Meeting minutes - Canterbury Aoraki Conservation Board, Friday 21 ...

Minutes of a meeting of the Canterbury Aoraki
Conservation Board held on Friday 21 January 2011 at
the Waimakariri Area Office, 32 River Road, Rangiora
1. Karakia
Wiki Baker opened the meeting with a karakia.
2. Present/Apologies
Board: Steve Lowndes (Chairman)
Wiki Baker
Dr John Keoghan
Jimmy Wallace
Mal Clarbrough
Jan Finlayson
David Round
Joseph Hullen
Alan Grey
Neil Hamilton
DOC: Cheryl Colley
Mike Cuddihy
Brenda Preston
Bryan Jensen
Kingsley Timpson
Campbell Robertson (Presentation on Te Wahipounamu World
Heritage Reporting)
Others: Terry Scott (liaison from the West Coast Conservation Board)
David Williams (The Press)
Lesley Shand
Apologies:
Board: Fiona Musson
DOC: George Hadler
Steve welcomed two new board members, Neil Hamilton and Alan Grey, to the
board and also Terry Scott, liaison from the West Coast Conservation Board.
3. Declarations of conflicts of interest for recording
No declarations of conflicts of interest were received for recording.
4. Confirmation of minutes of Wednesday 17
November 2010
Corrections
1

Page 7: Hawarden
Page 7: costal should be coastal
Page 1: Jim Morris (not Morrison)
Page 1: Public forum should include David Hodder
Page 15: larva instead of larvae
Page 17: “Public conservation land species and water is a bit
obscure but is required for legal reason” to be changed to;
“the words, public conservation land, species and water
are a bit obscure but are required for legal reasons”
Recommendation:
That the minutes of the meeting of Wednesday 17 November 2010 having
been previously circulated to the full board, be confirmed as a true and
accurate record of the proceedings of that meeting.
Steve Lowndes
Carried
5. Matters arising from previous minutes
Steve said the Board would still like to know when a complaint re heli-hunting is
received and why the Spider Tracking record is not invoked.
Jan asked if Kingsley had any changes to report in relation to the Medbury Reserve.
Kingsley said the Department was still discussing this with the farmer concerned
and he should have something to report at the next meeting.
David asked whether a response to the question on the 35,000 hectares of land to
be identified for carbon sequestration had been received. Jan asked if there was a
report on the results of the carbon sequestration that Jim Morris mentioned when
the board met him. Brenda will follow this up with Joseph Arand and Rob Young
again.
6. Section 4 Matters
Brenda reported that Nelson/Marlborough will hold a section 4 workshop at
Kaikoura and had extended an invitation to Canterbury Board members to join them.
The Canterbury Board will hold its own section 4 session for half a day on Thursday
31 March 2011.
7. Update from Canterbury Conservator and Area
Managers
Mike said he would report on the following matters to the Board:
1. Conservation Management Strategy
2. The Department’s Programme of Change
3. Update on heli-hunting
1. Conservation Management Strategy
The Conservation Management Strategy will be one of the major pieces of work for
the Board this year. The deadline to provide a draft to the Director General is
December 2011.
2

The West Coast’s first CMS was recently approved by the Conservation Authority so
their CMS will not be brought into this process at the present time. When their CMS
was approved the issue of heli-hunting was really only coming to the fore and the
way the West Coast has decided to deal with this is that there can be a review of
that section of their CMS. Because so many strategies are being reviewed at the same
time in order to manage the workload Community Relations Managers have formed
a team so they can work together collaboratively on common issues that affect all
the conservancies.
A new model has been approved for CMSs, which means they will be shorter than
the existing ones.. Some tensions have developed between the kind of detail the
Authority wants and the brevity the Director General requires. The Canterbury CMS
needs to give some clear guidance on concessions otherwise we will end up having
to deal with some complex planning issues during the concessions process and that
is not ideal.
If we cover off land management issues in the CMS then they are exempt from
regional planning processes so that means for example where at Aoraki Mount Cook
National Park where we have a village section in the Park Plan that describes how
the Village will be developed it means it is not covered by the local district plan.
People who want to build there will still need building consent but they won’t need
resource consents for hotels or motels etc. so we need to make sure that our CMS
covers all the things that we anticipate will be needed so that we are not subject to
district plans.
There also needs to be close consultation with Ngäi Tahu and Te Runanga.
Mike said that the board had made a very good start in developing the place sections
and the framework for the new CMS.
National Office has advised that some of the information we will need on the
Destination Management Framework and on the Nature Heritage System, particular
the Species and Ecosystem Prioritization work will be available to us in March. Even
if it is not available in March it will not hold us up because there is a lot of other
work that Poma and the Board need to do to get us positioned before that
information becomes available.
The government is intent on streamlining the RMA and has seen it as being
cumbersome and as slowing up some of the necessary developments it thought
would ‘improve New Zealand for all New Zealanders’ and it has done that. Mike
said anyone can apply for a resource consent to do anything anywhere but you can’t
actually utilise the resource consent unless you have the land owners permission
and most of the time it is the land owner who applies for the resource consent. But
we have the situation where a company could apply to put a dam on the Mokihinui
or Spectrum resources could apply for a mine on the Coromandel and chose to get
the resource consent first without first obtaining the land owner’s permission.
Once they have the resource consent they can then approach the land manager, in
this case the Department, and say ‘I have a resource consent to mine or dam a river
and it is now only reasonable that you give me a concession to do so as the land
owner’. That situation often forces the department to go into the Resource Consent
process first, often opposing a development, as it did with the Monawai Mine but if
at the end of the day the resource management process does issue a resource
consent then it presents a somewhat difficult situation where we then run a
separate process for the land owner consent under the Conservation Act. We use
different criteria and we may turn it down so you can have a situation where
someone has a resource consent to do something on DOC land but the department,
through its processes, using different criteria, may turn it down or may agree. There
has always been a tension that someone who is proposing a development should
3

