Great Barrier Local Board
OPEN MINUTES
Minutes of a meeting of the Great Barrier Local Board held in the Marion Barleyman Cottage, 2 Moana View Road, Okupu, Great Barrier Island on Wednesday, 12 December 2012 at 10.00am.
PRESENT
Chairperson Paul Downie Deputy Chairperson Scott Mabey Members Susan Daly Izzy Fordham Richard Somerville-Ryan
APOLOGIES
Mike Lee
ALSO PRESENT
Jonathan Anyon Elected Member Liaison, Auckland Transport Mike Ikilei Team Leader, Community Services Shane Ta’ala Senior Advisor, Community Development Lynda Lucas Team Leader Parks Liaison and Development Gary Wilton Parks Advisor, Hauraki Gulf Islands Rouruina Emil'e-Brown Policy Analyst, Community and Cultural Strategy Susan Thomas SLIPs Project Portfolio Leader
IN ATTENDANCE
Harry Doig Motu Kaikoura Trust Di Simpson Awana Branch of Rural Women New Zealand Peter Blackwell Ngaire Avery Tryphena Hall Reserve John Scrimgeour Tryphena Hall Reserve Maud MacLean Tryphena Hall Reserve
Great Barrier Local Board 12 December 2012
1 Welcome
A minutes silence was observed to acknowledge the passing of Chris Stansfield, Mary Hoy and Denise McKenzie.
2 Apologies
Resolution number GBI/2012/270 MOVED by Member PR Downie, seconded Member SP Daly: That an apology from Councillor Mike Lee for absence be accepted. CARRIED
3 Declaration of Interest
There were no declarations of interest.
4 Confirmation of Minutes
Resolution number GBI/2012/271 MOVED by Member PR Downie, seconded Member SP Daly: That the minutes of the Great Barrier Local Board held on Wednesday, 14 November 2012, be confirmed as a true and correct record. CARRIED
5 Leave of Absence
There were no leaves of absence.
6 Acknowledgements
There were no acknowledgements.
7 Petitions
There were no petitions.
8 Deputations
There were no deputations.
Minutes Page 3
Great Barrier Local Board 12 December 2012
9 Public Forum
9.1 Harry Doig - Motu Kaikoura Trust Harry Doig from the Motu Kaikoura Trust was in attendance to speak to the Great Barrier Local Board in respect of the work being done by the Motu Kaikoura Trust.
Resolution number GBI/2012/272 MOVED by Member PR Downie, seconded Member IM Fordham: That Harry Doig be thanked for his Public Forum presentation. CARRIED
9.2 Di Simpson - Denise McKenzie Di Simpson was in attendance to pay respect to Denise McKenzie on behalf of Awana Branch of Rural Women New Zealand.
Resolution number GBI/2012/273 MOVED by Member PR Downie, seconded Member IM Fordham: That Di Simpson be thanked for her Public Forum presentation. CARRIED
10 Extraordinary Business
There was no extraordinary business.
11 Notices of Motion
There were no notices of motion.
12 Auckland Transport Report – Great Barrier Local Board Jonathan Anyon was in attendance to speak to this report.
A document was tabled in support of this item. A copy of the tabled item has been placed on the file copy of the minutes and can be viewed on Auckland Council’s website [Item 12].
Resolution number GBI/2012/274 MOVED by Member PR Downie, seconded Member SP Daly: a) That the report from Jonathan Anyon, Auckland Transport Elected Member Liaison be received. b) That that the Great Barrier Local Board defers making any decision on the Transport Capital Funding Projects outlined in the report until the outcome of the road seal programme is determined at the Auckland Transport Board’s 18 December 2012 Board meeting. c) That the Great Barrier Local Board approves the grassed area outside of the Great Barrier Local Board office at number 81 Hector Sanderson Road be the designated site for the display of Local Body election signs. d) That the Great Barrier Local Board requests that Auckland Transport i) enforce the existing parking restrictions at the Claris airport being the existing long term carpark situated at 60 Hector Sanderson Road and owned by Auckland Council and the existing short term and rental
Minutes Page 4
Great Barrier Local Board 12 December 2012
carparks situated at 70 Hector Sanderson Road also owned by Auckland Council and included within the area managed by local and sportsparks as part of the Claris airfield. ii) That the Great Barrier Local Board requests that Auckland Transport commence parking enforcement forthwith in order to address the very real safety and management issues that occur throughout the year, and in particular over the Christmas and new year periods, in relation to parking at the Claris terminal and prepare publicity material for inclusion in the next available issue of the Barrier Bulletin and for direct delivery to carpark users at its earliest possible convenience. iii) That the Great Barrier Local Board reviews in association with Auckland Transport officers the existing parking provisions applying to all areas around the Claris airport with a view to agreeing appropriate changes for approval by the appropriate Auckland Council committee(s). CARRIED
13 Governing Body Members' update Councillor Lee was not in attendance to give a verbal update.
14 Community Development and Safety 2012-2013 Work Programme for Great Barrier Local Board Mike Ikilei and Shane Ta’ala were in attendance to speak to this report.
Resolution number GBI/2012/275 MOVED by Member PR Downie, seconded Member SP Daly: That the Great Barrier Local Board: a) approves the Community Development and Safety 2012/13 Work Programme, which provides details on the projects that the Community Development and Safety team intends to undertake in 2012/2013 to deliver on the Great Barrier Local Board plan priorities. b) requests that progress against this work programme be reported in the Community Development and Safety quarterly reports. CARRIED
Minutes Page 5
Great Barrier Local Board 12 December 2012
15 Great Barrier Island parks renewals programme Linda Lucas, Gary Wilton and Susan Thomas were in attendance to speak to this report.
A document was tabled in support of this item. A copy of the tabled item has been placed on the file copy of the minutes and can be viewed on Auckland Council’s website [Item 15].
Resolution number GBI/2012/276 MOVED by Member PR Downie, seconded Member IM Fordham: That the Great Barrier Local Board: a) approves the 2012/13 parks asset renewal programme as outlined in Attachment A of this report; b) delegates the parks portfolio holder to approve any potential overspend on Great Barrier parks renewal projects. CARRIED
16 Great Barrier Island SLIPs 2012/2013 December 2012 report Susan Thomas and Gary Wilton were in attendance to speak to this report. Peter Blackwell was also in attendance to speak in respect of his offer to make land available for the housing of the ambulance.
Document were tabled in support of this item. A copy of the tabled items have been placed on the file copy of the minutes and can be viewed on Auckland Council’s website [Item 16(a), Item 16(b) and Item 16(c)].
Resolution number GBI/2012/277 MOVED by Member PR Downie, seconded Member RB Somerville-Ryan: That the Great Barrier Local Board: a) notes that the Historic Stonewalls reinstatement – Phase One investigation and concept design project has been re-scoped as requested by the Local Board (refer resolution GBI/2012/247). The budget allocated of $10,450.00 operational expenditure is therefore not required and is to be returned to the Local Board for reallocation; b) approves a revised budget of $5,390.00 operational expenditure for The Historic Stonewalls reinstatement – Phase One heritage assessment only; c) approves the following SLIPs projects for implementation: i) View-shaft extension, roadways & walking tracks subject to confirmation of the budget and details of what the budget will deliver; ii) Resting areas outside the Service Centre $5,600.00 capital expenditure subject to approval from the Board representative as to design; iii) Practical Beach Access Medlands Beach - $8,143.00 capital expenditure subject to approval of the cost breakdown; d) requests a report from Auckland Council Property department in regard to the proposed ambulance shed being considered as a Council asset in accordance with resolution GBI/2012/255 and the associated lease for consideration at the February 2013 Great Barrier Local Board business meeting; e) thanks Peter Blackwell for his generous offer to use his land for the proposed ambulance shed. CARRIED
Minutes Page 6
Great Barrier Local Board 12 December 2012
17 Motu Kaikoura Trust Harry Doig was in attendance and spoke to the Board during Public Forum in respect of the Motu Kaikoura Trust.
Documents were tabled in support of this item. A copy of the tabled items have been placed on the file copy of the minutes and can be viewed on Auckland Council’s website [Item 17(a), Item 17(b) and Item 17(c)].
Resolution number GBI/2012/278 MOVED by Member PR Downie, seconded Member RB Somerville-Ryan: That the Great Barrier Local Board thank Harry Doig for his report. CARRIED
Secretarial Note: Item 20 was heard at this point
Secretarial Note: Item 19 was heard at this point
Secretarial Note: Meeting adjourned at 12:50 pm for lunch and reconvened at 1:21 pm
18 Swimming Pool Fencing Exemption – Special Exemption (Section 6) Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 Resolution number GBI/2012/279 MOVED by Member PR Downie, seconded Member SP Daly: a) That the report on Special Exemption (Section 6) Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 be received. b) That the Great Barrier Local Board receive the application for a special exemption under section 6 of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 by Roger Guthrie and Hilde Hoven of 421 Schooner Bay Road, Tryphena, Great Barrier Island. c) That the Great Barrier Local Board note that four of the five Local Board members were in attendance at the site visit which took place at 2:00 pm on Tuesday, 11 December 2012 at the applicant’s residence, with Auckland Council Officer Margaret Lacey, Pool Inspector, also in attendance.
d) That this application for special exemption under section 6 of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 is ACCEPTED CONDITIONAL UPON THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
i) Both sliding doors leading into the pool area to be fitted with locks/latches above 1.5m from the floor level (e.g. installation of security dead bolts) ii) The doors to display safety signage stickers (to be posted by council) iii) Both windows will also require locks fitted so that when key locked, will prevent small children gaining access to the pool area. iv) The pool be fitted with a pool alarm that meets with ASTM F2208 as noted in the NZS 8500 2.3.2 - this provides an additional layer of protection. v) The property owners or persons in possession of the property, must check that all layers of protection are functioning at all times.
Minutes Page 7
Great Barrier Local Board 12 December 2012
e) That this exemption is granted subject to the swimming pool remaining in its location as at 8 March 2012, and subject to conditions in the NZS 8500:2006 Safety Barriers and Fences Around Swimming Pools, Spas and Hot Tubs 3.10
f) That the swimming pool will need to be rechecked within three months of the date of this decision to ensure that these conditions have been meet.
CARRIED
Member Fordham abstained from voting on this item.
19 Tryphena Hall Reserve leasing arrangements Ngaire Avery, John Schrimgeour and Maud MacLean were in attendance to speak in respect of the Tryphena Hall Reserve leasing arrangements.
Resolution number GBI/2012/280 MOVED by Member RB Somerville-Ryan, seconded Member SP Daly: That the Great Barrier Local Board: a) Rescinds its previous request that Auckland Council be a party in the leasing arrangements between the Tryphena School Hall Committee and the Aotea Family Support Group; b) Requests council staff to assist the Tryphena School Hall Committee and the Aotea Family Support Group to work through the management and ownership arrangements for the Tryphena Hall Reserve and the Old Tryphena School Building with the Department of Conservation; c) Places a hold on the allocation of the approved Small Local Improvement Projects funding of $23,500 to the Aotea Family Support Group for a portable office, pending an agreement between the Department of Conservation, Tryphena School Hall Committee and the Aotea Family Support Group that the portable office can be placed on site, by way of a concession granted by the Department of Conservation; d) Rescinds its previous resolution that Auckland Council maintain the portable office as a council asset. CARRIED
20 Thriving Communities Discussion Document – Local Board Feedback Rouruina Brown was in attendance to speak to this report.
Documents were tabled in support of this item. A copy of the tabled items have been placed on the file copy of the minutes and can be viewed on Auckland Council’s website [Item 20(a) and Item 20(b)].
Resolution number GBI/2012/281 MOVED by Member PR Downie, seconded Member IM Fordham: That the Great Barrier Local Board a) provides the following feedback on the Thriving Communities discussion document and development of the Community Development Strategic Action Plan. b) notes that at a community hui held on 22 November 2012 to discuss the
Minutes Page 8
Great Barrier Local Board 12 December 2012
Thriving Communities discussion document and attended by key island stakeholders, the following clear messages were delivered: i) any strategic action plan must meet the unique needs of the Great Barrier Island community and support the achievement of its aspirations. ii) the majority of community facilities and services provided on Great Barrier Island are delivered by community groups, trusts and incorporated societies rather than Auckland Council and largely funded by local fundraising and Great Barrier Local Board discretionary grants. iii) the strategic action plan must enable this situation to be addressed as it is largely unsustainable in a community with a small population and low socio-economic status. iv) a number of key community needs were identified including additional resources to coordinate the wide range of ideas and initiatives supporting community health, wellbeing and economic viability and the community wishes to work with Auckland Council and the Great Barrier Local Board to progress these. c) provides the following feedback on the draft principles in the Thriving Communities discussion document: i) local community aspirations as outlined in local board plans need to be enabled and supported ii) adequate funding needs to be included in local board agreements/annual plans and the long-term plan and supported by the proposed local board funding policy to deliver on agreed community outcomes iii) the unique community needs of remote communities such as Great Barrier recognised and provided for, in particular the wishes of the community to have ownership and leadership of local approaches and decision-making in line with local board allocations and delegations. d) provides the following feedback on the current role of Auckland Council in the Thriving Communities discussion document: i) it notes that Auckland Council currently plays a very minimal role in the delivery of community services and facilities on Great Barrier Island, with these largely provided by local community groups, trusts and incorporated societies and with support and funding provided by the local board and its discretionary community grants and noting that this situation is unsustainable. ii) it requests that Council officers, the Board and key island stakeholders engage in meaningful discussions aimed at agreeing an approach to the delivery of island based community services which is sustainable in terms of the islands limited population and economic resources, is adequately funded, and achieves the aspirations of the community. e) particularly notes the following matters in the Thriving Communities discussion document: i) support for the purpose of the strategic action plan being to clarify what council’s role is, not to debate whether there is a role, to work with local groups on outcomes and to reflect the shared governance model between the governing body and local boards. ii) Clarifying that the aim of “better use existing resources” must recognise that the existing community resources on Great Barrier are very limited and already fully stretched, and that further support of these local resources is needed.
Minutes Page 9
Great Barrier Local Board 12 December 2012
iii) the urgent need for improvements to processes around community group funding. f) requests that further time is given to the development of the strategic action plan to enable: i) Local boards and the governing body to consider feedback from the community led engagement that has taken place during November. ii) Closer working between local boards and the governing body and the opportunity to discuss available options. iii) Opportunities for alignment and joint working with other relevant work such as the Community Assistance Programme and community funding policy are explored. g) Request that clarity be provided in the draft strategic action plan between local and regional decision making and that it is consistent with the allocation of decision making. h) Stresses the importance of the key community development role of local boards being recognised and facilitated by the draft strategic action plan.
CARRIED
21 Community consultation on marine protection and planning A document was tabled in support of this item. A copy of the tabled item has been placed on the file copy of the minutes and can be viewed on Auckland Council’s website [Items 21].
Resolution number GBI/2012/282 MOVED by Member PR Downie, seconded Member ST Mabey: That the Great Barrier Local Board: a) Approves the tabled consultation material on the Aotea/Great Barrier marine protection and planning initiative for publication in the 18 December 2012 and a January 2013 issue of the Barrier Bulletin. b) Agrees that a second more comprehensive document will be circulated directly to all ratepayers, residents and key stakeholders in February 2013, along with the Barrier Bulletin and the Board’s web based outlets and outlining the Board’s proposed consultation and engagement approach. CARRIED
22 Establishment of Central Facility Partnerships Committee Resolution number GBI/2012/283 MOVED by Member RB Somerville-Ryan, seconded Member ST Mabey: That the Great Barrier Local Board: a) That the Great Barrier Local Board note that the Regional Operations and Development Committee agreed on 24 May 2012 to implement an interim approach for facility partnerships and that the interim approach would be implemented by devolving the legacy facility partnerships funding to local board sub-regional funding committees. b) That the Great Barrier Local Board agree to form the Central Facility Partnerships Committee with the Albert-Eden, Maungakiekie-Tamaki, Orakei, Puketapapa, Waiheke, and Waitemata Local Boards, to collectively administer
Minutes Page 10
Great Barrier Local Board 12 December 2012
facility partnerships. c) That the Great Barrier Local Board appoint the Chair to the Central Facility Partnerships Committee, with appropriate delegated authority to bind the Great Barrier Local Board on decisions relating to the legacy facility partnerships policy made by the Committee. d) That the Great Barrier Local Board endorse the Terms of Reference for the Central Facilities Partnership Committee, which will be adopted by the Committee at its first meeting: i. The Central Facility Partnerships Committee has a member from each of the following Local Boards: Albert-Eden, Great Barrier, Maungakiekie- Tamaki, Orakei, Puketapapa, Waiheke, Waitemata ii. The Central Facility Partnerships Committee has the authority to make funding decisions in 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 in relation to the Facility Partnerships Policy. iii. The Central Facility Partnerships Committee will appoint and may remove its own chairperson and deputy chairperson. iv. The Central Facility Partnerships Committee will meet as required. It is envisaged there will be one procedural meeting and no fewer than one funding decision meeting in each financial year. v. Funding decision meetings will be preceded by a workshop a minimum of three weeks in advance of the decision-making meeting. The purpose of the workshops is to discuss and seek additional information on the applications. vi. The Standing Orders of Local Boards as set by the Auckland Transition Agency on 27 October 2010 will apply to this Joint Committee. e) That the Great Barrier Local Board note that the first meeting of the Central Facility Partnerships Committee will be held in late February 2013 to consider procedural matters including but not limited to: i) electing a Chair and Deputy Chair ii) adopting the Central Facility Partnerships Committee Terms of Reference iii) agreeing the timing of decisions for 2012/2013 facility partnerships iv) endorse the Facility Partnerships 2012/2013 Guidelines f) That the Great Barrier Local Board provide feedback on the draft Facility Partnerships 2012/2013 Guidelines. CARRIED
Minutes Page 11
Great Barrier Local Board 12 December 2012
23 Delegation to the Chief Executive Resolution number GBI/2012/284 MOVED by Member PR Downie, seconded Member ST Mabey: That the Great Barrier Local Board: a) That in order to ensure the efficient and effective implementation of its statutory and allocated non-regulatory decision-making responsibilities, the local board re-confirms it’s delegation to the Chief Executive all responsibilities, duties and power subject to the following exclusions, restrictions and clarifications: i. That the financial authority is capped at $500,000 ii. That in exercising any delegation, officers must act in accordance with any relevant local board policy or protocol (as approved by the local board). This includes policies or protocols for officer decision-making on local activities within the local board’s decision-making responsibility iii. That the local board may through the Chair, without amending its delegation to the Chief Executive, at any time or in any circumstance, direct officers that the local board will make a particular decision iv. That these delegations do not prevent the Chief Executive from referring any matter to the local board for any reason. b) Notes that in exercising his delegated authority, the Chief Executive will comply with the delegation protocols c) Approves the delegation protocols that apply to activities within the decision- making responsibility of the local board. CARRIED
24 Great Barrier Island Accommodation Support Fund Resolution number GBI/2012/285 MOVED by Member PR Downie, seconded Member ST Mabey: That the Great Barrier Local Board approves and allocates up to $5,000 from the Accommodation Support Fund to the community groups listed below.
Amount Recommended Organisation Staff Recommendation Requested Amount Great Barrier Island 1,150.00 Lease on Claris Health 1,150.00 Community Health Centre and at Port Trust Inc FitzRoy Nurses cottage. Great Barrier Island 3,197.76 Rates on 19 1,283.33 Sports and Social Whangaparapara Road, Club Claris, GBI Island Screens Inc 3,280.00 Rent of cinema, 39 1,283.33 Medlands Road, Tryphena GBI two nights a week at $70.00 per night. Marion Barleyman 1,615.00 Rates for Marion 1,283.33 Memorial Cottage Barleyman Memorial Rural Women New Cottage, 2 Moana View Zealand Awana Road, Okupu
Minutes Page 12
Great Barrier Local Board 12 December 2012
Branch Inc
Total: 5,000.00
CARRIED
Member Fordham abstained from voting in respect of the Great Barrier Island Sports and Social Club
25 Local board agreement 2013/2014 A document was tabled in support of this item. A copy of the tabled item has been placed on the file copy of the minutes and can be viewed on Auckland Council’s website [Items 25].
