Conservation of biodiversity in the Pacific Islands of Oceania: challenges and opportunities

1 Wildlife Conservation Society, Fiji Country Program, 11 Ma’afu Street, Suva, Fiji. Email: [email protected] Centre for Ecosystem Science, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, NSW 2052, Australia*corresponding author: Wildlife Conservation Society Fiji Country Program, 11 Ma’afu Street, Suva, Fiji. Email: [email protected]: +679 331 5174 Fax: +679 331 0178

PACIFIC CONSERVATION BIOLOGY Vol. 20(2): 206–220. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Sydney. 2014.

Conservation of Biodiversity in the Pacific Islandsof Oceania: Challenges and Opportunities

STACY JUPITER1*, SANGEETA MANGUBHAI1 and RICHARD T. KINGSFORD2

Pacific Island biodiversity has a notorious record of decline and extinction which continues due to habitat loss anddegradation, invasive species, overexploitation, pollution, disease and human-forced climate change. In terrestrial systems,these global and local pressures are more acute because of relatively small land to sea area, high endemism andpoor adaptations to resist predation. Regional policy and learning frameworks exist to combat biodiversity loss andenvironmental degradation, but implementation remains patchy across the 22 Pacific Island countries and territories(PICTs) within Oceania. PICTs are challenged by small, under-resourced government departments, limited data, andstrong political will for rapid economic development at the cost of ecological sustainability. In this synthesis of the specialissue, we identify the challenges and opportunities for biodiversity conservation on Pacific islands. We identified brightspots of implementation occurring through regional initiatives, knowledge-sharing networks, and community-basedmanagement. The challenge looms large, given the relatively small-scale efforts compared to the core drive fordevelopment of natural resources which continues to pervade island communities. Five key initiatives promise improvedconservation effectiveness: 1) alignment of national biodiversity strategies to the Aichi Targets, under the Conventionon Biological Diversity; 2) increased engagement with local communities to promote wise stewardship and localenvironmental monitoring; 3) dissemination of best practice guidelines for management through learning networks;4) cost-benefit analyses that drive investment in biosecurity and invasive control; and 5) implementation of integratedisland management that accounts for the multiple synergistic benefits of ecosystem management (e.g., climate adaptation,disaster risk reduction, improved health).

Key words: Pacific Island countries and territories, habitat loss, invasive species, overexploitation, pollution, disease,climate change, policy.

INTRODUCTION

GLOBAL commitments to halt biodiversitydecline have proved ineffectual, with rates ofspecies extinctions accelerating (Butchart et al.2010), particularly on islands. While islandisolation promotes high endemism andspecialized flora and fauna (MacArthur andWilson 1967), low alpha diversity, smallpopulation sizes, genetic bottlenecks and gaps infunctional groups make this biodiversity highlyvulnerable to natural and anthropogenicdisturbances (Frankham 1998; Kier et al. 2009;Keppel et al. 2014). Habitat loss and degrada-tion, invasive species, overexploitation, pol-lution, disease and human-forced climatechange have profoundly impacted island bio-diversity, particularly in the Pacific Islands ofOceania (Gibbons 2000; Steadman 2006;Kingsford et al. 2009).

The Pacific Island countries and territories(PICTs) of Oceania, spread across Melanesia,Micronesia and Polynesia, have uniquelynaturally variable ecosystems, including tropicalmontane rainforests, open woodlands and grasssavannahs, freshwater lakes and streams, saltmarshes and mudflats, mangrove and coastallittoral forests, seagrass, fringing and offshorecoral reefs, and deep sea trenches and abyssalplains (SPREP 2012). These island ecosystemshave high species turnover and an unusualrichness of endemic terrestrial and freshwater

species, driven by their relatively small land areacompared with sea area (Table 1; Kinch et al.2010) and vast oceanic distances between landmasses (Keppel et al. 2009, 2014; Woinarski2010). The western edge of Oceania, includingPapua New Guinea and Solomon Islands, withinthe Coral Triangle region, is broadly consideredthe centre of highest marine biodiversity on theplanet (Veron et al. 2009). Marine speciesrichness tapers off towards the eastern islands ofPolynesia, with proportionally increasing endem-ism in some taxa (Hughes et al. 2002).

Pacific Islands were first impacted by humanswhen indigenous settlers arrived about 60 000B.C. in Papua New Guinea, extending to 1 000A.D. at more remote locations (Keppel et al.2014). This settlement wave drove mass declinesand extinctions of species ill-equipped to dealwith humans and accompanying dog and ratpredators; for example about 50% of indigenousbirds (40 species) were eliminated from theHawaiian Islands when Polynesians arrived(circa A.D. 400; McNeill 1994). These humancommunities relied on ecosystem servicesdelivered through subsistence agriculture,fishing, and hunting, within strongly linkedsocio-ecological systems where remainingbiodiversity was maintained through small-scaledisturbance and cultivation (McNeill 1994;Berkes 2012; Thaman 2014). Where performedor revitalized, these customary practices stillpreserve species and genetic diversity (Johannes

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230036472_Hughes_T_P_Bellwood_D_R_Connolly_S_R_Biodiversity_hotspots_centres_of_endemicity_and_the_conservation_of_coral_reefs_Ecol_Lett_5_775-784?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-48e53eed-f32c-4076-b64d-513c074394bc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2NTAxMjg4NjtBUzoxMzQxMDYyNjQzNzkzOTNAMTQwODk4NDgzMzg4MA==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250274121_Delineating_the_Coral_Triangle?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-48e53eed-f32c-4076-b64d-513c074394bc&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2NTAxMjg4NjtBUzoxMzQxMDYyNjQzNzkzOTNAMTQwODk4NDgzMzg4MA==

JUPITER et al: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR CONSERVING PACIFIC BIODIVERSITY 207

2002; Jupiter et al. 2014a; Thaman 2014). Thesubsequent European settlement wave (fromabout the 18th century) drove rapid biodiversitydecline through loss of traditional ecologicalknowledge (Léopold et al. 2010), increasedpopulation pressure (e.g., from six to ten millionpeople in Oceania from 1990–2011; SPREP2012), increased access to markets, spreadinvasive alien species (Keppel et al. 2014), andincreased frequency of natural disastersassociated with climate change (ABM andCSIRO 2011; Kingsford and Watson 2011a).

The stakes are high. Functioning ecosystemssupport the livelihoods, well-being, culture andeconomies of Pacific Island communities andnations (SPREP 2012, 2014). Given thecombination of environmental changes,population growth and climate impacts,projections suggest that subsistence agricultureand coastal fisheries will not support the foodneeds of most Pacific countries by 2030 (Bell etal. 2009; Barnett 2011). PICTs must grapplewith the tough task of meeting national andinternational biodiversity commitments with lowcentral governance capacity and highenvironmental vulnerability (Table 1).Recognizing the enormous value of biodiversityand natural resources to Pacific Islanders, a

wealth of regional and national policyframeworks promote biodiversity conservationand sustainable use, supported by a growingnumber of learning and knowledge sharingnetworks that funnel resources and technicalsupport for environmental management (Table2). Yet despite these efforts, globalized trade,development pressures and demographic shiftskeep transforming landscape/seascapes, affectingPacific biodiversity and reducing socio-ecologicalresilience to environmental and climate change(Barnett and Campbell 2010; Schwarz et al.2011). Moreover, management implementationis hampered by limited data availability, poorcollaboration among stakeholders, limited andmismanaged funding, and low political andpublic will (Lees and Siwatibau 2009; Keppel etal. 2012; Jupiter et al. 2014b).

The papers in this special issue specificallyaddress these problems and opportunities toredress this imbalance. Keppel et al. (2014)review the major drivers of terrestrialbiodiversity loss across Oceania, identifyingmanagement pathways through policies linked toclear national targets with specific, quantifiableoutcomes. Meyer (2014) focuses on the oftenoverlooked but severe impacts of invasive alienplants, with calls for increased vigilance through

Estimated Land ~EEZ CentralCountry or Territory Populationa area (km2)b Area (km2)b Governancec HDId EVIe

American Samoa (T) 65 896 197 390 000 Medium n/a Extremely vulnerableCook Islands 15 529 180 1 830 000 Very Low n/a n/aFederated States of 111 364 702 2 978 000 Very Low n/a Extremely vulnerableMicronesiaFiji 847 793 18 376 1 290 000 Low Medium Highly vulnerableFrench Polynesia (T) 268 767 3 521 5 030 000 High High Extremely vulnerableGuam (T) 187 140 549 218 000 Medium n/a Extremely vulnerableKiribati 100 835 726 3 550 000 Very Low Medium Extremely vulnerableMarshall Islands 54 439 720 2 131 000 Very Low Medium Highly vulnerableNauru 9 976 21 320 000 Medium Medium Extremely vulnerableNew Caledonia (T) 254 525 19 103 1 740 000 High High VulnerableNiue 1 479 258 390 000 Very Low n/a VulnerableNorthern Mariene 63 072 475 1 823 000 n/a n/a Extremely vulnerableIslands (T)Palau 20 518 500 629 000 Low High Highly vulnerablePapua New Guinea 6 744 955 461 690 3 210 000 Low Low At riskPitcairn Islands (T) 66 5 800 000 n/a n/a VulnerableSamoa 183 123 2 934 120 000 Low Medium Highly vulnerableSolomon Islands 549 574 29 785 1 340 000 Very Low Low VulnerableTokelau (T) 1 165 12 290 000 n/a n/a Highly vulnerableTonga 103 365 696 700 000 Low Medium Extremely vulnerableTuvalu 11 149 26 900 000 Very Low Medium Extremely vulnerableVanuatu 245 036 12 189 680 000 Low Medium VulnerableWallis & Futuna (T) 15 256 124 300 000 High n/a Vulnerable

a Source: SPC 2010.b Source: Gillett 2010. Note: values for EEZs (200 nm) should be regarded as estimates only as some Pacific Island Countries and Territories have not formalizedtheir EEZs boundaries.c Rankings are based on World Bank Governance Indicators (accessed from: http://databank.worldbank.org/data/views/variableselection/selectvariables.aspx?source=worldwide-governance-indicators). The 2012 percentile ranking of country government effectiveness and regulatory quality was averagedand grouped into the following categories: 0–25% = very low; 25.1–50%: low; 50.1–75%: medium; 75.1–100%: high.d The HDI is a composite index based on relative measures of life expectancy, literacy, education, standards of living, and quality of life for countries worldwide(UNDP 2013). n/a = data not available.e The EVI is a composite index based on 50 indicators that describe three overall aspects of environmental vulnerability (hazards, resistance, damage), measuredacross the following sectors: climate change, biodiversity, water, agriculture and fisheries, human health aspects, desertification, and exposure to natural disasters(accessed from: http://www.sopac.org/index.php/environmental-vulnerability-index) (Pratt et al. 2004). n/a = data not available.