obtain a concession from the department first and then apply for a resource consent.
This is a proposal to integrate the two systems and there is talk about setting up a
body which would hear the applications for which the applicant would make their
claim under the RMA. The department would put forward its case under the
Conservation Act. That body would make decisions under the RMA and
recommendations to the Minister of Conservation under the Conservation Act
outcome. David said the danger from a conservation point of view is that not only
would the processes be integrated but also the criteria. We could find the
Conservation Act being administered, not according to the principles of
conservation but according to the principles of use, development and protection.
Mike said in the model that is being proposed they are looking at bringing the two
processes together but there are still two separate decisions to be made. That body
will only be making decision on RMA issues and will then be making a
recommendation to the Minister of Conservation as the decision maker. It may
however be difficult for the Minister to make a decision that is contrary to the
recommendation of that group if they have supposedly weighed everything up and
applied two separate sets of criteria.
If the board would like to be more informed about this then Brenda can look at the
information put out to date and send you copies.
The Generation 1 Canterbury CMS has expired but will continue until its review has
been completed by the Canterbury Conservation Board. The West Coast Board has
just completed its first CMS. Issues that arise such as heli-hunting which affect both
Canterbury and West Coast conservancies may mean Canterbury needs to go back
to the West Coast board and ask them to reconsider some of the issues they have
already dealt with in their CMS. The CMSs are sent to Head Office legal to make
sure they are correct and consistent. The New Zealand Conservation Authority signs
them off once they are happy with them. A meeting with other conservation boards
may be needed to ensure consistency across conservancies.
Programme of Change
The Director General, Al Morrison has implemented a programme of change. Al
wants his Executive Leadership Team to be more focused on what he calls strategic
positioning which is an externally oriented whole of organization approach to
conservation. He wants the Executive Leadership Team to focus on the larger
strategic issues rather than being tied up in day to day management issues. He has
put in place a Business Management Team to deal with the day to day matters but
has separated that work out so that it can be dealt with in a different ways. He has
set up a team of existing managers to form that team.
Al makes the comment that ‘DOC is being drawn towards transformational change
by two forces. The first is the broader context in which we must operate and that is
the decline in natural biodiversity and ecosystems the increasing demand and
competition for space and resources and the impacts and requirements arising from
climate change that present new challenges, significant risks and new
opportunities.’
The second major force is pressure from government to evolve a new form of public
management that is more effective, less expensive and more focussed on a
collective approach to New Zealand’s economy and prosperity for New Zealanders
and that is seen in the way the State Services Commission and the Government are
looking at a programme of change that sees some departments being amalgamated
and sees them sharing some common support functions. The government is clearly
exerting pressure to change the way the public service operates and DOC is a part
of that. In terms of resources you will be aware that the government has reduced
4

funding to the department along with most other government departments and that
is part of the fiscal environment that we operate in.
Some of the consequences of the change in the Executive Leadership Team has
meant that when the regional structure was first introduced in 1997 we first had
three general managers operations then they amalgamated the North Island
conservancies and had two and now we are going to have one Director General
Operations rather than the two we have previously had and that person is going to
be based in Wellington rather than Hamilton and Christchurch and again, the focus
of their work will be on the strategic level work rather than the operational level
which has been largely what the previous managers have been involved in. As a
consequence of that the person appointed to that position is Sue Tucker so the two
previous General Manager Operations, Barbara Brown and John Cumberpatch, will
be finishing on Friday next week.
That will mean some changes for us as a conservancy and Mike along with 10 other
Conservators will now report to one Deputy Director General Operations who will
be based in Wellington.
That Programme of Change will also look at how field operations can be made more
efficient and the model they are looking at is what is called ‘shared service centres’
and that is looking at to what degree some of the functions and work that is
currently carried out separately in each of the conservancies can be amalgamated in
some way to create efficiencies and also integrate across functions. That is still an
ongoing piece of work but one piece of work that has been completed is the
Finance Review and all of the financial processing will now be done from one
service centre in Wellington from the beginning of the new financial year. The
conservancy is currently working through the staffing changes brought about by this
change.
There are likely to be more changes in conservancies over this coming year. This is
mainly an operational issue and will not change the board’s role or its servicing.
The new DDG Operations will decide what support she requires in order to carry
out her job. This is a piece of work that is developing and I will keep you updated
as it develops.
Heli-hunting and multi-conservancy permitting
A non-notified permit was issued for 2010 to enable operators to continue with their
activities, activities which they had undertaken, as they tell us, for some 20 years
under the old Wild Animal Recovery Permits they had. These permits were for an
unspecified product. As you are aware the 2009 renewal of that permit identified
heli-hunting as a separate activity and it was considered separately. There was no
time for that process to be completed before 2010 so we issued a one off permit to
those people who had submitted formal applications that were put through the
formal concessions application process. A number of things have happened since
that time in terms of discussion internally and with the applicants and their legal
advisors over a range of matters from the herding and hazing issues and the shooting
of animals from the machine and also whether or not the operators could apply for
concessions to be considered over National Park and Wilderness Areas, areas which
were excluded from the 2010 permit to which last year the answer was ‘yes they
can apply for National Park and Wilderness Areas and have the applications
considered on their merits’. We received revised applications late last year from
those applicants. Some of the operators applied for new areas and others applied for
areas they had previously applied for and wanted considered again.
We assess the applications against the legislation, the general policies, the national
park management plans, and the CMSs to see what they have say about the
5

