(Left to right) Drosera spatulata, Utricularia dichotoma flower, Peter Elhardt. Drosera binata, Noah Elhardt. Photos licensed under Creative Commons

New Zealand has twelve native carnivorous plants: four types reside on this alpine sandstone plateau which is under threat from coal mining. 

For many people, carnivorous plants hold a certain fascination – these seemingly benign, stationary plants turn the tables on insects, trapping them in goo, or nifty traps, so they can devour them at their leisure. 

Carnivorous plants use these insect-snacks to supplement their nutrient-load because they live in water-logged, peaty nutrient-poor soil, such as bogs and mountaintops.

And although NZ may not have large tropical pitcher plants, that can harbour communities of frogs and spiders, or the Venus Flytrap with its snap traps, we have a number of fascinating predatory plants.  

Interestingly, carnivorous plants aren’t from the same family. Plants such as bladderworts and sundews formed insect trapping devices independently of each other, and they ensnare their prey using quite different methods. 

Sundews trap insects on leaves that are covered in many tiny, bright tentacles. Each tentacle has a mucilage-producing gland on the tip. In the sunlight, sundews look amazing, covered in glistening, sticky droplets.  Landing insects get stuck on the tentacles, and the more they struggle, the more they become gummed up in the oozing mucilage, which is not only the superglue of the plant world, but contains digestive enzymes.

The leaves of many sundew species can also rapidly bend around their prey –capturing it more securely as well as enabling the plant’s leaves to better digest and absorb the prey’s nutrients.

Bladderworts have a very different hunting method.

Some grow in water; others in peat swamps. They generally look unassuming above the surface, even pretty with their small, sometimes fragrant flowers. However, below the surface, they lay the most sophisticated traps of any carnivorous plant.

They have a network of stems that grow along the ground and underground which are dotted along with a series of  small vacuum traps.

These traps have doors sealed with mucilage, and tiny hairs on the outside. When an organism swimming past triggers a hair, this breaks the seal on the trapdoor. It whips open, the vacuum sucks in the creature, and the door closes, all within milliseconds.
 
Researcher Bruce Salmon has, over many years, travelled the country in search of native carnivorous plants. His book Carnivorous Plants of New Zealand is full of information, as well as stunning photographs and ideas for field trips to observe these treasures in their natural environments.

He describes how on the road up to the Denniston Plateau he found thousands of Drosera spatulata – along with some Drosera binata – growing vertically on water-washed cliffs, amongst mosses.  Further up, he saw more Drosera spatulata, as well as Urtricularia dichotoma, in what he describes as ‘the weathered sandstone moonscape’.

For interested explorers there, Bruce advises: ‘The best time to see then is during summer, between December and February. Allow 2-3 hours for fossicking.’

But what will become of Denniston Plateau’s carnivorous plant communities if the mining goes ahead? 

Around the world, many carnivorous plants are considered indicator species, sensitive to small changes in their environment.  In New Zealand, as well as globally, carnivorous plants are under threat; their populations ever diminishing as their habitats are cleared, drained or poisoned by new residential and industrial developments, as well as farm run-off.

Do we really need to lose one more habitat?

Attention Predatory Plant Enthusiasts: On 2 – 4 March, Forest & Bird is leading a weekend Bioblitz on the Denniston Plateau – a chance to uncover these gems of the plateau, as well as other plants and animal life.  Fossickers and nature enthusiasts of all persuasions are invited to attend.  More details can be found here
 
If you would like to learn more about carnivorous plants, join the carnivorous plant society - http://www.nzcps.co.nz/

A graphic showing the various legislative zones

If you thought that the EEZ Bill, currently before select committee, would be a major weapon in the government’s armoury to protect this unique and extensive environment – if you believed what responsible Minister Dr Nick Smith has said – you were wrong.

Each country’s EEZ stretches from its coast to out to 200 nautical miles. New Zealand’s marine environment, which also includes the continental shelf, is 23 times bigger than our land environment.
The EEZ Bill is supposed to protect it. However, it has what, according to the very charitable interpretation of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE), can only be a “serious error”.

The Bill is, all on its own, an environmental risk.

New Zealand is a party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). It is from UNCLOS that our right to use the EEZ for economic purposes comes. It is this that gives us the authority and the exclusive privilege. It does that on condition of a requirement to “protect and preserve” this environment.

