Record: Submission #206 | Species Use Database

Submission information

Submission Number: 206

Submission ID: 206

Submission UUID: f62d6606-b927-42c8-8967-65a1422e4b9d

Submission URI: /form/record

Created: Thu, 01/05/2023 - 23:55

Completed: Fri, 01/06/2023 - 18:08

Changed: Wed, 03/22/2023 - 17:21

Remote IP address: 142.127.9.148

Submitted by: Chris Newman

Language: English

Is draft: No

Current page: Complete

Webform: Record

Part 1 – Required information

PART 1 – Required Information

Short Summary of Record Content Yellow-eyed Penguin_watching_New Zealand

A. Species

Name of wild species in use

Scientific Name Megadyptes antipodes

Local or Common Name

Yellow-eyed Penguin

Secondary Species {Empty}

B. Location of Use

Location of the use covered by the record

Geographic Location KER-OO

C. Scale of Assessment

Scale of Assessment Individual Site

Name / Details of Location Enderby Island/ Auckland Islands group

D. Timescale of the use (as covered by the record)

Please indicate the time period the record relates to:

Start Year 2016

End Year 2017

E. Information about the use

How is the wild species sourced? Wild species sourced from its natural habitat

Is the species in use classed as an invasive alien species (IAS) at the location of use No, species in use is not an invasive alien species

Type of Use Non-Extractive

What is the non-extractive practice of use being carried out? Watching/experiencing terrestrial, aerial, or aquatic fauna and flora in the wild

Brief description of non-extractive use behavioural observations/ ecotourism

Purpose(s) of end use Learning and education, Recreation

Motivation of the primary user Recreational, Population/Area Management

Motivation of the primary user - additional details (if available) scientific assessment of impact of ecotourism on penguin behaviour to design effective population management/ conservation

Is this use legal or illegal? Legal under national law

Additional details e.g., if use is illegal but tolerated / not policed {Empty}

F. Information about the Users

Which stakeholder(s) does the record primarily focus on? National external, International external

If more than one box ticked please provide more details (if available) of the different users and their roles in the use/value chain national and international tourists (12 vessels holding between 50 and 200 tourists visited Enderby Island for one day per trip during the study period)

G. Information about the sustainability of use

Is there evidence that the use is having an impact on the target species? Yes – use is having a negative impact

Additional details (if available) on the impacts Human presence causes a significant drop in the probability of a successful transit to or from their nest, and significantly increased the time penguins spent alert and decreased the time spent preening.
On Enderby Island, tourists approached to a median minimum distance of 27 m, where the probability of disturbance is 0.65, and 39% of tourists approached to a minimum distance of < 21 m, where the probability of disturbance is > 0.87. At the current minimum approach distance (5 m), the probability of disturbance is 0.99. These disturbance probabilities imply that a new minimum approach guideline is warranted. Due to the small size of the area (the length of penguin alley is approximately 70 m), reducing the probability of disturbance to near-zero (a distance of c. 50 m) may be impractical, but our results can help managers to decide on and justify a distance that is acceptable. At 40 m for example, the probability of disturbance is still low (0.15) so this distance may be an acceptable compromise between minimising disturbance and practical limitations.

For this record, has the use of the target species been judged or assessed to be ecologically sustainable or unsustainable? Yes, considered unsustainable

If yes, on what basis is that assessment made in this record? Actually, authors implied opinion indicates that use is not sustainable under current conditions but may be sustainable if regulations were stricter. However, if "No, sustainability not determined" was ticked, database would not allow adding of any details

Please provide a brief summary on why the use of the target species has been assessed / judged to be ecologically sustainable or unsustainable Classified as ‘Endangered’ by IUCN and the New Zealand Department of Conservation (BirdLife International 2017), the population is estimated at less than 2,000 breeding pairs, with 60% of the population thought to occur in the subantarctic. Studies on mainland Yellow-eyed Penguins have shown it is one of the most sensitive penguin species to human disturbance. The presence of tourists decreases the likelihood an adult will come ashore to their nest, increases transit times to and from the nest and increases the likelihood of nest abandonment. This delay increases the amount of food digested before regurgitation, resulting in less food available for the chicks.
Tourism is strictly controlled at the study site with a no-stopping zone. On Enderby Island, tourists approached to a median minimum distance of 27 m, where the probability of disturbance is 0.65, and 39% of tourists approached to a minimum distance of < 21 m, where the probability of disturbance is > 0.87. At the current minimum approach distance (5 m), the probability of disturbance is 0.99. These disturbance probabilities imply that a new minimum approach guideline is warranted. Due to the small size of the area (the length of penguin alley is approximately 70 m), reducing the probability of disturbance to near-zero (a distance of c. 50 m) may be impractical, but our results can help managers to decide on and justify a distance that is acceptable. At 40 m for example, the probability of disturbance is still low (0.15) so this distance may be an acceptable compromise between minimising disturbance and practical limitations.

