortez pre-dated human migration-in contrast to prevailing Western thought that species diversification was human-mediatedand this knowledge has since been observed in a recent phylogeographic study (Davy, Méndez de la Cruz, Lathrop, & Murphy, 2011).

| CENTRING IND I G ENOUS K NOWLEDG E SYS TEMS IN CON S ERVATI ON TR AN S LO C ATI ON S THROUG H T WO -E YED S EEING
Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers and practitioners are increasingly working at the interface of Indigenous knowledge systems and Western science to build more resilient biocultural heritage (e.g. Bond, Anderson, Henare, & Wehi, 2019;Clapcott et al., 2018;Delevaux et al., 2018;Dobbs et al., 2016;Long et al., 2003;Lyver et al., 2018). However, published and grey literature indicates that contemporary conservation translocations are rarely Indigenous led or co-led (e.g. http://publi catio ns.iucn-ctsg. org/ead; Leiper et al., 2018). Given the broad scope of conservation translocations (i.e. translocations where the primary objective is a 'measurable conservation benefit at a population, species or ecosystem level'; IUCN/SSC, 2013), we see a clear opportunity to extend existing frameworks such as the CTSG guidelines through Two-Eyed Seeing.
As more conservation translocations are Indigenous led or coled, we envision this will be reflected in both the defined objectives and indicators of success. Where success indicators in CTSG case studies tend to focus on the conservation status of target species (e.g. an improvement in a species' national threat ranking), we anticipate co-designed success indicators will capture a wider breadth of biocultural outcomes (Mooney & Cullen, 2019;Sterling et al., 2017). Further, conservation translocations that are intended to enable or enhance sustainable customary practices are wellplaced to incorporate long-term monitoring and iterative management (Herse et al., 2020). In Aotearoa New Zealand, frameworks that are grounded in mātauraka Māori such as the Cultural Health Index (CHI) are recognized as robust measures of waterway health (Harmsworth, Young, Walker, Clapcott, & James, 2011). The CHI generally assesses three key components: site status (e.g. significance to tākata whenua; people of the land); values associated with food and other natural resources (e.g. presence of culturally significant species, changes in biodiversity and whether people would return to harvest at the site); and cultural stream health, including riparian vegetation, catchment land-use and water quality (Tipa & Teirney, 2006). Measures such as these could be readily adapted to assess conservation translocation success. For example, we are actively co-developing translocations of the culturally significant species kēkēwai (freshwater crayfish Paranephrops zealandicus) for customary harvest at Tūhaitara Coastal Park. For kēkēwai, a key objective is to establish self-sustaining populations that are resilient to future change; and one success indicator is sustainable customary harvest. However, beyond this species-specific target,

additional indicators of success are signalled in a 200-year vision
for the wetland, including the revitalization of mātauraka Māori, tikaka (customary processes and practices) and te reo Māori (Māori language).
As outlined in national and international treaties and agreements (e.g. Box 1), it is critical that Indigenous communities with local authority are at the decision-making table when co-developing conservation translocations; particularly when translocating culturally significant species. That is, the first-and ongoing-step towards any conservation translocation should be building trusted relationships between relevant Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers, practitioners and communities. We capture these ideas in a novel framework ( Figure 1) that can be readily extended to suit local contexts (e.g. see Figure 2). Our intent is for this framework to inspire a wealth of local conservation translocation strategies that are responsive to diverse ways of knowing.

