Transcript
Page 1: (Re)making space for kiwi: beyond ‘fortress conservation’ in Northland

Research Articlenzg_1181 105..123

(Re)making space for kiwi: beyond ‘fortressconservation’ in Northland

Lyndsay Blue1 and Greg Blunden2

1School of Environment, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019,Auckland, New Zealand, 2New Zealand Kiwi Foundation, PO Box 648, Kerikeri,New Zealand

Abstract: Mainstream conservation has been long dominated globally by the pro-tected area paradigm. This approach has been widely challenged in recent years, andnew conservation initiatives have emerged. The situation is mirrored in New Zealand,where ongoing biodiversity loss has prompted reappraisal. Within this context, wehighlight the plight of kiwi, focusing on Northland and efforts there to (re)make spacefor this iconic bird which is at risk of extinction. While the state has primarilyresponded by fortifying ‘islands’ on public conservation land, Far North communitiesare working in a variety of ways and localities, both within and beyond ‘the fortress’,to secure a future for the ‘people’s bird’.

Key words: Bay of Islands, community conservation, kiwi, Northland.

Introduction

The protected area paradigm has dominatedconservation internationally since the 1870s.Founded on a dualistic view of humans as sepa-rate from ‘wild’ nature and characterised bystate ownership and top-down scientific man-agement, ‘fortress conservation’ has sought toprotect nature from human interference (Wells& Brandon 1992; Adams & Hulme 2001). Pro-tected areas have flourished as a key compo-nent of mainstream conservation (Brockingtonet al. 2008). Beginning as a means to preservescenery, they have become ‘. . . a primaryweapon in the conservation arsenal’ (McNeely2008, p. 104). They now occupy c. 11% of theworld’s land (Stevens 1997) and are a powerful‘. . . way of seeing, understanding, and (re)pro-ducing the world’ (West et al. 2006, p.252).

In recent years, however, the protected areaapproach has been widely contested by both

social and natural scientists. Critique hasfocused on social and environmental justice,biodiversity objectives and conservation effi-cacy, interwoven with interrogation of thephilosophical underpinnings of protected areas.From different starting points, critique has con-verged on the desirability of reconnectingpeople and ‘wild’ nature, while balancing eco-logical concerns. The challenge is to ‘place’humans and ‘human-made’ landscapes into thepicture. This requires a different approach, onethat involves individuals and communities aspart of a broader participatory turn. The aim isto ‘give’ people all kinds of agency in themaking of economies, ecologies and natures(Hinchcliffe et al. 2007). New debates haveemerged over the relative virtues of ‘top-down’and ‘bottom-up’ conservation initiatives.

New Zealand’s kiwi (Apteryx spp.) are on thebrink of extinction on the mainland. In thispaper, we investigate the extent to which new

Note about the authors: Lyndsay Blue is a Senior Tutor in the School of Environment at The University ofAuckland. Greg Blunden lives in the Far North, specialising in legal protection and biodiversity managementon private land, and operating the New Zealand Kiwi Foundation.

E-mail: [email protected]

New Zealand Geographer (2010) 66, 105–123

© 2010 The AuthorsJournal compilation © 2010 The New Zealand Geographical Society

doi: 10.1111/j.1745-7939.2010.01181.x

Page 2: (Re)making space for kiwi: beyond ‘fortress conservation’ in Northland

geographies of community kiwi conservation inNorthland have diverged from the ‘fortressconservation’ approach in response to thisthreat. We review New Zealand’s succession ofconservation responses to biodiversity loss,highlighting the predominant national pro-tected area framework and evolving institu-tional and resourcing arrangements forbiodiversity protection. Responding to calls forgeographers to reverse our neglect of wildlife(Whatmore & Thorne 1998), we argue that dif-ferent ways of imagining and practising conser-vation are emerging from community and aremaking a positive difference to survival of kiwiin the Far North. While recognising the tempo-ral and spatial contingencies of this success andthe particular significance of the kiwi’s iconicstatus, we point to the wider potential of thischange in attitude to conservation. We empha-sise that such conservation initiatives extendbeyond a response to biodiversity decline toreshape place, and indeed region in the North-land case.

Wilderness imaginaries,conservation, and

the community turn

Critique of protected area approaches hasemerged from different quarters. Much socialcommentary has been concerned with socialand environmental justice, particularly theeffects of displacement on indigenous peoples.An extensive literature has explored the social,economic and political impacts of protectedareas (e.g. West et al. 2006), prompting calls forrevised conservation approaches that incorpo-rate community participation (Stevens 1997).The challenge is to supplant notions of partici-pation that see local peoples ‘invited’ to engagein protected area planning and management tovarying degrees, as part of wider developmentefforts, and imagine more genuine localcontrol.

Natural scientists have focused primarily onthe failure of protected areas to halt biodiver-sity decline (McNeely 2008). In part, suchfailure has been attributed to institutional andresourcing problems which constrain the effec-tiveness of protected areas, rendering many‘paper parks’ (Brandon et al. 1998). In part, itreflects the growing realisation that the pro-

tected area approach ignores the considerablebiodiversity and critical ecosystem processesbeyond reserve boundaries. Conservationbiologists have thus turned attention to themanagement of intervening space, advocatingan integrated sustainability approach to conser-vation and production space (Mitchell & Craig2000): ‘. . . a more sensible form of human rela-tions with the land across the entire planet’(McNeely 2008, p. 106).This approach has beenendorsed by the International Union forConservation of Nature move to create moreflexible protected area categories. Somecommentators have gone further to label ‘fenceand fine’ strategies ineffectual (Wells &Brandon 1992), while, in practice, many parkagencies have sought biodiversity benefits fromgenerating improved relationships with localpeoples and enhanced community participa-tion (Stevens 1997).

While conservation biology has dominatedresponses to global concern about biodiversitysince the mid-1980s (Meine et al. 2006), Wolchet al. (2003) describe the emergence of abroader discourse about animals and society inthe late 20th and early 21st centuries, partlyprompted by ‘. . . growing concern regardingenvironmental degradation, habitat loss andspecies endangerment’ (p.187). In his seminalwork, Cronon (1995) challenges the fundamen-tal notion of ‘wilderness’, arguing that:

The wilderness dualism tends to cast any useas ab-use, and thereby denies us a middleground in which responsible use and non-usemight attain some kind of balanced, sustain-able relationship. (p. 85)

Elaborating on the ‘middle ground’, where welive and make our homes, Cronon draws atten-tion to ‘. . . the wildness in our own backyards. . . the nature that is all around us if only wehave eyes to see it’ (p. 86), and articulates hisprincipal concern that wilderness, the ‘BigOutside’, teaches us to be dismissive of suchplaces.

Integration of conservation and productionspace, advocated by conservation biologists, isthus again emphasised but framed differently:

If wildness can stop being (just) out thereand start being (also) in here, if it can start

L. Blue and G. Blunden106

© 2010 The AuthorsJournal compilation © 2010 The New Zealand Geographical Society

Page 3: (Re)making space for kiwi: beyond ‘fortress conservation’ in Northland

being as humane as it is natural, then perhapswe can get on with the unending task ofstruggling to live rightly in the world – notjust in the garden, not just in the wilderness,but in the home that encompasses them both.(Cronon 1995, p. 90)

Geographers Whatmore and Thorne (1998)add that:

. . . the futures of earth creatures (includinghumans) lie not in fortifying the utopianspace/time of a pristine wilderness, but on theinside, where the everyday worlds of people,plants and animals are already in the processof being mixed up. (p. 437)

In practice, Adams and Hulme (2001) contendthat disenchantment with ‘fortress conserva-tion’ has been so profound that there has been‘. . . a significant shift in the dominant globalnarrative of conservation. The new conserva-tion narrative is community conservation’(p.193). This notion, however, is problematic.The idea is to promote social justice and moreeffective conservation by empowering localgroups (Brockington et al. 2008). This raisesquestions of how much control, whose is it tocede, into whose hands, and under what condi-tions, and the meaning of ‘community’.