particular areas of land. The officer’s report will then be considered and we will see
what the next step is after that. The complexity in all of this has clearly been the
interrelationship between the Wild Animal Control Act and the Conservation Act.
That has taken a considerable amount of effort to gain clarification and it is now
becoming increasingly clear how those two pieces of legislation relate.
We are once again facing the situation where the process for considering all this and
writing the officer’s report will not be completed before the activity starts again this
coming 2011 winter and so the department will issue another one off non-notified
permit that will be different from the permit we issued last year because we will
remove the issues we are not able to have any say over. It will therefore be silent on
the issue of herding because that is not a matter which that permit can address,
neither will it include conditions around the shooting of animals from a helicopter.
Jan asked Mike if he would. Mike said the reason the permit cannot constrain the
herding of animals is that wild animals are specifically excluded from the protection
of the animal protection legislation so there is no legal animal welfare protection for
wild animals. We can’t put something into a permit which the law doesn’t provide
for. Steve said we are actually farming animals so what is a wild animal in that case.
Mike said they are still wild animals. Aerial shooting is a common method of killing
and if it is about the safety of the person carrying out the work then it comes under
the Civil Aviation Authority’s legislation. So these two things do not fall under
Conservation legislation. Joseph asked if the operators would be asked for a Health
and Safety Plan. Mike said yes the department requires the operators to provide a
Health and Safety Plan but again this comes under CAA legislation.
The issue we have to deal with at the moment is that the permit does require
position recording (Spider Track) and is required to have that operating. The
information is held by the operator but the permit says that it will be available to the
department within a specified time frame for compliance purposes so if we require
that data for compliance then it is to be made available to us and not making it
available would be an offence. Joseph asked if there would be an opportunity for
manipulation. Mike said this is a standard commercial product recorded by a third
party. Steve said ‘but you haven’t done this to date’. Mike said it had been done on
the West Coast.
A one-off permit will be issues for operations this winter as there has been
previously. At a minimum it will include the areas that were in the permit last year
which include areas of conservation land where we saw this as an appropriate
activity. A decision will need to be made on whether we will allow heli-hunting in
National Parks and Wilderness areas as well as other areas of land that people
applied for such as Mackenzie Basin and areas in North Canterbury that weren’t
included in the permit for 2010. A separate report is being written by the
department, as the decision maker, and will apply the tests in the General Policies,
the CMS and the Management Plan. We have also consulted with the Conservation
Authority and have identified to them the areas that have been applied for. We have
also had a discussion with Jonty Somers, our chief legal officer to clarify the law
under the Wild Animal Control Act and the Authority will then provide us with its
views which will then be incorporated into a draft report. It is highly likely that the
draft report will be shown to the applicants so that their comments can be included.
It will then be sent to a decision maker who will make decisions about which of
those areas of land will be included for 2011. This will only apply to 2011 while the
other process that we are doing in terms of the Officers Report for the longer term
concessions is being developed.
Steve asked who the decision maker would be. Mike said it would be one of the
Deputy Director Generals.
6

Steve thanked Mike for the discussion.
Kingsley Timpson – Area Manager Waimakariri
Kingsley said he last spoke to the Board in November and not a lot had changed
since then. Steve asked Kingsley whether the St James cycleway was getting good
usage. Kingsley responded that it was although it had been affected recently by the
rain of Christmas and New Year and they had to get a digger in there to reconstruct
the track in places. Some landslides fell across the road which had to be cleared.
On 26 th of February an organised trip over the cycleway will be held with board
members welcome to attend.
Kingsley introduced Mike Ambrose who provided a short
presentation on 1080 and the Possum Control Operation.
Mike showed the board photos of Beech gap forest between Arthur’s Pass Highway
and Lake Coleridge. This forest contains native cedar and totara which are the
dominant species. This type of forest established following glaciation. They are
unique and are assumed to be nationally significant.
For a number of years there have been some obvious visual signs of damage
occurring and the department has carried out some specific vegetation monitoring
to try and quantify that. One of the direct results of the work carried out in the
Wilberforce was the discovery that one third of the Hall’s totara in that area have
suffered more than 50% defoliation with another quarter scoring quarter or half
defoliation. The point from that is that 8 percent of the totara have more than 50
percent canopy death. The good part of that is that although there is defoliation
there is a smaller ratio on which there has actually been dieback so it is a
recoverable situation. The Mathias is inside the Raukapuka Area and defoliation and
dieback are even greater on that side. Ecologists and experts on these ecosystems
have had a look to try and piece together what is going on there and their combined
view is that possibly possum browse is the main explanation behind this. Other
possibilities are the fact that these forests all established at the same time and there
is a possibility that they will all start dying at the same time. Other possibilities are
landslides and climate factors but possum browse remains as the number one
suspect.
Mike showed a slide showing the dieback of the canopy trees.
Residual trap catch (RTC) monitoring was completed in 2002 and 2008 and was
again repeated last month. The RTC methodology is that trap line locations are
randomised within a block so if we look at the totara and cedar forests then the
places where the lines are placed will also include scrub and different forest types
around them. The lines that are exclusively in the totara and cedar forest have had
an RTC of up to 48%. If we had 10 lines of 10 leg hold traps out for a night then
around half the traps will have possums in them. We haven’t extrapolated these
figures out to possum densities per square km.
Ideally we are trying to bring possum populations down to less than 3% RTC. From
experience elsewhere 3% RTC is a level where further damage is minimised and in
time we might start to see recovery. Ideally we are trying to get this area into a
rotation where we do one treatment and then have some assurance of the money
coming back in four or five year’s time to go and do retreatment so over time we
can keep the possum numbers down.
7

