the WEKA of New Zealand

Leaked Transcript by M Gardner

2005-10-21T15:28:00.000+13:00

Leaked Transcript of Late Night Conversation
between Two NZ Marine Specialists #1 and #2

NZMS1: “What a fantastic response you have overseas for your documentary about NZ marine life! ”
NZMS2: “Yes, the show aired last week in Europe & Canada. It will be shown soon in Australia, too”
NZMS1: “Wonderful! And when will we see it here in NZ?”
NZMS2: “Well, I don't know. I can't get it on the TV networks here!”
NZMS1: “Damn! That is so frustrating! New Zealanders should be the first to know about their ocean. There is a lot going on that people just wouldn't let happen if they knew about it.“
NZMS2: “It's driving me mad. We need to get this out to people. Look at this TV schedule. There are THREE programmes on about how to kill fish. There are NONE about how they live!”
NZMS1: “Hmmm. I'm thinking. Did you know what Jim Nollman is doing these days? He's the man who works on interspecies communication with whales and dolphins. Look at his website. He talks to this Japanese reporter about the worldwide protest about the Japanese dolphin and whale slaughter. The Japanese media, together with the government, don't bother reporting any of the protests to the Japanese people. Ignorance, like consent, is manufactured. It happens in Japan. It happens here.
NZMS2: “Damn. We gotta change that ignorance manufacturing. I think we should change the Broadcasting Charter. There are 14 items in the charter about the types of programmes that should be shown and HALF A SENTENCE about natural environment. HALF A SENTENCE. It should be a full item all on its own. We need to be showing NZ wild life shows every day -- mangrove biodiversity; fish ecology, shellfish, pollution, marine reserves...I'm going to ring Ian Fraser right now and tell him..”
NZMS1: “Hey, I got it! Let's tell him we want Marine Reality TV. Put cameras in the marine reserves. Cameras in the mangroves. Cameras on the coastal areas.”
NZMS2 “Yeah! Could be brilliant. Did you hear about the latest about crayfish? How the females prefer really big males because that's how she gets all her eggs fertilized. Otherwise she becomes partially infertile. Did you know in Canada, you can't take the big lobsters. Why do we let that happen here?”
NZMS1 “I wonder if that is why Crayfish Region Two is collecting less than 1 crayfish per pot.
NZMS2 “We're downbreeding our snapper stocks, forcing the population to be smaller and smaller by the way we fish out so many and such large sized fish. “
NZMS1: People could be watching it all on prime time. How all these fish come together for a group spawning and then BAM! there's a fishing net breaking everything up. “
NZMS2: “Yeah, there is lots of sex in the sea. The show will zoom to the top the ratings.”
NZMS1: “Ok. NOW let's ring Ian Fraser....”

the WEKA comments: Free as a Bird

2005-10-03T12:12:00.000+13:00

the WEKA comments: Free as a Bird

What kind of brain do you think these humans have? I am only a dumb bird, only a weka. All I can say is what I see. These humans love boxes. Boxes of all sorts. They make buildings that are boxes. They put up fences that make boxes of the land. I am told they even have social customs that put themselves all in different boxes -- what can any creature make of that?

This is what humans do. I hear that one box of humans -- the Whangarei District Council -- told another box called Mathers, Butt & Partners they could make some boxes of fences and buildings and roads at the end of Ngunguru Ford Road, Ngunguru, Whangarei. Another set of boxes of humans disagree. Three so far -- a government agency called DOC, another social group called Iwi and even maybe others are appealing to still another box of humans called the Environmental Court. The Court is a box of humans who decide when others all disagree.

This place is what we birds know as Whakairiora. It is an old old seaside forest. My family has stories of the place going back through veils of time. Beautiful stories, very special ones. The way we remember all of these old stories is part of the way we are. See, each story has a part that connects to another story. When we tell one story, another pops up. Sometimes more than one. Our stories are only mosaics, all patches of different shapes, with connections in all directions.

That's how we know Whakairiora. A patchwork of different shelters, foods, neighbours, markers, learning places, sacred spots. What is hard for us is boxes. Faced with fences and buildings and grids of roading, we wekas get terribly confused. We can't seem to match our mosaics with the boxes of the humans. For good or bad, who knows?

But there are so so many places boxed up. Can there be any way to let Whakairiora stay free?
(more information on www.ncag.org.nz)

Butterfly Bay Resort Development Follow-up

2005-09-28T15:52:00.000+12:00

Contacts in Northland pass on the following link.http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3389083a6015,00.html
The article summarizes the latest resolutions to concerns and protests about resort development at Butterfly Bay.

Some commentators feel that blogs helped get the message around. The role of blogs in NZ media, environment and ecology discussions is rather new and quite unknown. Of course, we would like to think blogs such as this one could be useful. What do you think? (use comment link below. word verification now required by users so as to avoid spam)

M Gardner, co-ordinator

Japan Dolphin Day

2005-09-28T15:14:00.000+12:00

Japan Dolphin Day, October 8th, 2005: Protest the Slaughter

WHAT: An international day of protest has been organized to urge the Japanese authorities to ban the slaughter of dolphins.

WHEN: October 8th, 2005

WHERE: Worldwide

WHY: Every year, fishermen in Japan hunt and kill about 20,000 dolphins and other whales in the most brutal way imaginable. This is the largest massacre of dolphins anywhere in the world. The fishermen say they kill the dolphins primarily as a form of "pest control." They say the dolphins eat too many fish, and that they are simply eradicating the competition. We need to let them know that these crimes against nature are unacceptable to the rest of the world. Help us send a powerful message to the Japanese dolphin hunters and their government: STOP THE DOLPHIN SLAUGHTER.

OUR GOAL: Our goal is to make this the biggest global protest against the dolphin slaughter in history.

WHO CAN PARTICIPATE: Everyone! This event is not limited to animal protection organizations. NGOs, schools, music bands, various clubs, businesses and concerned citizens are encouraged to show up. Please contact your friends and neighbors, local schools, civic clubs and anyone else you can think of.

LIVE ACTION
Join us at noon on October 8th at a Japanese embassy or consulate office near you.

AN EMAIL PROTEST
HOW: It's simple. Click on the link below. It will take you to a list of Japanese embassies around the world. Choose one and let them know how you feel about the dolphin massacres:

www.embassyworld.com/embassy/Japan/Japan1.html

BUTTERFLY BAY DEVELOPMENT? by Sue Gibbison

2005-07-25T11:36:00.000+12:00

BUTTERFLY BAY DEVELOPMENT? by Sue Gibbison
³Why should we believe that this American-owned resort will have a positive impact on the community?²
³Why would we want chemicals and waste-water pumped into the land and sea?²
³Why destroy the nesting grounds of our endangered dotterel?²
³What happens to our monarch butterfly?²

These were just some of the questions being asked at a community meeting
held at Northland¹s Tauranga Bay on Wednesday to discuss a proposal for an
elite spa resort accommodating 229 guests at neighbouring Butterfly Bay.
Cerulean Properties, based in San Francisco, have applied for resource
consents to develop their huge resort in the secluded bay which provides
sanctuary to one of the largest monarch butterfly populations in
Australasia.

Consents sought by Cerulean include a coastal permit to discharge 219 cubic
metres per day of reject water and chemicals from a desalination plant, a
discharge permit for 135 cubic metres per day of treated wastewater and a
land use consent to carry out earthworks in the foredune where the
endangered dotterel is known to nest. It is estimated that a massive 82,700
square metres of vegetation will be removed prior to the building of 74
chalets, an arrival lodge, a spa building and treatment rooms, a
fitness/yoga centre, three swimming pools, two tennis courts, maintenance
and service buildings and staff accommodation.

Locals are seriously concerned about the effects of vegetation removal on
such a steep slope in area already prone to slippage and soil erosion.
Furthermore the area is known to have supported a large pre-European Maori
population and an archaeologists¹ report states that ³it is inconceivable
that [archaeological sites] do not exist within the proposed development.²
Such sites are protected from damage, disturbance and modification of any
nature under the Historic Places Act.

The effects of the proposed desalination plant are unknown, but David Pattemore
of the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society NZ states that dueto the shelter provided by offshore islands the effects of the doubly-concentrated salt water returned to the sea could have repercussions for the greater coastal area. This is in stark contrast to Cerulean¹s
assurance that the salt and chemical-laden water will ³disperse to normal
within 10 metres².

Besides the negative effects on local bird, butterfly, reptile, plant and
marine life, locals are worried about problems generated by the increases inroad
traffic which will be required to develop and service the resort. Many
are unconvinced by Cerulean¹s promise of bringing a ³large and concentrated
boost to the local economy², citing research by CAFCA (Campaign Against
Foreign Control of Aotearoa) which reveals that foreign ownership and
investment in NZ do not guarantee more jobs for locals.

Consultation between Cerulean and the local community has been selective
and non-representative. The proposed development at Butterfly Bay is just one of
many cases in Northland and around New Zealand where a foreign investor has
targeted prime coastal land. Once developed, the peace and tranquility of
these beautiful spots is lost forever.

Cerulean¹s proposal and submission forms are available to the public at NRC
offices in Whangarei and Kaitaia and at FNDC offices in Kaikohe, Kerikeri
and Kaeo. Anyone may make a submission to either FNDC (ph:0800 920 029) or
NRC (ph:0800 002 004) quoting Application Number: RC 2050842. Submissions
must be received before the deadline of Wednesday 27 July.
To support the community or to make a contact with the author of this report please email jeppesen@slingshot.co.nz

What worlds we are choosing by M Gardner

2005-07-18T11:47:00.000+12:00

What worlds we are choosing by M Gardner
Look at land use – and marine use-- of our coasts now, while we can. There is a call for a moratorium on coastal subdivisions. There is a call for tourism as an industry to be supported with government coastal land purchases. There is a call for pa zoning for lands in Maori title that are the last large wild blocks in already subdivided, privately owned coastal areas. There is a call for marine protection and against seabed sandmining.

What do these calls all have in common – and more keep coming! They are put forward by people educated in the skills of environmental science, ecology, biology, sustainable design and environmental justice. These are current issues and solutions based on experience both here and overseas, drawing on knowledge from deep within our twin traditions here and from the world over.

These calls come up against the current practice of zoning, regulation and commerce. The norms are what are known by decision makers and actors: the politicians, bureaucrats,accountants, engineers, tradespeople, architects. Many of them come from backgrounds which know little if anything of these skills. Environmental education is the gift for lucky children of today but an optional extra for many of today's adults.

So how are these calls to be appreciated by the very people who may have most need of knowing and possibly least awareness of the importance of the knowing?

Right now, this can -- and does --degenerate into the adversarial method of law and argument, of lobbying and politicking. Gagging, as seen with the recent West Coast open cast mining case, becomes an important tool.

How could we as a society respect these calls, give weight to the knowledge represented? How do we make room for wisdom?

There are whisperings of “another” world. One where, displayed in places and activities throughout the world, these calls, and the knowledge behind them are the basis for decisions, designs and actions. Sustainable house design. Earth homes Permaculture landscapes. Dream Farms Urban Food Gardens. Indigenous Knowledge Tipu Ake
All a few examples. There are many more.

The “ real “ world, that global state of consumerism and industry, is publishing the Millenium Report, crying out that the ecosystems of the world are in jeopardy. Simply put, the ways things are being done can't be done anymore.

Here on our coasts, there is some space, a little time and the smell of the sea is in the air. Depending on how you and I respond to the calls, case by case, issue by issue, at election time and in between -- we truly could choose which world we would have arise.

Once were scientists: NZ intellects for cash

2005-07-12T12:03:00.000+12:00

Once were scientists: NZ intellects for cash by M Gardner

The alliance of science with commerce (see extract “Unholy Alliance” by Mae Wan Ho, earlier blog on this site) is hurting us here in New Zealand more than it is helping us. Most of the time we as a society don't know exactly what this problem is. We “know” this is “how things are”. We “know” if there is any problem, it's surely to be with us – or them -- as individuals. Trust the system. Still, we have that vague unease.

So now is the time to exhume a story buried on page 18 of the weekend Herald. The story is based on the Friday media release from the Royal Forest & Bird Society. A modern work-a-day NZ scientist/consultant was barred from appearing in court to give evidence against an open cast mining proposal. He was asked to appear by opponents. He agreed. But in the last moments, he withdrew. This was because Landcare Research warned him that, legally, as an employee, he was not to reveal in court that he sometimes worked for them. But the prosecuter was certainly going to ask him, under oath, during cross-examination.

See, Landcare Research, a crown research institute, was putting up two other scientists to appear in court on behalf of the mining proposal. Staff are quoted as saying ”Long standing mutual relationships...contracts worth several hundred thousand dollars could be adversely affected” if the court heard that the scientist/consultant on behalf of oponents worked for Landcare. The mining proposal itself was being put forward by Solid Energy, a state-owned enterprise.

Bluntly, the scientist was gagged. He was caught in the web spun by our own state enterprise, crown research institute and judicial system. The citizens groups protesting the mine were literally undermined.

This incident is made public only after information was released to Forect & Bird Society under the Official Information Act. (Hurray to the Society for investigating!) How many other incidents like this exist in NZ? Will our society face up to them or is it to be the secret burden of lone individuals caught in our system?

What can we do for our system? How do we make research democratic? How do we develop a new ethical context for our scientists? How do we create a way to us as a society to believe in them again?

New Zealand is not the only society with systems that hurt us like this. But 14 other countries are taking dramatic steps to help themselves. They are members of Living Knowledge, an international network of Science Shops, non profit science consultancies.

According to their flyer, “Science Shops are one interface tween science, its researchers and society.... A science shop provides independent participatory research in response to concerns experienced by civil society.” Fine, high sounding words.

