Optimizing New Zealand Wildlife Conservation a Proposal to Find New Solutions in Policy, Law and Technology

Optimizing New Zealand Wildlife Conservation A Proposal to find new solutions in Policy, Law and Technology

Sam Kelly DUKE UNIVERSITY

Abstract Conservation in New Zealand should be an issue of national importance, due to its economic, social and environmental impacts. However, like any other issue, the current model is flawed in many ways. My preliminary research found that there are two key characteristics of a stable and impactful conservation project – marketability and economic stability. There were common pathways towards these characteristics in the successful case studies I researched. Identifying these pathways to success is a key part of the process of identifying things the government can improve upon with internal policy changes within Department of Conservation, additional investment in research and technology, or law and policy changes. I propose a research paper that will analyze potential fixes to some of the issues my case studies have uncovered.

I already have a direct line of contact to many of the people within New Zealand conservation actually capable of making a change. These include important government officials, wealthy philanthropists, NGO executives, Corporate Executives, technology start-ups and Iwi. I also have a wide network of people within community projects – allowing for proposed changes to be implemented at all levels. Interest in the project has already been demonstrated as people within conservation have reached out to me as a consultant for advice.

DISCLAIMER: THIS DOCUMENT IS A DRAFT TEMPLATE, IT DOES NOT REFLECT A PROPOSAL SUBMISSION. DEPENDING ON PARTICULAR INTEREST AREAS, DIFFERENT CONTENT WILL BE USED AND ADAPTED TO PROPOSE ACADEMIC RESEARCH TO FUNDERS, FACULTY AND PEOPLE WITHIN NEW ZEALAND CONSERVATION. COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS IS INCLUDED SO THAT MOST KEY AREAS ARE COVERED FOR POTENTIAL FUTURE PROJECTS.

CAPE SANCTUARY, HAWKES BAY, NEW ZEALAND

Table of Contents Abstract ...... 1 Background ...... 3 Define Research Problem ...... 3 Understanding New Zealand’s Unique Problem ...... 3 Governmental Role in New Zealand Conservation ...... 3 Preliminary Research ...... 5 Procedure for Analysis ...... 5 Analysis ...... 5 Step 1: Economically Dependent Projects becoming Marketable ...... 7 Step 2: Marketable Projects becoming Economically Stable ...... 9 Anomaly – Becoming economically stable without being marketable ...... 11 Description of Proposed Research ...... 12 Objective: ...... 12 Primary Focus: Analysis of DOC’s internal policies for private partnerships ...... 12 Secondary Focus I: Analysis of potential areas for technological innovation ...... 12 Secondary Focus II: Analysis of New Zealand Conservation Law and Policy ...... 12 Methodology ...... 12 Budget ...... 13 Appendix ...... 13 Case Studies ...... 13 Whio Forever ...... 14 The Cape Sanctuary ...... 15 Wingspan ...... 16 Forest Lifeforce Restoration Trust ...... 17 Kiwi Encounter ...... 18 Analysis Technique: BCG Matrix Adaption ...... 19 References ...... 20 Interviews ...... 20 Faculty Mentors ...... 21 Secondary Sources ...... 22

Background Define Research Problem What are solutions to optimizing the partially-privatized conservation model within New Zealand? Preliminary research has found three target areas:

• Internal Department of Conservation Policy • New Zealand Law • Conservation Technology

THIS DOCUMENT WILL BE USED AND ADAPTED TO PROPOSE ACADEMIC RESEARCH TO FUNDERS, FACULTY AND PEOPLE WITHIN NEW ZEALAND CONSERVATION. COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS IS INCLUDED SO THAT MOST KEY AREAS ARE COVERED FOR POTENTIAL FUTURE PROJECTS. Understanding New Zealand’s Unique Problem The most pressing problem facing the biodiversity of New Zealand today is invasive species such as rats, cats, possums and stoats. This is because many of New Zealand’s endemic species evolved without the predator pressures seen elsewhere in the world.

In the absence of ground mammals due to New Zealand’s geographical isolation, many birds (Kiwi, Kakapo, Weka) lost their ability to fly, leaving these species ecologically naïve when exotic species arrived with the Maori and Europeans.

Since Maori settlement (around 700 years ago) 36% of land birds (166 taxa) are now extinct. 38% of current endemic bird species are threatened with extinction, and a further 43% are considered at risk.1 Much of this is due to introduced predators.

Unlike elsewhere in the world, (where habitat loss or poaching are the primary threats) effective protected areas such as national parks do not suffice. This is a complex problem that requires innovative thinking, and large long-term investment. Governmental Role in New Zealand Conservation Despite being a country that advertises itself as “100% Pure,” many believe that the New Zealand government has failed to sufficiently recognize conservation as a national priority. Recent academic commentary objectively demonstrated this claim:

“Surveys have shown that public support of conservation is fourth behind Education, Health and Law & Order, above defense, tourism, science & research and superannuation. However actual government expenditure (2004-2008) on conservation was second to last (science and research was last).”2

1 Craig et al., “Enhancing Our Heritage.” 2 Ibid.

Although the budget has increased by $NZ40 million in the last ten years3 to $385 million4, many still believe that Department of Conservation (DOC) is underfunded, appropriate legislation is missing, internal policy is lacking and innovative thinking in the sector is absent.

This is probably in part due to DOC being spread so thin. The vast variety of responsibilities DOC is charged with include:

• Maintaining the ecological, social and economic integrity of New Zealand’s extensive and world- famous national park network (which makes up 30% of New Zealand’s total land area5) and marine reserves • Active preservation of all indigenous species and ecosystems (pest control, restoration, technical expertise etc.) • Advocating domestically and internationally for the protection of natural and historic resources

This inability to act effectively upon some of New Zealand’s key conservation issues is especially concerning because DOC has a stranglehold on the conservation sector, not allowing effective local involvement from NGOs. Strangely, this has meant that DOC is now the preferred partner for private businesses in New Zealand - a space normally occupied elsewhere in the world by NGOs. Interview comments suggests this is due to:

• DOC has become the 8th most influential brand in New Zealand6 • It is the best place for “boots on the ground action”7

As Emma Bean of Kiwi Encounter said, “DOC is our form of WWF.”8 DOC formally attempted to capitalize on interest from the private sector by announcing a partnerships model in 2011 – allowing private entities to enter into a public-private partnership as equals. As a result, some of New Zealand’s largest brands such as Fonterra, Air New Zealand and Genesis Energy, now partner with DOC, contributing funds and human resources to their conservation interests.

This public-private partnerships model is relatively new and has shown great promise. As well as adding monetary resources, it allows DOC to effectively outsource skills that are not core capabilities of the department, such as marketing and business analysis, to instead focus its limited resources on restoration and protection of species. However, because this is such a new model there are things that could be done by DOC and the wider New Zealand government to help conservation efforts become more stable and impactful.

3 Brent Beaven, Advisor to the Minister of Conservation. 4 “OZARSKI-Jill-Final-Report-New-PDF.pdf.” 5 Craig et al., “Conservation Issues in New Zealand.” 6 “NZ’s 100 Most Influential Brands — Ipsos New Zealand.” 7 Burke and Gordon, Genesis Energy Conservation. 8 Claire Travers and Emma Bean, Kiwi Encounter.

Preliminary Research Procedure for Analysis This preliminary research outlines the qualitative findings of five case studies across a broad range of successful private conservation projects within New Zealand. These case studies include content from annual reports, field research, and 16 interviews of various individuals, within the respective case studies and others within New Zealand conservation (see appendix). The case studies are:

• Whio Forever (Corporate) • Cape Sanctuary (Philanthropy) • Forest Lifeforce Restoration Trust (Philanthropy/Corporate) • Wingspan National Birds of Prey Center (Business Charity) • Kiwi Encounter (Business Charity)

NOTE: IF YOU ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THESE CASE STUDIES IT MAY PAY TO LOOK AT APPENDIX FOR MORE INFORMATION

The key purpose of these case studies is to:

• Establish background knowledge on the wide range of private conservation projects within New Zealand • Understand key features of successful private conservation projects • Analyze common trends to obtaining key features seen in successful conservation projects • Understand projects’ current restrictions to becoming successful • Identify key areas where DOC, the New Zealand Government or other parties can alleviate these restrictions • Additionally, the preliminary research should demonstrate competency as a researcher within the field of New Zealand Conservation Analysis The preliminary research found that stable conservation efforts had at least one of two key features:

• Marketability – This means that the project is appealing to a group of people • Economic Stability – This entails not being dependent on a single philanthropic entity for funding.

The most successful case studies have managed to have both marketability and economic stability. By tracing common trends to achieve these features, a better understanding can be reached about how a successful project is created. Combining this with information from interviews about struggles in development allow an insight to barriers that are commonly faced by conservation projects that prevent success.

The trends of the case studies’ historical progression were able to be analyzed by a loose adaption of the BCG matrix (see below for figure, and see appendix for full explanation). It can be seen that most conservation projects became marketable while still very economically dependent, before then became economically independent. This should be expected, as it parallels with products seen in other industries, which require interest in a product before investment. The typical pathway to success could therefore be defined as first attaining marketability then economic stability.

FIGURE 1: LOOSE BCG MATRIX HISTORICAL TREND ANALYSIS OF ANALYZED CASE STUDIES (ALL START AT BOTTOM LEFT AND MOVE TOWARDS TOP RIGHT).

SEE APPENDIX FOR DETAILED EXPLANATION

Step 1: Economically Dependent Projects becoming Marketable Being marketable is defined as “attractiveness to potential employers or clients.”9 This means that there is a demand for your product, making it difficult for it to fail outright and easy to attract philanthropy.

With a lot of social awareness on conservation issues, marketing to the public shouldn’t be a challenge. However, this has not always been the case. During an interview, Simon Hall points out that conservation hasn’t always been so attractive - “15 years ago conservation was not cool - there wasn’t many people in my generation that associated with protestors, socialists and greenies.” The idea of marketing conservation to a general audience, that is responsive, is still relatively new. Case studies found that common ways that efforts went from being unmarketable to becoming marketable were: utilizing charismatic species, networking, and having connection to place.

Charismatic Species Although experts almost unanimously agree that an ecosystem approach is more effective than a single-species approach, they also concede that ecosystems are much harder to market. Conservation of charismatic species10 therefore dominates the sector which is often reliant on private funding, and thus marketing. It should be noted that a single-species approach still has benefits for an ecosystem in many cases through an “umbrella effect” whereby non-target species still benefit from conservation of another species. For example, many species benefit from possum control funded by a “Whio” conservation project.

All of the case studies have 1-3 charismatic species headlining the project, such as Kiwi, Kakapo, Whio (Blue Duck) and New Zealand Falcon. Even private sanctuaries founded upon creating healthy ecosystems have single- species approaches - Cape Sanctuary set amongst one of the most stunning landscapes in New Zealand, yet uses gannets and kiwi as its main marketing tool.