Resolution number GBI/2012/286 MOVED by Member PR Downie, seconded Member IM Fordham: a) That the report be received. b) That the local board adopts its content for the draft Annual Plan 2013/2014 (Attachments One and Two refer) and the summary of the draft Annual Plan 2013/2014 (Attachment Three and Four refer), including the: i) draft Local Board Agreement 2013/2014, which includes intended levels of service provision and the financial statement for 2013/2014 ii) introduction to the agreement, including the ‘Have your Say’ consultation section which outlines the proposed changes from year 2 of the LTP and key advocacy areas for 2013/2014 iii) capital projects list for 2013/2014 iv) the local content and images for the summary of the draft Annual Plan 2013/2014 c) That the local board notes that: i) the local board expenditure statement for 2013/2014 reflects Year 2 of the Long-term Plan, adjusted for the impact of changes proposed by the governing body and any flow on impact of 2011/2012 year-end adjustments. ii) that the resolutions of this meeting will be reported back to the governing body on 19 December 2012, when it meets to adopt the draft Annual Plan 2013/2014 for consultation d) That the Chair be delegated the authority to make any final minor changes to the local board content for the draft Annual Plan before it is released for public consultation, and to the summary of the draft Annual Plan 2013/2014.
CARRIED
Minutes Page 13
Great Barrier Local Board 12 December 2012
26 Strategy and Finance Committee decisions on the Mayoral proposal for the draft Annual Plan 2013-2014 Resolution number GBI/2012/287 MOVED by Member PR Downie, seconded Member SP Daly: That the Great Barrier Local Board determines whether it wishes to make any resolutions on the budget and policy issues for the draft Annual Plan 2013 -2014, following decisions made at the Strategy and Finance Committee on 1 November 2012. CARRIED
27 Review of regional and local budget issues Resolution number GBI/2012/288 MOVED by Member RB Somerville-Ryan, seconded Member SP Daly: That the Great Barrier Local Board:
a) generally supports the proposed approach to allocating budgets as regional, local or local-multi board; b) notes that in relation to proposals for local board collaboration on local-multi board programmes the Board is generally unlikely to seek to be actively and formally involved due to these programmes being less applicable to the island and the costs and time of travel to such meetings; c) notes that due to its remoteness, the specific needs of the Great Barrier community are quite different to those of many other local boards and as such the Board requests it has meaningful input into the planning and development of regional programmes to be delivered and tailored locally that relate to Great Barrier, to ensure outcomes that meet the needs of the Great Barrier community are achieved; d) notes that in relation to regional environmental funding, the Great Barrier Local Board is responsible for one of the largest environmentally sensitive areas in the greater Auckland region, which is home to a host of rare and endangered species. This puts a great responsibility on the board to actively protect and enhance this unique environmental asset. As the Island’s environmental needs will always exceed the ‘boards’ discretionary funding, regional budgets are needed and the Board will advocate for funding as to meet the Island’s environmental needs.
CARRIED
28 Monthly Great Barrier 2012-13 Local Board Agreement projects report Resolution number GBI/2012/289 MOVED by Member PR Downie, seconded Member SP Daly: That the Great Barrier Local Board: a) receive the report b) approve the expenditure of $36,118 from the walkways capex budget to fund the design of four bridges and to build the first bridge on the Harataonga Track noting that a detailed aerial plan of works on the Harataonga Track will be available for the December board meeting and that $42,000 will be allocated from the Parks renewals budget to upgrade the first 1,500m of the track. c) Approve the expenditure of $8,143 from the beach access improvements budget
Minutes Page 14
Great Barrier Local Board 12 December 2012
to improve the Medland beach access tracks at the north end of Sandhills Rd and opposite the Medland Playground Reserve noting that this is in addition to the transport programme funding requests lodged with Auckland Transport for access track improvements on adjoining legal road. d) Identifies additional beach access opportunities for scoping from the remaining $12,477 beach access improvements budget noting that the other two projects previously approved for scoping from this budget no longer require funding as follows; the Whangapoua campground beach access has been completed by Auckland Transport and the walkway from Claris airfield to Kaitoke Beach has been put on hold due to issues requiring the bridging of a drainage ditch on Department of Conservation land. e) Approve the expenditure of $51,550 from the visitor signage budget to develop and print visitor maps/guides for Tryphena, Whangaparapara and Port Fitzroy respectively with the remaining budget to be used to turn the information into appropriate orientation and interpretation signage at each location. f) Approve the development of the following island viewshaft to sites: - 218 Shoal Bay Rd - 344 Shoal Bay Rd - Medlands Lookout - Suicide Point Seat - Before Suicide Point Blind Bay Rd - Kaitoke Hill - Whangaparapara Rd - Police Swamp Hector Sanderson Rd - Police Swamp north
subject to confirmation by officers of development costs and noting the available budget of $10,330 and that any additional expenditure will need to come from SLIPs and have prior approval from the Board. CARRIED
29 Bylaw review programme update - December 2012 Resolution number GBI/2012/290 MOVED by Member PR Downie, seconded Member ST Mabey: That the Great Barrier Local Board: a) notes progress of the bylaw review programme. b) requests as a matter of urgency clarification, from Auckland Transport and the Bylaws team whether the statement in the report that the speed limits bylaw is in force includes the proposed speed limits for Great Barrier. CARRIED
30 Proposal by Counties Manukau Pacific Trust to develop stage two of the Telstra Clear Pacific Events Centre – Regional Facilities Auckland Resolution number GBI/2012/291 MOVED by Member PR Downie, seconded Member ST Mabey: That the Great Barrier Local Board receive this report. CARRIED
Minutes Page 15
Great Barrier Local Board 12 December 2012
31 Resolutions from 6 November 2012 Auckland Plan Committee - Arts and Culture Strategic Action Plan – scope Resolution number GBI/2012/292 MOVED by Member PR Downie, seconded Member RB Somerville-Ryan: That the Great Barrier Local Board receive the resolutions of the 6 November 2012 Auckland Plan Committee. CARRIED
32 Auckland Unitary Plan Update Resolution number GBI/2012/293 MOVED by Member PR Downie, seconded Member ST Mabey: That the Great Barrier Local Board receive the resolutions from the 6 November 2012 Auckland Plan Committee. CARRIED
33 Update on Business Improvement District Partnership Programme - Recommendation from the Economic Forum Resolution number GBI/2012/294 MOVED by Member PR Downie, seconded Member ST Mabey: That the Great Barrier Local Board receive the Update on the Business Improvement District Partnership Programme. CARRIED
34 Great Barrier Local Board Workshop Proceedings Resolution number GBI/2012/295 MOVED by Member PR Downie, seconded Member IM Fordham: That the Great Barrier Local Board receive the workshop proceedings for the workshops held on 7 November 2012 and 28 November 2012. CARRIED
35 Correspondence Resolution number GBI/2012/296 MOVED by Member PR Downie, seconded Member ST Mabey: That the Great Barrier Local Board receive the correspondence for the month of December 2012. CARRIED
Minutes Page 16
Great Barrier Local Board 12 December 2012
36 Reports Requested/Pending Resolution number GBI/2012/297 MOVED by Member RB Somerville-Ryan, seconded Member SP Daly: That the Great Barrier Local Board receive the list of reports requested/pending as at December 2012. CARRIED
37 Board Members' Reports A document was tabled in support of this item. A copy of the tabled item has been placed on the file copy of the minutes and can be viewed on Auckland Council’s website [Items 37].
Resolution number GBI/2012/298 MOVED by Member PR Downie, seconded Member IM Fordham: a) That the report of Board Member Susan Daly be received. CARRIED Resolution number GBI/2012/299 MOVED by Member PR Downie, seconded Member RB Somerville-Ryan: b) That the report of Board Member Izzy Fordham be received. CARRIED Resolution number GBI/2012/300 MOVED by Member PR Downie, seconded Member ST Mabey: c) That the report of Board Member Richard Somerville Ryan be received. CARRIED Resolution number GBI/2012/301 MOVED by Member PR Downie, seconded Member SP Daly: d) That the tabled report of Board Member Scott Mabey be received CARRIED
38 Chairperson's report Documents were tabled in support of this item. A copy of the tabled items have been placed on the file copy of the minutes and can be viewed on Auckland Council’s website [Item 38(a) and Item 38(b)].
Resolution number GBI/2012/302 MOVED by Member ST Mabey, seconded Member SP Daly: That the chairperson’s tabled report be received. CARRIED
39 Consideration of Extraordinary Items
There was no consideration of extraordinary items.
Minutes Page 17
Great Barrier Local Board 12 December 2012
2:24 pm The Chairperson thanked Members for their attendance and attention to business and declared the meeting closed.
CONFIRMED AS A TRUE AND CORRECT RECORD AT A MEETING OF THE GREAT BARRIER LOCAL BOARD HELD ON
DATE:......
CHAIRPERSON:......
Minutes Page 18
Item 12 Item 16(a) Item 16(a) Item 16(a) Item 16(b) Item 16(c) Item 17(a) Motu Kaikoura Trust
PO Box 26 467 Epsom, Auckland 1344
Report to Great Barrier Island Local Board
Background Motu Kaikoura is a 546ha island the largest of a group of islands lying off Port Fitzroy. When the private owner of Motu Kaikoura put the island on the open market in 2002, timed to hopefully take advantage of the heightened interest in New Zealand brought about by the upcoming America’s Cup challenge in 2003, a public campaign was renewed to purchase the island and bring it into public ownership. This campaign was ultimately successful and the island was purchased in 2004 by the government through the Nature Heritage Fund together with contributions from the ASB Community Trust and Auckland territorial authorities. The island was subsequently designated as a scenic reserve and the management of the island was placed in the hands of the charitable organisation – The Motu Kaikoura Trust. Attached is a list of current Trustees. Monitoring In order to measure the success of the Trust’s work a number of surveys and monitoring regimes have been established including vegetation, birds, reptiles have been undertaken and are ongoing on the island. A one off seaweed survey and archaeological survey were also undertaken.
Pest Eradication Animal When the island was brought it was known to have the following animal pests:
fallow deer pigs cats rabbit ship rats
It was suspected, but no evidence had been found of their presence, that the island would also have kiore and mice. Subsequently kiore have been identified but mice have not. As at 2012, deer, pigs, cats, and rabbit have been removed. In the second half of 2008 the Trust undertook an intensive aerial rodent eradication programme but by the middle of 2009 it was clear that ship rats were again present on the island. In 2010 DoC’s Island Eradication Advisory Group advised the Trust on rodent control options and because of the proximity of Great Barrier Island (less than 100m at one point in the Man o War passage) the Trust adopted the only practical option available to it which was to change its focus from Item 17(a) eradication to management until progress is made on reducing rodent densities on Great Barrier Island. This remains the Trust’s main focus. This year, with valuable assistance of the Auckland Council’s Biodiversity unit, the Trust adopted a Biodiversity Management Plan which sets out amongst other things a programme to manage rodent numbers on the island. Part of this plan recommends building a track network across the island to allow a 100mX100m grid of rodent bait stations to be established. This network would build on the existing track system which was set up to capture expected rodent invaders after the aerial bait drop and concentrated mainly on the Man o War and Port Fitzroy coasts. A contract has been let with the GBI company Envirokiwi to construct a perimeter track around the island as the next stage in completing this network. This contract will be carried out over the 2012/13 summer. The Trust is considering using the completion of this track as an opportunity to invite locals to the island for an opening ceremony. Plant Plant pests exist on the island but luckily not to the extent that they do elsewhere. The Trust has a programme of weed eradication and is greatly assisted in this task by the Auckland Council’s Biosecurity unit. The biggest weed on the island is the wilding pine. The Trust’s priority here is to concentrate on outlying pines mainly on the north side slowly working back towards the greatest concentration of pines in the south. Browning pine trees is evidence of the steady progress being made. Public Use As well as its restoration objectives the Trust has as a major purpose to “foster and manage the use of Motu Kaikoura for outdoor and environmental education for youth in particular;” The Outdoor Pursuits Centre based at Orama use the island for their programmes. Other youth focused groups such as the Spirit of New Zealand, occasional school groups, UNITEC and Auckland and Massey Universities also use the islands for different survey, research and restoration programmes. As a Scenic Reserve the island is open for public use and is used particularly over the summer period. The Trust has to manage this open access with its objective of striving for pest free status. Other Matters When the Trust was established the ASB Community Trust approved a one‐off grant to contribute towards the Trust’s operating costs. The Trust has been eking out this grant but expects it to run out in the next couple of years. The Trust has no caretaker on the island after the departure of Will Scarlett at the end of July. The Trust is committed to continuing the work undertaken by the caretaker and expects to let contracts to do the various components of work that need to be done. These contracts will be advertised. Auckland Council Support The Motu Kaikoura Trust is very appreciative of the support that Auckland Council staff and councillors have given and hopes that this support will be ongoing. Thank you.
Harry Doig Chair Motu Kaikoura Trust
www.motukaikoura.org.nz
MOTU KAIKOURA TRUST – PO Box 26 467, Epsom, Auckland 1344 CONTACT LIST – April 2012
OFFICE NAME APPOINTED REPRESENTING ADDRESS PHONE EMAIL CHAIRMAN Harry Doig 24 May 2006 24 Peary Road HM: 09 623 4920 HM: [email protected] 8 April 2009 Mt Eden M: 027-241 2209 11 April 2012 Auckland 1024 (3yrs) VICE- Mel Galbraith 25 Nov 2004 62 Holyoake Place, HM: 09 480 1958 HM: [email protected] CHAIRMAN 12 Mar 2008 Birkenhead WK: 8154321 ext. WK: [email protected] 09 Mar 2011 North Shore City 7320 (3yr) FAX H: 4801724 FAX WK: 8154346 M:0273879720
TREASURER Peter Hutton 23 Nov 2005 36 Mainston Rd, HM: 09 523 3483 HM: [email protected] Item 08 Oct 2008 Remuera, WK1: 09 489 8791 12 Oct 2011 Auckland 1050 WK2: 579 2236 17(b) (3yr) FAX: 523 1687
SECRETARY Rosalie Miller 9 June 2010 44 Martins Bay Rd 09 4255612 HM: [email protected] (3yr) Geoff Davidson 25 Nov 2004 NZNFRT trustee 64 Parker Rd HM: 09 813 0229 HM: [email protected] 12 Mar 2008 Oratia WK:818 6467 13 April 2011 Auckland M: 021 764 967 (3yr)
Rupert Wilson 25 Nov 2004 Sir Edmund Hillary 9/23 Napier St HM: (09) 378 8830 HM: [email protected] 12 Mar 2008 Outdoor Pursuits Freemans Bay 09 Mar 2011 Centre of NZ Auckland M: 021-0278 6088 (3yr) Mike Lee 25 Nov 2004 AC & NHF Auckland Council HM: H: [email protected] 12 Mar 2008 WK: 09 -3727727 W:[email protected] 09 Mar 2011 M: 027-4 943198 (3yr) Tim Martin 23 Nov 2005 Wildlands 25A LONGFORD HM: 09 570 7144 WK: [email protected] 08 Oct 2008 ROAD, MT WK: 09 276 7540 (3yr) WELLINGTON, M: 021-078 8960 AUCKLAND 021 443336
Judith Grant 25 Nov 2004 P.O Box 32067, HM: 09 445 1113 WK: [email protected] 12 Mar 2008 Devonport WK: 09 Mar 2011 Auckland FAX: 09-4451113 (3yr) M:
Rod Miller 23 Nov 2005 44 Martins Bay Rd HM: 09 425 5612 HM: [email protected] 08 Oct 2008 R D 2 FAX: 09 425 5612 12 Oct 2011 WARKWORTH M: 021-773 286 (3yr)
Paddy Stafford- 9 May 2007 19 Norwood Road H: 445 3073 HM: [email protected] Bush 9 June 2010 Bayswater F: 445 3073 (3yr) North Shore M: 027 27 76340 Lynette Hoey 14 Oct 2009 Ngati Rehua Trust 64 Wolverton Street, HM: 09 828 5704 HM:[email protected] Board Avondale M: 021 026 08414 Graeme Jones 9 June 2010 WK: [email protected] (3yr)
Ron Burr 8 June 2011 1309 East Coast Rd HM: 09 473 8280 [email protected] Item (3yr) Redvale RD4 M: 0275 986 120
Albany 17(b)
Item 17(c)
MOTU KAIKOURA
Biodiversity Management Plan March 2012
Item 17(c)
Motu Kaikoura biodiversity management plan Edited by Tim Martin and Mel Galbraith
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This plan represents the view of the Motu Kaikoura Trust in assessing the biodiversity needs of Motu Kaikoura for the years 2012 – 2022.
The Motu Kaikoura Trust acknowledges the initial report framework developed by the Biodiversity and Biosecurity Teams of Auckland Council, and their subsequent ongoing support to bring the plan to completion. In particular, our gratitude is extended to Melinda Rixon, Su Sinclair, Claire Webb, Michael Ngatai, Mark Mitchell and Holly Cox for their contribution to the initial draft. The specific comments from Dr Dan Blanchon, Halema Jamieson, Peter King, Dr Graham Ussher and George Wilson are also gratefully acknowledged.
Motu Kaikoura Trust Board P.O. Box 26467 Epsom Auckland 1344 NEW ZEALAND
March 2012
Suggested citation: Martin, T. and M. Galbraith (Eds). 2012. Motu Kaikoura biodiversity management plan. Motu Kaikoura Trust, Auckland.
ISBN 978-0-473-21639-9
Cover photo: Kaka at flax flowers at the Motu Kaikoura lodge (Photo M. Galbraith) Item 17(c)
Motu Kaikoura: Biodiversity Managementgement PlanPlan
Contents:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS inside front cover
INTRODUCTION 3 MANDATE 4 VISION 5 GOALS 5 ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION OBJECTIVES 5
CHARACTERISITICS OF MOTU KAIKOURA 6
RESTORATION CONSIDERATIONS: Ecological processes 8 Flora 9 Freshwater environments 13 Invertebrates 14 Reptiles 16 Birds 19 Indigenous mammals 21
BIOSECURITY 24
REFERENCES 27
APPENDICES: 1. Archaeological sites 33 2. Flora and fauna lists 35 3. Plant pest control recommendations 39 4. Animal pest control recommendations 43
SUMMARY CHART inside back cover
Motu Kaikoura Biodiversity Management Plan 1
Item 17(c)
Motu Kaikoura: Biodiversity Management Plan March 2012
INTRODUCTION
Purpose of the plan The Biodiversity Management Plan can be seen as a ‘how to’ document that details the methods and timeframes of different tasks that will work towards achieving the objectives and overall vision for the Island that is detailed below. These recommendations and tasks have taken into account the previous actions and successes of the management of Motu Kaikoura thus far. While the Plan covers a period of 10 years, where appropriate some recommendations give consideration to timeframes beyond this scope.
Geographic Situation Motu Kaikoura is a 564 hectare island off the west coast of Great Barrier Island in Auckland’s Hauraki Gulf. Motu Kaikoura is in close proximity to a number of smaller islands and rock stacks and a number of peninsulas of Aotea (Great Barrier Island) (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Motu Kaikoura topography (source: LINZ, Crown Copyright reserved) and aerial view (source: Auckland Council).
This larger landscape context lends a significant influence on the ecosystem processes within the island and therefore management recommendations stated within this document. For these reasons it is important to consider the wider context of the Grey Island group, Broken Islands, Sven Stellin’s peninsula, Glenfern Sanctuary, and other surrounding islands/rockstacks when considering management options for the island. This wider scope will help increase the chances of successfully achieving Motu Kaikoura Trust’s vision for the island. In this manner, the wider areas should be considered as a whole so therefore recommendations below will consider the wider landscape context.
Motu Kaikoura Biodiversity Management Plan 3 Item 17(c)
History of Use The long history of human occupation and activity has resulted in the natural values of the site becoming degraded and highly modified.
The island has undergone a long history of pre-European burning and vegetation clearance. Most of the island is covered in scrub dominated by kanuka and manuka, but areas of older coastal forest, with pohutukawa, taraire, kohekohe, and puriri, remain in several valleys. Pine forest (maritime pine and radiata pine) is common in the south-east of the island, and pohutukawa trees are common along the coast. Maori are thought to have lived on Motu Kaikoura since the 15th Century. Ngati Wai asserts mana whenua status over the island, a title which dates back to the end of the 17th Century.
Between 1838 and 2004 the island was owned by a number of different families and individuals. Motu Kaikoura was purchased on 13th April 2004 by the Crown, with contributions from ASB Community Trust and 7 of the 8 Auckland Councils (of the time). The island was officially opened to the public in 2005.
