DOCSLIB.ORG

Terminal Evaluation of the UN Environment Project “Implementing

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Terminal Evaluation of the UN Environment Project “Implementing Terminal Evaluation of the UN Environment Project “Implementing the Island Biodiversity Programme of Work by Integrating the Conservation Management of Island Biodiversity” (Integrated Island Biodiversity (IIB) Project) FINAL REPORT Evaluation Office of UN Environment June 2017 Evaluation Office of UN Environment Photos Credits: Front cover: Proposed new coastal ecosystem protected area with Tongan whistler habitat, Vava'u Province, Kingdom of Tonga @UN Environment/ Peter Thomas, UN Environment Evaluation Mission (2017) This report has been prepared by Peter Thomas, TierraMar Consulting and is a product of the Evaluation Office of UN Environment. The findings and conclusions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of Member States or the UN Environment Senior Management. For further information on this report, please contact: Evaluation Office of UN Environment P. O. Box 30552-00100 GPO Nairobi Kenya Tel: (254-20) 762 3389 Email: [email protected] Implementing the island biodiversity programme of work by integrating the conservation management of island biodiversity GEF ID: 4023 June/2017 All rights reserved. ©2017 Evaluation Office of UN Environment Page | ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This Terminal Evaluation was prepared for the Evaluation Office of UN Environment by Mr. Peter Thomas at TierraMar Consulting. The report benefits from a peer review conducted within Evaluation Office of UN Environment. The Evaluation Office of UN Environment would like to thank the Integrated Island Biodiversity project team and in particular Mr. Greg Sherley and Mr. Mohamed Sessay for their contribution and collaboration throughout the Evaluation process. Sincere appreciation is also expressed to the entire project team for assistance and participation throughout the evaluation. The Evaluation Office of UN Environment would also like to thank the Governments of Cook Islands, Nauru, Tuvalu and Tonga. The author would like to acknowledge the generous contributions of the many people who have helped in the preparation of this report through their openness and willingness to provide information and share their project experiences. In particular, I would like to thank the members of the project teams and partners in Tonga and the Cook Islands for their warm hospitality and the efforts they made to demonstrate the results of the project in the field. I also deeply appreciate the guidance and mentoring provided by key project personnel including Dr. Greg Sherley, UNEP Pacific regional focal point and project Task Manager; Mr. Mohamed Sessay, UN Environment portfolio manager; Ms Easter Galuvao, Biodiversity Advisor and Project Manager, SPREP; Ms. Amanda Wheatley, Ecosystem and Biodiversity Officer, SPREP, Mr. Vainuupo Jungblut, IIB Project Technical Assistant, SPREP Ms. Anna Bertram, IAS Project Technical Assistant, Mr. Bruce Jefferies, ex Ecosystem and Biodiversity Officer, SPREP, Dr. Nigel Varty, Team Leader, UNEP GEFPAS Pacific Project Terminal Evaluation team; and Ms Tiina Piiroinen, UNEP Evaluation Officer. TierraMar Consulting Pty Ltd does not accept any responsibility to any other party to whom this report may be shown or into whose hands it may come. No representation or warranty (express or implied) is given as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this report, and, to the extent permitted by law, TierraMar Consulting Pty Ltd, its members, employees and agents accept no liability, and disclaim all responsibility, for the consequences of you or anyone else acting, or refraining to act, in reliance on the information contained in this report or for any decision based on it. The information provided in this report is based on the best information and documentation available at the time of preparation. The views expressed in this report are purely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of UN Environment, or project stakeholders, including beneficiaries, who were consulted in the preparation of this report. This report, or portions thereof, may not be reproduced without explicit written reference to the source. Evaluation team Peter Thomas – Evaluation Consultant, TierraMar Consulting Evaluation Office of UN Environment Tiina Piiroinen – Evaluation Manager Harriet Matsaert – Evaluation Manager Mela Shah – Evaluation Programme Assistant Page | iii Page | iv ABOUT THE EVALUATION1 Joint Evaluation: No Report Language(s): English Evaluation Type: Terminal Project Evaluations Brief Description: This report is a terminal evaluation of a UN Environment-GEF project implemented between 2012 and 2017.The project's overall development goal was to assist Cook Islands, Nauru, Tonga and Tuvalu with the implementation of their National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans and in doing so, their contribution to the implementation of the Islands Biodiversity Programme of Work of the Convention on Biodiversity. The evaluation sought to assess project performance (in terms of relevance, effectiveness and efficiency), and determine outcomes and impacts (actual and potential) stemming from the project, including their sustainability. The evaluation has two primary purposes: (i) to provide evidence of results to meet accountability requirements, and (ii) to promote learning, feedback, and knowledge sharing through results and lessons learned among UN Environment, the GEF and their executing partner Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SREP) and the relevant agencies of the project participating countries. The project was granted an extension from 31 December 2016 to 31 March 2017 and then again to September 2017 when the terminal evaluation was already ongoing. Therefore, this TE report only covers the project from its onset to end of December 2016 and thus, does not cover the activities undertaken during the two extensions to September 2017. Key words: biodiversity; biodiversity conservation; coastal ecosystem; convention on biological diversity; CBD; ecosystem management; global environment facility; GEF; integrated biodiversity; marine ecosystem; national biodiversity strategy and action plans; NBSAP; project evaluation; protected area; protected area management; small island developing states; SIDS; small islands; species protection; terminal evaluation; TE 1 This data is used to aid the internet search of this report on the Evaluation Office of UN Environment Website Page | v Table of contents 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................... 