SUMMARY

In this review, I look at governance beyond the national level, and consider how well island conservation issues are addressed in international conventions and agreements, both global and regional. I focus primarily on Small Island Developing States (SIDS), and look at conventions to which they are parties, in which their needs are specifically mentioned, and which have actions directly targeted to SIDS. I also discuss the evolution of international soft law in agreements and action plans to respond to island issues, the role of the secretariats set up by international conventions to support SIDS conservation action, and the protection and recognition provided to island protected areas listed under international conventions. The review shows that international governance has increasingly responded to island needs for biodiversity conservation, often with the active participation of SIDS themselves. However the multiplication of international agreements and their requirements has often surpassed the capacity of island countries to implement them, requiring further adaptations to address this problem. The regional organizations of SIDS help to provide an interface with global conventions and international organizations. There remain a number of gaps and challenges that still need to be addressed to halt the erosion and hopefully encourage the restoration of island biodiversity.

INTRODUCTION

In a globalized world, many external pressures impact islands through trade, development, invasive species introductions, global pollutants, and now climate change. To respond to these global and regional challenges, island governments need external legal and regulatory measures that encourage and support their conservation action. A growing international legal framework and supporting institutions for biodiversity conservation and sustainability are complemented by an expanding regional dimension to governance.

Islands are natural evolutionary laboratories and refugia, with specific conservation issues which are either unique or at least more extreme than elsewhere (Dahl 1984b). Island species become less competitive and vulnerable to introduced predators or invasive species, and tiny island governments may lack the capacity necessary to manage nature conservation effectively (Jupiter et al. 2014). Island conservation has thus become increasingly reflected in international agreements such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Programme of Work on Island Biodiversity. As conservation has progressed, islanders have come to see the advantages of conservation measures (Rosabal 2004).

Diplomatically, islands were off the international agenda until 1988, apart from their interest for science, tourism, or a strategic location. With the emergence of Small Island Developing States (SIDS) from 1990, they have become a numerically large and vocal block in negotiations, demanding that their interests be reflected in international law.

It is important to distinguish two political categories of islands today: those that form island states, and those that are still dependent territories or simply geographic fragments of continental states with little or no independent governance. While all islands may share similar challenges for biodiversity conservation, their ability to respond to these challenges in unique island ways depends on their political status. Independent states participate directly in international negotiations, while the interests of dependent island territories are subordinated to the larger national interest, if not totally ignored.

Here I look specifically at international conventions and agreements from an island perspective. How well are the special interests and needs of island conservation addressed in these agreements? Where are SIDS specifically mentioned, with measures taken to respond to their needs? Have islands or islanders participated actively in their preparation and implementation? Are there agreements that were prepared by and for SIDS themselves? These questions frame the analysis that follows and are answered in the section entitled ‘Challenges and Gaps’.

Previous assessments have focused on the Pacific Islands, underlining both the success of regional intergovernmental arrangements (Giraud-Kinley 1999; Herr 2002) and the difficulties SIDS have in implementing international conventions due to lack of internal capacity (Mougeot 2003). Cooperation for ocean and coastal management in the Pacific Islands has been evaluated (Wright et al. 2006), and challenges and opportunities for biodiversity conservation have been reviewed (Jupiter et al. 2014). Chasek (2010) has also addressed some of the challenges around environmental treaty implementation in the region. By taking a global perspective, I highlight what all islands share, and document their rise as a global community of common interests and diplomatic activity, something I have encouraged for nearly 50 years.

TABLE 1. Global Agreements and Action Plans relevant for Island Conservation

SIDS = small island developing states

METHODS

I have not aimed for a comprehensive review, but will illustrate the different ways that island conservation benefits from and contributes to international hard and soft law. I identify the legal texts themselves, the processes that derive from the legal texts, and the secretariats set up to support the conventions and agreements (Tables 1-3). I give examples of how international and regional legal instruments and processes can support conservation regulation and aspiration, and provide channels for collaboration and assistance. I look at agreements that directly address biodiversity conservation, and consider briefly some other domains of international law that are tangentially also relevant for conservation. I explore how islands are benefitting from international conventions and agreements, consider institutional challenges, and suggest what more could be done to fill gaps and address unmet needs. I focus on oceanic islands in Small Island Developing States and on island territories far from their mother country.