Agrawal and Gibson (1999) challenge preoc-cupation with the ‘mythic’ integrated commu-nity, instead depicting communities ascharacterised by internal differences and per-meated with networks and external linkagesthat may make it difficult to see where ‘. . .local conservation begins and the external(that helps construct the local) ends’ (p. 637).They argue that greater attention should focuson:

. . . the multiple actors with multiple intereststhat make up communities, the processesthrough which these actors interrelate, and,especially, the institutional arrangementsthat structure their interactions. (p. 636)

Further, control is not simply transferred froman active state to passive communities(Agrawal and Gibson 1999). Community actorsare active agents who seek their own differentand dynamic interests in conservation, stitch

together alliances of interests, and may changetheir interests as new opportunities emerge. AsBrockington et al. (2008) observe, communityconservation may distribute ‘fortune and mis-fortune’ unequally.

A brief history of conservation inNew Zealand

Human settlement of Aotearoa/New Zealandheralded rapid biodiversity loss due to theinterwoven effects of forest clearance throughfelling and burning, wildlife predation and com-petition from humans and introduced species.1

Early Polynesian voyagers introduced the kurı(dog) and kiore (Pacific rat) (McGlone 1989)and, from 1769, Europeans introduced 34 othermammals most of which became pests (Craiget al. 2000). These included other dogs and rats,along with cats, pigs, brushtail possums andmustelids (ferrets, stoats and weasels) (Star &Lochhead 2002).

A process started by early Polynesian settlersaccelerated following European arrivals(Glasby 1986). In less than one thousand years,native forest cover was reduced from c. 85%(McGlone 1989) to c. 22% of the land area(Glasby 1986), and 40% of pre-human birdspecies became extinct (Craig et al. 2000).Pryde and Cocklin (1998, p. 87) describe NewZealand as ‘. . . one of the most biologicallytransformed countries on earth’. This processhas been well documented (e.g. Clout &Saunders 1995; Glasby 1986; McGlone 1989;Wynn 2002).

Despite the pioneering ethic of early Euro-pean settlers, the decline of forest and indig-enous wildlife evoked concern from the 1870s(Young 2004). Conservation responses focusedvariously on ‘wise’ use, soil and water protec-tion, scientific interest, scenery preservationand wildlife protection (Roche 2002; Star 2002;Star & Lochhead 2002). A network of state-owned protected areas eventually emerged,separating humans (production) from nature(conservation) and primarily protecting indig-enous habitat (Pryde & Cocklin 1998; Primdahl& Swaffield 2004).

Some indigenous bird species received adhoc protection from human exploitation from1872, and from 1891 some were translocated tooffshore island refuges where pest eradication

(Re)making space for kiwi 107

© 2010 The AuthorsJournal compilation © 2010 The New Zealand Geographical Society

Page 4: (Re)making space for kiwi: beyond ‘fortress conservation’ in Northland

was attempted (Star & Lochhead 2002). It wasdifficult, however, to undertake pest control onthe mainland, where stoats and weaselsremained protected until 1903. Most pests wereinitially considered useful for other purposes(Kennedy & Perkins 2000).

Indigenous ‘nature’ became linked tonational identity from the early 20th century,with protection of scenery, flora and fauna jus-tified on the grounds of their ‘New Zealand-ness’ (Star & Lochhead 2002). In response topublic lobbying, the government pursued apolicy of protected fauna management: theWildlife Service was established in 1945 and theWildlife Act 1953 gave precedence to protec-tion of indigenous fauna over introducedspecies (Kennedy & Perkins 2000). Until the1960s, however, influential Wildlife Service staffprioritised habitat protection and failed to rec-ognise mammalian predator threats to avifauna(Young 2004).

In 1987, the Department of Conservation(DoC) was established as the principal conser-vation agency, assuming responsibility for man-aging public conservation lands and protectingindigenous wildlife wherever it lives (Kennedy& Perkins 2000). DoC now manages 8.59million ha under legal protection, 32.8% ofNew Zealand’s land area (DoC 2009a). Off-shore island refuges play an ongoing wildlifeconservation role but are limited in numberand size, the main 10 comprising only 8,300 ha(0.03% of the nation’s land) (Pryde & Cocklin1998).

Other agencies foster voluntary legal protec-tion of private land. From 1977, landownersbegan protecting ‘natural’ areas through theQueen Elizabeth II National Trust (QEII),advocated by farmers keen to defend privateproperty rights (Davis 1997). By June 2009,3,189 covenants were registered and 524approved, jointly covering 109,948 ha (QEII2009). Nga Whenua Rahui encouraged volun-tary protection of indigenous habitat on cus-tomary Maori land from 1991, covenantingc. 146,800 ha nationally (MfE 2007).

Despite these varied efforts, ongoing biodi-versity loss remains the country’s greatest envi-ronmental problem (Taylor et al. 1997), andprotected fauna management is one of DoC’smost pressing concerns (Kennedy & Perkins2000). The strategic focus on particular areas

has not halted biodiversity decline (Green &Clarkson 2005). The existence of indigenousbiodiversity beyond public conservation landcomplicates matters. Different strategies havebeen developed and initiatives adopted inresponse, involving different mixes of privateand public landholding, different approaches tomanagement, different (and sometimes com-peting) emphases on legal habitat protectionand pest management (Clout 2001; Clout &Saunders 1995), and different responses to theprotected area concept. While the ResourceManagement Act 1991 (RMA) legislated forthe sustainable management of natural andphysical resources, it did so by decentralisingresponsibilities to regional and local govern-ment and further complicating conservationpolitics, policy making and practices. It hasopened contest over conservation approachesto national, regional and local government,non-government organisations (NGOs), corpo-rate agents, communities and individuals.

The idea of the protected area generallyremains central to conservation imaginariesand practices. At one extreme, Pryde andCocklin (1998) contend that miniaturization ofnature through ‘. . . new, smaller, and moredefensible island geographies of protectedspaces’ (p. 108) may be the sole feasible bio-preservation option. This ‘islandness as the lastwilderness’ is picked up in the idea of ‘mainlandislands’, areas of habitat targeted for intensiveinvasive species control (Saunders & Norton2001). Six ‘mainland islands’, comprising64,182 ha (MfE 2007), have been establishedon public conservation land since 1995 to tryand emulate offshore island conservation suc-cesses.While high costs and toxin accumulationare concerns (Craig et al. 2000), pest numbershave reduced significantly (Saunders & Norton2001). The ‘mainland island’ initiative empha-sised the need for ongoing integrated predatormanagement (IPM) to prevent reinvasion. Theidea has been taken up further in ‘communitymainland islands’, such as the fenced sanctuar-ies at Karori and Maungatautari.

Privately-led integratedconservation

Together, proliferating community interests,including Maori interests in comanagement;

L. Blue and G. Blunden108

© 2010 The AuthorsJournal compilation © 2010 The New Zealand Geographical Society

Page 5: (Re)making space for kiwi: beyond ‘fortress conservation’ in Northland

growing scientific awareness of the magnitudeof the challenge; RMA politics; DoC’s fiscaland political challenges; and the failures of thepast define a highly complicated field of conser-vation. In 2001 Morgan Williams, then Parlia-mentary Commissioner for the Environment,argued with particular reference to indigenousavifauna that effective conservation wouldhave to be set in ‘. . . the wider and morecomplex ecological and economic realities ofNew Zealand’s contemporary landscapes’(p. 2). He highlighted the grip of compet-ing public/private and protected area/pestmanagement approaches:

New Zealand will have real difficulty break-ing out of the partitioned landscape model:production on private lands with pasturedominating and conservation of public lands.Conservationists do not trust landowners tomanage indigenous species in a sustainablefashion while landowners do not trust con-servationists who try to appropriate theirprivate property rights. (p. 15)

We focus attention on one thrust in response:the recent upsurge in conservation work byNGOs, private agencies and voluntary groupsthat are able to mobilise both state and privatemonies for pest management (Jay 2005). QEIIis one of these agencies. Another is the NZLandcare Trust (NZLCT), formed in 1998 toencourage sustainable land managementthrough community involvement. NZLCTfacilitates the work of over 150 landcare groupsnationwide, many including pest managementin their ambit (NZLCT 2009). Along with theRoyal Forest and Bird Protection Society, theseagencies have developed working relationshipswith DoC that involve private sector sponsorsand operate across DoC and private lands (seeJay 2005 for discussion of the ThreatenedSpecies Trust).