8 1.1 Subject and scope of the evaluation .......................................................................................................................... 8 1.2 Evaluation objectives ....................................................................................................................................................... 8 1.3 Evaluation approach and methodology ................................................................................................................... 9 1.4 Main evaluation criteria and questions ................................................................................................................ 10 2 Project Background .................................................................................................................................................................. 11 2.1 Context ................................................................................................................................................................................ 11 2.2 Project Objectives and Components ...................................................................................................................... 12 Objectives ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Components ................................................................................................................................................................................. 12 2.3 Target areas/groups ..................................................................................................................................................... 14 2.4 Milestones in Project Design and Implementation .......................................................................................... 15 2.5 Implementation Arrangements and Project Partners .................................................................................... 15 2.6 Project Financing ............................................................................................................................................................ 16 2.7 Changes in design during implementation.......................................................................................................... 16 2.8 Reconstructed Theory of Change of the Project ............................................................................................... 16 Project Outcomes....................................................................................................................................................................... 18 Intermediate States and Impact .......................................................................................................................................... 20 3 Evaluation Findings .................................................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Biology and Conservation of the Juan Fernandez Archipelago Seabird Community
    Biology and Conservation of the Juan Fernández Archipelago Seabird Community Peter Hodum and Michelle Wainstein Dates: 29 December 2001 – 29 March 2002 Participants: Dr. Peter Hodum California State University at Long Beach Long Beach, CA USA Dr. Michelle Wainstein University of Washington Seattle, WA USA Erin Hagen University of Washington Seattle, WA USA Additional contributors: 29 December 2001 – 19 January 2002 Brad Keitt Island Conservation Santa Cruz, CA USA Josh Donlan Island Conservation Santa Cruz, CA USA Karl Campbell Charles Darwin Foundation Galapagos Islands Ecuador 14 January 2002 – 24 March 2002 Ronnie Reyes (student of Dr. Roberto Schlatter) Universidad Austral de Chile Valdivia Chile TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 3 Objectives 3 Research on the pink-footed shearwater 3 Breeding population estimates 4 Reproductive biology and behavior 6 Foraging ecology 7 Competition and predation 8 The storm 9 Research on the Juan Fernández and Stejneger’s petrels 10 Population biology 10 Breeding biology and behavior 11 Foraging ecology 14 Predation 15 The storm 15 Research on the Kermadec petrel 16 Community Involvement 17 Public lectures 17 Seabird drawing contest 17 Radio show 18 Material for CONAF Information Center 18 Local pink-footed shearwater reserve 18 Conservation concerns 19 Streetlights 19 Eradication and restoration 19 Other fauna 20 Acknowledgements 20 Figure 1. Satellite tracks for pink-footed shearwaters 22 Appendices (for English translations please contact P. Hodum or M. Wainstein) A. Proposal for Kermadec petrel research 23 B. Natural history materials left with Information Center 24 C. Proposal for a local shearwater reserve 26 D. Contact information 32 2 INTRODUCTION Six species of seabirds breed on the Juan Fernández Archipelago: the pink-footed shearwater (Puffinus creatopus), Juan Fernández petrel (Pterodroma externa), Stejneger’s petrel (Pterodroma longirostris), Kermadec petrel (Pterodroma neglecta), white-bellied storm petrel (Fregetta grallaria), and Defilippe’s petrel (Pterodroma defilippiana).