In 1859 the first farm was established on Motu Kaikoura, and the island has been heavily grazed since. These grazers have now been removed from Motu Kaikoura, with deer being officially eradicated in 2009. 119 Fallow deer were removed, along with pigs, cats and one rabbit.
Although there are many notable vertebrate pests absent from Motu Kaikoura (including possums, hedgehogs, mustelids, and Norway rats) ship rats and kiore are still present. The presence of mice has never been confirmed. Efforts to eradicate rats on the island began in August 2008, with two aerial bait drops of ‘Pestoff 20R’ (a Brodifacoum based) poison. This poison drop was at first thought successful, but ship rats and kiore are now present. Rats are controlled today using ‘rat motels’ (lured traps and poison baits in plastic bags). Biosecurity measures on the adjacent mainland are in place to minimise further invasion of rats from surrounding areas.
MANDATE
Motu Kaikoura is designated under the Reserves Act 1977 as a Scenic Reserve. The main intent of a Scenic Reserve is to provide an area that public can enjoy whether for landscape, intrinsic value or beauty, and also should: o be open to the public; o preserve native flora and fauna; o eliminate exotic flora and fauna unless their presence is deemed to be of scientific interest or of beauty to the public; o allow development of infrastructure that aids public enjoyment of the reserve; o preserve any historical or archaeological sites (see Appendix 1).
Administration and management of the island was granted to the Motu Kaikoura Trust in April 2004 under an agreement with the Crown. The Trust’s mandate is outlined below: 1) the reserve is to be available for outdoor/environmental education for youth in particular and for the provision of appropriate facilities;
Motu Kaikoura Biodiversity Management Plan 4 Item 17(c)
2) the Trust shall submit to the Minister for his/her approval a management plan for the reserve within two years after the date of its appointment; 3) the appointment of the Trust as the administering body of the reserve is to be reviewed after seven years; and 4) the Department of Conservation shall provide advice, guidance, technical and related assistance to the Trust.
The intent of a Scenic Reserve and mandate given to the Motu Kaikoura Trust is directly reflected in the thinking behind the recommendations given within this plan.
VISION
To restore the natural environment of Motu Kaikoura to reflect that of the least modified, parallel ecosystem types on Great Barrier Island uniqueness of Motu Kaikoura while ensuring it is available for public use, enjoyment and education.
GOALS
The goals to meet this vision are listed below as: • restoration of the island environment; • ecological, cultural and recreational resources are acknowledged and enhanced; • allow and/or provide for environmental/outdoor education with a focus on youth; • recognise the importance of the island to Ngati Rehua; • aid the restoration of neighbouring islands.
ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION OBJECTIVES
The following objectives will fulfil the vision and goals for Motu Kaikoura: • manage animal pest species to zero density; • manage pest plant species to zero density; • restore the island’s indigenous flora; • restore the island’s indigenous fauna; • recognize and protect features of cultural importance; • encourage public participation in restoration activities.
Guiding Principle - ‘Minimal intervention’
In contrast to many other island restoration projects, the restoration of Motu Kaikoura will follow a minimal intervention approach. This approach recognises that some species may colonise the island naturally, and that some unrecorded species will need time for recovering populations to reach detection levels. Intervention is not considered prudent until a more comprehensive picture of the island’s biodiversity is built up through on-going monitoring. However, a greater level of intervention (e.g. translocation, planting) will be considered if the island’s ecological structure and function are not restored through natural processes.
Motu Kaikoura Biodiversity Management Plan 5 Item 17(c)
CHARACTERISTICS OF MOTU KAIKOURA
Motu Kaikoura is a large island (564ha) of volcanic origin within the Hauraki Gulf, bounded by Great Barrier Island along its northern, eastern and southern coasts (Figure 2). The islands are, at some points, only a few hundred metres apart and are geologically similar with similar flora and fauna.
Figure 2: Motu Kaikoura viewed from the east (Photo: M. Galbraith)
Detailed descriptions of the characteristics of the island are included in the Motu Kaikoura Management Plan (Motu Kaikoura Trust 2005) and the Kaikoura Island Eradication Operational Plan (Natural Logic Environmental Management 2008). A brief summary of the characteristics of Motu Kaikoura is given below to provide an ecological context for this document.
Geology Geologically, Motu Kaikoura is volcanic in origin with prominent ridges; spurs, andesitic tufts and rock outcroppings. A central NW-NE divide has rocky escarpments and outcrops, all of which are andesitic remnants of a strato volcano. The highest point on the island is Mitre Peak at 205m. The coastline consists of steep cliffs, small beaches; muddy intertidal flats, and rocky shorelines. A few perennial streams, with low summer flows, exist in the larger catchments.
Vegetation The valleys and ridges of the island are predominantly covered in stands of regenerating kanuka and manuka interspersed with a few remnants of mature coastal forest. Large stands of pines are present in the south-east. Prior to their recent eradication, deer, cattle, goats and pigs prevented the development of an understorey. On steeper, more exposed slopes, erosion pans devoid of vegetation developed due to overgrazing. A survey and review of the vascular flora of Motu Kaikoura was undertaken by Cameron (2007). A detailed description of vegetation communities as well as the presence of threatened species is provided and compared with surveys undertaken in the past to document changes over time (see Appendix 2 for species list).
An extensive stand of wilding pines (Pinus pinaster and P. radiata) has established in the south-eastern corner of the island around the lodge and spread to the west and north. A number of environmental weeds have been identified and are currently managed by the Motu Kaikoura Trust.
Motu Kaikoura Biodiversity Management Plan 6 Item 17(c)
Inter-tidal marine algae were surveyed in June 2007 as part of a wider marine algae survey conducted by Michael Wilcox. Good water clarity allows for an abundant but moderately diverse range of species. A paucity of common red algal species was noted and attributed to a high abundance of kina (Evechinus chloroticus) which are feed on these species as well as the competitive presence of Ecklonia radiata (kelp).
Fauna Birds have been surveyed annually since 2006 (Galbraith & Jones 2010). The current record is 39 bird species on the island, of which 27 species are indigenous and 12 are exotic species (see Appendix 1). Kereru and tui were less common than insectivorous species, and flocks of kaka utilised the south-eastern pine block as a food source, shredding the cones for seeds.
Annual reptile surveys, assisted by the use of artificial cover objects, have been undertaken from 2008 (Martin 2012) (see Appendix 2). Cameron et al. (2007) recorded the presence of moko skink (Oligosoma moco) as well as copper skink (Cyclodina aenea) during a vegetation survey. Martin (2012) reports that moko skink and copper skink are widespread throughout the island in forest and shrubland habitats, and shore skink are present on the boulder beach below Mount Overlook. Gecko species have not yet been confirmed despite extensive searches under logs, rocks and debris, and spotlighting within forest, shrubland, and coastal cliff habitats at night. Many more species of reptile are likely to have been present on Motu Kaikoura prior to human settlement. Forest gecko, Pacific gecko, common gecko, and Duvaucel’s gecko would all have been present, along with ornate skink, striped skink, and egg laying skink. These species may all still be present, albeit in very low numbers. Tuatara were formerly on Great Barrier Island, and may have been present on Motu Kaikoura. Mokohinau skink, green gecko and chevron skink are still present on Great Barrier and their possible presence on Motu Kaikoura cannot be ruled out.
Limited bat and invertebrate (marine and terrestrial) information is available for Motu Kaikoura as no formal surveys have yet been undertaken. A single individual of the Great Barrier paua slug (Schizoglosaa novoseelandica) was noted by Cameron (2007) in the remnant of taraire forest on the south-west coast. Further survey work to document the invertebrates of the island is needed. No formal bat surveys have yet been undertaken. Long-tailed bats are present on Great Barrier Island and are good fliers. It is possible that long-tailed bats are periodic visitors to the island.
The Hauraki Gulf, including the outer gulf around Great Barrier Island, is recognised as an important nursery area for marine mammals, such as the common and bottle- nosed dolphins. Research on habitat utilisation, abundance and density of these dolphins is being undertaken by a PhD student from Massey University using Motu Kaikoura as a base.
The Hauraki Gulf is particularly rich area for seabirds, and considered a global hotspot with 25 breeding species, including threatened petrel species. Seabirds are known to enrich terrestrial systems through the transportation of marine nutrients, and can be the ecological ‘drivers’ of terrestrial communities on islands. It is inevitable that, historically, Motu Kaikoura would have held large populations of seabirds. Although seabirds are present in the waters surrounding the island, no
Motu Kaikoura Biodiversity Management Plan 7 Item 17(c) burrow-nesting species are known to be present now. Many of the smaller islands and stacks in the vicinity of Motu Kaikoura still support small numbers of seabirds.
RESTORATION OF ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES
Restoration of the island’s natural environment is a principal goal. From an ecological restoration perspective, the key to recommendations in this plan is the restoration of ecological processes, characterised by ecosystem structure (species and complexity) and ecosystem function (biomass and nutrient content). A model of the changes that these characteristics might undergo throughout a restoration process is shown in the following diagram (Van Dyke 2003):
It is recognised that significant constraints prevent Motu Kaikoura reaching an ‘original’ ecosystem as depicted in the diagram. However, the natural recovery of the island is already increasing the magnitude of both ecosystem structure and ecosystem function, perhaps represented by one of the curved trajectories of the diagram. This upward trajectory recognises that, although biomass and nutrient content may be increasing as the vegetation recovers, species and complexity may be responding at a slower rate due to ‘gaps’ in the species’ composition of the island.
The minimal intervention approach will ensure that any processes that are capable of restoring themselves through time will be allowed to do so. Some processes may not be restored through time, e.g. those dependent on species that are unable to reintroduce themselves. Such organisms may need to be translocated to Motu Kaikoura to fill the gaps. This, however, is not within the scope of this current plan.
Motu Kaikoura Biodiversity Management Plan 8 Item 17(c)
RESTORATION OF FLORA
Current situation Motu Kaikoura was most likely covered by coastal and lowland broadleaf forest with a minor component of mixed conifer species similar to that found on Great Barrier Island and other inner Hauraki Gulf Islands (Gardner-Gee et al. 2007; McEwen 1987; Ogden 2001).
Coastal broadleaf communities, dominated by pohutukawa (Metrosideros excelsa) would have existed along coastal cliffs, bluffs and spurs. Canopy species would have included taraire (Beilschmiedia tarairi), kohekohe (Dysoxylum spectabile), puriri (Vitex lucens), tawapou (Pouteria costata), and kowhai (Sophora microphylla). A dense shrub layer of kawakawa (Macropiper excelsum), rangiora (Brachyglottis repanda) and hangehange (Geniostoma ligustrifolium) would have formed under the canopy. Coastal heathlands were restricted to exposed headlands and rocky outcrops which supported low-canopied speciesand may have included Great Barrier kanuka (Kunzea sinclairii).
At higher altitudes (up to 250m), coastal forest would have given way to lowland podocarp or broadleaved species including kauri (Agathis australis); miro (Prumnopitys ferruginea); tawa (Beilschmiedia tawa); tawaroa (Beilschmiedia tawaroa) and maire (Nestegis lanceolata). Taraire and kohekehe were also still present but at lower abundances. Damper areas would have supported additional species such as houpara (Pseudopanax lessonii) and pigeonwood (Hedycarya arborea). Epiphytes such as Astelia banksii, Collospermum hastatum, Pyrrosia eleagnifolia and Microsorum pustulatum were common.
The present day flora of Motu Kaikoura reflects decades of grazing and clearance that occurred whilst the island was in private ownership. Cameron (2007) undertook the most recent vegetation survey of the island which is estimated to account for 80- 90% of vascular plant species present. The most common vegetation is kanuka (Kunzea ericoides) forest. Until recently, browsing by deer, goats and pigs severely reduced the undergrowth with palatable species absent or only present in inaccessible sites (Bellve 2007). Since the eradication of deer the understorey has significantly increased in diversity and density in many parts of the island.
A few broadleaved forest remnants remain, and these are mostly along the southern parts of the island. Taraire (Beilschmiedia tarairi) and pohutukawa (Metrosideros excelsa) are common. Other canopy species include puriri (Vitex lucens), tawa (Beilschmiedia tawa), mangeao (Listea calicaris) and kohekohe (Dysoxylum spectabile). Areas of regenerating understorey include kawakawa (Macropiper excelsum), ponga (Cyathea dealbata) and mapou (Myrsine australis) as well as fern species (Microsorum scandens and Asplenium spp.). A small area of conifer forest is also present on the eastern side of the island above Houseboat Bay. Species present here include kauri (Agathis australis), miro (Prumnopitys ferruginea), matai (P. taxifolia) and totara (Podocarpus totara) (Cameron, 2007).
Exposed and eroded northern slopes support sparse communities of gumland-type species as well as hakea (Hakea sericea) and Erica baccans. Vegetation, such as manuka and kanuka, which establish at these sites have low stunted growth forms.
Motu Kaikoura Biodiversity Management Plan 9 Item 17(c)
A number of pest plant species are also present, many of which originate from gardens surrounding the old farm buildings. Further information on pest plants including recommendations for control is given under the Biosecurity section of this document.
To date, 380 vascular plant species have been recorded on Motu Kaikoura (see Appendix 2). Of these species, 68% are native. Thirteen nationally threatened species, 20 regionally threatened and numerous uncommon species are present on the island. Further observations (Young 2010) have revealed an increase in species richness as well as a noticeable regeneration of species (Melicope ternata, Dysoxylum spectabile, Sophora sp.) that were previously restricted by deer browse.
Lichen have been surveyed on Motu Kaikoura annually since 2008. The current species list is 114 (see Appendix 2), considered to be a high number despite the relatively small size of the island and the poor state of the vegetation (Blanchon et al. 2011). Particularly important habitats include the farmhouse orchard, broadleaf forest areas and shaded inland bluffs.
Some of the more unusual species seem to be restricted in their distribution. Eight lichen species found on Motu Kaikoura have been designated as “At Risk” by de Lange et al. (in press). Of these, Teloschistes flavicans (Declining Sp, TO) was only seen once, in the orchard. The other seven species are listed as “Naturally Uncommon”, and include: Degelia durietzii, Parmotrema subtinctorum, Porpidia albocaerulescens, Pseudocyphellaria haywardiorum, Punctelia perreticulata, Ramalina meridionalis and Teloschistes sieberianus. A number of species found on the island are listed as “Data Deficient”, potentially indicating that the list of threatened and uncommon lichens could increase with further research.
The eradication of the deer may result in the recovery of some lichens or recolonisation by others if they were, in fact, being eaten by the deer (Blanchon et al. 2011). Conversely, recovery by grasses and other vascular plants following deer eradication may already be impacting negatively on soil and rock-dwelling lichen (D. Blanchon pers comm.). The farmhouse orchard is a lichen hotspot, and needs to be protected until sufficient smooth-bark indigenous trees are present to act as alternative hosts.
Restoration options Pivotal to the return of ecological processes to Motu Kaikoura is the return of forest community structure, i.e. a thriving, diverse understorey as well as the sustainable regeneration of canopy species. This, in turn, forms the foundation of ecosystem services such as habitat provision and food source for fauna, therefore facilitating ecological processes such as pollination and seed dispersal. At present, most of the island is in an early successional stage represented by the widespread manuka and kanuka scrub. Over time, this scrub will be replaced by a diverse mosaic of coastal vegetation.
The factors that will influence the development of these vegetation communities include the risk of ongoing disturbance by fire competition with weeds, and the relative scarcity of older forest remnants on the island. However, with the removal of deer, there is already firm indication that forest regeneration processes are underway, with seedlings of species such as mangeao, puriri, kohekohe, and taraire
Motu Kaikoura Biodiversity Management Plan 10 Item 17(c) widespread on the island, including in areas dominated by maritime pine, radiata pine, manuka, and kanuka. Restoration can involve varying degrees of intervention. In keeping with the current strategic direction set by the Trust, the recommendations regarding the restoration of flora require a low level of intervention.
Monitoring methodology Regeneration of the understorey has been observed and recorded by visitors to the island. This is attributed to the removal of deer and goats and considered a great biodiversity gain for the island. However, little is known in terms of both species composition and distribution of species across the island and ongoing monitoring of vegetation and the regeneration thereof is recommended.
It is suggested that as a minimum, monitoring of the Auckland Botanical Society’s vegetation plots should be undertaken in collaboration with the society. At present the plots (20m x 20m) are monitored every five years as per the following methodology: • five plots located approximately within the scrub; kanuka forest, eroded areas and kauri-associated forest habitats defined by Cameron (2007). • data collected for each plot includes: o Recce inventory; o species list; o canopy and ground cover; o sub-sample of saplings, seedlings (>15cm) and epicormic shoots. • 5 yearly monitoring frequency.
In addition to the five yearly plots, Auckland Botanical Society members visit the island on a regular basis and update the current flora checklist as new species are observed.
Lichen monitoring adhering to the methodology established by (Blanchon et al. (2011) should continue as the availability of research personel and funding permits to track changes associated with the island’s ecological recovery.
Continued pest plant control Current weed control programmes will continue to support the natural regeneration process and should be considered a minimum requirement for ecosystem restoration. Site specific control should be considered in relation to threaten plant / ecosystem management, some examples Crawford’s Bay where kikuyu may threaten strand plants as well as site specific control for the protection for native carrot (Daucus glochidiatus).
Revegetation – future options Limiting factors such as the low abundance of mature native trees could delay natural regeneration in some areas of the island Later successional species are often poorly represented in the soil seed bank and rely on seed dispersal by birds. There is a paucity of these species on Motu Kaikoura and subsequently fewer birds such as kereru and tui are present on the island. This creates a negative feedback loop which limits the spread of seed which is produced by the few remaining broadleaf trees. Spreading seeds collected from forest remnants at specific sites, e.g. within large tracts of manuka scrub, could facilitate the speedy establishment of forest tree species and accelerate the restoration process.
Motu Kaikoura Biodiversity Management Plan 11 Item 17(c)
Recommended actions for flora:
• Continue the monitoring of flora as described. • Continue pest plant management as described. • Continue support for lichen monitoring, and maintain fruit trees in the farmhouse orchard for specific lichen species. • A revegetation programme is not considered necessary as regeneration is occurring across the island and late successional species will eventually establish over all the island. • Should it become evident from vegetation monitoring data that the recovery of these species is significantly delayed, e.g. after 10 year timeframe of this plan, revegetation opportunities could be reviewed at that time to determine if a different course of action is appropriate.
Motu Kaikoura Biodiversity Management Plan 12 Item 17(c)
RESTORATION OF FRESHWATER ENVIRONMENTS
Current situation The extent of freshwater habitat Motu Kaikoura is minimal. The main perennial streams are Bradshaw Cove, Houseboat Bay and the valley west of Crawford’s Bay. Three valleys on the southwest coast also have small flows that disappear into coastal sands. The largest wetland area is part of the stream below Top House, which includes a pond area created by an earth dam (Bellve 2005).
Limited information has been collected relating to freshwater species on Motu Kaikoura:
• Ryder (2009) has carried out a study of freshwater invertebrates on the island using the macroinvertebrate community index (MCI). Low scores were calculated for all sampling sites, suggesting both a depauperate aquatic invertebrate assemblage and unsuitable habitat availability.
In comparison, it has been noted that streams and wetlands on Great Barrier Island host more freshwater species than any other offshore island in New Zealand (Maddison & Arkins 2001).
The following freshwater fish species are known to live on Great Barrier Island: • longfin eel (Anguilla dieffenbachia) • shortfin eel (A. australis) • inanga (Galaxias maculatus) • banded kokopu (G. fasciatus) • giant kokopu (G. argenteus) • redfin bully (Gobiomorphus huttoni) • giant bully (G. gobioides) • common bully (G. cotidianus) • bluegill bully (G. hubbsi) • cockabully (Grahamina nigripenne)
It is likely that some of these species, such as longfin eel, short fin eel, banded kokopu, and common bully are present on Motu Kaikoura. Fortunately, Great Barrier Island (and therefore, it is assumed, Motu Kaikoura) is free of invasive freshwater pest fish.
Restoration options Restoration of freshwater environments on Motu Kaikoura is not considered a priority due to a relative lack of permanent aquatic habitats. Further baseline information should be collected (as resources allow) to clarify the nature of species present on the island.
