REPORT OF THE WORKING GROUP ON
APPLICATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION
TO ISLANDS OF THE SOUTHERN OCEAN
DECEMBER 1, 1992
IUCN The WorldConservationPinion To:
Date: From:
Subject: Convention
With
While Application In objectives.
of widely the task. Notwithstanding been
I the involved and
objectives.
Paul
am
the
time
findings Jim
Southern
to
possible pleasure
also R.
Moreover, 30
/•
limited
the
Paul
the
scattered
during
Thorsell.
Dingwall
/.
November,
Report in
hopeful Group
World
Dingwall.
of applying
to
in
Ocean.
time
for I
the the
the Islands
attach
group
while
has
the
Heritage of Senior all
that
World course
report,
available
the
members
above 1992 made
the
Working
herewith
the
there of
of
Working
Adviser
natural
Heritage
of
the full busy
Working
Committee
some
qualifications,
the
it
is
consensus Southern
of
has
general
people,
Group a
work
criteria
good Natural
the copy
Group
been
Convention
Group
Group
in
Convenor
progress, in
of
agreement
some
difficult
remote
of Ocean
has
their
Heritage,
the
on
I
can
the
to
hope
not
of report
Application
understanding
make
World
to continue
whom island
it
to
been
that Islands
among
has
IUCN
bring
of
a
Heritage
the achieved
not
fully the
locations.
have
with
to
of
Group report
yet
Working
of
completion
effective
the
spent
the of
its
completed
Guidelines
on
Southern
the
is
task
members
World
Thus,
considerable
helpful
all
complex
Group
contribution and
matters.
the
it
Heritage all
Ocean. complete
has
both
with
to
on
work
its
issues
islands
not
set
periods to
most
of
yet
IUCN
to
all
a
the
of
of
its
(iii)
evolution
(ii)
In
(i) The
criteria, The
to Heritage
universal The
OBJECTIVES
in
did nomination
with
considering No
nominate Heritage
Working
under
reserves was supported Paimpont
The
nominations consider islands
(IUCN,
of candidate
Paimpont,
Subantarctic Protected (Walton, The
considered
BACKGROUND
islands
APPLICATION
identify
making
order
IUCN,
Subantarctic
not
objective
Australian
work
placed
Be
call
SCARJIUCN
other
Be
Contain
preparation
clearly
was
might
outstanding
summarised
to
1991)
outstanding
was to
Listing
a
criteria
Group
value”,
and
as
1986).
reported
Areas,
held
sites
SCARJIUCN
the
the
joint
Subantarctic
and
be France
nations
that
on
was
World
repeated
World
among
belt,
presented
inscribed
of
“man’s
be
desired need
superlative
an
went
establish
protect
in
(Dingwall,
Government
IUCN
review
OF
based
to
the
islands
in
(Dingwall
proposed
that This
at
Perth
indicative
as
as
in
Workshop
here
assess
Heritage
to
Heritage
for
1990,
its
OF
further
examples
World
THE
Subantarctic
a
as
examples
a
1986,
in
interaction
they
consider
comparisons.
was
those
basis
should
29th
partly precursor
a
in
Australia
of
follows:
under
Recommendations
islands.
THE
is
Workshop
the
have
comparative
and
the
natural
the
1990
WORLD intended
form
1987). supported
for
recommended
Hertitage
OF
in
and
Working
uniqueness
list
for
status
natural
nominated
sites,
on
natural
yet
on
Macquarie
WORLD
take
World
the
suggesting
representing
international
World
representing
(Molloy
THE
concerted
Trehen,
of
part
the
The
to
with
Subantarctic
in
attained
islands,
phenomena, Convention,
sites
and the
for
on
possible
to
grounds
areas
1990.
of
HERITAGE
Heritage
values
latter
Session,
by
Convention, SOUTHERN
basis
his
Heritage
assist
the
Subantarctic
lead
a
the
which
of
Heard
HERITAGE
IUCN’S
1992).
and
management
Island
natural that
and
World
which
that
five
conservation
Heard
IUCN’s
case
heritage
of role
for
major
designation
ongoing of
IUCN formal
Dingwall,
that,
the
the Island
resolved
held
potential
the
national
and
New
formations
the
Sites
assessment
nominations
in
is
in
Commission
are
Heritage
environment”
and
Governments
18th
as
stages British
still
deciding
islands
with
McDonald
Antarctic
1991.
CONVENTION
and
in
Island
nomination.
of
Zealand
OCEAN
so
must
currently
conservation,
geological
McDonald
New
plan
CONVENTION
all under
Session
that
authorities
the
unique,
action.
1990).
for
respect
as
of
Deferral Government
“mankind”
satisfy
or
in
status.
conservation,
World
of
Zealand
World
for
all
ILTCN
on
earth’s
for
accordance
Subantarctic
consideraton.
