Once you have completed this formSend by email to: RecoveryPlan@doc.govt.nz

Submissions must be received no later than 4pm, Friday, 27 January 2017Stakeholders 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: eco@eco.org.nz

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 FormDraft Kiwi Recovery Plan 2017-2027

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 Further information can be appended to your submission. If you are sending this submission electronically we accept the following formats – Microsoft Word, Text, PDF and JPG. The file must not be more than 9MB.

2

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 broad brush

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.

3

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 KIWI HABITAT 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.

4

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.

5

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

6

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.

7

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 Te Triti. 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.

8

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 Oranga kararehe

—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.

9

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”

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.

Goal 1.5 ADD and kiwi populations. Such measurement is crucial for understanding total species rates of growth, but it is also necessary at a population scale to understand the impacts of threats and management and to motivate those who is doing the work.

GOAL 1.6 ADD AND to further educate dog owners about the risks that all dogs pose to kiwi.

4.3.2 Research and Management Goals

We support these goals. RETAIN and fund the goals in 4.3.2.

4.3.3.Engagind people with Kiwi and their recovery

Goal 3.1. Modify this to remove any implication that there is any commitment to allowing handling of kiwi and to minimise abduction of eggs and animals.

In Goal 3.1. INSERT after “New Zealanders’’ the words “emotional and cultural but not physical handling” of kiwi, and their “connections with” the ecosystems

10

4.3.3 We suggest a further Goal here, of

“to Reduce the barriers to community members working with DoC”

DoC”. This is in the light of the concerns at some of the recent onerous obligations on volunteer groups that were ready to work on predator control on DoC land that was proposed to be imposed on those groups in proposed MoU’s with DoC. We suggest a joint working party with voluntary kiwi care groups to make these MoU workable and acceptable to such groups.

ADD a further Goal 3.4 in 4.3.3 of

“to reduce the barriers to volunteer groups and community members working with DoC”

5 Implementation

5.1.1 Table row 1.5

The efforts to support community groups should be careful not to displace intrinsic motivation by imposing huge transactions costs or “one size fits all” coordination. Like ecosystems, a variety of approaches is a good idea for testing ideas and technologies and for resilience. There does seem to be a desire by DoC and Councils and funders to have each group coordinated by others, but our close observation is that this can simply annoy and discourage those who are doing the work and are already self-organised. Displacement of intrinsic motivation is a serious risk here, and it is not entirely clear what the actual gains from making people coordinate really are. What evidence is there of the benefits for this coordination. Often the need is to enable groups, and give them resources to do the job, and not to impose extra transactions costs on them.

5 Implementation

5.1.1 Table row 1.5

ADD “To lower the transactions costs for groups and agencies and to enable groups without displacing their intrinsic motivations”

11

5.1.2 Threat of dogs Issue 2.5 It is unclear what the compactor is here. Less effective than what? Than for pig dogs? For farm dogs? Neither of these? Then what is meant here?

Objective 2.1. ADD pig hunters, NGOs, the public and landowners and occupiers.

We are unclear why only Forest and Bird is mentioned here. Kiwi care and other groups can work on these issues (but not usually with funds). Messaging and strong deterrents will be needed. We are aware of one place where there are several kiwi area signs with “No Dogs” on them, and in one case the dog was tethered to the sign saying no dogs, but in many cases the dogs are allowed to run free despite the signs.

Clairfy Issue 2.5 to make it clear what avoidance training is less effective than.

Objective 2.1 ADD pig hunters, NGOS, the public and landowners and occupiers.

Work with pig hunting clubs and other groups to make it clear that dogs will be shot if found in kiwi areas?

Crank up campaigns re “pets can Kill” messages and add in stiff penalties. However, where the owner is repentant and admits the harm – as one kiwi kill dog owner did recently, don’t prosecute them but use them to educate their dog-owning peers.

5.1.3 Genetic management

We generally agree with this but suggest that there be attention under “Issues” and under “objectives” to groups being able to get genetic testing of animals more easily and quickly to aid management.

Genetic engineering methods will not be acceptable, so clarify that.

RULE OUT in 5.1.3 and especially in 3.7 in the Table, the use of any genetic engineering techniques.

5.1.3 Issue 3.3 Clarify what is the best approach to hybrid populations and individuals.

Objectives 3.4 This will require careful discussion with iwi.

Clarify Issue 3.3.