    [Show full text]
  • San Nicolas Island Restoration Project, California
    San Nicolas Island Restoration Project, California OUR MISSION To protect the Critically Endangered San Nicolas Island Fox, San Nicolas Island Night Lizard, and large colonies of Brandt’s Cormorants from the threat of extinction by removing feral cats. OUR VISION Native animal and plant species on San Nicolas Island reclaim their island home and are thriving. THE PROBLEM For years, introduced feral cats competed with foxes for resources and directly preyed on seabirds and lizards. THE SOLUTION WHY IS SAN NICOLAS In 2010, the U.S. Navy, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Island Conservation, Institute IMPORTANT? for Wildlife Studies, The Humane Society of the United States, and the Montrose Settlement Restoration Program completed the removal and relocation of feral cats to • HOME TO THE ENDEMIC, the permanent, fully enclosed Fund For Animals Wildlife Center in Ramona, California. CRITICALLY ENDANGERED SAN NICOLAS ISLAND THE RESULTS FOX AND FEDERALLY ENDANGERED ISLAND NIGHT Native populations of Critically Endangered San Nicolas Island Foxes (as listed by the LIZARD International Union for the Conservation of Nature) and Brandt’s Cormorants are no • ESSENTIAL NESTING longer at risk of competition and direct predation, and no sign of feral cats has been HABITAT FOR LARGE detected since June 2010. POPULATIONS OF SEABIRD San Nicolas Island This 14,569-acre island, located SPECIES 61 miles due west of Los Angeles, is the most remote of the eight islands in the Channel Island • HOSTS EXPANSIVE Archipelago. The island is owned and managed by ROOKERIES OF SEA LIONS the U.S. Navy. The island is the setting for Scott AND ELEPHANT SEALS O’Dell’s prize-winning 1960 novel, Island of the Blue Dolphins.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is the Importance of Islands to Environmental Conservation?