If we look at the landscape, aerial 1080 is the most economical form of possum
control and in some instances is the only option. Ground based poison is feasible
for some of the flatter areas but it is a much more costly option. If we were to do an
aerial 1080 operation then we would be planning to carry it out this financial year in
May and June at a rate of 1kg per hectare of pre-feed and 2kg per hectare of toxin
which is a lot lower than rates that have traditionally been used. Various studies
have been carried out on deer mortality with a 1080 operation but results are highly
variable and the research hasn’t been repeated in recent times under the sort of
application rates we are getting down to now. When 1080 was used in Canterbury
recently we were thinking that the range is somewhere between 10 – 40 percent
deer mortality. Studies previously undertaken show huge variability with some
results showing zero mortality and others showing 100 percent mortality.
Recreational hunters have made it very clear that they highly value the Rakaia red
deer herd and are generally opposed to the use of aerial 1080. Deer repellent has
been promoted as part of the opposition to 1080 and as an option we should be
looking at. The department is open to its use but the party that has requested its
use has to pay for it as it is twice as expensive as ordinary bait.
The proposal has been discussed amongst the hunting fraternity and consultation
has been arranged with national bodies. We will be discussing the possibility of
undertaking ground based 1080 control on the Mathias side of the block which has
easier access and aerial control work on the Wilberforce side. The forest on the
Wilberforce side has a greater cedar component and is more intact so early
intervention will add more value. Raukapuka has carried out some small scale
Ferotox groundwork on the Mathias side which gives us some indication of the cost
of this work which is about 3 times the cost of an aerial operation. Mal asked
whether there is any sign of regeneration with the opening up of the canopy. Mike
said that the younger trees are more resistant to possum browse so in these blocks
the newer material looks more healthy than the older trees but no full scale
vegetation monitoring has occurred to date.
Cheryl asked Mike if the department had applied for the consent yet to undertake
this work. Mike said that ECan had announced decisions on its Natural Resources
Regional Plan that would make aerial 1080 a permitted activity subject to certain
conditions. Those changes are subject to a few appeals to the High Court which are
currently being tidied up and if that is done the department will not require a
Resource Consent.
Resolution:
That the Board endorse the Department of Conservation’s decision to undertake aerial
1080 work in beech gap forest between Arthur’s Pass Highway and Lake Coleridge.
Steve Lowndes
Carried unanimously
Operation Ark
Mike said the Board was probably aware of Operation Ark (no longer called that) but
it has been around for the last five years. In Canterbury it is all about the orangefronted
parakeet in the Hawdon, Poulter and the South Branch of the Hurunui
which are the only sites for these birds on the mainland. We have previously had a
regime where we have been doing aerial 1080 work for rat control. The resource
consent for that is expiring soon and even with the changes to the ECan Plan we see
a need to obtain a fresh Resource Consent for another five years. There are no
operations currently planned there as they are carried out in response beech mast
events and rat numbers increasing so we generally only know we need to do these
operations about two months in advance.
8