Table 1. Environmental context for 14 Pacific island countries and 8 territories (T), including estimated population in 2010,land area, approximate Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) area, central governance capacity, Human Development Index(HDI), and Environmental Vulnerability Index (EVI).

208 PACIFIC CONSERVATION BIOLOGY

Policy Instrument Coordinating Objectives relevant to environmentalFramework (year ratified or adopted) Institution management and conservation

Sustainable The Pacific Plan for Strengthening PIFS Enhance and stimulate economic growth,development Regional Cooperation and sustainable development, good governance and

Integration (2007) security for Pacific countries throughregionalism, including through improvednatural resource and environmentalmanagement.

Convention for the Protection of the SPREP Platform to develop bilateral or multilateralNatural Resources and Environment of agreements, including regional or sub-regionalthe South Pacific (Noumea Convention) agreements, for the protection, development(1986) and management of the marine and coastal

environment.

The Pacific Islands Regional Oceans SPC Sustainable use of Pacific Ocean and itsPolicy (PIROP) and Framework for resources through improved understanding ofIntegrated Strategic Action (2005) ocean systems, sound management, and

partnerships to promote cooperation andocean health. Call for establishment of aregional Pacific Oceans Policy Office.

Pacific Oceanscape Framework (2010) PIFS Supports implementation of the PIROP, withemphasis on those elements that relate tointegrated ocean management and biodiversityconservation. Calls for establishment of PacificRegional Ocean Commissioner.

Coral Triangle Initiative (CTI) on Coral CTI A multilateral partnership between the sixReef, Fisheries and Food Security. Secretariat Coral Triangle Countries of Solomon Islands,Regional Plan of Actiona Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, Timor Leste,

Malaysia and Philippines to build high levelpolitical commitments towards the sustainablemanagement of marine and coastal resourcesin the global centre of marine biodiversity.

Biodiversity Draft Regional Framework [Action Strategy] SPREP Conservation of biodiversity and the naturalconservation for Nature Conservation and Protected Areas environment to promote sustainable use and

in the Pacific Islands Region 2014–2020 preservation of Pacific heritage. Providesguidance to achieve CBD Aichi Targets ofthrough the implementation of NBSAPs andother international, regional and localconservation initiatives.

Regional Wetlands Action Plan for the SPREP Promote the importance of wetlandPacific Islands 2011–2013 conservation in the Pacific Islands region

through management, capacity building,research and monitoring.

National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Environment Parties to the CBD are required to developPlans (NBSAPs) departments national plans to uphold the three pillars of

the CBD (biodiversity conservation, sustainableuse, equitable benefits sharing) and align toAichi Targets. All PICTs have ratified except:US — signed only; Kiribati, Niue, Palau, Tonga— acceded (SPREP 2014).

Climate change Pacific Islands Framework for Action on SPREP Ensure that Pacific Island peoples and& disaster risk Climate Change 2006–2015 communities build their capacity to be resilientreduction to the risks and impacts of climate change.

Pacific Disaster Risk Reduction and Disaster SOPAC Building the resilience of Pacific IslandManagement Framework for Action communities to disasters through the2005–2015. development and strengthening of national

disaster risk reduction and management, andits integration into national planning anddecision making.

[Draft] Strategy for Climate and Disaster SPC, SPREP Facilitate, coordinate and guide actions thatResilient Development in the Pacific will enhance the resilience of development(SRDP) 2016 onwards outcomes to natural and technological hazards,

including those related to climate extremes,variability and change.

Table 2. Guiding regional policy and learning and knowledge frameworks, their instruments and relevant coordinatinginstitutions supporting environmental management and biodiversity conservation in Pacific island countries andterritories. SPREP = Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme, PIFS = Pacific Islands ForumSecretariat, SPC = Secretariat of the Pacific Community, IUCN–ORO = International Union for the Conservation ofNature – Oceania Regional Office, FFA = Forum Fisheries Agency, SOPAC = Pacific Islands Applied GeoscienceCommission.

Table 2 continued overleaf



Pollution Pacific Islands Regional Marine Spill SPREP Prevent and minimize damage to marine andContingency Plan (PACPLAN) (2000) coastal environments and resources from major

marine spills, and to hasten the recovery ofany damaged environment and resources.

A Regional Strategy to Address Marine SPREP Prevent and minimize damage to marine andPollution from World War II Wrecks (2002) coastal environments as a result of marine

spills from World War II Wrecks, and ensurethe sanctity of these sites as war memorials andgravesites.

Pacific Ocean Pollution Prevention SPREP Protect public health, safety, environment andProgramme (PACPOL) Strategy 2010–2014 natural resources from the effects of ship

sourced marine pollution through prevention,control, monitoring, mitigation andmanagement.

Pacific Regional Solid Waste Management SPREP Adoption of cost-effective and self-sustainingStrategy 2010–2015 solid waste management systems to protect the

environment.

Invasive species Guidelines for Invasive Species Management SPREP Support PICTs in developing invasive speciesin the Pacific (2008) work and guide regional and international

agencies in delivering assistance.

Shipping-related Introduced Marine Pests SPREP Prevent, minimize and control the introductionin the Pacific Islands: a Regional Strategy of shipping related pests through assessments(2005) and monitoring of current and potential risks,

build capacity to respond and take actions andbuilding mechanisms for regional collaborationand coordination.

Migratory Convention for the Conservation and FFA Conserve and manage highly migratory fishspecies (of Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks species to ensure long term sustainability whilecommercial in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean promoting optimum utilization.value) (Honolulu Convention) (2000)

Regional Tuna Management and FFA Ensure sustainable oceanic fish stocks andDevelopment Strategy 2009–2014 ecosystems of highly migratory fisheries species

through improved integration of science indecision making and fisheries planning,stronger monitoring control and enforcement,reduced illegal, unregulated and unreported(IUU) fishing, and increased technicalmanagement capacity.

Nauru Agreement Concerning Cooperation FFA Establish a coordinated approach to the fishingin the Management of Fisheries of Common of common stocks by foreign fishing vesselsInterest (1982) within the EEZs of Federated States of

Micronesia, Kiribati, the Marshall Islands,Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, SolomonIslands, and Tuvalu.

Learning and Marine Sector Working Group FFA Serve as the interim support mechanism forknowledge implementing Pacific Oceanscape Framework

Pacific Islands Roundtable for Nature IUCN-OROb Serves as a forum for a network of non-Conservation (1997) government organizations, donors and

regional organizations to collaborate andcoordinate on the implementation of theAction Strategy for Nature Conservation in thePacific Island Region.

Pacific Climate Change Roundtable (2013) SPREP Strengthen coordination of regionalorganizations to support regional climatechange priorities.

Pacific Invasives Partnership (2008) SPREP Strengthen the capacity of Pacific IslandCountries and Territories to effectively manageinvasive species threats. Formed in 2008through a merger between the Pacific InvasivesInitiatives and the Pacific Invasives LearningNetwork

Locally Managed Marine Area (LMMA) LMMA Council Network of practitioners involved inNetwork (2000) community-based marine conservation projects

in the Indo-Pacific who share information onbest practices for management.

sharingnetworks

Table 2 continued


biosecurity and increased understanding ofisland ecosystem functioning, including native-alien species interactions. Both Jupiter et al.(2014a) and Thaman (2014) emphasize theimportance of maintaining traditional practicethrough customary management of locally-managed marine areas and agrobiodiversitysystems to preserve important ecosystem servicesfor Pacific Islanders. Finally, Jupiter et al.(2014b) advocate increased integrated islandmanagement to cost-effectively and efficientlyconserve biodiversity, while simultaneouslyachieving benefits for climate change adaptation,disaster risk reduction and human health.

In this synthesis, we review these contributionsand current knowledge of major conservationproblems and potential solutions on PacificIslands. We summarize the environmentalcontext for the 22 PICTs, including their landarea, exclusive economic zone size, population,governance capacity, development status andenvironmental vulnerability (Table 1). Weexamine impacts, challenges and opportunitiesfor conservation of biodiversity on Pacific Islandsacross terrestrial, freshwater and marineecosystems through the lens of the majorthreatening processes (Kingsford et al. 2009) andhighlight regional policy frameworks andlearning networks that provide support formanagement solutions (Table 2). Finally, wediscuss the applicability and relevance of broadpolicy options (see Kingsford et al. 2009) andlocal management to effectively deal with PacificIsland biodiversity conservation (Table 3).

HABITAT LOSS AND DEGRADATION

The impacts to Pacific terrestrial, freshwaterand marine biodiversity from habitat loss anddegradation are well-documented (Kingsford etal. 2009). The first settlers probably did notcause significant habitat loss, although extinctionof species from predation or disease would haveaffected the functionality of ecosystems (Keppelet al. 2014). Following European arrival, thelandscape was dramatically transformed fromnative forests to commercial agriculture andforestry (McNeill 1994). The impacts weredramatic. There is now little primary forest leftacross the Pacific and over 1500 terrestrialspecies listed on the IUCN Red List of

threatened species (Morrison 2012; Keppel et al.2014). Replacement of traditional polyculturesystems with monoculture cropping severelyimpacted agrobiodiversity and increasedvulnerability of food production to disease andinvasive species (Thaman 2014). The annual rateof forest conversion in Oceania (0.4%) is justover three times the global average (0.14%;SPREP 2014). Loss of forest drives seriousdeclines in species richness and abundance interrestrial ecosystems (Keppel et al. 2014), as wellas freshwater invertebrate and fish communities(Haynes 1999; Jenkins et al. 2010). Moreover,river regulatory structures (e.g., dams, culvertsand water diversions) sever connectivity, affectingupstream migration for the high proportion ofdiadromous fish in the Pacific, needingfreshwater and marine habitats for their lifecycles (Jenkins et al. 2010). Downstream runofffrom land-based activities continues to damagecorals (Golbuu et al. 2003) and sensitive juvenilefish habitat for commercially important reef fish(e.g., bumphead parrotfish Bolbometoponmuricatum and humphead wrasse Cheilinusundulatus, R. Hamilton, personal communi-cation). Nearly 50% of the coral reefs across thePacific are classified as threatened (Burke et al.2011), with strong regional declines in coralcover (Bruno and Selig 2007).

