06.04.2013 Views

Chapter I Intro & Objectives - SPREP

Chapter I Intro & Objectives - SPREP

Chapter I Intro & Objectives - SPREP

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

PHOENIX ISLANDS PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN<br />

<strong>Chapter</strong> I. <strong>Intro</strong>duction and Purpose<br />

Draft 1 March 2007<br />

3) If helicopters need to land, landing sites should be on sand areas, not vegetated<br />

areas. Areas around landing sites should be cleared of bird nests (up to 300<br />

m).<br />

4) Movement of vehicles on islands should be restricted so as not to disturb sea<br />

bird nesting areas.<br />

5) Islands should be monitored for evidence of exotic plant species. Ornamental<br />

plants should not be introduced, especially to Abariringa (Canton).<br />

6) Domestic animals should be controlled. No additional introductions should be<br />

allowed (including chickens).<br />

7) No collection of marine life. Turtle breeding sites should not be disturbed.<br />

8) New ship grounding should be investigated to ensure that rats are not<br />

introduced.<br />

Dahl (1980) reported that there was an IUCN/WWF project based on Christmas Island that<br />

was developing proper surveillance and enforcement for the following Phoenix Islands<br />

reserves: Birnie, McKean, Rawaki (Phoenix), and Abariringa (Canton). Dahl (1980)<br />

recommended that the Phoenix Islands be upgraded from wildlife sanctuaries to a national or<br />

international reserve. Abariringa (Canton) should be the communications link and<br />

surveillance centre. The reserve should include: Enderbury, Birnie, McKean, Rawaki<br />

(Phoenix) and Orona (Hull). Nikumaroro (Gardner), Abariringa (Canton) and Manra<br />

(Sydney) were excluded. According to Dahl (1980), regular enforcement visits could be<br />

undertaken by the government ships traveling between Kiritimati and Tarawa.<br />

Garnett (1983b) reviewed and summarized the conservation conclusions of King (1973) and<br />

Stoddart (1976) for each of the Phoneix Islands (see Table I-1.2 below).<br />

Table I-1.2. Conservation suggestions and conclusions of each of the Phoenix Islands<br />

(source: Garnett 1983b).<br />

Island Priority<br />

Enderbury Potential or major importance due to its seabird colonies<br />

Rawaki (Phoenix) Outstanding value for its seabird colonies<br />

Birnie Outstanding importance for its unaltered state<br />

McKean Outstanding value for its seabird colonies<br />

Manra (Sydney) No special importance<br />

Orona (Hull) No special importance, but worthy of conservation for its<br />

seabird colonies<br />

Nikumaroro (Gardner) No special importance.<br />

Garnett (1983a, b and c) wrote a management plan for nature conservation in the Line and<br />

Phoenix Islands. The stated policy “recognized the need to integrate conservation with the<br />

development of the islands’ natural resources …” and that “… the role of conservation could<br />

only be rationalized in the wider context of the present and future social and economic needs<br />

of the country.” The stated major aim of that plan was “to identify areas of concern where<br />

future progress needs to be mad to reach the specified objectives of … the stated policy, …<br />

and to suggest the methods by which the policy can be implemented.”<br />

5

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!