TABLE OF CONTENTS

OVERVIEW ...... 2

GOAL ...... 3 The goal of the Marine Birds Strategy is to reverse the decline of selected species of birds, particularly threatened species, associated with marine environments as a contribution to the restoration of sustainable marine ecosystems...... 3

BACKGROUND ...... 3 Invasive species ...... 3 Bycatch ...... 3 Climate Change ...... 4 Habitat Loss ...... 4

THEORY OF CHANGE AND APPROACHES ...... 5 Seabirds Approaches: Opportunities and Challenges ...... 5 Breeding Grounds ...... 5 At Sea ...... 6 Shorebirds Approaches: Opportunities and Challenges ...... 8

GRANTMAKING ...... 9 Island restoration ...... 9 Bycatch reduction ...... 10 Shorebird habitat conservation ...... 10 Mexico ...... 11 Panama ...... 12 Chile ...... 12 Pacific Flyway-wide ...... 13

RISK ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION ...... 14 Island restoration ...... 14 Bycatch reduction ...... 14 Shorebird habitat conservation ...... 14

MONITORING, EVALUATION, AND LEARNING ...... 15

ESTIMATED TIMELINE AND EXIT PLAN ...... 16

BUDGET AND STAFFING ...... 16

APPENDIX A: OUTCOMES AND INDICATORS ...... 17

APPENDIX B: ISLAND ROIS ...... 21

1

OVERVIEW

The Marine Birds Strategy is part of the Packard Foundation’s Ocean Strategic Framework, adopted by the Foundation in 2016. The Framework describes a set of priorities for enabling sound marine resource management in countries with globally significant marine biodiversity that together account for most global seafood production — Chile, China, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, and the United States. These six focal countries all encircle the Pacific Ocean. In addition to working in these countries, the Foundation supports four global strategies that transcend national boundaries: 1) promoting global markets for sustainable seafood, 2) protecting marine birds through habitat protection and bycatch reduction, 3) eliminating illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing around the world, and 4) working to more broadly understand and proactively address the impacts of climate change on ocean systems.

Seabirds and shorebirds both depend on and contribute to robust ocean and coastal systems. Human pressures, such as overfishing, climate change, pollution, and coastal development threaten the health of our ocean, and communities that depend on the ocean, by disrupting ecosystems, degrading coastal habitats, threatening marine biodiversity, and undermining human welfare. The Marine Birds Strategy is part of our effort to protect and restore marine biodiversity. Through this strategy we focus on protecting island and coastal environments as well as supporting more sustainable fisheries.

Marine birds are among the most threatened animals on Earth. Twenty-nine percent of seabird species are listed as Threatened (Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable) on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List. In North America, 28 of 31 shorebird species that depend on Pacific Coast habitats are thought to be declining in numbers. This strategy addresses three major threats to the survival of marine birds: Invasive species: • Adult mortality or reduced breeding success of seabirds caused by invasive predators at their breeding colonies • Shorebird extinction and endangerment caused by invasive species

Bycatch: High mortality for albatrosses, petrels, and other seabirds that are inadvertently caught in longline and other fishing gears

Habitat loss: Loss and degradation of important shorebird habitats, primarily due to wetland reclamation and human disturbance

To address these threats, the Marine Birds strategy supports eradication of invasive species on priority seabird and shorebird breeding islands in coordination with restoration activities to increase breeding success, development of bycatch reduction methods and improvements to fisheries management that ensure the broad use of best practices for seabird bycatch mitigation, and capacity strengthening for long term protection of critical shorebird habitat, primarily along the Pacific Flyway in Latin America.

The original Marine Birds grantmaking strategy was prepared in 2007 and updated in 2013. This document extends the 2013 strategy through 2021 and reflects a modest number of modifications based on a mid-strategy refresh concluded in 2018. The significant modifications include: updated statistics; expressly including translocation and social attraction as interventions to be supported for seabird conservation; more specificity on capacity building interventions to be supported for shorebird conservation; and updated outcomes and indicators for seabirds and shorebirds.

2

GOAL The goal of the Marine Birds Strategy is to reverse the decline of selected species of birds, particularly threatened species, associated with marine environments as a contribution to the restoration of sustainable marine ecosystems.

Specifically, the strategy aims to: • Increase seabird breeding success and survival through eradication of introduced predators and/or establishment of new breeding populations in predator-free habitats; • Reduce mortality of seabirds — especially albatrosses, shearwaters, and large petrels — through bycatch reduction; and • Build conservation and monitoring capacity together with effective action for coastal protection in key shorebird breeding, migratory, and wintering grounds along the Pacific Flyway in Latin America.

BACKGROUND

Invasive species Introduced mammals on breeding islands are the greatest threat to most seabird species, particularly IUCN Red- Listed Threatened species. Of 110 IUCN threatened seabirds, 66 percent are impacted by invasive vertebrates. Invasive species that pose the greatest threat are rats, cats, mice, rabbits, goats, pigs, and mustelids (carnivorous mammals including weasels, badgers, and otters). Rats and cats prey on seabird eggs, chicks, and in some cases adult seabirds. Larger invasive mammals, such as goats and pigs, can indirectly cause erosion of breeding habitats while also directly impacting adults and chicks. Rats are nearly ubiquitous, now inhabiting (with human help) up to 85 percent of the world’s island groups. The good news is that invasive species can be eradicated: of 1,603 attempted invasive vertebrate eradications on 1,065 islands globally, 92 percent have been successful. The results of these eradications, where results have been documented, are usually dramatic for seabirds and other flora and fauna, including shorebirds. Because islands are centers of biodiversity and endemism (they host 19 percent of global bird diversity), eradications also benefit important ecological relationships as well as populations of land birds, reptiles, invertebrates, native vegetation, and even coral reefs surrounding tropical islands.

Once invasive predators are removed, additional actions may be needed to re-establish historical seabird breeding colonies. Decoys and sound recordings can attract particular species to a habitat that is being restored for seabird breeding. These social attraction techniques can be successful in drawing in enough individual birds to establish a breeding colony. In other cases, because seabirds have a strong tendency to return to their natal islands to breed, it may be necessary to reintroduce or translocate chicks from another breeding colony to complement social attraction techniques.

Bycatch Of the 110 IUCN threatened seabirds, 47 percent are impacted by fisheries bycatch. The dramatic growth of longline fishing in the past 20 years is the principal cause of population declines of albatrosses as well as of several shearwater and petrel species. Of the 22 albatross species, 15 are threatened or endangered, primarily due to incidental take in fisheries. The conservation community has established best practices for industrial longline and trawl fisheries to mitigate seabird bycatch. These methods include weighted fishing lines to sink baited hooks rapidly out of the range of diving birds, bird scaring lines to deter birds from sinking baits, and night setting (because

3

most vulnerable seabirds are inactive at night). When applied, these modifications can significantly reduce bycatch rates. However, while there has been significant progress in the last decade in securing regulations requiring best practices, even those fisheries with bycatch regulations may function with little to no oversight to ensure compliance. The basic methods for mitigating seabird bycatch in industrial longline fishing fleets are known, but each fleet may require a different combination of fishing methods and gear, depending on the seabird species assemblage, requisite fishing operations to maintain catches of target species, and other conditions unique to an individual fleet.

While industrial longline and trawl fleets in areas overlapping with albatross and petrel distributions have been recognized as posing the greatest bycatch threat, bycatch in gillnet and some purse seine fisheries are emerging concerns. Small-scale fisheries, using a variety of gear, tend to be data-poor, and while bycatch of endangered seabirds has been well documented in areas such as the Humboldt Current, reliable information is generally unavailable for most fisheries, making it difficult to estimate the global magnitude of seabird bycatch in small-scale fisheries. A recent review of reported seabird bycatch in gillnet fisheries estimated that at least 400,000 seabirds are caught annually. It is likely that seabird mortality from bycatch is underestimated, as we have little knowledge about the indirect effects of bycatch on seabird survival. For instance, recent studies suggest seabirds experiencing heavy exposure to fish oil (e.g., sardines, anchovies) during encounters with purse seine fisheries may experience high mortality due to compromised feather integrity. Although many of the species caught in gillnet and purse seine fisheries are not currently experiencing declining populations, some of those affected are threatened and declining, such as pink-footed shearwaters, Humboldt penguins, and waved albatrosses. Efforts are ongoing to develop gear modifications to reduce seabird bycatch from small-scale fisheries, and best practices for these gears have yet to be broadly proven and established.

Climate Change The effects of climate change compound the threats to seabirds and shorebirds. The direct physical impacts of storms and sea level rise are already causing the loss of seabird and shorebird breeding grounds. Sea level rise is reducing the extent of coastal wetlands used by most shorebird species, and coastal flooding is resulting in increased breeding failures of burrow-nesting seabirds. In the Northern Hemisphere, the tundra habitat where most shorebirds breed is being diminished by the northward expansion of high-latitude forests. In addition, the combination of temperature extremes, storminess, sea-level rise, increased rainfall, habitat availability, and food availability and distribution affect marine bird breeding success. The timing of prey abundance during migration and breeding is already documented to be having an impact on shorebird species, such as red knot, and seabird species, such as black-legged kittiwake and puffin. Although it is beyond the scope of this Marine Birds strategy to directly address the threat of climate change, there are opportunities to increase the resilience of species to climate change, such as by protecting, and in some cases restoring, shorebird habitats, removing invasive species from seabird island breeding habitat, protecting seabird foraging areas by reducing fishing pressure, and establishing new seabird colonies.1

Habitat Loss Although shorebirds as a group are less threatened than seabirds, they nevertheless face significant pressures, particularly associated with the loss of breeding and wintering wetland habitats. To date, the shorebirds component of the Marine Birds Strategy has focused primarily on the Pacific Flyway, the north-south route of travel for migratory birds along the West Coast of the Americas from Alaska to Chile. Pressures on shorebirds and

1 The Foundation also invests over 50 million USD annually on climate-related programs that promote clean power alternatives and minimize emissions from land use practices around the world by stopping deforestation and improving agricultural practices.

4

conservation response vary, depending on geographic location. In the U.S., there has been significant loss of coastal habitat, but since the 1960s, active civil society organizations (CSOs) and government agencies have supported conservation actions to protect and restore coastal habitats. Significant private and public funding has supported projects that protect habitat and address water quality as well as, more recently, sea level rise. In contrast to the numerous CSOs working on coastal habitat conservation and restoration in the U.S., further south along the Pacific Flyway, CSO presence is limited. Thus, enhanced CSO capacity is vital to address the increasing pressures on shorebird habitat in Latin America. At many important sites along the Mexican and Central and South American parts of the Flyway, shorebird habitat remains intact, but resources for long-term conservation of these habitats are scarce. Finally, additional shorebird species are threatened by exploitation and habitat destruction globally. Though beyond the scope of this strategy, an effort to explore global shorebird conservation opportunities is an important first step in mitigating their decline.