8. Public forum (1.30 p.m. -2.00 p.m.)
Public Forum (1.30 – 2.00 p.m.)
Lesley Shand
Lesley said she was 16 years on the Conservation Board and we made a conscious effort
to let the public know how their money is being spent. She requested that a paragraph
be included in the minutes on field trips.
Lesley said the population of deer in Fiordland is going up and up and something needs
to be done. The population may not be at its maximum yet but it soon will be.
Spraying on Pastoral Lease at Lake Taylor and Esk Head. Lesley is very concerned about
the native vegetation that is being sprayed on Pastoral Lease . She said that DOC is
signing off on the native vegetation that is being scoured from these hills. She said
DOC should be telling LINZ that it is not acceptable and if it doesn’t tell them there will
be a big public fuss.
Lesley said that Lake Station had been in Tenure Review three times. Every time they
find out what is precious for conservation and then withdraw from Tenure Review and
spray it and then go back into Tenure Review and find out what is left of what is
precious and then back out again and spray what’s left and then go back into Tenure
Review.
Lesley offered warm congratulations to DOC for running an outstanding holiday
programme at Arthur’s Pass . She said it was packed every night and it kept people at
Arthur’s Pass occupied during the day with the weaver and other displays, especially
when it rained.
9. Presentations
TeWahipounamu World Heritage Area
Campbell Robertson
Campbell said that as part of the process of managing a World Heritage Area, the
managers, which in this case is the Department of Conservation have to report to the
World Heritage Committee every year on how we are going. The report, Board Paper
2011/00, may seem rather brief in parts but that is the required structure of the report.
Campbell said that as part of this process they are addressing each of the Boards that
have part of the Te Wahipounamu World Heritage Area in their administrative area and
advising them what we are planning to present. Campbell said that ‘this is a draft report
and we welcome any comments you may wish to make’. The World Heritage
Committee is an international body and it has quite an interesting website if you are
interested. New Zealand has three sites, Tongariro National Park, Sub-Antarctic Islands
and TeWahipounamu. Some countries such as Mexico have huge lists because they also
have a lot of cultural sites included that are considered important on a world scale. Part
of the commitment of the countries that have sites included on the list is that they will
continue to protect them. Some of the questions are directed at developing nations
where they may not have the resources or the framework to manage them. In that
sense New Zealand is very well set up because we have the legislation set up to protect
these sites and we have staff and resources.
Steve asked Campbell whether heli-hunting had any effect on the World Heritage status
of an area. Campbell said it is relevant in that it is an activity that occurs within a World
9

Heritage Area. The department is currently going through a process to see whether this
activity is consistent with the legislation. A World Heritage Area is more about ensuring
there is a management structure in place to manage a World Heritage Area. The
consideration process the department is going through will take into account the land
status as it can and does but Campbell is not sure what the World Heritage Committee
would say about the nature of that activity. A proposal for the establishment of a World
Heritage Area is evaluated under the four criteria set out on page 2 of the report before
you. The question you would have to ask is whether heli-hunting would fall under the
ambit of any of those criteria and whether or not it is contrary to any of those criteria.
Campbell asked the Board to provided feedback through Brenda by 15 March 2011.
Steve thanked Campbell for his presentation.
Campbell said that the department is mindful of the fact that it manages a World
Heritage Area but there isn’t one management plan for Te Wahipounamu because it falls
across the boundaries of four conservancies. He said the board needed to keep in this
in mind when doing its CMSs. It also does not necessarily tie in with park boundaries so
you may wish to consult with other conservancies.
Recommendation
That the Board notes the information contained in board papers 2011/001 and
2011/002 and provides comments to Campbell Robertson by 15 March 2011.
Steve Lowndes
Carried
9.2 Department of Conservation Vision
Mike provided the board with copies of recent speeches and papers from the Director
General of Conservation, Al Morrison.
Mike said the speech Al gave at a recent event is one where he talks about the
environment and the economy. There is also another speech he delivered at Lincoln
which is also provided to the board. We will first have a look at the department’s vision
statement. To put this into context we first need to look at the changes in conservation
throughout the world and the need for the department to make sure it has its focus in
the right place and is heading in the right direction. Part of that goes back to the
Executive Leadership Team and the changes being made to the structure at the moment.
Why now?
In terms of those strategic issues there is a significant change.
∼ Climate change is an international and New Zealand issue. We are involved in
that in terms of carbon issues, carbon sequestration on conservation land.
∼ Ongoing decline of native habitats and species and if you look back over the last
20 years of the department’s work, while we have done some extremely good
work in some places, overall there is still a general decline in animal and plant
biodiversity. Given there is an ongoing decline and limited funding of the
department then it is extremely important that we engage with other people to
help with that work on protecting New Zealand’s biodiversity.
Al often has political leaders say to him “well what’s the problem, a third of New
Zealand’s is public conservation land is set aside for the department to manage
these things” His response is that ‘it isn’t the one third being managed for these
things that is the problem, it is the other two thirds that isn’t’ and how we work
with communities on the other two thirds to manage the values on that land’.
10

∼ There is real competition for scarce natural resources, particular water and
quality soil.
∼ Competition – there is an opportunity here because increasingly, companies that
have previously done a bit of a green wash find that it is not working any more
and that consumers overseas want to know where their food products are being
grown, what the chain of quality is in the supply line and you see this in Europe
and England. Consumers want to make sure that what they are buying comes
from a properly cared for environment and that animals are well cared for.
∼ The more negative side of the equation is the global financial crisis and the
recession has made life harder for the department as it has for everyone.
∼ Improved tools and techniques is reference to the work we have done on the
Nature Heritage Management Strategy that Andy Grant talked to the Board about
at its previous meeting. The department developing tools to rank species and
ecosystems that are at most risk and that we should be putting our effort and
money into before we start looking at species which might be more glamorous.
What we find when we start looking at some of those species is that they are
often not on public land at all which brings us back to the need to work with
others.
∼ Another theme is operating as one organisation. Al wants to make sure that the
department is operating as an organisation from one end of the country to the
other. Having North and South Regions meant that we ended up with a
Northern approach and a Southern approach and that is why we now have one
Deputy Director General Operations rather than two. We have eleven
conservancies and 50 odd areas. He wants to make sure that the priorities
which the department sets are reflected across the whole country not just part
of the country.
That leads onto the vision statement ‘New Zealand is the greatest living space on
earth’ . Working with communities and focussing on what is important, we can
make New Zealand the best place in the world for integrating all of those things.
There are some themes that fit under the Outcome statement
∼ That New Zealanders gain environmental, social and economic benefits from
healthy functioning ecosystems, recreational opportunities and living ….’
We will be looking at these themes to include in the CMS.
Another part of that vision is that ‘conservation is an investment in our wellbeing and
prosperity’ Conservation should not be something we do to tick a box but something
we do to make ourselves feel good. We need to make sure we don’t compartmentalise
it and say ‘well we have dealt with conservation over here now lets get on with the
dairy farm over here’ We are asking how can a conservation ethic be integrated into all
those things, not allow conservation to simply be put into a box on the side and
marginalised.
Tim Grosser probably made the boldest statement when he said ‘conservation isn’t
something we do simply to feel good but it is an investment we are all making in our
economy and we have to make it work inside our economy. It is an investment not only
for nature but for people’.
Prosperity is not synonymous with material wealth. There is plenty of evidence to show
that the more wealthy and materially prosperous people have become the less
11