New Zealand waters are a breeding ground and transit route for many marine and seabird species, including threatened and endangered species. There are risks for them, and marine conservation, from accidents that may result from activities in the EEZ, particularly offshore oil activities.

Despite encouragement to comply with UNCLOS (“protect and preserve”), the Marine Reserves Bill has been stuck in Parliament since 2002. A woeful 0.4 percent of the EEZ is protected in marine reserves.

By contrast, around one-third of our land is public conservation land.

Dr Smith has promised to prioritise the Marine Reserves Bill and get it passed in the next three years. It will be reported back from select committee on February 29, with the EEZ Bill. This is good. It is an important part of the protection package.

But it is not, on its own, good enough. No less important is managing the competing uses of the parts of the marine environment that we do not set aside in reserves. It is all the same environment.

The MV Rena’s grounding on the Astrolabe Reef, and oil spill, has taught us about the importance of prevention. Forest & Bird is among those calling for an independent inquiry into the circumstances of this accident – into New Zealand’s oil spill response capacity, but more importantly, stopping accidents in the first place.

That means making good judgements about what activities are allowed offshore, by whom, and on what conditions.

The EEZ Bill is one tool for doing this. It establishes a decision-making process to manage activities in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and on the continental shelf beyond 12 nautical miles.

It has the same job as the RMA, which applies on land, and to 12 nautical miles offshore.

Beyond 12 nautical miles, out to 200 miles, the law is complicated and has gaps. To all intents and purposes, it is currently unregulated. In this sense, the EEZ Bill is a good and a necessary thing.

The Bill is modelled on the Resource Management Act (RMA). And it should be: there is no reason, in principle, for the philosophies of the two Acts to differ. If anything, UNCLOS requires a higher, not a lesser, standard of protection.

However, the Bill does differ from the RMA in some important, and quite malign, ways.

The purpose of the RMA is to “promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources”. It says this in section 5. Similarly, section 8 of the Fisheries Act says that “The purpose of this Act is to provide for the utilisation of fisheries resources while ensuring sustainability”.

The EEZ Bill is concerned with “economic wellbeing”.

It “seeks to achieve a balance between the protection of the environment and economic development”: the purpose clause in section 10. It does not talk about sustainability, at all. It directs decision-makers to consider the “efficient” use of resources, not their sustainable use.

Responsible Minister Hon Nick Smith has said that for the small number of decisions under the EEZ Bill (around 10-20 consents per year), the level of complexity in the RMA is not justified. Also, that the RMA requires consideration of some factors, such as social and cultural factors, which are not applicable offshore; therefore, the focus needs to be on economic and environmental factors.

We agree. However, we think that the Minister’s logic is still wrong.

The Bill can be more simply and appropriately drafted. But its basic purpose and philosophy still apply. Without sustainability, we are lost. No environmental protection, no long-term economic wellbeing – so that, in fact, the current drafting of the Bill inadvertently undermines its own stated goal.

We support the Minister’s desire to “simplify and streamline”, provided it can be achieved without doing damage to our own goals of properly protecting the environment. We think that it can.

For example, it would be more “simplified and streamlined” to have at least approximately the same law on both sides of the 12 nautical mile line. At the margins (ie, in cases that cross or are close to the 12 mile limit), and when talking about species that migrate between the two, totally different philosophies makes no sense.

Beneath this is a more fundamental, non-negotiable point. New Zealand is already party to another law, UNCLOS, that requires it.

Beyond the purpose clause, the EEZ Bill differs from the RMA in other ways. The RMA prioritises decision-making factors, into “matters of national importance” (which are about environmental preservation and protection), and “other matters”.

The EEZ Bill lists them all together, with no indication about relative weight, except that on the list of eight items, the conservation ones come last.  This is backed up by clause 61, which provides that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may grant an application for marine consent “if the activity’s contribution to New Zealand’s economic development outweighs the activity’s adverse effects on the environment” or “may refuse the application if the adverse effects of the activity on the environment outweigh the activity’s contribution to New Zealand’s economic development”.

This is a direct trade off of economic benefits against environmental costs. In effect, it says that provided the economic rewards are sufficiently high, any lesser amount of environmental destruction or damage may be consented to by the EPA.

It fails to recognise that there are environmental limits which should not be breached irrespective of the economic benefits. And in many cases it is neither possible nor appropriate to try to put a monetary value on environmental damage, such as the irreversible loss of a species or unique habitat.

It is this, concluded the PCE, which must be a “serious error”.

It says that if what you find out there in the EEZ is worth enough, it’s all for sale. What the Bill does is state its price. It does not set in place any bottom line – any fence, if you like, against risk of environmental destruction.

It is the Schedule 4 policy leftovers warmed up, in a more remote place, where the government hopes we will neither notice nor care.

Do you?

If so, please speak for the blue whales and their calves, the wandering albatross who died cloaked in tar from the Rena, the many, many other less charismatic megafauna out there in the EEZ, and those who are not charismatic at all – but important, and with whom we are privileged to share this environment.

It’s not too late to make a submission to the Local Government and Environment select committee which is dealing with this Bill. They close on 27 January. Forest & Bird’s submission is here.

Although the new Associate Conservation Minister, Peter Dunne has strong conservation policies on freshwater, wild rivers and the Mokihinui hydro proposal in particular, he opposes 1080 and supports a move to restructure DOC to seperate conservation and recreation activities. He also has no policy on the mining of Denniston (pictured).

It is a very interesting Parliament and there are some reasons to hope that Forest & Bird’s hand is, in fact, a little stronger than it was in the 49th Parliament.

The new National-led government has 64 confidence votes, with support from the ACT party, the United Future party, and the Maori party. It has 59 seats of its own. John Banks and Peter Dunne make 61.

Mr Dunne will be the Associate Conservation Minister, outside of Cabinet. Hon Kate Wilkinson continues with the Conservation portfolio, ranked at number 17 from 20 Ministers.

In a 121-seat Parliament, Mr Key needs 61 votes to govern, and pass Bills.

Analogies have been drawn between Mr Key and Mr Muldoon, including by the Prime Minister himself.

He will not want to risk a Marilyn Waring crossing the floor, or a Christine Fletcher exercising leverage on environmental issues in a narrowly divided House. (In 1997 Mrs Fletcher played an important role in ensuring Coromandel Peninsula’s inclusion in Schedule 4 to the Crown Minerals Act.)

He has, therefore, secured the support of the Maori party.

However, having given Mr Key their confidence, that party remains free to oppose anything else.

Forest & Bird will be looking to build a constructive relationship with the Maori party and Mr Dunne, and also, lobbying others. Nikki Kaye, for example, has shown quite staunch interest in conservation issues (particularly the proposal to mine Great Barrier, but not confined to that).

Of particular interest to us, the government has said that the Marine Reserves legislation will be revived and passed in this term. The EEZ Bill (Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill) needs to be strengthened, before it is passed: as introduced, it says that anything in the marine environment is tradable, for a high enough economic price. Phase 2 of the Resource Management Act reforms are likely to include section 6 and 7 reform, of the foundation principles in the Act, and may try to “streamline and simplify” Conservation Act decision-making by aligning it with decision-making under the RMA.

And the Game Animal Council Bill - not supported by Forest & Bird or anyone else with an interest in conservation - holds pride of place in Mr Dunne’s confidence and supply agreement.

Mr Dunne’s agreement also promises to adopt and implement policies to maintain free public access to rivers, lakes, forests and coastline. On fresh water, it says that United Future is “committed to improving water quality in our lakes rivers and streams, in particular mitigating the impact of agrarian runoff on these waterways, and ensuring quality standards and existing management of water supplies, and agrees that United Future will be consulted and involved in any initiatives concerning these issues”.

Mr Dunne has strong conservation policies on wild rivers and the Mokihinui hydro proposal in particular, although these were not given priority or even mentioned in the confidence and supply agreement. These, and his outdoor recreation links such as with Fish & Game, are reasons to be optimistic, and Mr Dunne, in the circumstances, could be one of the stronger conservation voices around this Cabinet table.

Less positively, United Future’s response to our pre-election vote for nature poll wanted to see DOC restructured, including splitting recreation from conservation and having them operate semi-autonomously. This would be contrary to conservation law. Mr Dunne’s opposition to 1080 is widely known although, ever the moderate voice of reason, he would not ban it immediately; his preference instead of funding 1080 is to spend money researching alternatives.

Extinctions are happening now.

United Future currently has no policy on Denniston. We will be looking to brief Mr Dunne on this, and asking our Denniston supporters to write to him at an early opportunity. Nevertheless, as one Twitterer commented, chances Mr Dunne will have much interest in the Denniston plateau are slim: “You can’t hunt snails.”

The ACT party has an item in its confidence and supply agreement about the RMA, which will be one to keep an eye on. The risk is that John Banks could be made the political whipping boy for a robust RMA agenda which, indications are, National would have wanted to pursue anyway.

11.06% of people did “vote for nature”, and for sustainability - or rivers kids and jobs anyway - in unprecedented numbers, yielding a result of 14 MPs for the Green party.

The Greens ran a strong campaign, in a year when Labour was on its knees. However, another factor may have been voters attempting to bring some Green balance to the blue government.

As it transpired, Mr Key can cobble together enough support, leaving the Greens in the same place as they were in the 49th Parliament, negotiating initiatives to pursue under a MOU.

And yet, taking a longer view, this election when National has never been stronger also shows the tenuous nature of their support under MMP. They cannot count, long term, on United Future and ACT. To cover their drill-dig-dairy agenda, insure themselves, and recognise the rising tide of the Green vote, they will be wanting to build a relationship with the Greens.

There are clearly areas where this can occur. For example, both parties have freshwater and pest control priorities.

Meanwhile, on the opposition benches, as Greens try to keep and grow their new double-figure vote base, and Labour attempts to rebuild, and casts around for a new agenda to unite its party and fire the imaginations of voters, there will be healthy competition for a sustainable nature-friendly manifesto - with the environment ranked by voters this year as their number-one election issue.

In 2014, whether the government is blue or red-led, we can expect better conservation outcomes.

We hope you’ll have seen our posters. We asked all Parliamentary parties contesting the 2011 general election to tell us their policies on environmental threats and Forest & Bird’s main conservation goals.

The full list included questions about whether they would save our landscapes and precious places - such as the Mackenzie, protecting the Denniston Plateau from open cast coal mining and the Mokihinui River from hydro damming.

There were questions about threatened species (their biodiversity and conservation policies), our threatened planet (their fossil fuel and carbon emissions policies), and many more.

It seemed that reading simple instructions and confining their answers to the specified number of words was an unexpectedly challenging task! - a task on which some failed.

At the time of writing, 10 days out from the general election, there is still nothing from the National Party, although Dr Smith gave us an undertaking that on the day all their environment policy had been announced, we would have the answers. National can be found here and here refusing to answer similar questions from Radio New Zealand.

We know from their environment and conservation policy releases that National does have some good policy - along with bad ones, like cynical proposals to review sections 6 and 7 of the Resource Management Act, and conservation policy that challenges the Conservation Act.

However, if a National-led government is re-elected they will revive and pass marine reserves legislation in the next three years, and focus on oceans and marine.

This is a theme among the parties, and a positive one. Both Greens and Labour were committed to establishing a Kermadecs ocean sanctuary; the Greens said yes to protecting one-third of our oceans; and Labour is willing to aim for “some sort of protection” for 30% by 2020.

All three major parties also say freshwater is a priority. National would continue the work of the Land and Water Forum (whether it adopts all recommendations may be another story), and rank rivers and lakes by pollution levels, so the worst can be prioritised for remediation.

Meanwhile, dairy intensification continues, with irrigation another part of National’s freshwater policy, and taxpayers funding both freshwater cleanup and agricultural GHG emissions.

The Greens were the first to announce their flagship freshwater policy, dubbed “rivers”. It includes a charge on water take for irrigation, to fund riparian planting, destocking and compensation in the Waituna lagoon catchment as a priority in post-election talks, and a moratorium on intensification in sensitive areas.

Labour says water quality is critical to our future, supports a resource rental charge, and would implement the freshwater national policy statement as originally drafted.

On conservation, a National-led government would review threatened species management and biodiversity strategies, establishing a biodiversity forum with a focus on pest control.

There is some alignment here with the Greens. The Greens, too, have a threatened species and pest control focus in their conservation policy, and have worked with National on the trials of self-resetting traps.

They would also introduce a Wildlife (Threatened Species Protection) Amendment Bill. The draft needs a lot of work, with which we have been invited to help. It would require recovery plans for all threatened species.

The Greens would increase DOC funding to a baseline of 1% of the annual Budget. Labour notes that core DOC functions and independence are being directly and indirectly threatened and must be maintained.

A policy area where the Greens have been weak from Forest & Bird’s point of view is on 1080. Latest is that they remain opposed to it in front country areas, and say there have been good results with self-setting traps, which make their use viable - therefore, yes to 1080 only as a last resort, and aerial use only in inaccessible places.