But let the actions of these groups explain themselves. The first action was in the 1970's by a group of Dutch chemistry students creating disinfectants to help the Viet Cong fight disease. Today, Danish “shops” investigate queries from citizens and NGOs free of charge. The Vienna Science Shop launched research into how the university could arrange itself to support its single parent students, which led to institutional changes. The Bonn Science Shop has a staff of 25 and focuses on civil society, sustainabillity, environment and health as well as the labour market. In the US, poisoned drinking water supplies were investigated and replaced for a rural Kentucky community. In another US example, two companies were finally held legally responsible for wrongful death due to water pollution they created.

Maybe independent non profit science consultancies could provide another turangawaewae for the NZ science worker of many disciplines. Maybe this could help us as citizens to identify some science, for all the politics, as in service of our common good. Maybe there is still a chance for the environment here, on land and in the sea.

FIRE: Proving the sustainability of seabed sandmining

2005-06-21T13:17:00.000+12:00

Proving the sustainability of seabed sandmining by M Gardner

About a week ago, Iron Ore NZ Ltd announced its success in locating black sands under the sea in quantities and quality suitable for their mining operations. They say they hope to begin extractions in this West Coast region off Waitara from December 2005. (for this background, see http://www.raglanchronicle.co.nz and http://www.blacksands.org.nz )

Are we ready to do this?

Of course, the company will need to submit an “assessments of environmental effects” (AEE). Maybe now it is urgent to review what makes up these assessments. Back in 1994, Mike Hilton, a geographer at University of Otago, published a paper (ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, 18 (6): 815-829 NOV-DEC 1994) and said these assessments were plainly inadequate.

Specificially, the information required and supplied never proved “sustainability”.

Now “sustainability” is an over-worked word, with lots of good intentions. Exactly what does sustainability mean for a seabed sandmining operation? Hilton makes the following suggestions. The company needs to prove that that there really is a lot of sand in the area, that more sand is coming in than would be extracted, that the amounts taken and the operations used do not interfere with the physical or biological activities in the area.

Finally, and most importantly, the company needs to illustrate the time frame in which mining can be done, the effects can happen and settle and the overall system then be much as how it started.

All this might seem obvious, but right now, the answers to these questions are not in any report or research project. Given the mystery of the West Coast waters, and our meager knowledge of the marine world, the answers are still out there in the environment.

Iron Ore NZ Ltd claims that the zone they want to mine is “dead”. So let them prove it.

Let's make sure the AEE they present does at least that. By the way, did we remember to fix up the AEE guidelines since 1994?

Now, for approximately $20,000, Keith Gordon says Iron Ore NZ Ltd can make a start on an AEE by hiring his underwater video survey operation – boat, camera, biologist & crew. Video monitoring of the area can be started night and day, over a series of seasons. Gordon is an experienced underwater surveyor, who has done this work for the likes of DoC, IGNS. NIWA and Auckland University Marine Lab.

Reality video/TV of the West Coast seabed! A fascinating new series? A sure winner? Well, it would run night and day and for years, much longer than Coronation Street. Why?

Oh, remember, there should be a requirement to illustrate the time frame in which the physical and biological effects of mining settle down?

Plankton cycles run in yearly patterns. Fish, species by species, once they mature, spawn each year or so and their breeding successes show trends over a number of years. The native female popoto/Maui's dolphin breeds once every 2 years after reaching the age of seven. No one is really sure what is the time cycle for the breeding period of the wild mussel beds which release the wild spat which collects on Ninety Mile beach and is the only source of juvenile mussels for the mussel industry. And sand itself? Sand transport varies over months and years. And replenishing the very sand itself takes millions of years.

2005-06-18T14:07:00.000+12:00

Hapuku Challenge: B&W memories that fade?

2005-06-18T14:06:00.000+12:00

Hapuku Challenge: groper & more that were

2005-06-18T14:04:00.000+12:00

Hapuku Challenge: once were NZ waters

WATER: THE HAPUKU CHALLENGE by Wade Doak

2005-06-18T13:47:00.000+12:00

THE HAPUKU CHALLENGE by Wade Doak

My collection of battered old B/W prints of hapuku looked ready for the rubbish can after forty years in a barn. Then it hit me: my kids, your kids and most surely our grand children, will never see a herd of hapuku or groper. These pix are no different from shots of a flock of moas.

I defy anybody to duplicate them in the upper zone frequented by NZ sport divers EVER AGAIN in the history of our planet. Vanished glories.

That is, unless the diving world and the world of fishers decide that something has to be done to preserve this apex predator in its full habitat range. That is my challenge to those who love the sea. It is our responsibility to future generations.

What the B&W photos mean:
Hapuku at the Three Kings, NZ (photos presented in next post)

“Looking down again we saw not one but twenty or more white underbellies glinting in the light, and a school of groper rose slowly towards us, circling and twisting like trout at Rotorua...All around them cavorted trevally, dense packed and feeding. King-sized kingfish nosed in at us for their share of the camera. The light was almost blotted out by seething fishes' bodies.

But for nearly ten minutes all Jag and I had eyes for was the hapuku. Individual 'puka are a rare enough sight in New Zealand, but to be schooled around by them was like some alcoholic dream. Jag's eyes were like saucers and I haven't the least memory of taking a photo of him holding a 'puka off with his outstretched fiipper as he frantically fiddled a bulb into his flash socket he was worried that the fish would come too close to make a good picture. The 'puka looks quite tolerant as Jag's fin drapes across his back. “ from The Elingamite and its Treasure by Wade Doak

FIRE: our society, our coast: sand running through our hands?

2005-06-10T10:46:00.000+12:00

So now the Iron Ore New Zealand Ltd has their solicitor John Rutherford report they find what they were looking for: iron ore sand they want to mine, two kilometres off the coast of Waitara, an area of 400 square kilometres at depths of 40-60 metres. Rutherford is also instructed to say that the company expects to remove 2 million tonnes of material a year. He also is instructed to say that at this depth, the strip mining process will have no effect on the coast, would merely be disturbing a dead zone and may actually even open up opportunities for new life on the seabed.

Of course the soliciter has done his job well and said what was required. The facts about what the iron ore company knows best are correct. Yes, they find sand where everyone expected them to, on a black sand coastline. Certainly they would know how much they expect to mine. That's their business. So they should know.

But is a mining company and its spokesman, however able a soliciter, a reliable and accurate source of information about the quality of life under the sea and coastal processes? Who is a reliable and accurate source?

Do we as a society REALLY want to know who? If we know, will we still listen and will we take action?

One reliable accurate source is the largely volunteer effort af a group of sea shell collectors. Yes, unglamourous, unrecognized hobbyists who collected seashells from the subtidal of Pakiri beach on the high tide of inner city Misson Bay. The Pakiri sand was dumped there for years and as the displaced creatures died, the shells from the ones that had any washed up on the beach. In 1997, the serious sea shell collectors published the results in a journal of the Auckland Museum. They identified 410 species.

Four hundred and ten species could be identified from the wreckage and death caused by the sand displacement. There are very likely more species, without shells, whose deaths can only be guessed at. There is a web of life whose processes can only be imagined by the evidence of its destruction.

Who is impressed by this obscure information? Will Rutherford worry that he is set up to present inaccurate and unreliable opinions as facts? Is Iron Ore New Zealand Ltd questioning itself?

Who knows?
Look up higher. Who is noticing? Are the TV teams rushing to get sound bites from the sea shell collectors? Are the government officials confering with the hobbyists on the shores of Mission Bay? And why not?

This year, twenty-two marine scientists of NZ, convened by WWF-NZ, issued a statement calling for more studies of even the most basic aspects of the marine bioregions of NZ. They also noted that NZ is sadly lacking in the expertise to do this vital work.

But in practice, the situation is even worse that that. Recently, a public meeting was held in Raglan to hear a panel of specialists and community leaders about seabed sandmining. The specialists, all in the pay of one aspect or another of sandmining projects, spoke in keeping with their experiences.

Unexpected and uninvited was the appearance of one of NZ's finest marine scientists, not in the pay of any sandmining project. A woman at that, she brashly claimed three minutes of the meeting. She said that sand mining is a grave danger, totally preventable, which will only contribute to the difficulties of the popoto/Maui's dolphin (popn 111) now facing possible extinction within 10-15 years. According to Dr. Slooten, seabed sandmining will, apart form anything else, aversely affect the dolphin's food sources. Fish. Something people eat too.

Can a society know?
Our dilemma is we act as a society who does not appear to know what the right or left hands are doing, what the right and left brains are thinking. Have we sliced ourselves down the middle of our brains with the knives of money and power? How do we heal ourselves, before we take more actions as a distraught and disabled community, as a nation? Can we be well in time? The sand mining, according to Iron Ore New Zealand Ltd -- and they should know -- begins in five months, in December 2005.

FIRE: links: world scene: sea bed sand mining

2005-06-02T18:09:00.000+12:00

Black Sands & Seabed Mining: 10 +1 useful links
Black sands an election issue for coastal communities
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0505/S00712.htm
1.Legal questions concerning Foreshore & Seabed legislation
http://stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3259140a13,00.html

2.Plans for Research of NZ Seabed
New Zealand has until August 2006 to lodge a claim with the UN to extend its economic zone. If a well-researched claim is not lodged by then, rights to this area could be lost. It is worth noting that New Zealand currently has the world’s fourth largest offshore economic zone behind the United States, Australia, and Indonesia. Almost 95 percent of New Zealand’s continental area lies under water.
http://twm.co.nz/nzoffshmins.htm

3.How is steel made in NZ
http://www.nzsteel.co.nz/

4.Price of Iron Ore
Iron ore is priced in US dollars on both the domestic and export markets.
The reason is that buyers demand comparability .....
http://www.lkab.com/marknad/priset.html

5.New Price Rise for Iron Ore: Feb 2005

THE global steel industry was shaken yesterday by signs of an extraordinary increase in the cost of iron ore after Nippon Steel, the leading Asian mill-owner, agreed to pay 72 per cent more in ore contracts with Rio Tinto and Companhia Vale do Rio Dolce (CVRD), the Brazilian miner.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9072-1497645,00.html

6.Chinese Economy & Price of Steel
The 71.5 percent rise of iron ore prices on the world market puts great pressure on China, the largest ore importer in the world. On the other hand, it also provides a good opportunity for the country to restructure its overheated economy.
http://english.people.com.cn/200504/02/eng20050402_179147.html

7.Indonesia's Experience of Seabed Sand Mining:
“State President, Kerala Swathanthra Malsya Thozhilaly Federation and Secretary, National Fishworkers’ Forum said, “Mining of sand from the seabed poses a serious threat to the equilibrium of the marine eco system. Sand mining has been going on across the Indonesian sea for the last 17 years......
http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/jan162005/sl2.asp

8.India's Experience of Seabed Sand Mining

“The project submitted by the Crown Maritime Company plans to dredge up about five million cubic metres of sand from the sea every year from eight sites located 30 km offshore at a depth of 30 to 40 metres. The company maintains that controlled dredging will restrict the turbulence to a small area. Hopper barges located at designated locations will use suction pumps to extract a slurry of sand and water from the seabed. The sand will be transported to shore-based processing plants where it will be washed repeatedly to remove salinity....

Indonesia is an example of bad management of sand extraction from the seabed. The country is planning to impose strict controls and ban sea sand exports to Singapore in the wake of rampant illegal operations in the Riau province which had caused severe environmental damage and led to the disappearance of a number of small islets.”

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2002/07/14/stories/2002071400131600.htm july 2002

9. Australia's Experience with Seabed Sand Mining
The higher demand for construction materials and the depletion of land sources, coupled with sterner environmental restrictions, led suppliers to turn to the sea, particularly to the near-shore areas. Several of these mining operations are illegal, many are damaging for the coastal and off-shore environment, some are threatening coast lines including in such sensitive areas as the coral reefs. A case study is examined for Australia.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tandf/genv/2002/00000059/00000003/art00002

10. Europe's Experience with Seabed Sand Mining: SANDPIT study
During the last three years (2002-2005), the European Commission has supported the SANDPIT project on the modelling of sand transport and morphology in and near offshore mining pits.
A consortium of Universities and Hydraulic Institutes (coordinated by Prof. Leo van Rijn) worked on various topics in three workpackages:
1) Guidelines and tools for management of sand mining (workpackage-leader: Prof. R. Soulsby),
2) Data sets of laboratory and field experiments (workpackage-leader: Prof. P. Hoekstra),
3) Development and improvement of predictive tools (workpackage-leader: Prof. A. Davies).

http://sandpit.wldelft.nl/workshoppage/right/palermo/sandpitfinalmeeting_announcement.htm

FIRE: extract from "Unholy Alliance" by Mae-Wan Ho

2005-06-02T13:02:00.000+12:00

extract from Mae-Wan Ho's Unholy Alliance
this article was linked in previous post "West coast dolphins & black sands: The interests of commerce, science and art"
the extract is presented here because it is not possible to link directly to this section of the complete, lengthy article.

Like other excellent critics before me,(3) I do not think there is a grand conspiracy afoot, though there are many forces converging to a single terrible end. Susan George comments, "They don't have to conspire if they have the same world-view, aspire to similar goals and take concerted steps to attain them."(4)

I am one of those scientists who have long been highly critical of the reductionist mainstream scientific world-view, and have begun to work towards a radically different approach for understanding nature.(5) But I was unable, for a long time, to see how much science really matters in the affairs of the real world, not just in terms of practical inventions like genetic engineering, but in how that scientific world-view takes hold of people's unconscious, so that they take action, involuntarily, unquestioningly, to shape the world to the detriment of human beings. I was so little aware of how that science is used, without conscious intent, to intimidate and control, to obfuscate, to exploit and oppress; how that dominant world-view generates a selective blindness to make scientists themselves ignore or misread scientific evidence.