spiritually well off they have become, the more dissatisfied they have become. There is
not a lot of evidence today to show that people today are more satisfied with their
environment than they might have been 50 years ago.
Steve said he agrees that our prosperity is dependent on the health of our ecosystems
and nobody doubts that although it has taken a long time for that to be said because
generations have been hell bent on destroying our resources and there is still a large
part of our society that is of that mind Given we all accept that our health and wealth
are dependent on healthy ecosystems, Steve said that the department is in the process
it appears of opening up the conservation estate to more opportunity but wonders how
the material and financial benefits of that actually return in the form of investment to
improve and maintain these ecosystems. He said he doesn’t see how that virtual circle
is completed unless it is the old business of trickle down. Where is the benefit for
conservation?
Mike responded that if you are talking about commercial activities that are undertaken
on public conservation land then yes that does provide a source of funding for the
department. He said that people who get the opportunity to experience and use public
conservation land gain other benefits other than it just being a straight financial
transaction. If they walk the Milford Track they may have paid to use the huts but they
are doing it because they will gain personal experience and relaxation out of walking
the track utilising those areas in ways that are appropriate.
Conservation doesn’t all have to be funded by the department. If you look at the vision
of making New Zealand the greatest living space on earth, clearly it is not the
department that is going to do it for everyone else. That just can’t be done due to lack of
staffing resources and we just don’t have the ability to tell people, nor should we, about
what they do with their land so that is why we need to work with communities to
ensure that the value and importance of the remaining two thirds of New Zealand is
recognised.
The department is still going to be making decisions about public conservation land and
we will always do that within the framework of what money the government gives us to
do it plus the money we generate from concessions and unless there are more types of
compatible concessions that allow people to utilise that land in a manner that fits its
ongoing care and protection then the budget of the department is likely to be relatively
static for some considerable time unless there is a lift in the general economic wealth of
New Zealander’s, or the government decides that it wishes to put more money into
conservation relative to where it spends money elsewhere.
Steve said an example is the St James which has been put forward as an area that has
recently come into the departments control and in a sense is quite experimental in
terms of what is happening. We had the South Island manager on the front page of the
Press recently inviting hydro schemes and private lodges and dams and all sorts of
things into St James. That might or might not happen but what we do have is a
resource that is being opened up for triathlons, cycle trails and all the rest at
considerable cost to the department and we are exploiting that. My question is ‘where
is the payback’? Where is the investment in ecological values of the St James going to
take place as a consequence of this new policy and vision. The circle is not complete.
There is no way that I can identify that return unless it is from what DOC gets from
concessions. What is the benefit to St James of all this activity?
Mike said any revenue would come back to Canterbury and we would make a call on
where the money is spent. St James would not have been purchased if the government
of the day did not think (a) it contained significant natural values and (b) putting it into
open public access it would be valued by New Zealanders first, internationally second.
It is never going to make $40 million in revenue but out of the wealth of New Zealand
12

was this a good investment for New Zealanders . Mike said that every New Zealander
that he has spoken to at places like Birchwood or St James say it is absolutely stunning
and it was absolutely the right decision to have made. ‘Closing the circle’ in this
instance wasn’t so much an economic one but reflects the value that conservation and
those opportunities contribute to New Zealander’s who are prepared to support the
politicians, the government and the decision makers in spending $40 million of our
wealth on that. They could have spent it on hip replacements or knee replacements or
something else but they didn’t.
Jan said there is an economic loop to be closed and if some money can be extracted for
these high impact activities then we don’t find ourselves in the situation where we
don’t have the funds to do the 1080 drop desperately needed over yonder. Mike
responded that that is why the 1080 drop even in its own right has to have public
support because we explain the benefits that it creates in terms of increasing
biodiversity values.. Unless this land is managed by someone else with an independent
supply of money, which is extremely unlikely, then it is public land and it has to have
public support.
David said he thinks there are members of the present government who in the past have
urged that the department should have taken away from it, its general role in advocacy.
He said he assumes from what the Director General is talking about now that is
completely out of the question that what’s being talked about here is that DOC’s
advocacy role to the whole country should be strengthened, although one wonders
how much support it would get from around the cabinet table. David said his reaction
to this is much the same as his reaction to Al Morrison’s speech and that is that it could
read it both ways. It could be read as being a wonderful forward thinking vision or
simply as the selling out of conservation to commercial interests and perhaps part of the
preliminary softening up for further commercial exploitation. David said that his
comments do not impute any ill will towards the Director General or anyone else and
he realises the Director General is in a awkward political situation. We will have to see
what happens but looking at all these things here, one can be cynical.
Steve thanked Mike.
10 Land
10.1 Glentanner proposed land exchange
Jan said there was a wetland on the property that the Land Committee thought would
have done well under a covenant. Apart from that the only other change was that
members of the Land Committee felt that the development of a small CA3 area would
not be good as it is a gateway to the National Park.
10.2 Manuka Point Pastoral lease
John said the land committee requests a site visit. They agree that the exchange is a
logical one and there will be considerable gain from it. It is quite a complex land tenure
issue. Brenda will talk to Mike Clare about arranging a site visit. John said the
Preliminary Proposal is not yet out and that the board is providing advise ahead of the
release of the Preliminary Proposal.
Mandy abstained from voting on this paper.
Recommendation
That the Board endorse the actions of its Land Committee as set out in Board
Papers 2011/003 and 2011/004
Steve Lowndes
Carried
13