My methodology reflects my role as a practitioner, combining references to legal texts and a selection of the most pertinent literature, with my direct experience as a biodiversity expert in Caribbean, Pacific and western Indian Ocean islands, organizer of inter-island collaboration including the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP), Deputy Director of the UNEP Regional Seas Programme, compiler of the IUCN/UNEP Island Directory (Dahl 1991), member of the UNCED secretariat responsible for drafting the Oceans and Coastal Areas chapter of Agenda 21 including islands (UN 1992), and advisor to many island governments and programmes in all oceans since 1969.

TABLE 2. Global Conventions relevant to Island Conservation

SPREP = Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme; UN = United Nations; UNEP = United Nations Environment Programme; UNESCO = United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization; UNTS = United Nations Treaty Series number https://treaties.un.org/

TABLE 3. Regional Conventions and Agreements Relevant for Island Conservation

FAO = Food and Agriculture Organization; UNEP = United Nations Environment Programme; UNTS = United Nations Treaty Series number https://treaties.un.org/; rev = revised; am = amended; sus = suspended

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS AND AGREEMENTS RESPONDING TO ISLAND NEEDS

Several functions of international conventions and agreements benefit island biodiversity conservation. First, they provide a framework for international dialogue and cooperation, such as in conferences of the parties, where governments can consider issues beyond their immediate national interest, and collaborate on common goals. This is often more important than the specific provisions of the agreement, leading to action plans and joint projects that may go far beyond what the legal text of the agreement requires. Governments can also adopt declarations and prepare common positions for international negotiations at these meetings. This has helped to build common SIDS positions where previously islands were marginalized or completely ignored. These processes work both within island regions and internationally, building collaboration, networking and a sharing of experience across all island states.

Second, such agreements set standards and objectives that governments are expected to respect or achieve. They thus become a focus for national policy-making and action, with results that will be judged by their peers. Peer pressure is an important element in international diplomacy, since enforcement mechanisms are generally lacking. Emulation of best practices can emerge, as island leaders see other country achievements, and also want to announce successes.

Third, international conventions establish a secretariat, and often subsidiary bodies for scientific advice or technical assistance, becoming elements of international governance that assist parties to follow through with their obligations. The structures of multilateral governance are built in this way, and interact and reinforce each other to achieve conservation objectives. Tables 1 and 2 summarize the global conventions and agreements and their relevance for island conservation.

United Nations

The early 1970s saw the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (Stockholm 1972), the creation of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the birth of some specialized conservation conventions. By 1974, UNEP was establishing Regional Seas Programmes including islands, starting with the Mediterranean. Their action plans and conventions have provisions and protocols on protected areas and wildlife (see below).

In the lead up to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), the Rio Earth Summit, in 1992, Maurice Strong, the Conference Secretary-General, asked me to join the conference secretariat to prepare a section on the sustainable development of islands in the Oceans chapter of Agenda 21. This section presented the special needs and requirements of Small Island Developing States (SIDS) including their biodiversity, stimulated their recognition as a specific entity in the UN, and called for global conferences on the sustainable development of SIDS to help them identify and express their common interests. The UN defines SIDS as low-lying coastal countries that share similar development challenges and concerns about the environment, especially their vulnerability to the adverse effects of global climate change. Agenda 21 recognized that SIDS and islands supporting small communities are a special case both for environment and development due to their small size, isolation and vulnerability. Currently 39 SIDS are included in the list used by United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA) (Taylor et al. 2013).

The United Nations Secretariat established a Small Island Developing States (SIDS) Unit in UN DESA, as well as an Inter-Agency Consultative Group (IACG) on SIDS. In 2001, the UN General Assembly established the United Nations Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States to follow-up the implementation of their respective action plans. The UN has supported and hosted the Small Island Developing States Network (Table 4).

After an initiative by Malta and other islands at the UN in 1988, the island countries organized themselves in 1990 as an intergovernmental organization, the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), to carry out advocacy for small island states and influence international environmental policy, including presenting common positions in international negotiations such as those on climate change. This is particularly important since individual small island states have few resources for diplomacy, and gain much from working collectively. Another important island grouping on biodiversity is the Global Island Partnership (GLISPA) which organizes high-level events at international conferences, and collaborations among SIDS (Table 4).