The point, however, is not that science is bad - but that there can be bad science that ill-serves humanity. Science can often be wrong. The history of science can just as well be written in terms of the mistakes made than as the series of triumphs it is usually made out to be. Science is nothing more, and nothing less, than a system of concepts for understanding nature and for obtaining reliable knowledge that enables us to live sustainably with nature. In that sense, one can ill-afford to give up science, for it is through our proper understanding and knowledge of nature that we can live a satisfying life, that we can ultimately distinguish the good science, which serves humanity, from the bad science that does not. In this view, science is imbued with moral values from the start, and cannot be disentangled from them. Therefore it is bad science that purports to be "neutral" and divorced from moral values, as much as it is bad science that ignores scientific evidence.

It is clear that I part company with perhaps a majority of my scientist colleagues in the mainstream, who believe that science can never be wrong, although it can be misused. Or else they carefully distinguish science, as neutral and value-free, from its application, technology, which can do harm or good.(6) This distinction between science and technology is spurious, especially in the case of an experimental science like genetics, and almost all of biology, where the techniques determine what sorts of question are asked and hence the range of answers that are important, significant and relevant to the science. Where would molecular genetics be without the tools that enable practitioners to recombine and manipulate our destiny? It is an irresistibly heroic view, except that it is totally wrong and misguided.

EARTH: Wade Doak reports new website

2005-06-02T12:50:00.000+12:00

New Website about Protecting Ngunguru
Check out www.ncag.org.nz

Our NCAG website is up and running !!!
Save it to your ³Favourites² right away
so you¹ll be able to check back frequently.

EARTH: Report from Wade Doak on the National Heritage Park Campaign

2005-06-02T12:14:00.000+12:00

WADE DOAK's on-the-spot Summary of Defense of Ngunguru/Proposed Park
Subdivision Threats & Positive Steps to Stop Further Env Destruction
Moratorium: I was amazed when an editorial in the Herald was read out to me berating coastal subdivision and advocating a moratorium. (clipping not dated but quite recent.) Perhaps the ground swell of reaction to an extreme situation is greater than I estimate. It may only need an appropriate catalytic prod..

Have been in touch with Te Arai Preservation Society protest group [ info@TeArai.org www.Te Arai.org tel. 09 431 5573 not manned , leave a message] and sent them some of my documents. Enterprising members [Lester Bridson and his wife] came to our media event on Saturday. Their petition was signed by locals [video of TV news of it on NCAG website] www.ncag.org.nz. It cld be up to 2000 house sites. How does this fit the RMA:"no unnecessary subdivision?

In Matapouri the residential population has declined severely. The new subdivs are holiday homes. Do New Zealanders believe this justifies destruction of wild places? It is self -defeating because holiday areas become suburbia in summer and deserted in winter.

Bay of Is Watch Dog charismatic and gracious rep. Maike Marks spoke at our media event . She remarked on the amazing lack of sediment control in the newly cleared areas around Ngunguru. As Dr Bruce Hucker , AK dep. mayor, said of shoddy apartment bldgs in AK: "it is easy regulation and market forces."

WE NEED A MORATORIUM TO CONSIDER NATIONALLY HOW LOCAL BODIES CAN BE COMPELLED TO STRENGTHEN REGULATION AND WE NEED TO REDEFINE RMA: 'NO UNNECESSARY SUBDIVISION.

It has been said recently Whangarei's Tutukaka coast is now NZ's most desirable area. There must be a relationship between this and Chris Carter's comment that WDC is permissive. For eg : lack of sedimentation control measures in place either at Tutukaka or around Ngunguru. This has immense implications for marine life, as Maike emphasized.

West Coast dolphins & black sands: the interest of commerce, science & art

2005-05-31T10:09:00.000+12:00

West Coast dolphins & black sands: the interest of commerce, science & art
If, as Mae Won Ho (physicist & director of Institute for Science & Society) says, science allied with commerce is an "unholy alliance"****, what if science allies with art? The Soul Speed activist theatre & dance troupe of Whaingaroa/Raglan are in the midst of a hugely public experiment combining science and art. The alliance is in the shape of a special performance season to be culminating at Te Papa, Wellington, with a show on 25th of June at 1 pm.

In January 2005, the troupe rose to the challenge of alerting the New Zealand public to the new threats facing the critically engdangered popoto (Maui's dolphin, population 111). They wondered if a drama/dance could reach more audiences, get more action in a way that the scientific papers and government lobbying don't.

What the popoto are facing
The popoto could go extinct within a few decades. They are small coastal dolphins, who reproduce very slowly. They are killed by set nets and trawling, by encounters with engine propellers. Their lives are much more difficult because of overfishing. Their health is weakened by marine pollution, which introduces toxins that simply accumulate in their bodies.

Inexplicably, The NZ Dept of Conservation is seriously considering to use invasive research techniques to study these few remaining dolphins. They want to drill holes in the dolphin's dorsal fin and attach statellite tags. The world's foremost Hector's dolphin researchers, Drs. Slooten & Dawson, Otago University, who specialize on this species of dolphin say the research method does not produce useful data AND it harms the dolphins as well. These researchers who are against this type of invasive research were just recognized last week by the Royal Society of Science with the Fleming Environmental Award. Slooten & Dawson use acoustic and aerial surveys to get better data, all without hurting any dolphins. (see earlier postings on this blog for more detail on this topic)

In the last few months, the NZ Government has approved permits in preparation for mining of the black sands on the seabed of an area which is exactly the home range of the popoto. According to Dr. Slooten, direct effects could include disturbance by the sand mining activity driving the dolphin outside of any protected areas or home range. But the indirect effects, which are well documented, are worse. They are on fish stocks and this is the only source of food for the dolphins.

What Soul Speed started
Ardre Foote, artistic director of Soul Speed, pulled together 17 dancers, actors & musicians, all professionals, all volunteers. She used a cooperative workshop approach and guided the troupe in the creation of an evocative 30 minute performance: Popoto Whakamiharo. Pageant, dance and drama, traditional Maori musical instruments, Western insturments, song and audience participation are all woven together to depict the world of the popoto and the threats they face. Overfishing. Satellite tagging. Seabed sand mining.

At the end of each performance, the audience is invited to add comments on postcards which are collected to be delivered to the government. Since February, the troupe did almost a dozen shows at venues such as WOMAD, Soundsplash, Jambalaya and others throughout Central North Island. To date, hundreds of cards are collected and being assembled into a special presentation for government ministers invited to the Te Papa performance. The Prime Minister, Helen Clark, also the Minister for Arts, is specially invited.

Help make this happen
The Soul Speed troupe invites New Zealanders to add more comments and cards to the collection to be presented in Wellington. They encourage other groups who are concerned about the West Coast marine and coastal area to join in. Members from other groups are invited to attend the Wellington peformance and present their messages too. For starters, make an email contact to mgardner@ihug.co.nz. More information is posted here on this blog.

The Soul Speed troupe desperately needs more sponsorship to get the performance staged in Wellington. They are hosting a series of concerts in Raglan as a fundraiser. This is likely to meet some, but not all of the costs. Anyway, the concerts are important as an opportunity to spread the message to new audiences.

Also, at the final concert on 10 June featuring Leila Adu, Soul Speed is presenting the premiere of Te Karanga Tohora (the call of the whale). Another activist performance, this time featuring the song of a humpback whale recorded by scientists in Tonga. Musicians interact with the song as if the whale is a fellow musician, creating a remarkable recording. The Soul Speed troupe are using it for a performance to inform minds and move emotions about the remarkable whales of the sea and the renewed threats of whale hunting.

Science and art. An alternative alliance. Will it make a positive difference for the popoto, the ecology and the people of the West Coast?

******Mae-Wan Ho's article Unholy Alliance is about GE technology and has important sections where she explains her understanding of "bad science" which is a widespread practice. The complete article is linked here but extracts are set out in a new posting to this blog

From the same seabed mining meeting in Raglan

2005-05-27T20:13:00.000+12:00

I was also at the seabed sandmining meeting in Raglan Thurs (26th May). Yes, the hall was packed: standing room only, if you could get in. Our little town turned out strong. All kinds of media reps were there. A variety of politicians. A number of science workers and regional government officials. Facts and figures, charts and pictures.

When it came to discussion time, there wasn't anyone who spoke up about what a great idea seabed mining was. Quite the opposite. One man wondered that there could be such a great need for iron ore to make more steel when tonnes more metal is buried in landfills every day. Another man charged the MP Paul Hutchinson with a mission in Parliament to change the rules which now exist that make it so possible to do seabed mining.

Hearing the explanation that some legal aid was available for people who fight to protect the environment, a man cried out " Are we peasants in our own country that we have to beg on our hands and knees, cap in hand to safeguard our environment?"

A woman pleaded. "Who is speaking for nature? Who is speaking for the ocean?"

Another asked "Is this sand a renewable resource" To which a coastal scientist replied "why yes, but only over two million years."

I felt I was drowning and then my heart started to race. Time to speak up. "What level of upset from people is required before the government will stop and refuse a mining application? "

The quiet was heavy with our realization of the enormity of the difficulities ahead. Keeping up with the play. Matching the political games. Raising funds. And losing? Losing the fight? Losing the surf, the beaches, the marine life, the popoto/maui dolphin?

The meeting broke up dead sober and in our separate small ways, we melted into the dark of the night.

(Raglan Community Radio 96.6 FM broadcast the meeting on the local radio as well as making a recording of it. The mp3 will be freely available soon on the station's website www.raglanradio.com
For more information also see www.blacksands.org.nz

Seabed sandmining of West Coast OR "how to make our popoto/maui's dolphin extinct" by Liz Slooten

2005-05-27T20:10:00.000+12:00

I was most impressed with the turn-out at the meeting on sand mining in Raglan last night. Some 300 people crammed into the Raglan Town Hall, with many standing along the sides and at the back of the room.

A local expert, Dr Shaw Mead listed the potential biological effects of sand mining, including:
o Removal of organisms
o Physical disruption
o Alteration of activities (e.g. spawning)
o Removal of epifauna can change infauna
o Changes in species composition
o Crushing of benthic organisms causing an increase in predators and scavengers

Some of these effects can be detected outside the area of actual mining. For example, in the plume of murky water stirred-up by sand mining

How serious the effects are depends on how large an area is mined, the intensity of the dredging, the sediment type and how much the local area is exposed to natural disturbance from currents and wave action. The extent to which the local ecology is affected depends on how stable the community is over time and whether any unique animals and plants are present.

One of the animals on the North Island west coast is about as unique, and as threatened, as it gets. The Popoto (also known as Maui’s dolphin, or North Island Hector’s dolphin) is found only in New Zealand. The population numbers just over 100 individuals and is Critically Endangered.

That’s as endangered as it gets. The next stop is “extinct”. Combined efforts by the local community, Department of Conservation, Ministry of Fisheries, fishing industry, recreational fishers and conservation groups has resulted in some protection for the dolphins from entanglement in fishing gear. Ongoing concerns are continued threats from fishing in the harbours (which are not included in the protected area) and off the Taranaki coast south of the protected area.

The last thing Popoto needs is for a new human activity to be carried out right in the middle of their home range. It would be irresponsible to start such a new activity, unless we can be confident that sand mining does not impact the Popoto. I didn’t hear anything at the meeting last night to convince me of that. Far from it, the list of potential biological impacts (which is backed up by scientific literature) increased my concern for the dolphins. I’m not talking about direct impacts on the dolphins (e.g. noise from the mining operation driving the dolphins offshore, beyond the protected area or away from their feeding areas).

The main concern comes from indirect effects. For example, the impacts of sand mining are known to include effects on plants and animals living in and on the sand. These are eaten by fish, which in turn are eaten by the dolphins.

FIRE: About Mining the Seabed for Black Sands

2005-04-28T12:00:00.000+12:00

WHO WANTS TO MINE SEABED FOR WEST COAST BLACK SAND?

HOW ARE THEY GOING TO DO THAT?

WHAT HAPPENS IF THEY DO?

WHO IS HOPING TO MAKE $4 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR OUT OF THIS?

WHO IS LEFT LIVING WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS?

DOESN'T EVERY KIWI WANT TO KNOW THE REAL STORY?

WHY IS THE REAL STORY SO HARD TO FIND?

FIRST FACTS

• The black sands are valuable for the iron
ore and also for rare minerals such as
rutile and zicron, which are used in space
engineering projects.

• These sands are the results of erosion of volcanic rocks.
The deposits collected over thousands of years in a slow
process which continues in some form even today.

• The sands are located on a coastal shelf whose waters are full of marine life.
Much is not known about the ecology but a lot of
fishing and trawling is already happening anyway.
(see www.wwf.org.nz, www.greenpeace.org.nz www.thewekaofnewzealand.blogspot.com )

• Adjacent to this shelf is a deep basin.
Many rare marine mammals, such as popoto/Maui dolphin and a variety of
whales, use both the shelf and the basin.

• The sands on the West Coast are moved
by the sea and weather northwards over
many kilometres, in huge quantities, in a pattern often compared to a conveyor belt.

• Today's beaches and dunes are kept up
by natural sand movements that occur in
the near shore and at depths to 15-20metres. Any mining in that zone is very likely to
affect today's coast.

• The details of applications are not clear.
But the boundaries of some of areas in the applications are up to high tide mark.
This is inside the beach/dune sand exchange system.

• This type and scale of seabed mining will be a new activity,
using cutting-edge technology. The technology will be experimental.
The impacts could only be monitored as they happen.

• The potential environmental impacts
are wide-ranging and unknown -- on the rare
popoto/Maui dolphin, other marine mammals, marine life both in water and on seabed, water quality, crucial microorganisms, surf breaks & points, beaches and dunes.