The New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy 2000(NZBS) initiated a change in direction thatresponded to domestic concerns and NewZealand’s obligations under the Convention onBiological Diversity 1993 (DoC & MfE 2000).It prompted a five year government commit-ment of $187 million, directed to both stateconservation and community initiatives tosupport biodiversity beyond DoC lands. The

NZBS brought together the changing face ofenvironmental politics, emergent initiativesbeyond the state, late neoliberal discourses ofpublic-private partnerships (McCarthy &Prudham 2004), and the pragmatic recognitionthat biodiversity loss cannot be halted by thestate alone. As then Prime Minister, HelenClark observed in her NZBS foreword:

Biodiversity is everyone’s business. Itextends into all our backyards and neigh-bourhoods and is affected by nearly all ouractivities. Nearly two-thirds of our landarea . . . lies outside protected areas.We needto manage our working landscapes well. (inDoC & MfE 2000)

In 2000 a ministerial advisory committee wasformed to review indigenous biodiversity man-agement on private land. The report exploredoptions to improve biodiversity outcomes,emphasising the importance of landownergoodwill and commitment, collaboration, andactive management. It insisted passionatelythat ‘. . . we must be prepared to manage all ourland by standing between our threatenedspecies and their vigorous competition andpredators – be it on reserve, residential or farm-lands’ (Kneebone et al. 2000, p. 5). This wouldrequire paying close attention to the spirit andintent of freehold title. Among 17 recommen-dations, the report advocated extra financialsupport for QEII, Nga Whenua Rahui andNZLCT. Government responded by establish-ing a Biodiversity Advisory Service andincreased funding for both existing protectionmechanisms and new initiatives to improvebiodiversity condition on private land (MfE2001). ‘Biodiversity Advice’ and ‘BiodiversityCondition’ funding remained consistent overthe next eight years, giving impetus to earlierinitiatives and encouraging new.

In the sphere of resource management, a2003 RMA (s30&31) amendment to promote amore comprehensive approach to biodiversitymanagement gave councils some explicitresponsibility for maintaining indigenousbiodiversity within their territories. Beyond thestate, environmentalists began to think ofpeople as not just the problem but also as apotential solution. Fortress conservation wasalso under assault from a shift in emphasis from

(Re)making space for kiwi 109

© 2010 The AuthorsJournal compilation © 2010 The New Zealand Geographical Society

Page 6: (Re)making space for kiwi: beyond ‘fortress conservation’ in Northland

habitat protection to mammalian pest controlas the most critical element of biodiversitymanagement in New Zealand (Clout 2001).This redirected attention to mobility andboundary crossing as opposed to fixed reserves.

Despite the differential take up of the newapproach by actors such as councils, by 2005 Jayfelt able to claim that there had been a seachange in the manner and direction of conser-vation. Less than five years after Williams’ pes-simism, she wrote of a shift from ‘. . . a view ofconservation as the responsibility of govern-ment on behalf of the people, to a view of con-servation as a society-wide responsibility’ (Jay2005, p. 137). The kiwi conservation case offersan opportunity to investigate this claim.

Kiwi and Kiwi nation

Early Maori called kiwi2 ‘Te manu huna aTane’, the hidden bird of Tane Mahuta (god ofthe forest) (Wolfe 1991). Scientifically, kiwi(Apteryx spp.) belong to the Apterygidae, a dis-tinct family of birds endemic to New Zealand,currently divided into five species: brown kiwi(Apteryx mantelli), great spotted kiwi/roroa/roa(A. haastii), little spotted kiwi (A. owenii), rowi(A. rowi), and tokoeka (A. australis). Four geo-graphically and genetically distinct forms areidentifiable within both brown kiwi andtokoeka (Holzapfel et al. 2008).

Apart from their biological interest, kiwi areof special significance in New Zealand, havinglong figured large in both our awareness ofnature and national consciousness (Bell 1996).Wolfe (1991) traces the emergence of ‘kiwi asnational icon’ as the young colony searched forsymbols to assert its distinctiveness. The kiwialso lent its image to commerce, emblazoningstamps, coins and bank notes; products such asKiwi Bacon, kiwifruit and Kiwi Lager; alongwith the Golden Kiwi Lottery and Bank of NewZealand (Wolfe 1991). New Zealand’s currencyis commonly termed ‘the kiwi’, and ‘kiwiana’encompasses collectable items redolent of NewZealand life.

The concept of ‘New Zealander as Kiwi’emerged among First World War armed forces,later expanding to include all New Zealanders:at home and abroad. Wolfe (2000) contendsthat no other nation’s symbol has become asclosely identified with its citizens, and dubs kiwi

‘the people’s bird’. During the past decade, the‘kiwi brand’ was deployed to label Labour-ledgovernment initiatives nationally owned:Kiwibank in 2001, KiwiSaver in 2007, andKiwiRail in 2008. ‘Buy NZ Made’ became ‘BuyKiwi Made’ from 2006. The National Party uti-lised the notion of ‘kiwi as New Zealandness’differently in their 2004 ‘Iwi/Kiwi’ billboardelection campaign, advocating one rule for allin a single nation state. Labour retaliated in2008 with: ‘Kiwibank KiwiSaver KiwiRailKEEP IT KIWI – VOTE LABOUR’. The kiwihas, thus, become ubiquitous in national iden-tity and all manner of political projects andvalues creating deployments of national iden-tity. Into this familiar relationship, however, hasfiltered the reality that kiwi are ‘. . . marchingup the endangered list’ (Wolfe 2000, p. 20).

The decline of the kiwi

Prior to human arrival, kiwi inhabited most ofNew Zealand (MfE 2007), with estimatednumbers counted in tens of millions (Young2004).All kiwi taxa are now threatened (Holza-pfel et al. 2008), having declined significantly inabundance and/or range since human settle-ment (McLennan et al. 1996). The total currentkiwi population is estimated at 72,600, compris-ing: 29,800 tokoeka, 25,000 brown, 16,000 greatspotted, 1,500 little spotted and 300 rowi(Holzapfel et al. 2008). Kiwi now inhabit only17% of their original national range (MfE2007) (Fig. 1).

Maori valued kiwi as a source of meat, bone,leathery skin, and feathers for prized cloaks(kahu-kiwi) (Peat 2006); the birds are com-monly represented in early middens (Butler &McLennan 1991). They were also eaten by19th-century European explorers, surveyors,‘bushmen’ and missionaries (Peat 2006). Kiwiquickly attracted international attention as anoddity (Star & Lochhead 2002), fetching ‘good’money from naturalists and through a burgeon-ing ‘fur’ trade supplying the European fashionindustry. Thousands of kiwi were slaughteredfor export, introduced mammals predatedthem, and vegetation clearance destroyed theirhabitat (Peat 2006).

By the mid-1800s, concerns were expressedabout kiwi vulnerability; from 1891 some weretranslocated to offshore island refuges (Young

L. Blue and G. Blunden110

© 2010 The AuthorsJournal compilation © 2010 The New Zealand Geographical Society

Page 7: (Re)making space for kiwi: beyond ‘fortress conservation’ in Northland

Figure 1 Current distribution of kiwi (Apteryx spp.) in New Zealand.Source: After Holzapfel et al. 2008, p. 13.

(Re)making space for kiwi 111

© 2010 The AuthorsJournal compilation © 2010 The New Zealand Geographical Society

Page 8: (Re)making space for kiwi: beyond ‘fortress conservation’ in Northland

2004) and in 1897 kiwi were added to the list ofprotected native species (Star & Lochhead2002). The Wildlife Act 1953 gave kiwi totalprotection from people, when it became ‘. . . anoffence to kill, move, liberate, hold or disturbany absolutely protected wildlife’ (Bosselmann& Taylor 1995, p. 114); however, this did littleto address the numerous other threats kiwifaced.