Most contemporary habitat loss anddegradation is caused by commercial and naturalresource development (e.g., forestry, riverregulation), now legally requiring environmentalimpact assessments (EIA) in most PICTs, exceptNauru, Niue and Tuvalu (SPREP 2012).However, government capacity and resources arelimited for their review, implementation (e.g.,developing conditions for approval integratingenvironmental objectives), and monitoringcompliance (Table 3; Maragos 1993; Lane 2008),though there are opportunities for improvement(Table 3). Most Pacific Islands are underindigenous land tenure (Ward and Kingdon1995); as such, strengthening awareness andleadership of landowners can improveenvironmental decision-making for leaseagreements for logging, mining, development orother extractive activities. Local communitiescould monitor compliance with EIA conditions,potentially reducing offences if prosecutions andfines are delivered (Table 3). Furthermore, local


Learning and Pacific Regional Environmental SPC, SOPAC Network of professionals working together toknowledge Economists Network (PREEN) (2009) promote and mainstream the use of economicssharing in environmental management within thenetworks Pacific region. Provides a forum to exchange

information and access peer support andadvice.

a Applies only to Solomon Islands and Papua New Guineab The Secretariat is rotated between different organizations

JUPITER et al: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR CONSERVING PACIFIC BIODIVERSITY 211Ta

ble

3. S

umm

ary

of c

urre

nt m

ajor

thr

eats

to

biod

iver

sity

aff

ecti

ng P

acif

ic I

slan

d co

untr

ies

and

terr

itor

ies

(PIC

Ts),

rel

evan

t br

oad

polic

y op

tion

s re

com

men

ded

by K

ings

ford

et

al.

(200

9),

thei

r re

leva

nce

to c

onse

rvat

ion

for

Paci

fic

Isla

nds

and

othe

r po

tent

ial

loca

l so

luti

ons.

Thr

eate

ning

Bro

ad p

olic

y op

tion

s (a

dapt

edpr

oces

sfr

om K

ings

ford

et

al.

2009

)R

elev

ance

and

pro

gres

sW

ay f

orw

ard

(1)

Hab

itat

loss

Dev

elop

or

stre

ngth

en l

egis

lati

on,

educ

atio

n an

dM

ost

envi

ronm

ent

legi

slat

ion

rem

ains

wea

k an

dE

nvir

onm

enta

l Im

pact

Ass

essm

ents

, req

uire

d in

mos

tan

d de

grad

atio

nco

mm

unit

y ou

trea

ch t

o st

op o

r re

duce

lan

dpo

orly

abl

e to

hal

t or

mit

igat

e an

thro

poge

nic

PIC

Ts,

mus

t be

cri

tica

lly r

evie

wed

and

app

rova

lscl

eari

ng,

min

ing

and

unsu

stai

nabl

e lo

ggin

gth

reat

s.gr

ante

d w

ith

cond

itio

ns f

or d

evel

opm

ent

that

are

thro

ugh

educ

atio

n, i

ncen

tive

s an

d co

mpe

nsat

ion

mon

itor

ed a

nd e

nfor

ced.

Inv

olvi

ng l

ocal

com

mun

itie

sfo

r la

ndow

ners

tha

t w

ill e

ncou

rage

pri

vate

in m

onit

orin

g co

mpl

ianc

e m

ay r

educ

e fu

ture

off

ence

s.co

nser

vati

on.

Alt

houg

h a

larg

e pr

opor

tion

of

land

in

PIC

TsSt

reng

then

ing

awar

enes

s an

d le

ader

ship

of

land

owne

rsis

und

er c

usto

mar

y te

nure

, la

nd-o

wne

rs a

rem

ay i

mpr

ove

envi

ronm

enta

l de

cisi

on-m

akin

g fo

r le

ase

unaw

are

of c

onse

quen

ces

of l

and

clea

ring

.ag

reem

ents

.

Est

ablis

h ne

w p

rote

cted

are

as f

or h

abit

ats

that

Mos

t PI

CTs

are

cur

rent

ly a

ligni

ng t

heir

BSA

PsU

nder

the

Mic

rone

sia

Cha

lleng

e, M

icro

nesi

anar

e ab

sent

or

poor

ly r

epre

sent

ed,

alig

ned

wit

hto

the

CB

D A

ichi

Tar

gets

, in

clud

ing

sett

ing

coun

trie

s an

d te

rrit

orie

s ha

ve a

lrea

dy c

omm

itte

d to

CB

D A

ichi

Tar

get

com

mit

men

ts a

nd m

anag

eta

rget

s fo

r pr

otec

ted

area

est

ablis

hmen

t.ef

fect

ivel

y co

nser

ve a

t le

ast

30%

of

near

shor

e m

arin

eth

reat

s w

ithi

n an

d ou

tsid

e pr

otec

ted

area

s.re

sour

ces

and

20%

of

terr

estr

ial

reso

urce

s by

202

0.

Rec

ogni

tion

of

loca

lly-m

anag

ed m

arin

e ar

eas

can

cont

ribu

te s

ubst

anti

ally

to

achi

evem

ent

of n

atio

nal

prot

ecti

on t

arge

ts (

e.g.

, in

Fiji

).

New

ini

tiat

ives

, su

ch a

s th

e B

ig O

cean

s In

itia

tive

and

Red

ucin

g E

mis

sion

s fr

om D

efor

esta

tion

and

For

est

Deg

rada

tion

(R

ED

D+

) sc

hem

es,

can

assi

st c

ount

ries

to

mee

t ta

rget

s as

lon

g as

man

agem

ent

mea

sure

s ar

eef

fect

ive

and

adeq

uate

ly f

inan

ced.

Impr

ove

mec

hani

sms

for

tran

spar

ent

and

Stat

e of

Con

serv

atio

n in

Oce

ania

201

3 re

port

Reg

ular

, qu

anti

tati

ve s

tate

of

the

envi

ronm

ent

repo

rtin

gev

iden

ce-b

ased

sta

te o

f en

viro

nmen

t re

port

ing

onre

leas

ed (

SPR

EP

2014

)is

ess

enti

al (

Kep

pel

et a

l. 20

14),

usi

ng i

ndic

ator

sbi

odiv

ersi

ty.

deve

lope

d fo

r th

e St

ate

of C

onse

rvat

ion

in O

cean

iare

port

to

tra

ck p

rogr

ess

agai

nst

a ba

selin

e.

(2)

Inva

sive

spe

cies

Avo

id d

elib

erat

e in

trod

ucti

on o

f ex

otic

spe

cies

;M

ost

PIC

Ts h

ave

nati

onal

pol

icie

s fo

r in

vasi

ves

Exi

stin

g le

gisl

atio

n sh

ould

be

stre

ngth

ened

and

new

impr

ove

regu

lati

on o

f aq

uari

um,

nurs

ery,

com

mit

ted

to A

ichi

Tar

get

9: “

By

2020

, in

vasi

vela

ws

deve

lope

d to

cre

ate

disi

ncen

tive

s fo

r de

liber

ate

agri

cult

ural

and

pet

tra

des;

ens

ure

cons

iste

ntal

ien

spec

ies

and

path

way

s ar

e id

enti

fied

and

or a

ccid

enta

l sp

ecie

s in

trod

ucti

ons.

lega

l de

fini

tion

s fo

r in

vasi

ve s

peci

es;

and

prio

riti

zed,

pri

orit

y sp

ecie

s ar

e co

ntro

lled

orim

plem

ent

bios

ecur

ity

acro

ss t

he r

egio

n.er

adic

ated

and

mea

sure

s ar

e in

pla

ce t

o m

anag

eSu

bsta

ntia

l tr

aini

ng f

or m

onit

orin

g an

d su

rvei

llanc

epa

thw

ays

to p

reve

nt t

heir

int

rodu

ctio

n an

d es

tab-

is n

eces

sary

.lis

hmen

t”,

but

impl

emen

tati

on i

s po

or a

nd p

atch

y.Pr

iori

tiza

tion

of

Paci

fic

inva

sive

spe

cies

for

bio

cont

rol

shou

ld b

e co

ordi

nate

d th

roug

h a

regi

onal

app

roac

h,al

igne

d to

the

Gui

delin

es f

or I

nvas

ive

Spec

ies

Man

agem

ent

(Tab

le 2

).

212 PACIFIC CONSERVATION BIOLOGYT

hrea

teni

ngB

road

pol

icy

opti

ons

(ada

pted

proc

ess

from

Kin

gsfo

rd e

t al

. 20

09)

Rel

evan

ce a

nd p

rogr

ess

Way

for

war

d

(2)

Inva

sive

spe

cies

Impl

emen

t in

vasi

ve s

peci

es c

ontr

ol b

y: a

sses

sing

Cos

t-be

nefi

t an

alys

es a

re d

rivi

ng i

nves

tmen

t in

Res

earc

h sh

ould

be

focu

ssed

on

incr

ease

d un

der-

(con

tinue

d)ef

fect

ive-

ness

of

cont

rol

prog

ram

mes

and

bios

ecur

ity

cam

paig

ns a

nd i

nvas

ive

cont

rol.

stan

ding

of

isla

nd e

cosy

stem

fun

ctio

ning

, in

clud

ing

dete

rmin

ing

inva

sion

pot

enti

al;

deve

lopi

ng c

ost-

nati

ve-a

lien

spec

ies

inte

ract

ions

, to

ide

ntif

yef

fect

ive

tech

nolo

gies

; er

adic

atin

g in

vasi

ve s

peci

esfu

ture

pat

hway

s fo

r in

vasi

on (

Mey

er 2

014)

.fr

om i

slan

ds w

ith

conc

entr

ated

pop

ulat

ions

of

ende

mic

or

thre

aten

ed s

peci

es.

Smal

l sc

ale

isla

nd e

radi

cati

ons

have

bee

nR

egio

nal

lear

ning

net

wor

ks (

e.g.

Pac

ific

Inv

asiv

essu

cces

sful

, pa

rtic

ular

ly f

or i

nvas

ive

mam

mal

s.Pa

rtne

rshi

p, T

able

2)

shou

ld c

onti

nue

to d

isse

min

ate

tech

nica

l ex

pert

ise

and

tool

kits

, pr

omot

e in

form

atio

nex

chan

ge,

focu

s fu

ndin

g an

d co

ordi

nate

fie

ldpr

ogra

mm

es f

or i

nvas

ives

man

agem

ent.

Est

ablis

h re

gula

tion

s an

d en

forc

emen

t fo

rR

egio

nal

stra

tegy

dev

elop

ed f

or s

hipp

ing-

rela

ted

Impl

emen

tati

on o

f th

e re

gion

al s

trat

egy

can

beex

chan

ge o

r tr

eatm

ent

of o

cean

bal

last

and

intr

oduc

ed m

arin

e pe

sts

(Tab

le 2

).im

prov

ed t

hrou

gh d

evel

opm

ent

of n

atio

nal

acti

onre

gula

rly

impl

emen

t an

tifo

ulin

g pr

oced

ures

.pl

ans.