Read more on http://www.blacksands.org.nz
breaking news & comments compiled 26 Apr 05 from Whaingaroa/Raglan by M Gardner

WATER: Are Paua in Otago at Crisis Point?

2005-04-28T11:15:00.000+12:00

Are Paua in Otago at Crisis Point?
Andrew Penniket

Some people like them in fritters, others like them au naturelle or just 20 seconds either side in a hot pan, but I prefer paua with a dash of garlic. Of course there are many ways of enjoying the delicate taste and texture of paua but when was the last time you tasted paua? Not lately, I would guess.

The fact is, our humble paua, that tasty icon of New Zealand- gracing postage stamps, place mats, post cards and crafted into beautiful jewellery, is now so valuable and in such demand that it is almost impossible to find in fish shops, or any other retail outlet in New Zealand. Almost the entire commercial harvest of paua is exported to foreign markets, primarily in Asia. Paua is now so valuable that asian tourists can come to New Zealand and pay for their holiday by smuggling back a suitcase load of the frozen delicacy.

Paua stocks have been in steady decline for the last 20 years, and are now roughly a quarter of what they were in the 1970’s. We are faced with losing not only a traditional and once abundant sea food, but also a part of kiwi culture.

But why are paua so vulnerable? Well it comes down to their peculiar biology. For those not familiar with paua they are a primitive shellfish or Mollusc – a snail with a flat shell. The world-famous iridescent blue paua shell is a mixture of protein and calcium carbonate in different forms including the mysterious nacre. This strong shell allows paua to live in the most exposed and storm-thrashed locations. Most of the paua animal itself is comprised of a slimy black foot, which it uses to create suction to clamp onto rocks. And for a shellfish they can really hoof it – a surprising 70 metres an hour (in very short bursts). Paua only resort to such sprints when chased by a predator such as the equally quick eleven armed starfish – a voracious paua consumer.

Most of the time, however, paua don’t move much at all. By day juveniles hide under boulders and in crevices, but at night they forage out to graze on carpets of sea weeds. As paua get bigger and beyond predation by fish and octopus, (90 mm plus) they move out into the open where they simply wait for the tides and currents to deliver them drift kelp. At choice locations where kelp frequently gets washed into crevices, paua group together in aggregations, in the old days numbering hundreds of individuals. Tagging studies by fisheries scientists have shown that only a few travel more than a hundred metres from their release point and most paua don’t travel very far at all.

This lifestyle of not moving far and living in groups predisposes paua to overfishing –they are easy to harvest and if an area is over-fished, they can’t just repopulate an area by swimming in from elsewhere, as fish can.

Paua reproduction is where the story gets really complicated. Paua are what’s called broadcast spawners – they have separate sexes and each animal simply ejects their eggs or sperm through the respiratory pores along the crest of the shell, straight into the sea with the hope that they may meet somewhere out there and fertilise. Even though a large female paua may produce up to 7 million eggs the dilution factor in the sea is enormous and the chances of fertilisation for each egg are exceedingly small. It’s a very ancient and very inefficient method of reproduction but the probability of fertilisation is greatly improved by the way paua group together, so the sperm and eggs can intermingle. Paua can sense, by taste, when neighbouring paua are spawning which triggers a mass spawning event –known as synchronous spawning.

But this highly successful strategy is totally undermined when paua harvesters target the easily gathered aggregations of paua, leaving only the difficult-to-find individuals scattered through the boulders and kelp beds. When these individuals spawn the chances of their eggs or sperm fertilising, given the huge dilution factor of the ocean, are many orders of magnitude smaller. Paua divers then, are putting at risk the whole means by which paua reproduce.

Fortunately, most paua reach sexual maturity at about 3-5 years, a year or two before they are legally able to be harvested. These young paua, however, produce relatively few eggs compared with older and larger paua. In essence, most of our current paua fishery is reliant on the reproductive output of adolescent paua. This situation can be likened to a farmer culling all his breeding ewes after each sheep has had its first lamb. It doesn’t take a PhD in population dynamics to work out what effect that would have.

Once a paua egg has been fertilised it develops into a tiny planktonic larvae which drifts with the currents and tides for just a few days – maybe a week or two (there is still debate about just how long). During this time the larvae probably move only a short distance - certainly those in sheltered bays. The larvae of paua spawning near promontories and capes, such as the Nuggets, probably disperse much further and are therefore more important for repopulating the coastline. This area of paua biology is the least known and most contentious –some experts maintain the larvae travel only tens of metres while others give estimates of 5 kilometres or so. The truth is, it is a very difficult, nearly impossible topic to study accurately and guessing is about as good as we can get. Everyone does agree, however, that paua larvae don’t travel very far before settling onto the bottom, which means that the entire coastline of Otago and Southland contains hundreds of relatively discrete paua populations, all reliant on larvae from within their own small areas.

The obvious conclusion from this is that once a paua stock has been fished right down, and in some cases the term functionally extinct has been used, the coastline will not be repopulated from distant, more healthy stocks. By way of contrast, rock lobsters have larvae that can live in the ocean currents for a year or more and some crayfish caught in New Zealand start their lives in Tasmania. Thanks to marine reserves we now know that crayfish can easily repopulate heavily fished areas and within a few years bounce back to healthy populations. Not so paua –they are a different kettle of fish and under the present management regime they will just continue to decline, with no hope of outside replenishment.

For commercial paua fisheries in New Zealand the entire coast has been divided into a number of management zones by the Ministry of Fisheries. For Otago and Southland there is one large zone called Paua 5D, running 400 kilometres from the Waitaki River all the way round to Te Waewae Bay. In the 2001/02 fishing year there was a Total Allowable Commercial Catch (TACC) for Paua 5D of 148.9 tonnes but this has now been reduced by 40% to 89 tonnes a year because of widespread recognition that the paua fishery is in serious trouble.

The problem here is that we have a strategy of macro-management with one overall quota for an area containing what are probably hundreds of small populations. It is quite feasible and legal for a single paua diver to simply fish a local population to functional extinction. This is a case of managing a fishery on the basis of bureaucratic expediency (3 hours driving distance either side of Dunedin) rather than any biological basis. In other words, the management of paua, and all fisheries, should operate at a scale suitable to the animal, not what’s convenient for government administration.

Reducing the commercial quota is a start but already some commercial paua divers are saying it is too little, too late. Compounding this is an unknown level of poaching (in the overall equation fisheries officials have made an allowance of 20 tonnes but this is simply a guess) and an unknown recreational take (estimated at 18 tonnes). The estimates for recreational take in Otago are based on 5 year old data from diaries kept by volunteers recruited in a nationwide telephone survey and the results were compiled by Auckland consultants unfamiliar with the region. This is hardly a robust data source on which to base the future management of one of New Zealand’s most valuable and popular sea foods (not to mention the shell’s value for the tourist trade).

Like many other reef creatures, paua can live a long time –official estimates are thirty years or more but paua divers talk of “hub cap” paua – very rare individuals that have escaped harvesting and natural predation, and grown to an enormous size (traditionally any over 160mm ). They are likely to be many decades old. This strategy of living a long time is an insurance policy for animals where breeding success varies from year to year, as it does with paua because their larvae are carried away to an unknown destination by the winds and tides. There are also reports that in some years paua don’t breed at all. When a population is under constant high fishing pressure it may take only one or two years of failed breeding or recruitment to send it spiraling into a non-recoverable mode. This has been observed in some areas already and overseas such habitats are recognised by abalone divers as “non recovery bottom”

Paua of course are not alone on the reef –their diet overlaps with other animals such as kina or sea eggs, limpets and even some fish. The reef is a constantly changing ecosystem and fishing pressure over the last 20 years has greatly reduced the density of key predators, such as blue cod and lobsters. This may have helped paua to some extent but it has mostly benefitted kina. Without intense predation, kina have dramatically increased around much of the rocky coast of New Zealand. And while it’s thought that paua don’t impact on kina densities, kina definitely have an impact on paua. Increased kina numbers decrease the coverage of kelp, creating what are known as kina barrens. Some reefs have been totally denuded by kina leaving nothing for paua to eat. In the Goat Island Marine Reserve, where predators such as snapper, blue cod and lobsters are all flourishing, kina have declined and the kelp forests have returned.

Unfortunately we can not gauge the impact of kina or any other reef interactions on paua in the South Island because there is not a single stretch of open coast paua habitat protected from fishing. Good science, upon which all our fisheries management should be based if they are to be sustainable, requires control areas where fishing is excluded, to gauge such events as reef interactions, the impact of fishing, and to discern what may be natural fluctuations in breeding, recruitment, growth and mortality. Other basic population parameters missing for paua in this area are longevity and fecundity (reproductive output) with age, both requiring long-term unfished populations of paua. None of this research is possible because we have no marine reserves in paua habitat anywhere in the Otago or Southland region. Not a single square metre is protected anywhere in the approximately 400 kilometre stretch of coastline in Paua 5D.

So what hope is there for a highly edible, slow moving, slow growing animal that lives in easily located groups? Well, not much hope at all and even less for the average kiwi looking for a feed of paua. The basic problem is the “right to fish everywhere” philosophy of some fishermen.

At the moment there are some areas closed to commercial paua fishing although there are no statistics available to indicate what proportion of the coastline this covers, nor even more importantly, what portion of paua habitat this covers. There are also some voluntary non-commercial take areas but all these are still heavily harvested by recreational divers, who of course target the easily gathered aggregations of breeding paua. Suggestions of rotational temporary closure of some areas to allow stocks to rebuild and get a few years reproduction in before being reopened to fishing, hold considerable merit but neither the Ministry of Fisheries or paua divers are taking this option seriously.

At the moment the only definite tool we have for conserving paua is the outdated Marine Reserve Act 1971. Under this legislation no marine life can be taken except for the purposes of scientific study. This is the only current means we have to protect dense aggregations of paua so they can live undisturbed, free to pump out offspring to repopulate neighbouring coastline.

A target of 10% of New Zealand’s coast has been promoted as a goal for marine reserves but even 10% is probably grossly inadequate for some species, such as paua. Marine reserves designed especially for paua could be as small as a kilometre in size – any smaller would not display much improvement because of edge effects, emigration and increased concentration of illegal paua poaching. But even with a hypothetical network of marine reserves with say one kilometre in every ten, there would still not be enough reserves to give regular coverage of paua larvae along the whole coastline.

We also know paua poaching is a major ongoing problem that will be here to stay as long as the prices are high and poachers can get away with it. Already in just January of this year, there have been 20 incidents relating to paua offences detected in Paua 5D, involving 35 people and those are just the people who got caught! Poachers do not respect size restrictions and may represent the biggest threat of all to the future of paua.

The best strategy to counter poachers is increased surveillance, and the best option for that is to place marine reserves where everyone can keep an eye on them – at popular locations and tourist destinations! This gives the multiple benefit of public enjoyment and education, increased revenue from tourism and most important of all, many extra pairs of eyes to watch for unusual activities. Obvious places in Otago are parts of Shag Point, Moeraki, Otago Peninsula and the Nuggets. These current swept promontories would also have the best chance of dispersing paua larvae far and wide to recolonise depleted stretches of coast.

Otago is now in the nationally embarrassing position of being the only region of New Zealand without a marine reserve. And ironically, while some fishermen refuse to acknowledge the potential of marine reserves to contribute to fisheries management, it is marine reserves, with complete no-take regulations, that offer the best hope for paua conservation. No other option will protect the dense groupings of paua necessary for efficient and reliable breeding and without marine reserves, paua are almost certainly destined to be a dwindling memory of old New Zealand.

Andrew Penniket
Feb 17th, 2005

Andrew Penniket has been diving the coast of New Zealand for over 35 years as a sea food gatherer and underwater cameraman. After studying marine biology at the University of Auckland, (MSc Zoology) he has spent the last 22 years filming underwater documentaries for the Natural History Units of TVNZ and the BBC, including the renowned Blue Planet series. During this time he has dived extensively around Fiordland, Stewart Island, the Chatham Islands, Otago and the subantarctic islands. He has made documentaries on Otago Harbour, Fiordland, Kaikoura, orca, octopus, reef fish and rock lobster, in which he was the first person to film the spectacular predawn release of lobster larvae.

Further reading:
The Living Reef –The Ecology of New Zealand’s Rocky Reefs
Ed. by Neil Andrews and Malcom Francis, Craig Potton Publishing 2003

EARTH: Yes! A NEW National Heritage Park Proposal

2005-04-28T11:11:00.000+12:00

extract from Draft Proposal for a National Heritage Park by Wade Doak
Recommendations for National Heritage Park and Iwi Tourism Concession

In making these recommendations we have two basic aims:

- to ensure that the natural assets remain undiminished; the present ecological balance is maintained; that the great beauty of this rich and varied natural environment is preserved.

- to encourage visitors to enjoy these natural assets in the fullest and most satisfying ways, to learn about the environment, especially its marine communities, and to promote a broad programme showing the recreational and educational value of this approach.

An excellent opportunity exists at Ngunguru Sandpit / Whakairiora to create:

1. A focus for public interest in the coastal environment, an interest which is rapidly increasing, is often intense, but at present lacks opportunity for anything but negative protest.

2. An example of how this interest can be encouraged into positive action which is actually beneficial to both people and the environment.

3. A place which shows that, in recreation and relaxation, a chance to explore is more interesting than killing things; that understanding is more satisfying than ownership; and that opportunities for real appreciation are far more important than the provision of high-grade services or artificially-created luxuries.

4. A demonstration that iwi based enterprise can provide real leadership in this field and has an important part to play.

5. A model centre for environmental education: a whare wananga where the required methods and aids can be developed, tested and produced.

So far coastal development has been an extractive industry, virtually mining the natural assets. We are recommending the sustained use of these natural assets, an organisation which enhances them and development of a continuing benefit.

