Polynesia-micronesia biodiversity hotspot final draft for submission to the cepf donor council

Yüklə 1,13 Mb.
Pdf görüntüsü
ölçüsü1,13 Mb.
1   ...   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   ...   17
participation of local leaders 
and community members in 
the implementation of 
protection and recovery plans 
for threatened species 
3.1  Develop and implement species recovery plans for 
highly threatened species requiring species-focused 
action, especially those that have received little effort to 
3.2  Strengthen leadership and effectiveness of local 
conservation organizations by developing peer-learning 
networks and promoting exchanges and study tours 
3.3  Raise the environmental awareness of communities 
about species and sites of global conservation concern 
through social marketing and participatory planning and 
management approaches 
4. Provide strategic leadership 
and effective coordination of 
CEPF investment through a 
regional implementation team 
4.1  Build a broad constituency of civil society groups 
working across institutional and political boundaries 
toward achieving the shared conservation goals 
described in the ecosystem profile. 
Strategic Direction 1: Prevent, control, and eradicate invasive species in key 
biodiversity areas 
It has already been stated that invasive species pose the dominant threat to the native 
biota and ecosystems of the hotspot. Dealing more effectively with invasive species, 
especially by preventing their introduction to alien-free islands and habitats, must be a 
major goal of the CEPF investment strategy. Implementation of this strategic direction 
will be performed in close collaboration with a number of regional initiatives including 
the GEF-funded Pacific Invasive Species Management Program, the IUCN Invasive 
Species Specialist Group’s (ISSG) Cooperative Initiative on Invasive Alien Species on 
Islands, the Pacific Island Ecosystems at Risk project, SPREP’s Invasive Species 
program, and others. The Cooperative Islands Initiative and other ISSG activities provide 
baseline support for the CEPF program.  

1.1 Strengthen defences against the introduction and spread of invasive species and 
pathogens that threaten biodiversity 
Preventing the introduction of new invasive species is the ideal practice for vulnerable 
island ecosystems, followed by eradication and then control of invasives (Sherley and 
Lowe 2000). Prevention requires strong, well-resourced quarantine systems that are the 
responsibility of governments. Currently, few countries and territories have developed 
adequate guarantee systems to defend themselves from invasive organisms, but efforts 
are underway in most places, with international support, to improve official enforcement, 
staff, and infrastructure. 
The role of civil society organizations will be to foster improved legislation as well as 
public support for and participation in surveillance and monitoring programs. 
1.2 Control or eradicate invasive species in key biodiversity areas particularly where 
they threaten native species with extinction 
Many of the invasive species in the hotspot are on the IUCN’s list of 100 of the world’s 
worst invasive species (ISSG, n.d). It is impossible to control or remove all these alien 
invasive species from native ecosystems; there are simply far too many invasives and 
they are far too well established and distributed. However, projects should be developed 
in key biodiversity sites that target particularly serious invasive pests and pathogens. 
CEPF’s experience in managing pilot efforts supported by the Australian government’s 
Regional Natural Heritage Program developed thorough eradication plans and provided a 
strong foundation for replication and other future activities because of extensive 
community involvement. Control programs that also provide local benefits are likely to 
enjoy community support and to be most effective. 
1.3 Provide training in management techniques and develop rapid response capacity 
against particularly serious invasive species 
Best available information and training are required to improve policy, legislation and 
implementation procedures against invasive species. There is a particular need for more 
information on the distribution and impact of invasive species in sensitive sites and the 
identification of alien-free habitats. Surveys to establish where invasive alien species 
occur, covering all taxa in both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, are a priority. 
Management training is also required on the tools and techniques for dealing with 
invasive species such as techniques for the early detection of new invasions and the 
assessment of risk for species proposed for import (Sherley and Lowe 2000).  
Strategic Direction 2: Strengthen the conservation status and management of 60 key 
biodiversity areas 
The conservation of key biodiversity sites and landscapes, even those that are nominally 
already protected, must be improved. The Pacific experience indicates that the 
governance model that is most likely to succeed are co-managed sites where local 
communities are intimately involved in the establishment and management of such areas. 
Investment priorities that will be supported by CEPF include the development of new 
protected areas to conserve priority sites; improvement in the management of existing 