THEORY OF CHANGE AND APPROACHES The status, threats, and opportunities related to marine bird conservation differ significantly between shorebirds and seabirds, and even among groups of birds. In the case of seabirds, our theory of change relies on strategically addressing their two greatest threats globally: invasive species on breeding islands and bycatch in fisheries. For shorebirds, we focus on the Mexican, Central American, and South American portions of the Pacific Flyway, as these are the least resourced geographies for shorebird conservation along the Flyway and present significant opportunities to effectively deploy resources in alignment with the Foundation’s Mexico and Chile Marine strategies. Moving forward, our theory of change for shorebirds relies primarily on building long-term capacity for coastal habitat protection and for monitoring populations and the key habitats they rely on throughout their life histories. For seabirds, we will continue supporting invasive species removal on targeted islands and translocation or reintroduction to establish or re-establish breeding colonies, particularly for those species breeding on islands where invasive species removal is not feasible.

Seabirds Approaches: Opportunities and Challenges Breeding Grounds For several species of seabirds, it is possible to slow or reverse population declines and decrease extinction risk through eradication of invasive predators. The threat of invasive species to seabirds has been recognized for over a century, but the field of conservation eradication on islands has matured in the past several decades such that the number of species that can be eradicated safely and the size of islands that can be treated have steadily increased. Failed eradication efforts remain rare.

For both the 2007 Marine Birds Strategy and the 2013 Marine Birds Strategy update, the Foundation worked with grantees to identify islands where eradications could most cost-effectively contribute to seabird conservation. These islands were selected based on several criteria, including relatively high confidence that the eradications could succeed and that the impact on seabird populations would be significant in relation to the cost of the eradication, lower vulnerability to sea level rise, and low likelihood of re-invasion. Given the steady progress made in island eradications, we will continue to pursue these types of eradication opportunities as a high-return-on- investment approach for restoring seabird populations. Through analysis of island eradication opportunities based on the criteria listed above, the Redstone Strategy Group found and ranked cost-effective high-impact opportunities (see Appendix B), several of which have been successfully pursued since 2013.

To further focus conservation priorities and model the potential impact of conservation actions, the Foundation and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) collaboratively funded researchers at the University of California,

5

Santa Cruz (UCSC) over the last few years to analyze threats to island-based seabirds as well as potential conservation actions. The UCSC researchers developed a species-based meta population viability analysis (mPVA) model of extinction risk. The mPVA is a scientifically rigorous tool that applies a consistent, quantitative evaluation across species to predict extinction risk and the decrease of that risk due to specific conservation actions, such as invasive eradication, translocation, and/or bycatch reduction. The Foundation and NFWF are currently supporting further development of the mPVA through direct engagement among UCSC researchers and the marine bird conservation practitioner community. Ultimately, the Foundation expects to generate an updated return-on- investment analysis based on the mPVA to inform development of its post-2021 Marine Birds Strategy.

The primary barrier to successful eradications involves the technical difficulty of some projects. Many small, readily accessible islands have already been treated. As a result, some of the remaining highest-priority eradications are on larger and more remote islands; involve species, such as feral cats, that are more difficult to eradicate; or involve islands with human communities for whom some invasive species hold value within their culture and/or may contribute to food security. In recognition of these more challenging realities and to achieve more enduring marine bird conservation outcomes, grantees will be asked to identify, consider, and report on social impacts and outcomes. Importantly, we will continue to explore the potential for seabird translocation and reintroduction as tools for seabird recovery, particularly on islands where eradication is not feasible.

At Sea For seabird species, we focus on threatened and endangered seabird species whose populations are negatively impacted by bycatch and on geographic areas where bycatch reduction could have the greatest impact on their populations. Solving the seabird bycatch problem requires progress in two areas: ensuring that established best practices for mitigating bycatch are adopted by fishing management authorities and then securing compliance of the fishing fleets with these best practices. Much of the Foundation’s Marine Birds grantmaking has and will continue to focus on bycatch reduction in industrial longline and trawl fleets, which are known to have the greatest bycatch impact on threatened and endangered seabirds. However, as noted earlier, other gear types and fisheries are increasingly recognized as problematic for seabird bycatch, including small-scale, gillnet, and purse seine fisheries.

We will continue to support advocacy for bycatch reduction regulations and improved compliance with existing regulatory and voluntary measures, outreach to fishing fleets to ensure adoption of best practices, and the development of bycatch reduction technologies and techniques. The Foundation will also support grantees engaged in this work in coordinating with CSOs working on tuna sustainability to accelerate progress and increase effectiveness. This approach builds on progress made in high seas fisheries regulations by pressing for increased transparency about seabird bycatch rates and verifiable implementation of mitigation measures. Support for fleet outreach and new mitigation methods is consistent with our approach over the last 10 years.

In the past 10 years, Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) that govern high seas tuna and other fisheries have made significant progress at the regulatory level. All tuna RFMOs have adopted regulations requiring their vessels to use seabird bycatch mitigation measures. However, the move from regulatory requirements to on- the-water implementation is far from complete. Resistance within tuna fleets, which operate with minimal reporting and oversight, and the need for tuna RFMOs to tighten their overall systems for reporting, monitoring, and enforcement continue to impede consistent and verifiable implementation. Conservation impact can be maximized by linking bycatch regulation work with direct engagement with fleets and with CSOs working on wider tuna sustainability.

6

Determining fleet compliance with RFMO bycatch regulations requires improvements in data collection and reporting within RFMOs and among member nations. Specifically, changes in how RFMOs operate are needed in the following areas: • Increased requirements for fisheries observer coverage. Most RFMOs have established requirements for at least five percent observer coverage. Accurate reporting on seabird bycatch will require at least 25 percent observer coverage. Proven electronic monitoring technologies can complement human observers and ultimately stand to provide 100 percent observer coverage. With the potential for 100 percent observer coverage (achieved through electronic monitoring systems and human observers), randomized sampling of electronic monitoring data could produce combined benefits of promoting compliance and providing critical fishery and bycatch data for scientifically based management. • Increased standardization of fisheries observer data collection and reporting. RFMOs have different requirements for data collection and reporting that hinder comparative analyses of bycatch rates. Changes are needed to harmonize data collection standards and to ensure that seabird bycatch and vessel compliance with bycatch regulations are part of onboard observer coverage (human and electronic) data collection and reporting protocols.

High seas fisheries are challenging to govern and have historically operated with rudimentary systems for monitoring, surveillance, and enforcement. However, compliance by vessels with RFMO bycatch regulations will only take place if bycatch compliance monitoring is embedded within wider RFMO compliance systems, such as through port inspection, at-sea inspection, and electronic monitoring. As with all proposals for tightening compliance monitoring, the changes we seek will likely be met with considerable opposition from industry and treaty nation representatives. Institutionalizing norms for compliance and consequences for noncompliance with bycatch regulations for RFMO fleets is essential.

Reducing seabird bycatch also requires direct engagement with fishing fleets. Outreach to industrial longline and trawl vessels is needed to demonstrate to fishers how gear modifications effectively mitigate seabird bycatch while maintaining good target catch rates and operating fishing gear safely. The basic methods for bycatch mitigation are known, but outreach extension ensures that gear modifications are properly suited to the unique fishing requirements of each vessel. Engaging with fishing vessel captains and crews through portside workshops and on- board applied research has proven an effective way to secure adoption of best practices. The Foundation will continue to support this type of outreach to industrial longline and trawl fleets operating on the high seas and within exclusive economic zones with high rates of bycatch of threatened and endangered seabirds.

The absence of proven seabird bycatch mitigation methods for gear other than industrial longlines and trawls may be intractable, especially for small-scale and gillnet fisheries. Gear modifications for small-scale fisheries face greater constraints of commercial viability and implementation practicality because these fisheries tend to operate on much smaller profit margins. For gear like gillnets, the challenge is not only to reduce the bycatch of seabirds but also to ensure that the mitigation methods maintain target catch rates and do not increase the bycatch of other species, such as sea turtles, elasmobranchs (sharks and rays), and marine mammals that can be incidentally captured by gillnets. Solutions to gillnet bycatch may require partnerships with groups focused on gillnet bycatch of other species. This approach would prevent problems that arise from mitigation methods focused on single species, such as circle hooks for longlines that reduce sea turtle bycatch but can increase shark bycatch in some fisheries. While beyond the scope of this strategy, spatial planning, such as establishment of marine protected areas (MPAs), is another approach to reducing bycatch for small-scale and gillnet fisheries. For purse seine fisheries, the global scale of impact is not yet known. However, work within small-scale fisheries in Chile has shown that net modifications can reduce seabird bycatch to near zero while enhancing target catch, offering the potential for positive prospects elsewhere.

7

Developing, testing, and implementing gear modifications requires participation of fishers from the targeted fisheries. Fishers are critical partners in gear modifications for multiple reasons: they modify their gear to increase its efficiency and are adept at experimenting with new gear; they know best the conditions under which their vessels operate and can assess the practicality of proposed solutions; and as the intended users of gear modifications, their buy-in is required for successful adoption.

Experiments that partner gear specialists with fishers are important for catalyzing innovations that work on the water. Attention should be paid to the statistical power of studies that show reduction in bycatch with no reduction in target catch. If solutions are developed for small-scale and gillnet fisheries, implementation will require both outreach with fleets and, potentially, advocacy for regulatory reform to require use of those mitigation measures. In addition, substantial bycatch caused by illegal, unregulated, and unreported (IUU) fishing may not be addressed even if new technologies or techniques are developed. Therefore, the Foundation’s parallel support to grantees focused on combating IUU fishing is critical to reducing seabird mortality and extinction risk due to bycatch.

Shorebirds Approaches: Opportunities and Challenges Shorebirds are typically threatened by multiple factors, and it is sometimes difficult to determine which threat is most significant for a species. Nevertheless, specific actions—even at relatively small, discrete sites—can have large and positive consequences. The initial scoping for the Marine Birds Strategy identified five priority sites along the Pacific Flyway where protection — and, in some cases, restoration — of habitat was needed and could greatly benefit shorebirds: Gray’s Harbor in Washington State, United States; the California Central Valley; Santa María Bay, Mexico; Panama Bay, Panama; and Chiloé Island, Chile. Our past grantmaking focused on some of these sites and on cross-cutting issues that could benefit areas beyond these sites (such as strengthening monitoring efforts throughout the Flyway). However, we have since refined our focus to Latin America.

For the first five years (2007-2012), the primary focus of the Marine Birds Strategy for shorebirds was protecting important habitat. Within the United States, the scale of the Foundation’s investments to protect and restore habitat was relatively small compared with other sources of public and private funding. Projects that the Foundation supported have produced positive impacts or piloted new systems of land management, but not at the scale and level of permanence needed to make more than relatively marginal improvements in shorebird conservation. Internationally, Foundation investments supported a successful legal strategy that restored protection to the Panama Bay wetlands, which are a globally important habitat for shorebirds, and contributed to conservation planning and some limited habitat protection in Chile. At the international sites where our strategy focused (Panama Bay and Chiloé Island), Foundation funding comprised a large fraction of the total funding available for shorebird conservation.

In addition to site-based work, monitoring is integral to understanding the status of shorebird species and assessing how threats may be affecting populations. In the northern part of the Pacific Flyway, monitoring networks are strong and are often supported by citizen scientists. In some parts of Latin America, however, monitoring is limited by funding and scientific capacity shortfalls. The remoteness of shorebird sites and absence of engaged citizen scientists also restrict shorebird monitoring. Drawing on shorebird experts to build monitoring capacity throughout the Flyway can improve shorebird knowledge and build institutional connections among shorebird sites, creating a more unified network of Pacific Flyway researchers and conservationists.

During the initial five years of the Marine Birds Strategy, we learned that the Foundation’s grantmaking should focus primarily on strengthening CSO capacity to more effectively address the complexities of threats that important shorebird coastal habitats are and will be facing, increasing public awareness for coastal conservation, and building

8

more political will for coastal habitat conservation. We also learned that the Foundation’s relatively limited funding can have the greatest impact on building capacity at sites and institutions in Latin America, given the scarce resources available for shorebird conservation there. Over the past five years (2013-2017), the Foundation shifted a larger share of funding toward capacity building for individuals, organizations, and networks to engage in coastal conservation work in Latin America while also continuing to support some site-based conservation. Going forward, the Foundation will continue to focus most of its shorebird habitat investments on building capacity and awareness for shorebird conservation in Latin America, with particular focus on Mexico, Panama, and Chile. In a limited number of cases, the Foundation will also consider support for projects with the potential to fundamentally alter the management of shorebird habitat in specific locations when the combined effects of such projects help achieve one or more strategic outcomes identified in the Foundation’s Chile or Mexico Marine Strategies. Finally, we will continue supporting platforms to strengthen monitoring capacity and strategic thinking across the Pacific Flyway.

GRANTMAKING Since 2007, the Packard Foundation has invested approximately $40 million through its Marine Birds Strategy. Over the past decade (2007-2017) of island restoration grants and the past 5 years (2013-2017) of bycatch mitigation and shorebird grants, a minimum of 978 populations of 431 species of marine and terrestrial vertebrate species are estimated to have benefited from Packard Foundation supported actions (an unknown, but significant number of invertebrates and plants also benefited). This includes over 100 seabird and 30 shorebird species. For seabirds, this has been accomplished through a combination of island restoration work (71 island eradications benefitting 471 seabird populations), translocations (3 species), and bycatch mitigation (mitigation actions for 7 RFMOs and 18 fisheries benefitting 26 seabird species). For shorebirds, 30 species have benefited from habitat protection, restoration, and island invasive species removal. In addition to these direct impacts, Marine Birds grantmaking has promoted important protected area establishment, improvements in regional-scale monitoring, and changes in fisheries management and governance that benefit marine birds and overall sustainability of fisheries.

Finally, the strategy has provided unprecedented support for local capacity building, research, and education, particularly focused on shorebirds in Latin America. With lead support from the Foundation and engagement from more than 85 shorebird experts and resource managers from 15 countries along the Flyway, the Pacific Americas Shorebird Conservation Strategy (Pacific Flyway Strategy) was developed and published in March 2017. Furthermore, the Foundation helped to significantly strengthen monitoring efforts throughout the Flyway and recently launched the Coastal Solutions Fellowship (CSF) with the Cornell Lab of Ornithology to increase capacity to address the complex threats that coastal ecosystems face through interdisciplinary approaches.

Island restoration Outcome 1: Improve breeding success of threatened and endangered seabird species Given the success of previous island-invasive eradication projects, the Foundation will continue supporting eradications of invasive species that reduce the breeding productivity of threatened and endangered seabirds on islands. To ensure that islands are selected to maximize the return on investment, we will continue to draw on the analysis of island eradication opportunities produced by the Redstone Strategy Group in 2013 (see Appendix A). In addition, we will reference new analyses of seabird-breeding islands and their threats available through UCSC’s Coastal Conservation Action Lab and the Lab’s species-based meta-population viability analysis model (mPVA) of extinction risk. These more recent tools provide an updated means to inform the Foundation’s seabird grantmaking (particularly for island restoration) and to inform other marine bird funders (particularly the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation). Selection of islands will also be based on considerations of re-invasion risk; the beneficial impact for other threatened species, including shorebirds and non-threatened seabirds; and the lack of an

9

immediate threat from sea level rise. Consistent with our approach to past eradication projects, we will support eradications that incorporate biosecurity measures to prevent re-invasions, deploy social attraction methods to draw seabirds to the targeted island, and consider whether translocation of chicks may be needed to establish or increase the viability and stability of seabird breeding colonies. As part of an eradication project, these measures ensure the increased presence and persistence of breeding seabirds on targeted islands.

Outcome 2: Increase capacity for and support pilot seabird reintroduction/translocation efforts While invasive species eradication can help reduce the extinction risk for a large number of threatened seabird species, many species have been extirpated from previous colonies while other species (15 percent of threatened species) breed on islands where eradication is not feasible. These species can potentially benefit from assisted reintroductions or translocations. The Foundation has supported a small number of these actions (three) in the past. Understanding best practices, increasing capacity, and supporting strategic translocations can help increase the use of this important tool in the field. As we approach 2021, we anticipate supporting a global review of best practices for seabird reintroduction and translocation and assisting in transferring this new capacity to an existing or new conservation practitioner. This could be accomplished by supporting one to three high potential reintroduction/translocation projects for threatened seabirds at high extinction risk.

Bycatch reduction Outcome 3: Implement best practices for bycatch reduction in industrial longline and trawl fisheries When the Marine Birds strategy was launched in 2007, some uncertainty existed regarding the feasibility of reducing seabird bycatch on the high seas. Over the past 10 years, advocates focused on RFMOs have made significant progress in creating new seabird bycatch regulations. We plan to build on this momentum among RFMOs and support improvements in RFMO regulations, monitoring, and transparency. As transparency increases and compliance with bycatch regulations is better known, we expect to support efforts to set norms for compliance in RFMO fishing fleets, including through the NGO Tuna Forum.

The type of seabird bycatch reduction activities that we would consider for support include the following: • Advocate for increased fisheries observer (human and electronic) coverage, standardization of reporting and quality control for data collection, and transparency in bycatch reporting • Develop and disseminate approaches to reduce fisheries observer costs • Assess the effectiveness of bycatch mitigation regulations and fleet compliance levels • Establish norms for compliance with bycatch regulations

The development of best practices for bycatch mitigation in industrial longline and trawl fisheries has created opportunities to work directly with fishing fleets on implementation. The Foundation will support gear modification outreach projects that focus on industrial longline and trawl fisheries with bycatch of endangered and threatened seabirds. We will focus the majority of our grantmaking in bycatch reduction around this objective, coupling policy advocacy with fisheries outreach.

Outcome 3.1: Develop new technologies and techniques for bycatch reduction Methods to mitigate bycatch for gear other than industrial longlines continue to be piloted. The Foundation will continue to support activities that pilot promising approaches to bycatch mitigation through collaborative research with fishers or that catalyze development of new methods across sites, fisheries, and gear types.

Shorebird habitat conservation Outcome 4: Build capacity for coastal conservation and monitoring that benefits shorebirds along the Pacific coast of Latin America

10

Creating infrastructure and support for shorebird conservation along the Pacific coast of Latin America will require investing in multiple types of capacity, piloting innovative approaches to habitat management and conservation at priority sites, and attracting more funders to the work. Within Latin America, our focus will continue to be Mexico (Northwest Mexico, including Bahía Santa María), Panama (Panama Bay), and Chile (Chiloé Island). We will also consider supporting activities that benefit monitoring and conservation efforts — as well as the capacity of individual leaders, CSOs, and networks or coalitions — across the Pacific Flyway.

We define capacity as the ability to carry out stated objectives. We define capacity building as a process that improves the ability of a person, group, organization, or system to meet its objectives or to perform better. Because capacity building is multi-dimensional, we envision long-term outcomes across the following domains: • Infrastructure: Information infrastructure is in place to support landscape-level conservation efforts along the Pacific Flyway. • Individual: Coastal Solutions Fellows are established leaders working on shorebird and coastal conservation in Latin America. • Organizational: CSOs are coordinating and collaborating to implement activities and secure government support for shorebird conservation at six priority sites in Mexico, Panama, and Chile. • Community: A strong network of environmental leaders and CSOs are successfully implementing long-term solutions for shorebird conservation along the entire Pacific Flyway, serving as a model for migratory species and coastal conservation. • These long term infrastructure, individual, organizational, and community outcomes are desired across the Pacific Flyway in Latin America, though the Foundation’s grantmaking will focus on three priority sites in three countries: Chiloé Island, Chile; Northwest Mexico, Mexico; and Panama Bay, Panama. The Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network recognizes these geographies as having hemispheric importance.2

• We aim to link long-term capacity outcomes with shorter-term on-the-ground shorebird conservation outcomes. Doing so will allow us to evaluate whether our capacity-building objectives are contributing to the protection and restoration of key coastal habitats along the Flyway. Within this context, shorebird grantmaking will aim to: • Increase protection of high-quality shorebird habitat along the Pacific Flyway in Latin America, and • Increase the relative abundance of shorebird species at priority sites. Mexico Grantmaking will build on previous and future coastal conservation efforts in the Gulf of California region through the Mexico Marine Strategy. Thus, much of what the Foundation supports through the Marine Birds Strategy will be linked to and benefit from the Mexico Marine Strategy. More specifically, we will focus on conservation of recognized sites of hemispheric importance in Northwest Mexico, particularly Bahía Santa María, Sinaloa. The types of activities we would consider for support include: • Strengthening grantees’ organizational capacity as well as the technical capacity of local, state and federal government agencies with relevant coastal management jurisdiction • Working with local landowners on establishing voluntary conservation agreements recognized by the Mexican Government • Working with shrimp aquaculture companies and farm owners on improving practices to benefit shorebird populations while also maintaining productive shrimp harvests • Supporting grantees’ work to obtain strategic coastal conservation concessions and their work with Mexico’s Commission of Protected Areas (CONANP) to obtain coastal fringe concessions that can be managed in perpetuity by CONANP (under Mexican law, CSOs can obtain temporary 30-year concessions in

2 Defined as sites that have at least 500,000 shorebirds annually or at least 30 percent of the biogeographic population for a species.

11

the coastal fringe (30 meters above the high tide line) for conservation purposes) • Supporting public education campaigns to increase awareness about coastal conservation issues, the importance of shorebirds and other species that depend on coastal ecosystems, and to maintain the health of coastal ecosystems for the wellbeing of coastal communities • Working with Mexico’s new federal administration to establish the Bahía Santa María Protected Area • Establishing state and local level (e.g., municipal) habitat protection mechanisms, such as through the revision of coastal zoning and ordinance plans • Strengthening grantees’ efforts to use the rule of law to block and/or mitigate the effects of ill-advised coastal development and other projects that could threaten Bahía Santa María and other coastal lagoons Panama Grantmaking will continue to focus on increasing CSO and government capacity to protect Panama Bay. The types of activities we would consider for support include: • Strengthening the organizational capacity of CSOs focused on protecting the Panama Bay wetlands and leveraging the coalition of CSOs to increase pressure on the national government to support conservation measures. CSOs work throughout Panama on a variety of environmental issues. Enhancing their ability to network and to amplify the power of their advocacy as a coalition can improve their standing as stakeholders in land use decision-making processes. In addition, leadership and communications skills development for individuals involved in this work can help to strengthen the overall coalition’s impact. • Creating opportunities to partner with business interests that may be negatively affected by increased development and by pollution in Panama Bay. For example, filling the Bay’s wetlands for development is predicted to worsen flooding within the city and the nearby international airport. Identifying those negative impacts and how they affect businesses can help CSOs develop high-profile partners in conservation. There may be opportunities for grantees to partner with businesses and government-backed projects to require mitigation for environmental and socio-economic impacts. • Using science to inform decision-making about land use planning for Panama City and for the wider Panama Bay. Studies that model how development projects will affect the city’s infrastructure, water quality, and resilience to flooding can be used to inform both the public and government about the socioeconomic impacts of specific development projects. • Partnering with other conservation funders in Panama. To date, the Packard Foundation is the only philanthropic organization focused on protecting Panama Bay, but other funders are invested in environmental work in Panama more broadly. Working more closely with other funders on the broader challenges of coastal protection and identifying new funding partners may improve the policy climate for conservation in Panama. Chile The Foundation will continue to support coastal conservation and capacity building in Chiloé Island. Awareness of shorebirds and habitat management remains limited on the island. Furthermore, development on Chiloé is expanding, but without planning and evaluation of environmental impacts for projects such as residential subdivisions and the installation of wind turbines. Grantmaking in Chiloé will be coordinated with and benefit from broader management and conservation efforts supported through the Chile Marine Strategy. While Chiloé Island is the most important shorebird conservation site in Chile, there are other areas throughout the country that have been identified as Important Bird Areas (IBAs) and WHSRN sites of hemispheric importance. We will leverage the Chile Marine Strategy to help develop and implement a national strategy for wetland protection and a network of practitioners working on coastal planning and conservation.

The types of activities we would consider for support in Chile include: • Strengthening the capacity of organizations focused on shorebird conservation on Chiloé Island.

12

• Leveraging and strengthening the existing coalition of CSOs working on habitat protection on Chiloé. Each CSO brings unique experience and skills in conservation, and members of this coalition would benefit from sharing their expertise in areas such as land management, social marketing, and advocacy. In addition, leadership and communications skills development for individuals involved in this work can help strengthen the coalition’s collective impact. • Building awareness about shorebirds and their habitat. The coalition in Chiloé has been focused on linking shorebird conservation to the Heritage Trail managed by the national government. Increasing awareness of shorebirds and their potential value to tourism on the island can help create political will for habitat conservation. • Engaging decision makers on land use planning for Chile. Advocates can work with decision makers at the national, regional, and local levels to ensure that habitat protection is a priority and that scientific analyses of land use impacts are considered in development decisions for the Chilean coastline broadly and for Chiloé specifically. • Identifying other partner institutions in habitat conservation and land use planning based in Chile. Increasing the political will for coastal conservation involves more direct engagement with local and regional stakeholders. • Creating designated protected areas for critically important shorebird habitat. Multiple land uses may be possible without negatively affecting habitat, but in some areas formal protections are needed to secure the integrity of the site for shorebirds. • Attracting other funders to supporting conservation work on Chiloé. The Packard Foundation is currently the only philanthropic organization focused on shorebird habitat conservation in Chiloé. While the United States Fish and Wildlife Service has supported habitat protection on the island, expanded and consistent funding is needed to support long-term conservation efforts.

Pacific Flyway-wide In addition to the site-specific work referenced above, the Foundation will consider supporting activities that increase capacity for and standardization of shorebird monitoring in Mexico, Central, and South American sites of the Pacific Flyway. Examples include projects that can address monitoring challenges in this region, such as the limited base of citizen scientists and remoteness of many shorebird sites. The goal is to increase the extent of monitoring in the Mexican, Central, and South American sections of the Pacific Flyway and support the capacity of local institutions in this region to undertake monitoring. Increased knowledge of shorebird populations in specific sites, compiled across the Flyway, will enable conservationists to determine population trends and changes in site usage, which can inform conservation actions.

The Foundation also plans to support initiatives that enhance capacity for shorebird conservation and coastal planning across the Americas, with a focus on the Pacific coast of Latin America. Cornell Lab of Ornithology is the Foundation’s primary grantee for such capacity building through its newly launched Coastal Solutions Fellowship. CSF’s objective is to build, train, and support a collaborative network of scientists, developers, and planners who are designing and implementing new, evidenced-based solutions to coastal environmental challenges in Latin America. We will also consider supporting efforts that could help implement the Pacific Americas Shorebird Conservation Strategy (Pacific Flyway Strategy).

13

RISK ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION

Island restoration By supporting invasive species eradications on seabird breeding islands and associated translocations (if appropriate), our assumption is that seabird breeding success will be higher after such interventions. Post- intervention surveys are proven methods for assessing the success of the eradication, but the potential increase in reproductive success requires a longer timescale to verify eradication and depends on a seabird’s life history. Using island eradications as a conservation tool assumes that invasive species are the most significant threat to seabirds and that even if other threats, such as fisheries bycatch or loss of habitat to sea level rise, exist, decreasing mortality caused by invasive species will increase seabird population viability. In certain cases where a species is known to be threatened by multiple factors, we have supported multiple interventions. For example, the waved albatross is endangered by both invasive species and bycatch, and the Foundation has supported work to eradicate invasive species on one of the waved albatross’s two known breeding islands as well as work to reduce waved albatross bycatch in Peruvian and Ecuadorian fisheries. To avoid investing in islands where breeding habitat will be lost to sea level rise, the Foundation has not supported projects on islands with a maximum elevation lower than ten meters, except in circumstances where the conservation benefit was justified (e.g. where building a population on a low island can prevent extinction by providing a source for islands that currently are not feasible for translocation but could be in the long term). For those species breeding on low lying atolls, translocation can be an important forward-thinking tool. Forty-two species of threatened seabirds breed on islands with medium/high risk of flooding, and for three threatened seabird species, all their population breeds on islands at high risk to climate change due to flooding. In general, we expect that climate change will have far-ranging impacts on global seabird habitat and prey availability.

Bycatch reduction Risks to success include lack of political will among RFMO country representatives to adopt stronger requirements, lack of accountability mechanisms for vessel compliance with RFMO requirements, and weak engagement from seafood market leaders. By focusing on RFMO advocacy and outreach, we assume that these governing bodies and the fishing fleets that operate under their jurisdiction will respond to concerted international pressure to improve the monitoring and oversight of their fisheries. Regulatory changes over the past 10 years suggest that improvements in RFMO fishery policy are possible, albeit uneven across RFMOs. Coupling this approach with direct engagement with fishing fleets demonstrates the feasibility and effectiveness of specific bycatch reduction measures. The Foundation’s bycatch reduction approach also operates on the assumption that fisheries on the high seas that are more tightly regulated and that operate with greater transparency will, with time, begin to accept norms for compliance with bycatch mitigation measures. In addition to working directly with fishing fleets, increasing collective pressure from fisheries sustainability advocates and seafood market leaders is expected to help create stronger management by RFMOs as well as improvements in fishing fleet compliance. Expected advances in and expanded reach of technology platforms that provide public transparency for vessel movements and practices will make it increasingly difficult for vessels and fleets to flout requirements and will provide more visibility into the extent of actual compliance among vessels on the water.

Shorebird habitat conservation In focusing on capacity building for shorebird conservation, we assume that improving capacities around organizational effectiveness, advocacy, stakeholder engagement, and science is possible in priority sites and will ultimately lead to protection of critical shorebird habitats. The risks to this approach are twofold: first, that building far-reaching capacity will take longer than the scope of this strategy or will not be sustainable without continued

14

Foundation support; second, that improvements in capacity — when they do occur — will not be enough to overcome development pressures on shorebird habitat in Mexico, Central, and South America. To help mitigate these risks, we will draw on the skills and expertise gained in previous successful efforts to support capacity-building in Latin America and, where possible, partner with other funders and environmental CSOs to augment support for proven approaches.

MONITORING, EVALUATION, AND LEARNING We define monitoring as the ongoing collection of information about program implementation and the shifting strategic context. We define evaluation as the systematic collection, analysis, and interpretation of data to determine the value of and decision making about a program. Through monitoring, evaluation, and learning, we aim to: • Understand grantee and funder achievements and impacts; • Learn what works to refine grantmaking; and • Be informed of trends and developments in predator eradications and other island restoration techniques, fisheries bycatch and management, environmental policies in key shorebird sites, and advancements in marine bird science.

The nature of MEL activities will differ significantly across the various components of the Marine Birds Strategy due to the diverse range of activities and targeted outcomes in each initiative. Island restoration outcomes tend to be relatively straightforward to quantify. While outcomes for bycatch reduction are quantifiable in theory, these activities happen in data-poor environments that make collecting data for indicators challenging. Outcomes for shorebird conservation capacity-building activities are complex and challenging to measure. Nonetheless, we have developed outcomes and indicators for each approach (see Appendix A).

The Marine Birds Strategy staff will monitor, evaluate, and learn from grantmaking at three levels: individual grant, approach, and strategic. At the individual grant level, we will assess grantee capacity and needs and will track progress toward mutually agreed upon project objectives. Tools used to capture data for these assessments include: • Grantee proposals with mutually agreed upon stated objectives for grant period and evaluation methods to track progress toward them • Grantee reports that document progress toward objectives stated in proposal, challenges, and key learnings • Due diligence performed by the program officer through phone calls, site visits, and review of organizational documents • Organizational development assessments to evaluate the current state of and improvements made in capacity and organizational development of CSO grantees working at key sites

Monitoring, evaluation, and learning for the Marine Birds Strategy will include assessments of individual grants, approaches, and strategy outcomes. To respond to emerging trends and opportunities in marine bird conservation, the Marine Birds Strategy staff monitors and learns from peer-reviewed scientific publications, white papers, scientific meetings, and discussions with issue experts.

15

ESTIMATED TIMELINE AND EXIT PLAN The Marine Birds Strategy was approved initially in 2007 as a 10-year effort. The Strategy was extended to 2021 with the Foundation’s adoption of an Ocean Strategic Framework in 2016. Prior to 2021, the Foundation will evaluate the outcomes of this strategy and the opportunities for continued conservation interventions for seabirds and shorebirds.

BUDGET AND STAFFING The annual grant budget will be $4 million annually through 2021. The relative allocation of funds across the Marine Birds Strategy will be similar to the allocation over the past 4 years, averaging slightly more than $2 million annually devoted to Island Restoration and Bycatch Reduction, and slightly less than $2 million devoted to shorebird habitat conservation and CSO/practitioner capacity building. The Seabird portion of this Strategy will be managed by the Foundation’s Deputy Director for Oceans, Meg Caldwell, while the shorebirds component and grantmaking in Latin America will be managed by Program Officer Richard Cudney. Juli Chamberlin, Program Associate, will provide administrative and strategy implementation support.

16

APPENDIX A: OUTCOMES AND INDICATORS

Table 1: Summary of Seabirds Outcomes and Monitoring Approaches. Note: We define “threatened seabirds” as IUCN Red Listed Vulnerable, Endangered, or Critically Endangered seabirds. “Important seabird islands” are defined as those containing (extant or extirpated) breeding populations of threatened seabirds.

Approach Outcome How Monitored

Island Restoration Damaging invasive predators are Number of important seabird islands successfully cleared of invasive eradicated from important seabird species and percent of eradication operations that are predator-free islands five years post-eradication

Translocation to Number of islands where translocation has occurred and number of establish/reestablish threatened threatened seabird populations that have become seabird breeding colonies established/reestablished due to translocation

Social attraction to Number of islands where social attraction has occurred and number of establish/reestablish threatened threatened seabird populations that have become seabird breeding colonies established/reestablished due to social attraction

Conditions exist on important Number of important seabird islands where Packard-funded restoration seabird islands for seabird and action(s) have occurred such that all significant threats have been other threatened vertebrate eliminated or mitigated and number of threatened species expected to populations to increase benefit Seabird survival or reproductive Number of threatened seabird populations for which demographic rates success increase on important (hatching success, fledging success, adult survival) have increased seabird islands

Bycatch Mitigation 100 percent observer coverage Percent of longline vessels required by tuna RFMOs to have observer (human and/or electronic) on coverage south of 25°S and percent with observer coverage south of longline tuna vessels is required 25°S and high levels of compliance are confirmed

Standardized practices for bycatch Number of tuna RFMOs that have adopted and are practicing are adopted by tuna RFMOs standardized methods of observer training, data collection, and transparent and consistent data sharing

Tuna RFMOs mandate bycatch Number of tuna RFMOs that have mandated, are monitoring, and are mitigation measures and track reporting transparently on the number of boats regularly using at least compliance two of three seabird bycatch mitigation measures and the number with strengthened compliance monitoring systems and documented improvements in compliance

Observer reports of compliance Rate of compliance with bycatch mitigation measures reported by 17 with bycatch mitigation measures observers/electronic monitoring demonstrate increasing trend among tuna RFMOs

Decrease in threatened seabird Percent change in total number of reported globally threatened bycatch, especially Albatross and albatrosses and petrels caught each year within the five tuna RFMOs Petrel bycatch

17

Table 2: Summary of Landscape Level Seabird Outcomes and Monitoring Approaches

Approach Outcome How Monitored

Island Restoration Protected areas are established and Number of important seabird islands designated with strongly protected implemented on important seabird status at the local, regional, national, and/or international level islands at local, regional, national, or international level

Marine protected areas adjacent to Number of marine areas adjacent to threatened seabird breeding islands threatened seabird breeding islands are designated with strongly protected status at the local, regional, national, established and implemented at local, and/or international level regional, national, or international level

Capacity to successfully execute eradication, Number of Packard Foundation grantees, partner organizations, or new translocation, or social attraction projects is funders that can independently plan, permit, and implement an enhanced eradication, translocation, or social attraction project. Growth in budget, staff, or number of projects implemented. Number of new policies adopted to increase the scale and rate of projects

Seabird species IUCN Red List classification Number of seabird species for which IUCN Red List classification has been down-listed down-listed

Bycatch Seabird bycatch mitigation technologies are Number of technologies to reduce seabird bycatch developed or enhanced Mitigation developed or enhanced and the number of fisheries adopting bycatch reduction technologies

Field capacity for adoption of seabird Number of practitioner trainings or workshops, number of published bycatch mitigation technologies is enhanced manuscripts, number of community outreach events or pieces of informational material produced, and number of seabird bycatch reduction partner organizations that advance seabird bycatch reduction measures

18

18

Table 3: Summary of Shorebird Outcomes and Monitoring Approaches

Approach Outcome How Monitored

Infrastructure By 2021, standardized shorebird monitoring is being • Number of new sites where standardized monitoring is being regularly conducted at 10 new sites regularly conducted in Latin America along the PAF. By 2026, measurable increase in the quality, quantity, • Number of new sites where standardized monitoring is being coverage, and consolidation of useful shorebird regularly conducted in Latin America monitoring data for the PAF. • Number of sites being monitored by country along the PAF • Decrease of uncertainty (e.g., standard deviation) in estimates for monitored sites • Opinions of key informants and leaders By 2026, measurable increase in useful information • Number of publications or reports that are informing about particular shorebirds of concern (e.g., IUCN conservation strategies or baselines (e.g., IUCN Red List) for status) outside of the PAF. shorebirds of concern outside of the PAF

By 2026, monitoring data is being used effectively for • Opinions of key informants and leaders shorebird management and conservation at five • Number of site-level management plans (or equivalent) that WHSRN sites in Latin America along the PAF (i.e., sites are informed by monitoring data that did not have effective shorebird monitoring programs in 2018).

Individual By 2021, cohorts of CS Fellows are being recruited • Total number of CS Fellows representing the target disciplines each year across the PAF in Latin America and (i.e., science, planning, AEC, conservation practice) and sectors represent the target disciplines and sectors. (i.e., private, NGO, academic)

By 2026, the CSF program is self-sustaining financially • Amount of secured and pledged funding sources from non- and no longer needs Foundation support. Packard sources for the CSF Program

By 2026, CS Fellows are maintaining their connections • Number of applications from senior CSF fellows for with the CSF Program and are working and collaboration grants collaborating outside their discipline and sectors. • Number of senior fellows working outside of their primary discipline or sector when s/he were in the fellowship program • Amount of CSF website and social media engagement by senior fellows By 2026, the CSF network consists of >150 people, • Average monthly website and social media engagements in has a strong brand, and has recruited fellows from aggregate and by country every country along the PAF in Latin America. • Number of people included in the CSF Program Directory • Number of CSF Fellows broken down by country • Opinions of key informants and leaders Organizational By 2021, CSOs working at the six priority sites have • Number of CSOs that: increased their organizational capacity. • have functioning boards 19 • have strategic plans • are in solid financial standing • have the capacity to conduct internal monitoring and adapt accordingly By 2021, CSOs at the six priority sites have increased • Number of new funders supporting CSOs working at the six funding partnerships. priority sites

By 2021, CSOs at the six priority sites have created • Number of active collaborations with the private sector alliances with the private sector. • Number of workshops (or other forms of formal engagement) with the private sector By 2021, CSOs at the six priority sites have integrated • Number of land-use planning or development activities that more science with land-use planning activities. were influenced by scientific evidence promoted by CSOs

19

By 2021, CSOs at the six priority sites are • Number of active collaborations with government agencies collaborating more with various levels of • Number of workshops (or other forms of formal engagement) government. with government agencies

By 2021, CSOs at the six priority sites are • Number of active collaborations between CSOs collaborating more together on specific projects. • Number of collaborative funding proposals by CSOs

By 2026, CSO capacity — both quantity and quality • Number of shorebird conservation outputs or outcomes (e.g., protected area designation; advocacy campaign) — is sufficient at the six priority sites to effectively • Opinions of key informants and leaders implement shorebird conservation strategies.

By 2026, at each of the six priority sites, there is a • Number of joint publications and reports that by CSOs that shared vision among CSOs on shorebird conservation present shared goals and objectives for shorebird and coastal development. conservation and coastal development • Opinions of key informants and leaders

Community By 2021, the Pacific Americas Shorebird Conservation • Secretariat has an active staff and is managing projects. Strategy has a Secretariat in place that is leading its implementation.

By 2026, a network of CSOs is working effectively on • Number of shorebird sites with new projects shorebird conservation in at least five new important • Number of CSOs working on projects at new shorebird sites sites along the Pacific Americas Flyway.

20

20

APPENDIX B: ISLAND ROIs By Redstone Strategy Group, 2012-2013

The following table contains ROI results for the 178 islands with ROI estimates greater than 0. In addition to including each island’s ROI estimate, it also includes each island’s ROI rank, name, country, region, invasives to be eradicated, birds that would benefit, benefit, LOS, cost, size, and human population. Within the ROI rank column, a few other island features are highlighted: • Elevation: and highlighting indicates islands included in the portfolios that we know have maximum elevations less than 10 and 5 meters, respectively. – When calculating the benefits of invasive species eradications, some experts recommend considering islands’ elevations. If an island is so low that it is likely to be underwater in 2050, then the long-term benefit of an eradication on that island may be minimal. However, island elevation was not included because the data are extremely limited. • Planned or ongoing eradications: highlighting indicates islands with planned or ongoing eradications. Invasives targeted in these eradications were excluded from the ROI calculations, but since the eradications are not yet completed, the lists of targeted invasives may change. • Australia, France, New Zealand, and the US: highlighting indicates islands in Australia, France, New Zealand, or the US. These countries are committed funders of invasive species eradications. (While Canada and the UK are also committed funders of eradications, none of their islands are on this list.) Table A1. Island ROIs

Invasives to be Expected Island size Human ROI rank Island name Country Region eradicated Birds that would benefit ROI benefit Cost ($M) (ha) population French Polynesia (French Tropical Phoenix Petrel, White- 1 Motu Oa overseas country) Pacific Polynesian Rat throated Storm-petrel 71 8 $0.1 50 None Ocean

North Guadalupe Storm-petrel, 2 Guadalupe Mexico American Cat Xantus's Murrelet 61 501 $8.2 26,194 11 - 100 Pacific Ocean French Polynesia (French Tropical 3 Motu Mokohe overseas country) Pacific Polynesian Rat Phoenix Petrel 59 6 $0.1 5 None Ocean

French Polynesia (French Tropical 3 Hatu Iti (Motu Iti) overseas country) Pacific Polynesian Rat Phoenix Petrel 59 6 $0.1 1 None Ocean Tropical Black Rat, Cat, Polynesian 5 Gau Fiji Pacific Rat, Collared Petrel, Fiji Petrel 57 798 $14.1 14,283 Unknown Ocean Wild Boar/Pig Mediterrane 6 Bosc Spain an region Black Rat Balearic Shearwater 39 4 $0.1 27 None

Mediterranea 6 Malgrat gran Spain n region Black Rat Balearic Shearwater 39 4 $0.1 23 None

Mediterranea 6 Malgrat petit Spain n region Black Rat Balearic Shearwater 39 4 $0.1 4 None

South American 9 Plata Ecuador Pacific Ocean Black Rat Waved Albatross 36 52 $1.5 671 1 - 10 Mediterranea 21 10 Vedranell Spain n region Black Rat Balearic Shearwater 32 3 $0.1 28 None

Black-browed Albatross,

Grey- headed Albatross,

Indian Yellow-nosed Penguin French Southern Subantarctic (PiCSOuins) region Albatross, Macaroni Territories (French Penguin, Salvin's Albatross, overseas territory) Sooty Albatross, Southern 11 Black Rat 31 4 $0.1 28 None Rockhopper Penguin, White- chinned Petrel

North 12 Socorro Mexico American Cat, Sheep Townsend's Shearwater 29 282 $9.6 17,228 101 - 1000 Pacific Ocean

21

Amsterdam Albatross, Indian Yellow-nosed French Southern Territories Albatross, Northern 13 Amsterdam (French overseas territory) Subantarctic Black Rat, Cat, House Mouse 23 239 $10.3 6,259 11 - 100 region Rockhopper Penguin, Sooty Albatross

Atlantic Petrel, Atlantic Yellow- nosed Albatross, Saint Helena (British Northern Rockhopper 14 Gough overseas territory) South Atlantic House Mouse 22 118 $5.4 6,686 1 - 10 Ocean Penguin, Sooty Albatross, Tristan Albatross South American Humboldt Penguin, 15 Pan de Azucar Chile Pacific Ocean Unspecified Rats Peruvian Diving-petrel 21 2 $0.1 4 None

Tropical 16 Anchorage New Zealand Pacific Cat Yellow-eyed Penguin 20 2 $0.1 151 None Ocean

17 Bird South Africa Subantarctic Cat African Penguin, Cape 18 1 $0.1 33 None region Gannet African Penguin, Bank 18 Marcus South Africa Subantarctic Cat, Unspecified Rats Cormorant 11 2 $0.2 20 Unknown region South American Brown/Norway Rat, Cat, Juan 19 Alejandro Selkirk Chile Pacific Ocean Cow, Fernandez 10 112 $10.9 5,510 11 - 100 Goat, House Petrel, Mouse Stejneger's Petrel

20 Broughton Australia Indian Ocean Black Rat, Cat, European Gould's Petrel 10 12 $1.3 162 None Rabbit Tropical 21 Wharekakahu New Zealand Pacific Unspecified Rats Stewart Island Shag 9 1 $0.1 6 None Ocean Northwestern 22 Koya-jima Japan Pacific Ocean Black Rat Japanese Murrelet 9 1 $0.1 28 Unknown

Northwestern 22 Onbasejima Japan Pacific Ocean Black Rat Japanese Murrelet 9 1 $0.1 9 None

Tropical 24 Rolla New Zealand Pacific Stoat/Ermine Fiordland Crested Penguin 9 1 $0.1 3 None Ocean Tropical 25 Catherine New Zealand Pacific Stoat/Ermine Fiordland Crested Penguin 9 1 $0.1 5 None Ocean Tropical 26 Fanny New Zealand Pacific Stoat/Ermine Fiordland Crested Penguin 9 1 $0.1 6 None Ocean Tropical 27 Johns New Zealand Pacific Stoat/Ermine Fiordland Crested Penguin 9 1 $0.1 7 None Ocean Tropical 28 Seymour New Zealand Pacific Stoat/Ermine Fiordland Crested Penguin 8 1 $0.1 12 None Ocean

Black Rat, Brown/Norway Antipodean Albatross, Rat, Common Brushtail Chatham Islands Shag, Tropical Possum, Cat, Dog, Chatham Petrel, Erect- 29 Chatham (Rekohu) New Zealand Pacific 8 764 $90.8 90,906 101 - 1000 Polynesian Rat, Weka, crested Penguin, Magenta Ocean Wild Boar/Pig Petrel, Pitt Island Shag 22 African Penguin, Bank 30 Robben South Africa Subantarctic Cat Cormorant 7 2 $0.2 562 Unknown region Black-browed Albatross, 31 Bishop and Clerk Australia Indian Ocean Cat Royal 7 1 $0.1 17 None Penguin Mediterrane 32 Tagomago Spain an region Black Rat, Cat Balearic Shearwater 7 8 $1.2 81 Unknown

South American Humboldt Penguin, 33 Lobos de Tierra Peru Pacific Ocean Cat, Dog Peruvian Diving-petrel 7 4 $0.6 1,732 Unknown

Mediterranea 34 Espalmador Spain n region Black Rat, Cat Balearic Shearwater 7 8 $1.3 167 Unknown

22

Tropical 35 Long (Weka) New Zealand Pacific Stoat/Ermine Fiordland Crested Penguin 6 1 $0.1 113 Unknown Ocean Pitcairn (British Tropical Henderson Petrel, 36 Henderson overseas territory) Pacific Polynesian Rat White- throated 6 21 $3.6 3,776 None Ocean Storm-petrel French Polynesia (French Tropical 37 Raivavae overseas country) Pacific Goat, Wild Boar/Pig Collared Petrel 5 4 $0.7 1,571 101 - 1000 Ocean

Black Rat, Brown/Norway Antipodean Albatross, Tropical Rat, Common Brushtail Chatham Petrel, 38 Pitt New Zealand 5 65 $12.6 6,600 11 - 100 Pacific Possum, Cat, Northern Royal Ocean Weka, Wild Albatross, Pitt Island Boar/Pig Shag Tropical 39 Taumaka New Zealand Pacific Weka Fiordland Crested Penguin 5 1 $0.1 14 Unknown Ocean Tropical New Zealand King Shag, 40 Pig (Blumine) New Zealand Pacific Stoat/Ermine Stewart 5 1 $0.2 484 None Ocean Island Shag Tropical 41 Canton (Kanton) Kiribati Pacific Black Rat, Cat, Polynesian Phoenix Petrel 5 17 $3.8 1,627 11 - 100 Rat Ocean Mediterrane 42 Cabrera Gran Spain an region Black Rat, Common Genet, Balearic Shearwater 5 10 $2.3 1,316 11 - 100 Cat

South American Henderson Petrel, Phoenix 43 Easter (Rapa Nui) Chile Pacific Ocean Cat Petrel 4 27 $6.1 16,966 1001 - 10000

Australian Masked Owl, Providence Petrel, Pycroft's 44 Lord Howe Australia Indian Ocean Black Petrel 4 22 $5.2 1,827 101 - 1000 Rat, Goat French Polynesia (French Tropical 45 Hatuta’a overseas country) Pacific Polynesian Rat Phoenix Petrel 4 6 $1.5 798 None Ocean South American 46 Pachacamac North Peru Pacific Ocean Cat Humboldt Penguin 4 0.3 $0.1 37 Unknown

North Black-footed Albatross, 47 Lehua United States American Barn Owl, Polynesian Rat Newell's 4 5 $1.3 211 None Pacific Shear Ocean water Santo Stefano Mediterrane 48 Ponziane Italy an region Black Rat, Cat Yelkouan Shearwater 4 1 $0.2 40 None

Mediterrane 49 Serpentara Italy an region Black Rat Yelkouan Shearwater 4 0.4 $0.1 46 None

Mediterrane 49 Maire France an region Black Rat Yelkouan Shearwater 4 0.4 $0.1 34 None

Mediterrane 49 Figarolo Italy an region Black Rat Yelkouan Shearwater 4 0.4 $0.1 30 None (Figarello)

Mediterrane 49 Cominotto Islet Malta an region Black Rat Yelkouan Shearwater 4 0.4 $0.1 15 None

Mediterrane 49 Giraglia France an region Black Rat Yelkouan Shearwater 4 0.4 $0.1 14 None

Mediterranea 49 Fordada Italy n region Black Rat Yelkouan Shearwater 4 0.4 $0.1 6 None 23 Mediterranea 49 Makarac Croatia n region Black Rat Yelkouan Shearwater 4 0.4 $0.1 6 None

Mediterranea 49 Veliki Maslinjak Croatia n region Black Rat Yelkouan Shearwater 4 0.4 $0.1 6 None

Mediterranea 49 Zembretta Tunisia n region Black Rat Yelkouan Shearwater 4 0.4 $0.1 5 None

Mediterrane 49 Zaklopatica Croatia an region Black Rat Yelkouan Shearwater 4 0.4 $0.1 2.8 None

Mediterrane 49 Veliki Rutvenjak Croatia an region Black Rat Yelkouan Shearwater 4 0.4 $0.1 1 None

Mediterrane 49 Fungus Rock Malta an region Black Rat Yelkouan Shearwater 4 0.4 $0.1 3 None

23

Mediterrane 61 Conillera Spain an region Black Rat Balearic Shearwater 4 4 $1.1 128 None

Mediterranea 62 Sa Conillera Spain n region Black Rat Balearic Shearwater 4 4 $1.2 167 None

Mediterranea 63 Dragonera Spain n region Black Rat Balearic Shearwater 3 4 $1.3 344 None

Grey-headed Albatross, Indian Yellow-nosed Albatross, Macaroni Penguin, Sooty Albatross, 64 Prince Edward South Africa Subantarctic Cat Southern Rockhopper 3 5 $1.6 4,696 None region Penguin, Wandering Albatross, White-chinned Petrel South American Humboldt Penguin, 65 Chincha Norte Peru Pacific Ocean Cat, Unspecified Rats Peruvian Diving-petrel 3 4 $1.2 73 Unknown

Mediterranea 66 Vedra Spain n region Black Rat Balearic Shearwater 3 3 $1.1 86.82 None

Mediterrane 67 Vacca Italy an region Black Rat Yelkouan Shearwater 3 0.3 $0.1 18 None

West Chicken Tropical 68 (Mauitaha) New Zealand Pacific Ocean Polynesian Rat Pycroft's Petrel 3 3 $1.1 80 None

Tropical 69 Stephenson New Zealand Pacific Ocean Polynesian Rat Pycroft's Petrel 3 3 $1.2 148 Unknown (Ririwha)

Black Rat, Brown/Norway South American Rat, Cat, Cow, Dog, 70 San Cristobal Ecuador Galapagos Petrel, Lava Gull 3 76 $27.4 56,809 1001 - 10000 Pacific Ocean Donkey, Goat, Horse, Wild Boar/Pig French Polynesia (French Tropical 71 Moho Tani overseas country) Pacific Ocean Cat White-throated Storm-petrel 3 1 $0.5 1,470 None

Black-footed Albatross, Northwestern Japanese Murrelet, Short- 72 Torishima Japan Black Rat 3 4 $1.5 521 None Pacific Ocean tailed Albatross

Atlantic Petrel, Atlantic Yellow- nosed Saint Helena (British Black Rat, House Mouse, Albatross, Northern 73 Tristan da Cunha overseas territory) South Atlantic Wild 3 35 $13.7 11,365 101 - 1000 Ocean Boar/Pig Rockhopper Penguin, Sooty Albatross, Tristan Albatross North 74 Johnston United States American Cat Black-footed Albatross 2 0.4 $0.1 297 None Pacific Ocean South American Galapagos Penguin, 75 Floreana Ecuador Pacific Ocean Black Rat, Cat, Cow, Dog, Galapagos 2 62 $25.0 17,855 11 - 100 Horse Petrel Northwestern Black-footed Albatross, 76 Mukojima Japan Pacific Ocean Black Rat Short- 2 3 $1.3 252 None tailed Albatross Tropical 77 Hen (Taranga) New Zealand Pacific Ocean Polynesian Rat Pycroft's Petrel 2 3 $1.4 644 None

Great Tropical Black Rat, Cat, Dog, 78 Barrier New Zealand Pacific Ocean Polynesian Cook's Petrel, Parkinson's 2 73 $33.1 30,688 101 - 1000 24 Petrel (Aotea) Rat, Wild Boar/Pig South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (British Wandering Albatross, 79 Tidespring Antarctic region Brown/Norway Rat White-chinned Petrel 2 0.2 $0.1 13 None overseas territory)

24

South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands 79 Cape Vakop island Antarctic region Black Rat White-chinned Petrel 2 0.2 $0.1 6 None 1 (British overseas territory)

81 Unnammed 1 Australia Indian Ocean Red Fox Fairy Tern 2 0.1 $0.1 >0.1 None

82 Ram Australia Indian Ocean Dog Fairy Tern 2 0.1 $0.1 0.4 None

83 Goat Australia Indian Ocean Red Fox Fairy Tern 2 0.1 $0.1 5 None

Tropical 84 Matuku Fiji Pacific Cat, Wild Boar/Pig Collared Petrel 2 4 $2.2 3,220 101 - 1000 Ocean Brown/Norway Rat, Cat, South American Cow, Dog, European De Filippe's Petrel, Pink- 85 Robinson Crusoe Chile footed Shearwater 2 21 $10.5 5,207 101 - 1000 Pacific Ocean Rabbit, Goat, South American Coati 86 Wild Dog Australia Indian Ocean Red Fox Fairy Tern 2 0.1 $0.1 15 None

Northwestern Black-footed Albatross, 87 Yomejima Japan Pacific Ocean Black Rat Short-tailed Albatross 2 2 $1.2 82 None

88 Cow Australia Indian Ocean Red Fox Fairy Tern 2 0.1 $0.1 18 None

89 Cohen Australia Indian Ocean Red Fox Fairy Tern 2 0.1 $0.1 20 None

Black-browed Albatross, Grey- headed Albatross, Royal Penguin, Southern 90 Macquarie Australia Indian Ocean Black Rat, European Rabbit 2 16 $8.8 12,873 11 - 100 Rockhopper Penguin, Wandering Albatross

Antipodean Albatross, Auckland Islands Shag, Erect-crested Penguin, Tropical Southern Rockhopper 91 Auckland New Zealand Pacific Cat, Wild Boar/Pig Penguin, Southern Royal 2 37 $21.6 53,396 None Ocean Albatross, White-chinned Petrel, Yellow-eyed Penguin

Macaroni Penguin, Sooty French Southern Territories Albatross, Southern 92 Cochons (French overseas territory) Subantarctic Cat 2 4 $2.4 6,947 None region Rockhopper Penguin, Wandering Albatross

South American Humboldt Penguin, 93 Pajaros Uno Chile Pacific Ocean Unspecified Rats Peruvian Diving-petrel 2 2 $1.1 109 None

Mediterranea 94 Anipsara Greece n region Cat Yelkouan Shearwater 2 0.3 $0.2 486 1 - 10

Washingt Tropical 95 on Kiribati Pacific Cat, Polynesian Rat White-throated Storm- 1 1 $0.4 1,226 1001 - 10000 petrel (Teraina) Ocean

Indian Yellow-nosed French Southern Territories Albatross, Northern 96 Saint-Paul (French overseas territory) Subantarctic House Mouse 1 3 $1.8 1,028 1 - 10 region Rockhopper Penguin, Sooty Albatross

North 97 Koniuji United States American Unspecified Rats Red-legged Kittiwake 1 1 $1.1 111 None Pacific Ocean

United States Minor Tropical 25 98 Jarvis Outlying Islands (U.S. Pacific House Mouse White-throated Storm- 1 2 $1.5 440 None petrel insular area) Ocean Tropical 99 Kolombangara Solomon Islands Pacific Cat, Dog Heinroth's Shearwater 1 24 $21.5 68,956 1001 - 10000 Ocean South American 100 Seymour Norte Ecuador Pacific Ocean Black Rat Lava Gull 1 1 $1.3 212 None

101 Swan Australia Indian Ocean Red Fox Fairy Tern 1 0.1 $0.2 341 Unknown

25

Tropical 102 Koro Fiji Pacific Cat, Wild Boar/Pig Collared Petrel 1 4 $5.7 10,748 1001 - 10000 Ocean

Black-browed Albatross, Falkland Islands (British South American Southern Rockhopper 103 New overseas territory) Atlantic Ocean Black Rat, Cat, European 1 2 $3.2 2,344 1 - 10 Rabbit Penguin, White-chinned Petrel South American 104 Mocha Chile Pacific Ocean Brown/Norway Rat, Cat, Pink-footed Shearwater 1 6 $8.2 5,230 101 - 1000 Dog Santiago (San South American Galapagos Penguin, 105 Salvador) Ecuador Pacific Ocean Black Rat Galapagos Petrel, 1 18 $29.6 58,041 None Lava Gull North 106 Mejia Mexico American Black Rat Craveri's Murrelet 1 1 $1.3 328 None Pacific Ocean Northwestern 107 Eboshijima Japan Pacific Ocean Black Rat Japanese Murrelet 1 1 $1.8 94 101 - 1000

Mediterrane Black Rat, Brown/Norway 108 Formentera Spain an region Rat, Balearic Shearwater 1 1 $2.7 8,404 1001 - 10000 Cat North 109 Ka'ula United States American Polynesian Rat Black-footed Albatross 1 1 $1.1 94 None Pacific Ocean

Grey-headed Albatross, Macaroni Penguin, Sooty French Southern Territories Albatross, Southern 110 Possession (French overseas territory) Subantarctic Black Rat, Brown/Norway Rockhopper Penguin, 0.5 5 $9.9 15,237 11 - 100 region Rat Wandering Albatross, White-chinned Petrel Tropical 111 Steep-to New Zealand Pacific Unspecified Rats Fiordland Crested Penguin 0.5 1 $1.1 75 None Ocean Black Rat, Cat, Cow, Flightless Cormorant, South American Dog, Donkey, Goat, Galapagos Penguin, 112 Isabela Ecuador 0.5 92 $195.8 473,858 1001 - 10000 Pacific Ocean Horse, Wild Galapagos Petrel, Lava Boar/Pig Gull Mediterranea 113 Spargi Italy n region Black Rat, Cat Yelkouan Shearwater 0.5 1 $1.5 468 None

Mediterranea 114 Susac Croatia n region Black Rat, Cat Yelkouan Shearwater 0.5 1 $1.5 472 1 - 10

Tropical 115 Indian New Zealand Pacific Unspecified Rats Fiordland Crested Penguin 0.5 1 $1.2 217 None Ocean Bermuda (British overseas 116 Great Bermuda territory) North Atlantic Brown/Norway Rat Bermuda Petrel 0.4 2 $4.3 5,597 Unknown Ocean Tropical 117 Anatom Vanuatu Pacific Cat, Wild Boar/Pig Collared Petrel 0.4 4 $8.9 15,852 101 - 1000 (Aneityum) Ocean Mediterrane 118 Ponza Italy an region Black Rat, Cat Yelkouan Shearwater 0.4 0.1 $0.4 909 1001 - 10000

North Ashy Storm-petrel, Xantus's 119 San Miguel United States American Black Rat Murrelet 0.4 1 $3.5 4,268 None Pacific Ocean Mediterranea 120 Cavoli Italy n region Black Rat Yelkouan Shearwater 0.4 0.4 $1.1 55 11 - 100 26 Northwestern 121 Shikinejima Japan Pacific Ocean Black Rat Japanese Murrelet 0.4 1 $2.1 411 101 - 1000

Mediterrane 122 Bagaud France an region Black Rat Yelkouan Shearwater 0.4 0.4 $1.1 80 None

Mediterrane 123 Riou France an region Black Rat Yelkouan Shearwater 0.4 0.4 $1.1 100 None

Mediterrane 124 Ventotene Italy an region Black Rat, Cat Yelkouan Shearwater 0.4 1 $2.0 184 101 - 1000

26

Mediterranean 125 Kopiste Croatia region Black Rat Yelkouan Shearwater 0.4 0.4 $1.1 125 None

Mediterranean 126 Santa Maria Italy region Black Rat, Cat Yelkouan Shearwater 0.3 1 $2.1 230 11 - 100

Mediterranean 127 Palmarola Italy region Black Rat Yelkouan Shearwater 0.3 0.4 $1.2 186 Unknown

Tropical Pacific Cat, Dog, Unspecified 128 Vanua Lava Vanuatu Ocean Rats, Collared Petrel 0.3 5 $15.1 33,040 1001 - 10000 Wild Boar/Pig

Black Rat, Brown/Norway

Rat, Chital (Barking

North American Deer), Cow, Dog, Hawaiian Petrel, Newell's 129 Moloka'i United States Pacific Ocean Polynesian Rat, Small Shearwater 0.3 9 $29.4 69,834 1001 - 10000 Asian (Javan) Mongoose, Wild Boar/Pig Mediterranean 130 Comino Malta region Black Rat Yelkouan Shearwater 0.3 0.4 $1.3 326 1 - 10

Mediterranean 131 Molara Italy region Black Rat Yelkouan Shearwater 0.3 0.4 $1.3 385 Unknown

132 Garden Australia Indian Ocean Red Fox Fairy Tern 0.3 0.1 $0.4 1,268 Unknown

North American 133 Kaho'olawe United States Pacific Ocean Black Rat, Cat, Polynesian Hawaiian Petrel 0.3 3 $11.3 12,309 None Rat

United States Minor Tropical Pacific 134 Wake Outlying Islands (U.S. Ocean Cat, Polynesian Rat Black-footed Albatross 0.3 1 $2.7 752 101 - 1000 insular area) Mediterranean 135 Svetac Croatia region Black Rat, Cat Yelkouan Shearwater 0.3 1 $2.4 498 11 - 100

Mediterranean 136 Tavolara Italy region Black Rat, Cat Yelkouan Shearwater 0.3 1 $2.6 670 11 - 100

Grey-headed Albatross, Macaroni Penguin, Sooty Albatross, Southern 137 Marion South Africa Subantarctic region Black Rat Rockhopper Penguin, 0.3 4 $16.4 29,305 None Wandering Albatross, White-chinned Petrel North American 138 Espiritu Santo Mexico Pacific Ocean Cat Craveri's Murrelet 0.2 1 $2.8 8,734 11 - 100

Mediterranean 139 Montecristo Italy region Black Rat Yelkouan Shearwater 0.2 0.4 $1.7 1,114 1 - 10

Mediterranean 140 San Nicola Italy region Black Rat Yelkouan Shearwater 0.2 0.4 $1.8 77 101 - 1000

Mediterranean 141 Le Levant France region Black Rat, Cat Yelkouan Shearwater 0.2 1 $3.2 1,127 11 - 100

Mediterranean 142 Psara Greece region Cat Yelkouan Shearwater 0.2 0.3 $1.4 4,254 101 - 1000

Mediterranean 143 Lampedusa Italy region Black Rat, Cat Yelkouan Shearwater 0.2 0.1 $0.7 1,884 1001 - 10000

Falkland Islands (British South American 144 Sea Lion overseas territory) Atlantic Ocean Brown/Norway Rat, Cat Southern Rockhopper 0.2 0.4 $2.0 1,020 Unknown Penguin South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands 145 Harcourt Antarctic region Black Rat White-chinned Petrel 0.2 0.2 $1.1 66 None (British overseas territory)

Ratonneau/ Mediterranean 27 146 Pomègue s France region Black Rat Yelkouan Shearwater 0.2 0.4 $2.0 272 11 - 100

Mediterranean 147 San Domino Italy region Black Rat Yelkouan Shearwater 0.2 0.4 $2.0 276 101 - 1000

27

South American 148 Baltra Ecuador Pacific Ocean Black Rat Lava Gull 0.2 1 $4.6 2,772 11 - 100

Mediterranean 149 Porquerolles France region Black Rat, Cat Yelkouan Shearwater 0.2 1 $3.7 1,509 101 - 1000

Kiritimati Tropical Pacific Phoenix Petrel, White- 150 (Christmas) Kiribati Ocean Black Rat, Cat, Polynesian throated 0.2 3 $15.0 48,008 1001 - 10000 Rat Storm-petrel Mediterranean 151 Linosa Italy region Black Rat Yelkouan Shearwater 0.2 0.4 $2.2 554 101 - 1000

Mediterranean 152 Favignana Italy region Black Rat, Cat Yelkouan Shearwater 0.2 0.1 $0.8 2,274 1001 - 10000

Mediterranean 153 Levanzo Italy region Black Rat Yelkouan Shearwater 0.2 0.4 $2.4 697 101 - 1000

Mediterranean 154 Port Crox France region Black Rat Yelkouan Shearwater 0.2 0.4 $2.4 700 11 - 100

Falkland Islands (British South American 155 Arch overseas territory) Atlantic Ocean Brown/Norway Rat Southern Rockhopper 0.2 0.2 $1.2 285 None Penguin Mediterranean 156 Capraia Italy region Black Rat, Cat Yelkouan Shearwater 0.2 1 $4.4 2,085 101 - 1000

Mediterranean 157 Marettimo Italy region Black Rat Yelkouan Shearwater 0.1 0.4 $2.9 1,331 101 - 1000

Falkland Islands (British South American 158 First Passage overseas territory) Atlantic Ocean Brown/Norway Rat Southern Rockhopper 0.1 0.2 $1.6 917 Unknown Penguin North American 159 San Clemente United States Pacific Ocean Cat Xantus's Murrelet 0.1 1 $4.5 15,385 None

Falkland Islands (British South American Brown/Norway Rat, Cat, Black-browed Albatross, 160 Saunders overseas territory) Atlantic Ocean European Rabbit Southern Rockhopper 0.1 2 $16.1 13,049 11 - 100 Penguin North American 161 San Esteban Mexico Pacific Ocean Black Rat Craveri's Murrelet 0.1 1 $5.8 4,427 11 - 100

Mediterranean 162 Vulcano Italy region Black Rat Yelkouan Shearwater 0.1 0.4 $3.9 2,319 101 - 1000

Falkland Islands (British South American 163 Bleaker overseas territory) Atlantic Ocean Brown/Norway Rat Southern Rockhopper 0.1 0.2 $2.5 2,488 1 - 10 Penguin

Falkland Islands (British South American Black-browed Albatross, 164 West Point overseas territory) Atlantic Ocean Brown/Norway Rat Southern Rockhopper 0.1 0.2 $3.0 1,365 11 - 100 Penguin

Black Rat, North American Brown/Norway Rat, 165 Lana'i United States Hawaiian Petrel 0.1 1 $16.9 37,544 1001 - 10000 Pacific Ocean Chital (Barking Deer), Cat, Polynesin Rat

French Southern Territories Southern Rockhopper 166 Longue (French overseas territory) Subantarctic region Black Rat Penguin, 0.1 0.2 $3.5 3,649 None White-chinned Petrel Mediterranean 167 Gozo Malta region Black Rat, Cat Yelkouan Shearwater 0.1 0.1 $2.2 6,844 1001 - 10000

Falkland Islands (British South American Macaroni Penguin, Southern 168 Pebble overseas territory) Atlantic Ocean Cat Rockhopper Penguin 0.1 0.2 $3.7 11,647 11 - 100

Tropical Pacific Fiordland Crested Penguin, 169 Stewart (Rakiura) New Zealand Ocean Cat Yellow-eyed Penguin 0.1 3 $53.1 170,228 101 - 1000

Mediterranean 170 Pantelleria Italy region Black Rat, Cat Yelkouan Shearwater 0.05 0.1 $2.7 8,599 1001 - 10000

French Polynesia (French Tropical Pacific 171 Nuku Hiva overseas country) Ocean Black Rat, Cat, White -throated Storm-petrel 0.05 1 $11.4 36,231 1001 - 10000 Polynesian Rat North American 172 Cedros Mexico Black Rat, Cat Craveri's Murrelet 0.04 0.4 $11.8 37,798 1001 - 10000 Pacific Ocean 28

28

Black-browed Albatross, Grey- headed Albatross, Indian Yellow nosed Albatross, Macaroni Kerguelen (Grand French Southern Territories Subantarctic Penguin, Sooty Albatross, 173 Terre) (French overseas territory) region Black Rat, Cat, European 0.02 11 $538.0 676,849 101 - 1000 Rabbit Southern Rockhopper Penguin, Wandering Albatross, White- chinned Petrel

174 French Australia Indian Ocean Dog Fairy Tern 0.02 0.1 $5.4 17,213 11 - 100

South American Macaroni Penguin, Southern 175 Isla de los Estados Argentina Atlantic Ocean Brown/Norway Rat Rockhopper Penguin 0.01 0.2 $24.1 53,411 1 - 10

Falkland Islands (British South American Brown/Norway Rat, Cat, Black-browed Albatross, 176 West Falklands overseas territory) Atlantic Ocean European Rabbit Southern Rockhopper 0.01 2 $328.9 452,945 101 - 1000 Penguin 177 Flinders Australia Indian Ocean Dog Fairy Tern 0.003 0.1 $42.0 134,540 101 - 1000

Black-browed Albatross, South Georgia and the South Grey- headed Albatross, Sandwich Islands (British Macaroni Penguin, 178 South Georgia Antarctic region Brown/Norway Rat 0.002 0.2 $146.7 360,330 11 - 100 overseas territory) Wandering Albatross, White-chinned Petrel

29

29

30

30