There is a growing need for New Zealand’s increasingly urban population to learn how to enjoy the remaining unspoiled natural environment without destroying it.

A suitable programme at Ngunguru / Whakairiora Heritage Park would require:

(1) An iwi-based Information Centre and Café to provide simple facilities for day visitors. Power reticulation. Maori crafts. Guides.

(2) A residential Study Centre which would be: the sole form of accommodation for visitors; of limited capacity; [perhaps a set of cabins with a central facilities building] of simple but comfortable standard, and fully-equipped with aids to recreational exploration, appreciation and study.

(3) Vehicle access to the property to be carefully restricted, depending on location of the Centre, perhaps private cars being excluded and all visitors transported by bus. As far as possible there would be minimal upgrading or extension of existing roads in the area.

(4) Walking paths throughout the Park, board walks in sensitive areas and negotiations made for a coastal footpath from Ngunguru to Pataua (indeed for as far as possible)

(5)With iwi consultation and initiative, a Maitaitai marine zone might be created, centred on the Park area where marine resources would be iwi managed according to customary practice.

(6)It may be considered practical by iwi to close some selected coastal areas in the Park to all extraction so that reseeding of invertebrate kai moana may take place from undisturbed parent colonies. It may also be considered worthwhile to fully protect a section of reef for the education of young people/ tamariki in the normal diversity of a coastal marine community.

(7) Invitation of adjacent landowners to participate in the whole programme at least by providing access and refraining from detrimental development.

(8) Arranging for the production of suitable aids to environmental appreciation.

(9) A selected regeneration and replanting scheme. for the Sandspit together with a major initiative at pest control in the Park and on adjacent land with the aim of creating a pest –free kiwi care zone: a mainland island, between the two rivers: Horahora and Ngunguru, subsequently enhancing native bird populations.

The essential features of the programme are given above. The remaining discussion should be considered as suggestions which explain and illustrate the salient points.

EARTH: wandering NGUNGURU

2005-04-28T11:07:00.000+12:00

TO THE TIP OF KAWAKA PROMONTORY: NGUNGURU
Wade and Jan Doak

On Anzac day we penetrated to the very end of the enchanted kawaka
grove on Whakairiora Mountain. We knew there had to be parents for
the ever-increasing density of matai seedlings among all the crisp
kawaka and copses of kinky trunked Coprosma aerolata.

So we pushed on through a wall of bush that hitherto had excluded us,
seeming to suggest is was the end of the promontory and that a sudden
cliff edge would precipitate us headlong into the bay.

First we followed the cliff edge line of pohutukawa, coprosma, hebe clumps, a few
stumpy nikau and patches of wharangi. Wind pressure out here has
bent the tops of the bushes at right angles so they look weird and
grotesque.

But this was a mellow autumn day with a frisson of an
offshore breeze and the sea below sparkling and clear revealing
extensive fishless forests of kelp.

To my delight almost at the tip of the promontory I found my quarry: a
solitary tawapou tree with a few ripening berries on it. But no seedlings
to propagate this rare tree. Beyond here the wind compacted bush
made progress hard. Then a dense mass of flax bushes perhaps purpose
planted long ago by cliff dwellers. The rope factory…

On the other side of the promontory, above Purapuratahi Cove, we
found a dense grove of kauri of all sizes from seedlings to sturdy,
gnarly trees. More than I cared to count. No giants of inland forests
here but these trees had muscles. They showed signs of hard lives out
on a knuckle of rock facing into the most powerful winds this coast ever
knows; like cyclone Bola.

And adjacent to them the density of young
kowhai seedlings was remarkable. “Through the green fuse drive the
flower’: there seems to be a green power out here that enables every
tree to reproduce with immense vigour. Little sign of the months of
drought that has tree leaves elsewhere hanging limp.

The bush above the cove is quite dense: rewarewa, taraire, karaka, kohekohe with seeds
like nutmegs sprouting from their trunks and now beginning to split
open and reveal their crimson seeds like little tongues as buds for winter
blossom appear.

All this and much, much more slowed our progress
but as we walked back towards the densest part of the kawaka grove I
found those powerful, hammer patterned trunks I so dearly sought:
there they were: mum and dad matai, progenitors of the densest grove
of seedlings I have ever seen; as dense as are the kawaka in this same
area.

After our long walk out to Harakeke Island where a pod of six
bottlenose dolphins cruised by close to the rocks....

After visiting deep caves, and scrutinising the rock-clinging morsel of rare fern inches
beyond wave reach; traipsing through cove after sandy cove, each a
paradise to spend a lifetime sunbasking and then striding summit wards
to the sacred puriri with wide spread limbs which once cradled a crying
baby placed there to decoy enemy from fleeing cliff dwellers....

After the deep valley where a huge cherry red rata vine embraces a puriri, after
passing gnarly old mamangi, biggest Coprosma in the world and sleek
lancewood and descending to our waiting cars and draughts of water
my neighbour Rob said he was amazed at the diversity of Whakairiora....

“There are so many rooms,” he said. “You never know what to expect
next.”

Lots of windows offer long views, even right out to the Chicks and
Little Barrier Island but at no stage can you see it all or gain any
impression of a complete panoramic scene. It just leads you on from
one delight to another.

Giant spreading pohutukawa, broad swathes of Muehlenbeckia covered
sand hill; deep shady forest, sunlit ridges, long
prospects through open woodland, cliff edge shrubberies., Ngunguru
sandspit in it entirety, on and on and on.’

And we, all my dear neighbours, after our day-long walk, agreed this
should be protected forever as a National Heritage Park.

On the TV news that night: controversy over a bull-dozered road
across Gallipoli’s gaunt battlefields. I thought of those brown warriors
on the Ngunguru sandspit and the burial ground at Purapuratahi Cove
of people from the Poor Knights massacre…all threatened by dozer -
bladed development…

And our Resource Management Act says: there
should be no unnecessary subdivision…

WATER: Looking inside out or outside in marine reserves

2005-04-19T11:46:00.000+12:00

QUERY to WADE DOAK DIVER DISCUSSION GROUP
What would be biological impacts in the eco-system of the Leigh marine reserve due to human activity since before its establishment and now?

Re: impacts due to human activity in Leigh reserve

From: Trevor Willis
Date: 13-04-05
Time: 01:11

Comments

There are two sides to this question: one is the changes brought about by stopping fishing, the other concerns impacts brought about by large numbers of visitors to the reserve. Visitors have impacts that are mainly limited to Goat Island Bay. There have been documented effects of trampling on intertidal reefs, which is hardly surprising when you think of how many people walk them in summer.

There are also probably undocumented effects of disturbance by people fossicking around in rockpools, as well as damage to subtidal reef communities by inexpert snorkelers and divers (I'm thinking of things like kelp and sponges here: the former ripped off by those seeking support against waves, the latter by fin damage). There are some losses of sea urchins by folk (forgetting that "no-take" refers to everything) feeding them to the fish. This however is probably less than was taken by people for a feed before the reserve went in.

The most obvious impact by visitors is the change in behaviour of fish in Goat Island Bay responding to fish feeding... since I'm no longer at Leigh I don't know whether DoC's efforts to reduce this activity has been successful. All that aside, these impacts are pretty local and in my opinion are generally outweighed by the social and educational benefits.

Stopping fishing has had much greater effects. Obviously the first effect has been the big density increases of species that we fish (snapper, crayfish, and blue cod) relative to outside the reserve.

The second is the flow-on effects on other members of the community brought about by having more large predators. Kina density across the whole reserve has been reduced by predation, meaning that the coverage of kelp forest has been increased markedly. If you look at the habitat maps made in the 70's and what is there now, the differences are pretty obvious.

We also have some indications that other prey species may experience some effects of predators - small fish like triplefins on the reef, and even bivalves in sandy habitats off the reef... so we might say that your question can be posed in the opposite way: in terms of larger scale biological effects, we should be asking what are the impacts due to human activity OUTSIDE the reserve - marine reserves are starting to give us a good idea of how extensive these are. cheers, Trev

WEKA report #6: How DO These Humans Think?

2005-04-19T11:35:00.000+12:00

I am still trying to understand these humans. I already figured out they like to be first, the winners, no matter what the race. They hold strange contests to test themselves against each other. (see WEKA report # 5 on this blog)

They also have a very strange way of arguing. They set out a statement and then try to prove it true or false. The proof has to exist in the world, not in words. So the humans do all sorts of investigations to catch the world in the act which will prove their statement.

I still don't understand, really. You try this. Japan has a group of humans who say “whales eat too much fish....(and) are the primary cause in the worldwide decline of fisheries”. They set out to prove this statement by killing whales and then selling them as food. Because they are trying to prove their statement, they call their whaling “scientific”. (BioScience • March 2003 / Vol. 53 No. 3 PHILLIP J. CLAPHAM,et al.)

Now being a bird, and a thinking bird at that, I put up with the usual wisecracks about being a birdbrain. Well , when it comes to humans, well, maybe it is true. I still don't understand humans. Maybe it really is beyond me.

See, now there are other humans who are fed up with arguing using science. They are simply banding together and through sheer weight of numbers, through signatures on a petition, hope to convince the government of Japan to stop the whaling scientists.

Once, some of the families of whales were hundreds of thousands in numbers and now, due to whaling, are less than a thousand. At the same time, the numbers of humans are now in the billions. Whatever the argument, after all the whales have been through, how can anyone, at this stage, begrudge them some fish?

EARTH: KAWAKA CLAD PROMONTORY ON WHAKAIRIORA MOUNTAIN:

2005-04-06T13:53:00.000+12:00

KAWAKA CLAD PROMONTORY ON WHAKAIRIORA MOUNTAIN:
SUBDIVISION OR NATIONAL HERITAGE PARK? by Wade Doak

The promontory in this picture supports a rare grove of kawaka or New
Zealand cedars with some huge trees and a great many lush green
seedlings at every stage. The wind blown seed of such coniferous
trees would not travel far. NZ cedars have a very attractive shaggy
chocolate brown bark. All the way up the trunk the bark breaks into
short strips which curve upwards in tatters. In silhouette, looking
through the glade, it is very distinctive. Such a dense grove of these
cedars is a very rare sight in our forest remnants. The DOC people
with us recalled a couple of such places: one near Kaikohe; the other
near Cape Brett, but none as dense as this.

On the forest floor there are also very many strangely divaricating
matai seedlings, some in groupings of up to seven and others up to
eight feet tall. But we could find no parent matai trees, with their
distinctive hammer-patterned bark, in the vicinity.

The only mature trees we have seen are on the longer track out to
house site three sothe matai berry clad seed has probably been wide
spread by birds. Itappears to survive best along walking tracks,
some of which would be pre- European.

Neither species appears to be cattle palatable and
because bush cattle [we saw four] use this promontory for camping
and grazing the open grass sward at the end, [there is a stream
nearby in the cove that was still moist even in this drought], I think
the disturbance of cattle may have created opportunities for these
seedlings to establish. Or perhaps clearance goes back to when the
promontory was a pa site.

It is very pleasantly habitable. A midden down in the adjacent cove
reveals the shells of pipis and cockles. The cockles would have been
carried from Ngunguru estuary. There is a fosse or defensive trench,
which may have been stoutly palisaded at the beginning of the
promontory, cutting right across the 'neck' to seal it off. We found
another earthwork above the east side of the cove crossing the blazed
track to house site two.

On the east side of the promontory there is a grove of about five goodsized
kauris facing the open sea.

From the track that leads down to the cove [where we found the worn
gizzard stones of a moa], just before it descends, an intensively blue
paint blazed trail leads out towards the tip. I assume this signifies the
path for clearance by bulldozer and chain saw…[House site one is near
the start of the promontory.] Along this route many mature puriris,
pohutukawas, massive cedars, tall kowhais, old kanukas and a big
rewarewa bear ominous blazes. Here and there the bush is densely
packed with groves of Coprosma aereolata, which is not common on
this coast. It is an attractive small tree with a confetti of small, light
green, round leaves and a quaintly kinky trunk.

Near the promontory tip on the west side there is a gully down to the
sea [perhaps once a stepped path to a very sheltered canoe landing,
but now choked with cutty grass] with a gigantic and ancient
pohutukawa whose massive horizontal branches lie on top of each
other to form a formidable wall of wood bounding the northern rim of
the gully. A powerful old puriri thrusts up to support the canopy like
the pole in a circus tent. Around here: kohekohe, taraire, karaka,
kowhai, nikau palms, cedar seedlings, a few small kaihikatea and a
thicket of supplejack. At the cliff edge are wharangi bushes with their
big, shiny, light green leaves in clusters of three.

As we ate our picnic lunch in a forest glade the raucous cries of black
back gulls overhead made me lookup: broad, white sea bird wings
crested the points of cedar trees. A very rare sight to be in a richly
diverse remnant of NZ native forest so close to the sea.

From the promontory tip we could peer down on to the top of a mostly
submerged reef with swirling seaweeds and clear blue water and I
reflected: if we ever had the wisdom to create a zone of marine
protection here it would be possible for our descendants to watch reef
fishes flitting about while on the verge of a rain forest.

But unless there is urgent action it is destined to become a housing
subdivision like that on the mountain visible through pohutukawa
boughs across Ngunguru Bay: mostly gorse clad with yellow clay scars
and straight roof lines and a network of roads. Whakairiora mountain
is those householders' beautiful outlook. When will we consider the
duty of reciprocity in this country's diminishing landscapes?

No place on the Northland coast could cry out more for preservation in
the public interest. I cannot sleep at night for thinking of those
gleaming dozer blades carving their way out here through the forest
across steep slopes from the Ford Road car park....