(3)

Ove

rexp

loita

tion

Impl

emen

t re

stri

ctio

ns o

n ha

rves

t of

ove

rexp

loit

edPo

or q

ualit

y an

d in

suff

icie

nt d

ata

seve

rely

ham

per

Bes

t pr

acti

ce g

uide

lines

on

harv

est

limit

s th

at i

nteg

rate

spec

ies

to m

aint

ain

sust

aina

bilit

y, w

ith

loca

l in

put

deve

lopm

ent

of e

ffec

tive

reg

ulat

ion

mea

sure

s.tr

aditi

onal

eco

logi

cal

know

ledg

e sh

ould

be

diss

emin

ated

and

invo

lvem

ent.

thro

ugh

lear

ning

net

wor

ks (

e.g.

, L

MM

A,

Tabl

e 2)

and

impl

emen

ted

by l

ocal

com

mun

itie

s to

reg

ulat

eex

trac

tion

in

the

abse

nce

of r

igor

ous

mon

itor

ing

data

.

Supp

ort

inte

rnat

iona

l tr

eati

es f

or f

ishe

ries

Stro

ng r

egio

nal

polic

y ag

reem

ents

(e.

g. N

auru

Dev

elop

reg

iona

l hi

gh l

evel

pol

itic

al c

omm

itm

ents

prot

ecti

on w

ithi

n E

EZs

and

in

the

high

sea

s w

ith

Agr

eem

ent,

Tab

le 2

) de

velo

ped

thro

ugh

to a

ddre

ss i

nsho

re f

ishe

ries

.pr

oper

enf

orce

men

t an

d de

nial

of

vess

el d

ocki

ngco

oper

atio

n am

ong

PIC

Ts t

o co

ntro

l re

sour

cefo

r ill

egal

fis

hing

; av

oid

perv

erse

sub

sidi

es a

ndus

e by

out

side

rs.

Dev

elop

ing

stro

nger

reg

iona

l an

d na

tion

al r

epor

ting

impr

ove

labe

lling

of

sust

aina

ble

fish

erie

s; a

ndsy

stem

s to

bet

ter

cont

rol

impo

rt a

nd e

xpor

t of

licen

se e

xpor

ts o

f aq

uari

um f

ish

take

n fr

om c

apti

vem

arin

e pr

oduc

ts a

nd r

educ

e ill

egal

unr

egul

ated

and

bree

ding

pro

gram

mes

or

area

s ef

fect

ivel

y m

anag

edun

repo

rted

fis

heri

es.

for

cons

erva

tion

.

Ens

ure

cons

erva

tion

of

spec

ies

(e.g

., tu

rtle

s, c

oral

s)R

egio

nal

reco

very

pla

ns d

evel

oped

(e.

g.,

for

PIC

Ts s

houl

d co

ntin

ue t

o de

velo

p an

d im

plem

ent

rece

ives

leg

isla

tive

and

edu

cati

on s

uppo

rt w

ithi

nO

cean

ia h

umpb

ack

wha

les

Meg

apte

ra n

ovae

angl

iae

reco

very

pla

ns f

or o

ther

cri

tica

lly e

ndan

gere

d an

dPI

CTs

.an

d sh

arks

).th

reat

ened

spe

cies

, lin

ked

to r

egio

nal

plan

s fo

r th

ose

spec

ies

that

are

hig

hly

mig

rato

ry.

Con

trol

uns

usta

inab

le i

llega

l lo

ggin

g an

d w

ildlif

eO

nly

6 Pa

cifi

c in

depe

nden

t co

untr

ies

have

sig

ned

Oth

er P

ICT

gov

ernm

ents

sho

uld

be e

ncou

rage

d to

harv

esti

ng t

hrou

gh l

ocal

inc

enti

ves

and

cess

atio

nth

e C

onve

ntio

n on

Int

erna

tion

al T

rade

in

rati

fy C

ITE

S an

d de

velo

p na

tion

al i

mpl

emen

tati

onof

int

erna

tion

al t

rade

.E

ndan

gere

d Sp

ecie

s of

Wild

Fau

na a

nd F

lora

plan

s to

reg

ulat

e tr

ade

of c

ontr

olle

d sp

ecie

s.(C

ITE

S).

NB

SAPs

are

bei

ng a

ligne

d to

the

new

CB

DE

cono

mic

inc

enti

ves,

mar

ket-

base

d so

luti

ons

and

Stra

tegi

c Pl

an (

i.e.

Targ

ets

3 an

d 6)

, el

imin

atin

gad

equa

te c

ontr

ols

in i

nter

nati

onal

tra

de,

docu

men

ted

perv

erse

inc

enti

ves

harm

ful

to b

iodi

vers

ity

and

and

mon

itor

ed i

n N

BSA

Ps,

can

enco

urag

e an

dpr

omot

ing

sust

aina

ble

man

agem

ent

of f

ish

and

supp

ort

sust

aina

ble

use

of n

atur

al r

esou

rces

.in

vert

ebra

te s

tock

s.

Tabl

e 3

cont

inue

d ov

erle

af

JUPITER et al: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR CONSERVING PACIFIC BIODIVERSITY 213T

hrea

teni

ngB

road

pol

icy

opti

ons

(ada

pted

proc

ess

from

Kin

gsfo

rd e

t al

. 20

09)

Rel

evan

ce a

nd p

rogr

ess

Way

for

war

d

(4)

Pollu

tion

Dec

reas

e po

lluti

on t

hrou

gh i

ncen

tive

s an

dT

he h

igh

prop

orti

on o

f ge

nera

l w

aste

com

pose

dIn

cent

ive-

base

d lo

cal

recy

clin

g an

d re

-use

pro

gram

mes

educ

atio

n; r

educ

e an

d im

prov

e tr

eatm

ent

ofof

org

anic

mat

eria

l is

inc

reas

ingl

y vi

ewed

as

ash

ould

be

enco

urag

ed a

nd r

eplic

ated

.do

mes

tic,

ind

ustr

ial

and

agri

cult

ure

was

te;

and

was

ted

reso

urce

tha

t co

uld

be r

ecyc

led

and

re-u

sed

reha

bilit

ate

pollu

ted

area

s.(S

PRE

P 20

12).

Est

ablis

h le

gisl

atio

n, r

egul

atio

ns a

nd f

inan

cial

Thr

ee d

ecad

es o

f in

vest

men

t in

reg

iona

l po

licy

toPI

CT

gov

ernm

ents

nee

d to

hol

d po

llute

rs a

ccou

ntab

lebo

nds

to r

einf

orce

pol

lute

r-pa

ys p

rinc

iple

s;im

prov

e m

anag

emen

t of

pol

luti

on h

as n

ot y

etan

d de

liver

str

onge

r fi

nes

for

offe

nces

.st

reng

then

gov

ernm

ent

regu

lati

ons

to m

inim

ize

resu

lted

in e

ndur

ing

and

effe

ctiv

e w

aste

man

agem

ent

impa

cts

of m

inin

g w

aste

.sy

stem

s an

d co

mpl

ianc

e w

ith

nati

onal

reg

ulat

ions

.

Est

ablis

h re

gula

tion

s, e

duca

tion

pro

gram

mes

,Pu

blic

aw

aren

ess

cam

paig

ns l

arge

ly f

ocus

on

Cra

dle

to g

rave

eco

nom

ics,

edu

cati

on a

nd g

reat

er u

secl

ean-

ups,

lab

ellin

g an

d us

e of

bio

degr

adab

lecl

ean-

ups

as o

ppos

ed t

o pr

even

tion

. Pl

asti

csof

bio

degr

adab

le p

rodu

cts

are

need

ed t

o re

duce

was

tepa

ckag

ing

to r

educ

e di

scar

ded

fish

ing

gear

and

still

wid

ely

used

whe

n al

tern

ativ

e m

ater

ials

are

flow

.pl

asti

cs.

ofte

n av

aila

ble.

(5)

Dis

ease

Est

ablis

h ea

rly-

dete

ctio

n pr

ogra

mm

es f

orD

isea

se m

anag

emen

t is

ham

pere

d by

poo

r ca

paci

ty,

PIC

Ts s

houl

d ad

opt

pro-

acti

ve m

anag

emen

t fo

r he

alth

path

olog

ical

dis

ease

s an

d bi

osec

urit

y co

ntro

ls t

ofe

w b

iose

curi

ty s

taff

and

lim

ited

dat

a.be

nefi

ts a

s an

eco

syst

em s

ervi

ce (

e.g.

, th

roug

hre

duce

tra

nslo

cati

on.

inte

grat

ed i

slan

d m

anag

emen

t; J

upit

er e

t al

. 20

14b)

Est

ablis

h re

mot

e co

mm

unit

ies

of o

rgan

ism

sTo

con

serv

e, p

rote

ct a

nd b

est

utili

ze p

lant

gen

etic

Paci

fic

regi

onal

org

aniz

atio

ns c

an c

onti

nue

to h

elp

(cap

tive

) no

t ex

pose

d to

dis

ease

in

seve

rere

sour

ces,

the

Sec

reta

riat

of

the

Paci

fic

Com

mun

ity

pres

erve

agr

obio

dive

rsit

y th

roug

h sh

arin

g an

dou

tbre

aks.

esta

blis

hed

the

Reg

iona

l G

erm

plas

m C

entr

e (R

GC

)di

ssem

inat

ion

of d

isea

se-r

esis

tant

var

ieti

es.

in 1

998

(now

the

Cen

tre

for

Paci

fic

Cro

ps a

ndTr

ees)

and

the

Pac

ific

Agr

icul

tura

l Pl

ant

Gen

etic

Res

ourc

es N

etw

ork.

Iden

tify

cau

ses,

ris

k-as

sess

men

t m

etho

ds a

ndR

egio

nal

Wet

land

s A

ctio

n Pl

an f

or t

he P

acif

icFo

cuss

ed a

sses

smen

ts o

n th

e im

pact

s of

cha

ngin

gpr

even

tati

ve m

etho

ds f

or p

atho

gens

and

zoo

noti

c(T

able

2)

calls

for

inv

esti

gati

on o

f th

e lin

kage

sec

osys

tem

str

uctu

re a

nd f

unct

ion

on d

isea

se e

mer

genc

edi

seas

es;

incr

ease

res

earc

h in

to c

ausa

l im

pact

s of

betw

een

ecos

yste

m h

ealt

h an

d di

seas

e, t

houg

h to

coul

d be

inc

lude

d un

der

the

emer

ging

envi

ronm

enta

l ch

ange

on

hum

an h

ealt

h at

rel

evan

tda

te r

esea

rch

has

been

ext

rem

ely

limit

ed.

