evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Predator Free Wellington — Miramar Peninsula Invasive Predator Eradication (New Zealand)

New Zealand · Wellington · See the New Zealand profile · See the Wellington profile

Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 58% 40/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

A Wellington City Council-backed programme eliminated ship rats, Norway rats, stoats and weasels from the 1,086 ha Miramar Peninsula by November 2023, with zero camera detections since and a 136% rise in native bird signs, part of a wider 30,000 ha eradication plan.

+136%
Native bird sign increase (Miramar)
5x
Kōtare (kingfisher) detection increase
+280%
Grey warbler (riroriro) increase
~1 in 3
Households participating (Phase 1, Miramar)
Predator Free Wellington — Miramar Peninsula Invasive Predator Eradication (New Zealand)

Details

Maturity
Scaling
Promoter
Predator Free Wellington; Wellington City Council; Greater Wellington Regional Council; NEXT Foundation
Period
2019-2023 (Phase 1, Miramar Peninsula), city-wide programme ongoing to 2030s
Keywords
biodiversity, invasive species eradication, urban conservation, community engagement

Context

Predator Free Wellington is a partnership between Wellington City Council, Greater Wellington Regional Council, the NEXT Foundation and community trapping groups set up to remove introduced rats, stoats and weasels from New Zealand's capital across roughly 30,000 hectares in five phases.

Activities

Phase 1 targeted the 1,086-hectare Miramar Peninsula. Norway rats and weasels were removed in 2021 and the last ship rats eliminated by November 2023, confirmed via a biosecurity grid of trail cameras and lure dispensers on every hectare. About 20,000 residents (roughly one in three households) took part, with volunteer trapping contributing about 10% of the operational workforce alongside 26 dedicated field staff.

Results

Zero camera detections were recorded for over two years after eradication. Post-eradication monitoring on Miramar recorded a 136% increase in signs of native birds, a fivefold increase in kōtare (kingfisher) detections, a 280% increase in riroriro (grey warbler) and a 200% increase in tree wētā.

Conclusions

Only Phase 1 of five is complete and the programme depends on continuous biosecurity monitoring to prevent reinvasion from untreated areas; detailed funding and cost breakdowns were not published in the sources reviewed.

Implementation
Indicative cost
Medium (€50k–€500k)
Time to results
Long (> 3 years)
Staffing & skills
26 dedicated field staff, Community volunteer trappers (~10% of workforce)

Conditions for success

  • Intensive biosecurity camera/lure grid for verification
  • Strong community participation (~1 in 3 households)
  • Multi-partner governance (council, regional council, foundation)

Common failure modes

  • Reinvasion risk from untreated parts of the city until all 5 phases complete
  • Cost/funding breakdown not publicly documented

Commonly funded by

LIFE Programme National / regional programmes

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful