Post on 03-Dec-2023
transcript
1 Wildlife Conservation Society, Fiji Country Program, 11 Ma’afu Street, Suva, Fiji. Email: sjupiter@wcs.org2 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: sjupiter@wcs.orgPhone: +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
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
JUPITER et al: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR CONSERVING PACIFIC BIODIVERSITY 209
Policy Instrument Coordinating Objectives relevant to environmentalFramework (year ratified or adopted) Institution management and conservation
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
210 PACIFIC CONSERVATION BIOLOGY
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
Policy Instrument Coordinating Objectives relevant to environmentalFramework (year ratified or adopted) Institution management and conservation
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
214 PACIFIC CONSERVATION BIOLOGY
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).
JUPITER et al: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR CONSERVING PACIFIC BIODIVERSITY 215
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-
216 PACIFIC CONSERVATION BIOLOGY
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
JUPITER et al: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR CONSERVING PACIFIC BIODIVERSITY 217
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.
218 PACIFIC CONSERVATION BIOLOGY
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 et al: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR CONSERVING PACIFIC BIODIVERSITY 219
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.
220 PACIFIC CONSERVATION BIOLOGY
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.