The reserve application was lodged by the Akaroa Harbour Marine Protection Society (AHMPS) in 1996. It survived for 14 years through government processes, at least six Ministers of Conservation and consideration by the Maori Land Court only to be rejected by the Minister because of her perception of undue adverse effects on recreational fishers.

This is ignoring public opinion given that 2334 (73%) of the 3043 submissions which DoC received supported the marine reserve.

Akaroa’s harbour’s south eastern coast has a spectacular seascape of coastal cliffs, sea caves and steep bluffs. The proposed marine reserve site at Dan Rogers features a dramatic sea cave and a 275 metre volcanic bluff. Underwater, large basalt boulders create caves, overhangs and reefs extending out to beyond 100 m. providing shelter for juvenile paua and fish larvae.

Spotty, sea tulips, threatened Hector’s dolphins, wrasse, butterfish, triplefin, leatherjacket, rock cod, blue cod hydroids, sponges, pink anemones, and sea squirts are just some of the inhabitants of these waters.

On land, the site includes a breeding colony of several hundred spotted shags. White flippered penguins (a species endemic to Canterbury) use the site , and fur seals can be seen on the rocky platforms.

Two of Banks Peninsula’s best coastal forest remnants are protected in adjacent conservation reserves at Dan Rogers and Nikau Palm Gully. The marine reserve would have protected a stunning land to sea sequence

The Minister’s decision is a lost opportunity for spill-over enhancement from a reserve. When the reserve was first mooted its main opponents were commercial fishers. Now there are insufficient fish within the harbour to support any commercial fishers.

The small number of recreational fishers who opposed the reserve were some of the same fishers who opposed set net controls and the establishment of the Banks Peninsula Marine Mammal Sanctuary to protect Hector’s dolphin in 1988. Recreational fishes have been neither numerous nor vocal. They have had, however, a powerful ally in Ngai Tahu who have strongly opposed the reserve.

The process has taken 14 years largely because the application was put on hold by former Conservation Minister Nick Smith to allow Ngai Tahu to progress their taiapure application for Akaroa Harbour.

After careful consideration of submissions and evidence the Maori Land Court recommended in 2004 that the taiapure proceed but that its boundaries specifically exclude the Dan Rogers area to enable a marine reserve to be established there. Forest and Bird supported this decision. The Akaroa taiapure was established in 2006 over 90 % of the harbour and beyond its entrance.

If the Minister had followed the Maori Land Court’s example we could have had both Maori customary fisheries management through the taiapure and a marine reserve providing a scientific baseline for the success of fisheries management initiatives such as recent bag limits in the taiapure for red cod, blue moki, blue cod and some shellfish.

With decisions such as Akaroa, reaching the New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy’s target of protecting 10% of our marine environment by 2010 seems unlikely on mainland New Zealand.

Blogger: North Canterbury Branch Member, Eugenie Sage

The island has poor anchorage and setting foot on the island was further complicated by the fact our dinghy’s motor was now defunct .

Under the watchful gaze of three Galapagos sharks, we sent a flippered crew member ashore with a line, lowered our dinghy into the water, and used the line as a guide.

We then climbed into the mule (all terrain vehicle) and headed round to the DOC base on the north side of the island.

Kermadec parakeets frequently flew off the track in front of us, a reminder of the success of the DOC rat and cat eradication programme in the early 2000’s.

The four wheel track from Boat Cove passes through lush Kermadec pohutukawa and nikau forest and there was just enough mist hanging in the forest to give it an ethereal quality.

The DOC base is centred on the hostel, a fantastic colonial style 1939 wooden building with a double hipped roof and inbuilt veranda.

We met the current team and handed over the eagerly awaited mail bag from home, the last mail drop having been over 3 months ago.

Some scones and a cuppa later, and we were back on the ocean, destination: Nuie. Come  Wednesday, we were sitting over the what is one of the deepest parts of our ocean.

The Kermadec – Tonga Trench is the second deepest place on earth next to the Marianas Trench.

We weren’t going to let this landmark go uncelebrated so we wetsuited up and leapt in for a 10,000m deep swim.

Leaving a crew-member on the boat and lines trailing behind in case we misjudged and floated off, in we dove, with masks at the ready to gaze into the deepness.  Wow, incredible blueness!  Bright, deeply intense blue.   Bottomless blue.

No doubt there were whales under-flipper – surely some humpbacks and possibly some beaked whales.

Our whale audio device , or hydrophone has shown that these oceans are filled with the low –moaning song of the humpback whale, however we couldn’t distinguish the chatter of beaked whales amongst the recordings.

All we need now is an expert ear to help decode these mysterious deep-sea sounds.