protected areas that are priority sites; and support for studies and information sharing 
research that will provide information to improve site management. 
2.1 Develop and manage conservation areas that conserve unprotected priority sites, 
especially critical refugia such as large forest blocks and alien-free habitats 
The development and management of ecologically viable and representative conservation 
areas is a major component of conservation strategies such as National Biodiversity 
Strategy and Action Plans for many countries in the hotspot. Such conservation areas are 
likely to be a mixture of a varied governance types depending on local circumstances. 
Emphasis should be given to the conservation of refugia such as the larger and more 
remote forest blocks and alien free habitats, which appear to have the best potential for 
2.2 Improve the management of existing protected areas that are priority sites 
Many existing protected areas suffer from a lack of sound management, including 
adequate protection from poachers and other threats such as habitat degradation and 
invasive species. This is often a result of poor financial support and possibly the 
application of an inappropriate governance regime. The management effectiveness of 
these areas can be strengthened by improved resourcing and training of managers and by 
improving the relationship with, and commitment to conservation by, local communities.  
Strategic Direction 3: Build awareness and participation of local leaders and 
community members in the implementation of protection and recovery plans for 
threatened species  
The investment priority that forms the focus of this strategic direction is to develop and 
implement species recovery plans for the prioritized set of threatened species, especially 
the Critically Endangered species needing special attention in addition to conserving their 
habitat. In keeping with CEPF’s global program the emphasis of this strategy will be on 
civil society and local community participation in such plans. 
3.1 Develop and implement species recovery plans for highly threatened species 
requiring species-focused action, especially those that have received little effort to date 
Species recovery plans are particularly needed for Critically Endangered species that 
require species-focused action, such as the control of harvesting, or dealing with threats 
such as invasive species. Emphasis should be placed on the species that have received 
little attention to date, such as some of the endemic land snails (especially Partula spp.), 
flying foxes (especially Pteropus spp.), and insectivorous bats and restricted range plants. 
Recovery plans must spell out the specific management measures required to conserve 
the species such as the establishment of reserves, the control of threats like habitat 
degradation, invasive species or hunting, along with the research needs. Most 
importantly, activities and overall support will be tailored to ensure implementation of 
the recovery plans. 
3.2 Strengthen leadership and effectiveness of local conservation organizations by 
developing peer-learning networks and promoting exchanges and study tours 
A key way to strengthen the leadership of local conservation organizations is to develop 

peer-learning networks. These networks will often include government officials to build 
and strengthen the mutual understanding and trust that is critical to successful 
collaboration on conservation goals. Peer learning networks can assist conservation 
professionals to share successes and lessons learned, identify and address shared needs 
for technical assistance, training and other support and to collaborate together on local 
and national issues effectively. This investment priority should also include the 
publication of literature on conservation lessons learned and on the region’s environment, 
written in English and local languages and at varied levels. 
3.3 Raise the environmental awareness of communities about species and sites of global 
conservation concern through social marketing and participatory planning and 
management approaches 
Few people in the hotspot are sufficiently aware of the uniqueness of the biodiversity of 
the hotspot, the severity of threats to it, and the significance of the biodiversity in 
maintaining the healthy structure and function of island ecosystems. Such awareness 
must be raised if biodiversity is to be valued properly by communities and their 
governments, and thereby adequately conserved. The most effective way of raising this 
awareness is through participatory planning and management approaches which provide 
information to communities to assist them to make better management decisions. The use 
of social marketing tools, where the goal is to elicit behavioral change rather than simply 
raising awareness, may be a useful approach for increasing political and social will to 
protect biodiversity.  
Strategic Direction 4: Provide strategic leadership and effective coordination of 
CEPF investment through a regional implementation team 
An independent evaluation of the global CEPF program found that CEPF regional 
implementation teams are particularly effective with the support of the CEPF grant 
directors in linking the key elements of comprehensive, vertically integrated portfolios 
such as large anchor projects, smaller grassroots activities, policy initiatives, 
governmental collaboration, and sustainable financing. As recommended by the 
evaluators, the responsibilities of these teams, formerly known as coordination units, 
have now been standardized to capture the most important aspects of their function.  
In every hotspot, CEPF will support a regional implementation team to convert the plans 
in the ecosystem profile into a cohesive portfolio of grants that exceed in impact the sum 
of their parts. Each regional implementation team will consist of one or more civil society 
organizations active in conservation in the region. For example, a team could be a 
partnership of civil society groups or could be a lead organization with a formal plan to 
engage others in overseeing implementation, such as through an inclusive advisory 
The regional implementation team will be selected by the CEPF Donor Council based on 
an approved terms of reference, competitive process, and selection criteria available at 
. The team will operate in a transparent and open manner, consistent with 
the CEPF mission and all provisions of the CEPF Operational Manual. Organizations that 
are members of the Regional Implementation Team will not be eligible to apply for other 