If a project wants to become marketable on the way to becoming a successful conservation effort, there are two options: find a charismatic species to as act as a marketing tool, or, figure out how to market an FIGURE 2: CHARISMATIC SPECIES OF ecosystem approach (something that will not be addressed in this proposal, NEW ZEALAND (FROM TOP TO but is of interest). BOTTOM) – KIWI, NZ FALCON, KAKAPO, WHIO Under DOC’s new partnerships model, private entities have the ability to become “principal national sponsors” of particular species (e.g. Genesis (BIRDOFTHEYEAR.ORG.NZ) Energy and the Whio) – effectively selling the rights to market a species. With many of the known charismatic species already “taken”, the question becomes how can more opportunities be opened for sponsorship of other species? There have been encouraging signs from DOC with the appointment of a “Threatened Species Ambassador” whose role is to “raise awareness

9 Oxford Dictionary 10 often referred to as “cute and cuddly” species – think panda, tiger and other species we have an emotional attachment to

and inspire action for our threatened native plants and animals.”11 Initiatives like Forest and Bird’s “Bird of the Year” competition, also shed light on other potentially “sponsorable” species.

One potential limitation to this expansion of sponsored species lies in a lack of national recovery plans for many threatened species – you cannot begin to save a species without understanding how to do so. A recent study comparing the threatened species legislation of New Zealand, Australia and the United States found that – “New Zealand does not have legislation to provide a national direction for the management and recovery of threatened species”12 (the equivalent of Australia’s EPBC1999 and the United States’ ESA1973). New Zealand’s lack of threatened species legislation is demonstrated by, 85% of US listed species and 24% of Australian listed species having recovery plans, versus 2% of New Zealand recorded species. If species are needed as symbols for businesses to get behind, there must be, at minimum, recovery plans for the species.

Understanding how to unblock this barrier and make other species marketable is key to the success for private conservation efforts, and thus is a potential area for further research. Networking All of the case-studies had extensive networks within and outside of conservation. Much like the overall goal of DOC’s partnerships model, this allows projects to specialize in their areas of strength.

Outside Conservation

Networking outside of traditional conservation areas was often a key factor to becoming marketable for successful projects. Not only is there much more money outside of conservation, there is also other skills such as marketing and business acumen, that conservationists often waste their time doing.

For example, Andy Lowe of Cape Sanctuary approached his neighbor, billionaire philanthropist, Julian Robertson about creating an environment that would allow Kiwi to be on the property. Mr. Robertson, was enticed by the prospective, and had resources to “buy” marketability through expert human capital (leading ecologists and managers), and fund-matching agreements with DOC. Large corporations within New Zealand have similar capabilities to Mr. Robertson – they have the tools and established customer base to make a conservation project relevant. For example, the beginnings of Whio Forever was created when Andrew Glaser, a DOC Whio conservationist, approached traditional adversaries, Genesis Energy, about extending the current relationship beyond a long-term mitigation agreement. Maori Tribes and grant schemes are another potential way to obtain human capital outside of conservation. For example, Kiwi Encounter receives a large proportion of its funding from an Ngai Tahu, a Maori tribe. It may also be wise to look overseas, as Wingspan did – establishing a worldwide network of falconry experts, consultants and donors as a result.

It is clear that conservation needs to utilize connections outside of the field, and as the main player in conservation, DOC needs to find new innovative ways to allow this to happen. DOC has begun to do this through the creation of a corporate partnerships office. However, the solution to this does not only lie in connecting projects to sponsorship, but also the implementation things like advisory boards which connect projects with those who are adept as solving common issues within the field, such as social

11 (DOC), “Threatened Species Ambassador.” 12 Seabrook-Davison, Ji, and Brunton, “New Zealand Lacks Comprehensive Threatened Species Legislation - Comparison with Legislation in Australia and the USA.”

media marketing, grant writing and the DOC permitting process. Another novel idea, would be to involve students at college and high school who would do this work for free. This overall process of outsourcing will allow efforts to focus on their key strengths, rather than being spread thin.

Inside Conservation

Many successful projects have also effectively networked to other successful projects. For example, there is a well-established network between three projects for Kiwi conservation in the Central North Island, based upon their core skills. Kiwi Encounter hatches and incubates eggs and then sends the chicks down to Cape Sanctuary where they are raised in a highly protected kiwi crèche until they are released to Forest Lifeforce Restoration Trust as “wild” birds. This well-established network allows all efforts to establish a marketable niche of extreme competency – for example, Kiwi Encounter is undeniably the best Kiwi rearing facility in the country.13

Networking is probably the key limitation of conservation groups within New Zealand –people generally know other people by some form of chance. Sharing of best practices does happen voluntarily between groups, but a more established system of sharing and enforcement of established best practices would allow for greater efficiency within the field. Connection to place Brent Beaven, the chief advisor to the Minister of Conservation pointed out that corporate sponsored conservation is often used as a way to win over local communities, “Businesses need a license to operate, and to build that license is to form a connection with the places where they operate.” This is seen in almost all of the case studies, where the private entities that have started successful projects have had some kind of connection to the area where the project is taking place. Often in situations like Genesis Energy’s sponsorship of Whio, it is used as a technique to convince local communities that they should be trusted. However, this built high level of trust doesn’t always translate easily to the business’ key market (often cities). For example, Genesis Energy spoke of the disconnection between many of their customers and the Whio conservation efforts happening somewhere remote elsewhere in the country. Despite this, Genesis Energy’s Public Affairs manager says it still helps “build an image” of the core values of the company. This process plays a key role in the marketing development of the project.

