Priority Outcomes for CEPF Investment
The 244 species and 161 sites defined for this hotspot are far too many for a single investment program to handle alone. Therefore, species and site outcomes were prioritized for CEPF investment. It is hoped that other conservation funds and organizations will provide funding to achieve the remaining species and site outcomes to complement CEPF investments.

Species Prioritization
The species that are in most need of conservation action were prioritized into one of six categories based on the following three major criteria:

• Need for species-focused action. Species that require species-focused action such as the control of invasive species or harvesting, in addition to the conservation of habitat, are given a higher priority than species for which habitat conservation is the main activity required.
• Red List Category. Species were prioritized based on the degree of threat as determined by the IUCN Red List. High priority was given to Critically Endangered species, medium priority to Endangered species, and lower priority to Vulnerable species. There are 92 Critically Endangered species eligible for CEPF funds.
• Taxonomic distinctiveness. This is a measure of how unique a species is relative to other species. For example, species that are the only member of their entire family or even of their genus are more taxonomically distinct than species in very large families or genera. In this prioritization analysis, taxonomically unique species were considered to have a higher priority than less unique species in large genera and families (the methodology for calculating taxonomic distinctiveness is shown in Appendix 4);

The methodology for prioritizing species was as follows. First species requiring species-focused action were identified. Those that are Critically Endangered are a priority one, while those that are Endangered are a priority two, and those that are Vulnerable are a priority three. Within each priority group, species were prioritized based on taxonomic distinctiveness. Species that are not known to require species-focused action, but rather can be best conserved by protecting the sites in which they occur, were also given a priority ranking. However, those species did not make the final list of species priorities, considering that CEPF investment in the region will be limited and there are many highly threatened species in need of species-focused action.

Based on this objective analysis, a total of 41 species were classified as priority one and 26 as priority two – these were selected as priorities for CEPF investment and are presented in Table 7. Five species do not have globally significant populations in the hotspot (i.e. more than 20 percent of the global population), and were not considered in the prioritization. It should be noted that given limitations in data availability and quality, the prioritization is an initial attempt and may change as more accurate data become available.

Site Prioritization
To focus the investment of CEPF in the Polynesia-Micronesia Hotspot, a prioritization of the key biodiversity areas was undertaken. The 162 sites were prioritized based on the criteria of irreplaceability and vulnerability. Due to a lack of comprehensive threat data for each site, the threat status of species found within the site was used as a proxy for vulnerability. An explicit aim of this analysis was to make sure that all irreplaceable sites were captured among the priorities, which must attract the attention of the global conservation community in order to prevent biodiversity loss. The following step-wise process was used to identify the irreplaceable sites.

1. Identify key biodiversity areas containing Critically Endangered or Endangered species restricted to those sites (33 sites).
2. Identify key biodiversity areas, not listed above, containing Critically Endangered or Endangered species restricted to only two sites (14 additional sites).
3. Identify key biodiversity areas, not listed above, containing Vulnerable species listed for only one site (13 additional sites). Given that a few of the Vulnerable species recorded for only one key biodiversity area are not site endemics (i.e. we expect them to occur in other areas but lacked information during the timeframe of this profile), we treated these as a lower priority than the second site for a Critically Endangered or Endangered species.

Only one additional site was needed to ensure that all Critically Endangered and Endangered species were represented, and so this site was included as well. Henderson Island emerged as irreplaceable in the first tier, but was dropped due to expert opinion that it is not threatened and should not be a priority. Thus, there are 60 sites prioritized for intervention by CEPF in the Polynesia-Micronesia Hotspot (Table 8, Figure 3).

Figure 3. Site Outcomes in the Polynesia-Micronesia Hotspot and Priority Sites for CEPF Investment (PDF, 243 KB)

Program Focus
The programmatic focus of CEPF in the Polynesia-Micronesia Hotspot will be on reducing the risks of extinction of a prioritized set of 41 globally threatened species and on improving the conservation of 60 key biodiversity areas as indicated above. The investment strategy and programmatic focus are on actions in CEPF eligible countries only.

The approach for achieving this focus in the Pacific context necessarily involves strengthening the capacity of resource stewards to manage and conserve threatened species and sites. This will require the application of practical conservation science to improve our knowledge of biological systems and the tools to conserve it, along with the development of collaborative partnerships between civil society organizations and the local communities and governments who are the stewards of the biological resources. To maximize leverage and impact from all investment priorities, CEPF will strive to develop partnerships that strengthen existing initiatives with similar objectives.

The specific strategic directions and necessary interventions or investment priorities required to achieve the program focus are discussed in the following section.

Strategic Directions
Four strategic directions have been developed for the Polynesia-Micronesia Hotspot based on three subregional roundtable meetings (in Western Polynesia, Fiji, and Micronesia) and two meetings of regional conservation experts (in Apia) along with an analysis of species outcomes, threats, current and planned investments, and strategies and infrastructural frameworks in the hotspot.

The strategic directions, along with the investment priorities under each, are summarized in Table 9, and are described in more detail in the text following the table.

Strategic Direction 1: Prevent, control, and eradicate invasive species in key biodiversity areas
It has already been stated that invasive species pose the dominant threat to the native biota and ecosystems of the hotspot. Dealing more effectively with invasive species, especially by preventing their introduction to alien-free islands and habitats, must be a major goal of the CEPF investment strategy. Implementation of this strategic direction will be performed in close collaboration with a number of regional initiatives including the GEF-funded Pacific Invasive Species Management Program, the IUCN Invasive Species Specialist Group’s (ISSG) Cooperative Initiative on Invasive Alien Species on Islands, the Pacific Island Ecosystems at Risk project, SPREP’s Invasive Species program, and others. The Cooperative Islands Initiative and other ISSG activities provide baseline support for the CEPF program.

1.1 Strengthen defences against the introduction and spread of invasive species and pathogens that threaten biodiversity
Preventing the introduction of new invasive species is the ideal practice for vulnerable island ecosystems, followed by eradication and then control of invasives (Sherley and Lowe 2000). Prevention requires strong, well-resourced quarantine systems that are the responsibility of governments. Currently, few countries and territories have developed adequate guarantee systems to defend themselves from invasive organisms, but efforts are underway in most places, with international support, to improve official enforcement, staff, and infrastructure.

The role of civil society organizations will be to foster improved legislation as well as public support for and participation in surveillance and monitoring programs.

1.2 Control or eradicate invasive species in key biodiversity areas particularly where they threaten native species with extinction
Many of the invasive species in the hotspot are on the IUCN’s list of 100 of the world’s worst invasive species (ISSG, n.d). It is impossible to control or remove all these alien invasive species from native ecosystems; there are simply far too many invasives and they are far too well established and distributed. However, projects should be developed in key biodiversity sites that target particularly serious invasive pests and pathogens. CEPF’s experience in managing pilot efforts supported by the Australian government’s Regional Natural Heritage Program developed thorough eradication plans and provided a strong foundation for replication and other future activities because of extensive community involvement. Control programs that also provide local benefits are likely to enjoy community support and to be most effective.

1.3 Provide training in management techniques and develop rapid response capacity against particularly serious invasive species
Best available information and training are required to improve policy, legislation and implementation procedures against invasive species. There is a particular need for more information on the distribution and impact of invasive species in sensitive sites and the identification of alien-free habitats. Surveys to establish where invasive alien species occur, covering all taxa in both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, are a priority. Management training is also required on the tools and techniques for dealing with invasive species such as techniques for the early detection of new invasions and the assessment of risk for species proposed for import (Sherley and Lowe 2000).