Monitoring methodology • Macroinvertebrate Community Index (MCI) study – sampling of all soft bottomed streams to collect and quantify macroinvertebrates present. This could be carried out at any time of the year, although as streams on the island are generally quite small and shallow, winter may be the best season for this. An MCI study of streams should be carried out at least every two years.
Motu Kaikoura Biodiversity Management Plan 13 Item 17(c)
• Backpack electrofishing or collapsible minnow nets could be used to sample fish communities – depending on experience and ability of participants. This could be carried out at the same time and locations as the MCI study.
Recommended actions for freshwater environments:
• Support the collection of baseline data. • The reintroduction of freshwater animals to Motu Kaikoura is not recommended. Most freshwater fish species that the island provides appropriate habitat for are either likely to be present, or to naturally disperse to the island with time.
RESTORATION OF INVERTEBRATES
Current situation Approximately five thousand species of land and freshwater invertebrates are thought to live on Great Barrier Island and its outlying islands (Maddison & Arkins 2001). These occur across a wide range of habitats (e.g. sand dunes, wetlands and mature forests).
Limited information exists relating to the invertebrate diversity and distribution on Motu Kaikoura. As the island has experienced considerable disturbance through human activities and suffered from the impacts of vertebrate pests, it is likely that some invertebrate species have been lost from the ecosystem.
Brief studies have been carried out in recent years looking at invertebrate populations on Motu Kaikoura:
• Foster (2011) has carried out research to determine if pest control has benefited invertebrates on Motu Kaikoura. A comparison was made between a study site on Motu Kaikoura where pest control is occurring, and at a site on Great Barrier Island, where there is no pest control. Results showed little difference between the two islands. It is thought that invertebrate populations have not yet recovered from the impacts of predation and that the degraded state of the vegetation is not able to support a diverse invertebrate community.
• Foster (2011) also compared weta populations between these two areas. Occupancy rates in artificial ‘weta boxes’ were found to be much higher on Motu Kaikoura (pests controlled) than on Great Barrier Island (pests not controlled). As a large insect, weta are relatively easy to monitor, and can be an indicator of the health of the invertebrate fauna in general.
• As mentioned above, Ryder (2009) has carried out a study of freshwater invertebrates on the island using the macroinvertebrate community index (MCI). Low scores were calculated for all sampling sites, suggesting both a depauperate aquatic invertebrate assemblage and unsuitable habitat availability.
Motu Kaikoura Biodiversity Management Plan 14 Item 17(c)
• Galbraith (2009) noted an increase in insectivorous birds (e.g. fantail, grey warbler and silvereye) in a recent ornithological survey on the island. It is thought the reduced predation by rats could have led to this increase in invertebrates and therefore higher insectivorous bird numbers.
Restoration options The species diversity and population dynamics of invertebrates on Motu Kaikoura is not well known at this time. It is recommended that until resources allow, monitoring of weta populations should continue as the main invertebrate monitoring focus. Monitoring of weta occupancy in weta boxes (by volunteers and/or community / school groups) is a relatively simple exercise and can be used as a biological indicator for invertebrate communities on the island as a whole.
A more robust and meaningful programme of invertebrate monitoring could be set up on the island in future, although this will require expert input. It is not recommended that this be initiated at this stage. Any restoration programme designed to eradicate pests will probably necessitate the use of poisons. It is strongly recommended that all poison use should be monitored and where there is a choice the least toxic poison should be used, particularly if there is a risk of invertebrates eating it and passing the poison through a foodchain to other animals.
Species that are absent and unlikely to colonise by natural means may be candidates for translocation in the future (such as large flightless species – weta, giant land snails, and large flightless beetles). Those species unlikely to self-colonise could be investigated beyond the ten-year timeframe of this plan, once monitoring has revealed more about the resident invertebrate community of Motu Kaikoura.
Recommended actions for invertebrates:
• Continue annual weta surveys. • Support the collection of baseline data when resources are available.
Motu Kaikoura Biodiversity Management Plan 15 Item 17(c)
RESTORATION OF REPTILES
Current situation Reptiles are in decline throughout mainland New Zealand, and predator free offshore islands offer important safe refuges. In the Auckland region, offshore or mainland island refuges are the only place that some reptiles persist, e.g. egg laying skink, moko skink. Table 1 shows the current threat categories (Hitchmough et al. 2010) of reptiles possibly present on Motu Kaikoura.
Table 1: Reptile species and threat categories.
Reptile species Present Detected Possibly Threat status on GBI to date present Auckland green gecko At risk - declining (Naulitinus elegans) Pacific gecko At risk - relict (Hoplodactylus pacificus) common gecko - (Hoplodactylus maculatus) forest gecko - (Mokopirirakau granulatus) Duvaucel's gecko At risk - relict (Hoplodactylus duvaucelii) chevron skink possible Nationally vulnerable (Oligosoma homalonotum) marbled skink possible At risk - relict (Oligosoma oliveri) striped skink possible At risk - declining (Oligosoma striatum) ornate skink At risk - declining (Oligosoma ornatum) egg laying skink 1 possible At risk - relict (Oligosoma suteri) sighting moko skink At risk - relict (Oligosoma moco) shore skink - (Oligosoma smithi) copper skink - (Cyclodina aenea) rainbow skink Introduced (Lampropholis delicata)
Those in the ‘At risk’ category are grouped according to risk type not degree of risk which varies within each category. ‘Declining’ means that current widespread population levels are conservation dependant and still in decline. ‘Relict’ refers to smaller localised populations that exist due to conservation efforts. These rankings indicate that the reptiles present or possibly present on Motu Kaikoura represent regionally and nationally significant species populations.
Reptiles fulfil important ecosystem functions such as pollination and seed dispersal, and sit within the food web as both predators (of invertebrates) and prey species (for birds). They also play an important role in the honeydew cycle. Before modification
Motu Kaikoura Biodiversity Management Plan 16 Item 17(c) of Motu Kaikoura and the introduction of animal pests, reptiles would have been widely dispersed across the island occupying different niches such as open rocky shores (shore, moko, & Suter skink), damp forest floors (Chevron and striped skink), seabird burrows (tuatara and Mokohinau skink) and general forest habitats (Pacific, common and Duvaucel's gecko, copper and ornate skink).
Motu Kaikoura has a wide range of habitats that are likely to support the same species as present on nearby Great Barrier, with a few exceptions. • Chevron and striped skink require moist habitat conditions that are not available on the island. • Forest and green gecko may be present but are not usually found on smaller offshore islands (D. Towns, G. Ussher pers comm.) possibly due to lack of constant availability of favoured early successional habitat. It is unclear at this stage whether Motu Kaikoura will be large enough to support such species in the long term. • The Mokohinau skink is a larger skink often associated with seabird presence and therefore unlikely to have persisted or still be present on Motu Kaikoura.
Experience from other islands show that it can take a long time to detect reptile presence so monitoring is recommended for at least 10 years before any introductions are contemplated. Preliminary surveys of various habitats and locations around the island indicate the presence of small remnant populations of a few skink species – moko, copper and shore skinks (Martin, 2010) (see Appendix 2). Surveys used artificial cover objects (ACOs) and visual encounter surveys (VES). No geckos have yet been seen on the island. All reptiles will have been subjected to predation from pests present on the island (rodents, cats and pigs), from habitat destruction due to farming, fires, and deer browse, or from loss of associated species (such as seabirds and access to burrows). Browsing animals will also have compacted soil and leaf litter, therefore reducing appropriate habitat and burrows.
Restoration options Regeneration of habitat will benefit all forest dwelling reptiles that require deep leaf litter, well developed vegetation, high moisture levels, and good forest structure. Forest regeneration will also provide direct benefits of suitable food resources such as fruit, nectar, honeydew and indirect benefits of increased invertebrates and provision of refuges via flaking bark, tree cavities and detritus material. In coastal areas harakeke (flax; Phormium tenax) and ngaio (Myoporum laetum) could be further established by direct seeding to provide additional refuge and nectar sources. However planting is not recommended within the ten-year life of this plan. The island provides extensive areas of manuka and kanuka which are a favoured habitat for some gecko species.
Rodents are currently the biggest threat to reptiles and population recovery so should be controlled to low densities as outlined in the Biosecurity section. Otherwise, ongoing management requirements are minimal, with a five yearly monitoring programme recommended. Reptile populations respond slowly to predation pressures and so more frequent monitoring is not necessary. Large skinks associated with seabirds could be considered for translocation after a suitable period has elapsed to enable detection of presence and to allow for any establishment of seabird populations – probably a minimum of 10 years.
Motu Kaikoura Biodiversity Management Plan 17 Item 17(c)
Monitoring methodology As can be seen from Table 2, different species require different detection methods and different habitats lend themselves to different methods. For example ACOs are best placed in partial or full sun so are less effective in areas with a canopy. Skill levels required to check devices also varies with tracking tunnels requiring little skill in terms of baiting and collecting cards but a higher level of skill for card interpretation. Closed foam refuges (CFRs) and ACOs require trained personnel operating under a DOC permit and, in the case of ACOs, quick reflexes to catch animals.
Table 2: Recommended monitoring methods
Monitoring method Reptile species Tracking ACO CFR VES tunnel Pacific gecko ornate skink common gecko Duvaucel’s gecko Suter skink moko skink shore skink copper skink rainbow skink green gecko
With these factors in mind the following methodology is recommended: • ACO o Continuation of ACO monitoring with existing lines located in various habitat types as per Martin 2010. Recommended frequency = every one to three years, timing = March.
• CFR o Installation of 5 lines of CFRs, with 40 covers on each line approximately 10 metres apart. Two lines to be placed in forest habitat and three lines in coastal habitat. Covers to be nailed to trees at approximately chest height and numbered. If possible covers should be placed on kanuka or manuka trees. Lines to be placed along existing bait station lines for ease of access, in a variety of habitat types. o Year one – all covers checked in early March, six checks every second day. Subsequent years, each line to be checked once only, with repeats of the full methodology every five years. o NB: This methodology matches that used by the Auckland Council for its regional monitoring programme.
• Tracking cards o Existing rodent monitoring tracking tunnels to be used. Cards to be baited with banana, left overnight and collected the next day. o Check every day over 5 day period in March. o Check once a year for the first two years, then every three years thereafter.
Motu Kaikoura Biodiversity Management Plan 18 Item 17(c)
Recommended actions for reptiles:
• Undertake ongoing regular monitoring as described. • Undertake comprehensive baseline survey of reptiles using appropriate methods (see Table 2) to target different species depending on their behaviour. [NB: Tracking tunnels may have to be replaced by ACO’s if rodent presence is too high causing avoidance by reptiles or masking of presence.] • No translocations to be considered for a minimum of 10 years to allow detection of remnant populations. • Ensure rodents controlled to ≤5% density, zero if possible. • Consider enhancing populations of harakeke and ngaio in coastal areas if suitable gaps and labour resources exist.
RESTORATION OF BIRDS
Current situation Birds undertake important ecosystem functions such as pollination and seed dispersal, and are also an essential part of predator/prey food webs. Large birds like native pigeons are the only remaining dispersers of large-seeded tree species such as tawa (Beilschmiedia tawa), taraire (B. tarairi) and tawapou (Planchonella costata). Seabirds also bring large amounts of marine nutrients ashore which, in the past, drove coastal forest ecosystem fertility and species composition.
Recent surveys (Galbraith & Jones 2010; M. Galbraith, pers obs.) have recorded 37 species, of which 70% are indigenous (26) and 30% (11) exotic (see Appendix 2). Shore and seabirds account for 33% (12), wetland birds 5% (2), and landbirds 62% (23). The avifauna on the island is depauperate compared with mainland Great Barrier Island, which has 62 recorded species. This difference is considered to be due to lower habitat diversity, and the former presence of deer which browsed the understorey.
A lack of ground nesting birds is probably a result of predation over the years by predatory mammals such as rats and feral cats. In the main, insectivorous birds are better represented and herbivorous species are fewer possibly due to the lack of both understorey and mature later successional native vegetation. However, the previous absence of possums and mustelids from the island has most likely allowed a greater suite of bird species to survive compared with most mainland sites.
Table 3 lists the threatened bird species already on the island (Hitchmough et al. 2007). These are mostly seabirds (e.g. Cooks petrel, blue penguin, pied shag, little shag, terns and the gulls), but also shorebirds (variable oystercatcher, and reef heron) and some ground nesting wetland species (brown teal and banded rail). The island already represents an important refuge for these species. Controlling rodents to low densities ≤5% will add further protection.
Motu Kaikoura Biodiversity Management Plan 19 Item 17(c)
Table 3: Indigenous threatened species present
Common name Latin name Threat classification reef heron Egretta sacra Nationally vulnerable red-billed gull Larus novaehollandiae Nationally vulnerable pied shag Phalacrocorax varius Nationally vulnerable NI Kaka Nestor meridionalis Nationally vulnerable Caspian tern Sterna caspia Nationally vulnerable blue penguin Eudyptula minor At risk - declining white-fronted tern Sterna striata At risk - declining Cooks petrel Pterodroma cookii At risk - relict variable oystercatcher Haematopus unicolor At risk - recovering brown teal Anas chlorotis At risk – recovering little shag Phalacrocorax At risk - naturally uncommon melanoleucos banded rail Rallus philippensis At risk -naturally uncommon
Model situation As habitats improve, and with sustained protection from pest mammals, further colonisation by some bird species from Great Barrier and Little Barrier Islands, and possibly elsewhere, is expected. Significant functional gaps and missing species however, will need to be addressed through reintroductions. This is especially the case for some less mobile forest bird species. Translocations to secure habitat on Motu Kaikoura would also have the potential, at least for those species capable of crossing the narrow channels around the island, to provide a source of birds which can then recolonise nearby Great Barrier. The island is ideally placed to provide future habitat for a wide range of sea and landbird species. A number of species of petrels would have been present historically, and many of these still breed on nearby islands.
Offshore islands in the Hauraki Gulf are important refuges for seabirds. As seabird densities in the Gulf increase following pest removals from a number of their breeding islands, it becomes more important for prospecting birds to have new safe habitats to colonise. This supports a ‘watch and wait’ policy within the lifetime of this plan.
Restoration options Petrel species could self-colonise from nearby islands. Species include black petrel (Procellaria parkinsoni), Cook’s petrel (Pterodroma cookii), grey-faced petrel (P. macroptera), diving petrel (Pelecanoides urinatrix) and fluttering shearwater (Puffinus gavia) (Lovegrove 2001; Halema Jamieson, pers comm.). Translocations or active management of petrels may not be necessary until more suitable habitat is available. For example, Cook’s petrels prefer mature forest, deep free draining soils, and steep slopes with short distances to ridge tops (Rayner et al. 2007). These needs are currently not easily met on Motu Kaikoura.
In the sooty shearwater (Puffinus griseus), another species that could potentially self- colonise, burrow density is correlated with similar abiotic factors, as well as vegetation type, and burrows are more commonly found at sites with tall canopy species of kamahi, rata, manuka or podocarps (Scott et al. 2009). Soft, flexible
Motu Kaikoura Biodiversity Management Plan 20 Item 17(c) canopy foliage is essential for safe landing, and a flourishing understorey provides shelter from coastal winds. However, waiting for suitable petrel habitat to develop could take a long time, and this should not preclude experimental use of acoustic luring devices at potentially suitable sites if any already exist.
As petrels and shearwaters have low reproduction rates and delayed maturity (Bell & Sim 1998), rodent control is essential to ensure minimal predation of adults and chicks and thus maximise population recruitment.
Recommended actions for birds:
• Continue regular annual bird monitoring across a variety of habitats. • Control rodent numbers to ≤5% density across the entire island. • For kaka, maintain mature P. pinaster until mature native canopy species are established & more widespread. Pines on the island, particularly P. pinaster currently provide a food source for visiting kaka and their removal should be staged over a period of time. • Control any prickly or spiky or harsh foliage weeds in coastal cliff areas to promote opportunities for petrels to prospect and colonise. • Investigate use of acoustic luring devices at suitable sites to attract missing petrel species. • Draw up a list of species for potential future translocation. Early candidates for reintroduction should include forest species such as robin (in which a Motu Kaikoura population could augment existing translocation initiatives at Glenfern and Windy Hill), and recently extinct species from Great Barrier, such as whitehead.
RESTORATION OF INDIGENOUS MAMMALS
Current situation New Zealand has few native mammals and bats are the only terrestrial native mammals present. There are only two living species, the long-tailed bat (Chalinolobus tuberculatus) and the short-tailed bat (Mystacina tuberculata). Both species are threatened with extinction and considered a high priority for conservation.
Although bats remain widely distributed across New Zealand, populations are patchy with extremely low numbers in many areas. C. tuberculatus is found in native, regenerating and exotic forests, but M. tuberculata inhabits only old-growth native forest. Both species are recorded from islands. Long-tailed bats are known from Great Barrier Island, while there are no known records of short-tailed bat for Great Barrier. It is reasonable to assume that the long-tailed bat was a part of the original fauna of Motu Kaikoura.
Motu Kaikoura Biodiversity Management Plan 21 Item 17(c)
Habitat requirements Native bats are largely found within old growth forests around New Zealand. They utilise hollows in old-age trees as roosts and actively select the largest trees for roosting sites, usually in mature lowland forest. It has been found however, that they will inhabit fragmented/regenerating native forest, and may utilise exotic plantations. It can be assumed that if bats are present in native forested areas, that they will be present in adjacent exotic plantations (Borkin & Parsons 2010).
Restoration options It is improbable that the long-tailed bat would have would have survived the historical degradation of vegetation on Motu Kaikoura. However, since the species is present on Great Barrier Island, and Motu Kaikoura does have extensive areas of pine, there is a possibility that some bats, possibly commuting between the islands, utilise the area of pine trees on Motu Kaikoura.
To date, bat surveys on Motu Kaikoura have consisted of non-systemmatic sampling carried out during bird survey trips using a hand-held call detector. The surveys were carried out at dusk in open areas beside old pine trees, specifically around the airfield and the old farmhouse. These surveys have not produced evidence of bats, although the old-growth pine forest has potential to be a suitable habitat.
Monitoring methodology • a 3-night survey using automatic bat detectors undertaken along transects in spring / summer (Oct-Feb) would provide a suitable baseline data to assess the presence of bats on the island; • research to determine the presence and abundance of suitable food species.
Recommended actions for bats:
• Undertake regular monitoring for bats as described. • Support research of the status of suitable food species for bats. • The reintroduction of bats to Motu Kaikoura is not recommended at this time if no bat population is found as suitable native habitat on the island is limited (options for translocation could be reconsidered in the future once natural regeneration of coastal forest species has occurred).
Motu Kaikoura Biodiversity Management Plan 22 Item 17(c)
Marine mammals The Hauraki Gulf has been identified as an important nursery area for native marine mammals, in particular, common dolphins (Dept of Conservation 2006). Further research will be undertaken by a PhD student from Massey University to determine habitat utilisation, abundance and densities of common and bottle-nosed dolphins. Motu Kaikoura will serve as a base for the research.
Recommended actions for marine mammals:
• Support/collaborate on research as resouces allow.
Motu Kaikoura Biodiversity Management Plan 23 Item 17(c)
BIOSECURITY
Pest plants Pest plants present on the island originate from previous gardens, the presence of livestock, wind dispersed seed from Great Barrier or from being attached to or within birds. Fortunately the lack of habitat on the island means that many weeds present on Great Barrier are absent from Motu Kaikoura, such as - wandering Jew (Tradescantia fluminensis), sweet pea shrub (Polygala myrtifolia), kahili ginger (Hedychium gardnerianum), climbing asparagus (Asparagus scandens), jasmine (Jasminum polyanthum) and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica).
Pest plants considered in this plan are environmental weeds only and do not include pasture, grass or annual weed species. Control of weeds has been undertaken by the Auckland Council Biosecurity Team and the Motu Kaikoura Trust. Auckland Council has implemented pest plant surveys and control work on the Island for the past five years and have documented infestations of environmental weed species as listed below in Table 4 (Cox 2010).
Also present are wilding peaches (Prunus persica), prickly hakea (Hakea sericea), gorse (Ulex europeaus), macrocarpa (Cuppressus macrocarpa) and large areas of two pine species (Pinus pinaster and P. radiata). Some infestations such as moth plant, hakea, and pines are quite widely dispersed, but most occur only in localised sites. The implication of current distribution is that most species are can be eradicated in the short to medium term. Council efforts to date have already resulted in the eradication of three pest plant species - Cape honey flower (Melianthus major), smilax (Asparagus asparagoides) and aloe (Aloe arborescens).
