Kaikōura's Bid For World Heritage Status Gathers Momentum
Article – David Hill – Local Democracy Reporter
Te Korowai o Te Tai o Marokura is looking to marine research to boost Kaikura's bid for world heritage status.
Marine research could provide a catalyst for achieving world heritage status for Kaikōura, community advocates say.
Te Korowai o Te Tai o Marokura (Kaikōura's marine guardians) first mooted the idea of making a bid for Unesco's (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation) World Heritage list 20 years ago.
Now Te Korowai secretary Gina Solomon and committee member Mel Skinner want to organise a research hui to find out what is happening and where the gaps are.
The Kaikōura District Council has identified the potential for marine research to provide economic benefits for the town.
A business case for the future development of South Bay Harbour was completed in July 2022, thanks to funding from the Government's Provincial Growth Fund.
It identified Kaikōura as having the potential to become an international hub for marine research and education – if it could get the funding.
Chief executive Will Doughty has said the council is keen to attract marine researchers from New Zealand and overseas, but it lacks the funding to support it.
He said the council is keen to partner with Government and other agencies to support marine education and research.
Mrs Skinner said achieving world heritage status would likely make Kaikōura more attractive as a research destination, and gathering momentum will help to get the bid across the line, she said.
''We need to be able understand what is going on here and to create more of a research focus.
''We don't necessarily need the bricks and mortar now, but with the aim of eventually having the facilities in the future.
Ms Solomon said Kaikōura has long been considered ''the world's seabird capital'' by scientists.
But locals often had little understanding about their local bird life, she said.
''Often we think of seagulls as a nuisance, but they are an important part of the eco-system.
''Have some targeted research would help to improve our understanding of what we have.''
The University of Canterbury used to have a research facility in Kaikōura, which it was damaged in the 7.8 magnitude earthquake in 2016.
World heritage sites are landmark locations protected by an international treaty administered by Unesco.
Kaikōura's world heritage journey began in 2004 when it was first included in a tentative global list of 304 sites.
Te Korowai was established by Te Rūnanga o Kaikōura in 2005 and successfully lobbied both local and central government for marine protections.
The Kaikōura Marine Strategy was published in 2012 and the Kaikōura (Te Tai o Marokura) Marine Management Act passed into law two years later.
The legislation established the Kaikōura Marine Area, which comprises the 10,416 hectare Hikurangi marine reserve, a 4686ha whale sanctuary, five customary management areas, a fur seal sanctuary and restricted fishing areas.
The Kaikōura district's international dark sky sanctuary status, obtained in September, also boosted to the district's case.
LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsroom
2 days ago
- Newsroom
The science sector sounds the alarm
New Zealand's science sector, once hailed for its agility and ingenuity during the pandemic and natural disasters, is now grappling with what researchers say is a crisis of confidence, fuelled by shrinking budgets, unstable funding pathways, and policy decisions that increasingly favour commercial returns over long-term public good. Last month, a total of $212 million was cut from the science sector in this Budget, which reprioritises existing research funding towards commercially focused science and innovation. A sizeable portion goes to Invest NZ and a new gene tech regulator. The Government says it backs the sector and is prioritising industry partnerships, private-sector investment, and 'innovation outcomes with measurable economic impact.' While officials insist the move reflects 'fiscal discipline and real-world alignment,' many in the sector say it amounts to a dismantling of the research base. Newsroom political journalist Fox Meyer tells The Detail 'the scale of the cuts is not great for the sector, but it's also more about the lack of investment'. 'It's one thing to have cuts and reprioritisation, but people have been calling for more of just anything for some time now. Now, there is a lot of frustration. 'Science funding has been stagnant or declining for years now, and a decision to reprioritise stuff is not necessarily going to put money in the Government's pocket like they think.' With a focus on the bottom line, is this the Government pulling off a Sir John Key 'show me the money' moment, with a scientific bent? 'That actually goes both ways,' says Meyer. 'Scientists are looking at the Government saying, 'Show me the money if you want me to produce more money', and the Government is looking back at the scientists and saying, 'Well, you show me the money, what are you bringing in, how are you lifting your weight?'. 'That is going to be a hard one to reconcile unless the Government is willing to pony up and make the investment.' He worries the fall-out will include a 'brain drain' with our country's brightest and best scientists and researchers opting to take up positions overseas. 'My connections in the science world – plenty of them – have moved. 'The chief science adviser for the Department of Conservation has moved to Australia … that's an expert in a cutting-edge field that we have lost to a company in Australia. 'And it's not the only example of this sort of thing. We invest so much in training up these scientists, and they are very skilled scientists, and then to not give them what they are asking for and what they need, I feel it falls short of our own investment.' In fairness, it is not all doom and gloom. 'So, the positives, there is a new funding pool for Māori-related science, that's a good thing. There's the sector-wide report that has come out, which has given us a good look at the sector. We know more now, that's a good thing. And the chief science adviser has been appointed, and the panel around him has been appointed, that's a good thing there.' Meyer says the sector is crucial to all parts of New Zealand. 'The science sector is about answering questions. If you have questions, science is a method, and it is used to answer a lot of those questions … the more money that we put into this sector, the more questions we can answer. And the more questions we can answer, the more answers we can sell. 'If the Government is worried about economic growth, and they want to champion this sector, then you've got to put your money where your mouth is. 'I am going to be curious to see how they can steer the ship of science, when maybe what they are most suited for is selling the fruits of science.' Check out how to listen to and follow The Detail here. You can also stay up-to-date by liking us on Facebook or following us on Twitter.