Karen Baird, Kermadec Advocate

To see my previous blog, go here

These are opinions I’ve heard increasingly often in the last few years but they are not really based on the facts, or smart thinking.

New Zealand’s electricity demand doubled in about the last 25 years. So in another 25 years, will we need twice as much power again? I hope not.

What we need isn’t electricity – it’s the services that electricity provides like heating, lighting, or entertainment. The challenge is how we meet these needs.

The good news is that we are moving in the right direction – until a few years ago our electricity intensity (that is electricity use per economic output) was growing faster than our population and economic growth. Now our electricity intensity has fallen to around the OECD average. Recent moves towards improving the energy efficiency of our housing stock and industrial demand reduction projects are part of this picture.

However, our electricity system is still set up to simply meet demand, rather than manage it, and we need a paradigm shift if we are to have a sustainable and carbon neutral electricity system. More good news – its possible. A 2005 PCE report showed how we can maintain the energy services that we get from electricity with only moderate generation increases in the short term as we transition to a system where, rather than demanding cheap electricity we meet energy demands at low cost through energy efficiency, distributed generation, and looking for smarter solutions. Examples include biogas generation from cow poo, energy efficient lighting, or ‘truly’ smart meters that manage demand.

Neither the Mokihinui hydro dam, which would inundate hundreds of hectares of near-pristine conservation land, nor Project Hayes, which would destroy a unique landscape, are the answer. They are both superficially attractive to some, simply because they are ‘renewable energy’ in some sense. However they do nothing to change the structure of our energy supply and demand drivers.

Until we make that change our wild places and treasured landscapes will continue to be lost. And this is the bad news - the recently released national energy strategy is a move backwards – there is no encouragement for energy efficiency, no plan to move away from fossil fuels. 

We need to make sure we move towards an energy system which is sustainable, and has more than just empty goals -  the onus is on us to re-invent our energy system.  SUBMIT!

•  Blogger: West Coast Branch Comittee Member Brian Anderson

Energy and Resources Minister Gerry Brownlee still seems to be suffering from gold fever despite having to swallow a bitter pill when public opinion sank his plans to mine Schedule 4 protected conservation land.

The government’s backdown over Schedule 4 was a great victory for the conservation cause but we need to realise the fight to save some of our great landscapes and endangered animals and plants is far from over. 

The government — and Gerry Brownlee in particular — is setting the scene for a further assault on our wild places by claiming the public consultation over removing Schedule 4 protection secured a mandate for mining on non-Schedule 4 conservation land.

The minister has said the mandate to mine more non-Schedule 4 conservation land was made clear in TV polls but such a question was never asked. He also said the same mandate came through during the public consultation but again, the question was not asked.

Despite this, thousands of submitters to the consultation stated their opposition to a proposed survey to search for mining prospects on conservation land.
 
And a total of 96 percent of people who responded gave a resounding no to a question on whether the Energy Minister should join the Conservation Minister in signing off applications for mining access to conservation land.

Submitters were clearly opposed to trading off short term economic gain for conservation values and did not want the Energy Minister having a say in the fate of conservation land, a move the government’s discussion document said would “better facilitate mineral development”.

We need to build on the strong support for Schedule 4 protection by pushing for all of the top quality conservation areas to be included in the schedule.  At the moment world heritage and ecological areas, nature reserves, high country parks and marine mammal sanctuaries do not all qualify for Schedule 4 protection.

Furthermore, to ensure no government can again fly in the face of public opinion by trying to dig up Schedule 4 land, we want any future removals from the schedule to require an act of parliament rather than be subject to the whim of government ministers.

Ahoy thereI I am coming to you from the rollicking, rolling hull of the SV FalconGT.  

Karen at the helm

This whole typing business is a one handed affair because I need the other hand to clutch the table while gripping the side of the seat with my thigh!

We are on our fourth day at sea and we’re just short of Raoul island - the Kermadec’s largest and northernmost island. 

On Monday we were blown from the mainland and quickly found ourselves flanked by a cavalcade of 12-15 commons dolphins – a cracking good omen.

Later avian chaperones saw us on our way - white fronted and Caspian terns wheeled overhead, grey-faced petrel skittered past and even an albatross swooped in to pay us a visit.

This yellow-billed, grey-headed bird had all the markings of a Chatham Island albatross – a bird that is in serious decline (population = 6000), so this is a rare, if what unexpected treat.

During the trip we have dunked our hydrophone into the water to check for whale’s mooing but it has just been picking up dolphin chatter.

Personally, I’m looking forward to spotting our first tropical species – possibly a wedge-tailed shearwater tomorrow….

So far there’s been no sign of whales but the team on Raoul island has reported seeing humpback whales regularly over the last week or two, so I’m also hoping a mighty wind will kindly blow us into their path….

To see Karen’s previous blog, go here

To see Karen’s daily updates go here

Avian citizenry in this country is a mind-boggling, byzantine thing - something that is given and then snatched away at the whim of government based on fickle, flimsy criteria.

Rook, photo: creative commons

Take for example – the rook – an introduced bird that was brought here to control insects and remind settlers of home.

It comes from a family of hooligans - such as jays and crows – and shares their hoarse cry and plucky demeanour.

Reviled by many, this bird has been the target of much persecution, and many would like to see it wiped from the face of New Zealand care of a few humanely-aimed bullets.

Needless to say, they’re at the top of the list of regional council’s undesirables – up there with magpies.

Sure, they cause a little damage to agricultural crops (they’re so smart they squirrel walnuts), but so do introduced birds like yellowhammer, goldfinches, chaffinches, redpolls and sparrows.

It sure makes you wonder what Orwellian scripts these councils are following – colourful and pretty: good; dark & screechy: bad?

Like the rook – the squawky spur-wing plover (a native bird!) too has fallen out of favour with the government, and has now been shifted to the unprotected list because of its danger to airspace.

Does this bird deserve to be on this ‘hate list’ - why don’t we just lift protection within two kilometres of an airport, or add some deterrents like some well-placed shubbery?

The long and short of this is that we’re essentially judging avian citizenship on set of rather thinly-veiled superficial characteristics – their good looks, their cuteness and the beauty of their song.

There seems to be a serious double standard going on here, and as a rook-lover and spur-wing plover enthusiast, I think we need to pour some light on our selective morality when it comes to what’s deemed a pest, and what’s not.

Lets give these birds some clemency please!

I’m part of a group of five scientists and conservationists departing Whangarei on ‘SV FalconGT’ this Sunday to listen out for whale chatter near the Kermadec trench – a deep trench to the far, far north-east of New Zealand.   

Physically, the Kermadec trench is defined by an extensive, volcanic and highly active submarine arc extending from White Island to Tonga.

In the 1800s American whalers killed hauled in great numbers of sperm and right whales around this deep-sea trench and it is well-known migratory route for humpback whales, so it hoped the ocean will be alive with whale-conversation!

One species we’re especially interested in is a group of more enigmatic cetaceans –  beaked whales.

As the name suggests these whales have a beak studded with small teeth - not too dissimilar to a dolphin. And in the males, they have a secondary set of teeth that protrudes from their bottom jaw – not too dissimilar to a deer’s antlers. 

It is thought that these protruding teeth acts as both an identifier and a weapon – potential females mates will size up a male’s teeth to ensure they’re dealing with the right species and males will use these teeth in jousting competitions.

All of this is particularly speculative though because for the large part, these creatures have remained very much unstudied.  Unlike other whales, beaked whales only surface for a short breather before returning to great depths to literally ‘suck back’ squid, crustaceans and fish. 
 
So we’re going to spend the next two weeks bobbing on top of this almighty trench (it could sink Everest) and listening to whale speak using a hydrophone and specialised recorder.

And it is hoped that by listening out for the high frequency clicks of these elusive creatures we’ll be able to change the IUCN’s red list status of ‘data deficient’, and hopefully help to better define their conservation status.

If you’re interested in see some of the research that has been done on beaked whales, see this video here - http://www.whaletrackers.com/beaked-whales/

For more information on our trip keep your eyes on this soon-to-be-launched website - http://www.thekermadecs.org/

Pimping your pavement, guerrilla gardens, nature deficit disorder - everywhere you look there’s a new buzz word to describe city-goers desire to bring the wilds back into their cities.

Hundertwasser House, Vienna

All cities evolve in different ways depending on aesthetic and economic imperatives but sadly across the board, wildlife has been given the heave-ho.

One man that tried to bring nature back into our cities resided right here in his twilight years -  the Austrian architect Friedensreich Hundertwasser.

As a kid he dreamed of cities covered in garden rooftops and living breathing buildings that changed their colours with the seasons.

Indeed, during his lifetime he created a swathe of tree covered buildings, including the Kawakawa toilets. And although his philosophy was followed by a few fervent eco-warriors his ideas failed to catch on in a mainstream way.

Hundertwasser passed away ten years ago, but finally his ideas are starting to gain currency.

 All over the world, a groundswell is afoot, as construction companies work with environmental groups to think re-think the design of their buildings.

In the UK, the Green Building Council is making its buildings more wildlife friendly, by creating rooftop gardens, nesting cavities for swifts and starlings, and ledges that mimic cliffs for peregrine falcons.

And in Holland, Forest & Bird’s Partner Vogelbescherming Netherlands has been working with construction agencies to create housing for not just residents, but also for their endangered house sparrow – a bird whose population has halved since the 1980s.

For 60 years, the house sparrow has floundered on the IUCN’s red list, however by working with the companies to create bird-boxes and modify their guttering, these birds hopefully will make a comeback.

Step back from the buildings though, and look upon your city from a beetle’s or a bird’s eye view, and no doubt you’d look upon it as a wholly unwelcoming place.

It’s a minefield of monolithic concrete structures, drains, poisonous sites, motorways and dams. Sure, there might be some green, tree-filled refuges, but chances are they’re few and far between. 

Once you’ve concreted a city, drained the wetlands, erected apartments, built its vital infrastructure such as motorways and roadways , how do you retro-fit it with green spaces?

How do you invite insects, bugs, beetles, lizards and birds back into the city? How do you give them good breeding and feeding grounds?

One answer is to create wildlife corridors, something we’re working on in cities throughout New Zealand from Auckland to Wellington.

Many of these corridors are already there – they’re your railways, your motorways – we just need to re-forest them, add in a few backyards and parks (to make the vital connections) and make sure they’re pest free.

So far, we’ve been successful in creating bird corridors along some of Wellington’s and Auckland’s major arterial routes, and we’re working with hundreds of urban homeowners to ensure they provide pest-free refuges. 

The next thing we need to do is look further afield - at our railroads, our parks, our housing estates and other forgotten places to see where we can do some infill greening.

And by doing so, we’ll not only be helping birds and beetles, but making our towns saner places for pedestrians, cyclists, train-goers and anyone who enjoys resting their eyes on bushy verges and bird-filled skies.

What an exciting twenty-four hours it has been!!! When the news broke last night I was so shocked and then excited I shed a few happy tears!

First let me say a huge THANK YOU and CONGRATULATIONS to all of you who submitted, signed, wrote, shouted, and marched on the government’s proposal to open up our most precious public conservation lands to mining.  Your grandchildren will thank you for it!

It is a monumental day for the protection of our most precious places and native wildlife today - and it is great to see that the Government has listened.

From my personal point of view – it’s a huge relief, and also it has made me extremely proud to have been a part of this campaign.

Marching up Queen Street and speaking on behalf of Forest and Bird in front of the thousands of people who voted with their feet (all the way up Queen Street) is a career highlight for me (and that was only two weeks into my job at Forest and Bird!).

It is of course not a time to rest on our laurels. There are clear indications that while the Schedule Four land is safe from mining interests, the remaining public conservation land (that’s your land remember!) will be getting the once-over in terms of its potential for mining.

However, today, I reckon, we can all celebrate a huge victory for conservation in New Zealand, for the power of the people to have a say over the things that they value, for our national identity as being kaitiaki of our precious lands and wildlife.

“They say Mine, we say OURS!”

With huge thanks from the Forest and Bird team,
Nicola

Recently, I attended a renewable energy strategy meeting for the West Coast, on behalf of Forest and Bird.

The meeting was sponsored by Development West Coast and came after statements last year from West Coast Regional Council CEO Chris Ingle that council should “explicitly promote the West Coast” as a power exporter and lobby the Government to change the Conservation Act to enable more use of conservation land. So it was with some trepidation that I went along.

I was pleasantly surprised then, when the energy users and suppliers, district council staff, conservation groups and recreationalists, pretty much all agreed that the West Coast should aim to be self sufficient in electricity, not a net exporter. This would mean only modest amounts of additional generation are required.

There was a general feeling at the meeting that ‘it’s all about security of supply’. This was prescient, since the next day much of the West Coast lost power for some hours because of gale-force winds!

So what could energy generation on the West Coast look like in a decade or two?

Micro hydro is ideally suited to the region, with steep hills and high rainfall, and is certainly the answer Forest and Bird should be advocating.

It seems that may be the position of central government too, at least some of the time. I recalled a report done for the Ministry of Economic Development on potential hydroelectric schemes, which to my horror had listed power schemes as likely for just about every river in South Westland. But when I went back to look recently, the report had been updated with a severely shortened list, and
added:

“With the high flow in Westland rivers there are opportunities for micro hydros in many locations. This is a tradition of the area that could be re-established through the use of modern control technologies.”

Companies like Meridian Energy just don’t seem to have a handle on this scale of technology. But smaller companies are coming through, with a schemes like Amethyst Ravine near Hari Hari (6MW), Lake Rochfort(4 MW) near Westport and one consented at Stockton near Granity (25 MW).

The cheapest way of meeting our energy wants is energy efficiency – which is far more economically efficient than building more generation. However, small scale generation adds resilience to the electricity network, reduces distribution costs and is environmentally far preferable to damming the main stems of primary rivers. The era of big dams is over.

Tackling the issue of how we’ll generate power for our growing population is something that I will tackle in my next blog! Standby.