11. Resource Consents
11.1 Mount Cass – report on the mediation process.
Jimmy’s recommendation is that the Board remain involved, especially since there will
be a Court hearing. The Board has noted the department’s decision which it accepts.
While we would have liked the department to battle on it has achieved a great deal and
has locked that in to the arrangement. As we are not calling evidence and there will be
ecological evidence from others and we have been involved throughout we would like
to attend and just make sure those conditions are in fact put in place and tell the Court
our position. The next step will be the Court hearing, whenever that takes place.
There are other people who are fighting it and they may succeed so my
recommendation is that we carry forward.
12. Water
21.1 Hurunui Water Conservation Order – an update from Ross
Millichamp
Please see the public session for this update
13. Visitor management and concessions
13.1 Big Rock Adventures Ltd Concession Application
Mal said this is a relatively new type of concession application for guiding down
canyons on the steep foothills of Canterbury. It is probably filling a niche market that is
quite new to the area. The Concessions Committee couldn’t see any reason why there
would be any objection to it and have recommended that the Board support it so long
as there are systems put in place to ensure public safety and the protection of the
environment and monitoring of the activities that take place.
13.2 Mt Hutt Helicopters Concession Application
Mal said this was a multiple application including one for operating scenic tour activities
run from Mt Hutt Ski Field car park another one ferrying from the car park to Methven
and a third one for an overall concession to cover servicing established infrastructure.
The Concessions Committee couldn’t identify any reason for the department not to
grant this concession. It would certainly reduce the amount of work the department
would have to carry and. The applicant is an established operator with a good track
record but with the recommendation that the period be reduced from 15 years to 10
years so it didn’t exceed the term of a management plan or the CMS.
Recommendations
That the Board endorse the actions of its Visitor Management and Concessions
Committee as set out in board papers 2011/005 and 2011/006.
Steve Lowndes/Mal Clarbrough
Carried
14

13.3 Concession applications
Jan said some of the explanations are not particularly fulsome and it is difficult to
understand what they are for. Cheryl responded that she had requested that
concessions staff provided more information on these and she will remind them that
this needs to be done.
14. Planning
14.1 Draft Canterbury Regional Policy Statement
Steve thanked Jan for her work on this paper.
Recommendation:
That the Board endorse the actions of its Planning Committee as set out in Board
Paper 211/008
Jan Finlayson/David Round
Carried
15. Matters of general business
Steve said that George was unable to be present at today’s meeting but he had provided
a written report which has been received by board members.
Steve reported that a member of the public asked him what monitoring is taking place
on the vehicle track to Harrisons Bight. It is referred to on the second page of
George’s report which covers the ranging and monitoring that is being carried out by
DOC staff. Jimmy said it has also been covered in the previous minutes which state that
each applicant has to have a face to face interview with DOC staff so it is pretty tightly
controlled.
Cheryl advised the board that Janine Sidery from Concessions Officer, Canterbury
Conservancy is taking over Gemma White’s previous position at the Raukapuka Area
Office.
Jimmy said he recently travelled up to the Orari Gorge Station which is only a few
minutes from the track that has been hacked into the side of the cliff on the north side
of the Orari River and it is disgraceful. It is very extensive and goes for five or six
kilometres. He did get a consent from Environment Canterbury but he didn’t comply
with.
Jan said there are also problems with the owners of Ben McLeod Station, Donald Aubrey
who has been out bulldozing on public conservation land. He is a member of
Federated Farmers and a high country spokesperson.
Lesley mentioned the spraying on the leasehold land up the Hurunui that the board
visited yesterday and it was a complete mess. Jan asked if the department could do
something to try and get the message through to these people that they shouldn’t be
doing this. Is there a mechanism? Mike said this is pastoral lease land and the lessee is
quite entitled to apply to LINZ for a permit to spray and remove regenerating shrubland.
LINZ would consider the application and the department would supply advice and then
15