CEPF grants within the same hotspot. Applications from formal affiliates of those 
organizations that have an independent operating board of directors will be accepted, and 
subject to additional external review.  
4.1 Build a broad constituency of civil society groups working across institutional and 
political boundaries toward achieving the shared conservation goals described in the 
ecosystem profile  
The regional implementation team will provide strategic leadership and local knowledge 
to build a broad constituency of civil society groups working across institutional and 
geographic boundaries toward achieving the conservation goals described in the 
ecosystem profile. The team’s major functions and specific activities will be based on an 
approved terms of reference. Major functions of the team will be to: 

Act as an extension service to assist civil society groups in designing, 
implementing, and replicating successful conservation activities. 

Review all grant applications and manage external reviews with technical experts 
and advisory committees. 

Award grants up to $20,000 and decide jointly with the CEPF Secretariat on all 
other applications. 

Lead the monitoring and evaluation of individual projects using standard tools, 
site visits, and meetings with grantees, and assist the CEPF Secretariat in 
portfolio-level monitoring and evaluation. 

Widely communicate CEPF objectives, opportunities to apply for grants, lessons 
learned, and results.  

Involve the existing regional program of the RIT, CEPF donor and implementing 
agency representatives, government officials, and other sectors within the hotspot 
in implementation.  

Ensure effective coordination with the CEPF Secretariat on all aspects of 
Specific activities and further details are available in the CEPF Regional Implementation 
Team Terms of Reference and Selection Process. 
Use of natural resources is basic to every economic system, and the connection of natural 
ecosystems to human livelihoods is particularly immediate in rural areas. Substantial 
investments that are designed and adopted in distant capital cities without local 
participation are frequently inappropriate for local realities and are regularly thwarted, 
either by physical conditions or by human resistance. Without costly and inefficient 
enforcement, plans emanating from national and international agencies that do not have 
local understanding and support invite failure.    
A fundamental assumption and raison d’etre for CEPF is that civil society commitment 
to conservation and sustainable development programs is necessary for them to work as 
planned. Experience over many years has demonstrated that top-down public sector 
initiatives by themselves are unlikely either to be effective or to endure. By engaging 
civil society in partnerships with governments and business firms, CEPF is intended to 

improve the potential for sustainable effects following from the much larger investments 
made by public and private organizations. 
In the Polynesia-Micronesia Hotspot, the sustainability of programs intended to improve 
the living conditions of rural and low-income people faces the particular challenges of 
political fragmentation among the many independent governments of small island states 
and the vast expanse of ocean that separates them. Regional structures clearly are 
necessary, but they are inherently fragile and are subject to substantial inertia and 
centrifugal force. Differences among people living on small islands are often exaggerated 
and their similarities or shared problems are often minimized. These high hurdles will 
lead CEPF to reinforce sub-regional links, where habits of cooperation are already 
present (such as in Micronesia), at the same time that it supports region-wide projects and 
partnerships that are needed to respond to large-scale threats (such as invasive species). A 
tight fabric of civil society partnerships at varied scales is needed to increase the prospect 
of efforts to conserve threatened ecosystems in the Pacific being maintained independent 
of future financing from CEPF and other international donors.     
The value, uniqueness, and vulnerability of the terrestrial biodiversity of the Polynesia-
Micronesia Hotspot are well recognized. The species and ecosystems of the hotspot are 
among the most highly threatened in the world and yet terrestrial conservation activities 
are severely under-funded and our biological knowledge of the hotspot is incomplete and 
poorly managed. There are significant opportunities for CEPF to fund actions that 
empower the stewards of the biodiversity of the Polynesia-Micronesia Hotspot - the 
island communities and institutions - to conserve biodiversity (especially those species 
and sites that are globally threatened) more effectively. Since Pacific communities are 
still highly dependent on biological resources for survival, the achievement of 
biodiversity conservation objectives is essential for sustaining human livelihoods as well 
as for the maintenance of essential ecosystem functions. 