12

5.1.4 Measuring Management Effectiveness

It is unclear to us – as lay people – why “monitoring” and “survey” are seen as quite distinct. Surely a survey is a form of monitoring?

In the Whenuakite Kiwi Care Group case, reporting on trapping results and where mustelids, cats etc were caught is done, but so are 3-4 or 5 yearly kiwi call monitoring surveys – these days with acoustic listening devices as well as human listeners. The same professional is used for this each time to maintain comparability. These have revealed the expansion of the numbers and range of kiwi present. Acoustic measuring gear, as used by Red Admiral Ecology has the advantage of saving the acoustic data for future verification.

We note recent reports that in other countries wildlife tracking devices are being used by poachers to home in on wildlife and that any use of such devices thus needs to be done with high security around the signal interception. We suggest that this issue be addressed with urgency.

Re Monitoring and Surveying, we agree that there should be a move to less invasive and more sensitive monitoring and measuring methods.

ADDRESS in 5.1.4 as an ISSUE the risks posed to animals of the use of tracking devices including the risk of poachers intercepting the signals, and ADDRESS this issue in the ACTION table.

13

5.1.5 Data Management

We agree with this assessment of the dispersed nature of the data but we know that some groups are very worried at the prospect of kiwi (or other native wildlife or plant) data becoming available to those with ill-intent, such as poachers. As such, many groups will be unwilling to share such data.

A second point is the problem of who owns and controls the data. Based on discussions at a recent workshop in Lincoln hosted by Susan Wiser of LandCare, some Iwi are likely to feel that they should own and control it as a matter of their Tangata Whenua and kaitiaki status. Further, some of the groups that do much of the work on the ground and fundraise for the control efforts, will also feel that they own data and should control it.

This will require careful navigation.

CANVASS how the statistical and other quality design protocols and collection and analysis measures could be made available to the groups involved. Templates and other measures may help.

ADD a section about data security.

In consultation with voluntary groups and iwi, develop some thinking on how this issue of ownership and control should be dealt with.

We suggest that iwi and hapu be included in discussions on these matters, as well as a variety of the kiwi groups on the ground, not only Kiwis for Kiwi.

Continued…

14

5.1.6 Recovery Planning: National Level

The desire to standardise and coordinate should be moderated by consideration of:

a) the effects of this on the motivation of those who go out into the field and do the work, and the desire of voluntary groups to be coordinated. It is well recognised in the literature on environmental action and behaviour (and in other contexts) that extrinsic demands can displace intrinsic motivations for pro-social action – pro-environmental in this case.

b) The information and transactions costs for the people and groups who may be very willing to do the work of predator control but who may well be very unwilling to be coordinated by others or otherwise instructed on what to do. This is a common response in the community, and it can be an intense de-motivator especially when the coordination benefits are not particularly evident (if there at all) and people see the coordination funding displacing funding for the actual on-the-ground (or in the air) efforts.

c) The desire to standardise methods and reporting has some merit, but we should also take a cue from ecology that a diversity of methods and approach can sometimes provide great benefits by revealing that some methods give better results than others.

d) Some groups who want to coordinate others do not actually have result better than those who they wish to “educate” and coordinate.

e) The unaffiliated kiwi care groups should also be recognised.

In 5.1.6 Consider as issues and actions, motivation and the impacts of extrinsic demands on intrinsic motivation.

ENSURE that the autonomy of groups is not undermined and that the learning from a variety of approaches is not lost;

HELP groups with their data and their planning, but do not insist that they must conform.

RECOGNISE, ENCOURAGE and LISTEN to those doing the work on the ground, and do not assume that the DoC way or some other chosen method is the best way. ENCOURAGE a diversity of approaches, but assist groups to develop reporting and analysis that is nationally comparable as well.

15

5.1.7 Planning and coordination for regional, species or topic-based groups.

It may be true that more coordination is needed, but bear in mind the issues of transactions costs, autonomy, intrinsic motivation and social dynamics. It is not clear exactly what the assertion of “the need for coordination” is. Sharing of information and good practice and methods is good, so too is encouragement. Coordination may or may not add value.

Provide evidence or some other support for the assertion that coordination is needed. We may well be persuaded but do not doubt that this is a matter of contention for some on the ground.

5.1.7 Tread carefully on coordination and unification of effort.

Learn from ecosystems about diversity.