UnitedFuture, led by Peter Dunne, is alone in wanting to ban 1080, and responsible for the Game Animal Council Bill - which has nothing to do with conservation despite being introduced in the name of Hon Kate Wilkinson, and all to do with hunting and politics. But in one of UnitedFuture’s few unequivocal answers, they agreed with our policy of “no more dams on wild or braided rivers”.

Labour party policies, too, have been hedged about with some caveats. However, a number of them show the fruits of lobbying by Forest & Bird, including clear undertakings on the Mokihinui and fossil fuel mining. Labour would either direct Meridian Energy not to proceed or decline Mokihinui concessions, and would put a stop to Solid Energy’s lignite proposals - suggesting a wider policy of better enforcing our state-owned enterprises’ social responsibilities under the Act.

Labour would also stop tenure review, and “explore the creation of” a Mackenzie drylands park, to keep the Mackenzie brown.

There were no responses from the ACT and Maori parties (and see further here and here). By contrast, Parliament’s two smallest parties, Mana and United Future, were our first two parties to respond.

Finally, a couple of cross-party comparisons, on questions about nature’s place in our lives, and why a vote for their party would be a vote for nature.

On nature’s place in our lives, Labour talked about the important functions of public conservation land. The Green Party said conservation is more than just protecting and setting aside our most valuable ecosystems: it is about bringing nature into our cities and back yards. Mana said people are a part of nature; the two cannot be separated. UnitedFuture considered it important that environmental uses for recreation and economic development are not damaging, but could not “advocate an open-slather approach”.

The Greens said a vote for their party would be a vote for nature because they speak for those who can sing but not speak, and have a record of working with both major parties for conservation gains.

Labour talked about the intrinsic as well as economic value of our natural heritage, and Labour’s proud conservation record, including establishing DOC and the Conservation Act in 1987. Labour would also start an immediate review of stewardship land, to get it out of limbo, and finish the work that they started 25 years ago.

Mana said we are all part of an ecosystem, and must do much more to help it.

For United Future a vision for nature was about New Zealanders’ outdoor lifestyle and interactions with the environment, which we all have a birthright to enjoy.

However, as with half a dozen of UnitedFuture’s other answers, it had to be “CUT - ANSWER TOO LONG”.

Diving petrel chick

Unlike most seabirds though, the common diving petrel (kuaka) has few of these attributes. It’s fitted out with a pair of stumpy wings and a small sparrow-sized body that makes it look like it has taken a wrong turn. Unlike our soaring albatross, the diving petrel has to flap franticly to keep airborne.

However if you spend enough time watching these nifty little seabirds, you’ll learn that they’re very much home at sea. They can even navigate through air and water almost seamlessly. I have even seen one charge into a huge wave, burst on through to the other side, and just keep on flying.

The courage! The pluck! The sheer lunacy of it! You’ve got to love this foolhardy bird

Unfortunately this bird has been one of the major victims of the recent oil spill in Tauranga. So far, over 500 dead birds have been counted but in reality many more would have sunk without trace. And that’s not to mention the many chicks would have died when their parents failed to return to their nests feed them.

I had the gruesome task of identifying some of the seabirds caught up in the oil spill and one of the three subspecies, the northern diving petrel, repeatedly showed up. Its population sits at around one million birds.

Already they’ve had a century- long battle with rats and they reside only on rat-free islands and stacks, so a large oil spill like this is a huge blow to their population.

So if you’re going to vote for a battler in this year’s Bird of the Year competition cast your vote for this cute plucky oddball – the common diving petrel.

I had barely just touched down in New Zealand and I was given the opportunity to meet and greet 20 of its most endangered species.

This is the first time that our endangered Blue Duck has been held in captivity. Photo: Rod Morris.

In fact, as I wandered around Auckland Zoo’s new enclosure - Te Wao Nui - I was unsure whether I was taking part in what is described as ‘extinction’ tourism, or whether I was peering into a more hopeful future.

The $16 million dollar area will be home to about 60 animal species, some of them rare and critically endangered like the Campbell Island teal.

The area is comprised of six habitat areas - coast, islands, wetlands, day forest, night (caves and forest) and high country – and contains a handful of threatened citizens in each.

As I wandered throughout the enclosure, I learnt a lot about conservation in New Zealand and the concept of island sanctuaries to protect your endangered wildlife.