Australian Agency for International Development 
Brigham Young University 
Center for Applied Biodiversity Science 
Community Based Conservation Area 
Biological Diversity  
Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund 
Initiative (of ISSG) 
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands  
Council of Regional Organizations of the Pacific 
Endemic Bird Areas 
Environmental Vulnerability Index 
Food and Agriculture Organization 
Federated States of Micronesia 
Foundation of the Peoples of the South Pacific International 
Global Environment Facility 
Geographical Information System 
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (German Aid) 
Important Bird Areas 
The World Conservation Union  
(formerly the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and 
Natural Resources) 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
Specialist Group (of IUCN) 
NBSAP National 
Strategy and Action Plan 
National Capacity Self Assessment 
National Environmental Management Strategy 
New Zealand Agency for International Development 
PABITRA Pacific 
Biodiversity Transect Network 
Pacific Basin Information Node 
Pacific Island Country or Territory 
Pacific Islands Ecosystems at Risk Project 
Pacific Science Association 
Small Grants Program 
Secretariat for the Pacific Community 
South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission 

South Pacific Regional Environment Program 
United Nations Convention on Combating Desertification 
United Nations Development Program 
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization 
University of the South Pacific 
United States Agency for International Development 
Wildlife Conservation Society 
World Wide Fund for Nature- South Pacific Program  

Asian Development Bank (ADB). 2003. Pacific Region Environment Strategy. 
Discussion Draft. June 2003. ADB, Manila. 
Allison, A. 2003. Biological Surveys- new perspectives in the Pacific. Org. Divers. Evol
3: 103-110. 
Allison, A. Personal Communication, 2003, Honolulu. 
Allison, A., and Eldredge, L. 1999. Polynesia and Micronesia. p 390-401 in Mittermier, 
R.A. et alHotspotsEarth’s Biologically Richest and most Endangered 
Terrestrial Ecoregions. Cemex and Conservation International. 
Allison, A., and Eldredge, L. 2004. Polynesia and Micronesia. in Mittermier, R.A. et al
Hotspots Revisited. Cemex and Conservation International. 
Atkinson, I.E. and Atkinson, T. 2000. Land vertebrates as invasive species on the islands 
of the South Pacific Environment Program. In Invasive Species in the Pacific: A 
Technical Review and Draft Regional Strategy. Sherley, G. (Ed.). SPREP, Apia. 
BirdLife 2000. Threatened Birds of the World. Stattersfield, A.J and Capper. D.R. (Eds.). 
BirdLife International, Cambridge. 
Bishop Museum 2003. Living Archipelagos- Micronesia and Polynesia .Unpublished 
report. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. 
Brown, M. Personal Communication, 2003, Auckland. 
C.I. 1999. p 390-403 in Mittermier et alHotspotsEarth’s Biologically Richest and most 
Endangered Terrestrial Ecoregions. Cemex and Conservation International. 
C.I. 2003. Pacific Protected Areas Database. Prepared by Joanna Axford for 
Conservation International, Apia, Samoa.  
Cowie, R.H. 1996. Pacific island land snails: relationships, origins, and determinants of 
diversity. In: Keast, A. and Miller, S.E. (Eds.), Origin and evolution of Pacific 
Island biotas, New Guinea to eastern Polynesia: patterns and processes, SPB 
Academic Publishing, Amsterdam, pp. 347-372. 
Cowie, R.H. 2000. Non-indigenous land and freshwater molluscs in the islands of the 
Pacific: conservation impacts and threats. In Invasive Species in the Pacific: A 
Technical Review and Draft Regional Strategy. Sherley, G. (Ed.). SPREP, Apia. 