Kiwi numbers dropped from c. 23 million in1900 to c. 5 million by the 1920s (BNZSKT2009). Perhaps the kiwi’s nocturnal and secre-tive habits meant its decline went unnoticed, ormaybe it was simply unimaginable for NewZealanders that it would disappear (Peat 2006).As kiwi were still heard calling, and were pro-tected by law, few people imagined them to bein trouble. Concern grew in the 1980s as tramp-ers, hunters and farmers noticed kiwi callsmissing from places where they were oncecommon (BNZSKT 2009). Research on kiwiecology followed from the 1980s, and by the1990s the full picture of decline began toemerge (Holzapfel et al. 2008).

In 1991, DoC initiated a national kiwi recov-ery programme, the first plan prioritisingresearch to monitor populations and investi-gate causes of decline. While in situ manage-ment was considered critical for mainland kiwisurvival, prospects were uncertain. Predatorcontrol was considered ‘. . . expensive, time-consuming, of short-term benefit, and appli-cable on only a small scale’ (Butler &McLennan 1991, p. 15).

Subsequent research suggests that kiwideclined by 90% in most North Island forestsduring the 20th century and decline is ongoingnationally. Unmanaged brown kiwi populationsaverage 5.8% decline per annum, halving everydecade (McLennan et al. 1996). While habitatloss is a problem, kiwi are adaptable: particularvegetation appears less important than plenti-ful invertebrate fauna and dense cover forshelter and roosts (Potter 1990). Research hasascertained the pivotal role of predators, vul-nerability to which varies with kiwi life stage.McLennan et al. (1996) revealed possums andmustelids as major egg predators, stoats andcats largely responsible for young kiwi deaths,and ferrets and dogs the main adult predators.Rats are largely invisible, comprehensive eggpredators. Predation of eggs and juveniles is

critical: unmanaged kiwi cannot replace them-selves because fewer than 6% of chicks surviveto adulthood.

In 1993,DoC partnered with the Bank of NewZealand and Forest and Bird to form the BNZKiwi Recovery Trust, now BNZ Save the KiwiTrust, a registered charity. With BNZ as itsprimary sponsor, BNZSKT raises funds, allo-cates grants to kiwi conservation organisations,supports research and employed kiwi advocatesfor the first 12 years to publicise the kiwi’s plight.Since 1995, BNZ Operation Nest Egg has sup-ported egg hatching and kiwi chick rearing forrelease beyond their most vulnerable age(BNZSKT 2009). In 2008, the Trust committedapproximately $1 million to kiwi recovery.

With more known about kiwi populations,agents of decline identified, and pest controltechniques improved, the second (1996–2006)plan (Robertson 2003) set processes in place tosecure and recover kiwi. The presence of kiwibeyond the conservation estate was acknowl-edged, the need for public involvement empha-sised and in situ management through predatorcontrol prioritised. The third (2008–2018) plan(Holzapfel et al. 2008) aims to build on earlierachievements.

Meanwhile, the NZBS funding package allo-cated $10 million between 2000–2005 for DoCto establish and manage five mainland kiwisanctuaries (Fig. 1), incorporating 57,800 ha ofmostly public conservation land (DoC & MfE2009). This initiative acknowledged that inad-equate pest control was failing to halt kiwidecline over large areas of DoC land, andhence strategic to intensify efforts in smallerlocalities. In the face of funding constraints, thelabour-intensive nature of predator controllimits options, meaning DoC cannot sustainkiwi alone.

Recent growth of community support forkiwi conservation has been acknowledged byseveral authors, notably Peat (2006) whoextends the military metaphor by describingthe arrival of ‘the cavalry’, evoking images of apatriotic, mobile and adaptable force ready foraction in the fight against ‘pests as foreigninvaders’ (Isern 2002). But who are the cavalry,why have they arrived, what are they doing andwhere? How far have they moved the kiwiconservation battle ‘beyond the fortress’ inNorthland?

L. Blue and G. Blunden112

© 2010 The AuthorsJournal compilation © 2010 The New Zealand Geographical Society

Page 9: (Re)making space for kiwi: beyond ‘fortress conservation’ in Northland

Arresting the decline of kiwiin Northland

Northland Region has a land area of 1.25million ha and a population of 148,470, ofwhom almost 50% live in rural areas (StatisticsNew Zealand 2006). Pastoral farming occupies59% of the land, with 13.6% scrubland, 12.7%indigenous forest and 10% exotic forest(Mullooly 2007). The region includes threelocal government districts: Far North (FND),Whangarei (WD) and Kaipara.

Northland’s state conservation land encom-passes c. 500 discrete units totalling 168,000 ha(DoC 2009b), around 13.4% of the region’sland area, with some other small reservesmanaged by councils.This leaves almost 87% ofthe land in private (including customary Maori)ownership. QEII covenants total 9,063 ha(QEII 2009), Nga Whenua Rahui cover3,718 ha, and 2,266 ha are covenanted underWD subdivision requirements (van Meeuwen-Dijkgraaf 2008), collectively protecting 1.2% ofNorthland.

Before human arrival, brown kiwi inhabitedmost of Northland, including Aupouri Penin-sula; a century ago, there were up to 1.4 millionin the region (DoC 2009c). In the 1970s kiwiwere still widespread, inhabiting native andexotic forest and ‘scrub’ from Awanui to thesouthern Brynderwyn Range (Miller & Pierce1995). By 1989 most areas maintained muchhigher densities than in other regions, whererapid decline had occurred (Potter 1990).Northland was considered the ‘brown kiwistronghold’ (Miller & Pierce 1995).

By 1995, however, kiwi were rapidly vanish-ing from southern Northland and diminishingelsewhere (Miller & Pierce 1995). While forestclearance and fragmentation took their toll(Potter 1990), kiwi loss from southern North-land followed ferret and possum arrivals(Miller & Pierce 1995). While brown kiwi canlive 70 to 80 years, dogs significantly impact onkiwi of all ages in Northland and individualevents can be devastating (Taborsky, 1988).Dog predation reduces adult kiwi life expect-ancy to just 13 years (DoC 2009c), and oldbirds are seldom replaced due to juveniledeaths. From 1990–1995, dogs were responsiblefor 70% and vehicles for 6% of 194 reportedkiwi deaths in Northland, although cat and

mustelid kill is under reported (Pierce &Sporle 1997).

Northland’s genetically distinct brown kiwipopulation currently totals c. 8,000. While1,500 managed birds are increasing at 9% perannum, unmanaged populations are decliningat c. 3% (Holzapfel et al. 2008). Kiwi call countdata and local knowledge suggest local extinc-tions are ongoing. Kiwi distribution and rela-tive abundance vary through the region(Fig. 2). Kiwi are locally extinct from Aupouriand southern Northland, and restricted largelyto Far North and Whangarei Districts. Lowdensity concentrations are found in many DoCforests such as Herekino, Maungataniwha,Omahuta, Puketi, Raetea, Russell andWarawara, with higher call counts in Trounson,Waipoua and some reserves near Whangarei.Many inhabit private land, highlighted inFigure 2, with highest concentrations in Bay ofIslands and other localised (private) places(Fig. 3).

Renwick et al. (2009) note that: ‘Northland isunique in terms of both the occurrence of kiwion privately owned lands, and the high level ofcommunity interest and effort in kiwi protec-tion’ (p. 16). Peat’s ‘cavalry’ have ‘arrived’ inNorthland, where over half the nation’scommunity-led kiwi recovery projects occur.Communities act in two broad ways: volunteersassist DoC on public conservation lands andmuch action occurs on private land, with DoCincreasingly playing an advisory role (Renwicket al. 2009). Approximately 52,000 ha areactively managed for kiwi protection, with 60%on private land (NRC 2007).

Limited funding for pest control on DoCland has prompted significant community ini-tiatives such as Puketi Forest Trust, establishedin 2003 ‘to bring back the birds’. Another isWaipoua Forest Trust, a NZ Native ForestsRestoration Trust/Te Roroa partnership,undertaking predator trapping on reservesbordering Waipoua (King S. 2007, pers com.),and lobbying for improved conservationfunding (Fig. 4).

DoC’s ‘island fortification’ approach isreflected in both Trounson’s management as a‘mainland island’, since 1995 (Gibbs 2001), andthe Whangarei Kiwi Sanctuary: six separateareas incorporating 9,800 ha of conservationland and 200 ha of private land (Renwick et al.

(Re)making space for kiwi 113

© 2010 The AuthorsJournal compilation © 2010 The New Zealand Geographical Society

Page 10: (Re)making space for kiwi: beyond ‘fortress conservation’ in Northland

2009). Volunteers make important contribu-tions to both projects. Friends of Matakohe-Limestone Island Society also help to maintaina BNZ Operation Nest Egg chick crèche atthe WD Council reserve. While such initiativesclearly benefit kiwi, vast areas of Northland’s‘kiwi country’ remain vulnerable. DoC North-land area offices have done their best to assistpeople in ‘saving’ kiwi on private land, but theirkiwi protection funding has been so limitedthat the task has fallen largely on communitygroups and interested individuals.

Kiwi conservation on private land:the Far North and Bay of Islands

Within the Far North District, Bay of Islandsland use forms a mosaic of indigenous forestremnants, regenerating ‘scrub’, exotic pines,pasture and horticulture, all infiltrated bysettlement and associated infrastructure. DoCland comprises 22% of FND, with many smallreserves in Bay of Islands, and forests atRussell, Opua and Puketi. Much land is farmedin large holdings, with lifestyle blocks and

Figure 2 Distribution of brown kiwi (Apteryx mantelli) relative to public conservation land in Northland.Source: Compiled from Pierce et al. 2006, p. 11 and DoC Northland Conservancy 2009, unpublished.

L. Blue and G. Blunden114

© 2010 The AuthorsJournal compilation © 2010 The New Zealand Geographical Society

Page 11: (Re)making space for kiwi: beyond ‘fortress conservation’ in Northland

small, uneconomic farms clustered aroundKerikeri, Waipapa, Paihia, Waimate North, andoccupying most of Russell Peninsula. Smallurban concentrations occur at Kerikeri, Paihiaand Russell. The coastal zone from Taupiri Bayto Matauri Bay contains high value land. In

most coastal places, land use has shifted fromlivestock farming to ‘aesthetic production’ or‘farming of real estate’.

Far North population has grown faster thanthe national average in recent years (StatisticsNew Zealand 2006), with people moving north

Figure 3 Average kiwi call count per hour by locality in Northland (2007).Source: Compiled from Pierce 2008 and NZKF 2007, unpublished data.

Figure 4 Lobbying for increased kiwi conservation funding takes many forms: Waipoua Forest Trust vehicle(2006).

(Re)making space for kiwi 115

© 2010 The AuthorsJournal compilation © 2010 The New Zealand Geographical Society

Page 12: (Re)making space for kiwi: beyond ‘fortress conservation’ in Northland

for lifestyle reasons and Maori returning totheir whenua (land). Foreigners are prominentlandowners. They include ‘swallows’, who livein New Zealand for up to six months each year,attracted to natural amenity values such asspectacular seascapes and birdlife. In additionmany Europeans, particularly English,German, Austrian and Italian, now residepermanently in Bay of Islands.

While people largely occupy daytime land-scapes, kiwi are nocturnal and mostly ‘invis-ible’. Call count monitoring has revealed highnumbers in the Bay of Islands area, with arecord 88 calls per hour recorded in 2008 onPurerua Peninsula (Fig. 5). Even the relativelydensely populated Kerikeri and Russell penin-sulas recorded average call counts of nine andsix per hour during 2007. People thus live withkiwi: ‘I’ve lived in three or four different housesall with kiwi literally in my backyard, or maybeit’s me living in their backyard’ (Ladd, inNZKF 2008, p. 11).

Possums arrived in Far North by the 1970sand control work soon began to protect vegeta-tion, including pasture. Community kiwi con-servation began in earnest in the late 1990s withthe formation of Waimate North LandcareGroup, followed soon by the NZ Kiwi Founda-tion (NZKF) and others. NZLCT initiatedmost of these groups; all wanted kiwi to survivein their locality. Possums were the early targetsfor some groups but, as DoC mainland islandresearch revealed the necessity of killing allferal pests to protect kiwi, the range expandedto include rats, cats, mustelids and dogs. Inte-grated predator management (IPM) subse-quently became commonplace.

Advocacy remains a key tool for kiwi protec-tion: lobbying to FND Council, public speakingabout kiwi, talking with groups and landownersabout managing kiwi, and representing kiwipresence and vulnerability through signage:kiwi painted on roads, ‘no pets allowed’,‘control your dog’ and others (Fig. 6a,b).

Figure 5 Typical kiwi habitat on Purerua Peninusla, Bay of Islands.

L. Blue and G. Blunden116

© 2010 The AuthorsJournal compilation © 2010 The New Zealand Geographical Society

Page 13: (Re)making space for kiwi: beyond ‘fortress conservation’ in Northland

All kiwicare groups began on a small scale,using voluntary labour and seeking assistancethrough donations, various grants bodies, andlocal government. Funding came from local ini-tiatives, membership, ASB Community Trust,Biodiversity funds, BNZSKT, Lottery GrantsBoard, Northland Regional Council, PubCharity, World Wildlife Fund NZ, and manycharitable sources. With local successes, thescale of pest management increased for mostgroups. For example, after 10 years in opera-tion, Waimate North Landcare Group nowmanages pest control on around 6,000 haof mostly private land in the Waitangi Rivercatchment.

The New Zealand Kiwi Foundation wasformed with a broader aim than most groups: toundertake kiwi advocacy and assist private

landowners to install and service IPM on theirproperties, either individually or as part ofgroup activity. NZKF now helps landownersmanage over 25,000 ha of private land inNorthland (c.2% of the region), mostly in FarNorth District and especially Bay of Islands.NZKF provides advice, monitoring and report-ing, but mostly delivers work through directIPM using contractors.

In developing its projects, NZKF actedwithin and sought to mobilise different net-works of actors and opportunities. Importantly,NZKF acted as an advocate, enabler and cata-lyst. It guided the establishment of projectsrather than constricting them to a prior organi-sational form. As a result NZKF kiwi projectsdeveloped in different ways in different set-tings, and take significantly different forms(Table 1). Since 2007, NZKF has achievedalmost complete management of the interven-ing spaces between project areas 1–4 (KerikeriPeninsula to Kauri Cliffs), making a contiguous15,000 ha coastal area relatively safe for kiwi.

Despite their different organisational formsand the range of actors involved, all projectareas operated by NZKF have IPM comprisingthree elements: a toxin feeding system, a trap-ping network and a reporting system. Toxinsare distributed on a bait station and biobagsystem recorded on GPS. Trap lines are set oninternal roads, tracks, ridgelines, bush edgesand around wetland zones and beaches. Trap-ping rounds are maintained on a three-weeklyto monthly cycle. Monitoring includes: dailyrecording of trap catch and toxin used by pestcontrol contractors; volunteer kiwi call moni-toring in May/June on over 50 sites in Bay ofIslands; and pest monitoring by contractorsusing standardised methods of tracking cards,wax tags and cat traps. NZKF aims for below5% counts for rats and possums on peninsulaareas and below 10% in less protectable places.Monitoring during 2006–2008 was consistentlywithin these ranges.

Over two years (Nov 2007 – Oct 2009)10,000 ha were trapped and monitored by theNZKF (Fig. 2 inset). Catch comprised 88 cats,82 stoats, 235 weasels, 905 hedgehogs, 1,209 ratsand 205 ‘others’, the latter mostly possums,rabbits, thrushes and blackbirds, with occa-sional pukeko and an Australasian harrier. Noferrets have been reported in Bay of Islands.

(a)

(b)

Figure 6 Signage symbolises (re)making of spacefor kiwi in Bay of Islands. (a) Purerua Peninsula;(b) Doves Bay.

(Re)making space for kiwi 117

© 2010 The AuthorsJournal compilation © 2010 The New Zealand Geographical Society

Page 14: (Re)making space for kiwi: beyond ‘fortress conservation’ in Northland

The meso-predators such as cats and stoatshave large ranges, while weasels, rats andhedgehogs live in more localised spots.The trapcatch represents 2,385 trapping days of 6 to 8hours duration (approximately 16,695 personhours), highlighting the labour intensive natureof IPM.