Learn from social psychology about motivation and demotivation;

Learn from economics about the need to lower information costs without overwhelming people with transactions costs

Provide evidence that coordination is needed and is of net benefit at different scales on different issues and provide evidence that central or regional or local coordination will not use up resources unnecessarily and demotivate people.

5.1.8 DoC kiwi projects

In general we agree with the issues here and endorse the need to address these.

We too are concerned at the l

Persistent underfunding of DoC,

The loss of expertise within DoC’s ranks;

The high turnover of DoC staff as contracts finish;

The loss of on-the-ground capacity;

And we would add, also the dominance of consideration of risk aversion over the commitment to conservation;

The very unsuitable MoUs that some community kiwi groups in the Coromandel were asked to agree to. These were hugely onerous and tried to require that voluntary groups accept huge responsibilities and risks – all for the sake of doing pest control on DoC land. We understand that DoC may have seen sense on this and have withdrawn these but we have yet to see what they intend to replace them with.

8.4

ECO endorses the concerns articulated in the “Issues” section, but we submit that there be added to this:

8.1(bis) Increase the funding and capacity of DoC for conservation work. ACTION by the Finance Minister.

ADD: 8.6 Elevate conservation considerations over risk aversion in the work of the department

ADD 8.7 Overhaul the agreements with community groups to remove the risk and liability shifting elements of agreements with DoC and allow the groups to decide their operations protocols subject to the Health and Safety at Work Act.

16

5.1.9 Best Practice for Kiwi Management

We agree that the welfare of the birds should be pre-eminent.

We consider that best practice is usually to minimise handling of the birds, their eggs and chicks, and to leave the birds alone and control predators in situ.

We are not convinced that the ex situ methods of removal and intensive care provide good outcomes for the birds or that they are a good use of resources for the most part.

We are concerned at seemingly increasing high levels of handling of the birds and the robbing of burrows that seem to have become the norm.

We oppose the often stressful and exhausting PR and ceremonial handling, transport and confinement of the birds during events such as visits and relocation, iwi ceremonies, and Ministerial and other “VIP” photo opportunities that seem to have little regard to the impacts on the birds.

ADD in 5.1.9 the issue of handling transport and detention of birds in for extended periods and Include Actions and other measures to reduce and discourage these, especially the use of the handling of birds as PR and photo opportunity purposes.

5.1.10 Translocations

We agree with the account of the benefits of some of the translocations such as for “insurance” populations and for population resilience, but we do not agree that translocations should be done for the sake of ONE and kohanga kiwi as an end in themselves.

There may be occasions when such intensive work is needed, but we suggest that this be discouraged as a norm for kiwi conservation.

We do not support the use of translocations for “advocacy” aka photo ops for donors and politicians, warm fuzzies for others.

ADD to 10 and issue 10.6 the excessive handling and protracted detention of kiwi during translocations, and

ADD Recommendations for minimising of the robbing of burrows and habitats of eggs and kiwi and

Recommendations for minimising the length of any ceremonies, the amount of handling and the reasons for handling kiwi and to DISCOURAGE methods that involve handling the kiwi and of using invasion of burrows as a method of “protecting” kiwi.

WORK with iwi, hapu and communities and politicians to avoid and minimize the stress on birds from human contact with the birds and their eggs.

17

Kohanga kiwi/translocated source site populations

We agree with the comments in 5.1.11 In 5.1.11REDUCE the reliance on kohanga kiwi programmes and increase the spend on in situ conservation methods.

5.1.12 Operation nest Egg

It would be good to have some idea of the relative costs per kiwi in the ONE programmes and alternative approaches, and the data on the relative weights and other indicators of the health and viability of eggs and chicks etc put through these and alternative processes.

We agree that the methods used should focus on the ecosystems and habitats, not simply the “iconic” species

We agree with the Issues outlined in section 12, but we consider the Objective 12.1 should be to move away from ONE approaches unless these are clearly superior to other ecosystem based methods.

We think the actions in the table associated with 5.1.12 do not properly reflect the considerations in the “issues” section or the discussion we have above.

MODIFY 12.1 to add after the word “strategy” the words “only where it is clearly superior to other methods, is cost effective, and in situ conservation methods cannot do the same job”.

In 12.4 Actions, Modify the text to say, after the words, “across the country” the words, “only where other more cost effective and in situ measures are unable to achieve the same ends”.