Strategic Direction 2: Strengthen the conservation status and management of 60 key biodiversity areas
The conservation of key biodiversity sites and landscapes, even those that are nominally already protected, must be improved. The Pacific experience indicates that the governance model that is most likely to succeed are co-managed sites where local communities are intimately involved in the establishment and management of such areas. Investment priorities that will be supported by CEPF include the development of new protected areas to conserve priority sites; improvement in the management of existing protected areas that are priority sites; and support for studies and information sharing research that will provide information to improve site management.

2.1 Develop and manage conservation areas that conserve unprotected priority sites, especially critical refugia such as large forest blocks and alien-free habitats
The development and management of ecologically viable and representative conservation areas is a major component of conservation strategies such as National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans for many countries in the hotspot. Such conservation areas are likely to be a mixture of a varied governance types depending on local circumstances. Emphasis should be given to the conservation of refugia such as the larger and more remote forest blocks and alien free habitats, which appear to have the best potential for sustainability.

2.2 Improve the management of existing protected areas that are priority sites
Many existing protected areas suffer from a lack of sound management, including adequate protection from poachers and other threats such as habitat degradation and invasive species. This is often a result of poor financial support and possibly the application of an inappropriate governance regime. The management effectiveness of these areas can be strengthened by improved resourcing and training of managers and by improving the relationship with, and commitment to conservation by, local communities.

Strategic Direction 3: Build awareness and participation of local leaders and community members in the implementation of protection and recovery plans for threatened species
The investment priority that forms the focus of this strategic direction is to develop and implement species recovery plans for the prioritized set of threatened species, especially the Critically Endangered species needing special attention in addition to conserving their habitat. In keeping with CEPF’s global program the emphasis of this strategy will be on civil society and local community participation in such plans.

3.1 Develop and implement species recovery plans for highly threatened species requiring species-focused action, especially those that have received little effort to date
Species recovery plans are particularly needed for Critically Endangered species that require species-focused action, such as the control of harvesting, or dealing with threats such as invasive species. Emphasis should be placed on the species that have received little attention to date, such as some of the endemic land snails (especially Partula spp.), flying foxes (especially Pteropus spp.), and insectivorous bats and restricted range plants. Recovery plans must spell out the specific management measures required to conserve the species such as the establishment of reserves, the control of threats like habitat degradation, invasive species or hunting, along with the research needs. Most importantly, activities and overall support will be tailored to ensure implementation of the recovery plans.

3.2 Strengthen leadership and effectiveness of local conservation organizations by developing peer-learning networks and promoting exchanges and study tours
A key way to strengthen the leadership of local conservation organizations is to develop peer-learning networks. These networks will often include government officials to build and strengthen the mutual understanding and trust that is critical to successful collaboration on conservation goals. Peer learning networks can assist conservation professionals to share successes and lessons learned, identify and address shared needs for technical assistance, training and other support and to collaborate together on local and national issues effectively. This investment priority should also include the publication of literature on conservation lessons learned and on the region’s environment, written in English and local languages and at varied levels.

3.3 Raise the environmental awareness of communities about species and sites of global conservation concern through social marketing and participatory planning and management approaches
Few people in the hotspot are sufficiently aware of the uniqueness of the biodiversity of the hotspot, the severity of threats to it, and the significance of the biodiversity in maintaining the healthy structure and function of island ecosystems. Such awareness must be raised if biodiversity is to be valued properly by communities and their governments, and thereby adequately conserved. The most effective way of raising this awareness is through participatory planning and management approaches which provide information to communities to assist them to make better management decisions. The use of social marketing tools, where the goal is to elicit behavioral change rather than simply raising awareness, may be a useful approach for increasing political and social will to protect biodiversity.

Strategic Direction 4: Provide strategic leadership and effective coordination of CEPF investment through a regional implementation team
An independent evaluation of the global CEPF program found that CEPF regional implementation teams are particularly effective with the support of the CEPF grant directors in linking the key elements of comprehensive, vertically integrated portfolios such as large anchor projects, smaller grassroots activities, policy initiatives, governmental collaboration, and sustainable financing. As recommended by the evaluators, the responsibilities of these teams, formerly known as coordination units, have now been standardized to capture the most important aspects of their function.

In every hotspot, CEPF will support a regional implementation team to convert the plans in the ecosystem profile into a cohesive portfolio of grants that exceed in impact the sum of their parts. Each regional implementation team will consist of one or more civil society organizations active in conservation in the region. For example, a team could be a partnership of civil society groups or could be a lead organization with a formal plan to engage others in overseeing implementation, such as through an inclusive advisory committee.

The regional implementation team will be selected by the CEPF Donor Council based on an approved terms of reference, competitive process, and selection criteria available in PDF format at www.cepf.net/xp/cepf/static/pdfs/Final.CEPF.RIT.TOR_Selection.pdf. The team will operate in a transparent and open manner, consistent with the CEPF mission and all provisions of the CEPF Operational Manual. Organizations that are members of the Regional Implementation Team will not be eligible to apply for other CEPF grants within the same hotspot. Applications from formal affiliates of those organizations that have an independent operating board of directors will be accepted, and subject to additional external review.

4.1 Build a broad constituency of civil society groups working across institutional and political boundaries toward achieving the shared conservation goals described in the ecosystem profileThe regional implementation team will provide strategic leadership and local knowledge to build a broad constituency of civil society groups working across institutional and geographic boundaries toward achieving the conservation goals described in the ecosystem profile. The team’s major functions and specific activities will be based on an approved terms of reference. Major functions of the team will be to:

• Act as an extension service to assist civil society groups in designing, implementing, and replicating successful conservation activities.
• Review all grant applications and manage external reviews with technical experts and advisory committees.
• Award grants up to $20,000 and decide jointly with the CEPF Secretariat on all other applications.
• Lead the monitoring and evaluation of individual projects using standard tools, site visits, and meetings with grantees, and assist the CEPF Secretariat in portfolio-level monitoring and evaluation.
• Widely communicate CEPF objectives, opportunities to apply for grants, lessons learned, and results.
• Involve the existing regional program of the RIT, CEPF donor and implementing agency representatives, government officials, and other sectors within the hotspot in implementation.
• Ensure effective coordination with the CEPF Secretariat on all aspects of implementation.

Specific activities and further details are available in the CEPF Regional Implementation Team Terms of Reference and Selection Process.

Sustainability
Use of natural resources is basic to every economic system, and the connection of natural ecosystems to human livelihoods is particularly immediate in rural areas. Substantial investments that are designed and adopted in distant capital cities without local participation are frequently inappropriate for local realities and are regularly thwarted, either by physical conditions or by human resistance. Without costly and inefficient enforcement, plans emanating from national and international agencies that do not have local understanding and support invite failure.

A fundamental assumption and raison d’etre for CEPF is that civil society commitment to conservation and sustainable development programs is necessary for them to work as planned. Experience over many years has demonstrated that top-down public sector initiatives by themselves are unlikely either to be effective or to endure. By engaging civil society in partnerships with governments and business firms, CEPF is intended to improve the potential for sustainable effects following from the much larger investments made by public and private organizations.

In the Polynesia-Micronesia Hotspot, the sustainability of programs intended to improve the living conditions of rural and low-income people faces the particular challenges of political fragmentation among the many independent governments of small island states and the vast expanse of ocean that separates them. Regional structures clearly are necessary, but they are inherently fragile and are subject to substantial inertia and centrifugal force. Differences among people living on small islands are often exaggerated and their similarities or shared problems are often minimized. These high hurdles will lead CEPF to reinforce sub-regional links, where habits of cooperation are already present (such as in Micronesia), at the same time that it supports region-wide projects and partnerships that are needed to respond to large-scale threats (such as invasive species). A tight fabric of civil society partnerships at varied scales is needed to increase the prospect of efforts to conserve threatened ecosystems in the Pacific being maintained independent of future financing from CEPF and other international donors.

Contents / Previous / Next