Cowie, R.H. 2001. Invertebrate Invasions on Pacific Islands and the replacement of 
unique faunas: a synthesis of the land and freshwater snails. Biological Invasions 
Cowie, R.H. Personal Communication, 2003, Honolulu. 
Crocombe, R. 2001. The South Pacific. University of the South Pacific. 790 pp. 
Dahl, A. L. 1980. Regional Ecosystems Survey of the South Pacific. SPC Technical Paper 
No.179. SPC and IUCN, Noumea. 
Dahl, A. L. 1984. Biogeographical Aspects of Isolation in the Pacific. Ambio. vol 13, No 
Dahl, A. L. 1986. Review of the Protected Areas System in Oceania. UNEP and IUCN, 
Gland, Switzerland. 
Eldredge, L.G. 2000. Non indigenous freshwater fishes, amphibians, and crustaceans of 
the Pacific and Hawaiian islands. In Invasive Species in the Pacific: A Technical 
Review and Draft Regional Strategy. Sherley, G. (Ed.). SPREP, Apia. 
Eldredge, L.G., and Evenhuis, N.L. In Press. Hawaii’s Biodiversity: A detailed 
assessment of the numbers of species in the Hawaiian islands. BishopMusuem, 
Eldredge, L.G. Personal Communication, 2004, Honolulu. 
Faasao Savaii. 1998 The Rainforest and the Flying Foxes: An Introduction to the Rain 
Forest Preserves on Savai'i, Western Samoa. Elmqvist, T., Cox, P., Pierson, E.D. 
and Rainey, W.E. (Eds.). Faasao Savaii, Salelologa. 
FAO. 2003. State of the World’s Forests 2003. FAO, Rome. 
Flannery, T.F. 1995. Mammals of the South-West Pacific & Moluccan islands. Reed, 
Florence, J. 1997. Flora de la Polynésie Française. in Collection Faune et Flore 
Tropicales. ORSTOM, Paris. 
Frost, D.R. 2002. Amphibian Species of the World: an Online Reference. American 
of Natural History, New York, USA. 
Gillet, R., McCoy, M., Rodwell, L.,and Tamate, J. 2001. Tuna: A Key Economic 
Resource in the Pacific. Pacific Studies Series. Manila: ADB.

Given, D.R. 1992. An Overview of the Terrestrial Biodiversity of Pacific Islands. SPREP, 
Goldin, M.R. 2002. Field guide to the Samoan archipelago: fish, wildlife, and protected 
areas. Bess Press. 
IPCC. 1996. Climate Change 1995. The Science of Climate Change. Summary for Policy 
Makers and Technical Summary of the Working Group 1. Report
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, 
Cambridge: 56pp. 
ISSG. n.d. 100 of the World’s Worst Invasive Alien Species. IUCN Oceania Regional 
Committee, Auckland. 
ISSG. 2003. Global Invasive Species Database (GISD). IUCN Invasive Species 
Specialist Group. (http://www.issg.appfa.auckland.ac.nz/database/welcome/) 
IUCN. 2003. 2003 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. (http://www.redlist.org/) 
IUCN. 2004a. WCPA World Commission on Protected Areas. 
IUCN. 2004b. Theme on Indigenous and Local Communities, Equity and 
Protected Areas: A joint Theme/Working Group of WCPA and CEESP. 
IUCN-UNEP. 2003. 2003 World Database on Protected Areas. (CD-ROM). IUCN, 
Geneva and UNEP, Nairobi. 
Keith, P., Vignieux, E., and Marquet, G. 2002. Atlas des poissons et de crustacés d'eau 
douce de Polynésie Française. Collection Patrimoines Naturels 
Volume 55. Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Paris 
Lal,B.V,. and  Fortune, K. 2000 (eds). The Pacific Islands An Encyclopedia. University 
of Hawaii Press, Hawaii. 
Lydeard, C., Cowie, R.C.,  Ponder, W.F., Bogan, A.E., Bouchet, P., Clark, S.A., 
Cummings, K.S., Frest, T.J., Gargominy, O., Herbert, D.G., Hershler, R., Perez, 
K.E., Roth, B., Seddon, M., Strong, E.E., and Thompson, F.G. In Press. The 
Global Decline of Nonmarine Mollusks. Bioscience 54, No. 4. 
Manner, H. 2003. Ecosystem Profile, Polynesia Micronesia Hotspot Micronesia 
Subregion. Unpub. report prepared for CI, Apia. 
Martel, F., and Atherton, J. 1997. Timber inventory of the ifilele resource : Uafato 
conservation area project. SPREP, Apia 

MacArthur, R.H., and Wilson, E.O. 1967. The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton 
University Press, New Jersey.  
McCormack, G. 2002. Cook Islands Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. UNDP. 
McIntyre, M. Personal Communication, 2004, Apia. 
Meyer, J.-Y. 2000. Preliminary review of the invasive plants in the Pacific islands 
(SPREP member countries). In Invasive Species in the Pacific: A Technical 
Review and Draft Regional Strategy. Sherley, G. (Ed.). SPREP, Apia. 
Meyer, J.-Y. and Florence, J. 1996. Tahiti’s native flora endangered by the invasion of 
Miconia calvescens DC. (Melastomaceae). Journal of Biogeography 23:775-781. 
Meyer, J.-Y. Personal Communication, 2004, Papeete. 
Mueller-Dombois, D., and Fosberg, F. R. 1998. Vegetation of the Tropical Pacific 
Islands. Springer-Verlag, New York. 
Mueller-Dombois, D. 2002. Forest vegetation across the tropical Pacific: A 
Biogeographically complex region with many analogous environments. Plant 
Ecology 163:155-176. 
Mueller-Dombois, D. Personal. Communication, 2004, Honolulu. 
Nishida, G.M. and Evenhuis, N.L. 2000. Arthropod pests of significance in the Pacific: A 
preliminary assessment of selected groups. In Invasive Species in the Pacific: A 
Technical Review and Draft Regional Strategy. Sherley, G. (Ed.). SPREP, Apia. 
Nunn, P. 1994. Oceanic Islands. Blackwell, Oxford. 
Olson, D, and Farley, L. 2003. Polynesia Micronesia Hotspot Ecosystem Profile and 
Five-Year Investment Strategy: Fiji Sub Regional Profile. Unpub.report prepared 
for CI, Apia. 
Olson, D.M. Personal Communication, 2003, Fiji. 
Olson, D.M. and Dinerstein, E. 1998. The Global 200: a representation approach to 
conserving the Earth’s most biologically valuable ecoregions. Conservation 
Biology 12: 502–515. 
Olson, D.M., Dinerstein, E., Wikramanayake, E.D., Burgess, N.D., Powell, G.V.N., 
Underwood, E.C., D’Amico, J.A., Strand, H.E., Morrison, J.C., Loucks, C.J., 
Allnutt, T.F., Lamoreux, J.F., Ricketts, T.H., Itoua, I., Wettengel, W.W., Kura, 

Y., Hedao, P. and Kassem, K. 2001. Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: a new 
map of life on Earth. BioScience 51: 933–938. 
PABITRA. 2004. The Pacific Asia Biodiversity Transect Network. 
Peteru, C. 1993. Government of Western Samoa legislative review. SPREP, Apia. 
PIER. 2004. Pacific Island Ecosystems at Risk (PIER).(http://www.hear.org/pier/) 
Raust, P. 2003. French Polynesia Subregional Profile. Unpub. report prepared for CI, 
Roberts, C.M., McClean, C.J., Veron, J.E.N., Hawkins, J.P., Allen, G.R., McAllister, 
D.E., Mittermeier, C.G., Schueller, F.W., Spalding, M., Wells, F., Vynne, C. and 
Werner, T.B. 2002. Marine biodiversity hotspots and conservation priorities for 
tropical reefs. Science 295: 1280–1284. 
Salinger, M.J., Renwick, J.A. and Mullan, A.B. 2001. Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation 
and South Pacific Climate. International Journal of Climatology, 21 (14), pp 
Scott, D.A. 1993. A Directory of Wetlands in Oceania. International Waterfowl and 
Wetlands Research Bureau, Asian Wetlands Bureau. 
Sesega, S. 2003. West Polynesia Ecosystem Profile. Unpub. report prepared for CI, Apia. 
Sherley, G and Lowe, S. 2000. Toward a regional invasive species strategy for the South 
Pacific: issues and options. In Invasive Species in the Pacific: A Technical Review 
and Draft Regional Strategy. Sherley, G. (Ed.). SPREP, Apia. 
Smith, A. C. 1979 to 1995. Flora Vitiensis Nova. Volumes 1-5. Pacific Tropical 
Botanical Garden, Lawai, Kauai
SOPAC 2001. SOPAC Annual Report Summary 2000. SOPAC, Suva. 
SOPAC. 2003. Reducing Vulnerability of ACP States. 
SPC. 2003a. Secretariat of the Pacific Community.Oceania Population Update 2003. 
SPC. 2003b. Secretariat of the Pacific Community. SPESS Tables. 