    Environmental Conservation (2017) 44 (4): 311–322 C Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2017 doi:10.1017/S0376892917000479 What is the importance of islands to environmental THEMATIC SECTION Humans and Island conservation? Environments CHRISTOPH KUEFFER∗ 1 AND KEALOHANUIOPUNA KINNEY2 1Institute of Integrative Biology, ETH Zurich, Universitätsstrasse 16, CH-8092 Zurich, Switzerland and 2Institute of Pacifc Islands Forestry, US Forest Service, 60 Nowelo St. Hilo, HI, USA Date submitted: 15 May 2017; Date accepted: 8 August 2017 SUMMARY islands of the world’s oceans, we cover both islands close to continents and others isolated far out in the oceans, and the This article discusses four features of islands that make full range from small to very large islands. Small and isolated them places of special importance to environmental islands represent unique cultural and biological values and the conservation. First, investment in island conservation environmental challenges of insularity in its most pronounced is both urgent and cost-effective. Islands are form. However, as we will demonstrate, all islands and island threatened hotspots of diversity that concentrate people share enough come concerns to consider them together unique cultural, biological and geophysical values, (Baldacchino 2007; Royle 2008; Gillespie & Clague 2009; and they form the basis of the livelihoods of Baldacchino & Niles 2011; Royle 2014). millions of islanders. Second, islands are paradigmatic Islands are hotspots of cultural, biological and geophysical places of human–environment relationships. Island diversity, and as such they form the basis of the livelihoods livelihoods have a long tradition of existing within of millions of islanders (Menard 1986; Nunn 1994; Royle spatial, ecological and ultimately social boundaries 2008; Gillespie & Clague 2009; Royle 2014; Kueffer et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Island Views Volume 3, 2005 — 2006
    National Park Service Park News U.S. Department of the Interior The official newspaper of Channel Islands National Park Island Views Volume 3, 2005 — 2006 Tim Hauf, www.timhaufphotography.com Foxes Returned to the Wild Full Circle In OctobeR anD nOvembeR 2004, The and November 2004, an additional 13 island Chumash Cross Channel in Tomol to Santa Cruz Island National Park Service (NPS) released 23 foxes on Santa Rosa and 10 on San Miguel By Roberta R. Cordero endangered island foxes to the wild from were released to the wild. The foxes will be Member and co-founder of the Chumash Maritime Association their captive rearing facilities on Santa Rosa returned to captivity if three of the 10 on The COastal portion OF OuR InDIg- and San Miguel Islands. Channel Islands San Miguel or five of the 13 foxes on Santa enous homeland stretches from Morro National Park Superintendent Russell Gal- Rosa are killed or injured by golden eagles. Bay in the north to Malibu Point in the ipeau said, “Our primary goal is to restore Releases from captivity on Santa Cruz south, and encompasses the northern natural populations of island fox. Releasing Island will not occur this year since these Channel Islands of Tuqan, Wi’ma, Limuw, foxes to the wild will increase their long- foxes are thought to be at greater risk be- and ‘Anyapakh (San Miguel, Santa Rosa, term chances for survival.” cause they are in close proximity to golden Santa Cruz, and Anacapa). This great, For the past five years the NPS has been eagle territories.
    [Show full text]
  • TA31 Book.Indb 231 24/11/09 12:13:40 PM 232 Trevor H
    10 Bird, mammal and reptile remains Trevor H. Worthy School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of New South Wales Geoffrey Clark Department of Archaeology and Natural History, The Australian National University Introduction This chapter reports the non-fish remains from 10 archaeological excavations on Viti Levu and the Lau Group, including the reanalysis of a bird-bone assemblage from Lakeba Island excavated previously by Simon Best (1984). Bone remains from Natunuku and Ugaga were uncommon and the small assemblages were misplaced during collection relocation after bushfires destroyed the ANU archaeological storage facility in 2003, and these assemblages are not considered