5.1.13 Protecting kiwi within the production landscape

We agree with most of this section, but we consider that there should be some degree of regulatory controls on activities in areas where kiwi are but not such that people and corporations resort to destroying kiwi and their habitat in production areas as a measure to protect their economic interests.

5. 13.3 We support these action provisions.

18

5.1.14 Kiwi protection in the urban and rural environment

ECO endorses the comments and observations in this section but suggests that attention also be given to disease vectors such as captive hens and other animals that are domesticated but not pets. Guidance on whether these are a risk to kiwi would be useful.

In urban areas, community boards should be encouraged to establish whether exotic birds, or dogs and cats or pet mustelids are permissible, and if so, under which conditions. In the long run, it will take social norm change to get considerable changes in pet-owners’ behaviour, as well as regulatory controls, such as those in district plans or other planning instruments.

5.1.14 ECO Supports the Issue, Objectives and Actions in this section but requests DoC ADD to Issue 14.1 “mustelids” to the list of predators; and

ADD to the Issues,

* NEW 14.4, risks of diseases and parasite infections from domestic birds (pets or otherwise);

* ADD: Hazards to kiwi from troughs, drains, roads and other human infrastructure.

ECO SUPPORTS the Actions 14.1-4 but would like to see reference in 14.4, to domesticated birds and their diseases and parasites.

5.2 Engaging people with kiwi and their recovery

19

5.2.1 Tangata whenua

Our understanding is that tangata whenua will be interested in kiwi conservation in the whole of the rohe, not just on the lands that they formally own. Many Maori remain kaitiaki of “their lands” irrespective of formal, Pakeha land ownership status. The language in the problem discussion should be changed to reflect this.

A further issue is that many pakeha do not know how to find the right people to connect with – DoC could assist these groups by helping them to navigate the question of who to approach and by making the introductions. Some regional or local hosting of people from the community groups and whanau, hapu and iwi might help this process.

Re 15.7, given the threatened status of kiwi, we do not think that it is sensible or ethical to be arranging for cultural harvest. If the argument for such harvest is indigeneity, then there is a strong argument that kiwi indigeneity trumps Maori indigeneity in chronological terms and that the species needs to be recognised as having ethical standing in their own right. The goodwill and enthusiasm of the many people who work to protect kiwi will be negatively impacted upon if kiwi are also harvested, even for cultural purposes, and a huge amount of work to protect the species will likely be lost.

ADJUST the language in the problem discussion.

ADD the issue 15.7 that many mainly pakeha groups don’t know who to approach from tanagata whenua and that DoC and Kiwi for Kiwi could help with advice and introductions.

ADD to 5.2.1 an Action for DoC and others to help groups to know who to approach and to host occasions where people can meet each other to develop good relations. Such events should not be hugely formal or the relationships will not flourish.

Re 15.7 We suggest that 15.7 be DELETED, and that reference to kiwi as taonga in need of recovery be put in its place.

20

5.2.2 Topic 16 Engagement and Advocacy

The box under the heading 5.2.2. seems to have two, separated, sections that explain what “engagement” means. It would improve the paper to combine the two explanations. The first section stretches the point. We think mere provision of information or other one-way process does not qualify as “engagement” which we think has an element of involvement. We also doubt that “engagement” must necessarily involve permanent relationships, as asserted in the second explanation of the meaning of “engagement”.

5.2.2 text under the first box:

We suggest that the language in the first sentence under the first box be altered to say “.. important tools for engaging people..” and that the specification of types of people be left to the second section.

5.2.2 COMBINE or LINK the two definitions of “engagement” – probably with the second one preceding the first.

5.2.2 text under the first box:

AMEND the language in the first sentence under the first box to say “.. important tools for engaging people..”, that the text in brackets be deleted, and that the specification of types of people be left to the second section.

5.2.2 Issues In general we agree that these are issues, but we would add that the goals should be for Conservation goals (consistent with the Conservation Act and the Wildlife Act) .

As mentioned elsewhere in this submission, we consider that the culture and expectation that has been developed that there will be opportunities for sponsors, VIPs, iwi and the public to handle kiwi should be tackled and dismantled.

We suggest adding to the Issue 16.5 after “..and advocacy methods on” the words “conservation goals and , on..”

In Actions, ADD 16.5

Dedicate 2 or 3 kiwi for public and advocacy handling and public exposure, but adopt a general policy and practice that kiwi not be handled, and that they not be held captive or detained for the sake of human enjoyment or for ceremonial or other purposes.