Subdivision pressure has been enormous inBay of Islands since the late 1990s; with itcomes habitat clearance and pets. Most new-comers, many long-term residents and thosereturning have required ‘educating’ that catsand dogs must not roam in ‘kiwi country’.Ideally, all would be like Lynette Smith:

We were New Zealanders living overseasand it was nearly time to return home. Theboys were excited.Their father had promisedthem a dog. However, on arriving in the Bayof Islands something unexpected happened.We found kiwi living in our garden. A familyconference was called. We would have toreassess the pet situation; there would be nofamily cat or dog. (in NZKF 2008, p. 9)

Since its inception, NZKF has lobbied FNDCouncil for ‘pet-free and pest-free’ subdivisions.Council cannot retrospectively impose suchconditions on existing landowners, even if itwanted to do so. From 2000 to 2007, however,

NZKF made submissions on most developers’applications for subdivision consent,and in 2006presented Council with a Northland kiwi distri-bution map to assist planners. FND Council hassubsequently regularly imposed pet-free andpest-free consent conditions in ‘kiwi country’.Peat (2006, p. 11) thus notes: ‘Kiwi are takingprecedence over dogs and cats in new subdivi-sions in the Far North [as] developers aredirected to make subdivisions kiwi-friendly’.

Motivation to protect kiwi is linked to theiriconic status in national identity, as is conserva-tion advocacy. Kiwi bring together nationalismand conservation and in turn attract corporatesponsors. The BNZSKT ‘Kiwis for kiwi’ cam-paign is a prominent example. It is unthinkableto many that kiwi could become extinct. WithinNorthland, kiwi play a further significant role inestablishing a regional identity. In Bay ofIslands, people’s relationships with kiwi canbecome far more personal. For some, kiwi coin-habit their properties, which leads to inevitableand commonly emotional encounters.As DavidHeller recalls:

I was woken by some strange sniffing andtapping sounds . . . the brown kiwi picked hisway behind the couch I was on. I guess hewas searching for spiders and moths. Havingfully examined the lounge he made his way

Table 1 Selected NZKF projects in the Far North

Project Areas Project Form

1. Kerikeri Peninsula (c. 2500 ha) NZKF community group – still relies partly on activities ofindividual landowners to control ‘their’ possums and rats.

2. Purerua Peninsula (c. 3500 ha) NZKF negotiated agreements with corporate owners toundertake IPM on a commercial basis over 60% of the area,with remainder directly funded by NZKF.

3. Takou Bay (c. 1200 ha) Kiwi protected through a NZKF/Takou Were-te-Mokaipartnership.

4. Kauri Cliffs (c. 2500 ha) NZKF advocacy persuaded owner to institute self-funded kiwiproject – NZKF continues to advise, monitor and report.

5. Russell Peninsula (c. 3500 ha) Developed by Lawrence Gordon and Russell Landcare Group –administered by NZKF since 2005.

6. Puhoi North, Puketi Mokau and CynthiaHewitt reserves

IPM by NZKF for the NZ Native Forests Restoration Trust since2004.

7. Far North (over 50 QEII covenants) Managed for kiwi protection by NZKF since 2001.8. DoC reserves within NZKF kiwi project

areasManagement agreement negotiated with DoC Bay of Islands

Area Office for NZKF to undertake trapping.

L. Blue and G. Blunden118

© 2010 The AuthorsJournal compilation © 2010 The New Zealand Geographical Society

Page 15: (Re)making space for kiwi: beyond ‘fortress conservation’ in Northland

back on to the deck . . . Soon he wanderedback towards me, picked around my barefeet and plodded off, clomp, clomp on thewooden deck into the bush below. (in NZKF2008, p. 7)

Kiwi conservation initiatives have coincidedwith major land use change as global and Auck-land elites purchase amenity values in Bay ofIslands. High value coastal properties such asKauri Cliffs, Mataka Station, MountainLanding (Peart 2009), and many smaller life-style properties have altered the nature offarming in the area and relations between landownership, production and nature. Whilefarming remains on these properties, theprocess is now dominated by ‘real estatefarming’; stock exist to pay the rates, completethe ‘idyll’, and keep the place tidy, rather thanprovide substantive income. The owners anddevelopers of these projects pin their future onthe economic value of their landscape and sea-scape. The NZKF has seized the opportunityto convince them that kiwi are a valuablecommodity: a rare, natural oddity in a world ofrelatively undifferentiated luxury lodges andprivate hideaways.

The activities of NZKF have developed over10 years to implement and coordinate pestmanagement and monitoring over a large con-tiguous area focused on Bay of Islands. NZKFdiffers from other kiwicare groups in that itaims to continue enlarging its operational areato create huge zones for threatened wildlife.The timeframe and scale of operations alreadyachieved demonstrates the viability of commu-nity management of large tracts of private landwith diverse ownership and managementarrangements, provided there is sufficient land-owner and funding support.

Conclusion

This paper highlights the multiple actors andpractices operating in kiwi conservation. Thecollective commitment of multiple actors andbottom-up initiation and orchestration of effortthat we describe represents a shift in both atti-tudes to and the practice of conservation. Thisshift is composed of tightly intertwined chal-lenges to state (DoC) dominance of conserva-tion initiatives, the protected area approach to

conservation, and wilderness understandings ofnature-society relation and conservation. InNorthland, the failure of legally protected areasto halt the decline of kiwi added some urgencyto this rethinking, and the reality that kiwiinhabit private land offered some direction.The success achieved by QEII, NZLCT, NZKFand other community groups and individualsinvolved in kiwi conservation in Northland sug-gests that this approach offers new opportuni-ties to confront the enduring and pressingchallenge of fauna management. While Prim-dahl and Swaffield (2004) contend that segre-gation remains the dominant paradigm at thelocal scale in New Zealand, kiwi conservationpractices in Northland are ‘softening’ formerlyrigid boundaries and facilitating integration ofproduction, consumption and conservation toproduce multifunctional landscapes.

The success of kiwi conservation in North-land (both in terms of saving kiwi and manifest-ing a new approach to conservation) has beencontingent in different degrees upon the exist-ence of state initiatives, the hard work andadvocacy of key actors, and the infusion of dis-cretionary income from wealthy individualsinvesting in coastal land and associatedamenity values in the region.As Whatmore andThorne (1998) remind us in a different setting,it is also contingent on human relationshipswith the animal. Landowners are keen to havekiwi on their land and the stands of ‘nativebush’ that sustain them, while corporate spon-sors are keen to be associated with kiwi.

Our narrative of kiwi conservation work inNorthland reveals a re-conceptualisation ofwhere the ‘wild things’ are, and what is neededto ensure their survival. Increased understand-ing of the role of predators in kiwi decline hasshifted the focus from habitat protection toactive pest control. The state has, in the face oflimited resources, primarily reacted by furtherfortifying ‘islands’ within public conservationlands. Communities have responded in a rangeof ways both within and beyond ‘the fortress’.In places and at times, they have supportedDoC on public conservation land; elsewherethey have fortified private ‘islands’ or devel-oped diverse ownership and managementarrangements to manage large tracts of privateland. Rather than abandonment of ‘the for-tress’, ‘old’ and ‘new’ conservation approaches

(Re)making space for kiwi 119

© 2010 The AuthorsJournal compilation © 2010 The New Zealand Geographical Society

Page 16: (Re)making space for kiwi: beyond ‘fortress conservation’ in Northland

are intermingling, with the boundaries betweenthem blurred by practices that take account ofthe mobility and lifestyles of both kiwi andtheir predators, concerns with habitat, and thepractices of humans. Conservation no longerhappens only on the ‘outside’, but has becomepart of everyday life for many: on the ‘inside’where people, plants and animals are indeed‘mixed up’.