Inte

rgov

ernm

enta

l Pl

atfo

rm o

n B

iodi

vers

ity

and

scal

es;

impr

ove

coor

dina

tion

acr

oss

heal

th a

ndE

cosy

stem

Ser

vice

s (I

PBE

S) a

nd c

orre

spon

ding

reg

iona

len

viro

nmen

tal

mon

itor

ing

and

surv

eilla

nce

syst

ems;

polic

y pl

atfo

rms.

and

rest

ore

ecol

ogic

al s

yste

ms

whe

re a

ppro

pria

te.a

(6)

Hum

an-f

orce

Red

uce

glob

al g

reen

hous

e ga

s em

issi

ons.

Smal

l, lo

w-ly

ing

Paci

fic

coun

trie

s (e

.g.,

Tuva

lu)

In t

he a

bsen

ce o

f gl

obal

com

mit

men

ts,

PIC

Ts c

ancl

imat

e ch

ange

have

tak

en a

lea

ders

hip

role

in

aggr

essi

vely

cont

inue

to

docu

men

t cl

imat

e ch

ange

im

pact

wit

hne

goti

atin

g fo

r gl

obal

agr

eem

ent

on l

egal

lyri

goro

us d

ata

on a

reas

aff

ecte

d by

sea

lev

el r

ise.

bind

ing

prot

ocol

s to

cut

em

issi

ons

thro

ugh

the

UN

Fra

mew

ork

Con

vent

ion

on C

limat

e C

hang

e.

Iden

tify

, as

sess

and

pro

tect

im

port

ant

clim

ate

Som

e co

untr

ies

have

eva

luat

ed r

ange

res

tric

tion

sM

ore

effo

rts

to i

dent

ify

rang

e sh

ifts

and

ref

ugia

are

refu

gia

(eco

logi

cal

and

evol

utio

nary

).lik

ely

to r

esul

t fr

om c

limat

e im

pact

s (e

.g.,

war

rant

ed,

coup

led

wit

h ac

tion

to

prot

ect

sens

itiv

eL

ipse

tt-M

oore

et

al.

2010

).sp

ecie

s an

d ec

osys

tem

s.

Am

elio

rate

the

im

pact

s of

clim

ate

chan

ge t

hrou

ghPI

CTs

are

mai

nstr

eam

ing

clim

ate

chan

ge c

once

rns

The

Sec

reta

riat

of

the

Paci

fic

Env

iron

men

t Pr

ogra

mm

est

rate

gic

man

agem

ent

of o

ther

thr

eate

ning

into

nat

iona

l ad

apta

tion

pro

gram

mes

of

acti

on t

osh

ould

be

held

to

its

regi

onal

tar

get

to s

tren

gthe

n by

proc

esse

s.re

duce

vul

nera

bilit

ies

thro

ugh

man

agem

ent

of20

15 t

he c

apac

ity

of a

ll PI

CTs

to

resp

ond

to c

limat

elo

cal

thre

ats.

chan

ge t

hrou

gh p

olic

y im

prov

emen

t, i

mpl

emen

tati

on o

fad

apta

tion

mea

sure

s, e

nhan

ced

ecos

yste

m r

esili

ence

(SPR

EP

2012

).

a N

ew p

olic

y re

com

men

dati

on n

ot c

onsi

dere

d in

Kin

gsfo

rd e

t al

. (2

009)

Tabl

e 3

cont

inue

d


restoration should be central to community-based natural resource management in thePacific (e.g. Jupiter et al. 2014a), recognizingthat restoration at appropriate scales and withnative species is challenging unless the threat isremoved (Keppel et al. 2014; Meyer 2014).

Designation and implementation of well-managed protected areas is arguably the bestmechanism available to stop habitat loss inmarine and terrestrial environments. PICTscould increase their protected area networks to“at least 17 per cent of terrestrial and inlandwater areas, and 10 per cent of coastal andmarine areas” that are effectively managed(Table 3). This aligns their National BiodiversityStrategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) with theConvention of Biological Diversity (CBD)Strategic Plan 2011–2020 (UNEP/CBD 2010)(Table 2). Under the Micronesia Challenge, theFederated States of Micronesia, Palau, Guam,Commonwealth of the Northern MarianasIslands and Marshall Islands have committed toestablishing at least 30% of nearshore marineresources and 20% of terrestrial resources by2020, guided by national frameworks (e.g.,Reimaanlok Plan for the Marshall Islands; Bakeret al. 2011). Fiji committed to effectivelyprotecting 30% of its inshore and offshoremarine ecosystems, making considerable progressthrough locally-managed marine areas involvingcommunities (Mills et al. 2011; Jupiter et al.2014a). The global Big Oceans Initiative, alearning network for managers and partners, isfocusing on effective management of large-scale (>240 000 km2) marine managed areas,involving Kiribati, Cook Islands and NorthernMariana Islands (Big Ocean and WCPA-Marine2014). The Pacific Islands also have innovativefinancing mechanisms for protected terrestrialareas; for example, there are conservation trustspotentially linked to international carbonmarkets for terrestrial areas (Jupiter et al.2014b), although these still require considerabledevelopment (Table 3).

INVASIVE SPECIES

Pacific island flora and fauna are particularlyvulnerable to invasive alien species, givenhistorical absence of mammalian predators,grazing herbivores and aggressive weeds (SPREP2014). On many Pacific Islands, the number ofintroduced plant species now equals or exceedsnative and endemic species (Meyer 2014).Predatory animal invaders have decimatedpopulations of birds, molluscs and aquaticinsects, while grazing by feral ungulates,competition by invasive alien plants, and seedpredation by rats have reduced native vegetationcommunities (Elton 1958; Loope and Mueller-Dombois 1989; Meyer 2014). Invasive alienspecies also transform and modify ecosystem

processes and functions (Simberloff 2013; Meyer2014), facilitating other invasions (Simberloffand Von Holle 1999). Their economic impact onecosystem services can be substantial. For example,the invasive tree Miconia calvescens is estimatedto cause US$137 million annually in lost groundwater recharge services in Hawai’i (Kaiser andRoumasset 2002). Pacific Island agrobiodiversitysystems have been particularly affected byinvasive species, particularly root and fruit cropsfrom introduced pests (Thaman 2014).

Most PICTs are signatories to the CBD (Table2), committing them to control of invasivespecies under Aichi Target 9 (Table 3; UNEP/CBD 2010). This commitment is supported bynational policies and strategies (SPREP 2012),but implementation is poor and patchy. Onlynine Pacific countries have laws for invasivealien species, leaving most countries with littlemanagement (SPREP 2014). Island-scaleeradications of invasive mammals can besuccessful, but the costs are high and success isnot guaranteed (Pierce and Kerr 2013).Eradication of invasive alien plants remainsparticularly challenging given persistent seedbanks (Meyer 2014). Prevention of invasivespecies establishment and early detection of newarrivals is a priority for PICTs (Loope et al.2013), but requires substantial training formonitoring and surveillance (Table 3).

Cost-benefit analyses can drive investment inbiosecurity campaigns and invasive control(Meyer 2014). For example, local stakeholdersgrowing copra for coconut oil on Rimatara andUa Huka islands of French Polynesia wereconvinced to stop invasion of black rats Rattusrattus, when they learned that the annual costsfor biosecurity control would be less than 10%of projected annual costs of damage to crops ifthe rats invaded (Jupiter et al. 2013).Programmes exist to identify other high riskinvasive species (e.g., red imported fire antSolenopsis invicta; Sutherst and Maywald 2005),stimulating targeted biosecurity programmes(e.g., Sarnat and Caginitoba 2007). Prioritizationof Pacific invasive species for bio-control isoccurring (e.g., Paynter 2010), but should becoordinated regionally (Table 3; Sherley 2000;Meyer 2014). Regional knowledge sharingnetworks (e.g., Pacific Invasives Partnership,Table 2) disseminate technical expertise andtoolkits, promote information exchange, andhelp focus funding and coordinate fieldprogrammes (Table 3). The Pacific InvasivesPartnership works with PICTs, regional agenciesand non-government organizations toimplement the ‘Guidelines for Invasive SpeciesManagement in the Pacific’ (Tye 2009), a 2008regional strategy endorsed by all countrymembers of the Secretariat of the PacificRegional Environment Programme (SPREP) andSecretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC).


OVEREXPLOITATION

Unsustainable use of terrestrial and marineresources continues at unprecedented rates inthe Pacific, significantly reducing biodiversityand productivity, and impacting the flow ofessential ecosystem services for Pacific Islanders(Keppel et al. 2014; Thaman 2014). Much of thisis driven by increased consumer demand, pooror corrupt governance, poverty, few livelihoodalternatives (especially in remote isolatedislands), and inadequate incentives forconserving natural resources or managing themsustainably (Woinarski 2010). Forests are oftenoverharvested for timber, fuel, materials, food,or medicines, and replaced with simple forestecosystems or monoculture agriculture (Keppelet al. 2014). Culturally and economically valuableplant species like the Mollucan ironwood Intsiabijuga, extensively used for timber and forcarving, are particularly vulnerable and havebecome locally extinct on many Pacific Islands(SPREP 2014).

In marine systems, ‘boom and bust’exploitation has nearly collapsed manyreproductive fish and invertebrate populationsand altered foodweb relationships, affectingecosystem productivity and food security (Bell etal. 2009; Kinch et al. 2010; Purcell et al. 2014).Top predators are particularly vulnerable todirect fishing impacts and as bycatch(Friedlander and DeMartini 2002), with over athird of sharks and rays in the southwest Pacificregion threatened with extinction (SPREP 2014).Species not requiring refrigeration are becomingso rare or reduced as to be reproductivelyunviable (Teh et al. 2009; Purcell et al. 2014),including at least 20 species of commerciallytargeted sea cucumbers (Purcell 2014). Majorpelagic fisheries are internationally controlledand subsidized (Sumaila et al. 2014). Despitethe potential value of these fisheries toPICT economies (Gillett 2010), subsidizedinternational fishing fleets have affected marketsby skewing prices. They have also exploitedfisheries beyond ecological limits (Sumaila et al.2014), including many tuna species (e.g.,skipjack Katsuwonus pelamis, yellowfin Thunnusalbacares, bigeye T. obesus, albacore T. alalunga).Domestic fleets have insufficient infrastructureand often lack access to international marketsor have inadequate business capacity tocompete (Hannesson 2008). Further, there arecomplex socio-political interactions involvinginternational funding for domestic capitalinfrastructure (e.g. schools, roads) in exchangefor fishing leases (e.g. in the Cook Islands).