Conservation
features.
World
on
Islands
formulated,
islands
the
the
of
to
or
(sic).
Subsequently,
concerned
their
processes,
Islands
A
National
one
the
Heritage
In
Natural
of Heritage
island most
should
consider
of
evolutionaiy
convened
preliminary
in
Heritage
such
1985
Subantarctic
(sic).
General
the
or
for
in
1987,
proposed
appropriate
more
TO
in
the
in with
is
former
World
establish
island
Properties,
“outstanding
Gough Parks
the
should
biological Strategy
April
Sites
comparison
currently
Committee
which
ISLANDS
which
in
World
qualifying
Assembly
proposal
a
case
histoiy.
second
to
and
1992,
Island
a
for is (iv) threatened
Areas sites
species perpetuating;
evaluation imprecise superlative The Several threatened jurisdictions. guidelines,
oceanic survival Some 1991). Further include islands
It PRINCIPLES Heritage found
below This In south include
(1967), administration 1.. Heritage South
2. geographic as
The
designed
1975).
is
the
categorised
guidelines
contain
suggested
That
That,
island
Contain selection
must
of
of
in
Georgia Southern
along
survival; -
difficulties
a
discussion
islands.
and islands There
of
the
and
the
latitude
Sites
substantial
definition.
the specifically species
of values
species
and
phenomena
key
also given
lie
most conditions
approach has
scope
these with
natural possess
the
Islands
be
excludes is
have that within
intended
species
and and
FOR
that fulfill
In
and as
For
60
general Ocean,
most their
In approached key
of explanatory
and
Table
zones of arise
its
ot’ evaluation
the
management.
are also
S,
comparison
have values.
animals zone example,
This ecosystem
these
ASSESSMENT
the
interrelated
their
certain
northern under
as which
lack
which
important
would and
for
diverse South
the
islands to in
been
a often agreement
listed
Insulantarctica
1.
adequate
of
may
applying
basis
integrity retain
and exceptional of
subject
oceanic
feeding In
is
or
consideration
conditions
are
Sandwich
by seem
criticised
attention
of
the notes.
extend
be
outlined
limit
practices other
physical In and plants
integrity,
for
agreement the
a and
subject
with
elements;
deliberate
Definition requirement
Table
desirable
of
legal
to
conservation
may island
these
in
setting,
the
Southern
habitat
problems, significant
disputed
Indeed, well
nile
of
the
OF
islands
to
beauty
for
below.
Islands,
Subtropical
of
however,
be Province to protection
and outstanding
I.
criteria,
with conservation
conservation 2
groups out SOUTHERN
beyond
integrity,
the
international
unrealistic,
on are
be for
degree
on the
of
biological
criterion
Ocean
any
is to the of
sovereignty,
a undue
the
the
of seals
together the
natural
islands but
series
inherentyasub1ective
management
include
similar
within not
sufficient in necessaly
it
island
the
part
19
and
Southern
of
they jçe
Convergence.
which,
a
and universal
islands
weight the
scope oceanIc
boundaries
global
of
(ii)
of
particularly
and management. of
habitats
jurisdiction.
composition
be
with
the
are
OCEAN sufficient
Site
seabirds
least
blogeographical
principles,
biological
those
relating
assessed
i.e.
scientific
in
size
Antarctic
and
habitat
for
under
given Ocean
biogeographical
possible
nomination
essence, planning
of
Islands value.
The
jumcntsmust
for their who
flexibility to
which
of that
ISLANDS to
to
British
habitat
when
be
survival
requirements is
diversity
Falkiand
national
which
for
drafted
assessmff
potential
communities
protection
It
and
after solutions, self-
Treaty
breed
or
require
(Udvardy, is
does, issue.
their
applied
that
Island
due
the to
in
character,
Hoidgate
are
of
on
the
ensure
Area,
Islands,
overall
however, (Synge,
scheme
failed
World
vast to
as
set
that
the
of
are
groups
their
to
World
for
out
rely
i.e.
to 3
(Clark and Dingwall 1985; Smith and Lewis Smith 1987),endorsed by Udvardy (1987), that three distinct zones can be identified in this Province,as follows:
* Cool-temperate - situated between the Subtropical and Antarctic Convergences; * Subantarctic - in the vicinity of the Antarctic Convergence; and
* Maritime Antarctic - well south of the Antarctic Convergence.
Details of the climatic and vegetation characteristics of islands in each zone are contained in the references cited above.
It must be appreciated, however, that, as currently fonnulated, the Woiid Heritage Guidelines allow for nomination of islamis on grounds that are essentially unrelated to their location in the Southern Ocean biogeographical realm.