Space, J. Personal Communication, 2004, Honolulu. 
SPREP 1992. The Pacific Way. Pacific Island Developing Countries’ Report to the 
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. SPREP, Noumea. 
SPREP. 1998. Action Strategy for Environmental Education and Training in the Pacific 
Region 1998-2003. SPREP, Apia. 
SPREP. 1999. Action Strategy for Nature Conservation in the Pacific Islands Region. 
1999-2002. SPREP, Apia. 
SPREP.2001. South Pacific Regional Environment Program (SPREP) 2000 Annual 
Report. SPREP, Apia. 
SPREP. 2003a. Action Strategy for Nature Conservation in the Pacific Islands Region 
2003-2007 (eVersion). SPREP, Apia.  
SPREP. 2003b. SPREP Annual Report 2002. Sustaining Pacific resources and 
development. SPREP, Apia.  
SPREP. 2003c. Education and Awareness- Essential Ingredients for sustainable 
development. Unpub. information paper prepared by Seema Deo. SPREP, Apia 
Stattersfield, A.J., Crosby, M. J., Long, A.J. and Wege, D.C. 1998. Endemic Bird Areas 
of the World: Priorities for Biodiversity Conservation. BirdLife International, 
Steadman, D.W. 1995. Prehistoric extinctions of Pacific island birds: biodiversity meets 
zooarchaeology. Science 267:1123-1131. 
Stoddart, D.R. 1992. Biogeography of the Tropical Pacific. Pacific Science 46 (2): 276-
Timpson, S.L., Twining-Ward, T., Miles, G. and Ravuvu, A. 2003. GEF Small Grants 
Program (SGP) Mission to the Pacific island region. 1-17 April, 2003. Unpub. 
report prepared for UNDP, Apia. 
TNC. 2003. A Blueprint for Conserving the Biodiversity of the Federated States of 
Micronesia. Micronesia Program Office, The Nature Conservancy, Pohnpei, 
Twining- Ward, T. Personal Communication, 2003, Apia 
UNDP. 1994. Pacific Human Development Report: Putting People first. UNDP, Suva. 

UNDP. 2005. Human Development Report. 
UNDP. 1999. Pacific Human Development Report: Creating Opportunities. UNDP, 
UNDP. 2002. National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP). Federated States 
of Micronesia. UNDP, Suva. 
UNEP 1999. Pacific Islands Environment Outlook. Miles, G. (compiler). SPREP, UNEP, 
and the European Community. 
UNESCO. 2003a Proceedings of the World Heritage Marine Biodiversity Workshop. 
Hanoi, Vietnam, Feb 25- Mar 5, 2002. Hillary, A., Kokkonen, M., and Max, L. 
(Eds.). UNESCO, Paris. 
UNESCO. 2003b.Central Pacific World Heritage Project. International Workshop 
Report 2-6 June, 2003, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. UNESCO, Paris. 
United States Census Bureau. 2003. (http://eire.census.gov/popest/estimates.php) 
Van Balgooy, M.M.J. 1966-1993. Pacific Plant Areas. Volumes 2-5. 
Rijksherbarium/Hortus Botanicus, Leiden. 
van Royen, P. and Davis, S.D. 1995. Regional Overview: Pacific Ocean islands. In: 
Davis, S.D., Heywood, V.H and Hamilton, A.C. (Eds.). Centers of Plant 
Diversity. A Guide and Strategy for their Conservation. Volume 2. Asia, 
Australasia and the Pacific. WWF and IUCN. IUCN Publications Unit, 
Cambridge (U.K.). 
Veron, J.E.N. 1986. Corals of Australia and the Indo-Pacific. The University of Hawaii 
Press, Hawaii. 
WCMC. 1992. Global Biodiversity: status of the earth's living resources. Groombridge, 
B (ed.). WCMC, Cambridge. 
WCMC. 1994. Biodiversity Data Sourcebook. WCMC Biodiversity Series No.1. 
Groombridge, B. (Ed.). Jenkins, M. (Advisory Ed.). WCMC, Cambridge. 
Whistler, A. 2002. Samoan Rainforests. A guide to the vegetation of the Samoan 
Archipelago. Isle Botanica, Hawaii. 
Whistler, A. Personal Communication, 2003, Honolulu.
1   ...   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   ...   17

Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©azkurs.org 2020
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

    Ana səhifə