Pressures on terrestrial and marine resourceswill continue as human populations increase by40% by 2030 (SPC 2010, Table 1). Poor qualitydata for inshore and offshore fisheries and little

enforcement capacity within large ExclusiveEconomic Zones (EEZs) severely hampereffective regulation to meet sustainabilitybenefits (e.g., GDP, employment and nutrition;Teh et al. 2009; Gillett 2010; Pauly and Zeller2014). Better regulation through implementationof national and regional policies could reduceor reverse fisheries declines (Table 3). Forexample, regional Parties to the NauruAgreement (Table 2) control 25–30% of theworld tuna supply and 60% of the western andcentral Pacific supply. They have developed avessel day scheme to limit the number of daysfished, which benefits agreement membersthrough increased revenue and sustainablefishing levels (Sumaila et al. 2014). For inshorefisheries, the 2008 Pacific Islands RegionalCoastal Fisheries Management Policy (ApiaPolicy), endorsed by all heads of fisheries,focused on improved sustainable yields andmaintenance of ecosystem function. Hundreds ofPacific Island communities also engage inbottom-up management of their coastal andmarine resources, with technical support andresources from the Locally-Managed MarineArea network (Jupiter et al. 2014a).

At an international scale, the Convention onInternational Trade in Endangered Species ofWild Fauna and Flora (CITES) can protectspecies vulnerable to overexploitation bycontrolling trade, but only six Pacific Islandcountries are signatories (Palau, Papua NewGuinea, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Fiji, Samoa).Economic incentives, market-based solutions andadequate controls in international trade,documented in existing (NBSAPs), offerpotential solutions to encourage and supportsustainable use of natural resources (Table 3).Overharvesting of Pacific species could bereduced by aligning NBSAPs to the new CBDStrategic Plan (i.e., Targets 3 and 6), eliminatingperverse incentives harmful to biodiversity andpromoting sustainable management of fish andinvertebrate stocks (UNEP/CBD 2010).Programmes are underway to assist PICTs toreview and update their NBSAPs (SPREP 2014).

POLLUTION

Globalization is accelerating development,urbanization and consumerism across the PacificIslands, increasing liquid, solid and hazardouswastes that undermine ecosystem health andimpact on food, water and health security(Kingsford et al. 2009; SPREP 2014). Pollutioncomes from land-based sources, includingindustrial waste, chemical waste, pesticide run-off, sedimentation, urban run-off, plastic debris,as well as nutrient pollution from fertilizer run-off and sewage waste (SPREP 1999). Manyplastics are broken down into small particles,ingested by seabirds and marine animals, bio-


accumulating in food webs (Gregory 1999;SPREP 2014). Larger plastic pieces concentratein big ocean gyres such as in the northern PacificOcean (SPREP 2014). Increased reliance onimported goods has increased ship-basedpollution from discharge of sewage and wasteoil, disposal of plastic, oil spills, and toxicchemical leaching from anti-fouling paints.Inaccurate navigation charts and poor practiceleads to ship grounding and sinking; withlimited options for removal, abandoned shipsleach chemicals and other pollutants, sometimesdevastating coral reef ecosystems (Work et al.2008; Kelly et al. 2012).

The Pacific Islands have experienced nearlythree decades of investment to improvemanagement of pollution, through national andregional waste management infrastructure, andsustainable waste management systems (Table 2).In 2000, all 22 PICTs and four supportingcountries (Australia, New Zealand, France, USA)adopted the “Regional Marine Spill ContingencyPlan”, and subsequently reflected commitmentsin country specific contingency plans. Regionalstrategies exist for ship-based pollution, solidwaste management and disposal of medicalwaste (Table 2). Pollution continues to be acentral strategy for regional organizations, likethe Secretariat of the Pacific EnvironmentProgramme. Despite these measures, control andmanagement of point source and diffusepollutants is increasing across PICTs due to theirlimited land area (Table 1), narrow land-seainterfaces, and inability to cover costs of wastetreatment or disposal. The other PICTs onlyhave non-statutory documents relating to thepollution and waste, with no supporting laws(e.g., American Samoa, Cook Islands, MarshallIslands, Wallis and Futuna) or no legislation orpolicy governing pollution and waste (e.g.,Federated States of Micronesia, French Polynesia,New Caledonia, Pitcairn Islands) (SPREP 2014).Opportunities to address pollution impacts tohuman and ecosystem health include: cradle tograve economics; education; enforcement of lawsand best practices to prevent, reduce oreliminate waste; and encouragement of the useof biodegradable products and sustainableenergy (Table 3).

DISEASE

Human arrival and alteration of native systemsbrought novel pathogens and disease to thePacific Islands, leading to population declineand species loss (Keppel et al. 2014; Meyer2014). For example, mass mortality of flyingfoxes Pteropus spp. from diseases of unknownorigin occurred in Fiji, Solomon Islands, NewCaledonia and Federated States of Micronesia(Mickleburgh et al. 2002). Socioeconomic impactsof disease on agrobiodiversity are profound

(Thaman 2014). For example, taro leaf blightPhytophthora colocasiae decimated agricultureproduction of native cultivars in many countries(e.g., Solomon Islands, Samoa, Fiji; Misra et al.2008), and introduced and native nematodesdamaged crops across major food staples(Bridge 1988), resulting in loss of food and/orlivelihoods.

There can also be direct and indirect impactson human health and ecosystem services(Myers et al. 2013; Redford et al. 2014). Forinstance, reductions in riparian canopy coverwere associated with substantially increasedEnterococcus spp. bacteria in Hawaiian streams,an indicator of faecal contamination and poorwater quality (Ragosta et al. 2010). Incidence ofciguatera (fish poisoning largely caused by toxicbenthic algae Gambierdiscus spp.) increased acrossthe Pacific by 60% over the past 30 years,reflecting increased coral reef degradation(Skinner et al. 2011). Human disease risk maybe exacerbated, fuelled by population increases,climate change and increased livestock inter-actions. For example, the rapid spread ofJapanese encephalitis across Papua New Guineamay have been caused by the proximity ofdomestic pigs, availability of mosquito breedingsites, and dense human habitation (Mackenzie etal. 2001). The increased risk of dengue feveracross PICTs is affected by the changing climate(Kolivras 2010).

Management of plant, animal and humandisease is hampered by poor capacity, fewbiosecurity staff and limited data (SPREP 2014).Further, unpredictable climate-related naturaldisasters can trigger disease (Jenkins and Jupiterin press). Pacific Island governments have mostlyreacted to diseases, rather than pro-activelymanaging for health benefits as an ecosystemservice (Charron 2012; Jupiter et al. 2014b). TheRegional Wetlands Action Plan for the Pacific(Table 2), aligned to the Ramsar Convention onWetlands, calls for investigation of the linkagesbetween ecosystem health and human health(Table 3). There is potential to assess impacts ofchanging ecosystem structure and function ondisease emergence under the emergingIntergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity andEcosystem Services (IPBES; Redford et al. 2014).

HUMAN-FORCED CLIMATE CHANGE

Few places on the planet are as vulnerable asthe Pacific Islands to human-forced climatechange impacts, particularly rising sea levels(Kingsford and Watson 2011a). Many ecosystemsare threatened by considerable and rapid changein temperature and sea level rise (IPCC 2013).Proportionally small land areas (Table 1) andmultiple synergistic threats (Table 3) cause acuteand chronic impacts on the people, biodiversity


and ecosystem services of the Pacific Islands,across all three realms, terrestrial, freshwater andmarine (Kingsford and Watson 2011a). Low-lyingislands are particularly vulnerable to increasingfrequency and intensity of storm surges thatinundate coastal lands, affecting the viability ofmany organisms, particularly agrobiodiversity(Barnett 2011). Freshwater ecosystems areparticularly affected by sea level rise, which willincrease saltwater incursions, destroyingfreshwater lenses (Morgan and Werner 2014)and their dependent organisms (Jenkins et al.2011), and affecting water security. For marineareas, the dual impacts of rising temperaturesand ocean acidification are already severelyaffecting estuarine communities and the abilityof many coral reef communities to survive(Grantham et al. 2011).

The Pacific Islands and their people andbiodiversity are largely dependent on decisionsabout fossil fuel use and deforestation made bylarger and wealthy regions across the world.Reducing effects of climate change requires aglobal commitment to reduce greenhouse gasessubstantially so that they do not continue toforce up temperatures and increase sea levels(Kingsford and Watson 2011b). Pacific Islandleaders have opportunities, albeit relatively few,to continue to mount their case at internationalforums. This can continue to be reinforced withrigorous data on areas affected by climatechange across the many different nations andislands (Table 3).

Climate adaptation will increasingly becomecritical to the future existence of many of thePacific island environments, their people anddependent biodiversity (Kingsford et al. 2009).Many Pacific Island governments have devel-oped national climate adaptation strategies andactions plans, considering future climatescenarios, with dedicated institutions to co-ordinate and implement adaptation measures.Some Pacific governments are making provisionsfor citizens to migrate as climate refugees; forexample, the Kiribati Government has securedland in Fiji in anticipation of relocation. Thereis significant targeted aid for the Pacific Islandsaimed at building greater resilience to climatechange impacts. Planning for biodiversity basedon future scenarios must be integrated acrosssectors, providing for climate refugia andlimiting development in sensitive areas (Lipsett-Moore et al. 2010). Improved management ofprotected areas and buffering coastalcommunities with vegetation that can resist someof the impacts of storm surges will be critical(Jupiter et al. 2014b). Climate change is affectingmost aspects of the lives of Pacific Islanders andit is challenging to build resilience oraccommodate change given the size of land,reliance on natural resources, the size andvulnerability of their economics and the lack of

options. It requires a monumental cross-sectoraleffort waged at local and international scales.