Thus, the Australian Government has argued a vezyconvincing case for the World Heritage listing of Macquarie Island, based almost exclusively on a very literal translation of citerion a(ii) in the Guidelines, viz.. outstanding examples representing processes.w tm ongoing geological A similarly strong case could be made for Heard Island, based on the presence of the spectacular 2745w high peak Big Ben, which is outstanding as one of the world’ssouthernmost active stratovolcanoes. Further, the Auckland Is., Campbell Is. and Antipodes Is. are linked by a pattern of migrating volcanism in the late-Cenozoic, and as such are of outstanding scientific importance for unravelling the volcanic history associated with continental plate tectonics in the S.W. Pacific.
(it is questionable, however, whether inscription of these islands as World Heritage Sites on scientific grounds alone is justified according to the philosophical basis and conservation objectives of the Convention - a matter addressed further under Principle 6 be1ow.
3. That either an entire Island group or Individual islands within an Island group may be considered for World Heritage standing.
Island groups are often composed of many islands and isletsof diverse size, physical character, biological composition and degree of human modification- In some cases it is this diversity which determinesthe scientific significance of an island group. Moreover, the conservation values of an island group also may relate to an holistic appreciation of the diversity of existing natural phenomenaand conditions.
In some instances, particularly where one or more large islands exist with a variable number of smaller islands, there may be strongly contrasting conservation values within the island group. At the Auckland. Campbell, Kerguelen, Crozet. Prince Edward, Tristan and Falkiands Groups, for example, dominant islands bear the marked imprint of human occupation. while offshore islands display varying degrees of modification and some remain essentially pristine.
4. That Islands or Island groups may be considered as potential World Heritage Sites In combination with other blogeographkally related Islands or Island groups. This
World
biogeographical Antipodes, exist obvious
There that managed Such or and management
conservation suggested the islands
all the (especially shared
In diverse histoiy World allowing islands,
evaluation 5 proposed wildlife The Included requirement marine (Wace,
to landscape development mammals, the
paits
addition
located
rest
five
western
are
the
ecological
That is
under
islands
combinations
is
Heritage
intended
Heritage
foraging
and
or subject
of
latter
of group
New
example
may 1977).
also
habitats
Is
collectively
collective
among
island
human
(Molloy
in
Tristan
Site
in
and
Bounty
a the
Macquarie
to which
breed.
is
edge
under
to principal
objectives. considering
the
serve by
Zealand
the
fall
by fostering
made
of
same
biological
interdependence to
and/or
include
The Sites
to
zone.
grounds
forming
Sites.
groups prospect
introduced
same the
importing is
within of
of
contact, a
feed
and
encourage
consideration
They
and and
to
may
the
unifonn
assessment
the
Island islands
national
of
essential
over
as
enhance
groups
Gough
and
sector
management
Dingwall series and
element Snares
joint the
key
Campbell
under
be
Nature two
may
for
single
Similar
characteristics
of
World
several
including
Campbell
particuIarl’
extent
spend wildlife.
nutrients
ecosystem
support
management
animals, seabirds
promoting
separate
action
jurisdiction
of of in investigation
also
Islands,
integrity
separate
the Islands
World of
Reserves
an the
five
between among
approaches are
1990),
Heritage
isianctc most Plateau.
the
relative
have
to
Australasian
between
Southern
enormous
a
New by
and Islands),and from which now
biogeographical measures
complementaiy shared
and -
Heritage
elements
appropriate criteria
national
of
international
a definition which
outstanding
is
shaped
and
the
under
seals or profound
planning
Zealand their
subject
standing
of
the
4 that
of
They
nominations
island
the
Governments,
may land
legacy
the
Ocean1they a
the
sea.
are
populations
for
in which
common
lives
jurisdiction. common
nominations
are World
marine
by
for
French
have
opportunities
the
be and to
there
all
oceanic
World
islands
groups
process
where
influence
Account the of
survival
In
of
active
at
possible
co-operation
declared
waters
conservation
would
the natural
individual zones).
also
effect
biological
sea, Heritage dominant
is
administered
management realm
legislation
have
Heritage for
sea.
islands probably
within -
with
control
of experienced
for
combined
coming
Auckland,
between
link must
through of
An
on
to islands
using
attributes
marine
National
achieving
some
for
Is biota.
shared
protect
soil
Site.
example,
islands
Macquarie the
influence
or
change
included
be in
designating
programmes. Site
a
combinations
values, ashore
and island
and biological
World same
taken,
fair
combination
where
the
nominations,
regime.
islands These
Campbell,
climatic,
assessment
Reserves,
and
a
administration, the
as
common islands,
vegetation
amount
induced
closely
already
groups
only
and
of potential
within therefore, careful Heritage
values
critical
Island
marine
islands
(noting
the
An single
affinities
briefly
around
linked
of
sea
are of
by
co
of
the of
is
with
by
are all
a
the
of 5
Currently, there are no comprehensiveprovisions for protecting marine environments around Southern Ocean islands,and there are no formallydeclaredmarine reserves. A comprehensivemarine reserveproposal for MacquarieIsland has recently been prepared,and there is a proposal to establish a sanctuaryfor the Hooke?s sealion at the AucklandIslands. In some instances,island reserve boundaries includethe intertidal zone, and protection measures may extend to a limitedterritorialzone offshore. However, because most pelagicseals and seabirds forage outsideTemtorial waters, and especially during the non-breeding season even beyond200 nm economic fisheries zones, the absence of a surroundingmarinereservecannotbetoo prejudicialin assessing and island’s case for World Heritage listing. Some regulationof human activities in marine areas may, never the less, be an important conservation reqirement..
There are instances of regulationof human activity in waters surroundingislands which are intended as an indirect means of island protection. Thus, controlson mooring of vessels exist primarily to prevent illegal enuy into reservesand accidental introductions of alien biota, particularly rodents.
There are also examples of limitson commercial fisheries, notablyaround the New Zealand and French islands and South Georgia. Sevenof the island groups lie within the CCAMLR region (boundedapproximatelyby the Antarctic Convergence),which regulatesthe exploitation of marine living resources on the high seas, and includes provision for designation of special protection areas - though no such areas have yet been designated.
6. That, In considering which Islands or Island groups may merit World Heritage status, emphasis be given to assessment of their comprehensive value to science and global heritage conservation.
The focus of the World Heritage Convention is on features which are symbolic of the whole of nature (or culture). The emphasis is thus on matters of broad scale and universality, not on the scientifically narrow, specific or obscure, Ideally, then, islands or island groups attaining World Heritage status, and thus rated as of “outstanding universal value”, will satisfy more than one of the criteria used to measure natural value.
The Operational Guidelines specifythat properties proposed for World Heritage listing need to meet at least one of four cHteria. This does not necessarilyimply that those meeting more than one criterion are more significant. Nor does it suggest that those meeting only one will consequently be regarded as of World Heritage quality. Conditions relating to the integrityof proposed sites will clearly pLaya vital role m these decisions.
But, above all, the criteria should be interpreted in the light of the objectives and intended purposes of the Convention - and these require that conservation principles and protection status be paramount considerations. It is scarcely conceivable, for example, that an island would merit inscription under an international conservation accord if, notwithstanding its legitimate claim as an outstanding representative of global geological evolution (Criterion (i)), it carried a undistinguished cargo of animals and plants, or bad a natural environment degraded beyond redemption by human-induced change. 6
7. That, to assess which Islands may quaIIly for World Heritage status, a comparative approach be adopted, using means which are objective, qualitative and uniformly applicable among the islands, within the limitations of the Guidelines.
There are many ways in which the criteria might be interpreted to establish the relative World Heritage values of the islands. For example, the means used might be either qualitative or quantitative, subjective or objective, or some combination of these extremes. Given the imprecise and inherently subjective nature of the criteria, as noted earlier, it is likely that a qualitative approach will be more successful than one that is numerical. Ideally, any approach taken will be objective and able to be applied universally.
Some constraints in using the criteria for compamtive purposes
Notwithstanding the desirability of a comparative approach, in practice some of the criteria may present considerable difficulties in this regard. Criterion (I) and (II), for example, which relate to evolutionary history and processes, may be impossible to measure in ways that make comparisons possible. Each island is unique in its geological origin and development. The great distances between islands means that their vegetation communities develop in relative isolation, and there is little gene flow among island bird populations.
There is also the difficulty of deciding the scope of each of these criteria. A temporal approach can be taken, with critenon (i) regarded as refering to past evolution and criterion (ii) to ongoing evolution. Alternatively, the former could be regarded more in terms of geological evolution, and the latter more in terms of biological evolution (c.f. Molloy and Dingwall, 1990). Further, Synge (1991) has suggested that a division might be made according to major sectors of natural history such as geology, biodiversity and human interaction.
For practical purposes, each island or island group may have to be assessed on its own merits in its representation of global evolutionary development. It should, however, be possible to establish some key parameters, such as the tectonic setting of the islands, their relation to centres of biological endemism or hiodiversity, the differences between island biota and their surrrounding continental areas, and the presence of animals and plants at the extreme geographical or ecological limits of their distribution. There is also the possibility of identifying infrequent cases of geological or biological associations among neighbouring islands, such as the volcanic linkages among the New Zealand islands, which will give a scientific coherence to composite island World Heritage proposals.
Interaction between human societies and nature on the islands is not likely to be a particulaiy fruitful criterion as most of the islands are uninhabited. Moreover, human contact with the islands is relatively recent by world standards, covers a narrow timespan, and has been transitory and almost universally exploitative and destructive in its impacts on nature.
This is not to suggest that we overlook the special attributes of human adaptation to island settlement and resource use, as at Tristan da Cunha or the Falkiands. There are
Hooker’s
highly population
necessarily
degree,
example,
There
15,000
almost
threatened There
Such either
criterion
With
little
the
*
*
more
Island;
*
criterion
*
*
strong
far book
It
included
phenomena,
a
social
inevitably
comparative
Criterion
should
under national such
history,
also
the futile
a
the
the
may
the
world
from
great
disagreement
islands
respect
through
breeding
is
examples
presence
is
successful.
as
great
huge some
presence
individuals,
certainly
factors.
the
despite
relief
be
also one,
not
an
sea
for
at
the
exhaustive, in
are:
significance
under
abundance
population
possible
species
has
World
signify
personal (Ill),
Macquarie
inherent
microcosm,
biomass
diversity
be
fascinating
assessing
lion,
the
fact
are
to
and
of
and
purposes.
direct
remained
the
entirely
species
of
criterion
To
of
this
glaciated
of
fail
which
also
difficulty
that
as
features
which
Heritage
rare,
Among
and
colonies
that
listings volcanic
with
but
search
only
to
Synge
criterion.
flaw
and
effects of
of
bound
guide
of
of
some
World
of
Island
satisfy
habitats
it
the
(36)
relates
discounted.
endemic,
seabirds
birds patterns
indigenous
closely
Macaroni
Synge’s
to
Judgements
at
breeds
involve
appears
these
in
(iv),
landscapes,
or
for
of
rare
in
population
(1991)
less
identify
cultural
to
island of
of
or
formations
to
it,
areas
Red
establishing
Heritage
of
and
the
objectivity
outstanding
countless
essentially
which Thus,
seabird
be
which
via
is
marine
are
than
only
mirrors
at
one
(1991)
revealed
a
or
such
to
requirements
the
some
Data
bird
suggests
plants
some complex
of
likely
the
criteria,
plant
specially
be
species,
100
scenic
at
about
deals
most
creates
exceptional
the
is
that
than
values
stable mammals,
populations
key
Books.
the
and
judgement
of
that
numbers
endangered.
islands,
pairs
and
in
to or
presence
to
in
which
the
values
the
degraded
Auckland
with
beauty
an
any paramenters
landscapes
assessing
or
array
and
be
grandeur
bird
the
natural
on
7
e.g.
a
or
animals
adapted
in
New
over
ultimately
potential
at
contradiction.
those
the
for
As
other
histoiy
increasing
threatened
island
species
life,
e.g.
least
South
of
of
of
natural
the
and
of
Johnston ecological
neighbounng
that
are
at
Zealand
beauty,
island
birds,
cultural,
natural
most
at
e.g.
Islands,
of
entire
island
ice
and
associated
species.
The
least joint
other
situations.
extremely
are
this
the of
Georgia
for
high
of
are
caps
contradictory
beauty
lies
comparing
human
affected
Heard
e.g.
biota,
examples.
the in the
Snares
species
nominating
natural
is is
world
threatened,
environments,
group islands,
(1985)
aesthetic
mountainous
Thus,
historical,
size.
Crozet
is
integrity.
also
not
and
past
landscape
probably
has
is,
with
mainlands.
in
Island
contact
small
a
population
Islands;
gLaciers,
hard
in
by
and
habitats,
therefore,
30 terms
islands
very
points
more where
reputedly
the
superlative
human
values
human
A
years,
approach.
cultural
some
to
does
spiritual
shag,
and
at
reasonable,
helpful
world;
and
with
of
less
than
measure
out,
islands,
Macquarie
human
so
with
and
to
there
this
are
not The
appears
settlement.
islands
biota
contact,
of
whose
likely
will
than
islands,
what
for
50%
host
criteria,,
the
most
and
natural
can
the
to
for
text
to
of
but
be
be be 8
It may be more helpful under this criterion to rank islands using some qualitative measure of the degree of modification of natural ecosystems, as is adopted in the directoiy of Southern Ocean island protected areas (Clark and Dingwall, 1985).
Employing a simple scoring scheme, this assesses factors of human habitation. exploitation of indigenous fauna, and introduced flora and fauna (especially land mammals) to derive a three-fold rating for overall degree of modification. A range of scores denotes an island group with vaiying degrees of modification among its islands.
Superficially, this may appear a crude and arbitraiy measure, but it has some valuable attributes. It Is comparative, it treats a number of factors in aggregate, and it is essentially objective, while retaining some degree of subjectivity in keeping with the general approach of the Guidelines.
It also highlights those islands that remain in an essentially unmodified state. In a world where natural ecosystems of the greatest majority of oceanic islands, especially the larger ones, are severely impacted by human settlement and resource use, an argument can be advanced that such unmodified islands are of outstanding universal value. They are worthy of serious consideration for World Heritage status on this evidence alone.
Southern Ocean islands in this category include: Heard and McDonald Is.; outliers in the Crozet Group (hots des Apotres, lies des Pingouins, Tiede I’Est)and the Kerguelen Group (lies Nuageuses); Antipodes Is.; Bounty Is.; Snares Is.; several islands in the Aucklands Group (Adams I., Disappointment L, Dundas I.); Prince Edward Is.; Inaccessible I. in the Tristan Group; (3ough I.; several outlying islands in the Falkiands (e.g. Jason I.); South Georgia; S. Sandwich Is.; and Bouvetoya.
Alternatively, or additionally, one could use measures of biological diversity to establish a priority ranking among islands, as Synge (1991) suggests.
This might involve listing for each island the total, indigenous, introduced (alien) and endemic species for each of the main taxonomic groups - terrestrial and marine mammals, birds, macro-invertebrates, and vascular plants. Overall quality of the islands could then bejudged according to the totals revealed, which could be qualified by calculating alien and endemicity factors on a percentage basis. Cooper and Brooke (1986) have attempted a similar approach in assessing the conservation status of Marion Island. A preliminary tabulation of island vascular plant species is included below (Table 2) for illustrative purposes.
This is a potentially useful approach, but it is fraught with difficulty and unlikely to be satisfactory on its own. The problems which arise are of at least three kinds - scientific, methodological and management related.
Among the scientific questions - * The use of statistics implies a completeness and precision in the data which may be unwarranted. Data are incomplete and of varying reliability among the islands for all taxonomic groups - particularly the invertebrates which are probably not well enough known for comparative purposes.
* Considerable taxonomic imprecision remains for some island biota, and there is a need to decide on the appropriate degree of taxonomic distinction to use - species or sub-species. Johnstone (1985) notes, for example, that the evolution of insular bird
overall Amsterdam
introductions
Zealand Kerguelen
conspicuous There
following
eliminated); of
*
underway
success
removed
Among criteria
biodiversity
* does
Thus,
system * aliens
* of supported
*
Among
Auckland
* and -
plants skua,
widespread. its
on
significance
mammalian
introduced every
*
forms
mice
The
A
In
In
Ile
Is
How
26
Simply
effect
native
81
simple
the
the
deriving
overall
Amsterdam;
different
the
is
South
large
island
presence
on
generally
measurement
spp.
that
for in
of
do
the
the
islands
much
range
lack
from
on
introduction
islands
sheep isolation
species.
or
Is.,
on
eradication
I.; considering
relating
you
passerines,
are
recovery
listing enough
management
of
methodolo 9 lal
at
for
assessment native
recovery
Georgia predators
of
planned
population
For
or
and
of
an
none
an
the
activity
of
one
introduced
species
scored balance their
and
of rabbits
re-introductions
aliens
removal;
island,
overall
pose
suggests
example,
scores
for
Auckland
and
strict
of
In
extreme
and creates
fauna.
is
to
at
impact
of
pigs
is
has
for
aliens
a
considered
of
a
and
Macquarie
be
of
and
in numerically rank
of
the
cats
may
on
weighing
aided realm
the
the
and
lesser
among
of
plant of
biodiversity
indigenous
rabbits,
any
this
neither
of
seabird.
and
and
plants,
control
some that
related
Even presence
a
herbivores,
outstanding the
a
from
relative
value
and
higher
questions
be
pays
how
use
on
Is.;
complex
species
terrestrial
regard.
by
where
and
at
threat
rabbits
Auckland
most
essentially
indigenous
the
scenIc
for
sheep
islands
within
Macquarie
of
a
Marion
endemic
important
cats
a
no
the
but,
and
I.,
programmes,
animal
plant
questions
or
threat
against
aliens,
islands
comparisons?
weighting
or
vegetation
attention introduced
than
are the
as
total
ranking
lower
and
taxonomy,
from
Recently,
security with
-
on
absence
and
grandeur
taxonomically
natural
faunal
predator
in
restoration
only
a
1.
Is.
to
rats,
the
quarantine
wekas
major plants
scores
benign
and
the
cattle
the
those
biota.
for
the
is
Campaigns
than
I.
9
indigenous and
-
significant other
for
endemicity
to
associated
Kerguelens;
of
for
of
groups
possible
factors
must
Auckland
value,
of
communities
species
feral
whether
Campbell
the at
influence
is
the nor
on
population
scored
and
from an
island
among
in
example.
alien
Some
the
likely
hand,
programme.
Macquarie
island,
implementation
their
therefore
presence
birds
measures,
an
goats
how
there
such
distinct.
the
other,
biota
exception
do
for
vegetation
biota.
on
introductions,
associated
indigenous
the
recent,
with
to
Is. is
relative
impact.
Campbell
but
on
do
not
Is.
for
eradication
there
and a
as
is
often
be
size
various
The
There
at for
subjective
ignores
the
you
much
of
have,
be
endemics
rabbit supports
become
ungulates
profoundly
I.
the cattle
such
ongoing
example?
endemics?
is vs
taken
liklibood
explosive
histoiy
(wekas
to
of
The
equitably
communities.
tendency
Canipell a
has
number
respectively,
variabilty
species
land
elements.
Olearia
Is.; and
control.
as
need
the
have
such
introduction
or
account
“naturalised
31
at
been
basis
and
cattle
relative
liklihood
from
of
or
predator
may
control
the
to
million
destructive
been
of
in
introdneed
planned.
as
of
diversity?
rate
Is.
introduced lyallii
devise to
-
New At
new
have
of
its
from
species self-
Thus,
of
view
those
lie
impact
41
impact
are
in
is
pairs
of
at
been
of
a
part
spp.
the
and
the in These
evaluation
little
CONCLUSION The a considering If character of islands, analysis then assessment ranking
likely One system. These
questions
provide among biogeographic
Possible undue In
stages
(I) environment? ongoing (Ii)
formations (Iii) survival This (lv) value? ecosystem could above, species eradication
critical
we
which
comparison
principles
help
possible a
Is
Is
are
and matrix
to
ranking
questions
does
does
bias
also
of
the the
the
which
system
such
the
is
be endemicity
assessment
islands
to
framing
of
in
of
asked
the
other geological
of
still
Working
criteria
Island in
a island attempt the
be
modification,
basis providing
islands.
the the
threatened
programmes
or
could ecological
simple as
solution
earth’s
the
outlined reveals
system
posed
insufficient
groupings
World
are
features?
management -
Island Island of
with
would might
AND
the
for
of result..
under
under
each
complicate elusive.
be
to
More
the
in of
one
Group
to selection adequacy
processes,
other
evolutionary
the expanded of is
Heritage make a
the
under merit under above A the
require
score
integrity.
consistent questions island
to
specks
some
and
consideration POSSIBLE agreed
consideration
inherent
for as
questions
island World
for
construct
members
islands The
an
suggested
consideration
based
related
introduced
some
provide
consideration
consideration
identifying
of
the against
kind
a
of
objective
values
by
imprecision biological
of comparison in
W.
biota;
protection
Heritage
could
The
exercise.
difficulties means
Table
on
of animals adding
is history?
In
arise
questions
a
H.
should
a
required.
the
SOLUTION
each simple
some
the of World
under
and
useful
candidate
be
alien an
an
selection
islands
than of
other 1.
appropriate
IC)
same
scores for
natural
as
evolution
of
the
outstanding
outstanding
Any measuring
and form
of A
enable
and
among
contain contain
Principle
Heritage
matrix
presented, follows:
species.
the
and
addition answers. logically
total
the
implementation
factors
The
biogeograhic
of
plants
breadth
successful
of derived World
islands.
criteria of generally
marine
the
sufficient
of
the
a
basis
by
World
the
superlative
candidate
or
comparative
the Operational
7
addressed
this
to
Southern
While
form scoring
islands,
of
both
Heritage
above. mans
example
of example
most
the
from
and
as
environment;
1yes
The
outstanding
criterion.
the
ranking Heritage
acceptable
they
pait
World
by
objectivity
there
methodology
group;
Interaction
breadth
the Important
World
of yeslno
islands.
preferably
scores
the Ocean. Additional
by
of
would
assessment
natural
control
representing
representing
analysis Guidelines
point
is
method
Heritage the
criteria
the
candidate
some
Heritage
responses
of would
basis
universal
required
principles the
apply
scoring
They
to
experience
andlor
phenomena,
habitats
within
with
of exclude
questions
degree
and
indication
for
is
for
list,
criterion.
thus
natural
offer
therefore
to include
islands,
such
by
major
the
to
the
the
the
of
the
for
a 11
In keeping with Principle 3, above, the listing of islands might be according to individual selection of all important islands rather than according to island group. An element of subjectivity might be required in reviewing the overall scores, to ensure that no obvious candidate island is unduly underrated, or vice versa.
This method suggested in this approach is not perfect and is untested at this stage. But it may offer the best hope of a solution to a selection process, should one be requirecL It is worthy of trial at least.
REFERENCES
Clark, MR and P.R Dingwall 1985. Conservationof islands in the Southern Ocean. IUCN, Cambridge University Press, U.K., l88pp.