The binaries of inside/outside and new/oldand their underpinning metaphors do not hold.People are no longer just a problem for kiwiconservation in Northland, but part of the solu-tion. The new arrangement does not reflect apassing of responsibility and authority fromstate to the community; rather communitiesassuming responsibility and an intertwining ofthe state, NGOs, private enterprise, communi-ties and individual landowners. These differentagents, their efforts, and their approaches areall linked through complex networks. What ison show in Northland is a richly networkedconservation, which tells us much about a par-ticular case in which conservation is practiseddifferently and the possibilities it creates. It alsotells us much about how Northland is beingremade.

The story of kiwi conservation makes visiblethe influx of new wealth associated with theacquisition of large tracts of land and the dis-cretionary capital it has brought to Northland.This is a key feature of the changing Far Northand is closely connected to the emergence ofmultifunctional landscapes in areas of highamenity values to the north of Auckland. Ournarrative owes much to the embedding of kiwiand wider conservation value landscapes withinthe co-constitution of production and amenityconsumption landscapes. The commitment ofthese newcomers to kiwi conservation suggestsa more complex politics of outsiders buyingland (especially foreigners), if not the possibil-ity of a counter politics. Perhaps more signifi-cantly, the story of kiwi conservation tells usthat its practices are actively remaking North-land. They are connecting these new groups toothers, as part of the building of richer commu-nity networks across the region. New networksof relations are being forged, networks thatinclude the kiwi and which reposition domesticpets. Formerly ‘hidden’ kiwi have been ren-dered present through advocacy and signage;

largely invisible landscapes of trap lines havebeen established; pet free subdivisions created(with ‘kiwi as the new dog’); new forms of Arca-dian countryside have been fashioned in whichkiwi enhance property values; and new net-works of actors constructed, both within andbeyond the local.A new identity is being forgedfor Northland, and especially Bay of Islands:‘kiwi country’.The depth of this change is madepossible by the community leadership andemphasis of the new kiwi conservation.

Finally, much conservation biology literatureis pessimistic about the future of endangeredspecies, often couched in the military metaphorof ‘losing the battle’. While the momentum incommunity based kiwi conservation action inNorthland draws on the iconic status of the kiwiin national identities, there are lessons forendangered species conservation elsewhere.Where communities are motivated, state led,authoritarian practices are not essential forconservation. Northland communities haveproven committed, adaptable and energetic;and have proven adept at making the statework for them. The challenge for kiwi conser-vation in Northland will be to maintainmomentum. The challenge for other conserva-tion programmes in other areas is to stimulateinterest from their communities, which mayinvolve building local or national cultural con-nections to the species involved. Solutions tobiodiversity decline may lie as much in thesocial and the cultural as they do in the politicaland the scientific.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to: Nick Lewis for encouragingthis work and providing insightful feedback;Igor Drecki for drawing figures 1–3; BrendonBlue for assisting with proof reading; theDepartment of Conservation for permitting useof their national kiwi map; and DoC NorthlandConservancy for providing a Northland conser-vation land base map.

Endnotes

1 Scientific names of key introduced speciesmentioned:• brushtail possum (Trichosurus vulpecula)• cat (Felis catus)

L. Blue and G. Blunden120

© 2010 The AuthorsJournal compilation © 2010 The New Zealand Geographical Society

Page 17: (Re)making space for kiwi: beyond ‘fortress conservation’ in Northland

• dog (Canis familiaris)• pig (Sus scrofa)• rats: Pacific/kiore (Rattus exulans), ship

(R. rattus), Norway (R. norvegicus)• mustelids: ferret (Mustela putorius furo),

stoat (M. erminea), weasel (M. nivalisvulgaris)

2 Maori further subdivided kiwi into: kiwi nuiand kiwi kura for North Island brown kiwi,kiwi pukupuku for little spotted kiwi, roa forgreat spotted, and tokoeka for southernbrowns (Peat 2006).

References

Adams WM, Hulme D (2001). If community conser-vation is the answer in Africa, what is the ques-tion? Oryx 35 (3), 193–200.

Agrawal A, Gibson CC (1999). Enchantment and dis-enchantment: The role of community in naturalresource conservation. World Development 27(4), 629–49.

Bell C (1996). Inventing New Zealand: EverydayMyths of Pakeha Identity. Penguin Books,Auckland.

BNZ Save the Kiwi Trust (2009). BNZ Save the Kiwi.[Cited 8 January 2010.] Available from URL:http://www.savethekiwi.org.nz

Bosselmann K, Taylor P (1995). The New Zealandlaw and conservation. Pacific ConservationBiology 2, 113–21.

Brandon K, Redford K, Sanderson S, eds. (1998).Parks in Peril: People, Politics, and ProtectedAreas. Island Press, Washington DC.

Brockington D, Duffy R, Igoe J (2008). NatureUnbound: Conservation, Capitalism and theFuture Of Protected Area. Earthscan, London.

Butler D, McLennan J (1991). Kiwi recovery plan.Threatened Species Recovery Plan 2. Depart-ment of Conservation, Wellington.

Clout M (2001). Where protection is not enough:active conservation in New Zealand. TRENDSin Ecology & Evolution 16 (8), 415–6.

Clout M, Saunders AJ (1995). Conservation andecological restoration in New Zealand. PacificConservation Biology 2, 91–8.

Craig J, Anderson S, Clout M, Creese B, Mitchell N,Ogden J, Roberts M, Ussher G (2000). Conser-vation issues in New Zealand. Annual Review ofEcology and Systematics 31, 61–78.

Cronon W (1995). The trouble with wilderness; or,getting back to the wrong nature. In: Cronon W,ed. Uncommon Ground: Toward ReinventingNature. WW Norton and Co, New York,pp. 69–90.

Davis PR (1997). Cows, Kiwis and Chainsaws: Pro-tecting Habitats on Private Land. MA Thesis, TheUniversity of Auckland.

Department of Conservation (DoC) (2009a). AnnualReport for the Year Ended 30 June 2009. Depart-ment of Conservation, Wellington.

Department of Conservation (DoC) (2009b). North-land. [Cited 11 December 2009.] Availablefrom URL: http://www.doc.govt.nz/about-doc/structure/offices/conservancies/northland

Department of Conservation (DoC) (2009c). North-land Kiwi Management Plan. [Cited 12 January2010.] Available from URL: http://www.doc.govt.nz/getting-involved/consultations/current/northland-kiwi-management-plan

Department of Conservation and Ministry for theEnvironment (DoC & MfE) (2000). The NewZealand Biodiversity Strategy: Our Chance toTurn the Tide – Whakakohukihukitia Te TaiRoroku Ki Te Tai Oranga. Department of Con-servation and Ministry for the Environment,Wellington.

Department of Conservation and Ministry for Envi-ronment (DoC & MfE) (2009). Kiwi Sanctuaries.[Cited 6 December 2009.] Available from URL:http://www.biodiversity.govt.nz/land/nzbs/conservationland/kiwi/index.html

Gibbs S (2001). Community care for kiwi. Forest andBird 302, 14–7.

Glasby GP (1986). Modification of the environmentin New Zealand. Ambio 15 (5), 266–71.

Green W, Clarkson B (2005). Turning the Tide? AReview of the First Five Years of the New ZealandBiodiversity Strategy, the Synthesis Report.Department of Conservation, Wellington.

Hinchcliffe S, Kearnes MB, Degen M, Whatmore S(2007). Ecologies and economies of action:sustainability, calculations and other things.Environment and Planning A 39, 260–82.

Holzapfel S, Robertson HA, McLennan JA, SporleW, Hackwell K, Impey M (2008). Kiwi (Apteryxspp.) recovery plan: 2008–2018. ThreatenedSpecies Recovery Plan 60. Department of Con-servation, Wellington.

Isern TD (2002). Companions, stowaways, imperial-ists, invaders: Pests and weeds in New Zealand.In: Pawson E and Brooking T, eds. Environmen-tal Histories of New Zealand. Oxford UniversityPress, South Melbourne, pp. 233–45.

Jay M (2005). Recent changes to conservation of NewZealand’s native biodiversity. New ZealandGeographer 61, 131–8.

Kennedy E, Perkins HC (2000). Protected faunamanagement in New Zealand. In: Memon PA,Perkins H, eds. Environmental Planning andManagement in New Zealand. Dunmore Press,Palmerston North, pp. 196–205.