CONCLUSIONS

The response of Pacific Island governments toenvironmental challenges threatening biodiv-ersity has mainly focussed on adopting a rangeof policy and legislative instruments at theinternational, regional, national and local levelto tackle habitat loss and degradation, invasivespecies, overexploitation, pollution, disease andhuman-forced climate change (Table 2; SPREP2012). The enthusiasm by which theseinstruments have been adopted has yet to bematched with equal attention to implementation,monitoring and enforcement. There are tangibleopportunities for improving Pacific islandbiodiversity conservation (Table 3), including sixbroad areas of opportunity: local engagement;revitalization of traditional practices; environ-mental reporting; improved knowledge; economicincentives; and integrated island management.Dialogue with local communities is critical, giventhey have the most to gain from improvementsto ecosystem services derived from biodiversity,but also have the most to lose. This can beconsiderably progressed, for example, byencouraging preservation of agro-biodiversitythrough maintenance of traditional ecologicalknowledge and sharing and dissem-ination ofdisease-resistant varieties (Thaman 2014). Thereis also an urgent need to understand thecondition of our biodiversity and ecosystemservices through regular state of environmentreporting for education and assessing manage-ment effectiveness (Keppel et al. 2014), as wellas new research on biodiversity and ecosystemservices, essential for Pacific Island ecosystemsand their people. Research focussed on increasedunderstanding of island ecosystem functioning,including native-alien species interactions, isessential to identify future pathways for invasionand guide training programmes for nationalbiosecurity staff (Meyer 2014). Given theimportance placed by Pacific Island governmentson economic development, economic incentivesand market-based solutions can encourage andsupport sustainable use of natural resources andreduce waste. Integrated island managementoffers considerable cost-effectiveness andefficient ways to simultaneously manage forbiodiversity, climate adaptation, disaster riskreduction and health services (Jupiter et al.2014b). Managers, decision-makers and localcommunities need to be better informed aboutthe options for action and the consequences oftheir choices, and better recognize the closerelationships and interdependence between theenvironment, social systems and economy in thePacific. In the absence of informed and urgentaction, Pacific Island biodiversity and traditionalecological knowledge will continue to decline.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank two referees for their assistance inimproving the text and SREP for providingaccess to the draft State of Conservation inOceania 2013 report.

REFERENCESABM, CSIRO, 2011. Climate change in the Pacific: scientific

assessment and new research. Volume 1. Regionaloverview. Australian Bureau of Meteorology andCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial ResearchOrganization, Canberra.

Baker, N., Beger, M., McClennen, C., Ishoda, A. andEdwards, F., 2011. Reimaanlok: A national frameworkfor conservation area planning in the Marshall Islands.J. Marine Biol. 2011: Article ID 273034,doi:273010.271155/272011/273034.

Barnett, J., 2011. Dangerous climate change in the PacificIslands: food production and food security. RegionalEnv. Change 11 (Suppl 1): S229–S237.

Barnett, J. and Campbell, J., 2010. Climate change andsmall island states: power, knowledge and the SouthPacific. Earthscan Ltd., London.

Bell, J. D., Kronen, M., Vunisea, A., Nash, W. J., Keeble,G., Demmke, A., Pontifex, S. and Andrefouet, S., 2009.Planning the use of fish for food security in the Pacific.Marine Policy 33: 64–76.

Berkes, F., 2012. Sacred Ecology, 3rd Edition. Routledge,New York.

Big Ocean and WCPA-Marine, 2014. Guidelines for theDesign and Management of Large-scale MarineProtected Areas. IUCN World Commission onProtected Areas, Gland, Switzerland.

Bridge, J., 1988. Plant-parasitic nematode problems in thePacific Islands. J. Nematol. 20: 173–183.

Bruno, J. F. and Selig, E. R., 2007. Regional decline ofcoral rover in the Indo-Pacific: Timing, extent, andsubregional comparisons. PLoS ONE 2: e711. doi:710.1371/journal.pone.0000711.

Burke, L., Reytar, K., Spalding, M. and Perry, A., 2011.Reefs at Risk Revisited. World Resources Institute,Washington, D.C.

Butchart, S. H. M., Walpole, M., Collen, B., van Strien, A.,Scharlemann, J. P. W., Almond, R. E. A., Baillie, J. E. M.,Bomhard, B., Brown, C., Bruno, J., Carpenter, K. E.,Carr, G. M., Chanson, J., Chenery, A. M., Csirke, J.,Davidson, N. C., Dentener, F., Foster, M., Galli, A.,Galloway, J. N., Genovesi, P., Gregory, R. D., Hockings,M., Kapos, V., Lamarque, J.-F., Leverington, F., Loh,J., McGeoch, M. A., McRae, L., Minasyan, A., Morcillo,M. H., Oldfield, T. E. E., Pauly, D., Quader, S.,Revenga, C., Sauer, J. R., Skolnik, B., Spear, D.,Stanwell-Smith, D., Stuart, S. N., Symes, A., Tiemey,M., Tyrrell, T. D., Vie, J.-C. and Watson, R., 2010.Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Sci.328: 1164–1168.

Charron, D. F. (ed), 2012. Ecohealth research in practice:Innovative applications of an ecosystem approach tohealth. Springer, New York.

Elton, C. S., 1958. The Ecology of Invasions by Animalsand Plants. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Frankham, R., 1998. Inbreeding and extinction: islandpopulations. Cons. Biol. 12: 665–675.

Friedlander, A. M. and DeMartini, E. E., 2002. Contrastsin density, size and biomass of reef fishes between thenorthwestern and the main Hawaiian islands: theeffects of fishing down apex predators. Marine Ecol.Progress Series 230: 253–264.

Gibbons, J. W., Scott, D. E., Ryan, T. J., Buhlmann, K. A.,Tuberville, T. D., Metts, B. S., Greene, J. L., Mills, T.,Leiden, Y., Poppy, S. and Winne, C. T., 2000. Theglobal decline of reptiles, déjà vu amphibians. Biosci.50: 653–666.

Gillett, R., 2010. The contribution of fisheries to theeconomies of Pacific Island countries and territories.Asian Development Bank, Manila.

Golbuu, Y., Victor, S., Wolanski, E. and Richmond, R. H.,2003. Trapping of fine sediment in a semi-enclosedbay, Palau, Micronesia. Estuarine, Coastal & Shelf Sci. 57:941–949.

Grantham, H. S., Mcleod, E., Brooks, A., Jupiter, S. D.,Hardcastle, J., Richardson, A. J., Poloczanska, E. S.,Hills, T., Mieszkowska, N., Klein, C. J. and Watson, J.E. M., 2011. Ecosystem-based adaptation in marineecosystems of tropical Oceania in response to climatechange. Pac. Cons. Biol. 17: 241–258.

Gregory, M. R., 1999. Plastics and South Pacific islandshores: environmental implications. Ocean & CoastalManage. 42: 603–615.

Hannesson, R., 2008. The exclusive economic zone andeconomic development in the Pacific Island countries.Marine Policy 32: 886–897.

Haynes, A., 1999. The long term effect of forest loggingon the macroinvertebrates in a Fijian stream.Hydrobiologia 405: 79–85.

Hughes, T. P., Bellwood, D. R. and Connolly, S. R., 2002.Biodiversity hotspots, centres of endemicity, and theconservation of coral reefs. Ecol. Letters 5: 775–784.

IPCC, 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical ScienceBasis. Contribution of Working Group I to the FifthAssessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change, ed by T. F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K.Plattner, M. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, A.Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P. M. Midgley, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.

Jenkins, A. P. and Jupiter, S. D., in press. Natural disasters,health and wetlands: A Pacific small island developingstate perspective. In Wetlands and Human Health edby C. M. Finlayson, P. Horwitz and P. Weinstein.Springer, New York.

Jenkins, A. P., Jupiter, S. D., Qauqau, I. and Atherton, J.,2010. The importance of ecosystem-based managementfor conserving migratory pathways on tropical highislands: A case study from Fiji. Aquat. Cons: Marine &Freshwater Ecosyst. 20: 224–238.

Jenkins, K. M., Kingsford, R. T., Closs, G. P., Wolfenden,B. J., Matthaei, C. D. and Hay, S. E., 2011. Climatechange and freshwater systems in Oceania: an assess-ment of vulnerability and adaptation opportunities.Pac. Cons. Biol. 17: 201–219.

Johannes, R. E., 2002. The renaissance of community-basedmarine resource management in Oceania. Ann. Rev.Ecol. & Syst. 33: 317–340.

Jupiter, S. D., Jenkins, A. P., Lee Long, W. J., Maxwell, S. L.,Watson, J. E. M., Hodge, K. B., Govan, H. andCarruthers, T. J. B., 2013. Pacific integrated islandmanagement: Principles, case studies and lessonslearned. Secretariat of the Pacific Regional EnvironmentProgramme and United Nations EnvironmentProgramme, Apia and Nairobi.


Jupiter, S. D., Cohen, P. J., Weeks, R., Tawake, A. andGovan, H., 2014a. Locally-managed marine areas:multiple objectives and diverse strategies. Pac. Cons.Biol. in press.

Jupiter, S. D., Jenkins, A. P., Lee Long, W. J., Maxwell, S.L., Carruthers, T. J. B., Hodge, K. B., Govan, H.,Tamelander, J. and Watson, J. E. M., 2014b. Principlesfor integrated island management in the tropicalPacific. Pac. Cons. Biol. in press.

Kaiser, B. and Roumasset, J., 2002. Valuing indirectecosystem services: the case of tropical watersheds. Env.Economics & Devel. 7: 701–714.

Kelly, L. G., Barott, K. L., Dinsdale, E., Friedlander, A. M.,Nosrat, B., Obura, D., Sala, E., Sandin, S. A., Smith,J. E., Vereij, M. J. A., Williams, G. J., Willner, D. andRohwer, F., 2012. Black reefs: iron-induced phase shiftson coral reefs. The ISME J. 6: 838–649.

Keppel, G., Lowe, A. J. and Possingham, H. P., 2009.Changing perspectives on the biogeography of thetropical South Pacific: influences of dispersal,vicariance and extinction. J. Biogeog. 36: 1035–1054.

Keppel, G., Morrison, C., Watling, D., Tuiwawa, M. V. andRounds, I. A., 2012. Conservation in tropical PacificIsland countries: why most current approaches arefailing. Cons. Letters 4: 256–265.

Keppel, G., Morrison, C., Meyer, J.-Y. and Boehmer, H. J.,2014. Isolated and vulnerable: the history and futureof Pacific Island terrestrial biodiversity. Pac. Cons. Biol.in press.

Kier, G., Kreft, H., Lee, T. M., Jetz, W., Ibisch, P. L.,Nowicki, C., Mutke, J. and Barthlott, W., 2009. Aglobal assessment of endemism and species richnessacross island and mainland regions. Proc. Nat. Acad.Nat. Sci. USA 106: 9322–9327.

Kinch, J., Anderson, P., Richards, E., Talouli, A., Vieux, C.,Peteru, C. and Suaesi, T., 2010. Outlook report on thestate of marine biodiversity in the Pacific IslandRegion. Secretariat of the Pacific Regional EnvironmentProgramme, Apia.

Kingsford, R. T. and Watson, J. E. M., 2011a. Climatechange in Oceania — A synthesis of biodiversityimpacts and adaptations. Pac. Cons. Biol. 17: 270–284.

Kingsford, R. T. and Watson, J. E. M., 2011b. What hopefor biodiversity in the face of anthropogenic climatechange in Oceania? Pac. Cons. Biol. 17: 166–167.

