Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.

Log In
Sign Up

Figure 34 – uploaded by Tiffany Straza

See full PDF downloadDownload figure

Report. Note that the Framework objectives and principles are relevant for efforts towards the desired outcomes for all 31 indicators; however here we indicate only where an indicator serves to provide a direct measurement of progress towards a Framework objective. — Table 34 Report. Note that the Framework objectives and principles are relevant for efforts towards the desired outcomes for all 31 indicators; however here we indicate only where an indicator serves to provide a direct measurement of progress towards a Framework objective.

Related Figures (110)

Suggested citation: SPREP (2020) State of Environment and Conservation in the Pacific Islands: 2020 Regional Report. Straza TRA (author). Wheatley A, Anderson P, Callebaut J, Reupena L (eds). Apia, Samoa: Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme.

TABLE i.1: Characteristics of the 21 Pacific island countries and territories forming the Pacific islands region assessed in the State of Environment and Conservation in the Pacific Islands: 2020 Regional Report. Population data are from The Pacific Community’s Statistics for Development Division; see https:/

Focusing on human health alone is not enough to address the underlying causes of human health status. Similarly, focusing on environmental change as a technical problem is not enough: we must consider the socio-cultural context of human-induced drivers of ecological change.

PRESENT STATUS

TABLE 2.1: Most recent year of reporting from Pacific parties to international and regional MEAs relevant for environmental management, as of September 2020. Note: UNFCCC Non- Annex | Parties are required to submit their first National Communication within three years of entering the Convention, and every four years thereafter. Most Pacific island countries are due to submit their third NC. See https://unfccc.int/non-annex-|-NCs

© Ocean Ventures Fiji, www.oceanventuresfiji.com

PRESENT STATUS

This collation is a non-comprehensive, desk-based summary of information that was publicly available online using standardised text searches of the Pacific Island Legal Information Institute database (http://www.paclii.org) and the Pacific Law & Policy Database on Coastal Fisheries & Aquaculture (https://www.spc. int/CoastalFisheries/Legislation/main) in August and September 2020 using the specified search terms. New Zealand’s wildlife legislation is shown for comparison. A key difference is in the protection of all wildlife by default unless permitted use is specified (as done in New Zealand) versus wildlife uses assumed to be permitted unless use is specifically prohibited for a defined species, location, or purpose.

Source: Global Forest Watch, accessed May 2020. TABLE 4.1 Tree cover loss based on >75% canopy density

Source: FAOSTAT http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/RL TABLE 4.2 Total and primary forest cover and rate of change, 1990-2015 (most recent year). ha = hectares — indicates no data available

Log loading dump, Choiseul, Solomon Islands © Stuart Chape PRESSURES AND OPPORTUNITIES REGIONAL RESPONSE RECOMMENDATIONS

PRESENT STATUS There are active drinking water or freshwater monitoring programmes in 11 of 14 Pacific countries and 6 of 7 territories. The primary challenge is the regularity and frequency of sampling, the capacity to process samples accurately in country, and the official response process to the findings. There is no regional data collation for this proposed indicator, to date.

Piula freshwater pool, Samoa. © Charles Netzler

PRESENT STATUS

FIGURE 6.1: Agricultural land as a share of total land area in Pacific island countries and territories, 2017 or closest year (%). The share of agricultural land is often highest for the most land-limited countries, such as the atoll nations. Source: FAO (2019)

Sugar cane fields in the dry season, Nadi, Fiji. © Stuart Chape

PRESENT STATUS CRITICAL CONNECTIONS

PRESENT STATUS High variability in coral reef cover among the studied sites also supports the idea that reef health is driven by local factors, not just global changes. Local management actions can support local coral ecosystems and help to mitigate the inevitable effects of global change, at least in the near future Simplifying coral reef ecosystems to a single number for a country, or for a region, runs counter to our knowledge of the complexity and variability that characterise healthy reefs in a healthy oceanscape.

TABLE 9.1: State of coastal and/or nearshore water quality monitoring in Pacific island countries and territories. Data were not publicly accessible (-) for some countries or some factors, in a desk-based assessment using publicly available informatior E. coli: Escherichia coli

NATIONAL RESPONSE RECOMMENDATIONS

At the global level, these four species are listed on the IUCN Red List as follows: Data regarding tuna biomass and catch in the Pacific islands region are routinely collected and reported by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (see WCPFC Tuna Fishery Yearbooks), Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA), and key partners including the Oceanic Fisheries Programme of the Pacific Community (SPC)

PRESENT STATUS Inshore fish populations are complex, exist in variable and rapidly changing ecosystems, and are harvested and impacted by a broad range of users, making their management complex. resources, which provide the primary or Coastal and inshore resources used for food, livelihoods, and cultural purposes are diverse and include more than the generic ‘fish’ as finfish. These resources are used by different people within Pacific societies; for example, women dominate in the collection and use of sea vegetables, crab, and shellfish, and coastal invertebrates are priorities for the cultural and commercial arts. For the purpose of this indicator summary, we focus on inshore vertebrate fish but as a proxy for the wide range of other organisms and resources.