| C AN WE RE-IMAG INE FRE S HWATER CONS ERVATION TR ANS LOC ATIONS? AOTE AROA NE W ZE AL AND A S A C A S E S TU DY
There is growing recognition by Western-trained researchers and practitioners that conservation translocations may be critical for enhancing resilience in freshwater biodiversity (Blanton, Cashner, Thomas, Brandt, & Floyd, 2019;Eikaas & McIntosh, 2006;Pavlova et al., 2017). For example, in the Murray-Darling Basin of Australia, post-European habitat fragmentation has impeded population connectivity for the southern pygmy perch Nannoperca australis, contributing to its recent and rapid decline (Brauer & Beheregaray, 2020). If these patterns are widespread-as indicated F I G U R E 1 A novel framework for re-imagining conservation translocations through Two-Eyed Seeing. The main circle-comprised of key conservation translocation steps (purple text) based on IUCN/SSC guidelines-represents the centring of Indigenous knowledge systems, while the purple weave around it represents Western science. The coloured (non-purple) text reflects ways in which Indigenous-led approaches can enhance each key step. At the centre lies genuine partnership where relationships built on mutual trust and respect and collective decision-making are embedded throughout. For an example of how this framework can be reflected locally, see  In Aotearoa New Zealand, freshwater conservation translocations are also being explored through Indigenous-led or co-led approaches.
Māori maintain a profound understanding of local landscapes and humankind's place through mātauraka Māori, at the centre of which lies whakapapa (genealogy, but see below; Black, 2014;Mead, 2003).
Embedded within these relationships is a paradigm of responsibility and reciprocity that is integral to kaitiakitaka (trusteeship).
Kaitiakitaka is a way of managing the environment through traditional Māori worldviews (Marsden, 2003;Walker, Wehi, Nelson, Beggs, & Whaanga, 2019). It is also a guiding principle of mahika kai (literally 'working the food'). Mahika kai is itself an expression of te Ao Māori (the Māori world) and steeped in a rich body of language, knowledge and practice (Phillips, Jackson, & Hakopa, 2016). By its very nature, mahika kai acts to maintain the health of the entire ecosystem through strategies including cultural health monitoring; selective harvest of specific size classes; translocations to establish new populations and augment existing ones; rāhui (restrictions on access or harvest); and customary fishing reserves such as mātaitai or taiāpure (Awatere et al., 2017;Hudson et al., 2016;Tipa, 2013). Practices such as these ensure natural resources are maintained and enhanced to sustain future generations. For example, mahika kai species are generally translocated according to specific objectives related to cultural vitality (Williams, 2012). Evidence of how mahika kai-centred approaches can restore and enhance biodiversity is beginning to enter the conservation literature, such as customary management of tītī (sooty shearwater Puffinus griseus; Moller, 2009), transdisciplinary research projects on īnaka (whitebait Galaxias maculatus) management in the Waikōuaiti River catchment (Carter, 2019) and Māori co-led translocations of kākahi (freshwater mussel; McEwan et al., 2020;Michel et al., 2019).
In the face of new challenges (e.g. climate change) and emerging technologies (e.g. genomic data), we are increasingly asking whetherand if so, how-different populations should be mixed (Allendorf, Hohenlohe, & Luikart, 2010;Harrisson, Pavlova, Telonis-Scott, & Sunnucks, 2014;Weeks et al., 2011). For example, the potential to characterize adaptive variation has reignited debate over the benefits and risks of mixing disparate populations (e.g. Borzee et al., 2019;Burridge, 2019;Kolodny et al., 2019;Ralls et al., 2018). We anticipate that bringing together Indigenous and Western knowledge systems through Two-Eyed Seeing will enable more nuanced decisions for questions such as these. For instance, in Aotearoa New Zealand, conservation policy around moving individuals between catchments has generally followed precautionary principle-that is, in the absence of evidence, cross-catchment translocations are actively discouraged to avoid mixing populations that may be locally adapted. However, for species such as kēkēwai (freshwater crayfish), mātauraka Māori data). We are combining mātauraka Māori relating to historical translocations with genomic approaches to characterize adaptive variation to inform contemporary conservation translocation decisions. These

F I G U R E 2 Freshwater conservation translocations under a
Kāi Tahu lens. In this illustration, produced by Kaaterina Kerekere (KEdesign), line art refers to whakapapa (genealogy) and the terminology of whakapapa, while kōwhaiwhai (patterns) symbolize the development, movement and pathways of mātauraka Māori (Māori knowledge systems). The main design sits within a sphere, reflecting Te Pō, Te Ao Mārama and Te Ao Hurihuri (three layers of the Māori world). In the layers of line work beneath the main illustration, the bold circles represent genetic markers, referring to Western knowledge systems. Combined with the kōwhaiwhai (patterns), these repetitive layered designs depict the weaving together of mātauraka Māori and Western knowledge. Within the sphere are tuna (eel), kōwaro (Canterbury mudfish), kēkēwai (freshwater crayfish) and kākahi (freshwater mussel), representing Aotearoa New Zealand's freshwater biodiversity. The colours make reference to the relationships between light, water and landreflection and refraction, the blending and movement of light and water. Reproduced with permission decisions are further informed by primary industry, including the KEEWAI freshwater crayfish farming manual-the product of a partnership between Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, forestry company Ernslaw One and aquaculture company KEEWAI (Hollows, 2016). With expertize ranging across kēkēwai physiology, ecology, management and biosecurity, the manual represents a wealth of knowledge intended for use by iwi Māori and the wider public. Thus-even for under-studied species such as kēkēwai-there is ample evidence that could inform translocation policy in Aotearoa New Zealand's freshwater ecosystems, provided that Western-trained researchers and practitioners are open to multiple ways of knowing.

| IN AN AOTE AROA NE W ZE AL AND CONTE X T, WHAK APAPA IS CENTR AL TO RE ALIZING B I OD IVER S IT Y OUTCOME S
In Aotearoa New Zealand, a complex system of genealogical relationships exists in the form of whakapapa (Collier-Robinson et al., 2019).
Although whakapapa is generally defined as genealogy, it encompasses much more than that; whakapapa acts as a knowledge system that describes and contextualizes the origins and order of all things in the Māori world in relation to the individual (Tau, 2001). It explains the relationships between whānau, iwi and hapū (families, tribes and sub-tribes), and therefore which landscapes and natural resources they have intergenerational connections to (Te Rito, 2007). In doing so, whakapapa binds tākata whenua (people of the land) to the mountains, rivers, coasts and other landscapes-linking the health of the people with that of the environment. For example, Kāi Tahu are connected to the landscapes of Te Waipounamu (South Island of Aotearoa New Zealand) through whakapapa.
Like humans, species have whakapapa that connects them to their natural environment and to other species Collier-Robinson et al., 2019). Just as it has guided how mahika kai and taoka (treasured) species were managed in the past, whakapapa can-and should-inform contemporary translocation strategies. When considering out-of-range translocations, the knowledge embedded within whakapapa can aid in identifying ecologically and culturally suitable sites. For example, whakapapa describes the ecological needs of kākahi (freshwater mussel), including interconnections with the sand, rocks, gravel and aquatic vegetation (Best, 1982(Best, , 1986Rainforth, 2008). If whakapapa is understood thoroughly, we can build the right environment to protect and enhance every living thing. Therefore, when co-developing conservation translocations in an Aotearoa New Zealand context, whakapapa should be central to all decision-making ( Figure 2).

| E X AMPLE S FOR CO -DE VELOPING CONS ERVATION TR ANS LOC ATIONS TH RO U G H M ĀTAU R A K A MĀORI AND WE S TERN SCIEN CE: TE NOHOAK A O TUKIAUAU AND TŪHAITAR A COA S TAL PA R K
As an example of how our framework can be applied to enhance conservation translocations, we focus on two Māori-led and co-led  and Tūhaitara Coastal Park, the revival and intergenerational transfer of knowledge, customary practices and language represents a powerful approach that will lead to diverse ecosystems renowned for sustainable practice, community involvement and as important Kāi Tahu mahika kai. By layering genomic data into mātauraka Māori, we can co-design more nuanced conservation translocation decisions for culturally significant freshwater fish and invertebrates. We anticipate approaches that centre Indigenous knowledge, people, processes and practices through Indigenous governance, or genuine co-governance, can be extended to enhance conservation translocation outcomes elsewhere; particularly for our most threatened and least prioritized species.

ACK N OWLED G EM ENTS
We

CO N FLI C T O F I NTE R E S T
The authors state no conflict of interests.

AUTH O R S ' CO NTR I B UTI O N S
All authors conceived and substantially developed the idea, including Western science perspectives provided by Rayne,

DATA AVA I L A B I L I T Y S TAT E M E N T
This manuscript does not include any data.