One thing that also became obvious among the successful projects, was the diverse network of people they utilized locally. For example, Cape Sanctuary has over 400 local volunteers, and Wingspan has 70 local volunteers and is a field trip destination of many local schools. People care about what is near them, no matter what the situation is. A potential area of further investigation would be to figure out how an effective system of smaller local sponsors could be utilized to allow more local revenue, expertise and excitement could be brought into the sector. Step 2: Marketable Projects becoming Economically Stable Interestingly, some “leading” conservation efforts do not necessarily ever take this second step and become economically stable. However, it be noted that if their principal sponsor decides to end its involvement, the project will be left vulnerable and may be unable to operate at the same capacity. However, most of the efforts that did manage to become more economically independent did so by either incentivizing corporate partnerships, or diversifying revenue streams.

13 Trevor Kelly, Kiwi Veterinarian

Incentivizing Corporate Partnerships DOC’s historic philosophy prefers to see nature as having “intrinsic value,” not economic value – its founding document, the Conservation Act (1987), is seen and interpreted as “championing the preservation philosophy.”14 While many would argue that its involvement in tourism and national parks disproves this theory, recent journal publications have commented that DOC’s preservationist philosophy means that there are few benefits to undertaking conservation other than as a social venture. It is hard to find sponsorship within New Zealand conservation where there is a direct economic benefit for the partner. Traditionally partnerships have come in the form of philanthropy, local community projects or as the “social responsibility” of corporate companies. This severely limits the potential of conservation in the country. Expanding conservation beyond this philosophy is something the DOC’s Partnership Model is trying to achieve by incentivizing corporate partnerships as viable investments.

It was interesting to see how a few of the case-studies used incentivized corporate partnerships to become more economically stable. They took one of two forms: advertising or a certification.

ADVERTISING Interestingly, none of the interviewed corporate sponsors (Andy Lowe, Simon Hall, and Genesis Energy) said that they were explicitly interested in sponsoring conservation to advertise their respective businesses. Although this response may be standard to an outsider, it is shown by the actions of the respective companies. Andy Lowe, sponsors half of Cape Sanctuary from his company, Lowe Corporation, yet there is little to no mention of the company at Cape Sanctuary. Simon Hall’s Forest Lifeforce Restoration Trust is funded by profits of his company Tasti Limited, yet Tasti does not utilize the potential advertising. Even Genesis Energy, a publicly listed company, has a 1:5 advertising to action ratio, (typically corporation efforts are 1:1 ratio).

This is an apparent culture mirrored by many of the large sponsors of conservation within New Zealand – subtle advertising to build an image but steering away from “green-washing” seen elsewhere in the world by oil companies such as BP and Shell. Genesis Energy spoke of their sponsorship as a “social responsibility,” but it would be interesting to see how this culture of social responsibility could be expanded to other companies within New Zealand by rewarding these corporate role models.

CERTIFICATION Certifications are an underutilized tool within New Zealand conservation, however two of the case studies have begun to use it as a tool to become more economically independent.

Wingspan has initiated a partnership with the forestry industry by utilizing a large internationally recognized certification with the FSC (Forestry Sustainability Council), which allows the “compliant plantations” to export product to the lucrative American market. The certification has a criterion reserved specifically for the protection of endangered species.

FSC Criterion 6.2: Safeguards shall exist which protect rare, threatened and endangered species and their habitats (e.g., nesting and feeding areas). Conservation zones and protection areas shall be established, appropriate to the scale and intensity of forest management and the

14 Craig et al., “Conservation Issues in New Zealand.”

uniqueness of the affected resources. Inappropriate hunting, fishing, trapping and collecting shall be controlled.

By utilizing the extensive requirements of Criterion 6.2, Wingspan is able to undertake paid research that extends the possibilities of their mission. Other industries such as viticulture have expressed interest in using Wingspan and NZ Falcons as protection against birds eating ripe fruit, although such efforts are still in a developmental stage.

Additionally, the Cape Kidnappers Golf Course (associated with Cape Sanctuary)recently attained the Audubon International Certification, which recognizes good environmental and conservation practices, and is used as a marketing tool by the golf course.

The expansion of certifications and advertising seems key if the conservation sector is to be considered anything more than a money-drain to save “cute, cuddly animals.” There needs to be new ways to make conservation an economically viable investment, such as government sponsored certifications and the widespread introduction of the idea of ecosystem services (the money that an ecosystem generates and saves by existing) – an idea that is largely absent from the field. Diversifying Revenue Streams Case studies such as Kiwi Encounter and Wingspan have actual products available to the public. Wingspan has a facility where the public can view the NZ Falcon and even see falconry flight demonstrations of the birds in action. Kiwi Encounter allows the public to view Kiwi and tours are available to hold Kiwi chicks. It should be noted that neither of these products actually generate the full operating budget, but provide significant amounts of revenue (50-60%).

Another common way that successful projects managed to diversify revenue streams was by creating an emotional attachment with potential investors. Wingspan currently has 2000 national members (donating between $65 and $10,000), and gets large endowments from individuals in wills. Wingspan’s director, says it’s about creating a “charm” – “it’s about people having ownership and making people feel like they can make a difference.” This strong sense of community ownership is mirrored by many other efforts such as Cape Sanctuary (with 400 volunteers) and Whio Forever (employees spending free time tracking birds etc.).

This is the entrepreneurial side of conservation, and it would be interesting to get experts from other fields at creating novel revenue routes for conservation projects, to ensure economic stability. Anomaly – Becoming economically stable without being marketable Mitigation An unusual path towards a successful project is through mitigation agreements – basically long-term compensation for a destructive or disruptive behavior. For example the Whio Forever effort was initially a mitigation agreement for the Tongariro Hydropower System. The conservation effort for the Whio had guaranteed significant annual funding for a period of 25-35 years, making it extremely economically stable.