PRESENT STATUS FISH ARE SWALLOWING MICROPLASTICS

104 pieces of marine plastic retrieved from an individual Pacific chub (Kyphosus sandwicensis) fish from Rapa Nui, Easter Island. © Ana Markic We still do not know the full impacts of plastics on marine life or on our own health.

Marine plastic pollution, Honiara harbour, Solomon Islands. © Bradley Nolan

TABLE 12.1: Plastic in household waste in selected Pacific island countries and territories. Adapted from SPREP (2016 and forthcoming). The unweighted regional mean from 15 sites was 16.5% plastic in waste (SPREP 2016).

a The states of Yap (2014) and Pohnpei (2012) had existing bans on single-use plastic bags. TABLE 12.2: Existing single-use plastic management measures in Pacific island countries and territories. As of August 2020, there are bans or levies on selected types of single-use plastics in 11 of 14 countries and 6 of 7 territories.

Forest mangroves, Buena Vista Island, Solomon Islands. © Stuart Chape

FIGURE 13.1. Percentage of terrestrial and marine areas protected by Pacific islands, arranged by protected area for land ecosystems. Approximately 40% of Niue’s marine area will be protected under a new MPA established under the Niue Moana Mahu Marine Protected Area Regulations 2020; Niue is undertaking the process of formally updating its WDPA record. Source: World Database on Protected Areas (June 2020) Measuring protection For this assessment, official data supplied by governments and held in the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) were used. The WDPA is a joint project of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) and is the most comprehensive global database on terrestrial and marine protected areas as defined using IUCN and CBD definitions. The Biodiversity and Protected Areas Management (BIOPAMA) Programme is conducting separate analyses to create the forthcoming State of Protected and Conserved Areas in Oceania (SoPACA) report, funded by the European Union and the Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States (Leverington et al. 2020). For more, see www.biopama.org

1 Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), part of the waters governed by a country. The disputed area of Matthew and Hunter Islands with 187,184 km? is not included in either New Caledonia or Vanuatu data here but is included in the sum of regional EEZs. Note that the EEZ area used by the WDPA to calculate the percentage of national territory protected differs slightly due to variations in map projections. The Pacific islands region also contains 31,116,075 square kilometres of High Seas, the open waters outside of the national jurisdiction of any country also known as International Waters or Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction. 2 In 2020, Niue designated 127,000 km? of its EEZ as a new MPA, under the Niue Moana Mahu Marine Protected Area Regulations 2020. Niue is working with PIPAP (SPREP) to update its data in the WDPA. TABLE 13.1: Formally designated protected areas (PAs) in the Pacific islands region. The total number of protected areas is regularly updated. The size (km2: square kilometres) of protected areas depends in part on the mapping system used; for this reason, slight variations in the reported coverage are to be expected. Source: World Database of Protected Areas, October 2020; for EEZ: World Exclusive Economic Zones, version 11 (November 2019) Marineregions.org; for terrestrial area: United Nations Statistics Division; for Niue’s marine protected area, Niue Moana Mahu Marine Protected Area Regulations 2020

PRESENT STATUS

PRESENT STATUS The Pacific islands region (including Pitcairn) has an area of ocean of approximately 58,994,235 square kilometres, which includes international waters and approximately 27,878,160 square kilometres of national exclusive economic zones (EEZs), 20% of the global EEZs. Protected marine areas cover 5,602,919 square kilometres! of this area, approximately 20% of Pacific EEZs. Less than 4% of the marine protected area of the Pacific islands region has undergone the Protected Area Management Effectiveness (PAME) evaluation (see Table 13.1; WDPA 2020).

Pacific island countries and territories are in the early stages of using Protected Area Management Effectiveness (PAME) assessment tools in the formally protected areas in the region.

PRESENT STATUS WHAT IS A KEY BIODIVERSITY AREA (KBA)? In the Pacific, KBAs have been identified in three biodiversity hotspots: Polynesia-Micronesia, East Melanesia Islands, and New Caledonia. These hotspots collectively include all Pacific island countries and territories (Table 13.2). At 25% or less, the overall proportion of KBAs even partially covered by protected areas in the Pacific islands region remains alarmingly low despite the significant increase in the coverage of IBAs and AZEs over the last several decades (Leverington et al. 2020; IPBES 2018).

The CBD uses these scientific criteria to identify an EBSA in need of protection: Uniqueness or Rarity; Special importance for life-history stages of species; Importance for threatened, endangered or declining species and/or habitats; Vulnerability, Fragility, Sensitivity or Slow recovery; Biological Productivity; Biological Diversity; and Naturalness

NUMBER IDENTIFIED KBAS AREA IDENTIFIED KBAS (KM?) NUMBERIDENTIFIEDIBAS AREA IDENTIFIED IBAS (KM2)

PRESENT STATUS

FIGURE 19.1: Progress toward the regional objectives, classified by achievement and divided among the three thematic areas of the Guidelines for Invasive Species Management in the Pacific (2009). All data are for 2019 with the following exceptions: Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (2018), Palau (2018), Phoenix Islands (Kiribati) (2018), Pohnpei (Federated States of Micronesi: (2017). The horizontal line represents 50%. Thick black lines represent the median for that particular objective. If the thick line is above the median, that means the region is over halfway to success for that objective indicator. Green to red: achieved to not achieved.

PRESSURES AND OPPORTUNITIES

The ko‘ko‘, Guam Rail Hypotaenidia owstoni, is the second bird in history to recover from being declared extinct in the wild (IUCN Red List 2019). The accidental introduction of the brown tree snake (Boiga irregularis), which became invasive, devasted the populations of this small bird and changed the forests of Guam. With fewer birds, spiders became more abundant. Without birds to spread seeds, native plants and trees declined.

PRESENT STATUS 19% of all listed species (17% of terrestrial, 21% of marine). To date, there is no defined list of priority migratory species of concern (indicator species) at the regional level for the Pacific islands to direct efforts. The Regional Marine Species Action Plans (under revision; see below) and the regional CMS Memorandum of Understanding (2006) for cetaceans can be considered as part of regional level prioritisation. For birds, BirdLife’s Datazone includes a list of migratory species for each country in the region. At the national level, priority species may be defined in the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) created as part of country efforts under the Convention on Biological Diversity. Among marine migratory species, 79% are at risk? and 73% of these at-risk species show population declines. Of all marine migratory species, 58% have declining populations, 58% are at risk? with declining populations, and 6% are at risk with unknown population trends. The population status of three marine migratory species are worse in the Pacific than elsewhere in the species’ range: humpback whales, loggerhead turtles and leatherback turtles, all iconic Pacific species.

TABLE 21.1: Global population trends of the species listed on the Appendices of the Convention on Migratory Species that are present in the Pacific islands region. Data are the number of species. For 3 species, all marine, the Pacific subpopulations have a poorer status than the global population: Humpback whales are EN in the Pacific region (LC globally), with an increasing trend; Loggerhead turtles are CR in the Pacific region (VU globally), with a decreasing trend; Leatherback turtles are CR in the Pacific region (VU globally), with a decreasing trend. Source: Species+ and the IUCN Red List, July 2020 Note: Shorebirds are categorised as ‘terrestrial’, whereas seabirds (albatross and petrel) are categorised as ‘marine’ species. Species included were those present in the 21 Pacific island countries and territories that are Members of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme, with the addition of Pitcairn. Each species that was present in Pitcairn was also present in at least one other Member country or territory.

TABLE 22.2: Red List assessments of species in Pacific island countries and territories published in 2010, 2015, and 2020. Although the number of assessments published in 2020 was substantially greater than the number published in 2010 or 2015, the share of those species that are at risk increased and the share of syecies with stable nonulations dronpned. Source: IUCN (2020)

POPULATION TREND % # UNKNOWN STABLE DECREASING INCREASIN(

FIGURE 22.1: Number of species found within all IUCN Red List risk categories for all 22 Pacific island countries and territories combined, 2020. Source: IUCN (2020)

FIGURE 22.3: Species at risk as a share of all species on the IUCN Red List, by Pacific island country or territory (%), 2020. Species in the categories Extinct in the Wild, Critically Endangered, Endangered, and Vulnerable were considered at risk. Note that the identification of species at risk relies on data-driven assessments, thereby the share of species at risk could be underestimated for understudied islands. CNMI: Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Source: IUCN (2020)

FIGURE 22.2: Number of species on the IUCN Red List at risk in Pacific island countries and territories, 2020. Countries are arranged by order of largest to smallest terrestrial area. Refer to Table 22.4 for data detail and land area. Numbers of specie: of Least Concern are excluded from this graph, provided in breakdown detail as Table 22.3. There is a general pattern of more species assessments on the Red List from countries with more land area and the highest biodiversity overall. CNMI: Commonwealth of the Norther Mariana Islands. Source: IUCN (2020)

TABLE 22.3: Number of Red Listed species in selected taxonomic groups in the Pacific island countries and territories. These groups range from taxonomic Kingdom to Order and are not comprehensive of all Pacific species. Mammalia is subdivided by system into terrestrial or marine; the New Zealand fur seal (Arctocephalus forsteri) and leopard seal (Hydrurga leptonyx) are included in both systems and are bott considered of Least Concern. It is important to note that the number of described species far exceeds the number on the Red List for some groups. Significant gaps in representation remain for fungi, plants, insects (not shown) and more (Pippard 2008); for example, only 10 species of fungi have been assessed and listed, all since 2013. Source: IUCN (2020) TABLE 22.4: Number of species on the IUCN Red List by Pacific island country or territory and share of those at risk, 2020. Countries are arranged by order of largest to smallest terrestrial area. There is a general pattern of more species assessments on the Red List from countries with more land area. CNMI: Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Source: IUCN (2020)

Measures of the status of and threats to IUCN Red List Species in Pacific islands are limited by a lack of research and available data (IPBES 2018). Although baseline knowledge of Pacific island species would be ideal for

Once the indicator scorecard has been completed, it can be verified by the country, for example using a telephone interview with the Climate Change Focal Point or other suitably qualified individuals. The country scores can then be combined to give an overall picture of the regional trends and areas for improvement, while allowing for the national situation to be described if so desired. Example of an indicator assessment The indicators have been compiled into a scorecard format with each assessed against “No”, “Partial”, or “Yes” criteria, develope: to be as objective and unambiguous as possible to allow the practitioner to impartially determine a robust answer. In addition, progress towards each indicator can be described in more detail in a brief narrative section. An example of these assessment criteria can be seen in the table below; please note that the assessment criteria for the remaining indicators have been defined and are ready for use, although not shown here.

Climate resilience through environmental management Pacific islands are experiencing the most immediate effects of climate change, despite historically low contributions to global greenhouse gas emissions (IPCC 2019). Pacific islands now face expected annual losses of 0.3% to 6% of GDP or more directly due to natural disasters, such as flooding and cyclone damage, with increasing risks under climate change (IPCC 2019). Damages due to some disasters have exceeded the annual GDP (Lee et al. 2018). Pacific people are engaging with innovative solutions to combat the ecosystem effects of climate change, to harness ecosystem services for increased resilience, and to ensure that adaptation measures are aligned with long-term ecosystem health. Adaptation is already happening and at present is conducted in multiple sectors and for multiple purposes. For example, the establishment of terrestrial and marine protected areas (see Regional Indicators: Protection of Pacific Spaces) is an adaptation step. initial

1 UNFCCC Climate Finance database; see https://unfccc.int/ climatefinance/gef/gef_data (accessed September 2020) Since 2015, there has been growth in the number of entities accredited to access GCF funds, including SPREP (2015), Micronesia Conservation Trust (2017), and The Pacific

Pacific commitments to sustainable development and the increasing global attention to ecosystem-based solutions (albeit from a low starting point, estimated at less than 2% in 2017; Buchner et al. 2017) lead us to consider the status of these indicators as fair and the trends as improving or stable to improving. However, information must be collected and assessed to track these indicators and their results into the future. Data are more readily available for general climate adaptation and mitigation funding, but data regarding funds directed to EbA approaches are limited or difficult to access. FIGURE 23.1: Global Environment Facility (GEF) grant funding for climate change response in the Pacific island countries, by replenishment cycle. Grant funding represents projects identified as climate change or climate change alongside another focal area, considering only projects exclusively for Pacific islands. Pacific countries were also included in regional (outside of the Pacific islands) and global projects; data not shown here. GEF7 funds are incomplete. Source: UNFCCC Climate Finance database (accessed September 2020); see htt nfccc.int/climatefinance/gef/gef_data To take advantage of these connections, effective national adaptation plans build in ways to receive and respond to scientific and indigenous and local knowledge alongside technology transfer and international cooperation. Multi-sectoral approaches are important: tourism, energy, waste, land-use/development, climate/environment, transport, energy and other sectors all need to partner with communities to address the causes and impacts of GHG emissions.