HIGH STAKES AT THE IWC by Dr. Robbins Barstow

2005-04-06T13:45:00.000+12:00

HIGH STAKES AT THE IWC
by Dr. Robbins Barstow, Director Emeritus, Cetacean Society International

Now Is the Time (excerpt from complete article)

The time between the March/April follow-up meeting of the RMS Working
Group in Copenhagen, Denmark, and the 57th Annual Meeting of the IWC from
13-17 June in Ulsan, Republic of Korea, provides a special window of opportunity
for all of us who are concerned about keeping whales alive, to rally support
for New Zealand¹s efforts to develop Protocols designed to strengthen the ICRW
by closing loopholes and assuring compliance.

No Revised Management Scheme amendments to the IWC Schedule can be
adopted without a three-fourths majority of those members voting. But in any
case,the basic, priority issue which the Commission must now face is the necessity
for Protocols to amend the ICRW.

The stakes are indeed high for the future of the world¹s great whales
and other cetaceans. New Zealand's new Protocol initiative offers the key to
assuring their protection from arbitrary slaughter. Now is the time for
strong action by Governments and NGO's. Let's move!

THE COMPLETE ARTICLE

The forthcoming meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC)
in Ulsan, Republic of Korea, from 20-24 June 2005, will be a high stakes
session. For the future of whales, the stakes may be higher than at any time
since the historic 1994 meeting in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, which established the
vast, circumpolar Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary, wherein all ³commercial
whaling . . . is prohibited.²

At that meeting in Mexico a decade ago, which I attended as a
non-governmental observer (NGO), the Commission approved by consensus (but did not
make part of the IWC's "Schedule") a controversial ³Revised Management
Procedure,² recommended by the IWC Scientific Committee. This established a
complicated, algorithm formula for calculating sustainable yield catch limits for
possible future commercial whaling, on a conservative, strictly limited basis. The
Commission left unresolved the bitterly divisive question of how this
Procedure might be implemented and enforced.

RMS Negotiations

The following year, in 1995, the Cetacean Society International (CSI)
and more than 70 other conservation organizations, large and small around the
globe, addressed a ³Statement of Affirmation² to all the Contracting
Governments of the IWC, expressing the following aim: ³While continuing to maintain
staunch opposition to any resumption of commercial whale killing or any change
in the Commission¹s zero catch limits, we urge member nations to participate
in discussions that seek to establish a fail-safe system of supervision and
control to be in effect should commercial whaling, nevertheless, come to be
authorized at some future date.²

And for the past ten years, the issue of establishing a Revised
Management Scheme (RMS) has been the subject of countless meetings, documents,
reports and debates in a constant struggle between pro-whaling and anti-whaling
forces. But it appears that the impasse over whether any kind of RMS could be
acceptable to both those who view the IWC as a venue for whale killing and
those who see it as a venue for whale protection, is coming to a head this year.

At last year¹s IWC meeting in Sorrento, Italy, the Commission by
consensus directed its RMS Working Group ³to complete work on the RMS package,
with the goal of having a finalized RMS text ready for consideration, including
possible adoption, at IWC 57 [the 2005 meeting in South Korea], and/or to
identify any outstanding policy and technical issues.²

The new Working Group held its first meeting in Borgholm, Sweden,
from 29 November to 1 December 2004. It is meeting again in Copenhagen, Denmark,
from 30 March to 1 April 2005. The Borgholm meeting was attended by 49
official delegates, representing 23 countries, including 6 from the USA, as well as
12 NGO observers.

An extensive, 33-page, small-print document entitled ³Chair¹s Report
on the RMS Working Group Meeting² held in Sweden in December, which was
chaired by Horst Kleinschmidt, the IWC Commissioner for South Africa, can be
downloaded from the IWC internet site at: http://iwcoffice.org

Also available at the same site is the 25-page, small-print ³Chair¹s
Report of the meeting of the RMS Small Drafting Group² (SDG), which followed
the Working Group meeting in Sweden, and was chaired by Michael Tillman of the
USA, with 22 participants from 11 countries.

Outstanding Issues

It is clear from these reports that the issue of a Revised Management
Scheme for the International Whaling Commission is being taken very seriously
by all involved, that it is exceedingly complex, and that there are deeply
opposing views.

The Agenda for the Sweden meeting identified 10 major elements of an
RMS Package that needed to be considered, with a draft proposal by the Chair
as a starting point for discussion, followed by other proposals and the
³development of options.² Objections were raised at many points both by those whom
Japan referred to as ³pro-use countries² and by those "who could not support
any resumption of commercial whaling.²

Almost all of the proposals for draft schedule texts which are
contained in the Small Drafting Group¹s Sweden report include a variety of options,
with bracketed texts representing areas where issues remain to be resolved.
It is clear that deep disagreement remains, particularly with regard to any
linkage of the adoption of an RMS to the lifting of Schedule paragraph 10(e),
which is the so-called ³moratorium² provision, adopted in 1982, establishing
that ³not withstanding other provisions . . .catch limits for commercial purposes
of whales from all stocks . . . shall be zero.²

Underlying Problem

There is, however, a fundamental problem underlying all of the
current IWC negotiations. Without resolving this basic matter, any RMS which might
be agreed upon will be essentially meaningless and only exacerbate the
existing situation.

The problem lies in certain provisions of the original 1946 treaty
establishing the IWC -- the International Convention for the Regulation of
Whaling (ICRW). There are two glaring loopholes and one critical omission which,
as long as they remain part of the Convention, will effectively nullify any
efforts to fully control global whaling. They are: (1) unlimited special permit
whaling; (2) unbinding objections; and (3) toothless enforcement.

In my judgment, the only logical rationale for adopting a new
management scheme for the regulation of whaling would be to have it encompass all
whaling activities. It makes no sense to seek to establish cautionary rules and
standards for the taking of whales if they can be rejected at will by any
Contracting Government, and if all whale killing is not included.

Special Permits

As long as any country is free to ignore Schedule restrictions, and
to grant "special permits," as Japan and recently Iceland have been doing,
authorizing its nationals to kill any number of whales it ³thinks fit,² for
³purposes of scientific research,² catch limits set by IWC formulae would have no
validity. Yet Article VIII of the Convention, unless changed or eliminated,
allows precisely this loophole.

Many resolutions have been adopted by the Commission calling upon
Japan to stop "research whaling" in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary, and also to
stop its special permit whaling in the North Pacific, now expanded to include
Sperm, Bryde's, and Sei Whales. But such resolutions are toothless, able only to
cause embarrassment under existing Convention provisions.

Objections

By the same token, as long as any country can file an objection
within 90 days, to any Schedule revision adopted by the Commission, and thereby not
be bound by it, any catch limits set by the Commission could be immediately
invalidated.

The Government of Japan lodged an objection within the prescribed
period to Paragraph 7(b), which established the Southern Ocean Sanctuary in 1994,
³to the extent that it applies to the Antarctic minke whale stocks.²
Therefore, as stated in a Schedule footnote, the Sanctuary provision came into force
on 6 December 1994, ³for all Contracting Governments except Japan.² This
technically frees Japan from respecting the Sanctuary management scheme, and
Japan has been killing hundreds of minke whales in the Sanctuary area every year
since.

The Governments of Japan, Norway, Peru and the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics lodged objection in 1982 to paragraph 10(e), which established
the moratorium provision of zero catch limits ³for commercial purposes of
whales from all stocks.² Subsequently, Peru and Japan withdrew their objections,
but a Schedule footnote still states: ³The objections of Norway and the Russian
Federation not having been withdrawn, the paragraph [10(e)] is not binding on
these Governments.²

Thus Norway¹s continued and increasing killing of hundreds of minke
whales for commercial purposes in the North Atlantic could not be controlled by
any RMS while the Convention retains the objection provisions of Article V.

Enforcement

Finally, as long as the Commission itself has no means to enforce
Schedule provisions and police its determinations through inspection,
observation, verification, and compliance penalties, any Revised Management Scheme would
have essentially only paper value. Present Article IX of the Convention
leaves it entirely up to ³each Contracting Government² to ³take appropriate
measures² to ensure compliance and punish infractions.

Over the years, a number of documented instances of Schedule
violation have been reported to the Infractions Committee, with no penalties
resulting. Instances have included such matters as meat from protected species being
sold in Japanese markets, a Gray Whale carcass with many lances in it found on
a Japanese beach, a landed Right Whale photographed at a possible Korean port,
and strictly forbidden takings of "female whales accompanied by calves."

In the past, there have also been under-reported and unpenalized
takings of large numbers of whales beyond specified quotas. Leaving punishment
solely up to individual Contracting Governments has rendered the Covenant's
current enforcement provisions almost totally ineffective.

Optimum Utilization

In addition to the basic need to amend the ICRW in respect to the
above areas, to make available a fail-safe system of supervision and control for
commercial whaling, clarification may now be required to assure that both
lethal and non-lethal utilization of cetacean resources are given consideration in
fulfilling the Convention's mandated purpose of providing for the
"conservation, development, and optimum utilization of the whale resources" (Article V,
2). (Emphasis added.)

It has become clear in today's world that many Contracting
Governments now view such non-lethal activities as whale-watching, benign research, and
education as constituting the optimum means for "safeguarding for future
generations the great natural resources represented by the whale stocks" (1946
Convention Preamble).

Possible Protocols

What remedies are available? During the discussion of Agenda Item
4.5 on ³Compliance,² at the December meeting in Sweden of the RMS Working
Group, some members are reported to have proposed the development of a Protocol to
amend the ICRW to establish effective compliance, dispute settlement, and
penalties procedures. Such an amendment was considered ³the only way to establish
such a mechanism² (page 16 of Chair¹s Report).

The Report of the Chair of the Working Group also noted that under
Agenda Item 4.8 concerning ³Whaling under special permits,² the view had been
expressed that (page 21): ³There is a need for binding provision, and possibly
the amendment of the Convention through the development of a Protocol, to
restrict/phase-out/abolish whaling under special permit. Adoption of an RMS
package would need to be preceded by such binding action.²

Included in the Chair¹s Report on the Sweden meeting is the following
paragraph (page 17): ³While the first option gave instructions to the SDG,
it was noted that the second option regarding development of a Protocol (or
Protocols) is not an issue for either the RMS Working Group or the SDG. New
Zealand noted its intention to work on this with a view to providing some
discussion text, possibly before the RMS Working Group meets in March 2005. It
stressed that such text would not form part of the mandate of the Working Group, but
rather provide background to discussions in the margins of the meeting
regarding development of (a) Protocol(s). In addition to addressing a dispute
settlement mechanism and compliance (i.e. a and b above), New Zealand¹s intention
is to also include Article VIII and whaling under special permit and opting out
of provisions within the scope of a Protocol or Protocols (see section
4.8.3).²

Now Is the Time

The time between the March/April follow-up meeting of the RMS Working
Group in Copenhagen, Denmark, and the 57th Annual Meeting of the IWC from
13-17 June in Ulsan, Republic of Korea, provides a special window of opportunity
for all of us who are concerned about keeping whales alive, to rally support
for New Zealand¹s efforts to develop Protocols designed to strengthen the ICRW
by closing loopholes and assuring compliance.

No Revised Management Scheme amendments to the IWC Schedule can be
adopted without a three-fourths majority of those members voting. But in any
case,
the basic, priority issue which the Commission must now face is the necessity
for Protocols to amend the ICRW.

The stakes are indeed high for the future of the world¹s great whales
and other cetaceans. New Zealand's new Protocol initiative offers the key to
assuring their protection from arbitrary slaughter. Now is the time for
strong action by Governments and NGO's . Let's move!

More about biopsy darts: from Otago Daily Times

2005-02-28T13:57:00.000+13:00

Otago scientists warn about use of biopsy darts
By John Gibb
(first published in Otago Daily Times, Dunedin)

Recent Auckland University research in Doubtful Sound amounts to a cautionary tale over the use of biopsy darts on bottlenose dolphins, University of Otago zoologist Dr Liz Slooten says.

Dr Slooten and fellow Otago University researcher Dr Steve Dawson have challenged the Auckland approach of taking flesh for DNA research by means of biopsy darts.

There is evidence of apparent harm to the marine mammals, they say.

Dr Slooten said that, with Dr Dawson, she intended writing an article for a scientific journal raising several issues arising from the Auckland genetic research.

Auckland University researchers used biopsy darts to take dolphin DNA samples in late October and early November last year.

Dr Slooten and other Otago University researchers who visited Doubtful Sound from December 10-20 said they had found evidence suggesting apparently adverse effects from the earlier Auckland DNA sampling method, including that dolphins were more reticent than usual about being near the small boat used by Otago researchers.

An apparent biopsy scar on a mother dolphin carrying a stillborn calf also raised the possibility that the invasive biopsy had caused the death, she said.

In an article published in the Otago Daily Times last month, Auckland University scientist Associate Prof Scott Baker said that, having examined a photograph of the mother dolphin, he believed it was very unlikely the skin blemish depicted was a dart scar.

Prof Baker, who supervised the Auckland research, said biopsy darts created a small wound that healed quickly. The procedure had been used thousands of times without incident with dolphins abroad, he said.

Dr Slooten said she was now “very confident” that the blemish, which appeared in a photograph in the Daily Times, was, in fact, a biopsy scar.

Four other dolphins at the sound also had similar marks, which had not been present during an earlier Otago University expedition last February.

The marks were also very similar to dolphin biopsy scars present in photographs she had received recording recent overseas research, she said.

Her article would highlight the importance of the careful monitoring of dolphin behaviour both before and after the use of biopsy darts to ensure any behavioural changes were detected.

Taking adequate identifying photographs was also crucial and it was “very disappointing” that Auckland researchers apparently did not have identifying photographs of all the dolphins sampled, she said.

Retired Green Island resident Bill King (66) rang the Daily Times to say he was also concerned about the Auckland research and its potentially adverse effects.

The views of Otago scientists, who had been carrying out dolphin research at Doubtful Sound for many years, deserved to be given more weight, Mr King said.

He had long observed dolphins in several parts of the South Island, including off the Otago coast and in Milford Sound, he said.

Whakairiora: coastal gem threatened with subdivision by Wade Doak

2005-02-22T12:31:00.000+13:00

Whakairiora: a coastal forest remnant from beach to ridge top

Recently, I explored the area of Whakairiora, the small mountain at
the base of Ngunguru sandspit. Native coastal forest from beach to ridge
is rare in New Zealand. Yet this area is in the process of subdivision.
Consent has not yet been granted. Few people on the Tutukaka coast
appear to know about this threat. The potential subdivision of the coastal
forest here strikes them like a tsunami.

This forest area is beyond doubt the most outstanding my wife Jan and
I have ever seen on the Tutukaka coast. We visit many, many Northland
forests in the course of our project " Below and Above" (intensively documenting
all their beauties and recording the life forms both below and above Northern NZ waters.)

There is a walking track out to the superb Goat Island beaches and coves
(I prefer the name Kumi Point to avoid confusion with the Goat Island beaches at Leigh.)
This coastal forest and beach would be one of the major potential attractions in an area
where ecotourism is developing apace.

The precious treasures of this forest remnant are outstanding in their importance.
From the turning zone at the end of Ford Road, going by way of the old trig station on
the summit at 117 metres, the walking trail is only forty minutes down the sea .

Along the way there are at least two stands of magnificent straight trunk matais with
patches of their strange divaricating seedlings adjacent to them. No where else do we see
these juveniles, so unlike their parents in appearance and we have explored many remnant forests.
The two parent trees are on the summit track and may be threatened by a road.

Also, there are mairehau and coastal maire, both rare in this area. There is also a grove of
kawaka, tawapou and matai: This forest combination is not recorded elsewhere in Northland,
which makes it unique on this coast. Kawaka or NZ cedar is now a nationally threatened plant.
Its ranking is 'Sparse.¹

This area has suffered from bush ranched cattle. We also saw signs of pig rooting. For all this,
the forest is still in very good condition. With protection, it would improve even more. A fully
protected coastal forest would be unusual for the region as there are no fences intact between
this forest and Whangarei.

The huge trees in two valleys on the southern side are truly spectacular. One had a very large
puka vine on it and wild bee or wasp nest (I never paused to check). One very sheltered valley
is rather like the lost world forest in the crater of Maungatapere, a volcano mountain ten minutes
west of Whangarei. The huge rata vines, which only grow to their full glory on mature trees,
suggest the great age of these generous hosts.

The younger forest near the carpark has a special character because of an unusually high density
of mamangi and lancewoods. Ecologically speaking, the more open ridges are just as important
as the sheltered valleys. Both are providing habitats to smaller trees and shrubs.

Eminent NZ ecologist ecohistorian Geoff Park is also the author of
Nga Uru Ora: Groves of Life. In this oft reprinted book , now adapted
for radio, he says: ".. I first felt the need to know why it is barely possible in New Zealand
any more to walk from a flat sandy beach into a forest. What must it have been like,
I wondered, to sense the sea gradually disappearing behind trees and vines."

In the subdivision plans for this rare coasta/l forest, three small
areas are set aside for reserves [ lots 5,6, 7]. They do not seem to
have been chosen for any special character. They may be an attempt
by the developer to meet subdivision requirements with areas of
minimal value to occupiers.

The most destructive aspect of any subdivision can be the roads.
Roads not only clear large areas of land, but they also destabilise
the remaining vegetation and alter patterns of water movement.

Significantly, another important feature of this exceedingly
desirable coastal area is that is has not yet been developed or
roaded. The very character of the land in this area has made it last
to be considered: hilly, rugged, steep. For this very reason, we now
see a surviving remnant of the past glory of this coast.

Whakairiora is a living memorial to a vanished arboreal opulence.
The surrounding area is now rapidlydeveloping into a coastal suburb.
This negative process is at odds with the high tourism values and
infrastructure investment of Tutukaka¹s aptly named Paradise Coast.
As Tutukaka is 'Orewarised', turning into a dormitory suburb of Whangarei,
visitors will want to travel elsewhere to experience the natural values of NZ.

Exploring green citadels like Whakairiora is what makes New Zealand a
worthwhile destination for overseas visitors. They do not come here
to see our pine forests and intensive coastal housing. Does the local
council, reviewing this subdivision proposal, truly appreciate that
tourism is now our major local industry?

Maori Occupation of Whakairiora
There is so much evidence that Whakareora was a major pa site and
living area. The place abounds with extensive middens and scattered
hangi stones.

Importantly, there is a good water supply. So when I am
told there is an unmodified pa site in the area, I believe this could be true.
Maori preferred habitable sites close to water. Also, the extensive
shellfish beds adjacent in two river systems make this location
especially desirable.

By contrast, we have also explored the Tutukaka lighthouse peninsula and island .
There are no signs of Maori habitation. There is also no water out there, apart
from a very small dried up stream. So although cynics may say: 'but Maori always
claim there is a pa site.. .', this is not so.

For the visitor, New Zealander or overseas, these signs of former
habitation give the area an extra level of fascination. A sense of
the past. Of a different way of life. After hundreds of years of
occupation, the only relics are the shells of molluscs and river
rounded stones from hangi pits. No bottle or old cars. For modern
humans to experience this can lead to important reflection...

Such Maori occupation places are our Kiwi equivalent of the ruins
people flock to in Europe. Those European ruins are jealously protected for
future generations. The relics here, between Whakareora and Kumi
Point, are quite different from Europe's and some other NZ sites in that they
are still in a natural world. Today, most pa sites are on bald hills grazed by sheep.

At Whakareora, we can gain precious insights into a vanished
way of life. Many of the plants were sources of food or materials for
implements and healing. As we walk through that forest, we are at a
supermarket, a hardware store and a pharmacy .

To understand the early world of humans, this remnant of coastal
forest close to once rich marine resources makes Whakareora an
especially important. Here in the 21st century, it is an inspiration
for us about reaching that state of sustainable living which matches
it. This is our most urgent task on this planet, even as our space probes
explore the toxic orange surface of a distant moon.

I entirely sympathise with those Waiariki people who wish to preserve
their heritage from the bulldozer blade. I hope they will understand
that, for thoughtful pakeha, it has become ours too. We share their
need to preserve it.

2005-02-21T14:20:00.000+13:00

Wound under dorsal fin of Whitetip. NZ dolphin

2005-02-21T14:18:00.000+13:00

Whitetip, NZ dolphin

Keeping this News in the Public Eye

2005-02-21T13:44:00.000+13:00

This story was written by John Gibbs for the Otago Daily Times of New Zealand, in later Jan 2005.
The story is reproduced here in full.
A crop of the two photos that went with the story are also included.
This story was followed up with a second story (see next posting).

Wound 'result of biopsy' By John Gibb

University of Otago scientists challenging the use of biopsy darts by Auckland University researchers on Fiordland bottlenose dolphins say there is evidence of apparent harm to the marine mammals.

The Auckland approach of taking flesh samples to further genetic research was "taking a risk both with the health of individual mammals and potentially with the [overall dolphin] population" in Doubtful Sound, Otago University zoologist Dr Liz Slooten said yesterday.

Otago University researchers who visited Doubtful Sound from December 10-20 found evidence suggesting apparently adverse effects from the earlier Auckland DNA sampling approach, though nothing could be proved to "100%" certainty, Dr Slooten said.

A month after the Auckland sampling, the dolphins were unusually reticent, persistently avoiding the boat used by the Otago research team.

Otago researchers had also seen the "heart-rending" sight of a dolphin mother, with an apparent biopsy scar, carrying an apparently still-born dolphin calf in her mouth, she said.

It could not be proven that the calf had died through the biopsy intervention.

However, a common dolphin had been killed, apparently by shock, after being hit by a biopsy dart in the Mediterranean, she said.

Otago University marine scientist Dr Steve Dawson said last year that the DNA material required could be collected by scraping dolphin skin with velcro.

However, Auckland University Associate Prof Scott Baker, who supervised the Fiordland research, yesterday strongly denied the dart method was harmful.

After seeing a photograph of the mother dolphin yesterday, Prof Baker said he believed a roughly circular "blemish" on the dolphin's skin was very unlikely to be a biopsy scar.

The biopsy dart created a small wound which healed quickly.

The procedure had been undertaken routinely and without incident thousands of times with dolphins abroad.

Prof Baker, who heads the Auckland University laboratory of molecular ecology and evolution, said that determining in what respects the about 80-strong Doubtful Sound population was genetically different from the Milford Sound bottlenose dolphin pod and populations elsewhere on the New Zealand coast was key information for conservation management.

Clarifying to what extent the Doubtful Sound population interbred with other bottlenose dolphins was also important, he said in an interview.

Dr Slooten said yesterday she was concerned that the Auckland researchers had not carried out thorough behavioural observations before and after their biopsy sampling to check if the dolphins had been disturbed and had changed their behaviour.

Prof Baker said Department of Conservation observers watched the sampling.

Dolphin behaviour had been observed and no "strenuous" reaction had come from them.

Fiordland Ecology Holidays co-owner Lance Shaw, of Manapouri, said he shared concerns raised by Drs Slooten and Dawson about the biopsies.

"When professional people of their quality are concerned, it's time to sit back and take a good hard look," Mr Shaw said in an interview.

Drs Slooten and Dawson were last year awarded the Sir Charles Fleming Medal by the Royal Society of New Zealand, recognising their research on New Zealand dolphins.

the Silence of Birds in Aotearoa by Wade Doak

2005-02-01T10:47:00.000+13:00

The SILENCE of BIRDS in AOTEAROA by Wade Doak

For the past year Jan, my partner, and I have been working intensively on a digital data base of all Northland plants. As veteran divers, we already have a vast archive on NZ fishes and marine inverts. But that just made us us want to see the big picture: Our Above and Below project was stage one, comparing patterns of life in both worlds; land and sea. Then the need to archive topside data became a burning issue for us.

During our many journeys to forest remnants to find and document plants, we are getting freaked out by the rapid onset of bird silence. Unless drastic action is taken, the consequences of the absence of birds could be horrendous.

The impact of birds on the forest as pollinators and seed distributors is a function of forest life. The loss of this function is the loss of a vital forest survival function.

The insect control birds exert must be tremendous. Since 1977, we have practiced predator control on our property. Now each day, right by our house, from our windows, I can see the efforts of warblers, tomtits, silver eyes and fantails. Every leaf gets such scrutiny.

Lately the rohutu, ramarama and makamaka, which we planted in the winter, were getting seriously defoliated. Snail control did no good. Must be something else...something more mobile than a caterpillar. And a night feeder.

At eleven pm last night I made a special trip with a torch to inspect our cherished trees. On the leaves of each I discovered a stick insect I never noticed before. Its spines on its rear section are much shorter than the usual ones. As it happens, we had discovered one near the house and photographed it a few weeks ago. I would like to find out whether it is a native or an invader. NZ border controls are woeful...

Anyway I killed them by hand and sprinkled some Neem around. I will continue my night patrols. Night feeding by day-camouflaged insects may be beyond bird control but the whole episode prompts me to consider how important birds are to the survival of Aotearoa.

As part of our national defense policy, we need to install predator fences around every potential mainland island. Perhaps we can finance this in part from the enhanced value of the adjacent land, especially if they are subdivided for lifestyle blocks.

People nowadays really want to live where they can hear native birds. So long as they accept living without cats and dogs, I think that is a good land use for areas near our forest remnants. Very likely these new residents will want to extend the protected zones by their own efforts, plantings more natives.

Perhaps these new residents can also keep biodiversification in mind. So many natives, like kawaka, are only just hanging on in our forests.

There is a need for help so New Zealanders develop good plant identification skills. Three very green-minded neighbours shamefacedly tell me of cutting down NZ passionfruit vines. They mistook them for moth plants!

Another was contemplating removing a giant, umbrageous putaputaweta. It is now flowering profusely in white billows. The neighbour was thinking it was a privet! I pointed it the differences. I must admit I raved about it for a while.

Yes, the silence of the birds in our forests freaks me out...
http://www.wadedoak.com

A WEKA report #5: A human race

2004-12-21T10:40:00.000+13:00

“Why do humans like competition and races? “ asks the Weka. “Look at the humans in New Zealand. They are so proud of being first in races of all sorts.”

“Some of the races are really hard to understand. How about this one – the race now underway to see which nation will be the first to drive a dolphin species to extinction."

"The action is very slow moving in this race.”

“The dolphins and countries involved are the Indus River dolphin of Pakistan, the Irriwaddy dolphin of Maynmar, the Yangtze River dolphin of China and the Maui dolphin of New Zealand. These are groups of animals is numbers so small they look like they won't manage for much longer.”

“Yes, our Maui dolphin off the West Coast of the North Island is critically endangered. The best estimate from last year is there are 111 of them, swmming off the west coast of the North Island.”

“Of these, maybe a third are sexually mature females. You could get to know them one by one -- Moana and Kiri and Agatha and all the rest. “

“Why are there so few? In this crowd, there are more dolphins dying each year than there are youngsters growing up, having sex and giving birth to baby dolphins. Seems many of these deaths are well known to be preventable. See, the dolphins are caught in gillnets and trawl nets used by humans.

“And still these dolphins are not yet learning how to slip away somewhere else for a while. See what the New Zealand storm petrel did? These birds were hiding for 150 years and only now showing up again.”

“Over here, we are thinking the best thing to do is for humans to figure out how to use these nets differently and avoid killing the dolphins.”

“But humans are different from us. Their Department of Conservation is off on another tangent. They are spending time and money on a new research programme. The programme means capturing some of these dolphins and drilling holes in their dorsal fins and attaching tags which can beam a signal to satellites. “

"New Zealand experts are looking the the newly released results of a trial using satellite tagging to study Hector's dolphins, a related species living off of Canterbury. They are more of them than Maui's but the Hector's are endangered too. These experts are saying the results are useless. They say that, in the face of the dangers the dolphins experience because of human activity, studying satellite tagging and not human fishing techniques is just irresponsible."

“But sometimes I think maybe these humans are learning. After all, this year, there are to be lots of observers on some fishing boats. Humans argue a lot about everything. Lots of us do, though.”

“Still, being only a dumb bird, other times I think I got it all wrong. See, the tagging and the fishing just keep going. Maybe these humans are really not learning. Maybe they really are not about saving dolphins. Maybe, as a species, they simply must be first, no matter what. Maybe they can't help it.”

“So why don't these humans hurry up and just do like they did with the huia? Collect every last one, stuff them and sell them off to the highest bidder? I hear that this sort of thing is really important world wide – find precious things and exchange them for money. “

“Can't imagine a more rare luxury item, can you? I get confused, but maybe this what they mean when they say 'turn the negative into a positive'. After all, the last of a species really is priceless."

The WEKA of New Zealand: environment & ecology news & views

2004-12-01T14:06:00.000+13:00

A WEKA report #4 Terrorism & 1080 is just a matter of perspective

2004-11-30T16:13:00.000+13:00

"So are these humans saying there is a war against pests?" asks the Weka. "As far as these humans go, when is there NOT a war against us creatures! It doesn't matter what they call us. They are out to kill us, no matter what."

"Look how they use a poison like 1080. Here in New Zealand, they pour it out of the sky on us as bits of food, as if we believe it be manna from heaven."

"Once I used to think the problem was us, all of us creatures. The humans were right somehow. But from what I know now, those humans use the poison against each other and even against themselves (various record items, search TOXNET)."

"There is only one official factory in the world that makes 1080. It is in the USA. The poison is still in production there even though it is banned from being used in the USA. The factory is unpopular in its own neighbourhood. Anyway, a full 80% of that production is bought by New Zealand. The NZ government owns two factories which make the poison up into baits."

"The new worry is the amazing large illegal market for 1080 around the rest of the world. Recently, many humans were poisoned in Vietnam. (record item 21 search TOXNET) There is talk about a factory in China. And now some humans in America think terrorists will get some from the American factory and use it against whole populations of humans."

"What a relief to have the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) assessing the use of 1080! Soon, everything about 1080 is going to be reviewed right from scratch. Oh, there will be research, public submissions, hearings, the whole works."

"Of course, if the US government closes the Alabama factory soon, things might change in unexpected ways.

"Anyway, with an eye on the dollar, the chair of the NZ government factories say they are already looking for new poisons to replace 1080."

"But for now, remember when you are in the bush, never ever eat any pellets of grain or nibble any carrots that happen to be lying around!"

WATER: It is Raining a Water Crisis part 2 by Marc Schallenberg, PhD, limnologist

2004-11-23T11:57:00.000+13:00

So I ask again
"Why are we now in this water crisis?"

The Resource Management Act (RMA) and the Limits of Effects-based Management of the Environment
While there are some positive aspects to the RMA, such as furnishing mechanisms for public participation in environmental planning and management, there are real problems too.

The RMA devolved responsibility for environmental management and planning to Regional Councils. The RMA is interpreted by some councils to legislate an "effects-based" approach to environmental management.

For example, the Otago Regional Council will tell you that their approach is to let people do what they want to do as long as there is no adverse effects on the environment. On the surface, this may seem reasonable. However, it is obvious that there are not enough financial resources to monitor every potentially polluting situation.

There is also the problem of defining "adverse". The RMA defines it around the phrase the "life-sustaining capacity" of the environment. That's a useful definition for managing toxic chemicals. But what about for managing effects of nutrient pollution or invasive pests (i.e. living biological pollution)?

Furthermore, the effects-based appraoch to environmental management can not effectively deal with cumulative pollution. For example, a farmer may pollute her stream a little bit and they may not be deemed an adverse effect. However, what happens when there are 50 farmers in a catchment, each polluting the stream a little bit? We will have adverse effects (algal blooms in lakes, high levels of pathogens) but how should the Council apply the RMA here if it is using an effects-based appraoch?

I see the effects-based approach is inherently reactionary rather than forward thinking. Council may know that soils an area cannot absorb the fertilizers used in intensive farming. But, the effects-based approach does not allow for the use of such knowleldge to prevent non-sustainable activities from happening.

Only when the Council proves an adverse effect is action taken to prevent further degredation.

This type of approach leads directly to farmers farming in areas where farming is not environmentally sustainable and farming at intensities that are not sustainable.

This approach is based on naivete, not intelligence. As a scientist, I find this abhorrent. As a citizen, I find it unacceptable.

This sort of effects-based framework obviously leads us to "Dirty Dairying" campaigns, sobering reports by the Parliamentary Commissioner and increasing attacks on the industry for not being environmentally responsible.

Forward thinking and planning in environmental management could certainly help NZ be environmentally and economically pro-active, rather than reactive.

After all, environmental sophistication in industry is now beginning to return financial premiums in overseas markets. <does it annoy anybody else out there that our society is now so market-driven and our economy so "globalised" that only standards adopted overseas seem to improve our behaviour at home?>

WATER: It is Raining A Water Crisis by Marc Schallenberg, Otago University

2004-11-22T10:04:00.000+13:00

Imrpovisation is a scary art. Scary for the improvisor. The audience either sucessfully joins the improvisor in a common domain or gets bewildered, freaked, annoyed or just plain bored with the jamming foisted on the. I am going to take this opportunity to "jam" on a few topics of interest to me (and hopefully for someone else out there). I'm not sure where this blog will end up, but I will try to make sure I don't stray too far out of the key of F - for freshwater. Hopefully you will find some entertainment, if not intellectual stimuation, in it all....

I'm a limnologist (limne - Greek for lake). The New Zealand Limnological Scoiety is currently debating whether to change its name to something like "NZ Freshwater Science Society" but I like the original name precisely because it is a bit obscure. It usually requires a follow-up explanation of what it is that I love to study <no, I don't actually study human limbs!>.

This gives me the opportunity to briefly teach people a bit of Greek and to expound my latest pet projects on lakes.

So the term "limnologist" opens up discussion with non-specialists and, in its own tiny way, helps educated people -- which is obviously a good thing. I'm not for dumbing down. This, unfortunately, is the direction that our mass media and even our educational institutions are taking us. I know that because I teach at university and my kids go to high school (I don't consume mass media much, anymore). Alas, I already digress ...<feel free to prod me with more on the topic of dumbing down of our society by posting a reply to this blog>

Most of New Zealand is blessed with copious supplies of water which rain and snow down on our mountainous country, which rises out of the middle of the ocean to intercept the moist "roaring forties" windstream. Water is a most precious resource. We are among the most fortunate of nations in that nature's tap is almost always turned fully on over Aotearoa. It seems amazing, therefore, that New Zealand is in a water crisis -- and I exaggerate not.

Rivers are being run down for irrigation and being dammed for electricity. Waterways are receiving too much nutrient and are suffering algal blooms (some of which are toxic). Pest species are progressively invading and degrading aquatic ecosystems. Chemicals from our industries and municipal wastes still taint too many of our waterways.

All this against the very real backdrop of climate change which is altering historical patterns of precipitation and run-off. It is also raising sea levels so that coastal aquatic ecosystems are turning salty and shifting to very different ecosystems from the ones we know.

All of this is our water crisis, in a nutshell.

Have you heard of Fish and Game's campaign against the effects of dairy farming on waterways? It's called the "Dirty Dairying" campaign. Well, that campaign recently got some heavyweight suppport from our Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Morgan Williams. His office just published a comprehensive report called "Growing for Good: Intensive Farming, Sustainability and New Zealand's Environment."

I like this report because it is stating the plainly obvious: that the intensification of farming damages the environment unless the farmers get a lot smarter about how they farm and unless a lot more resources are put into effective waste minimisation programmes.

I realize that governments are not all the clever but you could see/smell this situation coming from miles away ( why is it that the metric system refuses to provide a good turn of phrase?) In the 11 years I been working in New Zealand, all the environmental indicators were pointing to trouble ahead for waterways.

Besides, this is the very same sorry path trodden by many other more densely populated countries with fewer freshwater resources. A myriad of scientific studies provide all the theory and understanding underpinning what is happening to the environment. Lots of examples exist from overseas showing clearly what can to freshwater resources unless prudent management and development occur.

So why are we now in this water crisis?.....

I'll explain this tomorrow....

a WEKA report #3: Sir Fleming Award means Shiny Medals

2004-11-18T19:07:00.000+13:00

"Who to listen to these days?" wonders the Weka. "Sure you want an expert but among those crazy humans who is an expert? Really!.I tell you what I do. You know I have this thing for shiny metal so I look for medals. Awards.

Today the Charles Fleming Award for Environmental Science is newly bestowed on Liz Slooten and Steve Dawson, both PhD, both internationally respected marine mammal researchers of Otago University, Dunedin. They won the student award of the NZ Ecological Society in 1988 and now look at them!.

Not only do they sport metal, I mean medal, but they are also very kind to the animals they study. They are the researchers behind the non-invasive aerial surveys and acoustic studies of Hecotr's dolphins and Maui's dolphins. They are against invasive methods like satellite tagging. They want their rare study animals to survive, even do well.

Take it from a rare bird. that counts for a hell of a lot."

WATER: Adding insult to injury by Liz Slooten, PhD., Marine Biologist

2004-11-18T18:23:00.000+13:00

Saw your Weka Report on the dolphin tagging and, like the Weka, I couldn't resist.

No, in my opinion, this invasive stuff isn't worth doing. It's a net risk (no pun intended) to the dolphins in at least two ways.

First, there is a risk of injury or death. Second, the "let's do more research" approach is distracting people from doing something about the conservation problems these dolphins face.

What we need right now is some decisive conservation action.

For the last thirty years or so, commercial and recreational fishers have been catching dolphins in gillnets (and to a lesser extent trawl nets). This is a particular problem for Hector's dolphin (including the North Island population aka Maui's dolphin) as they are only found in New Zealand and there are not a lot of them.

This is a well known conservation problem, with a very simple solution. Avoid using gillnets in areas with threatened dolphin populations.

Luckily, there is no need to ask people to stop fishing. It's just a matter of using fishing methods that don't catch dolphins, seabirds, etc. in the process of putting a feed of fish on the table.

We have easily enough research data to solve the by-catch problem by now. Twenty years of research on Hector's dolphin has produced a wealth of data on their population size, distribution, survival, reproductive rate, genetics, behaviour, social organization,etc.

Hector's dolphin populations around the country have been severely depleted by fisheries bycatch. And several of these populations are very small and/or continuing to decline.

So let's get on with solving the problem, rather than adding insult to injury by using research methods that are just another risk for the dolphins.

I'd be the first to argue for more research (that's what scientists do best!). But for a project proposing to use invasive methods, the information should be essential for conservation AND this should be the only research method that could be used to get it. In this case, neither is true.

There are now two protected areas (one at Banks Peninsula and one off the North Island west coast). So far, so good. And in order to find out if these are effective we need to know what proportion of the local dolphin population is in/outside the protected area. This is the argument used for catching endangered dolphins, drilling holes in their dorsal fins and bolting on satellite tags.

The catch is that the information that comes back from these tags is highly inaccurate. Errors are typically hundreds of metres and up to tens of kilometres.

Also you have to wonder how much use it is to know about the detailed movement of a few individuals which may or may not be representative of the population as a whole.

There are much better ways of finding out where dolphins are that don't require you to touch them at all and provide more accurate information. More than happy to argue the scientific toss over this if anyone out there has any questions.

In fact, we already know plenty about the distribution of Hector's dolphins, including offshore distribution, how many in/outside sanctuary boundaries, seasonal changes in distribution, differences in dolhin movements during day/night, etc.) from surveys using boats, planes and acoustic loggers.

And all this without laying a hand on the dolphins.

So, if you ask me, this tagging project is a triumph of technology over common sense.

Liz Slooten, PhD, Marine Biologist

a WEKA report #2 Invasive Tagging, Rare Dolphins & Shiny Metal Prizes

2004-11-17T16:55:00.000+13:00

"What is this? I am always curious about shiny bits of metal. I can't help myself, really. And I am looking at a really strange one right now. It seems to be a bit of metal and plastic that was attached to a couple of holes those humans drill in the dorsal fin of a Hector's dolphin.

I heard about these gadgets since, oh, the year 2000 . Conservationists of all sorts in New Zealand and round the world go mad about them . I bet they'd love to find this one. Hmm, I wonder. Are they going to need this one for the Maui's dolphin too? Is all this invasive stuff really worth doing? Does anyone really know?

See, I rather keep this thing for my own collection!"

a WEKA report #1: Justice for fishes?

2004-11-10T13:10:00.000+13:00

"Can there be such a thing as justice for fish?" asks the Weka. "It's a 1.4 billion dollar question coz that is the export value of dead NZ fishes. Now recreational fishers are taking the Minister of Fisheries to court about making kahawai property, a part of the Quota Management System. If fish are property and judges in courts decide property disputes, does the biology of the fishes change to mind the rulings?"

"I dunno. There are humans who disagree but from what I hear, chocolate fish are the only ones sustainably managed in NZ today!"

2004-11-10T11:42:00.000+13:00

Blogs by a group of us about
THE FOUR ELEMENTS

FIRE environmental justice & politics
EARTH urban & rural, whatever ownership
AIR atmosphere & climate plus media
WATER marine & freshwater

plus comments by wekas from here and there

news & views from in-the-field of NZ ecology & environment