Kingsford, R. T., Watson, J. E. M., Lundquist, C. J., Venter,O., Hughes, L., Johnston, E. L., Atherton, J., Gawel,M., Keith, D. A., Mackey, B. G., Morley, C.,Possingham, H. P., Raynor, B., Recher, H. F. andWilson, K. A., 2009. Major conservation policy issuesfor biodiversity in Oceania. Cons. Biol. 23: 834–840.

Kolivras, K. N., 2010. Changes in dengue risk potential inHawaii, USA, due to climate variability and change.Climate Res. 42: 1–11.

Lane, M. B., 2008. Strategic coastal governance issues inFiji: The challenges of integration. Marine Policy 32:856–866.

Lees, A. and Siwatibau, S., 2009. Strategies for effective andjust conservation: the Austral Foundation’s review ofconservation in Fiji. Curr. Cons. 4: 21–23.

Léopold, M., Herrenschmidt, J.-B. and Thaman, R., 2010.The relevance of traditional ecological knowledge formodern management of coral reef fisheries inMelanesia. Pp 1007–1011 in Proceedings of the 11thInternational Coral Reef Symposium, InternationalSociety for Reef Studies, Ft. Lauderdale.

Lipsett-Moore, G., Game, E., Peterson, N., Saxon, E.,Sheppard, S., Allison, A., Michael, J., Singadan, R.,Sabi, J., Kula G. and Gwaibo, R., 2010. Interimnational terrestrial conservation assessment for PapuaNew Guinea: Protecting biodiversity in a changingclimate. Papua New Guinea Department of Environmentand Conservation, The Nature Conservancy, andUnited Nations Development Programme, Brisbane.

Loope, L. L. and Mueller-Dombois, D., 1989.Characteristics of invaded islands, with specialreferences to Hawaii, Pp 257–280 in BiologicalInvasions, a Global Perspective, ed by J. A. Drake,F. Mooney, F. di Castri, R. H. Groves, F. J. Kruger,M. Rejmanek and M. Williamson. John Wiley & SonsLtd, Chichester.

Loope, L. L., Hughes, F. and Meyer, J.-Y., 2013. Plantinvasions in protected areas of tropical Pacific Islands,with special reference to Hawaii. Pp. 313–348 in PlantInvasions in Protected Areas: Patterns, Problems andChallenges ed by L. C. Foxcroft, D. M. Richardson,P. Pyšek and P. Genovesi. Springer Series in InvasionEcology 7, Springer, Dordrecht.

MacArthur, R. H. and Wilson, E. O., 1967. The Theory ofIsland Biogeography. Princeton University Press,Princeton, New Jersey.

Mackenzie, J. S., Chua, K. B., Daniels, P. W., Eaton, B. T.,Field, H. E., Hall, R. A., Halpin, K., Johansen, C. A.,Kirkland, P. D., Lam, S. K., McMinn, P., Nisbet, D. J.,Paru, R., Pyke, A. T., Ritchie, S. A., Siba, P., Smith, D.W., Smith, G. A., van den Hurk, A. F., Wang, L. F. andWilliams, D. T., 2001. Emerging viral diseases ofSoutheast Asia and the Western Pacific. EmergingInfectious Dis. 7 (3 Suppl.): 497–504.

Maragos, J. E., 1993. Impact of coastal construction oncoral reefs in the U.S.-affiliated Pacific islands. CoastalManage. 21: 235–269.

McNeill, J. R., 1994. Of rats and men: A synopticenvironmental history of the island Pacific. J. WorldHist. 5: 299–349.

Meyer, J.-Y., 2014. Critical issues and new challenges for theresearch and management of invasive plants in thePacific Islands. Pac. Cons. Biol. in press.

Mickleburgh, S. P., Hutson, A. M. and Racey, P. A., 2002.A review of the global conservation status of bats. Oryx36: 18–34.

Mills, M., Jupiter, S. D., Pressey, R. L., Ban, N. C. andComley, J., 2011. Incorporating effectiveness ofcommunity-based management strategies in a nationalmarine gap analysis for Fiji. Cons. Biol. 25: 1155–1164.

Misra, R. S., Sharma, K. and Mishra, A. K., 2008.Phytophthora leaf blight of taro (Colocasia esculenta) — areview. Asian & Austral. J. Plant Sci. & Biotech. 2: 55–63.

Morgan, L. K. and Werner, A. D., 2014. Seawater intrusionvulnerability indicators for freshwater lenses in stripislands. J. Hydrol. 508: 322–327.

Morrison, C., 2012. Impacts of tourism on threatenedspecies in the Pacific region: a review. Pac. Cons. Biol.18: 227–239.

Myers, S. S., Gaffikin, L., Golden, C. D., Ostfeld, R. S.,Redford, K. H., Ricketts, T. H., Turner, W. R. andOsofsky, S. A., 2013. Human health impacts ofecosystem alteration. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 110:18753–18760.

Pauly, D. and Zeller, D., 2014. Accurate catches and thesustainability of coral reef fisheries. Curr. Opinion inEnv. Sustainability 7: 44–51.


Paynter, Q., 2010. Prioritisation of targets for biologicalcontrol of weeds on Pacific Islands. Landcare Research,Auckland.

Pierce, R. and Kerr, V., 2013. Report on a biota survey ofthe Phoenix Islands atolls, Kiribati, May 2013. EcoOceania Pty Ltd.

Pratt, C. R., Kaly, U. L. and Mitchell, J., 2004. Manual:How to use the Environmental Vulnerability Index(EVI). SOPAC Technical Report 383, United NationsEnvironment Programme (UNEP), South PacificApplied Geoscience Commission (SOPAC), Suva.

Purcell, S. W., 2014. Value, market preferences and tradeof beche-de-mer from Pacific Island sea cucumbers.PLoS ONE 9(4): e95075.

Purcell, S. W., Lovatelli, A. and Pakoa, K., 2014. Constraintsand solutions for managing Pacific Island sea cucumberfisheries with an ecosystem approach. Marine Policy 45:240–250.

Ragosta, G., Evensen, C., Atwill, E. R., Walker, M., Ticktin,T., Asquith, A. and Tate, K. W., 2010. Causalconnections between water quality and land use in arural tropical island watershed. EcoHealth 7: 105–113.

Redford, K. H., Myers, S. S., Ricketts, T. H. and Osofsky,S. A., 2014. Human health as a judicious conservationopportunity. Cons. Biol. 28: 627–629.

Sarnat, E. and Caginitoba, A., 2007. Fire ant workshop andsurveillance report, Nausori, Fiji. Wildlife ConservationSociety, Suva.

Schwarz, A.-M., Bene, C., Bennett, G., Boso, D., Hilly, Z.,Paul, C., Posala, R., Sibiti, S. and Andrew, N., 2011.Vulnerability and resilience of remote ruralcommunities to shocks and global changes: Empiricalanalysis from Solomon Islands. Global Env. Change 21:1128–1140.

Sherley, G., 2000. Invasive species in the Pacific: A technicalreview and draft regional strategy. Secretariat of thePacific Regional Environment Programme, Apia.

Simberloff, D., 2013. Invasive Species: what everyone needsto know. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Simberloff, D. and Von Holle, B., 1999. Positive interactionsof nonindigenous species: invasional meltdown? Biolog.Invasions 1: 21–32.

Skinner, M. P., Brewer, T. D., Johnstone, R., Fleming, L. E.and Lewis, R. J., 2011. Ciguatera fish poisoning in thePacific Islands (1998 to 2008). PLoS Neglected TropicalDis. 5: e1416. doi:1410.1371/journal.pntd.0001416.

SPC, 2010. Population Projections (Mid-Year 2010).National Minimum Development Indicators. Statisticsfor Development Division, Secretariat of the PacificCommunity, Noumea, http://www.spc.int/prism/data/social (Viewed May 22, 2014).

SPREP, 1999. Pacific Ocean Pollution PreventionProgramme (PACPOL): Strategy and Workplan.Secretariat of the Pacific Regional EnvironmentProgramme, Apia

SPREP, 2012. Pacific Environment and Climate ChangeOutlook. Secretariat of the Pacific Regional EnvironmentProgramme, Apia.

SPREP, 2014. State of Conservation in Oceania 2013.Regional volume. Secretariat of the Pacific RegionalEnvironment Programme, Apia.

Steadman, D. W., 2006. Extinction and Biogeography ofTropical Pacific Birds. The University of Chicago Press,Chicago, USA.

Sumaila, U. R., Dyck, A. and Baske, A., 2014. Subsidies totuna fisheries in the Western Central Pacific Ocean.Marine Policy 43: 288–294.

Sutherst R. W. and Maywald, G., 2005. A climate model ofthe red imported fire ant, Solenopsis invicta Buren(Hymenoptera: Formicidae): Implications for invasion ofnew regions, particularly Oceania. Env. Ent. 34: 317–335.

Teh, L. C. L., Teh, L. S. L., Starkhouse, B. and Sumaila,U. R., 2009. An overview of socio-economic andecological perspectives of Fiji’s inshore reef fisheries.Marine Policy 33: 807–817.

Thaman, R. R., 2014. Agrodeforestation and the loss ofagrobiodiversity in the Pacific islands: A call forconservation. Pac. Cons. Biol. in press.

Tye, A., 2009. Guidelines for invasive species managementin the Pacific: a Pacific strategy for managing pests,weeds and other invasive species. Secretariat of thePacific Environment Programme, Apia.

UNDP, 2013. The 2013 Human Development Report. Therise of the South: Human progress in a diverse world.Human Development Report Office. United NationsDevelopment Programme, New York.

UNEP/CBD, 2010. Decision X/2. The Strategic Plan forBiodiversity 2011–2020 and the Aichi BiodiversityTargets. Conference of the Parties to the Conventionof Biological Diversity, Nagoya.

Veron, J. E. N., DeVantier, L. M., Turak, E., Green, A. L.,Kininmonth, S., Stafford-Smith, M., and Peterson, N.,2009. Delineating the Coral Triangle. Galaxea 11:91–100.

Ward, R. G. and Kingdon, E. (eds), 1995. Land, custom andpractice in the South Pacific. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, UK.

Woinarski, J., 2010. Biodiversity conservation in tropical forestlandscapes of Oceania. Biolog. Cons. 143: 2385–2394.

Work, T. M., Aeby, G. S. and Maragos, J. E., 2008. Phaseshift from a coral to a corallimorph-dominated reefassociated with a shipwreck on Palmyra Atoll. PLoSONE 3(8): e2989.

Conservation of biodiversity in the Pacific Islands of Oceania: challenges and opportunities

Documents

Transcript of Conservation of biodiversity in the Pacific Islands of Oceania: challenges and opportunities