5.2.3 Topic 17

Captive

coordination and

husbandry

As discussed in 5.2.2, we consider that it is not desirable to have kiwi captive expect for very limited numbers, for restricted purposes and that the individuals not include wild animals.

ADD, Only hand reared animals should be used as “ambassadors”, and that wild animals should be detained only for the minimum amount of time for vet checking or translocation, and should not be detained for ceremonial purposes.

21

5.2.3.17 Issues

We would like to see a specific discussion of the issue (and undesirability) of handling wild kiwi, and that non-contact methods of advocacy – such as use of video cameras – be used instead of contact.

We understand that the captive raising of eggs and chicks result in lighter weight eggs and chicks than those conserved in the wild.

ADD Issue 17.4 a specific discussion of the issue (and undesirability) of handling wild kiwi, and that non-contact methods of advocacy – such as use of video cameras – be used instead of contact.

ADD the Objective 17.1 ahead of the objectives listed, to the effect that the objective is species and ecosystem conservation.

ADD objectives and actions to the effect that in situ conservation should be the preferred conservation method.

5.2.3.17

Captive coordination and husbandry - Actions

We suggest that if the work on this section is left to primarily those already involved in captive breeding, then the recommendations will inevitably be to promote captive breeding. We consider that a wider cast of contributors to the actions in this section be sought and included in the consideration of these captive breeding, display and actions.

5.2.3.17.3 Actions This section on messaging and advocacy being the primary purpose of captive breeding and detention of kiwi seems inconsistent with the objective 17.1 and particularly, with Objective 17.2. about supporting wild populations.

REVISE the list of those involved in this set of actions. Include some who do not favour captive breeding and handling and who do not depend on it for their incomes.

REVISE the text in this section to be clear what are the primary purposes of captive breeding and detention of animals in captivity, and consider whether this captivity is consistent with the Conservation and Wildlife Acts.

22

5.3. Research – 5.3.1.18

We suggest that the research work of non-government organisations also be recognised here. We also suggest that the Issues, objectives and actions relating to research be augmented with research on social science topics such as:

a)Motivation and demotivation of volunteers and the groups that they form;

b) Research into the values, attitudes and behaviour (and how to nudge these into conservation friendly zones) of the public, dog owners, hunters and other specific groups ;

Inclusion of Traditional Ecological knowledge (where those who hold such knowledge agree).

5.3.1.18

AUGMENT this section with recognition of NGO research; with social science research on motivation, values, attitudes, and behaviour and how these might be shifted to be more kiwi conservation friendly, and how to shift from a sole species focus to the whole ecosystem.

ADD reference to Matauranga Maori and traditional ecological knowledge.

CONSIDER the issues of protection of the locations of kiwi and the issue of tangata whenua access to information (but not for cultural harvest).

5.4 Growing and sustaining the kiwi conservation effort

5.4.1 Topic 20─People and groups

We agree with the issues here, and suggest that:

a) more state funding as well as that from local government and charities is needed.

b) Too many of the funding agencies want to fund only one-off projects – but kiwi predator controls and habitat protection will never be one-off.

c) It is a good idea for different groups to do what they are motivated to do. The desire to preserve kiwi and their habitat is the fundamental goal. It is frustrating for groups to then be told that they have to do things the preferred way of a government or local government agency.

d) Too many agencies want to have all groups using a uniform approach and to spend money on coordination. Yet coordination should only be done when there are clear

5.4.1 Topic 20─People and groupsa) Increase access to funding for kiwi care groups, for volunteers and for on-the-ground training and coordination, but

b) resist the temptation to raise the transactions costs for groups

c) resist the temptation to make groups use all the same procedures and methods;

d) Assist groups by funding professional kiwi call monitoring so that they know the outcomes (e.g) kiwi population recovery, not just the inputs (hours spent) or outputs (trap catch counts). There is nothing more satisfying than knowing that there really is a difference from the efforts made and having the data to prove it.

We thus support Actions 5.4.1.20.1-3, but suggest the

23

benefits from such – such.e) People doing volunteer pest

control have a variety of motivations, but most want to do what they do for intrinsic reasons, and most do not want to spend time on transactions costs or being controlled by officials who they often consider to be less able to judge what is needed than those on the ground. It is very important that DoC and other agencies do not tangle volunteer groups up in onerous agreements and demands, or try to have a one-way fits all.

f) The reasons that we recommend this forebearance include i) that, as the psychological literature shows, extrinsic or external controls displace intrinsic motivation and turn people off and demotivate them so that they just walk away, and ii) that, like ecosystems, a variety of approaches can allow us to find a variety of ways of doing things – and learn which have which strengths and which have which weaknesses.

addition of:

Provision of more funding for the groups and for professional help;

Provision of funding for professional kiwi monitoring data.