RNZ News
5 days ago
- RNZ News
PM's new science advisor John Roche
Chief science advisor Dr John Roche Photo: Supplied The Prime Minister's new chief science advisor, John Roche, is getting underway with his new job, a year after the position was vacated by his predecessor Dame Juliet Gerrard. John Roche was previously the Chief Science Advisor at the Ministry of Primary Industries.
Scoop
5 days ago
- Scoop
Why Is The New Zealand Media Not Questioning The Implications Of The Gene Technology Bill?
Press Release – Lisa Er Despite the profound ethical, environmental, and societal implications, there has been a noticeable lack of critical scrutiny from the mainstream media, says Lisa Er. As the Gene Technology Bill advances through Parliament, New Zealand faces a pivotal moment in science, agriculture, and public health. The proposed legislation would significantly relax restrictions on gene technology, enabling broader research, development, and use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in New Zealand for the first time in nearly 30 years Yet, despite the profound ethical, environmental, and societal implications, there has been a noticeable lack of critical scrutiny from the mainstream media. 'It is plausible that political and economic factors are influencing the nature and depth of media coverage regarding the Gene Technology Bill,' says Lisa Er, author of a petition to 'halt the progress of the Gene Technology Bill and instead set up a Commission of Inquiry into the health and safety of people and the environment on behalf of citizens, to allow time for wider community and stakeholder consultation.' Key Concerns: Environmental Risks: The Bill paves the way for the release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into New Zealand's unique ecosystems, risking irreversible impacts on native species, biodiversity, crops, and the country's global clean, green brand. Lack of Public Consultation: The Government has failed to meaningfully consult with Māori, scientists, and the wider public, ignoring Treaty of Waitangi obligations and indigenous rights, community concerns about food safety, cultural values, and environmental protection. Threat to Export Markets: New Zealand's primary export markets, especially in Europe and Asia, have strict GM-free requirements. The Bill endangers market access and could jeopardize billions in export earnings. Undermining Precaution: The Bill abandons the precautionary principle that has underpinned New Zealand's cautious approach to gene technology, exposing the country to unknown long-term risks. Ignoring International Best Practice: Leading nations are strengthening, not weakening, their oversight of gene technologies in response to new scientific evidence and public concern. Insufficient Public Debate: The bill has generated over 1,500 public submissions, reflecting deep divisions and strong opinions across the country. The removal of labelling GE is of considerable public concern. Why has the minimal media coverage largely focused on official statements and the potential benefits, with little attention paid to the risks, opposition viewpoints, or the broader societal debate that is unfolding in submissions and community discussions? Risk Oversight and Regulatory Gaps: the bill will open the door to unintended consequences, including ecosystem disruption, cross-contamination of crops, and unclear long-term health effects Transparency and Accountability: Some have questioned whether the bill is being rushed or if consultation has been adequate, particularly given the timing of the public submission period over the summer holidays Media outlets have an essential role in holding lawmakers accountable and ensuring transparency in the legislative process, and these risks deserve deeper journalistic investigation and public explanation. A Call to Action for the Media: We urge New Zealand's journalists and editors to fulfil their democratic duty by: – Investigating the full range of concerns about the Gene Technology Bill, including those raised in public submissions. – Highlighting the ethical, cultural, and environmental questions that remain unresolved. – Providing balanced, evidence-based coverage that empowers New Zealanders to make informed decisions about the future of gene technology in their country. 'The Gene Technology Bill represents a generational shift in New Zealand's approach to biotechnology', says Er. 'The public deserves robust, critical journalism that examines not only the promises but also the very real perils of this legislation.' Lisa Er, founder of Lisa's Hummus Issued in the public interest to encourage transparent, balanced, and investigative reporting on a matter of national importance Petition with over 4,000 signatures Petition request: That the House of Representatives halt the progress of the Gene Technology Bill and instead set up a Commission of Inquiry into the health and safety of people and the environment on behalf of citizens, to allow time for wider community and stakeholder consultation. Petition reason: I consider the Gene Technology Bill has failed to follow sound and fair processes by not consulting enough with the public and other stakeholders. I believe there is inadequate consideration of Te Tiriti obligations, and insufficient requirements to protect people and the environment from the risks of GE contamination. A range of gene editing techniques would be excluded from regulation. This would mean GE products would enter the environment and food supply untested, unregistered and unlabeled.