further. Three of the non-fish faunal assemblages are from the Lau Group (Qaranipuqa, Votua, Sovanibeka), one is from the north coast of Viti Levu (Navatu 17A), and the remainder are from the southwest Viti Levu region (Malaqereqere, Tuvu, Volivoli II, Volivoli III, Qaraninoso II) and Beqa Island (Kulu). This chapter presents the non-fish fauna from the Lau Group, followed by that from Viti Levu and Beqa Island. Faunal analysis began early in Fiji, with bone remains identified at Navatu and Vuda on Viti Levu by Gifford (1951:208–213). Gifford’s excavations demonstrated that pig, dog, chicken, turtle, fruit bat and humans were consumed during the ‘early period’ of Fiji. The study of archaeofauna declined after this promising start due to the absence of prehistoric fauna in sites such as Sigatoka and Karobo (Palmer 1965; Birks 1973), and the cursory identification of bone remains at sites like Yanuca and Natunuku (Birks and Birks 1978; Davidson et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Our Sea of Islands Our Livelihoods Our Oceania
    Status and potential of locally-managed marine areas in the South Pacific: meeting natureOur conservation Sea of and Islands sustainable livelihood targets throughOur wide-spread Livelihoods implementation of LMMAs Our Oceania Framework for a Pacific Oceanscape: a catalyst for implementation of ocean policy Cristelle Pratt and Hugh Govan November 2010 This document was compiled by Cristelle Pratt and Hugh Govan. Part Two of the document was also reviewed by Andrew Smith, Annie Wheeler, Anthony Talouli, Bernard O’Callaghan, Carole Martinez, Caroline Vieux, Catherine Siota, Colleen Corrigan, Coral Pasisi, David Sheppard, Etika Rupeni, Greg Sherley, Jackie Thomas, Jeff Kinch, Kosi Latu, Lindsay Chapman, Maxine Anjiga, Modi Pontio, Olivier Tyack, Padma Lal, Pam Seeto, Paul Anderson, Paul Lokani, Randy Thaman, Samasoni Sauni, Sandeep Singh, Scott Radway, Sue Taei, Tagaloa Cooper, and Taholo Kami at the 2nd Marine Sector Working Group Meeting held in Apia, Samoa, 5–7 April 2010. Photography © Stuart Chape TABLE OF CONTENTS PART ONE – Toward a Framework for a Pacific Oceanscape: A Policy Analysis 5 1.0 Introduction 7 2.0 Context and scope for a Pacific Oceanscape Framework 9 3.0 Instruments – our ocean policy environment 11 3.1 Pacific Plan and Pacific Forum Leaders communiqués 15 3.2 The Pacific Islands Regional Oceans Policy (PIROP) 18 3.3 Synergies with PIROP 18 3.3.1 Relevant international and regional instruments and arrangements 18 3.3.2 Relevant national and non-governmental initiatives 20 4.0 Institutional Framework for Pacific Islands
    [Show full text]
  • Little Islands, Big Strides
    Subsistence and commercial fishing, expanding tourism and coastal development are among the stressors facing ecosystems in Micronesia. A miracle in a LITTLE ISLANDS, conference room Kolonia, Federated States of Micronesia — Conservationist BIG STRIDES Bernd Cordes experienced plenty of physical splendor during a ten-day Inspired individuals and Western donors trip to Micronesia in 2017, his first visit to the region in six years. Irides- built a modern conservation movement in cent fish darted out from tropical corals. Wondrous green islands rose Micronesia. But the future of reefs there is from the light blue sea. Manta rays as tenuous as ever. zoomed through the waves off a beach covered in wild coconut trees. But it was inside an overheated By Eli Kintisch conference room on the island of Pohnpei that Cordes witnessed Palau/FSM Profile 1 perhaps the most impressive sight on his trip. There, on the nondescript premises of the Micronesia Con- servation Trust, or MCT, staff from a dozen or so environmental groups operating across the region attended a three-day session led by officials at MCT, which provides $1.5 million each year to these and other groups. Cordes wasn’t interested, per se, in the contents of the discussions. After all, these were the kind of optimistic PowerPoint talks, mixed with sessions on financial reporting and compliance, that you might find at a meeting between a donor and its grantees anywhere in the world. Yet in that banality, for Cordes, lay the triumph. MCT funds projects Most households in the Federated States of Micronesia rely on subsistence fishing.
    [Show full text]
  • New Hope for Threatened Iguanas of Cabritos Island
    New Hope for Threatened Iguanas of Cabritos Island islandconservation.org /new-hope-threatened-iguanas-cabritos-island/ Island Conservation 11/1/2017 Some Good News for Caribbean Species: Threatened Iguanas Can Now Safely Breed on Cabritos Island For release on Nov. 1 Contact: Sally Esposito, Island Conservation, [email protected], (706) 969-2783 The Critically Endangered Ricord’s Iguana and the Vulnerable Rhinoceros Iguana can once again thrive on Cabritos Island, Dominican Republic after the successful removal of a suite of invasive species. After extensive monitoring by a team of international organizations, the Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources of the Dominican Republic, SOH Conservation, and Island Conservation confirmed Cabritos Island’s native iguanas are poised for recovery following the successful removal of introduced, damaging (invasive) donkeys, feral cats, and cows from the island. The effort began in 2013 with the training of a local field team in island restoration techniques. Since then, the Critically Endangered[1] Ricord’s and Vulnerable Rhinoceros’ Iguanas have gone through multiple breeding seasons where the invasive species populations were greatly reduced or absent, and evidence of recovery is everywhere. Wesley Jolley, Cabritos Project Manager at Island Conservation said: Today, the island is filled with juvenile iguanas scurrying about, a sight rarely seen when invasive species were present. Native vegetation is also thriving. Now, Cabritos Island is the only place on Earth where the Critically Endangered Ricord’s Iguana can roam free from the threat of feral cats, donkeys and cows. These threatened iguanas survive as four populations, with three in the Southwest of the Dominican Republic and one in Haiti.
    [Show full text]
  • Coos, Booms, and Hoots: the Evolution of Closed-Mouth Vocal Behavior in Birds
    ORIGINAL ARTICLE doi:10.1111/evo.12988 Coos, booms, and hoots: The evolution of closed-mouth vocal behavior in birds Tobias Riede, 1,2 Chad M. Eliason, 3 Edward H. Miller, 4 Franz Goller, 5 and Julia A. Clarke 3 1Department of Physiology, Midwestern University, Glendale, Arizona 85308 2E-mail: [email protected] 3Department of Geological Sciences, The University of Texas at Austin, Texas 78712 4Department of Biology, Memorial University, St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador A1B 3X9, Canada 5Department of Biology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City 84112, Utah Received January 11, 2016 Accepted June 13, 2016 Most birds vocalize with an open beak, but vocalization with a closed beak into an inflating cavity occurs in territorial or courtship displays in disparate species throughout birds. Closed-mouth vocalizations generate resonance conditions that favor low-frequency sounds. By contrast, open-mouth vocalizations cover a wider frequency range. Here we describe closed-mouth vocalizations of birds from functional and morphological perspectives and assess the distribution of closed-mouth vocalizations in birds and related outgroups. Ancestral-state optimizations of body size and vocal behavior indicate that closed-mouth vocalizations are unlikely to be ancestral in birds and have evolved independently at least 16 times within Aves, predominantly in large-bodied lineages. Closed-mouth vocalizations are rare in the small-bodied passerines. In light of these results and body size trends in nonavian dinosaurs, we suggest that the capacity for closed-mouth vocalization was present in at least some extinct nonavian dinosaurs. As in birds, this behavior may have been limited to sexually selected vocal displays, and hence would have co-occurred with open-mouthed vocalizations.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Juan Fernández?
    THE JUAN FERNÁNDEZ ARCHIPELAGO A RACE AGAINST TIME TO SAFEGUARD ISLAND LIFE Island Conservation’s mission is to prevent extinctions by removing invasive species from islands. Our Juan Fernández Program aims to restore native island ecosystems that promote the sustainable development of the local community. Through the removal of invasive alien species (IAS)1, we will prevent extinctions, build capacity, and improve human livelihoods in the archipelago. WHY JUAN FERNÁNDEZ? ISOLATION ENDEMISM EXTINCTION RESILIENCE The islands grew from volcanic The land that comprises the According to IUCN2 Red List Invasive alien species (IAS) activity six million years ago archipelago is home to over criteria, 89 native plant and are the leading threat to and emerged 700 km off the 900 plant and animal species; six native bird species are a prosperous archipelago. Chilean coast. Native species 64% are endemic, found only threatened with extinction. Removing IAS will restore developed and flourished in here. Many species are highly Nine plant species can no balance to the ecosystem the unique conditions of this vulnerable to invasive species longer be found in native by protecting threatened remote paradise. that have been inadvertently forests. native species and the natural introduced since European resources that island residents discovery. depend on. TURNING CHALLENGES INTO OPPORTUNITIES TAKING ACTION ISLAND CONSERVATION LOCAL CAPACITY Close collaboration with local partners Island Conservation (IC) is ideally Our partners in the archipelago have a and agencies allows us to conduct positioned to add conservation value history of controlling invasive species. research and lay much of the by designing and implementing IAS By complementing their knowledge and groundwork necessary to restore the eradications; our strong ties to the local skills, we are working together towards island ecosystems.