Illegal logging rather than pests is our major problem in Brazil, having said that, we have over 300 invasive species and we don’t utilise our islands to preserve these threatened species. It was inspiring to learn about the innovation and drive of those people who first populated these species-saving islands.  

Surprisingly for me, the director of the Zoo John Wilcken informed me that New Zealanders know very little about their own native species, and this is one of the goals of the Zoo – to tell the story of these little-seen creatures.

As you take a walk through the 3ha precinct, you’re taken into areas that are covered by huge steel mesh domes – through tunnels, alongside streams and past tanks filled with seals.

 One of the most interesting enclosures was a tunnel complete with LED stars, that contained short tailed bats, weta and endangered Brown kiwi – a bird that scuttled in front of me and probed the ground barely two inches from my nose.

The nocturnal precinct will allow researchers to learn more about the habits of species such as the short-tailed bat and weta.

 Indeed, the zoo is not only a site of wildlife interest; it also plays an important role in conservation.

Breeding programmes are being carried out for a number of species including the Brown teal, North Island kaka, blue duck, kiwi and  tuatara.

Brown teal eggs, for example, are hatched at the zoo and the offspring is taken to a pest controlled park called Peacock Springs in Christchurch.

Once they have matured the ducks are then released to different locations. The Brown teal used to be incredibly widespread, but now they are only found on Great Barrier Island.

Of all the threatened species, I was most honoured to meet your living dinosaur - the tuatara . I never imagined I’d meet a reptile  from the time when dinosaurs walked the Earth. It was shocking to learn that it too is threatened, but then I was heartened to discover that the zoo provides a safe ‘dinosaur creche’ and incubation service. 

I was very impressed with the conservation efforts carried out by New Zealanders – the future is definitely hopeful. Unfortunately, many people still do not care about conservation. It is the same thing back home. The ones who do care though are making a big difference.

Here is a list of the animals that are currently on display at the Zoo, with the respective classification in the IUCN red list. The zoo hopes to introduce more species over the next few years.

Banded kokopu – vulnerable

Banded rail - ?

Bellbird (korimako) – least concern

Black mudfish – data deficient

Brown kiwi – endangered

Cave weta - ?

Chevron skink – vulnerable

Climbing galaxias (koaro) – no data

Common bully (pako) – no data

Cook Strait tuatara (from the unique reptile group, Sphenodontia) – lower risk

Cran’s bully – no data

Falla’s skink – vulnerable

Flax snail (pupu harakeke) – vulnerable

Forest gecko – no data

Giant kokopu - vulnerable

Grey teal (tete) – least concern

Inanga - vulnerable

Jewelled gecko – near threatened

Kea – vulnerable (pop.trend: decreasing)

Koura (freshwater crayfish) – no data

Kukupa (also known as kereru/New Zealand wood pigeon) – near threatened (pop.trend: decreasing)

Little blue penguin (korora) – least concern

Longfin eel (know locally as orea) – no data

Morepork (ruru) – least concern

New Zealand dotterel – endangered (pop. trend: decreasing)

New Zealand fur seal (kekeno) – least concern

New Zealand scaup (papango) – least concern

New Zealand shoveler (kuruwhengi) – least concern

North Island kaka – endangered (decreasing)

North Island weka – vulnerable (decreasing)

Northland green gecko – no data

Otago skink – endangered (decreasing)

Paradise shelduck (putangitangi) – least concern

Pateke (brown teal) – endangered (increasing)

Red-crowned kakariki - vulnerable

Red-finned bully (toitoi) - ?

Rough gecko – lower risk/least concern

Short-tailed bat (pekapeka) – (critically endangered/vulnerable?)

Silvereye (tahou) – least concern

Spotted shag (parekareka) – least concern

Sub-Antarctic fur seal – least concern

Torrent fish (papamako) – no data

Tui – least concern

Whio (blue duck) – endangered (decreasing)

White-faced heron (matuku) – least concern

Yellow-crowned kakariki – near threatened (decreasing)

In 1986, the Waitangi Tribunal heard the te reo Maori claim. Claimants argued that the language was a taonga which the Crown was obliged to protect under the Treaty’s second article, and it had failed to do so. They said that if endangered birds were worth saving, so was te reo Māori, the life force of mana Māori.

Our karearea, or NZ Falcon. Photo: Craig McKenzie

The bird I have selected then as the Bird of the Year is the Karearea – also known as the New Zealand Falcon (Falco novaeseelandiae) .

