LA Workshops
Two workshops were held in 2004 in order to determine LA priority sites. These exercises were geared to both tap regional scientific expertise and to seek
guidance and support from national conservation
representatives and other conservation NGOs in the selection process.
The first workshop was held in Honolulu from 14-16 April, and the second workshop in Apia, Samoa on 24 and 26 April. Summaries and objectives of each workshop are presented on their respective pages, and reports are available upon request.
Living Archipelagos Honolulu Workshop, Bishop Museum, April 14-16, 2004. The purpose of the Honolulu workshop was to convene a group of scientists with extensive expertise in flora and fauna and conservation needs of Polynesia and Micronesia to provide guidance in the selection of potential Living Archipelagos sites. The 2.5 day workshop was hosted at the Bishop Museum on April 14-16, and was attended by 27 of the region’s top zoologists, botanists, marine scientists, and conservationists.
The objectives of the Honolulu workshop were to:
- Introduce regional experts to the Living Archipelagos initiative;
- Solicit scientific expertise on the ecological value of nominated sites;
- Identify species and ecosystems most at risk from human disturbance in the Polynesia-Micronesia region;
- Seek expert input to narrow the list of nominated Living Archipelagos priority sites (from 55 to about 10 sites);
- Discuss the management and political capacity, as well as the challenges for effective conservation action, for the region and proposed sites in particular; and
- Identify potential projects and in-country partners to achieve our conservation goals.
Participants at the workshop were first introduced to the vision and goals of Living Archipelagos, followed by presentations on the biodiversity and threats in the region (see abstracts). The remainder of the workshop focused on evaluation of each of the 55 nominated sites to identify the most appropriate sites for Living Archipelagos attention. It was emphasized that priority sites would be those with high ecological value that face imminent threat, but that also could be quickly saved with relatively small amounts of time, effort, and money. As such, practicality is a key element. Addition guidelines to inform the site selection process were discussed.
Each site considered had its unique set of values, threats, and potential for conservation. In general, however, priority sites were distinguished by supporting one or more of the following ecological values:
- seabird populations of global significance whether due to high diversity, rare species, large populations, or important breeding assemblages
- important site for endemics, especially land birds and plants
- healthy populations and/or important nesting beaches for sea turtles
- presence of IUCN Red Listed species (endangered, threatened, and vulnerable)
- healthy or at risk populations of coconut crabs
- pristine reefs and lagoons with high marine diversity
- free from invasive species including rats (especially Rattus rattus), cats, and/or ants (or where effective removal was possible)
- representative examples of disappearing habitats, such as Pisonia forests, makatea forests, pristine lagoons, and others
Sites that were considered ecological gems were then subject to a second consideration: the potential for conservation success where focused Living Archipelagos attention would indeed make a difference. Success potential was considered contingent on national support and political will, buy-in from local community leaders, and on-the-ground conservation partners to oversee project implementation. Although more work is needed to determine the extent these factors are present, sites that made this cut based on the knowledge of workshop participants were elevated in priority. Sites considered to already have a strong conservation presence, where LA involvement would not add significantly to the outcome, were given lower priority or dropped from the list. As a result of these and similar discussions at the Apia workshop, the nominations list was culled to about 25 potential sites, which are now undergoing further evaluation including consultations with government decision-makers.
A wide variety of conservation actions were discussed during the workshop that fit within LA’s guidelines and that could help to mitigate the identified threats at given sites. These include among others:
- measures to prevent introduction of alien species and invasive species control such as rat, cat and weed removal;
- livestock control through fencing;
- development of controlled ecotourism;
- measures to monitor and mitigate against the potential impacts of ecotourism;
- assistance in drafting and implementing a management plan for already protected areas;
- signage and posters to inform locals of conservation needs and protections;
- remote site cameras to help monitor and enforce against poaching;
- educating government decision-makers about the conservation values and needs of LA sites;
- establish a protected area with local support; and
- build support for other conservation efforts in the region, such as endorsing designation of UNESCO’s proposed Central Pacific World Heritage Site.
Although the need for baseline surveys and ongoing monitoring are urgently needed at some of the proposed sites, LA is focused on relatively short-term action that puts a site under immediate protection or eliminates the current threat. These efforts by LA will be complemented by other efforts of the Bishop Museum and its partners to collect biodiversity and status data, compile and maintain species databases, and support complementary efforts of partner conservation organizations.
The full workshop report is available on request.
- Apia Workshop
A second Living Archipelagos priority-setting exercise was undertaken in Apia, Samoa, April 24 and 26, 2004. The Apia workshop was held at the headquarters of the South Pacific Regional Environment Program (SPREP), which provided excellent facilities and support by staff. Whereas the Honolulu workshop sought the expert advice of pre-eminent regional scientists on the biological value of the sites, the Apia workshop was designed to seek guidance and support from national conservation representatives and other conservation NGOs in the final selection of priority LA sites. It was scheduled for April to take advantage of the regional expertise gathered in Apia for a joint meeting hosted by SPREP of the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan Coordinators and the Pacific Islands Roundtable for Nature Conservation Working Group. As a result, 32 participants representing 15 Pacific island nations were in attendance at this two-day Living Archipelagos workshop.
The objectives of the Apia workshop were similar to the Honolulu meeting. However rather than focusing on science or region-wide patterns of biodiversity, the aim in Apia was to receive expert input from government representatives and on-the-ground conservationists on the LA mission, approach, and site selection. This workshop was intended as a ground-truthing, and as a first step toward building in-country support and identifying potential partners for LA projects.
Following introductions, an overview of the Living Archipelagos initiative, the nominated site list, site profiles, and guidelines for site selection were presented. This was followed by a visual tour (slide show) of many of the nominated sites. In addition, there were presentations on the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund’s (CEPF) Polynesia-Micronesia Ecosystem Profile and on the proposed Central Pacific Islands World Heritage Site by a representative of UNESCO.
The 55 sites with written profiles, as well as an additional 18 sites nominated at the Honolulu workshop, were open for discussion at the Apia workshop. Whereas some of these sites were removed from the list after discussion, a few other sites were added for consideration by Apia workshop participants. The goal was to determine which sites, while fitting within LA guidelines, also meshed well with national conservation priorities and were doable given current capacities within their respective countries. Unfortunately, few participants were empowered to set conservation priorities for their governments during this workshop and some preferred not to comment on the site list at this time.
Therefore, although previously nominated sites were discussed and new ones added for some countries, a final priority site list was not generated. The list, however, was culled to about 25 sites for further evaluation. We are currently undertaking consultations with each of the countries for which priority sites have been identified so as to obtain national and local guidance in the final selection of sites and official endorsement for subsequent LA action at the chosen sites.
A summary of the perspectives and recommendations coming out of the Apia workshop may be found in the final workshop report, and is available upon request.