    [Show full text]
  • Megapode-Report-Tonga.Pdf
    SPREP Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data Report on a visit to Niuafo’ou Island, Kingdom of Tonga : the Polynesian Megapode Megapodius pritchardii, monitoring and conservation of Malau on Niuafo’ou Island. Apia, Samoa : SPREP, 2019. 38 p. 29 cm. ISBN: 978-982-04-0692-6 (print) 978-982-04-693-3 (ecopy) 1. Polynesian megapode – Bird survey – Niuafo’ou Island – Tonga. 2. Tongan megapode – Monitoring & conservation – Tonga. 3. Malau – Endangered bird species – Tonga – Oceania. I. Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP). II. Title 591.529 PO Box 240, Apia, Samoa +685 21929 [email protected] www.sprep.org Our vision: A resilient Pacific environment sustaining our livelihoods and natural heritage in harmony with our cultures. Report on a visit to Niuafo’ou Island, Kingdom of Tonga The Polynesian Megapode Megapodius pritchardii, monitoring and conservation of Malau on Niuafo’ou Island Dr David J. Butler INDEX Executive Summary 2 1. INTRODUCTION 3 2. SURVEY SCHEDULE AND METHODOLOGY 4 2.1 Schedule 4 2.2 Methodology 5 3. RESULTS 6 3.1 Nesting Ground activity 6 3.2 Nest camera results at active burrows 8 3.3 Numbers of birds recorded 9 3.4 Areas occupied by malau 10 3.5 Other native fauna and invasive species 10 3.6 Education programme 10 3.7 Community awareness programme 11 4. DISCUSSION 12 4.1 Comparison with previous surveys 12 4.1.1 No. of nesting grounds active 12 4.1.2 Numbers of active and inactive burrows at nesting grounds 13 4.1.3 Numbers of birds recorded 15 4.1.4 Areas occupied by malau 16 4.2 Assessment of threats 16 4.2.1 Egg collecting 16 4.2.2 Mammals including feral animals 17 4.2.3 Other invasive species 17 4.2.4 Loss or alteration of habitat 17 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Gregg Howald CV
    CAREER ASPIRATIONS Gregg To implement, catalyze and inspire biodiversity conservation through sustainable partnerships for the benefit of wildlife and people. Howald PROFESSIONAL OVERVIEW > Building conservation programs. Over 20 years of experience protecting threatened species by building multi‐lateral/transboundary partnerships focused on the restoration of island ecosystems in the temperate and tropical Pacific. > Building and sustaining long term public‐private partnerships by bringing industry, government, scientists and NGOs together under national and international policy frameworks to conserve threatened species. > Effectively communicating the science of conservation and environmental issues in support of complex environmental compliance processes (eg. NEPA; FIFRA), controversial public consultation, media and advocacy. > Applying the science of ecotoxicology and environmental risk assessment for toxin based invasive species management projects. > Catalyzing the innovation of new, more effective and safer conservation tools to facilitate larger, more complex, or currently unattainable restoration actions. > Mentoring the next generation of conservationists through collaborative working relationships and sharing of expertise internationally. EXPERIENCE 2010‐Present Island Conservation (IC) North America Regional Director > Develop and implement a strategic plan for IC in North America. > Build and maintain partnerships with a diverse group of First Nations, government, funders, NGO, corporate and landowner stakeholders to implement
    [Show full text]