Table 4: Pest plants present on the island 2010 (Cox 2010)
Common name Latin name arum lily Zantedeschia aethiopica black passionfruit Passiflora edulis buttercup bush Senna septemtrionalis Chinese privet Ligustrum sinense cotoneaster Cotoneaster sp. elephant's ear Alocasia brisbanensis hydrangea Hydrangea macrophylla Madeira vine Anredera cordifolia monkey apple Syzygium smithii moth plant Araujia sericifera pampas Cortaderia sp. periwinkle Vinca major mist flower Ageratina sp. Australian sedge Carex longebrachiata Mexican daisy Erigeron karvinskianus
Motu Kaikoura Biodiversity Management Plan 24 Item 17(c)
Pest plant control recommendations (see Appendices 3):
• Continued annual surveying of the island (both on foot and by boat) by experienced people is recommended. The focus of surveys should be key flowering times such as early summer for moth plant. To increase efficiency and progress more rapidly with surveys and control work it is recommended that the annual Auckland Council visit is augmented with either Motu Kaikoura Trust members or DOC staff. Any new species of pest plants detected during future surveys need to be added to the future actions list of the corresponding year’s report. • Manage pines as per the recommendations of the pine management plan – see Appendix 3. The larger areas of maritime pine are to be removed progressively as they provide a food source for kaka; regular surveillance of controlled areas to prevent regeneration essential. • In eroded areas prickly hakea and gorse are common as a result of previous fires. Control is not recommended within the life of this plan as these plants will eventually become shaded out by native tree species. Gorse control is not necessary unless it impedes access or is present where it will not be shaded out by taller native vegetation (e.g. on rock outcrops). • Macrocarpa should be controlled where access to light may give it an advantage over native species. • All other pest plants should be controlled regularly as per the recommendations of the latest Auckland Council report (Cox 2010) – see Appendix 3. Note that some weeds such as pampas are located in inaccessible steep areas and will require either aerial spraying (which could be carried out in conjunction with DOC) or control by a specialised abseiling team.
Pest Animals An aerial-based pest animal eradication undertaken in 2008 was initially thought to be successful. However, after nine months, rodents were detected and it appears from DNA evidence (Fewster et al. 2011) that kiore and ship rats may now be present. The adjacent mainland is only 120m away at the closest point and this poses a significant risk. Ship rats are capable swimmers, however, kiore and mice are thought to be poor swimmers and unlikely to be able to cross to the island from the mainland of Great Barrier unassisted.
Despite trapping and baiting efforts to contain reinvading rats on the shoreline, rodents are found throughout the island as evident from recent surveys and trapping results (Hamilton 2011; Mitchell 2010; Scarlett 2011). It is possible that more deer than anticipated were present on the island at the time of the bait application, and that these animals consumed enough bait to create gaps in bait cover. In these gaps, rodents will not have been exposed to bait or to enough bait for a lethal dose. While it is possible one or more species of rodents may have survived the poison drop, it is equally plausible they have re-invaded the island by swimming, via flotsam, or as stowaways on vessels.
Motu Kaikoura Biodiversity Management Plan 25 Item 17(c)
To date there have been no further sightings or sign of deer, pigs, cats or rabbits. Rodents appear to be the only animal pests still present. It is unknown whether other pests are present on Motu Kaikoura - current reptile survey efforts have not detected rainbow skinks; surveillance of Argentine ants on Great Barrier Island following their discovery in 2006 has identified their persistence at specific localised sites (Great Barrier Island Charitable Trust 2010).
Pest animal control recommendations (see Appendix 4):
Other animal pests • Early detection is paramount in preventing other pests from establishing on the island. Border security measures as recommended below should minimise the arrival of pests, including mice, rainbow skinks and Argentine ants, and on-going reptile monitoring should reveal the presence of rainbow skinks. People carrying out rodent control will be covering the island intensively, so should all be trained in recognising Argentine ant colonies and all animal scats and footprints. If any pests or suspected sign (other than rodents) are found the Trust must be informed immediately so that a control programme can be initiated.
Border control Maintain existing biosecurity controls at border and pre-border to minimise the likelihood of any pest arriving:
• Pre border: - Arrivals from Great Barrier and surrounding islands should be checked for presence of all ship rats, kiore, mice, rainbow skinks, Argentine ants and weed seeds. All footwear must be cleaned and sprayed with trigene for prevention of kauri die-back. - Arrivals from outside of Great Barrier should additionally be checked for Norway rats, possums, mustelids, and hedgehogs. - Inspect all materials/machinery/equipment before arrival to ensure no stowaways are present. Undertake preventative treatment if available, e.g. bait for Argentine ants, control treatment for rainbow skinks. - No plant material or soil mixes are to be taken to the island as they constitute a major biosecurity risk.
• At border: - Undertake biosecurity check of all visitors and their luggage either in the biosecurity shed on the wharf, or in the biosecurity shed on the runway. - Ensure all food arriving at the island is packed in rodent-proof containers. - Remove all leftover food scraps containing seeds from the island. Undertake visual inspections of all equipment before unloading.
Motu Kaikoura Biodiversity Management Plan 26 Item 17(c)
REFERENCES
Bell, E.A. and J.L. Sim. 1998. Survey and monitoring of black petrels on Great Barrier Island 1997. Science for Conservation 78. Department of Conservation, Wellington.
Blanchon, D., C. Elliott, I. Ennis, G. Hayward, M. Galbraith and G. Aguilar. 2011. A lichen species list for Motu Kaikoura, Fitzroy Harbour, Great Barrier Island. Auckland Botanical Society Journal 66(2): 102-107.
Borkin, K.M. and S. Parsons. 2010. The importance of exotic plantation forest for the New Zealand long-tailed bat (Chalinolobus tuberculatus). New Zealand Journal of Zoology 37(1): 35-51.
Cameron, E.K. 2007. The Vascular Flora of Motu Kaikoura, FitzRoy Harbour, Great Barrier Island. Auckland Botanical Society Journal 62 (1): 78-95.
Cox, H. 2010. Kaikoura Island weed control and survey 2010. Auckland Regional Council, Auckland. de Lange, P.J., D.J. Galloway, D.J. Blanchon, A. Knight, J.R. Rolfe, G.M. Crowcroft and R. Hitchmough. 2012. Conservation status of New Zealand lichens. New Zealand Journal of Botany (in press).
Department of Conservation. 2006. Marine mammals of the Hauraki Gulf. Department of Conservation, Christchurch.
Dodd, A. and V. Tanner. 2007. Kaikoura Island archaeological survey. Department of Conservation, Auckland.
Fewster, R.M., S.D. Miller and J. Ritchie. 2011. DNA profiling - a management tool for rat eradication. pp 426-431 In: Veitch, C. R., M.N. Clout and D.R. Towns (eds.) Island invasives: eradication and management. IUCN, Gland.
Foster, K. 2011. Effect of ship rat (Rattus rattus) eradication on the terrestrial invertebrate biodiversity of Motu Kaikoura: a comparison with a non-rodent controlled site. Unitec Institute of Technology, Auckland (unpublished student report).
Galbraith, M. and G. Jones. 2010. Bird fauna of Motu Kaikoura, New Zealand. Notornis 57: 1-7.
Gardner-Gee, R., S. Graham, R. Griffiths, M. Habgood, S. Heiss Dunlop and H. Lindsay. 2007. Motuora native species restoration plan. Department of Conservation/Motuora Restoration Society, Auckland.
Great Barrier Island Charitable Trust. 2010. Great Barrier Island State of Environment Report. On-line report, www.gbict.co.nz.
Motu Kaikoura Biodiversity Management Plan 27 Item 17(c)
Hamilton, O. 2011. Distribution and density of ship rat (Rattus rattus) on Motu Kaikoura, Hauraki Gulf, following reinvasion after eradication. University of Auckland, Auckland (unpublished student report).
Hitchmough, R., L. Bull and P. Cromarty (comp.). 2007. New Zealand Threat Classification System lists - 2005. Department of Conservation, Wellington.
Hitchmough, R.A., J.M. Hoare, H. Jamieson, D. Newman, M.D. Tocher, P.J. Anderson, M. Lettink and A.H. Whitaker. 2010. Conservation status of New Zealand reptiles, 2009. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 37(3): 203 - 224.
Lovegrove, T. 2001. Birds. pp. 147-162 In: Armitage, D. (Ed.) Great Barrier Island. Canterbury University Press, Christchurch.
McEwen, M. (Ed.). 1987. Ecological regions and districts of New Zealand. Department of Conservation, Wellington.
Maddison, P. and A. Arkins. 2001. Land and freshwater invertebrates. pp. 104-117 In: Armitage, D. (Ed.) Great Barrier Island. Canterbury University Press, Christchurch.
Martin, T. 2012. Preliminary survey and monitoring of herpetofauna, Motu Kaikoura 2008-2011. Wildland Consultants Contract Report No. 2791. Wildland Consultants, Auckland.
Mitchell, M. 2010 Report on Motu Kaikoura rat monitoring. Auckland Council, Auckland (unpublished report).
Motu Kaikoura Trust. 2005. Motu Kaikoura management plan, Draft 24. Motu Kaikoura Trust, Auckland.
Natural Logic Environmental Management. 2008. Kaikoura Island Eradication Operational Plan. Unpublished report.
Ogden, J. 2001. Major ecosystems. pp. 52-81 In: Armitage, D. (Ed.) Great Barrier Island. Canterbury University Press, Christchurch.
Rayner M. J., M.N. Clout, R.K. Stamp, M.J. Imber, D.H. Brunton and M.E. Hauber. 2007. Predictive habitat modelling improves the population census accuracy of a burrowing seabird: a study of the endangered Cook’s petrel. Biological Conservation 138: 235-247.
Ryder, T. 2009. The effect of canopy cover and seasonal variation on freshwater fauna in streams on Kaikoura Island. Unitec Institute of Technology, Auckland (unpublished student report).
Scarlett, 2011. Update from Will Scarlett – Caretaker. Kaka Comments 10. Motu Kaikoura Trust Supporters, Auckland.
Motu Kaikoura Biodiversity Management Plan 28 Item 17(c)
Scott, D, H. Moller, D. Fletcher, J. Newman, J. Aryal, C. Bragg and C. Charelton. 2009. Predictive habitat modeling to estimate petrel breeding colony sizes: sooty shearwaters (Puffinus griseus) and mottled petrels (Pterodroma inexpectata) on Whenua Hou Island. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 36: 291-306.
Van Dyke, F. 2003. Conservation Biology: foundations, concepts, applications. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Young, M. 2010. Botanical Report December 2009. Kaka Comments, Motu Kaikoura Trust Supporters’ Newsletter 8: 4.
Motu Kaikoura Biodiversity Management Plan 29 Item 17(c)
APPENDICES
Biodiversity Management Plan April 2012
Motu Kaikoura Biodiversity Management Plan 31 Item 17(c)
APPENDIX 1: ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
Management of archaeological sites A detailed archaeological survey was undertaken by Dodd & Tanner (2007) and shows that Motu Kaikoura has a number of archaeological sites representing both Maori and European occupation although the landscape has undergone significant modification over time (see list included). In particular, the island’s World War II heritage is well preserved with a complete outpost including tracks, structures and roads.
Although management of these sites is mostly passive, potential adverse effects may arise during natural restoration of the island. Identified threats include damage by vegetation (including planting) and increased proximity of foot traffic on or around sites as a result of improved access.
Knowledge as to the location of archaeological sites is important to reduce the likelihood of damage during other restoration activities including the development of a track network across the island.
To this end, a map of significant archaeological sites should be compiled for ease of reference when undertaking other restoration activities. Specific recommendations regarding the management of Motu Kaikoura’s archaeological landscape are presented in by Dodd & Tanner (2007) as below and a list of known sites is included in the Motu Kaikoura Management Plan 2005-2015.
Recommendations from Dodd & Tanner (2007):
Motu Kaikoura Biodiversity Management Plan 33 Item 17(c)
Motu Kaikoura Biodiversity Management Plan 34 Item 17(c)
APPENDIX 2: FLORA AND FAUNA LISTS
Dicotyledons (135) Ageratina adenophora* Hakea sericea* Anagallis arvensis* Haloragis erecta Apium prostratum Hebe macrocarpa Apium "white denticles" Hebe pubescens subsp rehuarum Aster subulatus* Hedycarya arborea Atriplex prostrata* Helichrysum lanceolatum Avicennia marina var. resinifera Hoheria populnea Beilschmiedia tarairi Hydrocotyle moschata Beilschmiedia tawa Hydrocotyle elongata Beilschmiedia tawaroa Hypericum japonicum Brachyglottis kirkii Knightia excelsa Brachyglottis repanda Kunzea ericoides Callitriche muelleri Kunzea ericoides x sinclairii Callitriche stagnalis* Kunzea sinclairii Carmichaelia australis Leontodon taraxacoides* Celmisia major! (AK 11741) Leptecophylla juniperina Centella uniflora Leptospermum scoparium Cirsium vulgare* Leucopogon fasciculatus Clematis cunninghamii Leucopogon fraseri Clematis paniculata Linum sp Conyza bilbaoana* Litsea calicaris Coprosma grandifolia Lobelia anceps Coprosma macrocarpa Lotus ? suaveolens* Coprosma repens Macropiper excelsum subsp excelsum Coprosma rhamnoides Melianthus major* Coprosma robusta Melicope ternata Coprosma robusta x macrocarpa Melicytus ramiflorus Coriaria arborea Metrosideros excelsa Corynocarpus laevigatus Metrosideros perforata Cotoneaster glaucophyllus* Muehlenbeckia complexa Cotula australis Myoporum laetum Crassula sieberiana Myrsine australis Dichondra repens Nasturtium sp Disphyma australe Nestegis apetala Dodonaea viscosa Nestegis lanceolata Drosera auriculata Olearia furfuracea Dysoxylum spectabile Oxalis rubens Einadia triandra Ozothamnus leptophyllus Elaeocarpus dentatus Parietaria debilis Entelea arborescens Parsonsia heterophylla Erica baccans Passiflora edulis* Eruca vesicaria subsp sativa*! Pelargonium inodorum Erythrina x sykesii* Peperomia urvilleana Eucalyptus spp Physalis peruviana* Euchiton gymnocephalus Phytolacca octandra* Euphorbia peplus* Pimelea aff urvilleana Galium propinquum Pittosporum crassifolium Geniostoma rupestre var. ligustrifolium Pittosporum umbellatum Geranium robertianum* Plantago lanceolata* Geranium solanderi "coarse hairs" Pomaderris kumeraho Gonocarpus incanus Pomaderris phylicifolia var ericifolia Hakea gibbosa* Pouteria costata
Motu Kaikoura Biodiversity Management Plan 35 Item 17(c)
Pseudognaphalium luteo-album agg Solanum americanum Pseudopanax arboreus Sonchus ? asper* Pseudopanax lessonii Sophora microphylla (S. chathamica) Rhabdothamnus solandri Spergularia marginata Rubus cissoides Stellaria sp Sagina procumbens* Tetragonia trigyna Samolus repens Ulex europaeus* Sarcocornia quinqueflora Verbascum thapsus* Scandia rosifolia Veronica plebia* Schefflera digitata Vicia narbonensis*! (AK 76198) Senecio hispidulus Vinca major* Senecio jacobaea* Vitex lucens Senecio lautus Vittadinia australis! (WELT herbarium) Senecio minimus Wahlenbergia violacea Siegesbeckia orientalis* Weinmannia silvicola Solanum aviculare
Monocotyledons (55) Acianthus sinclairii Isolepis cernua Alocasia brisbanensis* Isolepis ? prolifer Arthropodium cirratum Juncus australis Astelia banksii Juncus effusus*Juncus edgariae Astelia solandri Lachnagrostis billardierei Bulbophyllum pygmaeum Lachnagrostis filiformis Carex breviculmis Lepidosperma laterale Carex flagellifera Microlaena polynoda Carex inversa Microlaena stipoides Carex lambertiana Morelotia affinis Carex longebrachiata* Oplismenus hirtellus subsp. imbecillis Carex ? ochrosaccus Orthoceras novaezeelandiae Carex pumila Phormium tenax Carex virgata Poa anceps Collospermum hastatum Pterostylis alobula Cortaderia selloana* Rhopalostylis sapida Cortaderia splendens Ripogonum scandens Cyperus ustulatus Rytidosperma racemosum Cyrtostylis oblonga Rytidosperma sp Dactylis glomerata Schoenus tendo Dianella nigra Sporobolus africanus* Earina autumnalis Thelymitra sp (not longifolia) Earina mucronata Thelymitra longifolia or aff longifolia Ficinia nodosa Triglochin striatum Gahnia lacera Uncinia uncinata Gahnia setifolia Winika cunninghamii Genoplesium pumilum Zantedeschia aethiopica*
Gymnosperms (5) Mosses (7) Agathis australis Bryum dichotomum Cupressus macrocarpa* Camylopus introflexus Pinus pinaster* Hypnodendron sp Pinus radiata* Leucobryum candidum Prumnopitys ferruginea Ptychomnion aciculare Rhynchostegium tenuifolium Thuidium furfurosum
Motu Kaikoura Biodiversity Management Plan 36 Item 17(c)
Fungi (9) Amanita muscaria* Gymnopilus junonius Biscogniauxia capnodes var rumpens Lachnum sp Cyclomyces tabacinus Pycnoporus coccineus Favolaschia calocera* Xylaria bypoxylon Ganoderma sp
Lichen (114) Baeomyces heteromorphus Parmelia testacea Buellia stellulata Parmelina conlabrosa Calicium hyperelloides Parmelina labrosa Caloplaca acheila Parmelinopsis afrorevoluta Caloplaca litoralis Parmotrema austrocetratum Candelariella vitellina Parmotrema cetratum Canoparmelia pustulescens Parmotrema crinitum Chrysothrix candelaris Parmotrema grayanum Cladia aggregata Parmotrema mellissii Cladia retipora Parmotrema perlatum Cladonia confusa Parmotrema reticulatum Cladonia capitellata Parmotrema subtinctorum Cladonia chlorophaea Peltigera nana Cladonia floerkiana Pertusaria subplanaica Coccocarpia palmicola Physcia erumpens Collema kauaiense Physcia poncinsii Degelia durietzii Poeltiaria turgescens Dirinaria applanata Porina exocha Flavoparmelia haywardiana Porpidia albocaerulescens Fuscodermia limbatum Pseudocyphellaria aurata Heterodermia chilensis Pseudocyphellaria carpoloma Heterodermia japonica Pseudocyphellaria chloroleuca Heterodermia leucomela Pseudocyphellaria crocata Heterodermia microphylla Pseudocyphellaria dissimilis Heterodermia obscurata Pseudocyphellaria haywardiorum Heterodermia speciosa Pseudocyphellaria montagnei Hypogymnia subphysodes Pseudocyphellaria multifida Jackelixia ligulata Pseudocyphellaria pickeringii Lecanora intumescens Pseudocyphellaria poculifer Lecidella elaeochroma Pseudocyphellaria rubella Leiorreuma exaltatum Pseudocyphellaria wilkinsii Lepraria cf. eburnea Punctelia borreri Lepraria incana Punctelia perreticulata Leprocaulon arbuscula Punctelia subflava Leptogium aucklandicum Pyrenula sp. Leptogium cyanescens Pyxine subcinerea Leptogium denticulatum Ramalina australiensis Leptogium propaguliferum Ramalina celastri Lichina pygmaea Ramalina meridionalis Megalaria maculosa Ramalina peruviana Megalospora atrorubicans subsp. australis Rhizocarpon geographicum Megalospora gompholoma subsp. gompholoma Stereocaulon corticatulum Menegazzia aucklandica Stereocaulon ramulosum Menegazzia neozelandica Stereocaulon vesuvianum Pannaria araneosa Sticta fuliginosa Pannaria crenulata Sticta lacera Pannaria immixta Sticta latifrons Pannaria aff patagonica Sticta martinii Pannaria subcrustacea Sticta squamata
Motu Kaikoura Biodiversity Management Plan 37 Item 17(c)
Sticta subcaperata Thelotrema lepadinum Strigula delicata Xathoparmelia australasica Strigula fossulicola Xanthoparmelia furcata Teloschistes flavicans Xanthoparmelia isidiigera Teloschistes sieberianus Xanthoparmelia scabrosa Teloschistes xanthorioides Xanthoparmelia verrucella Tephromela atra Usnea angulata Thalloloma subvellata Usnea rubicunda
Reptiles (3) Oligosoma aenea Copper skink Oligosoma smithi Shore skink Oligosoma moco Moko skink
Birds - indigenous (27) Birds - introduced (12) Anas aucklandica Brown teal Acrotheres tristis Indian myna Ardea novaehollandiae White-faced heron Carduelis carduelis Goldfinch Chrysococcyx lucidus Shining cuckoo Carduelis chloris Greenfinch Circus approximans gouldi Australasian Emberiza citrinella Yellowhammer harrier Fringilla coelebs Chaffinch Egretta sacra Reef heron Gymnorhina tibicen Australian magpie Eudyptula minor Blue penguin Passer domesticus House sparrow Gerygone igata Grey warbler Phasianus colchicus Ring-necked pheasant Haematopus unicolor Variable Prunella modularis Dunnock oystercatcher Synoicus ypsilophorus Brown quail Hemiphaga novaeseelandiae NZ pigeon Turdus ericotrum Song thrush Hirundo tahitica Welcome swallow Turdus merula Blackbird Larus dominicanus Black-backed gull Larus novaehollandiae Red-billed gull Morus serrator Australasian gannet Nestor meridionalis North Island kaka Ninox novaeseelandiae Morepork Phalacrocorax melanoleucos Little shag Phalacrocorax varius Pied shag Prosthemadera novaeseelandiae Tui Pterodroma cookii Cook’s petrel Rallus philippensis Banded rail Rhipidura fuliginosa North Island fantail Stercorarius parasiticus Arctic skua Sterna caspia Caspian tern Sterna striata White-fronted tern Todiramphus sanctus Kingfisher Vanellus miles Spur-winged plover Zosterops lateralis Silvereye
Motu Kaikoura Biodiversity Management Plan 38 Item 17(c)
APPENDIX 3: PLANT PEST CONTROL RECOMMENDATIONS
Species Recommended future actions Control aim arum lily Revisit known sites and retreat any Eradicate within 5 (Zantedeschia surviving/new plants. This treatment should be years aethiopica) done at the same time as elephant’s ear (with 3g metsulfuron+150ml glyphosate+10ml penetrant/10L) black Continue re surveying known sites. Cut and Eradicate within 10 passionfruit stump treat (with either Vigilant gel, 200ml years Control to zero (Passiflora glyphosate/1L or 1g metsulfuron/1L or 100ml density – will always edulis) Tordon/1L or 100ml triclopyr 600 EC/1L or reinvade from GBI 200ml Banvine/1L) buttercup bush Physically remove small plants as and when Eradicate within 10 (Senna found. years septemtrionalis) Cut and stump paint (2g metsulfuron/L or 100mls Tordon BK/10L). Chinese privet Re-check area where Chinese privet was found Eradicate within 5 (Ligustrum in Bradshaw Cove (if necessary cut and stump years Control to zero sinense) treat with 1g metsulfuron/1L). density Treat all plants as and when found. cotoneaster Target during resurvey of areas or surveying of Eradicate within 10 (Cotoneaster new areas – note it is possible that plants could years Control to zero sp.) have been missed, as the adult plants found in density previous years were well above head height (i.e. were part of the canopy). It is still likely that there are more mature cotoneaster trees on Kaikoura. Treat plants from summer – autumn either by cut and painting (with Vigilant gel or 5g metsulfuron/1L) or by frill bark and paint (with 5g metsulfuron/1L). elephant's ear Resurvey and treat (spray with 3g Eradicate within 5 (Alocasia metsulfuron+150ml glyphosate+10ml years brisbanensis) penetrant/10L) hydrangea Monitor for re-growth along with other species at Eradicate within 5 (Hydrangea the Top House and treat any new plants. Use years macrophylla) Vigilant gel to treat regrowth and new plants. Kikuyu Spray with glyphosate as required. Control only in (Penisetum localised areas clandestinum) where threatened habitats or native species present. Madeira vine Regular checks of both sites removal of any Eradicate within 10 (Anredera tubers found. years cordifolia) Further checks up stream of the Crawford Bay site to look for a possible parent site. monkey apple Continue to check for resprouts. Cut & stump Control to zero (Syzygium paint (5g metsulfuron/1L). density smithii)
Motu Kaikoura Biodiversity Management Plan 39 Item 17(c)
moth plant Survey for plant during flowering season (Jan- Control to zero (Araujia Feb). This should include going to good vantage density sericifera) points on the island and going around the island by boat and using binoculars to look for moth plant in the canopy. Control seedlings at known sites and search for new seedlings in vicinity. This species is likely to follow the same pattern of distribution as found on neighbouring Great Barrier, i.e. often widely dispersed sites with no obvious pattern of distribution. Ongoing surveillance to find any new sites is very important to keep this species in check. pampas Continue to treat accessible locations of pampas Control to zero (Cortaderia sp.) especially around the two house sites. Spray density summer-autumn (150ml haloxyfop (selective) + 50ml crop oil/10L). Treat more inaccessible areas in spring and do follow up survey and control in February (when it’s flowering). Aerial spraying may be required to reach cliffs/ steep coastal areas of pampas. Some native toetoe was also seen therefore good identification skills will be required by whoever treats the pampas. Aerial control will probably be needed in some areas; this could be timed to coincide with DOC control work on Great Barrier (George Wilson, DOC pers comm.). periwinkle The site needs to be regularly treated i.e. every Eradicate within 10 (Vinca major) 3 months and should be able to be eradicated years with a concerted effort and spray program. Treat with 300ml glyphosate + 20ml penetrant/10L.