24

5.4.2.21 Mataraunga/know-ledge

We agree with and endorse the observations in 21.1-14, and think that 21.5 is probable, but we do not know which kiwi materials are referred to.

Re 21.3 and 21.5, DoC and Councils could help by putting groups in touch with local hapu and conservation minded kaitiaki. Many groups find making the contact difficult. Introductions would help. There is a high level of wariness that inclusiveness will lead to demands that the people in the groups do not have the cultural capacity or knowledge to navigate, and that complications and difficulties will result from such engagement. We know this is often not the case, but such outcomes do happen, and many Pakeha are wary of “getting their heads bitten off” and / or being accused of contacting the wrong iwi or people so they prefer to just get on with the job. This is a great pity and careful help to get over this perceived obstacle could help.

ECO is concerned that staff turnover is much more frequent than volunteer turnover. Groups develop relationships with particular government or local government officials, only to find that they then move on or are restructured out of a job.

The demoralisation of DoC staff, the seeming lack of consideration of the need to retain good scientists and good staff, and the over-emphasis on compliance with rules over conservation all lead to losses of motivation of, and relationships with, staff.

ADD ACTIONS:

21.4.NCREASE FUNDING to DoC and on-going funding support for groups, volunteers and the professionals who support them.

21.5 ADD Help groups with introductions to tangata whenua kaitaki and vice versa.

5.4.3 Topic

22─Funding

We entirely agree with these points that align with points we have made above in 5.4.2.21 and elsewhere in this paper. We welcome that these problems have been recognised.

There is great disparity in funding to groups. Some get 6-figure funds while others get nothing or very little, even when their results are better than the well-funded groups. It is very unclear why this is. Processes and criteria seem sometimes to take a back seat to personal relationships and P.R.

ACTIONS re 5.4.3.22

22.1 Raise the ambition of the goal of the project.

22.2 AGREED

22.3 This is obscure. Which services?

22.5 AGREED!

25

Appendix 1 – Timeline of Recovery Actions

This table and the next need an indication of whether the filled in or the blank blocks represent actions or inactions. It is not clear.

As above, delete 15.7 and clarify 15.6

It is not obvious what the rationales are for the different time lines. There is no discussion of that temporal aspect of the paper.

Appendix 3 Alignment of Actions with DoC’s intermediate Outome, Objectives and Stretch Goals

These Outcome Objectives are sadly unambitious. We disagree that “iconic” species should get priority over “keystone” or ecologically important species;

IOO 1.2 is feeble – we want to see threatened species managed to become restored to unthreatened status and to be located within healthy, functioning ecosystems, that they be returned to their full range, abundance and ecological functions.

In general we find the approach in IOO.1.4,5 and 6 are anthropocentric and not ecocentric. We would like to see the focus of DoC be first ecocentric and then, to the extent compatible with that, to reach out to and harness the more ecologically benign human values.

AMEND the IOOs to be more ambitious and less anthropocentric.

IOO 1.2. AMEND TO: “Threatened species are managed to become restored to unthreatened status and to be located within healthy, functioning ecosystems, that they be returned to their full range, abundance and ecological functions.”

IOO 1.4 Align with ECO’s suggested IOO. 1.2 above

IOO .5 RELACE WITH: Natural heritage is restored to its ecologically functioning state.

IOO 1.6 Public Conservation…species and ecosystems are held protected and restored for now and the future generations.

Stretch Goals These “Stretch Goals” need to be set against the current state. We would like to see SG1 be amended to 100% not 50%.

AMMEND SG1 to 100%

15.7 In our view this is more about a demand for recognition for and respect for Maori than any actual pressing cultural need. We do not accept this goal for the reasons that we articulate in the section on this.

15.7 DELETE and REPLACE with provision for protection of kiwi as taonga.

26

Finally, ECO is grateful for the opportunity to have input into this policy and for the consideration that you give to this submission. Thanks too for accepting this late submission. We hope it is useful to the process.

Best regards,

Cath Wallace,

ECO Vice Chair.

27