LINZ would make its decision. During yesterday’s field trip Brian Taylor advised that
the work had been permitted. David said except if this had been longstanding
regeneration then clearing it could be considered a change of use. Mike said it may well
require Resource Consent from the Hurunui District Council depending on its height
and density of the vegetation and also depending on what the district plan says. Steve
asked if it would be in order for the board to contact LINZ and inform them that some
of the spraying that has taken place on pastoral land has exceeded the areas which had
been agreed to and could they note that. Mike said where the spraying has gone from
the pastoral lease land onto DOC land it is an issue the department needs to take up
with the leaseholder.
16. Correspondence
Inward Correspondence
Outward Correspondence
Recommendation:
That the Board endorse the actions of its Planning Committee, as set out in Board
Paper 2011/008
Steve Lowndes
Carried
Brenda to send copies of the Tenure Review papers on Maryburn and The Wolds to all
members of the Land Committee.
John asked Brenda to arrange with Mike Clare a site visit to the Maryburn and the Wolds.
17 Administrative matters
17.1 Financial report
Steve asked that the budget be overhauled and money allocated to items which are
overspent.
Steve asked what the reasoning was behind increasing the board numbers to 12 from 10?
Cheryl said it appears to be a national directive from the Minister who had increased
most of the boards to 12 except for the smaller conservancies that never originally had a
12 member board but we don’t what the reasons are.
Joseph said he didn’t think this was a wise move given the Board is already in the red,
we have two more board members, we have cut our meetings down from 6 to five
we’ve back on field trips which means we are less well informed and now we are back
to 12 with only five meetings, two field trips and we are still in the red.
Wiki said we need as a board to concentrate on the main issues and we no longer have
the opportunity to visit these places on an ad hoc basis so in saying that if we are not
able to visit and see the things we are required to make decisions on all we can do is
provide advice on what is presented to us. This means that the information that we
receive is going to be very important.
Steve asked if Cheryl agreed that the budget lines need looking at. Cheryl said this
budget is fixed for the financial year but a streamlining of the 2011/12 year can be done.
Steve expressed concern that some of the items did not appear to have a budget. Wiki
16

asked if we could go back to the old way of presenting the budget to the board. Wiki
said we need to know how much we have spent, where it has gone and what is left.
Steve said the board is going to have to cut its cloth according to the amount of money
and it is getting tighter and tighter and inflation is cutting into it. We should certainly
have a site visit to the Wolds. John said he is quite happy to take a vehicle and not claim
for it. The money should be used on the sort of trip that we did yesterday as a board.
David said that if he is using his vehicle for board business, then without being greedy
he would expect that.
Recommendation:
That the Board receive the financial report, as set out in Board Paper 2011/011 and
endorse the information provided in its Annual Report to the New Zealand
Conservation Authority.
Steve Lowndes
Carried
Travel Allowance
Brenda said that the board needed to vote on whether or not the mileage allowance be
increased. Cheryl said some boards determined that they would not accept the
increased rate and it was suggested by National Office that each board put forward its
own resolution vote on whether they would accept the increased rate. Mandy said well
some of them don’t have travel the huge mileages we do in Canterbury, we have the
largest land mass.
Neil said that we need to check this out with the IRD because a travel allowance of 65
cents per km attracts no tax but once you are over this level you will be paying tax on it
so you may find by brining it up to 70 cents you actually lose money on it.
Steve asked that the resolution re mileage rate be left on the table and that Brenda
investigate and advise board members.
Resolution
That the board agree that the mileage rate increase from 65c per km to 70c per km.
Record of Field trips
Brenda to add a paragraph at the bottom of the minutes about the board’s field trips.
Next meeting
Brenda asked board members where they would like to go for their next meeting and
whether they wanted a day devoted to section 4 or if they wanted it included in the
meeting. It was agreed that half a day would be suitable and that Brenda would organise
this between David Higgins and David O’Connell from TRONT. Wiki said that TRONT
had recently run a section 4 hui on section 4 that took a whole day. Wiki suggested
discussing this with the Kaupapa Atawhai Manager, David Higgins. It was agreed that a
half day session would be sufficient.
17

16. Public awareness
No public awareness items were identified.
17. Karakia
Wiki closed the meeting with a karakia
Board Field Trip Thursday 20 January 2010
Area Manager, Kingsley Timpson, accompanied by staff member Brian Taylor, the Board,
Mike Cuddihy, Canterbury Conservator and Cheryl Colley, Community Relations
Manager Canterbury visited the Upper Hurunui catchment to familiarise board members
with proposed water storage locations in the catchment.
Board members travelled in 4 x 4 vehicles from Rangiora to Lake Sumner via Loch
Katrine where they viewed the new huts that were erected by the Loch Katrine
Association and the Department of Conservation. Board members viewed pastoral
lease areas that abut conservation land and expressed concern at the degree of
vegetation destruction caused by spraying.
The board then visited the northern end of Lake Sumner and discussed the proposal to
install a weir at the southern end of the lake that would keep the lake at an artificial
level for the purpose of water storage. Mike Cuddihy discussed concerns the
department has re the inundation of the vegetation surrounding the shores of the lake
and the loss of the beaches that adjoin the lake.
Board members then drove over the Oronoko Range via Woolshed Ridge to a viewing
point of the South Branch of the Hurunui to look at the area proposed to be submerged
as a result of water storage.
Next Meeting
On the morning of Thursday 31 March a workshop will be held for half day on section 4
of the Conservation Act workshop. This will commence at 8.30 a.m.
A half day field trip to Godley Head will be arranged for the afternoon of Thursday 31
March.
The next meeting will be held in the Canterbury Conservancy office on Friday 1 April.
18