Motu Kaikoura Biodiversity Management Plan 40 Item 17(c)
PINE MANAGEMENT PLAN
For the purposes of pine management, Motu Kaikoura is divided into 12 areas (Pine Control Areas A-L) on a catchment basis shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Pine Control Areas
Stage 2 control area
Stage 1 of the pine management plan (Pine Control Areas A-H) focused on poisoning outlying stands in the north and west of Kaikoura Island, whilst leaving the core infestation in the south intact. Stage 1 has now been implemented for several years, and only scattered pines that are difficult to access remain. Significant follow-up control will be required in the Areas A-H as further regeneration will occur, both from seeds released from dead and dying trees, and seed from the main southern infestation (Areas I-K).
Systematic searches of Areas A-H should occur at least 3 yearly to control pine regeneration before trees reach seeding age.
Stage 2 will be implemented once the initial control of pines is completed within Areas A-H. In each year, areas for pine control will be mapped and identified by surveying on foot. Control of pines within Stage 2 (Areas I-L) will focus for the first two years on areas with a dense understorey of indigenous species. By controlling pines where indigenous regeneration is advanced, additional recruitment of pines, and therefore follow-up control work, will be minimised. It is expected that the initial
Motu Kaikoura Biodiversity Management Plan 41 Item 17(c) control of pines within the main infestation will occur in steeper gullies where species such as mamaku (Cyathea medullaris), ponga (Cyathea dealbata) and hangehange (Geniostoma rupestre) are abundant.
In areas with a dense pine canopy and a sparse understorey of indigenous species, thinning trials will also be conducted to determine if a reduction in canopy density will hasten the succession to indigenous forest and shrubland. It is expected that regeneration will be facilitated by pine control, but the optimum thinning density is unknown.
Thinning trials should be established with four 1ha sites, consisting of three treatment densities and a control: A. control area, no poisoning; B. poisoning 1 in 2 canopy pines; C. poisoning 1 in 3 canopy pines; D. poisoning 1 in 4 canopy pines.
Annual monitoring can occur simply and effectively within the sites by the establishment of photo-points.
Two years following the establishment of the thinning trials, indicative results can be used to determine if regeneration is occurring most rapidly within untreated areas, or areas where 50%, 33% or 25% of the canopy trees were poisoned. Ongoing control, with the eventual aim of eradication, can then be rolled out throughout the remainder of Areas I-L according to the best determined method. If regeneration of indigenous species is not facilitated by the poisoning of canopy pines in the above proportions, then pines will be removed progressively within areas of advanced understorey regeneration only.
HEALTH AND SAFETY NOTE: Dead and dying pines in high-use areas pose a significant health and safety hazard. For this reason, no pines standing within 25m of tracks, building, or the coast should be poisoned. Pines in these situations should be assessed on a site-by-site basis to determine an acceptable method of control.
Motu Kaikoura Biodiversity Management Plan 42 Item 17(c)
APPENDIX 4: ANIMAL PEST CONTROL RECOMMENDATIONS
Method of control Target all rodent species (ship rats, kiore) and aim to contain to ≤5% relative abundance (as measured by rodent monitoring, see iv. below) by establishing a 100m x 100m grid of bait stations. Baiting to occur in pulses as per timetable in Table 5.
Table 5: Baiting timetable for Motu Kaikoura
Year one Install, bait and refill as installation of track network proceeds
Year two Habitat Pesticide May All stations Brodifacoum Aug All stations Brodifacoum Nov All stations Brodifacoum Jan, Mar Coastal stations Brodifacoum
Year three onwards May All stations Brodifacoum Aug All stations Diphacinone Nov All stations except Diphacinone coastal Nov, Jan, Mar Coastal stations Diphacinone alternating yearly with brodifacoum
Coastal habitat is preferred by rodents due to the amount of food resource available, so coastal stations will need to be checked and baited more intensely than elsewhere. It is important that coastal areas be maintained at ≤5% presence as a first priority. An indicative bait line layout using ridge lines and contours is provided in Figure 4. It is important that there are two concentric coastal bait lines as they will be checked more frequently than internal lines.
Figure 4: Guideline for bait station line pattern.
Motu Kaikoura Biodiversity Management Plan 43 Item 17(c)
Pesticide Pesticide has been chosen on the basis of knockdown effect (brodifacoum), reduction of secondary poisoning to native fauna (diphacinone), low cost (brodifacoum), minimal environmental impacts (diphacinone) and for variety and appeal to rodents over time. Changing pesticide type and pulsing of baiting are industry best practice methods. Cereal baits should be used, pre-packed in 200g quantities in plastic bags. Initial bait take will be high, so 2-3 bags per station will be required for the first pulse. Subsequent pulses should only require 1-2 bags per station and bait amount is to be judged on previous take at that station, therefore a system of recording bait take is recommended.
Timing Timing of bait pulses is based on successful projects elsewhere in the region where similar climatic conditions allow rat densities to remain high year round with no marked drop off during winter (Gilbert 2011; Martineaux 2010). The aim of beginning the baiting cycle in autumn is to control rats to zero density by spring and thereby minimise the potential breeding population during most favourable climatic conditions, i.e. spring/summer. Note that a pulse is a one-off placement of bait.
Monitoring • Undertake regular rodent monitoring to track success of pesticide programme and use the results to modify programme if necessary. • Tracking tunnels need to be permanently set out in 5 lines of 10 as per standard protocols (i.e. tunnels to be 50m apart, and lines are to be at least 200m apart). Suggested monitoring line placement is shown in Figure 5. Cards baited with peanut butter are to be placed in tunnels for one fine night in the beginning of May, August, December and March.
Figure 5: Suggested rodent monitor line placement
Motu Kaikoura Biodiversity Management Plan 44 Item 17(c)
• Results are calculated as a percentage of presence, i.e. if 10 cards show rat prints that equals a 20% detection percentage and indication of relative abundance. The monitors in May and August will provide information regarding the density of rodents present and the bait loading amount required for subsequent baiting i.e. how many grams of bait to place in each station. The monitor in January will determine whether any additional baiting needs to occur across all sites before the next scheduled baiting in May. • Adaptive management is encouraged and if there are concerns that rodent numbers are high, e.g. during a warm dry winter, a rodent monitor should be undertaken and if results are >5%, baiting may need to occur ahead of the pulsing timetable. • Any adjustments to the monitoring timetable should be discussed with the Biosecurity Advisor Animal Pests at Auckland Council.
Adjustments to monitoring timing may be desirable to synchronise with the other Great Barrier Island projects but the priority will be to best inform the Motu Kaikoura project.
Analysis of monitoring results If rodent presence cannot be contained to 5% by December of year three, density of stations in coastal areas may need to be increased to 100m x 50m, i.e. place additional stations along existing lines. As internal habitat and food sources improve through regeneration of native flora and fauna, it may be necessary in install further bait stations in such locations.
Surrounding areas and creation of buffer The focus of baiting should always be on the island itself. However if resources permit it would be desirable to minimise reinvasion from the closest point (i.e. the adjacent Stellin property) and to maintain existing traps and bait devices on surrounding islands in the Grey group, and on Nelson and Motuhaku Islands (see Figure 6).
Figure 6: Proposed buffer zone (from Mitchell 2011)
Motu Kaikoura Biodiversity Management Plan 45 Item 17(c)
Based on evidence available regarding Norway rat incursions across open waters (Russell et al. 2008), the main risk period of reinvasion by swimmers is from December through to April. Control should be initiated two months prior to this period initially to effect some control before the main risk period starts – refer to Table 6.
Table 6: Baiting timetable for buffer zone
Year one Pesticide Establish bait stations Brodifacoum
Year two Oct – Dec (Where stations could be filled monthly) Brodifacoum Feb, Apr Brodifacoum
Year three and onwards Oct – Dec Brodifacoum Feb, Apr Brodifacoum
Timing also is scheduled to avoid conflicts of labour resource with the island baiting. The number of ecological restoration projects in the surrounding areas mean it is important to be collaborative when implementing such a buffer to encourage an effective and efficient means of not only protecting Motu Kaikoura from reinvasion, but also Kotuku peninsula and the Broken Islands. All these projects would benefit from collaboration.
References:
Gilbert, J. 2011. Newsletter 19. Windy Hill Rosalie Catchment Trust.
Martineaux, A. 2010. Management and predator control in a ‘Mainland Island’ ecosystem: assessment of rodent control efficiency. Université Paul-Cezanne Aix-Marseille, Marseille (unpublished student report).
Mitchell, M. 2011. Kotuku Peninsula rat control plan. Auckland Council, Auckland (unpublished report).
Russell, J.C., D.R. Towns, M.N. Clout. 2008. Review of rat invasion biology: implications for island biosecurity. Science for Conservation 286. Department of Conservation, Wellington.
Motu Kaikoura Biodiversity Management Plan 46 SUMMARY OF TIMEFRAMES – Monitoring SUMMARY
Task – Outcome monitoring Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Monitor vegetation plots Lichen monitoring Baseline reptile survey Monitor reptiles Baseline bat survey Weed survey Bird monitoring Invertebrate monitoring Freshwater monitoring As resources allow Task – operational work plan Weed Control Rodent control – establish bait Item
grid 17(c)
PRIORITISED SUMMARY OF CONTROL RECOMMENDATIONS (Note that control should be prioritised over monitoring action points.) Task – operation work plan Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Rodent control – Island bait lines Rodent control – Coastal bait lines Rodent control – rodent monitor Rodent control – Buffer bait lines if resources allow?? Weed control – survey Weed control
Item 17(c)
Motu Kaikoura Trust Board P.O. Box 26467 Epsom Auckland 1344 NEW ZEALAND
ISBN 978-0-473-21639-9 Item 20(a)
Thriving Communities: Auckland Council’s role in supporting communities to flourish
Discussion Document - Large Print Version
October 2012
Item 20(a)
Accessible formats
‘Thriving Communities’ and the Feedback Form are available in large print format and as a structured Word version, in addition to the PDF version. An easy-read summary of ‘Thriving Communities’ is also available.
Visit www.aucklandcouncil.govt, email [email protected], or telephone the Auckland Council on (09) 301 0101 for copies.
Reference copies are also available at customer service centres, local board offices and libraries.
About this document
Please note:
The page numbers in this document do not correspond to those in the original document. Please refer to the number at the start of each paragraph (starting from the chapter: ‘Purpose of the document’).
Figure 1 is displayed horizontally in the original document. For ease of use, Figure 1 is displayed vertically in this document. i
Item 20(a)
The footnotes in the original document have been converted to endnotes in this document.
The main text is in Arial typeface, 18 point.
Headings, in order of significance, are indicated as follows: Heading 1 Heading 2 Heading 3
ii
Item 20(a)
Contents
He mihi ...... 6
Purpose of this Discussion Document ...... 10
Parameters ...... 12
Key terms ...... 15
‘Communities’ ...... 15
‘Community development’ ...... 16
Transformation ...... 17
Principles ...... 19
Context ...... 21
The council’s current roles ...... 21
Key council documents ...... 24
Community feedback to the council ...... 28
Examples of successful and promising practice ...... 31
Asset based community development (ABCD) .... 31
Asset transfer ...... 32
Community economic development ...... 33
Co-production ...... 34 iii
Item 20(a)
Crowdsourcing ...... 35
Match funding ...... 37
Participatory budgeting ...... 37
Procurement ...... 38
How to get involved ...... 40
Workshops ...... 40
Feedback ...... 40
Feedback acceptance criteria ...... 41
Artwork competition ...... 41
What happens next? ...... 42
How to contact us ...... 42
Feedback questions ...... 43
Principles ...... 43
Current situation ...... 43
New approaches, actions and areas ...... 44 Evaluating progress against the strategic action plan ...... 44
Appendix 1: Definitions ...... 46
Appendix 2: Council’s current roles and activities ...... 55
iv
Item 20(a)
Building community and NGO capacity and capability ...... 55
Delivering community programmes ...... 61 Providing funding to community groups and NGOs ...... 61
Providing community spaces ...... 62
Brokering and facilitating relationships ...... 62
Events ...... 63
Engaging communities ...... 63
References ...... 64
v
Item 20(a)
He mihi
Ki ngā waka Ki ngā reo Ki ngā mana Ka nui te mihi kia koutou Tēnā koutou katoa.
Ka nui te tangi Me te mihi Kia rātou te hunga mate Kua mene ki te pō – kua ngaro atu nei ki tua ō te ārai Haere, haere, haere.
Kia koutou te hunga ora E mau tonu nei i ngā kaupapa ā kui mā, ā koro mā He mihi aroha tēnei kia koutou Kia kaha, kia manawanui.
Kia aroha pūmau ki tō tātou taiao, me ō tātou hāpori Ko tātou ngā tāngata te pūmanawa ō Tāmaki Makaurau Ko te ngako ō tēnei pūrongo, he whakahau wānanga, he kōrero Kia tipu, kia pakari ngā hāpori 6
Item 20(a)
Ka matomato te tipu ō Tāmaki Makaurau Ko tō tātou ingoingo tēnei.
Nō reira, tēnā koutou katoa.
To the descendants of the many canoes To the many cultures To the many authorities Greetings to you all.
We acknowledge our loved ones who have departed from this world Farewell.
To all – our leaders, our elders and our families Who hold fast to the ways passed down through generations Greetings to you all Be strong and be courageous.
Let us turn to our concern for our environment and communities People are the heartbeat of Auckland We are here to encourage analysis and discussion, in order that our communities can grow and strengthen
7
Item 20(a)
If our communities thrive then Auckland will flourish This is the aspiration of all of us.
And so, our greetings, again, to all of you.
It's no surprise that people are at the heart of the Auckland Plan – the social, economic and cultural well- being of all Aucklanders is critical to creating a better future for Auckland and New Zealand.
When communities have the power, resources and capability to determine their own development, amazing things can happen. Auckland Council has an important part to play. The legacy councils had a long history of supporting community development and we are committed to continuing this. That’s why we are developing a strategic action plan which will identify how we can best add value to the work of communities, central government, non-government organisations, the business sector, philanthropists and many others. This Discussion Document, ‘Thriving Communities’, is the start of that journey.
Our communities are diverse, creative and passionate. We will need to respond to these qualities in order to transform Auckland into the world’s most liveable city.
8
Item 20(a)
Developing this strategic action plan is likely to be a challenging process – it will involve shifts in thinking and culture across our organisation, and a candid analysis of what we currently do and why we do it and future allocation of resources.
The strategic action plan also presents exciting opportunities to do things differently. The creativity and innovation of Auckland’s diverse communities will help us identify council's future direction, and we look forward to working together with you all on this.
Mā tō rourou, mā tōku rourou, ka ora te iwi – with your gifts, with my gifts, the people will be well.
Councillor Penny Hulse, Deputy Mayor
Len Brown, Mayor
9
Item 20(a)
Purpose of this Discussion Document
1. This Discussion Document is the beginning of the process to develop a strategic action plan on Auckland Council’s role in supporting communities to flourish.
2. Ultimately, the strategic action plan focuses on the well-being of people, and it is one of many council initiatives to implement the Auckland Plan. It will build on council’s current strengths and successes and identify any new areas where the council could play a role.
3. It will include a set of principles to guide the council’s decision making and identify the strategic actions needed to support the transformational shifts in the Auckland Plan1 and council’s following community and social objectives: Support ground-up community aspirations and initiatives (community development) Enhance democratic participation and involvement of communities, particularly those currently excluded, across all council areas 10
Item 20(a)
Promote and maximise social outcomes throughout council activities.
4. The council already plays a significant role in these areas and there is considerable knowledge and experience in the organisation, inherited from the legacy councils and gained over the last two years. This includes the feedback and ideas of the thousands of Aucklanders who have helped develop the Auckland Plan, Long-term Plan, 21 local board plans and other initiatives.
5. However, there are still gaps in the council’s information. This Discussion Document starts the process of conversing with stakeholders and partners and generating ideas and solutions together.2 Background information is provided to support these discussions, including an overview of council’s current roles and activities, and some examples of successful and promising national and international practice.
6. Feedback gathered during the engagement on this document, as well as the considerable evidence base the council already has, will inform the draft strategic action plan.
11
Item 20(a)
Figure 1. Strategic action plan – development process
What council already knows (evidenceWhat base) council already knows (evidence base)
Discussion Document feedback: Oct-Nov 2012 Discussion Document feedback: Oct-Nov 2012
Draft strategic action plan feedback: February-March 2013
Final strategic action plan: June 2013
Parameters 7. It is important that the council is clear and transparent about the parameters of the strategic action plan:
12
Item 20(a)
This is not a debate on whether or not the council should play any role in supporting community development or promoting social outcomes. There is strong support for the council’s continued involvement in promoting community well-being from communities, the Mayor, local boards and the governing body.3 Rather, the purpose of the strategic action plan is to clarify what those roles should be.
Community and social development is a shared enterprise, and the council is just one of many parties that contribute to the well-being of communities. There are significant issues impacting on communities that are beyond the scope and control of the council. The council should not duplicate the roles or work of central government, non-government organisations (NGOs), philanthropic funders etc., or of communities themselves, but instead it must work with others and ensure it adds value.
The Mayor is committed to keeping rates increases down, in response to community concerns, and the council is mindful of the difficult, current economic environment. Together, we need to find ways of better using existing resources and generating more resources (human and financial).
13
Item 20(a)
8. Given these factors, it is crucial to identify how and where the council can make the most impact with the tools, leavers and resources it has.
9. The strategic action plan must reflect council’s shared governance model between the governing body and local boards. Under the shared governance model, local boards and the governing body are responsible for different levels of decision making regarding community and social development activities.4
10. Needs and aspirations across the region are as diverse as Auckland’s communities. The council is very aware that flexible and responsive approaches enable communities and their initiatives to flourish, rather than a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach. At the same time, to maximise outcomes and ensure the best use of resources, the council must make sure that the wide range of practices, policies and activities across the organisation are cohesive and integrated, and work towards the same goals.
14
Item 20(a)
Key terms
11. ‘Communities’ and ‘community development’ are used throughout this document and it is important to be clear about how the council defines these terms.
‘Communities’ 12. People belong to more than one community, group or network. Whatever the type of community, the common factor is that members feel a sense of belonging.
Table 1. Definitions of ‘communities’ Geographical ‘Communities’, particularly in or place- community development discussions, based are often defined by geographical communities boundaries – usually the immediate area where people live (e.g. neighbourhood or suburb) Communities The Auckland Plan has identified of identity specific population groups that often experience discrimination and inequity, and this is the council’s focus for ‘communities of identity’.5 It is crucial that the ideas, voices and aspirations of
15
Item 20(a)
these communities are included in the strategic action plan if all of Auckland’s communities are to flourish Communities Refers to people who are drawn of interest together by common interests, beliefs or passions (e.g. environmental sustainability, faith, business)
13. Communities of identity and interest can be place- based, but they frequently cut across geographical boundaries as well, for example ethnic minority communities, who often have international links. With increasing use of social media and digital technologies, communities can be virtual as well.
‘Community development’ 14. There is no single definition of ‘community development’ that is universally shared across Auckland, New Zealand or even globally. However, many interpretations have similar principles and it is widely acknowledged that community development is both a way of doing things and an outcome.
15. The Auckland Plan describes ‘community development’ as being led by communities themselves. Essentially, this means that development is ‘ground-up’ and driven by those 16
Item 20(a)
affected, as opposed to being imposed from the ‘top- down’. This is consistent with the definitions promoted by many community groups, NGOs, mana whenua and mataawaka organisations and others, and is the approach advocated by central government.6 The role of public bodies is often to create the conditions (such as removing barriers, providing resources and other support etc.) that enable ground-up development.
Transformation 16. The benefits of ground-up development are well documented. Most commonly, this approach leads to people feeling empowered – having more control over their lives – and having a greater sense of belonging. Outcomes can include improvements in many areas for individuals, communities and society as a whole.
17
Item 20(a)
Figure 2. Frequent outcomes of ground-up community development
17. There is a large body of literature which describes how ground-up development of communities can lead to innovative solutions to even the most difficult problems, and why it is increasingly seen as essential for the kind of transformation required to achieve the vision and goals of the Auckland Plan.
18
Item 20(a)
18. Although this is not a new concept for the council, there is still room for improvement in embedding and mainstreaming best practice across the entire organisation. Every part of council has a role to play, and this will be a focus in the strategic action plan.
Principles 19. Ground-up community development is driven by principles. There are some high-level, overarching principles in the Auckland Plan,7 and the strategic action plan will need to identify principles which are specific to community and social development. These will influence the council’s behaviour and provide broad guidelines for decision making.
20. The following principles – identified through community feedback8 – are suggested as a basis for discussion and prioritisation:
Box 1. Principles for discussion The council’s approaches and actions in community and social development will demonstrate and support: Inclusiveness and support for diversity (including access with dignity) Trust in, and respect for, communities and their abilities, knowledge and expertise 19
Item 20(a)
Local strengths Whanaungatanga/people’s connectedness to each other Subsidiarity (decision-making made as close to the people affected as possible) Active and mutually beneficial partnership and collaboration with communities, undertaken in good faith Community sustainability Innovation People’s and communities’ right to mana motuhake/self-determination and empowerment Rangatiratanga/leadership Ōritetanga/citizenship Te puawaitanga ō te tangata/community resilience Equity Holisitc and integrated decision making and actions Tautua/being of service to all of Auckland’s communities.9
20
Item 20(a)
Context
The council’s current roles 21. All of the previous Auckland local councils had a long history of involvement in community and social development, although levels of service and capacity varied across the region. Since the amalgamation and establishment of the new Auckland Council two years ago, these roles and delivery models remain largely unchanged, including the variances. Current council roles include:
Capacity and capability building support to community groups and NGOs
Providing affordable leases (premises) to community groups and NGOs
Funding community groups and NGOs through grants and contracts
Providing community spaces such as libraries, sports and recreation facilities, community centres, halls etc
Holding community events (including in partnership with others)
21
Item 20(a)
Delivering/managing community programmes and initiatives (including in partnership with others)
Resourcing advisory panels
Brokering and facilitating relationships between and within the NGO, public and private sectors.10
22. The council’s activities span a wide range of issues such as health promotion, arts, culture, sport, recreation, environmental sustainability, community safety, diversity, settlement etc. In addition, the council is responsible for: planning, managing or looking after Auckland’s built (e.g. planning rules) and natural environments (including parks and open spaces); setting the strategic direction for Auckland (the Auckland Plan); and providing leadership and advocacy on a wide range of issues. The 2012/2013 high-level budget in the Long-term Plan for community services,11 library services, arts, culture and events, parks and sport and recreation is $446 million.12
23. There are many positive outcomes as a result of council’s involvement in these areas, including: increased volunteering, particularly in sports and environmental sustainability activities; sense of belonging; community cohesion; connectedness with
22
Item 20(a)
others; and the other outcomes and well-beings described in figure two.
24. Funding (through grants and contracts) is essential for community groups and NGOs to carry out their activities. Although council grants and contracts to Auckland community development groups, for example, are likely to account for less than 5% of total income in this sector per annum, for some groups it may be the primary or only source of funding.13 In many other cases, council grants and contracts enable groups to obtain (leverage) other funding. Community leases, of which there are currently 1,200, are also crucial; providing groups and organisations with security and a base to deliver activities from. The benefit of council’s support (grant funding, capacity and capability building, facilities etc.) is likely to be significant, for example: the value of peoples’ volunteering hours and the other funding obtained because of council’s support.
25. However, there are many other social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits which the council has, as yet, been unable to quantify. To better understand these impacts, the council is conducting social return on investment (SROI) evaluations. SROI measures social, economic and environmental impacts and determines their monetary worth. It is 23
Item 20(a)
particularly useful in evaluating outcomes previously viewed as impossible to quantify in monetary terms, such as improved mental health, happiness etc. These SROI evaluations will help the council and communities to assess the true value of its support.
Key council documents 26. The strategic action plan must align to the following key council documents to achieve a cohesive, integrated approach in this area.14
Table 2. Key council documents The Auckland Community development features Plan strongly in the Plan, particularly in the Auckland’s People, Auckland’s Māori, arts and culture, historic heritage, and sport and recreation chapters. The Plan contains directives on supporting ground-up community development through to capacity and capability building, enhancing community involvement and partnerships, and promoting inclusion and reducing discrimination.
24
Item 20(a)
Local board The local board plans set out the plans aspirations and priorities for their local communities, and help guide their decision making. Whilst there are cross-cutting themes across the plans, each is unique to their local area, and the strategic action plan will need to support this diversity. All of the local board plans have a focus on community well-being and social development. Cross-cutting themes include: Supporting local community identity through social programmes, arts and culture, local events and supporting youth programmes
Creating vibrant and economically strong town centres that reflect local character and stimulate community activity and involvement
Improving connections through better transport and built environment planning
Enhancing and protecting the 25
Item 20(a)
natural environment and engaging local communities in these activities and roles
Building on community and volunteer networks
Enhancing residents’ lifestyles through improving community facilities and sports fields and holding community events etc.
Providing new and improved community facilities (such as libraries, parks, swimming pools and youth centres), particularly where there has been underinvestment or where facilities have not kept up with population growth
Long-term and These plans describe the budget for Annual plans implementing council strategies, policies etc. and, ultimately, the council’s contribution to realising the Auckland Plan
Unitary Plan The Unitary Plan will be the council’s key tool to manage development on land and water, and 26
Item 20(a)
it will have a direct impact on the shape of the city and the quality of Auckland’s built and natural environment. It will replace the existing district and regional plans and policies of the former councils with consistency across Auckland and simplified rules. A discussion draft will be released for informal public feedback in March 2013
Māori The Māori Responsiveness Responsiveness Framework outlines council’s Framework relationships with mana whenua and mataawaka. The framework has a clear community development approach, and describes council’s responsibility to: contribute to Māori well-being; support capacity development; and effectively communicate and engage with Māori
Other The strategic action plan will not be a stand-alone document. There are a number of issue-based strategies, policies and plans that it will seek to influence and align with, including
27
Item 20(a)
other core strategic action plans to deliver the Auckland Plan, specifically the: Arts and Culture; Housing; Children and Young People; and Sport and Recreation strategic action plans
Community feedback to the council 27. The council has obtained significant information from communities through consultations and relationships over the last two years. Hundreds of different community and social development-related issues have been raised; from affordable housing, to retaining and promoting Pasifika languages, to settlement support. This information will inform the strategic action plan.
28. However, there were also common themes. Some of these issues are already being progressed, including through local board plans:
A desire for genuine partnership with the council but often lack of community capacity and capability to do so (at all levels, from strategy/ policy development, through to co-management and co- delivery)
28
Item 20(a)
Financial sustainability of community groups and NGOs
Environmental sustainability and the impact of climate change, and the roles of communities as kaitiaki/guardians of the natural environment and wāhi tapu (significant and sacred sites)
Increased democratic participation
A greater community say in planning issues affecting their local areas, such as the location of liquor outlets and gambling (pokie) venues
Inclusive facilities that offer access with dignity
Removal or minimisation of obstacles and barriers that hinder ground-up development, including development of physical/capital assets (e.g. costs of consents, rates etc.)
Community hubs and better connectedness of communities and social infrastructure
Supporting leadership, including amongst young people
Promoting the value of cultural diversity and Auckland’s unique Pasifika flavour
Economic development and employment opportunities
29
Item 20(a)
An end to ‘silos’ and better integration
Accessible and inclusive communications
Promoting interaction and cohesion
Deep concerns about food security and a strong desire for māra kai/community gardens and orchards
‘Strengths-based’ approach to working with communities
Social equity, and concerns about growing income inequity.
30
Item 20(a)
Examples of successful and promising practice
29. There are many examples of innovative and successful initiatives which support ground-up community development, enhance democratic participation and maximise social outcomes. This discussion document does not provide a complete list, but has identified the following examples through community feedback to the council; some of which are happening in communities already and in parts of council.
30. There are significant opportunities for council to learn from and be inspired by the approaches and actions of others. This includes learning from the philosophy or principles behind the approach, better understanding the conditions required to enable innovation, or looking at the outcomes achieved. This list of examples is not exhaustive, and is provided to help prompt discussions and identify other examples.
Asset based community development (ABCD) 31. Asset based community development (ABCD) is the shift to thinking of people as citizens with ‘gifts’ (i.e.
31
Item 20(a)
strengths and talents to contribute) rather than customers who simply require services. It starts with the development of an ‘asset map’ of the community’s strengths, rather than with their problems and deficiencies (often referred to as the ‘deficit’ approach). Focusing and building on what communities can do can significantly changes the way communities see themselves and how others see them. It unlocks the many assets and resources that communities can mobilise in order to improve their own neighbourhoods.
Asset transfer 32. Asset transfer is the shift in management and/or ownership of assets from public bodies to communities (community groups, NGOs, social enterprises etc). Treaty settlements with iwi and hapū are an example of this. It is a well-known approach in the United Kingdom and in 2010 it was estimated that 1,000 transfers – from car parks to community centres – were taking place.
33. Asset transfer can be an effective way of: Providing communities with security and a means of generating income (e.g. through social enterprise and using the asset to get investment)
32
Item 20(a)
Improving flexibility and responsiveness (e.g. community centres) and therefore access and outcomes for communities Securing long-term savings for councils.
34. Asset transfer requires a high trust partnership between the public body and the community to work successfully and, critically, the group or NGO must have the capacity and capability to maintain the asset.
Community economic development 35. The community and NGO sectors are often thought of as separate from the private sector, but all communities rely on businesses and vice-a-versa. Community economic development includes local economic development and social enterprise.
36. Local economic development builds the capacity of a local area to improve its economic future, and residents’ quality of life, through integrated planning and micro-economic strategies (e.g. to support locally-owned businesses). Many countries, such as South Africa, require public participation in the governance, planning and delivery of local economic development initiatives so that community networks and partnerships are established, and information 33
Item 20(a)
sharing can occur, leading to better strategies and sustainable community involvement and ownership.
37. There is no single definition of ‘social enterprise’. At a very general level, it includes the trading of goods or services to generate profit for ‘good causes’. For example, an NGO generating income from a for-profit enterprise so those profits can be used to support not-for-profit activities and support to communities. The social enterprise sector in New Zealand is fledgling but growing fast, and the council has recently created the position of social entrepreneurship advisor to explore the opportunities in this area. However, many potential social enterprises need capacity building support to develop a robust business plan. This is especially important for groups needing a loan or other financial investment. In the United Kingdom, asset transfers are often used to support the development of social enterprise.
Co-production 38. The term co-production refers to a way of working whereby decision-makers and citizens, or service providers and users, work together to create a decision or a service which works for them all. The approach is value-driven and built on the principle
34
Item 20(a)
that those who are affected by a service are best placed to help design and deliver it. Co-production rejects the traditional understanding of service users as dependent and passive recipients of public services, and instead redefines the relationship as one of co-dependency and collaboration that is neither community-led nor public sector-led. Like the ABCD approach, co-production views service users as an ‘asset’ and builds on their strengths and abilities. It encourages collaboration and reciprocity between service users and providers, which helps to build up everyone’s capacity. It is an approach increasingly being used to transform public services in other countries, from town planning to healthcare.
Crowdsourcing 39. Crowdsourcing is an on-line process that harnesses the collective creativity, skills and knowledge of ordinary people for activities that are usually left to experts. It is increasingly used in place-making and revitalising neighbourhoods, but can be applied to a wide range of issues. Whilst the technology may be innovative, the concept isn’t new. The principle behind crowdsourcing is that the ideas and creativity of the ‘crowd’ are far greater than that of an individual or smaller group because the problem or issue is being solved by a much larger pool of people, given
35
Item 20(a)
the extensive use of the internet. People in the ‘crowd’ interact with each other to generate ever more ideas, and to also refine those ideas. People vote on the ideas that they like best and those with the most votes ‘bubble’ to the top to be further developed and tested.
40. One example is of the real estate development company using crowdsourcing to design 17 acres of failed shopping mall into a thriving downtown destination in Bristol, Conneticut, USA (pop. 61,000). The project, known as Bristol Rising (which now has over 2,300 members), led to a planning and approval process that has been completed in a fraction of the time that a normal process would have taken. There were also spin-off activities such as organising a street clean-up of one of the most drug-laden neighbourhoods in the area, and establishing a new company to buy and renovate “unhealthy” buildings.
41. Crowdsourcing, and the harnessing of digital technologies generally, is increasingly being used by big and small businesses alike to design products, and also by public bodies to develop policies and other initiatives (including the NZ Police and State Services Commission, both of whom have developed policies by Wiki).
36
Item 20(a)
Match funding 42. Matching, dollar-for-dollar, any resources, including donated labour (volunteering), that a community can organise towards a project is a well known approach. Many match funds allow applications for any project of a community’s choosing to encourage community initiative. Whakatane District Council has a match fund for rural playgrounds, which, in addition, also requires the applying community to take responsibility for and maintain the playground.
Participatory budgeting 43. The allocation of resources is one of the most contested processes in any organisation. Participatory budgeting is a process of democratic decision-making where residents identify, discuss, and prioritise the projects that public funds will be spent on. Involving residents in the budgeting process also helps illuminate the tough choices facing public bodies. Research suggests that participatory budgeting results in more equitable public spending, and increases levels of public participation in other democratic and civic activities, especially by marginalised or poorer residents. The process originated in Porto Alegre, Brazil, where significant achievements have been made, and has since spread to cities and towns throughout Latin 37
Item 20(a)
America, North America, Europe, Australia and Africa.
44. A similar method was used in Wanganui which led to the upgrade of the Splash Centre swimming pool complex in Wanganui. The project was voted the top priority in a community referendum. The Wanganui District Council provided the initial funding and the remainder was raised by the community. The Whanganui Community Foundation provided some match funding. The community was involved in all stages of the design and delivery, which resulted in the transference of skills between residents and capability building. Usage of the pool increased and key outcomes from the process included improved community connection and an on-going sense of community ownership.
Procurement 45. The council recognises that opportunities exist to maximise social and local economic development opportunities through its procurement policy, and is currently progressing this.15
46. In Hamilton, the City Council requires local impact to be taken into account in tenders to the council to deliver goods and services. Its procurement criteria,
38
Item 20(a)
which accounts for five per cent weighting, includes: local employment, apprenticeships and training opportunities provided; sponsorship activities undertaken with local community groups and the council; and the percentage of revenue from the contract remaining in the region.
47. The Mayor of London’s (comprehensive) Responsible Procurement Policy includes: environmental sustainability; ethical sourcing; fair trade; and the promotion of small and medium enterprises (including NGOs and social enterprises) to ensure a diverse provider base and local economic development.16 It also includes the need to tackle discrimination and disadvantage in employment, and promote workforce welfare (including paying a London living wage for Greater London Authority Group and supply chain employees). Since 2006, thousands of jobs and volunteering opportunities have been created which have particularly benefitted the most disadvantaged Londoners. In addition, the Mayor’s leadership spurred 130 other employers to pay the London living wage, which has lifted 10,000 Londoners and their families out of poverty.17
39
Item 20(a)
How to get involved
48. Your views and ideas are important to us, and there is a range of ways to have your say.
Workshops 49. During October and November 2012, local and regional workshops will take place all over Auckland to gather feedback on this Discussion Document. Most of these activities will be delivered by-and-for communities, and some workshops will focus on specific issues or communities of identity. To find out what’s on, contact us.
Feedback 50. Whether or not you attend a workshop, your feedback is welcome. There are several ways to do this. Please include your name and contact details.
The consultation period closes at 5pm, Friday 30 November 2012.
An online survey is available at Online: www.aucklandcouncil.govt Email: [email protected]
40
Item 20(a)
Post: ‘Thriving Communities’ Consultation Auckland Council Private Bag 92300 Auckland 1142 Freepost Authority 237170
Feedback acceptance criteria 51. Only feedback in official NZ languages – English, Māori and New Zealand sign language (via video) – can be accepted. We have the discretion to disregard offensive or abusive feedback.
Artwork competition 52. There is an abundance of creativity in Auckland. We want the final strategic action plan to reflect communities in both content and look. Enter our competition to have your art work or photograph on the front cover or inside the final document, and be in to win great cash prizes. Selected entries will be voted on during consultation on the draft strategic action plan (February and March 2013). The competition closes at 5pm, Monday 14 January 2013. For information on how to enter and a copy of the terms and conditions, contact us.
41
Item 20(a)
What happens next? 53. Feedback on the Discussion Document will be used to develop the draft strategic action plan, which will be released for consultation in February 2013.
Phase: Timeframe: Engagement on the Discussion October and Document November 2012 Engagement on draft strategic February and March action plan 2013 Submission of the final strategic June 2013 action plan to the Auckland Plan Committee for adoption
How to contact us Online: All information is available from www.aucklandcouncil.govt Email: [email protected] Phone: (09) 301 0101
42
Item 20(a)
Feedback questions
54. The following questions are a guide only. Other feedback is welcome.
Principles 55. In Box 1, some principles are provided for discussion. What are the top eight principles that should guide the council’s decision making and approaches to community and social development?
Current situation 56. Paragraphs 21-25 and Appendix 2 describe the council’s current roles, approaches, actions and areas. What are the council’s strengths, and which are the most important to continue and build on? Which roles, approaches, actions and areas make the most difference to communities, and why? Are there any improvements needed, and what difference would these make?
43
Item 20(a)
What barriers do communities face when engaging with council to progress community and social initiatives? Are there any roles the council should not play, actions it should not deliver, or areas it should not be involved in?
New approaches, actions and areas 57. Paragraphs 29-47 provide some examples of different approaches and actions. Feedback about other examples and ideas is also welcome. Are there any new approaches, actions or areas that the council should consider, and what difference would these make? Which are the top three priorities, and why? What skills, capabilities, systems etc. will the council need to implement these? How could the council connect community and business to enhance community capacity?
Evaluating progress against the strategic action plan 58. “Checking progress and adapting to improve” is one of the Auckland Plan’s seven principles.
44
Item 20(a)
How could the council evaluate its progress of the strategic action plan? What could some of the key indicators be?
45
Item 20(a)
Appendix 1: Definitions
59. Many terms have multiple meanings, or various interpretations. The council uses the following definitions for the terms below:
Table 3. Definitions Collaboration A process and a decision-making tool where people work together to find the best way to address an issue or problem Communities Includes the following population- of identity based groups:
Māori, including at kinship levels of hapū and iwi
Pasifika communities People from other minority ethnic groups Rainbow communities Women Persons with disabilities Older people Younger people
46
Item 20(a)
Community Capacity of communities to endure. sustainability This includes taking a long-term perspective in planning and development, and building community resilience (for example, to economic and environmental shocks). Sustainable communities meet challenges through integrated solutions rather than through fragmented approaches. Their economic, social and environmental systems provide a healthy, productive, meaningful life for people – present and future – within the limits of the natural, social and built systems upon which we depend
Connectedness The connections, relationships and links people, organisations and places have. These connections can be social, physical, cultural, economic and environmental. For example, social connectedness is about relationships (of all types), and their quality and number. Positive, strong social connections help people to have a greater sense of self- determination, and help create ‘social 47
Item 20(a)
capital’ (the networks that help society to function effectively). They are also a source of enjoyment and personal support and help people feel they belong, and have a part to play in society
Empowerment Is both a process and end in itself. It is about communities having the power, influence, capacity, capability, knowledge and resources to take collective action to make change happen on their own terms
Equity Our society and communities are not ‘level playing fields’. There are particular populations that face discrimination and inequality, and are at a disadvantage when accessing systems and opportunities, or enjoying rights and freedoms. ‘Equity’ means treating people according to their needs (rather than treating them the same) so that everyone gets the same quality of outcome
Inclusiveness ‘Inclusiveness’ is a process involving proactive and positive steps to include all sections of the community. 48
Item 20(a)
It describes how people from all backgrounds are part of communities, how their perspectives are valued, and how their needs are understood and addressed
Innovation The creation of better or more effective processes, goods, services, technologies, systems or ideas. An innovation can be big or small, brand- new or a variation, complex or straightforward. Crucially, innovation is about taking that product, system, idea etc. to a broader audience; enabling it to flourish and transform the issue it seeks to address
Living wage The living wage is an hourly rate, set above minimum wage, which provides employees with enough money to provide for the basic necessities of life, participate in society and have a family life18
Local strengths Local people have in-depth knowledge about the needs of their local communities. They are best placed to design solutions, deliver resources and build capacities in 49
Item 20(a)
ways that are appropriate and rooted in local institutions and values, and that will ensure longevity. Recognising local knowledge, nurturing solutions at the local level, and building on local capacities, capabilities and successes are all characteristics of valuing ‘local strengths’
Mana whenua Refers to hapū and iwi that have historical and continued territorial rights in the Auckland region, and meets one or more of the criteria set out under section 7b of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Act 2010.19 There are 19 mana whenua groups in Auckland20
Mataawaka Is the term used to describe Māori residing in Auckland who do not have ancestral affiliations to mana whenua groups
Partnering Joint ventures and relationships where parties come together to develop and/or deliver a product or service or solve an issue. Each party makes a contribution and has a role 50
Item 20(a)
to play, and risks and benefits are shared in some way
Pasifika The many Pacific ethnicities are communities represented primarily by Samoan, Cook Islands, Tongan, Niuean, Fijian and Tokelauan groups, with smaller numbers from Tuvalu, Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu, the Solomon Islands and the small island states of Micronesia21
Persons with An umbrella term that includes disabilities people who have sensory, physical, neurological, psychiatric, intellectual and learning impairments.22 The impairment may be permanent or temporary, and may have been acquired at birth, through illness or injury. The term is used interchangeably with ‘disabled people’. Whānau hauā is the Māori term for persons with disabilities, which loosely translates as “people who are uniquely different”23
Place-based Communities defined by communities geographical areas (e.g.
51
Item 20(a)
neighbourhood or suburb)
Rainbow An encompassing term that includes communities gay, lesbian, bisexual, trans, intersex, queer, takatāpui and fa’afafine people
Respect Includes behaviours such as acknowledging other people’s experiences and knowledge; listening; being truthful; and being courteous. When agreement cannot be reached, parties are able to acknowledge differences and find a positive solution so they can move forward
Self- People having the power, freedom determination and agency of people to make their own decisions and control their own fates without outside interference or compulsion
Social return A research, evaluation and on investment communication tool based on (SROI) accounting principles which identifies the outcomes of an activity. It then calculates the monetary value of those outcomes to provide a ratio –
52
Item 20(a)
for every $1 spent on the activity, $x of social, economic or environmental outcomes are achieved. It is widely used in the United Kingdom, where it has been endorsed by the Cabinet Office, and increasingly in Australia24
Subsidiarity Decisions being made as closely as possible to the people who will be most affected
Support for Positively valuing and celebrating diversity people’s difference and multiplicity and recognising the benefits that this brings to communities, such as ethnic, cultural, linguistic, sexuality, gender, age and disability diversity etc.
Trust The degree to which one party trusts another is a measure of their belief and confidence in the honesty, fairness, integrity or good will of another party. Trust inspires positive expectations in each party, and is an important indicator of how people feel about others. High levels of trust facilitate co-operative behaviour among people, and positive, enduring 53
Item 20(a)
relationships
54
Item 20(a)
Appendix 2: Council’s current roles and activities
Building community and NGO capacity and capability 60. This includes advice, information and practical support (such as training), to community groups and NGOs on issues such as governance, leadership, financial systems, managing volunteers etc. Council staff and community co-ordinators (in most north Auckland local board areas) work with community groups and NGOs on a wide range of organisational issues, and also alongside residents to help build capacity to self-organise (e.g. to organise and run events, meetings, clean-ups and other local initiatives). Relationship building and engagement in community networks is a key role for community co- ordinators and advisors.
61. Most of the advisors or community co-ordinators are place-based (i.e. cover a geographical area) but some focus on communities of identity such as disability, young people etc.
55
Item 20(a)
62. Different delivery models were inherited from the legacy councils. It is important to note that the Community Development, Arts and Culture department is currently undergoing a realignment, including its community development functions. Key aims are to bring the best of the legacy approaches forward and strengthen a positive social change and innovation focus.
63. A high level overview of the legacy approaches is provided below:
Table 4. Description of legacy community development models North (Covering the Devonport-Takapuna, Kaipatiki, Upper Harbour, and Bays subdivision of Hibiscus and Bays local board areas)
The north model is based on a partnership and community-led development approach with over 20 local and sub-regional community organisations. As such, the team of council advisors is smaller than in other areas as much of the community capacity building and development is outsourced to trusts and incorporated societies who employ community development workers (known as community co- 56
Item 20(a)
ordinators). The council provides operational support to the trusts and societies by way of a contract grant. There are six key local community co-ordinators who are aligned to their local boards. A schedule for delivery of community outcomes which is aligned to the Auckland Plan and local board plans is negotiated on an annual basis.
One of the strengths of this partnership model is that the community development work is done at grass- roots level. This means that the community co- ordinators have high visibility and are accessible to the community. Also, because they are independent, they are able to be flexible and respond quickly to community needs without having to meet bureaucratic requirements. Some of the more- established groups have sufficient capacity to act as an ‘umbrella’ for significant community development projects, with support from central government and major community funding trusts. However, the smaller organisations rely on attracting additional funding for projects and programmes from other trusts and philanthropic funders, which, in the current environment, they are finding particularly challenging.
The community development work undertaken through
57
Item 20(a)
contracted community co-ordinators includes: place- based community development; information dissemination; communication and networking; and community sector development through capacity and capability building and community events. Council- employed staff have portfolio roles and work closely with contracted organisations, managing the relationship and contract accountability, and facilitating a direct linkage into council. The roles also include collaboration on specific projects, with council providing resources, sector knowledge and strategic direction.
Whilst the former Rodney District Council did not have a community development team, community development approaches were used to progress different areas of work (e.g. in developing strategy, road safety activities, youth development etc). Grants to community groups and NGOs also contributed to capacity and capability building.
South (Covering the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Franklin, Papakura, Otara-Papatoetoe and Howick local board areas)
The south model is based on a relational approach where place based advisors engage and work with
58
Item 20(a)
communities to progress identified objectives.
The approach has a strong focus on social justice and social equity. It is also underpinned by respect for mana whenua and Te Tiriti ō Waitangi, and there is strong acknowledgement and promotion of multicultural worldviews. These beliefs, and strong relationships with central government and NGOs, have been identified as some of the model’s strengths.
Central (Covering the Waitematā, Puketāpapa, Albert-Eden, Manugakiekie-Tāmaki, Orākei, Waiheke and Great Barrier local board areas)
The central model is predominantly a programme and place-based approach that focuses on medium and long-term outcomes, where community advisors work with local boards and communities to deliver and support place-based programmes. Alignments to local board priorities and the focus on community-led initiatives have been identified as one of the model’s strengths.
West (Covering the Whau, Waitākere and Henderson- Massey local board areas) 59
Item 20(a)
The approach used in the west focuses on improving community well-being outcomes within the broader context of sustainable development. This holistic approach emphasises the need to focus on activities and initiatives that improve outcomes across the four well-beings.
Partnering and collaborative relationships are a key feature. The majority of initiatives and projects involve team members working together with stakeholders from the community and central government. Common objectives are identified, resources are pooled and more is achieved together than by working alone.
The approach involves supporting, brokering, co- ordinating and leading a wide range of initiatives and programmes that enhance community safety and social wellbeing.
The west also has a focus on initiating and supporting place based resident-led neighbourhood development initiatives. There are currently seven neighbourhood initiatives either underway or in the process of being developed. These include two school-based hubs and a variety of other models.
60
Item 20(a)
Delivering community programmes 64. These programmes, including public education initiatives, are delivered directly to communities (including schools) on issues such as health, safety, environment sustainability, flora and fauna, physical activity, employment and youth programmes etc. Some are partially or fully funded by central government and includes programmes delivered in partnership with others.
Providing funding to community groups and NGOs 65. Funding provided to community groups and NGOs is a mixture of rates-funded support as well as funding derived from central government. These include: Contestable grants for a wide range of activities including environmental sustainability, heritage, community development, sport etc. Operational (including facilities partnerships) and capital grants Strategic service contracts to deliver activities which provide key social or community infrastructure
There is also a community loans and loans guarantees scheme, generally for capital items and works, carried forward from some of the former councils.25 61
Item 20(a)
Providing community spaces 66. The council provides a wide range of community spaces, such as parks, open spaces, playgrounds, art spaces, libraries, sport and recreation facilities etc., for community use. In addition, there are also 170 community centres, halls and houses across Auckland (valued at $186 million). These facilities are mostly managed on a day-to-day basis, by the council but and some are run by external, community-based management committees. The council also hosts NGOs in council premises (e.g. Community Advice Bureaus in libraries), and provides affordable leases (of council premises) for community groups and NGOs, referred to as community leases, of which there are currently 1,200.
Brokering and facilitating relationships 67. The council plays a role in bringing groups (from the community/NGO, public and private sectors) together, and facilitating collaboration, across a number of different areas/issues. An example of this is the regional network of family, whānau and sexual violence prevention sectors.
62
Item 20(a)
Events 68. The council delivers or supports hundreds of small and large, local and regional events (including workshops etc.) each year, including in partnership with others. These cover a wide range of issues – from arts and cultural events and exhibitions through to sporting and music events. Capability and capacity building advice for NGOs and community groups, in organising and running events, is also provided.
Engaging communities 69. There are many mechanisms by which the council engages Auckland’s diverse communities.
70. The local boards were established to enable democratic decision making by and on behalf of communities in their area, and better enable the promotion of the four well-beings.26 In addition to the Independent Māori Statutory Board, the council also resources advisory panels.27 The role of the advisory panels is to identify and communicate, to the council, the interests and preferences of the community relating to the specific portfolio of the panel. The council also engages communities in its work through other means, such as membership on council steering groups and forms etc., and through consultation. 63
Item 20(a)
References
1 The transformational shifts are: 1) Dramatically accelerate the prospects of Auckland’s children and young people 2) Strongly commit to environmental action and green growth 3) Move to outstanding public transport within one network 4) Radically improve the quality of urban living; 5) Substantially raise living standards for all Aucklanders with a focus on those most in need 6) Significantly lift Māori social and economic wellbeing.
2 Stakeholders and partners include: residents; community groups; community development practitioners; non-government organisations; iwi; central government; philanthropic funders; academics; and others.
3 The council has opposed the removal of the four well- beings (social, cultural, environmental and economic) from the purpose statement of local government, as proposed in the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill. The Bill does not propose, however, 64
Item 20(a)
changes to the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009. Section 79 of the Act requires the council to set a strategic direction (i.e. the Auckland Plan) “for Auckland and its communities that integrates social, economic, environmental and cultural objectives”.
4 For details, see the Long-term Plan, v3:1.2 ‘Allocation of decision-making for non-regulatory activities’: http://www.aucklandCouncil.govt.nz/Plans/LongTermPla n/VolumeThree/section_1341865891525.html.
5 See Appendix 1 for population groups included under ‘communities of identity’.
6 See Department of Internal Affairs [no date] Community-led Development. [Online] Available from: http://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/wpg_URL/Resourc e-material-Our-Policy-Advice-Areas-Community-led- Development?OpenDocument [Accessed 20 September 2012].
7 The Auckland Plan principles are: 1) Work together 2) Value te ao Māori 3) Be sustainable 4) Act fairly 5) Make the best use of every dollar spent 65
Item 20(a)
6) Be affordable 7) Check progress and adapt to improve.
8 Including through: submissions from advisory panel; community submissions; the Mayor’s Community-led Development Think Tank; Auckland Community Development Alliance charter; Independent Māori Statutory Board publications; etc.
9 See Appendix 1 for definitions.
10 See Appendix 2 for further details.
11 Includes the activities most relevant to this strategic action plan such as facilities (centres, halls, houses etc.), grant funding, community safety programmes and community development initiatives. Excludes social housing. The combined 2012/2013 budget of these services is $64 million.
12 For both regional and local activities. Includes staff costs. Excludes social housing, capital expenditure and activities of Council Controlled Organisations. See the Long-term Plan, v2: http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Plans/LongTermPla n/VolumeTwo/.
66
Item 20(a)
13 Based on Charity Commission data for Auckland. [Online] Available from: www.charities.govt.nz [Accessed 17 September 2012].
14 See www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz for more information.
15 Some of the legacy councils included local economic criteria in their procurement policies. For example, the former Waitakere City Council’s procurement policy included a ‘Buy Waitakere’ principle, where preference was given to those tenders that supported local labour, businesses or suppliers.
16 Twenty per cent of procurement spend is with small and medium enterprises.
17 Mayor of London (2012) Delivering Responsible Procurement. Greater London Authority: London. See: http://www.london.gov.uk/rp/docs/delivering-responsible- procurement.pdf.
18 See http://www.livingwagenz.org.nz/ for more information.
19 See http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2010/0036/latest /DLM3016025.html. 67
Item 20(a)
20 See http://theplan.theaucklandplan.govt.nz/a-plan-for- all-aucklanders/#a-3-te-tiriti-o-waitangi-the-treaty-of- waitangi.
21 Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs [no date] About Pacific peoples in New Zealand. [Online] Available from: http://www.mpia.govt.nz/pacific-peoples-in-new-zealand/ [Accessed 09 September 2012].
22 Office for Disability Issues [April 2001] New Zealand Disability Strategy. [Online] Available from: http://www.odi.govt.nz/resources/publications/new- zealand-disability-strategy.html [Accessed 09 September 2012].
23 Disability Strategic Advisory Group [October 2011] Disability Strategic Advisory Group Statement on Terminology. [Online] Available from: http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocu ments/aboutcouncil/advisorypanels/disabilitystrategicadv isorygroup/dsagterminology.pdf [Accessed 09 September 2012].
24 See http://www.sroi-uk.org/home-uk.
25 The council has inherited a number of community loans totalling $2 million (book value and excluding a
68
Item 20(a)
$6.5 million loan to the Eden Park Trust Board) from the legacy councils. The loans, generally for capital expenses, were provided to sports clubs, community halls and performing arts organisations. In addition, there is approximately $500,000 worth of loan guarantees (excluding a $40 million loan guarantee for the Eden Park Trust Board) brought forward from the legacy councils, and which are now guarantees of the council. Community loans and loan guarantees are an important source of facility development funding for community groups and NGOs, and can complement grant funding. The council is currently developing a new region-wide lending policy. Decision-making for loans against the legacy Franklin District Council has been devolved to a regional funding committee. Any other new loans or loan guarantees are made by the Strategy and Finance Committee on an ad hoc basis until a new policy is adopted.
26 Section 10 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009.
27 The advisory panels are: Business Advisory Panel, Disability Strategic Advisory Group, Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel, Heritage Advisory Panel, Pacific Peoples Advisory Panel, Rural Advisory Panel and Youth Advisory Panel. Of these panels, only the Pacific
69
Item 20(a)
Peoples and Ethnic Peoples advisory panels are statutory requirements under the Local Government
(Auckland Council) Act 2009.
70
Item 20(b) Item 20(b) Item 20(b) Item 20(b) Item 20(b) Item 20(b) Item 20(b) Item 20(b) Item 25 Item 25 Item 37 Item 38(a) Item 38(a) Item 38(b) Item 38(b) Item 38(b) Item 38(b)