Because many mitigation agreements are decided outside of court and rarely spoken about, few conclusions can be made about the state of New Zealand’s system. DOC could potentially improve by giving projects more tools and education about how to utilize mitigation agreements. Overseas policies such as the United States’ Endangered Species Act gives lobbying power to those working within

conservation to prevent destructive behavior from happening if there is an endangered species in the area. Such policies could act as a blueprint for action in the future.

Description of Proposed Research Objective: Optimize DOC’s involvement within private conservation partnerships by recommendations for new internal policies Primary Focus: Analysis of DOC’s internal policies for private partnerships DOC has recently veered away from its historical preservationist ideals, towards a partnership model that encourages the economizing of conservation within New Zealand. The preliminary research has identified areas where DOC internal policy and spending could significantly improve the current model. For example:

• Improve networking between new efforts and contacts outside of conservation • Extended encouragement of new species sponsorship (making a new species marketable) • Consultants for encouraging new revenue streams within conservation projects • Encouraging new conservation-friendly certifications within the industry • Identification and encouragement of local private sponsorship of species popular in an area

Upon further review of additional material, preliminary research may find other area of improvement such as paperwork streamlining. Secondary Focus I: Analysis of potential areas for technological innovation The reduction of human labor is essential to spread the DOC’s limited resources as far as possible. Conservation in New Zealand could benefit from novel technology such as drones, sensor networks eDNA, genetic unviability of pests, and camera traps, to do things such as: remotely track animals, new pest control methods, population analysis and discover new populations of endangered species.

As a mechanical engineer with many contacts with large NGOs, industry, government and academia, there is an opportunity to use the research as a way to identify and implement new ways of solving conservation issues.

Secondary Focus II: Analysis of New Zealand Conservation Law and Policy New Zealand has weak wildlife conservation laws and the issue itself is not high on the national agenda. Finding new ways to present the importance and popularity of the issue is essential. Comparative studies of law and policy between other countries could shed light on a largely ignored topic within New Zealand.

As a student at an elite university like Duke University, I not only have internal connections but also access to large networks of people within public policy. I also have personal connections within NGOs like The Nature Conservancy, WWF, and ZSL who have become expert political lobbyists. Methodology THIS NEEDS DEVELOPMENT FROM FACULTY MENTORS, AS I AM UNSURE OF PROPER TERMINOLOGY OR EVEN HOW TO RUN A TYPICAL RESEARCH PROJECT

A similar technique to the preliminary research will take place, where a compilation of interviews, field research however interviews questions will have more focus, and quantitate data will be used whenever possible.

Budget Description Cost (USD) Return Flights to New Zealand $2000 Internal Flights $500 Accommodation $500

Total $5000

Appendix Case Studies The following case studies were chosen as they are all currently non-philanthropic, marketable projects that have varying levels of government involvement. By analyzing how they got to where they are, it can be better understood what the needs of new efforts are, and what their likely path to success is.

FOR MORE EXTENSIVE CASE STUDY INFORMATION, CONTACT SAM KELLY FOR ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Whio Forever Location DOC Head Office – Wellington (Blue) Genesis Head Office – Auckland (Red) Status: Complete Public-Private Partnership Conservation Work – Tongariro Hydro System, Central North Island (Green) Vision Area and Setting Tongariro Hydrodam System (Tongariro National Park) “Secure Whio in the wild by growing the Type Pure Public-Private Conservation population and ensuring New Zealanders Partnership understand and value Whio in our river systems.” Partners/Sponsors DOC Rangers, Permits Genesis Funding (500K), Energy Marketing Governmental Involvement Volunteers ≈60% This is one of DOCs 6 large corporate partners that Forest and Board Member – offer make up the “Partnerships Model.” It runs off a Bird simple 50:50 funding model that stipulates that CNI Blue Duck Genesis Energy will not pay for DOC staff wages, Foundation only for pest control equipment. Two members of Conservation Type Animal Observation/Research, Pest DOC and Genesis Energy sit on a board as voting trapping focused on Whio need areas members along with a voting member from other Matrix stakeholders (Forest and Bird, CNI Blue Duck Trust).

Historic Progression

1. (Pre-2002) The beginning of this can be traced back to a small local trust (Blue Duck Trust) that struggled for relevance 2. (2002-2009) Initially this started with a mitigation agreement that saw Genesis pay the Central North Island Blue Duck Trust guarenteed money for 35 years. This was to avoid the environmental court. This agreeement was neither philanthropic or marketable - as Jeff Enshaw stated “It wasn’t done because we love Blue Ducks, it was done to get consent.” Mitigation agreements are not able to be marketed – “you don’t treat them like a commercial partnership.”15 3. (2010-Present) Workers at Genesis Power Stations had begun to go over and above the demands of the mitigation agreement, Andrew Glaser of DOC approached Genesis Energy with a set out plan about how the partnership would work. This resulted in Whio Forever.

Location Cape Kidnappers, Hawkes Bay Area and 2500 ha enclosed coastal sanctuary

15 Burke and Gordon, Genesis Energy Conservation.

The Cape Sanctuary Setting Status: Intermediate Level of Public-Private Pest Control 10.6km predator proof fence Partnership Trapping (rats up) Sponsors Julian ≈50% Private Funds Partners Robertson Landowner, Vision (Tiger International “The vision for Cape Sanctuary extends beyond 50 years to Management) Financer restore the coastal communities of land and sea birds, Andy ≈50% Private Funds reptiles and invertebrates that would once have existed on Lowe/Lowe Landowner, the (Cape Kidnappers) peninsula. The project aims to Corporation Domestic achieve nationally significant species conservation gains Businessman within a highly modified farming and multi-use landscape 17 DOC undisclosed including forestry, tourism and recreation” Match certain private funding Governmental Involvement Volunteers Generate Founder Andy Lowe, describes DOC as a “key partner” and Marketability that they are “only successful because we have Iwi Permit for Animal government and DOC working with us.” DOC acts as an Relocation overseer, partial funder and consultant on issues. However Academia Victoria University the paperwork DOC requires was described as ludicrous. FLFRT16 Kiwi Partner Kiwi Encounter Kiwi Partner Historical Matrix Analysis Type of 40+ Individual Species in a coexistence Conservation model

Matrix 1. 2007 - Initially the effort was spurred by Andy Lowe approaching Julian Robertson about having kiwi on their property, Simon Hall of FLFRT could provide the birds, however a significant investment was needed to establish a suitable property (predator proof fencing, trapping). 2. 2008-2013 - Once the project had proven to be successful, the number of species began to grow, and local awareness began to grow – this may have been in part due to the already famous gannet colony at Cape Kidnappers, which attracted many tourists. Volunteers became a large part of the progress of the sanctuary. 3. 2010-2015 - The world-class golf course on the property became a "Certified Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary" for Environmental Planning, Wildlife & Habitat Management, Outreach and Education, Chemical Use Reduction and Safety, Water Conservation, and Water Quality Management. By expanding the effort into Cape to City18 beyond its borders, it involved more stakeholders (local and national government, farmers, local people). More stakeholders mean that more people have an emotional involvement in the effort – thus reducing the possibility of it failing in the future.

16 Forest Lifeforce Restoration Trust 17 lowecorp.co.nz/conservation/index 18 http://capetocity.co.nz/about/

Wingspan Almost Zero Public-Private

Vision “The Goal of Wingspan Birds of Prey Trust is to: Restore New Zealand birds of prey into our daily lives and secure their long-term future through practical research based conservation action and Location Paradise Valley, Rotorua education” Area and Setting Small Property (open to public)

Governmental Involvement Type Charity/Business DOC has almost no involvement in birds of prey Partners/Sponsors DOC Permits – DOC conservation in New Zealand apart from granting involvement is permits. Wingspan fights DOC on a number of minimal issues – the declassifying of Harrier Hawks which Members ≈30% of Funding allows farmers to shoot without permits, the Visitors @ ≈60% of Funding unwillingness of DOC to incorporate birds of prey sanctuary into typical conservation channels (protected Forestry Protection of NZ islands, etc.). Falcon Indicator DOC also declined to be part of the first urban Species release of an endangered species. Wine Industry Wingspan also commented on the difficulty of the Academia paperwork – citing permits to “keep, rehabilitate, Species NZ Birds of Prey (NZ Falcon, Harrier release, hold collections, hold feathers, and Hawk, Morepork) transfer feathers to Iwi.” It was described as a Matrix limiting factor of a new effort; “DOC makes it very difficult for people to have permits.”

Matrix Analysis

1. Dog – Initially founded with support of the falconry community (Peregrine Fund in Idaho) 2. Star – By offering falconry flight shows from NZ Falcons a product to the public, that now produces “most of the funding” for the Wingspan Recovery Facility.19 2000 national members donate to Wingspan annually in amounts ranging from ($65-1000) 3. Cash Cow – Wingspan partnered with the forestry industry as part of the FCS certification. American International markets will not buy timber unless they have the FCS certification which requires some conservation values around sustainability and looking after the species that are within the habitat. Wingspan provides audits and forestry companies sponsor Wingspan’s research. The viticulture industry looked at ways to use birds of prey to … 4. Question Mark – The birds of prey on vineyards was not marketable because birds kept dying from electric strikes.

19 Stewart MNZM, Wingspan.

Forest Lifeforce Restoration Trust

Vision The Forest Lifeforce Restoration Trust was established in 2006 to provide direction and funding for the restoration of threatened species of fauna and flora, and to restore the ngahere mauri (forest lifeforce) in in Maungataniwha and Pohokura native forests within the Central North Location Office Island.” – forestlifeforce.org.nz/about.html Tasti Products, Auckland (Blue) Conservation Work Mangataniwha General Information Forest, Hawke’s Bay (Red) FLFT’s field location at Mangataniwha Forest in the Area and Setting 24000 ha native forest Hawke’s Bay is the second largest private sanctuary in Pest Control 600 ha of heavily trapped New Zealand, and is recognized by peers in the industry 1080 used every 4-5 years described the project as: “beautifully organized and (sponsored by animal health board professionally run.”20 and regional council) Founder Simon Hall says that the motivation behind the Sponsors Simon Hall (via Tasti Foods) (≈$1M) effort is “95% personal, with a little bit of (company) DOC (≈$50K) leverage on the side.” To clarify passing up a seemingly Partners DOC Permits, Funding ideal opportunity to promote Tasti Limited, Mr Hall Cape believes “it’s a bit uncool if we do it too much.” Sanctuary FLRT is run like a business – Mr. Hall believes it’s why the project is held in high regard and haven’t had any major Kiwi Kiwi rearing failures. Encounter Rotorua Although the project sponsors species that are “going backwards” the mentality taken is that “this is an Neighbors No relationship investment in the future,” when technology or additional Iwi Translocation permits funding is available to make the process easier. Species Kiwi, Blue Duck, Kakabeak (plant)

Governmental Involvement DOC is involved with Forest Lifeforce Restoration Trust in a few ways, such as permitting, funding and poison drops around the property. The

20 Claire Travers, Kiwi Encounter

Kiwi Encounter

General Information Kiwi Encounter is the premier kiwi rearing facility in New Zealand. Since 1995, they have released over 1350 kiwi into the wild. The staff at the facility are respected nationally. It is a major tourist attraction in Rotorua, as part of Rainbow Location Rainbow Springs, Rotorua Springs – and is thus one of the key education facilities for Kiwi advocacy. Area and Setting Small Property @ Rainbow Springs The facility feel like the most polished “business” Wildlife Park out of the case studies but the huge operational (open to public) cost of rearing Kiwi ($4M annually) means that Type Charity/Business they still have to be underwritten by an outside Partners/Sponsors DOC Permits – DOC funding source (Ngai Tahu). involvement is Many of the released Kiwi go to either Cape minimal Sanctuary or Forest Lifeforce Restoration Trust. Ngai Tahu Underwriting funding shortcomings Governmental Involvement Visitors @ Majority of Funding Interestingly, Kiwi Encounter is an example of an sanctuary outsourced service by DOC. DOC could likely pay Kiwis for Protection of NZ staff to do the same job, but Kiwi Encounter have Kiwi Falcon Indicator established themselves as the leading experts in Species the area, while also paying for it privately by Cape public admissions and private donations. Thus it Sanctuary FLFRT wouldn’t and doesn’t make sense for DOC to try to fund this type of project, but to still utilize its Conservation Type Intensive Kiwi Rearing capabilities. DOC therefore takes a unique approach to each effort, trying to minimize the amount of money it spends while maximizing impact.

As with any other conservation effort, DOC monitors operations through an extensive permitting process.

Analysis Technique: BCG Matrix Adaption

Description of Original BCG Matrix To understand the type of partnerships that will have a net- benefit on conservation efforts, an adaption of the BCG matrix will be used, a historic business analysis tool still in use today. Usually used to analyze the correct investment strategy of a product, this same idea can be used to understand what each effort needs to progress through the matrix. FIGURE 3: BCG MATRIX (WITH RECOMMENDED ACTIONS)

Description of Adapted “Conservation Matrix”

By analyzing how efforts have historically moved between quadrants it will become obvious how/who/when partnerships should be utilized in development. Placement on the matrix is subjective, but based upon hours of interviews and research – the purpose is to understand the development and evolution of the efforts, rather than to provide objective comparisons between them.

The y-axis of the matrix is Economic Stability, the equivalent of rate of market growth, as they are both primarily based upon long-term stability of the product. Economic Stability is inversely to a reliance on philanthropy. It is not healthy long-term to rely on philanthropy – the effort has to portray itself as offering more than just a good cause.

The x-axis of the matrix is Marketability, the equivalent of market share as they are both based upon consumer popularity within their field. Marketability is related to the reach of the project– the more people that like a project the more likely it is to make an impact but is also unlikely to fail. If the movement between quadrants is the same as in FIGURE 4: CONSERVATION MATRIX MODEL business, it should be expected that the progression of the projects follow a counter-clockwise direction.

Analysis of Conservation Matrix Just like the original matrix the four identified types of conservation efforts can be categorized as:

Dog - Unmarketable Economically-Unstable Conservation These efforts are not bad efforts they are just heavily reliant to the continued funding of purist conservationists to continue – it is hard for these efforts to attract new sponsors or members. On the

BCG matrix it would be recommended that the product find a profitable niche or divest. They are therefore in danger of disappearing. Cash Cow - Marketable Economically-Unstable Conservation These efforts are reliant on philanthropic sponsors, but because they are marketable, they can attract new sponsors when necessary. Although not ideal that they are reliant on philanthropy, conservation efforts in this category have shown they are able to survive long-term Question Mark - Unmarketable Economically-Stable Conservation These efforts pay for themselves but are not used as leverage to promote the cause or the sponsor. This sector is typically undertaken by a portion of industry that either don’t need to justify the exposure commercially, but instead tend to justify their contribution ecologically. It is widely accepted by experts that an ecosystem-first approach is the best way to approach a conservation or restoration issue, and therefore the efforts hold more ecological value. It is common for efforts in this category due to mitigation agreements, industry requirements or certification. This is also typically what DOC-run efforts are composed of as DOC does not have the capabilities/budget to market its own efforts, yet needs to do the effort to protect its brand. These efforts need to work towards being marketable or else if they become reliant on philanthropy – they will move towards becoming a dog. Star - Marketable Economically-Stable Conservation These efforts are the headline conservation efforts – they pay for themselves and they are still able to be used in marketing. They are the most stable efforts, and need to keep their assets.

References Interviews • Cape Sanctuary o Andy Lowe § Owner & Operations Manager of Lowe Corporation (worth $NZ 160M) § Partial Land Owner, Half Financial Donor of Cape Sanctuary (largest privately owned inland sanctuary in NZ) o Julian Robertson § CEO of Tiger Management (worth $NZ 4B) § Majority Land Owner, Half Financial Donor of Cape Sanctuary (largest privately owned inland sanctuary in NZ) o Tamsin Ward-Smith § Manager of Cape Sanctuary • Whio Forever o Richard Gordon § PA Manager of Genesis Energy (largest energy company in New Zealand) o Jenny Burke § Genesis Energy Community Sponsorship Manager o Andrew Glaser § Whio Recovery Group Leader in the Te Urewera/Whirinaki Area Office • Forest Operation Lifeforce o Simon Hall § CEO and Owner of Tasti Food Products

§ Chairman of Forest Lifeforce Restoration Trust § Owner of Maungataniwha • Kiwi Encounter o Claire Travers § Kiwi Husbandry Manger o Emma Bean § Assistant Kiwi Husbandry Manager • Wingspan o Debbie Stewart MNZM § Executive Director of Wingspan (NZ Falcon recovery center) § Member of the New Zealand Order of Merit (second highest civilian honor behind knighthood) for services to “bird of prey conservation” • Other Interview Material o Brent Beaven § Private Secretary advisor for Conservation to NZ Minister of Conservation (Hon. Maggie Barry) o Dr. Michael Looker § Director of Regional Strategies of The Nature Conservancy Australia o Dr. Rochelle Constantine § Senior Lecturer at University of Auckland (Biological Studies) § Teaches “New Zealand Conservation and Ecology” o Olive Andrews § Marine Program Manager for Conservation International in New Zealand § Works alongside professors at University of Auckland o Deidre Vercoe § DOC - Conservation Services Manager (Kākāpō/Takahē) o Andrew Glaser § o Madeleine McCarroll § Department of Conservation (DOC) Commercial Partnerships Manager (Acting) o Sarah Kafka (skype interview) § Program Officer, Robertson Foundation (in charge of New Zealand grants of Julian Robertson’s Robertson Foundation) o Trevor Kelly § Leading Kiwi veterinarian Faculty Mentors • Dr. Norm Christensen o Professor and Dean Emeritus of Duke Nicolas School of the Environment o Board Member of Wilderness Society o Ex-Board Member of various environmental NGOs including The Nature Conservancy • Dr. Daniel Ahlquist o Environmental Sociology o Duke Thompson Writing Program Fellow • Dr. Sachelle Ford o Duke Thompson Writing Program Fellow

Secondary Sources “Air New Zealand Forms New Partnership with Department of Conservation.” Airline Industry Information, April 20, 2012, n/a. Atkinson, I. A. E. “Recovery of Wildlife and Restoration of Habitats in New Zealand.” Pacific Conservation Biology 8, no. 1 (2002): 27–35. Craig, John, Sandra Anderson, Mick Clout, Bob Creese, and et al. “Conservation Issues in New Zealand.” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 31 (2000): 61. Craig, John, Henrik Moller, David Norton, Denis Saunders, and Morgan Williams. “Enhancing Our Heritage: Conservation for 21st Century New Zealanders: Ways Forward from the Tahi Group of Concerned Scientists.” Pacific Conservation Biology 19, no. 3/4 (Spring/Summer 2013): 256–69. (DOC), corporatename = New Zealand Department of Conservation. “Threatened Species Ambassador: Our Work.” Accessed December 10, 2015. http://www.doc.govt.nz/tsambassador. Forrest, J. L., B. Bomhard, A. Budiman, L. Coad, N. Cox, E. Dinerstein, D. Hammer, et al. “Single-Species Conservation in a Multiple-Use Landscape: Current Protection of the Tiger Range: Single-Species Conservation in a Multiple-Use Landscape.” Animal Conservation 14, no. 3 (June 2011): 283–94. doi:10.1111/j.1469-1795.2010.00428.x. “How to Apply the BCG Matrix.” Small Business - Chron.com. Accessed November 10, 2015. http://smallbusiness.chron.com/apply-bcg-matrix-61115.html. Lopez-Toledo, Leonel, Guillermo Ibarra-Manríquez, David F.R.P. Burslem, Esteban Martínez-Salas, Fernando Pineda-García, and Miguel Martínez-Ramos. “Protecting a Single Endangered Species and Meeting Multiple Conservation Goals: An Approach with Guaiacum Sanctum in Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico: An Endangered Species and Multiple Conservation Goals.” Diversity and Distributions 18, no. 6 (June 2012): 575–87. doi:10.1111/j.1472-4642.2011.00857.x. “Lowe Corporation • Conservation.” Accessed August 2, 2015. http://www.lowecorp.co.nz/conservation/index.htm. “National Standard for Certification of Plantation Forest Management in New Zealand,” n.d. “NZ’s 100 Most Influential Brands — Ipsos New Zealand.” Accessed November 23, 2015. http://www.ipsos.co.nz/nzs-100-most-influential-brands/. “OZARSKI-Jill-Final-Report-New-PDF.pdf.” Accessed September 16, 2015. http://www.fulbright.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/OZARSKI-Jill-final-report-new- PDF.pdf. Roberts, Mere, Waerete Norman, Nganeko Minhinnick, Del Wihongi, and Carmen Kirkwood. “Kaitiakitanga: Maori Perspectives on Conservation.” Pacific Conservation Biology 2, no. 1 (1995): 7–20. Seabrook-Davison, M. N. H., W. Ji, and D. H. Brunton. “New Zealand Lacks Comprehensive Threatened Species Legislation - Comparison with Legislation in Australia and the USA.” Pacific Conservation Biology 16, no. 1 (Autumn 2010): 54–65. Towns, David R., and Murray Williams. “Single Species Conservation in New Zealand: Towards a Redefined Conceptual Approach.” Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 23, no. 2 (January 1993): 61–78. doi:10.1080/03036758.1993.10721218. Walker, Susan, R. T. Theo Stephens, and Jacob McC Overton. “A Unified Approach to Conservation Prioritisation, Reporting and Information Gathering in New Zealand.” New Zealand Journal of Ecology 36, no. 2 (2012): 1–9.