Cooper. J. and RK Brooke 1986. Alien plants and animals on South African continental and oceanic islands: species richne, ecological impacts and management. pp. 133 - 142 in MacDonald, I.A..W.et aL (eds) 1986 Theecologyand management of biological invasionsin SouthernAfrica. Oxford Univ. Press, Cape Town
Dingwall, P.R (ed) 1987. Conserving the natural heritage of the Antarctic Realm. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 222pp. Dingwall, P.R. and P. Trehen 1992. Proceedings, SCARJ1UCNWorkshop on Conservation, research and management of Subantarctic Islands, Paimpont, France, April 1992, (in preparation).
Holdgate, MW. 1967. The Antarctic ecosystem. Royal Societyof London, Transactions, Series B252: 363 - 83.
RTCN 1991. A Strategyfor Antarctic Conservation. IUCN. Gland, Switzerland, 8Spp.
Johnstone, G.W. 1985. Threats to birds on Subantarctic islands. pp. 101 - 121 in Moors, P.3. ccl.Conservation of island Birds. Teenical Publication 3, ICBP, U.K.
Molloy, L.F. and P. R Dingwall 1990. World heritage values of New Zealand islands. pp. 194 - 206 in Towns, D.R et al. (eds.) 1990, Ecological restoration of New Zealand islands. Publication 2, N.Z. Department of Conservation.,Wellington, N.Z.
Smith, V.R and RI. Lewis Smith 1987. The biota and conservation status of Subantarctic Islands. Environment international 13: 95 - 104.
Synge, H. 1991. Whichoceanic islands merit World Heritage status? IUCN, Miscellaneous Report, 3lpp.
Udvardy, M.D.F. 1975. A classficarion of the biogeographical provinces of the world. IUCN, Occasional Paper 18, Gland, Switzerland.
Udvardy, M.D. F. 1987. The biogeographical realm Antarctica: a proposal. JournaL Royal Society ofNew Zealand 17(2): 187 - 200.
Wace, N. 1977. The character of oceanic island resources and the problem of their rational use and conservation. pp. 126 -157 in The use of High Mountains of the World. IUCN Miscellaneous Publication.
Walton, D. W. H. 1986. Conservation of Subantarctic Islands. SCAR’IUCN Misceii2neous Publication 1986. Table 1. OceanIc Islands of the Southern Ocean
Island (Group) Biogeographic Sovereignty Category
Tristan da Cunha Is. Cool-Temperate United Kingdom Goughi. N N tie Amsterdam France lie St Paul N N Antipodes Is. New Zealand Auckland Is. Bounty Is. Campbell Is. Snares Is. Falklands!Malvinas U.K/Argentina Diego Ramierez Is. Chile lies Kerguelen Subantarctic France ties Crozet Heard & McDonald Is. Australia Macquarie I. N Prince Edward Is. South Africa South Georgia U.K./Argentina
South Sandwich Is. Maritime Antarctic U.K.iArgentina Bouvetoya N Norway
Table 2. Vascular plants of Southern Ocean Islands
Island (Gp.) Total Indig. Introd. %Introd. End. %End.
Tristan 140 40 100 71.4 - - Gough 47 35 12 25.5 - - Amsterdam ? 7 7 ? ? 7 StPaul 7 7 7 ? 7 Antipodes 63 62 1 1.5 4 6.5 Auckland 231 190 41 17.7 - - Bounty ------Campbell 218 137 81 37.1 - - Snares 20 18 2 10.0 1 5.6 Falklands 355 163 92 25.9 - - Diego Ramierez 8 7 7
Kerguelen 36 7 7 7 2 7 Crozet 7 50 7 7 7 Heard/NIcD. 11 15 1 6.3 - - Macquarie 45 35 5 12.5 3 8.6 Prince Edward 32 22 tO 31.3 1 4.5 S.Georgia 80 ? 7 7 2 7
S. Sandwich * 58 58 - ? Bouvetoya * 70 70 - 7
(Note; * Ciyptogamic plants)
Jim
Ex-officio
Martin
Nigel
Jose
Co-opted
Nigel
Pierre
Loritz
John
Jenny
Brian
Paul
Members
Thorsell,
Valencia,
R.
Cooper,
Wace,
Bonner,
D.
Jouventjn.
Scott.
Somme.
Hoidgate,
Dingwall,
Bell,
advisers
member
Canberra,
University
IUN
University
Wellington,
Cambridge,
University
University
IUCN
CNRS,
Convener.
MEMBERS
Australia
of
Beauvoir’Niort, of
of
Tasmania,
of
United
New
Capetown,
Chile.
IUCN
Oslo,
Zealand
Kingdom
OF
Norway
Santiago.
Hobart,
THE
Rondebosch,
France
WORKING
Chile
Tasmania.
South
Australia
GROUP Africa