Submission Form: Draft Kiwi Recovery Plan 2017-2027 Consultation

Once you have completed this form
Send by email to:

Submissions must be received no later than 4pm, Friday, 27 January 2017

Stakeholders may make a submission, either as an individual or on behalf of an organisation, group, whānau, hapū or iwi. Please ensure all sections of this form are completed. You may either use this form or prepare your own but if preparing your own please use the same headings as used in this form.

Submitter details:

Name of submitter
or contact person: / Cath Wallace or Michael Pringle
Organisation name:
(if on behalf of an organisation) / Environment and Conservation Organisations of NZ Inc
Postal address: / P O Box 11-057
Wellington
Telephone number:
(the best number to contact you on) / ECO: 04 385-7545
Cath Wallace
Email: /
Signature:
Submission No. (Recovery Group provides number):

Your submission is submitted as part of a public process and once received by the Department it is subject to the provisions of the Privacy Act 1993 and the Official Information Act 1981. The Department may post your submission on its website and also make it available to departmental staff, any consultant used, the relevant Conservation Board and the New Zealand Conservation Authority. Your submission may be made available to any member of the public following a request made under the Official Information Act 1981.

Submission:[1]

Section:
Identify the section, goal, issue, objective, action, figure, table or map that your submission relates to. / Submission:
Explain the nature of your submission stating whether you support or oppose the approach. Please provide brief reasons. / Decision sought:
State clearly the decision sought or changes you would like to see. Please be as precise as possible. For example:
-if supporting: ‘retain Action X’
-if opposing: ‘delete Action X’
-if seeking changes ‘reword Action X to read (give suggested wording)
1.2Increasing the scale of in situ management / ECO applauds the goal of increasing the scale of in situ management,
BUT we think the goal of increasing the populations of all kiwi species by at least 2% p.a. is insufficiently ambitious and too broadbrush
The Whenuakite Kiwi Care Group has relied entirely on in situ pest control, and that has shown over 15 years a marked expansion both of the numbers of breeding pairs and the range of the kiwi which have spread from private land to DoC land. This used a range of toxins and on private land, strict dog control. The May 2016 Whenuakite Kiwi Care Group Newsletter notes that the 2014-2015 Chairpersons’ report for the group recorded that the kiwi monitoring [by a professional ecologist} had shown that there had been an increase of and average 13% p.a. in kiwi numbers from
2001-2015.
Measures of the condition of the kiwi are also relevant – we understand that those kiwi that have been removed from the nest as eggs or chicks show lower adult weights than those managed only by in situ pest control.
A goal of 2% is far too low.- but useful for those areas suffering decline now. We need to establish expansion targets
Goals should be set for improvements in various bands of areas of current state, so that these lead to improvements across all kiwi populations from their present position.
We need higher, more ambitious expansion of abundance both in numbers and in relation to the rate of increase and the expansion of the range of kiwi and natural kiwi habitat. / RETAIN the goal of increasing the scale of in situ management
AND REDUCE the amount of ex situ measures such as Operation nest egg
BUT PROVIDE FOR MORE AMBITIOUS AND MORE NUANCED DETAILED GOALS for different situations. In particular, RAISE the goals for % increase well beyond 2% based on improvements from the current position of each population, not an average percentage increase.
The expansion of growth rate of 2% should only be the goal where there is currently a decline or static population numbers.
ADD in other goals such as:
expansion of the RANGE of KIWI;and
IMPROVEMENTS in the HEALTH of the ECOSYSTEMS within which they are found. Various variables should be specified for this.
1.3, Fig 1
Area of the largest eradicated site over 8 decades / Kiwi conservation in total ha would also be a useful indicator as well as the largest eradicated site.
Other useful variables could be:
Kiwi density
Habitat health
Permanence of habitat protection and status . Kiwi in exotic forest plantations and other areas that will be disturbed may not be nearly as significant to overall biodiversity health that would be kiwi in relatively intact native ecosystems / ADD other indicators to s1.3 that will capture other dimensions of kiwi conservation success, such as time series of sizes of protected areas and other indicators of area of protection.;
KIWI DENSITY
KIWI CONDITION’
AREA OF KIWIHABITAT by
-area size bands;
- the nature of the host ecosystem or environment – e.g. in native ecosystems such as bush or various kinds of “scrub” or other habitat such as exotic plantations.
1.4 Dealing with dogs / We support the push to address dog predation on kiwi.
Strategies for this must include;
Social attitude and behaviour change campaigns;
Prohibitions of dogs through planning laws and DoC and other land owners taking a hard line on exclusion of dogs in kiwi areas, including the exclusion of pig dogs and the many dogs that people carelessly bring to beaches and other areas with kiwi.
Continue the policies for free provision of kiwi aversion training of dogs. / 1.4.ADD measures for the control of dogs including:
Social attitude and behaviour change campaigns;
Prohibitions of dogs through planning laws; and
DoC and other land owners taking a hard line on exclusion of dogs in kiwi areas, including the exclusion of pig dogs and the many dogs that people carelessly bring to beaches and other areas with kiwi.
Continue the policies for free provision of kiwi aversion training of dogs.
1.4 Fig 2 / It would be good to have more data and a wider geographic information base to underpin policies on dogs.
This figure shows that there is little benefit from the 24/7 intensive ex situ kiwi management such as the Operation Nest Egg. The benefit is marginal at best yet this is a hugely resource intensive process. It seems to us that the projections in the graph reveal the lack of benefit from ONE and that this should be drawn out and underscored in the text. / Fig 2 Expand the data underpinning the graph and its projections and turn this into infographics and add to campaign information.
Fig 2 CHECK the Data;
Expand the evidence Base
Draw out the lesson apparent from the graph that ONE and the like ex situ approaches contribute very little indeed to kiwi success, and
STOP funding ONE except in a very few situations and use the money for predator control in situ.
1.5 Genetic management / We agree that maintain genetic diversity should be a goal of management but not to the extent of genetic engineering.
1.6 Measuring the effectiveness of management / We agree with this but we urge that such monitoring be done in a cost-effective manner that does not burn off the many volunteers. The Whenuakite Kiwi Care group uses Red Admiral Ecology and they have a standard methodology (but with improved listening technology) that means that there is consistency in measurement.
1.7 Where there’s a will there is a way / We agree BUT, the shortfall of funding is under-estimated. Further, the funding is mostly for predator control – does there need to be funding for weed control? What about disease control? / 1.7 - REVISE the funding shortfall to a more realistic shortfall of $10m/year;
Expand the figure to allow for weed and disease and other pathogen control.
2 – The Plan Details
2.1 / We suggest that there be a mid-term review of the plan and its results to both ensure that the plan continues to be implemented and to look at whether there may be other elements that are needed. This review should be enough to check all is working well, but not a huge resource gobbler.
The title of this section is “plan details”. Few details are provided. Change the heading OR provide the details of how the plan will be given effect. / REVIEW the plan mid term.
2.2 ADD some details and specifics to the “Plan Details” section.
3 Context / We liked this section and found it interesting. Some people might like to have more infographics. Ways of making this section interesting and compelling to those not already interested could be adopted.
We also suggest that the Plan be used as a component in the school education curriculum. This could engage kids in many ways – to raise awareness of biodiversity and biosecurity; kiwi as native and dogs and cats etc as exotic; the kiwi in our cultural life and how it is an indicator for environmental health ; The maths of area, density and percentage increases as well as some of the ecological elements.
Educating people in New Zealand about how different is our ecology in relation to land mammals and predators and the need to exterminate cute fluffy things would be a massive help for the future. / # USE some of this material in school curricula and develop infographics and other media to get some of this information across in a format that will help people to understand it.
3.1.4 / We found this interesting and believe that helpful communications specialists might be able to spark the public’s interest in this with portrayal of the birds’ behaviour (with out being anthropomorphic). / Re 3.1.4 USE some of the life cycle and behavioural information here to capture the imagination of people
3.1.5 Current status of kiwi / 150,000 ha is creditable, but we need to see that in the context of the area of kiwi and their habitat. What is that? On its own the figure of 150,000ha is not especially useful, especially without any sense of the increase over time. / In section 3.1.5 ADD figures in respect of the total area of kiwi range.
3.1.5 / The Whenuakite kiwi care group has had a 13% p.a. increase in the number of kiwi from 2001-2015. This has been done entirely by in situ conservation, predator control with trapping, pesticides and successive 1080 drops, though the last one was with a four year gap not three and the rat counts went up considerably in that last year. / In Section 3.1.5, ADD figures for the range of rates of increase of population increases and the time frames in specific places in order to show what is possible and to give more information than the regional or national averages provide. The 0.4% in the three areas with 1080 control cited in Kahurangi National Park is an attempt to give this texture, but is low. What was the size of the area covered? A 7 year interval is probably the problem, it would be good to give figures for the 3 year interval to give the contrast
Table 2 / The table headings are confusing: what is an “actual estimate” compared to a
“projected estimate” ? / Table 2 – CLARIFY the meaning of the terms used. Is Actual Estimate really the Actual outcome or is it some earlier estimate?
3.1.8 / This is useful with its discussion of how to provide escape routes, but discussion of dogs and how to educate the populace, who mostly seem to believe that their dog would not attack kiwi or other birds such as dotterals or oyster catchers, is urgently needed. This is from our own on-the-ground observation in the Coromandel.
We are also struck by people who allow their domestic chooks to wander into areas of kiwi habitat and the strange habit some people have of releasing unwanted chooks, cats and ferrets into the wild. / ADD a discussion of the ways of tackling people’s attitudes to the release and control of dogs, chooks, cats and ferrets.
3.1.10 / 3.1.10 NOTE that the BNZ has terminated its sponsorship of kiwi recovery and NOTE the new sponsorship arrangements.
3.1.11
Options for increasing kiwi populations / The costs of the different forms of predator control would be helpful here. Our impression is that the ex situ methods are hugely resource intensive and expensive and while they have made a difference for some areas where birds are under sudden predation or where they need to be introduced to an area where they are locally extinct, our impression is that the 24/7 care of abducted eggs and birds is often unnecessary though these methods have been lauded so that many people seem to think they are essential. Our understanding is that the costs of raising a single egg or chick is over $20,000. Given the Whenuakite results, we think the “intensive care” monitoring and surveillance and abduction of eggs and birds is for the most part unnecessary and expensive and may do considerable harm with the spread of disease as discussed on p 28 of the draft plan.
Whenuakite has used solely in situ methods only handling the kiwi for the purposes of capture for translocation to allow genetic augmentation and an insurance population on Motutapu Island.
We consider that the $20k funding could much better be used in landscape scale pest control rather than intensive care of individual kiwi. / Provide in 3.1 details of the Whenuakite case study and compare this with some of the other more interventionist approaches on the Coromandel.
Give details of the costs of the methods and the areas treated.
3.1.11 Fig 8 / This graph is useful but would be better with the actual figures in percentages shown. It would be even more useful if it contained the relative costs in the same colours and formats, though this may be difficult where there are more than one method being used – as is often the case. / Fig 8 AUGMENT the graph with the % figures and a companion graph with the spending per ha &/or in total on each method
3.2.1 Treaty of Waitangi / ECO applauds the commitment to TeTriti. Building relationships is hard work but as Dean Baigent-Mercer in Northland has demonstrated, there are huge gains in respect and engagement if that is done well.
3.2.2 / ECO agrees that these obligations should be given effect and reminds the Department that this means they should be much more careful about approval of minerals industry activity, the approval of commercial activities in the DoC estate, and that if remembers that the objective is NOT to expand tourism.
This section could also reference NZ’s international obligations as well.
3.2.3 Outcomes and Stretch goals / The goal of managing nationally threatened species for persistence is sadly inadequate, albeit a stretch given the underfunding of DoC
The goals of ensuing populations are maintained or restored is also disappointing in its application only to “nationally iconic species” / 3.2.3 CHANGE the goal to managing for recovery and expansion of range, genetic diversity and abundance.
3 .2.3 REMOVE the words “nationally iconic” and insert the words “native species”
3.2.3 REPLACE in the list of 10 year goals “50%” with “90%”.
3.2.4 Save the iconic kiwi bid / The funding provided is sadly inadequate though welcome as a start, but it is not nearly enough.
Kiwi and their habitat should be the focus, not simply the single species. / 3.2.4
ADD a discussion about the habitats and the actual amount of funding needed.
4.1.Principles for kiwi recovery / These principles seem more robust than those in earlier sections. We endorse the goal of protecting habitats. / AMEND earlier sections to better reflect the principles in this section, including the maximisation of ecosystem benefits.
4.1 Orangakararehe—Animal welfare / ECO urges DoC to apply this principle to avoid the often stressful treatment of kiwi when they are handled and/or translocated. Please apply this principle to avoid the handling of kiwi, the abduction of eggs and chicks, and the apparently well established practice of DoC using kiwi as photo ops for dignitaries and ministers. / ADOPT a “no handling” policy and no “abduction” of kiwi except for absolutely necessary purposes and to avoid using kiwi as PR fodder. This should include the often protracted ceremonies of farewell and welcome with translocation. We suggest developing a protocol with iwi whereby these can be done after the release of the animals rather than having them couped up or handled while the various speeches and blessings are underway.
4.2 Long term recovery plan / We suggest adding “protection of kiwi habitat”
We also suggest that there be a set of goals for different populations so that all populations increase, not just an average increase of 2%.p.a. / 4.3.1 ADD “protection of kiwi habitat”
4.3.1 ADD to Goal 1.1 and an increase of at least 2% per annum over existing rates of increase in each kiwi population that is increasing at less than 10% p a.
4.3 Recovery Plan period goals / 4.3.1 ADD “protection of kiwi habitat”