The karearea is one of New Zealand’s most spectacular birds – and it is endemic to this country. The World Conservation Union classifies the falcon as a near-threatened species. Like te reo rangatira, the karearea has become threatened due to declining populations of this treasure.

The threats to survival operate on multiple levels. Selective logging of rimu and other large forest trees has reduced the available nesting habitats. Predation by cats and hedgehogs is emerging as a problem for ground nesting falcons. It is likely that stoats and rats prey on eggs and nestlings.

There are also human hazards which have caused the population to decline. Karearea have been electrocuted on power poles containing transformers; and more recently a new threat has emerged from wind farms, with the karearea colliding with the rotating turbine blades.
The karearea flies fast, with rapid wingbeats, and they are not phased by gusty winds; frequently cruising at around 100 km/hr.

Tangata whenua consider the karearea to possess special connections of a spiritual realm. This is an aspect that particularly appeals to me as it reminds me of the special care and protection we must take of our birdlife, as interconnected to our wellbeing. I relate to the karearea through the association I have to the kahu (hawk). On route to Takapau, my birthplace and tribal home, there is a particular stretch on the road, where the kahu will make itself manifest. It is, if you like, my spiritual guide.

There is another distinctive attribute of the karearea and that is its ability to foretell a change in the weather. A proverb describing this feature suggests: “Ka tangi te Karearea ki waenga o te rangi pai, ka ua apopo; ka tangi ki waenga o te rangi ua, ka paki apopo”.

If the karearea screams on a fine day it will rain tomorrow; if it screams on a rainy day the following day will be fine.

Kakapos. They may not sing as hauntingly as the kokako or be as brightly coloured as the kakariki or swoop as majestically as the kaka but I think the kakapo is most deserving of crowning title of Bird of the Year.

A kakapo male. Photo: Don Merton

They’re some of our most entertaining birds however their nightly performances are done under a curtain of darkness.

In fact they are the world’s only nocturnal parrot.  They’re also the only parrots to use a lek system for breeding.  It’s a bit like the bird equivalent of X Factor or American Idol.

The mating process involves the males finding the best position where they make a track and bowl system.  This is their version of a stage. They are diligent stagekeepers, and they fuss over it so that it looks its best.

Every night they place themselves centre stage, they inflate their thoracic sac which is situated in their chest, and let out an almighty boom to attract the ladies.

The females behave a bit like judges checking out the males’ booming efforts before deciding which ones they want to mate with.  

Once the females are impregnated they make a nest and essentially become solo parents until their chicks leave the nest. Breeding also does not occur every year as it tied to the fruiting of the rimu tree which is the main food for the chicks. 

Alas this only occurs every couple of years, so scientists have tried to speed up it’s fruiting but this – so far- has been unsuccessful.

Like kiwi, the kakapo is flightless – however don’t tell them. They’ll climb trees, and have been known to hurl themselves off trees in the belief they can fly.

As the author Douglas Adam said in the book Last Chance to See, “Sadly, however, it seems that not only has the kakapo forgotten how to fly, but it has also forgotten that it has forgotten how to fly.”

Kakapos are also perfectly adapted to their natural environment.  The colouring of their feathers means they can blend into New Zealand bush and if disturbed, they tend to freeze and blend into the environment.  However, should they need to move quickly they can do with powerful legs that are equally good at walking and climbing.

However, all these marvellous traits couldn’t protect it from the various predators humans brought with them. The remaining kakapo population is now spread on predator free offshore islands. It isn’t all doom and gloom though, there are currently 129 kakapo in the world which is fantastic considering they only had 50 birds or so to their name in the 1990s.

This means they will hopefully be around for future generations to continue to entertain us.  As those in the entertainment industry know, entertainers need to continue to collect accolades for their work. 

As Naturalist, Gerald Durrell said “If naturalists go to heaven (about which there is considerable ecclesiastical doubt), I hope that I will be furnished with a troop of Kakapo to amuse me in the evening instead of television.”

The kakapo won the Bird of the Year in 2008 but in recognition of its continued entertaining work it should win again this year.  It’s a bird that brings out the best in humans so please vote for kakapo in Forest & Bird’s Bird of Year.

To see my campaign video go here

To vote in Bird of the Year go here www.birdoftheyear.org.nz. Polling closes on November 25th.

Please note: unlike the kiwi, this video is a little quiet, so please turn up the volume!