Other recorded aspects or dimensions of sustainability of the use of the target species

Economic

For this record, has the use of the target species been judged or assessed to be economically sustainable or unsustainable? Yes, considered sustainable

If yes, on what basis is that assessment made in this record? this study

Please provide a brief summary on why the use of the target species has been assessed / judged to be economically sustainable or unsustainable ecotourism an important income source also to fund conservation measures. Although currently deemed ecologically unsustainable, authors implied opinion indicates that use is not sustainable under current conditions but may be sustainable if regulations were stricter. However, if "No, sustainability not determined" was ticked, database would not allow adding of any details

Social

For this record, has the use of the target species been judged or assessed to be socially sustainable or unsustainable? Not recorded

Human health

For this record, has the use of the target species been assessed or judged to be sustainable or unsustainable from a human health perspective? Not recorded

Animal health/welfare

For this record, has the use of the target species been assessed or judged to be sustainable or unsustainable from an animal health/welfare perspective? Yes, considered unsustainable

If yes, on what basis is that assessment made in this record? this study

Please provide a brief summary on why the use of the target species has been assessed / judged to be sustainable or unsustainable from an animal health/welfare perspective NB: Authors implied opinion indicates that use is not sustainable under current conditions but may be sustainable if regulations were stricter. However, if "No, sustainability not determined" was ticked, database would not allow adding of any details

Are any recommendations provided in the record to maintain or enhance the sustainability of the use of the target species? Authors state: "the negative impact of human presence shown in this study indicates the importance of minimising the number of human-penguin interactions. This can be done by keeping the total number of tourists visiting the island to low levels, regulating the timing of tour boats landing and departing to avoid peak penguin activity, and limiting the number of tourists ashore at one time. In addition, regulations such as a suitable minimum approach distance are important for reducing the disturbance during a penguin-human interaction. Minimum approach guideline needs to be revised if the probability of disturbance is to be reduced", where any guidelines should be based on and validated through scientific research

Does the author provide any limitations of the study/research/data collection? {Empty}

Part 2 - Record source and data entry details

PART 2 - Record Source and Data Entry Details

Information about the record source Peer-reviewed publication

Year of publication/issue/production 2019

Source Reference(s)

FRENCH, R., MULLER, C., CHILVERS, B., & BATTLEY, P. (2019). Behavioural consequences of human disturbance on subantarctic Yellow-eyed Penguins Megadyptes antipodes. Bird Conservation International, 29(2), 277-290.

Data Entry details

Name of person entering the data Dr Chris Newman

Affiliation Cook's Lake Farming, Forestry & Wildlife Inc

Date of record entry 2023-01-05

Part 3 - Ecological, socio-economic, human and animal health impacts of the use

PART 3 - Ecological, socio-economic, human and animal health impacts of the use

A. Ecological impacts of the use (covered by this record)

Is there evidence that the use is affecting the population status of the target species? Yes – use is negatively affecting the status

Is there evidence that the use is affecting natural selection of the target species? No clear evidence of any impacts

Details of changes recorded NB, penguins particularly nervous of ecotourists are most likely to abandon their nests/ feed their chicks less often, but genetic components/ implications not discussed in this study

Is there evidence that use of the species is having a knock-on effect on the non-target species Unknown/not recorded

Additional Details (if available) {Empty}

Is there any evidence that this use of the species is having a knock-on effect on the wider habitat? Unknown/not recorded

Please give additional information about this evidence and the impact this use has on the wider habitat {Empty}

Is the use part of a strategy to generate conservation incentives, to finance conservation, or to improve tolerance/stewardship? Yes

Please give additional information about the strategy / or why the use is not part of a strategy {Empty}

B. Economic impacts of the use (covered by this record)

Has a valuation of financial flows from this use at the site/national/international level been recorded? No

Please indicate annual revenue received according to the groups of recipients below:

Revenue to harvesters/primary participants

Amount (single figure OR range)

Amount (single figure) {Empty}

Amount (range)

minimum {Empty}

maximum {Empty}

Details {Empty}

Revenue to local businesses/individuals involved in facilitation, processing, transport, etc.

Amount (single figure OR range)

Amount (single figure) {Empty}

Amount (range)

minimum {Empty}

maximum {Empty}

Details {Empty}

Revenue to non-local businesses/individuals involved in trade, manufacturing, retail etc.

Amount (single figure OR range)

Amount (single figure) {Empty}

Amount (range)

minimum {Empty}

maximum {Empty}

Details {Empty}

Revenue to Government

Revenue to Local Government

Amount for Local Government (single figure OR range)

Amount (single figure) {Empty}

Amount (range)

minimum {Empty}

maximum {Empty}

Details {Empty}

Revenue to National Government

Amount for National Government (single figure OR range)

Amount (single figure) {Empty}

Amount (range)

minimum {Empty}

maximum {Empty}

Details {Empty}

Any other mentions of revenues in this study {Empty}

Contribution to GDP / OR net positive economic benefit

Contribution to GDP / OR net positive economic benefit which can be specifically attributed to the use of the target species. {Empty}

Amount (single figure) {Empty}

Amount (range)

minimum {Empty}

maximum {Empty}

If financial benefits accrue disproportionately toward some actors, please explain why {Empty}

Employment Impacts

How many jobs are associated with this use? {Empty}

How many of the jobs are temporary or permanent:

Temporary {Empty}

Permanent {Empty}

How many of these jobs are local to the area where the species is being used/extracted? {Empty}

How many of these local jobs accrue to the following categories?

Skilled {Empty}

Unskilled {Empty}

Male {Empty}

Female {Empty}

Please specify the other demographics/genders and the number of jobs available to them {Empty}

How many people outside the local area are employed

Skilled {Empty}

Unskilled {Empty}

Male {Empty}

Female {Empty}

Please specify (if available) the other demographics/genders and the number of jobs available to them {Empty}

Is there any evidence of other economic benefits associated with this use beyond direct income and jobs Unknown

Please provide details of any evidence of other economic benefits associated with this use {Empty}

C. Social-Livelihood impacts of the use (covered by this record)

Food No Change