PRESENT STATUS

FIGURE 23.2: Total greenhouse gas emissions from the 14 Pacific island countries, as a regional sum and share of the global total, from 2007 to 2016. Data are presented for the sum of all Pacific island countries with and without Papua New Guinea (PNG). The spike in 2015 is related to a spike in emissions from land use change and forestry in PNG. MtCO,e: million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. Source: Climate Data Explorer, World Resources Institute (accessed August 2020)

TABLE 23.1: Pacific greenhouse gas emissions in the most recent year with complete data for all emission types. Values are presented in thousand metric tons of CO, equivalent. Source: World Bank’s World Development Indicators, August 2020

Source: Green Climate Fund project list (accessed September 2020) GCF funding noted; in many projects, additional co-financing has been committed.

PRESENT STATUS Ozone depleting substances (ODS) are considered hazardous wastes due to the impacts of ozone destruction on people, ecosystems, and species. For more about other hazardous wastes, please see Regional Indicator: Hazardous waste.

Electric Vehicles for Sustainable Transport, Samoa. © Roland Setu PRESENT STATUS

FIGURE 27.1: Target and actual share of renewable energy in electricity production in Pacific island countries. Kiribati’s data are for solar only for South Tarawa only. Micronesia: Federated States of Micronesia. Sources: see Table 27.1

TABLE 27.1: Electricity access, renewable energy targets, status upon completion of active projects, and existing share of renewables in total electricity production in Pacific island countries and territories. Data were unavailable for American Samoz Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Guam. Note that Tokelau achieved 100% solar power in 2012. Sources: Access, 2018 generation, and 2019 capacity from International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) Statistical Profiles, September 2020 with the following exceptions: Marshall Islands generation data pers. comm. Ben Wakefield, Deputy Director, National Energy Office; Tokelau generation data from Government of Tokelau (2016). Targets based on national energy policies, NDCs, and Asian Development Bank Pacific Energy Update 2019. Additional information about existing status available from country presentations at the Pacific Islands Renewable Energy Statistics Workshop, Nadi, Fiji, 22-24 October 2019 as well as: Kiribati data from Kiribati Integrated Energy Roadmap 2017-2025; Nauru data from Wyder (2018) Review of the Nauru Energy Road Map 2014-2020; Niue data from Niue Solar Installations 2016 from PRDRSE4ALL database; Samoa data from EPC 36th Annual Report 2017-2018; Vanuatu data from Vanuatu Utilities Regulatory Authority (2018) Electricity Fact Sheet 2012-2017.

PRESENT STATUS

FIGURE 28.1: Municipal waste generation per person in the Pacific islands, 2019 or most recent year. Municipal solid waste includes household, commercial and institutional waste. Sources: (columns) SPREP (forthcoming), (dots) national State of Environment reports or estimates based on income status using Kaza et al. (2018) values for upper-middle income countries (Tokelau) or an averaged value of upper-middle and high-income status (Cook Islands). Dashed line: regional target; solid line: global average (0.74 kg per person per day)

Nauru landfill car dump © Stuart Chape PRESENT STATUS

Ship wrecks, Honiara, Solomon Islands © Stuart Chape

Note that the facility type sewer refers to sewer connections only and does not consider the level of treatment. Of the sewage that was collected and treated, about 88% was treated to primary standards and 65% to secondary standards as of 2013 (the most recent year with data). Source: JMP washdata.org for households (May 2020); for more information, see Ff (RO, on STE Mo Fa Vs Ft andl

FSM: Federated States of Micronesia; RMI: Republic of the Marshall Islands; PNG: Papua New Guinea Parties to international and regional MEAs relevant for SPREP activities — Updated: July 2020 Citation: SPREP (2020) State of Environment and Conservation in the Pacific Islands: 2020 Regional Report. Apia, Samoa: SPREP.

OKIS FSM FIJI KIRIBAT! RMI NAURU NIUEPALAU PNG SAMOA SOLOMON IS TONGA TUVALU VANUATI

Related topics:

Pacific Island Studies Renewable Energy Conservation Environment and natural resources conservation Resilience (Sustainability)Environmental Sustainability Threatened species and ecosystems Plastic waste

Connect with 287M+ leading minds in your field

Discover breakthrough research and expand your academic network

Explore
Papers
Topics

Features
Mentions
Analytics
PDF Packages
Advanced Search
Search Alerts

Journals
Academia.edu Journals
My submissions
Reviewer Hub
Why publish with us
Testimonials

Company
About
Careers
Press
Help Center
Terms
Privacy
Copyright
Content Policy

580 California St., Suite 400

San Francisco, CA, 94104

© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved