Gallo-Cajiao, E., Hamman, E. and B. K. Woodworth. 2020. The international institutional framework for seabird conservation in the South Pacific. Pp. 93-123. In: Wewerinke-Singh, M. and E. Hamman. (eds). Environmental law and governance in the Pacific: climate change, biodiversity and communities. Routledge Earthscan. New York. 6 The international institutional framework for seabird conservation in the South Pacific Eduardo Gallo- Cajiao, Evan Hamman and Bradley K. Woodworth Introduction The South Pacific region is vitally important for seabirds, yet their conservation is currently at a crossroads.1 Human activities in the marine environment and its surroundings, including the South Pacific, have resulted in multiple threats to this group of birds.2 The scientific literature for conserving seabirds has thus far, and continues to be, primarily focused on the biological dimensions, such as population dynamics, migration, feeding, and breeding ecology.3 In addition, research has been conducted to understand the threats driving their declines, as well as approaches to lessen them (e.g. by-catch mitigation, invasive species eradication).4 While addressing these knowledge gaps is essential to advancing the conservation of seabirds by informing management and policy decisions, researching the governance dimensions, in their own right, is also vitally important. After all, governance is the set of mechanisms that steers society to achieve collective action goals, such as conserving biodiversity, by enabling coordination and cooperation between actors.5 Accordingly, this chapter seeks to contribute to addressing this lacuna by identifying and analysing the inter- 1 CN Jenkins and K Van Houtan, ‘Global and Regional Priorities for Marine Biodiversity Pro- tection’ (2016) 204 Biological Conservation: 333–339. 2 JP Croxall, SHM Butchart, B Lascelles, AJ Stattersfield, B Sullivan et al., ‘Seabird Conserva- tion Status, Threats and Priority Actions: A Global Assessment’ (2012) 22 Bird Conservation International 1–34. 3 R Lewison, D Oro et al., ‘Research Priorities for Seabirds: Improving Conservation and Management in the 21st Century’ (2012) 17 Endangered Species Research 93–121. 4 MP Dias, R Martin, EJ Pearmain, IJ Burfield, C Small et al., ‘Threats to Seabirds: A Global Assessment’ (2019) 237 Biological Conservation 525–537; B Jones et al., ‘Invasive Mammal Eradication on Islands Results in Substantial Conservation Gains’ (2016) 113 PNAS 4033–4038; LS Bull, ‘Reducing Seabird Bycatch in Longline, Trawl and Gillnet Fisheries’ (2007) 8 Fish and Fisheries 31–56. 5 N Bennett and T Satterfield, ‘Environmental Governance: A Practical Framework to Guide Design, Evaluation, and Analysis’ (2018) 11 Conservation Letters 1–13. 94 E. Gallo-Cajiao et al. national institutional framework relevant for seabird conservation in the South Pacific. This approach can potentially allow us to make recommendations based on identified gaps and strengths of such a framework. Seabirds are found at various degrees of temporal and spatial overlap within the South Pacific, thereby warranting governance mechanisms that can over- come jurisdictional fragmentation. Ecologically, these birds take advantage of dispersed, patchy and ephemeral resources by undertaking movements at different temporal and spatial scales.6 In doing so, many of them cross political boundaries within the South Pacific and some go even beyond. Similarly, many of the threats facing seabirds are not limited to a single jurisdiction but operate at ocean- scape scales or along human- induced threat pathways. Some of the drivers of population declines, like the spread of invasive species, are permeable across international borders.7 In response, conserving seabirds necessitates high levels of coordination and cooperation among their respective range states,8, 9 in this case, all national territories within the South Pacific. In this context, a full life- cycle approach is paramount to seabird conservation, which focuses on the need to consider all the demands of individual birds at all stages of their life- cycle essential for species persistence.10 The ‘flyway’ concept can be useful to operationalise such an approach, focusing on migratory birds,11 as it seeks to define the resulting aggregations of overlapping migratory ranges.12 Even though the flyway approach originated for waterfowl management,13 it has more recently been adopted for seabird conservation.14 6 JP Croxall (ed.) Seabirds: Feeding Biology and Role in Marine Ecosystems (Cambridge University Press, 1990). 7 D Simberloff, B Keitt, D Will, N Holmes, E Pickett and P. Genovesi‚ ‘Yes We Can! Excit- ing Progress and Prospects for Controlling Invasives on Islands and Beyond’ (2018) 78 Western North American Naturalist 942–958. For an overview of regulatory frameworks con- cerning invasive species, see Chapter 7 (Techera) in this volume. 8 PGR Jodice and RM Suryan, ‘The Transboundary Nature of Seabird Ecology’ in SC Trombulak and RF Baldwin (eds) Landscape- scale Conservation Planning (Springer Science+Business Media B.V., 2010) 139–165. 9 Range states are those states where migratory species breed, stop over, or rest and refuel at various stages of their life- cycle. The Convention on Migratory Species defines the term range as ‘all areas of land or water that a migratory species inhabits, stays in temporarily, crosses or overflies at any time on its normal migration route’. 10 CA Runge, TG Martin, HP Possingham, SG Willis and RA Fuller, ‘Conserving Mobile Species’ (2014) 12 Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 395–402. 11 CA Galbraith, T Jones, J Kirby and T Mundkur, ‘A Review of Migratory Bird Flyways and Priorities for Management’ CMS Technical Series No. 27 (UNEP/CMS Secretariat, 2014). 12 GC Boere and DA Stroud, ‘The Flyway Concept: What It Is and What It Isn’t.’ in GC Boere, CA Galbraith, and DA Stroud (eds) Waterbirds around the World (The Stationery Office, 2006), 40–47. 13 AS Hawkins, RC Hanson, HK Nelson and HM Reeves (eds) Flyways, Pioneering Waterfowl Management in North America (The United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1984). 14 The East Asian- Australasian Flyway Partnership is a transboundary institutional arrangement adopting a flyway conservation approach, including seabirds. Available at: www.eaaflyway. net/migratory- waterbirds/. Pacific seabird conservation 95 Despite evidence for the existence of available governance mechanisms to conserve seabirds in the South Pacific,15 empirical analysis of the international institutional framework to conserve these species in the region is yet to be undertaken. Hence, the main aim of this chapter is to assess the potential of existing international institutional arrangements to enable the coordination and cooperation required to conserve seabirds in the region. In our research for this chapter, we sought to answer the following questions: (1) what are the international institutional arrangements potentially relevant for conserving seabirds in the South Pacific?; (2) who are the actors participating in this international institutional framework?; (3) how has such an international insti- tutional framework emerged over time?; and (4) how well do existing arrangements match the conservation needs of seabirds in the region in rela- tion to spatial scope and main threats? This chapter is structured into five sections: (1) methods; (2) a brief review of the key concepts in governance and institutions; (3) the biologi- cal dimensions of seabirds; (4) a survey and analysis of the international institutional framework; and (5) concluding discussion. While this chapter focuses on international institutional arrangements relevant to seabird con- servation in the South Pacific, there are, of course, many national and sub- national laws and policies relevant to seabird conservation. Hence, we encourage readers to complement this chapter by reference to other chap- ters in this collection where relevant, especially Techera’s contribution on the domestic regulation of invasive species (Chapter 7) and Hamman and Jungblut’s study on the protection of atolls, mangroves and coastal wetlands under domestic law (Chapter 9). Methods The institutional analysis presented in this chapter was based primarily on a literature review and desktop search using mixed methods with a focus on the South Pacific. Our scale of analysis was the South Pacific region, defined here as all tropical islands, reefs, atolls and waters within the exclusive eco- nomic zones from as far east as the Pitcairn Islands to as far west as Palau but excluding Hawaii. In addition, we also included all international waters (i.e. the High Seas) enclosed within neighbouring exclusive economic zones. Sources searched for relevant international institutional arrangements included the Pacific Islands Treaty Series,16 ECOLEX17 and the International Environ- mental Agreements Database Project.18 We considered membership of 15 BirdLife International, Important Areas for Seabirds: Guiding Marine Conservation in the Pacific (BirdLife International, 2012). 16 See www.paclii.org/pits/en/subject.shtml. 17 See www.ecolex.org. 18 See www.iea.uoregon.edu. 96 E. Gallo-Cajiao et al. international institutional arrangements19 as either accession or ratification.20 Our identification of institutional arrangements relevant to seabird conserva- tion in the region was based on their provisions and programmatic activities in relation to the main threats affecting seabirds. Our empirical findings and conclusions have some limitations