Kneebone J, Christensen M, Prime K, Roper LindsayJ (2000). Biodiversity and Private Land, Final

(Re)making space for kiwi 121

© 2010 The AuthorsJournal compilation © 2010 The New Zealand Geographical Society

Page 18: (Re)making space for kiwi: beyond ‘fortress conservation’ in Northland

Report of the Ministerial Advisory Committeeon Biodiversity and Private Land. Ministry forthe Environment, Wellington.

McCarthy J, Prudham S (2004). Neoliberal natureand the nature of neoliberalism. Geoforum 35(3), 275–83.

McLennan JA, Potter MA, Robertson HA, WakeGC, Colbourne R, Dew L, Joyce L, McCann AJ,Miles J, Miller PJ, Reid J (1996). Role of preda-tion in the decline of kiwi, Apteryx spp., in NewZealand. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 20(1), 27–35.

McGlone MS (1989). The Polynesian settlement ofNew Zealand in relation to environmental andbiotic changes. New Zealand Journal of Ecology12 (Supplement), 115–29.

McNeely JA (2008). Protected areas in a world ofeight billion. GAIA 17 (S1), 104–6.

Meine C, Soulé M, Noss R (2006). ‘A mission-drivendiscipline’: The growth of conservation biology.Conservation Biology 20 (3), 631–51.

Miller PJ, Pierce RJ (1995). Distribution and declineof the North Island brown kiwi (Apteryxaustralis mantelli) in Northland. Notornis 42,203–11.

Ministry for the Environment (MfE) (2001). Biodi-versity Outside Public Conservation Lands: theGovernment’s Response. Ministry for the Envi-ronment, Wellington.

Ministry for the Environment (MfE) (2007). Envi-ronment New Zealand 2007. Ministry for theEnvironment, Wellington.

Mitchell N, Craig JL (2000). Managing the matrix:realigning paradigms toward sustainability. In:Craig JL, Mitchell N and Saunders DA, eds.Nature Conservation 5: Nature Conservation inProduction Environments: Managing the Matrix.Surrey Beatty and Sons, Chipping Norton,pp. 26–34.

Mullooly G (2007). Towards a Strategic Direction forBiodiversity Enhancement ‘The Whole of North-land Project’. New Zealand Landcare Trust,Whangarei.

New Zealand Kiwi Foundation, eds. (2008). KiwiBehind the Scenes. Far North District Council,Kaikohe.

New Zealand Landcare Trust (2009). About Us.[Cited 10 January 2010.] Available from URL:http://www.landcare.org.nz/about-us/

Northland Regional Council (2007). State of the Envi-ronment Report. Northland Regional Council,Whangarei.

Peart R (2009). Castles in the Sand:What’s Happeningto the New Zealand Coast? Craig Potton Publish-ing, Nelson.

Peat N (2006). Kiwi the People’s Bird. Otago Univer-sity Press, Dunedin.

Pierce RJ (2008). Call count monitoring of NorthIsland brown kiwi in Northland in 2007 and 2008.

Unpublished report prepared for Departmentof Conservation and NZ Landcare Trust,Whangarei.

Pierce RJ, Sporle W (1997). Causes of kiwi mortalityin Northland. Conservancy Advisory ScienceNotes 169. Department of Conservation,Wellington.

Pierce RJ, Gardiner C, Moodie H, Robertson H,Sporle W (2006). Sustainable management ofbrown kiwi and other threatened birds in North-land. Wildland Consultants Report No. 1193.Prepared for Department of Conservation andNZ Landcare Trust, Whangarei.

Potter MA (1990). Movement of North Island brownkiwi (Apteryx australis mantelli) between forestremnants. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 14,17–24.

Primdahl J, Swaffield S (2004). Segregation and mul-tifunctionality in New Zealand landscapes. In:Brouwer F, ed. Sustaining Agriculture and theRural Environment: Governance, Policy andMultifunctionality. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham,UK, pp. 266–85.

Pryde PR, Cocklin C (1998). Habitat islands andthe preservation of New Zealand’s avifauna.Geographical Review 88 (1), 86–113.

Queen Elizabeth II National Trust (2009). QEIIOpen Space Covenants. [Cited 2 January 2010.]Available from URL: http://www.openspace.org.nz/Site/Covenants

Renwick N, Craig E, Sporle W (2009). Taxon Plan forNorthland Brown Kiwi. Draft report (version 1),12 July.

Robertson HA (2003). Kiwi (Apteryx spp.) re-covery plan: 1996–2006. Threatened SpeciesRecovery Plan 50. Department of Conservation,Wellington.

Roche M (2002). The state as conservationist, 1920–60: ‘Wise use’ of forests, lands and water. In:Pawson E, Brooking T, eds. Environmental His-tories of New Zealand. Oxford University Press,South Melbourne, pp. 183–99.

Saunders A, Norton DA (2001). Ecological restora-tion at mainland islands in New Zealand. Bio-logical Conservation 99 (1), 109–19.

Star P (2002). Native forest and the rise of preserva-tion in New Zealand (1903–1913). Environmentand History 8, 275–94.

Star P,Lochhead L (2002).Children of the burnt bush:New Zealanders and the indigenous remnant,1880–1930. In: Pawson E, Brooking T, eds. Envi-ronmental Histories of New Zealand. OxfordUniversity Press, South Melbourne, pp. 119–35.

Statistics New Zealand (2006). QuickStats AboutNorthland Region. [Cited 15 January 2010.]Available from URL: http://stats.govt.nz/Census/2006CensusHomePage

Stevens S (1997). The legacy of Yellowstone. In:Stevens S, ed. Conservation for Cultural Sur-

L. Blue and G. Blunden122

© 2010 The AuthorsJournal compilation © 2010 The New Zealand Geographical Society

Page 19: (Re)making space for kiwi: beyond ‘fortress conservation’ in Northland

vival: Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas.Island Press, Washington DC, pp. 13–32.

Taborsky M (1988). Kiwis and dog predation: obser-vations in Waitangi State Forest. Notornis 35 (3),197–202.

Taylor R, Smith I, Cochrane P, Stephenson B, GibbsN (1997). The State of New Zealand’s Environ-ment 1997. GP Publications for the Ministry forthe Environment, Wellington.

Van Meeuwen-Dijkgraaf A (2008). Protected NaturalAreas in Northland, and Care Standards for Pro-tected Natural Areas. Wildland ConsultantsReport No. 1844. Prepared for NorthlandRegional Council, Whangarei.

Wells M, Brandon K (1992). People and Parks:Linking Protected Areas with Local Communi-ties. World Bank, Washington DC.

West P, Igoe J, Brockington D (2006). Parksand peoples: The social impact of protectedareas. Annual Review of Anthropology 35, 251–77.

Whatmore S, Thorne L (1998). Wild(er)ness: Recon-figuring the geographies of wildlife. Transactions

of the Institute of British Geographers, NewSeries 23 (4), 435–54.

Williams JM (2001). Back to the future: Pastoral landuse in a forest land – sustainability challenges forthe 21st century. Paper presented to the XIXInternational Grasslands Congress, Brazil,February 2001.

Wolch J, Emel J, Wilbert C (2003). Reanimating cul-tural geography. In: Anderson K, Domosh M,Pile S, Thrift N, eds. The Handbook of CulturalGeography. Sage, London, pp. 184–206.

Wolfe R (1991). Kiwi: More Than a Bird. RandomCentury, Auckland.

Wolfe R (2000). The people’s bird. New Zealand Geo-graphic 45, 12–21.

Wynn G (2002). Destruction under the guise ofimprovement? The forest, 1840–1920. In: PawsonE, Brooking T, eds. Environmental Histories ofNew Zealand. Oxford University Press, SouthMelbourne, pp. 100–16.

Young D (2004). Our Islands, Our Selves:A History ofConservation in New Zealand. University ofOtago Press, Dunedin.

(Re)making space for kiwi 123

© 2010 The AuthorsJournal compilation © 2010 The New Zealand Geographical Society


Top Related