TABLE 4. Other mechanisms supporting SIDS collaboration on conservation

SIDS Conferences

The proposal in Agenda 21 for an international conference for all SIDS led to a series of UN intergovernmental conferences (Table 1). The first Global Conference on the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States was held in Bridgetown, Barbados, 25 April-6 May 1994. It adopted the Barbados Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States (BPOA). The Second International Meeting to Review the Implementation of the Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States in Port Louis, Mauritius, 10-14 January 2005, adopted the Mauritius Strategy for the Further Implementation of the Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States. The third International Conference on Small Island Developing States held in Apia, Samoa, on 1-4 September 2014, adopted the SIDS Accelerated Modalities of Action (SAMOA) Pathway. For this conference, UNEP prepared a report on Emerging Issues for Small Island Developing States (UNEP 2014a) and GEO Environment Outlook for Small Island Developing States (UNEP 2014b).

These conferences helped SIDS to recognize that their impact increases when they act together, and they have been good at creating mechanisms for sharing and collaborating in support of convention objectives. In the Micronesia Challenge, the islands have committed to conserve at least 30% of near-shore marine resources and 20% of terrestrial resources across Micronesia by 2020. In the Caribbean Challenge Initiative, nine Caribbean leaders agreed to protect 20% of their marine and coastal environment by 2020, accompanied by a Corporate Compact of business leaders and supported by a Caribbean Biodiversity Fund. The Western Indian Ocean Coastal Challenge is supported by the Indian Ocean Commission ISLANDS Project (Table 4).

The SAMOA Pathway includes three priority areas relevant to biodiversity. Under oceans and seas the target is to conserve by 2020 at least 10 per cent of SIDS coastal and marine areas, especially areas of importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services. It supports SIDS to conserve biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources. On forests, it supports implementation of the Non-Legally Binding Instrument on All Types of Forests, calls for a halt to deforestation and forest degradation, and for effective reforestation; and looks to financing to improve the state of biological diversity by conserving and safeguarding ecosystems, species and genetic diversity. Another priority is invasive alien species that threaten biodiversity.

Law of the Sea

While the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is not directly concerned with island biodiversity conservation, it has played an important role in defining what is an island and how far its maritime jurisdiction extends, including over biological resources (Jacovides 2014). One innovation was the definition of archipelagic states, incorporating the waters between islands into their sovereign territory (Cogliati-Bantz 2015). UNCLOS has adopted an Agreement concerning islands, and the Fish Stock Agreement (FSA) which creates a framework for regional fisheries conventions and agreements.

One of the chief architects in the design and implementation of the Law of the Sea was an islander, Satya N. Nandan from Fiji, first Secretary-General of the International Seabed Authority (https://www.isa.org.jm/) in Kingston, Jamaica. He was also involved in some of the important fisheries conventions involving island states (Lodge and Nordqvist 2014).

Convention on Biological Diversity

The overarching international legal text on biodiversity is the United Nations Framework Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The special conditions in small island states are mentioned in the Preamble and the article on financial resources, but not in the substantive text. A number of instruments adopted under the convention (Table 2) include issues of concern to islands, such as impacts on indigenous communities, and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets to be achieved by 2020 through the implementation of National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAP). In 2006, the Convention adopted a Thematic Programme of work on Island Biodiversity (https://www.cbd.int/island/). It has also published reports on progress in island biodiversity (CBD 2014).

The funding mechanism for the CBD is the Global Environment Facility of the World Bank, UNDP and UNEP, which supports the international dimension of environmental actions. One of its early projects was the South Pacific Biodiversity Conservation Programme (1993-2001), executed by SPREP to pioneer the establishment of 17 community-based Conservation Areas in 12 participating Pacific Island countries, leading to the spread of the locally-managed marine areas model (Govan et al. 2009). The GEF has also supported trust funds for island protected areas through the Micronesia Challenge. This shows how international mechanisms can pioneer solutions appropriate to island biodiversity and customary ownership.

Other Conservation Conventions

There are other global conventions that address particular aspects of biodiversity conservation from which islands benefit. Several mechanisms provide international recognition for protected natural areas (Table 5) including the World Heritage Convention (WHC) of UNESCO, which adopted a World Heritage Programme for SIDS in 2005 (http://whc.unesco.org/en/sids/). There are 27 island states and territories or offshore islands with natural World Heritage sites. The Ramsar Convention lists wetlands of international importance as waterfowl habitat, including many island sites. UNESCO has established a World Network of Biosphere Reserves under its Man and Biosphere (MAB) Programme combining conservation and sustainable development, with many islands and parts of islands protected as Biosphere Reserves (Table 5).

The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) provides the framework for specific agreements on wide ranging or migratory species that need to be protected across their range such as waterbirds, marine turtles and marine mammals. A number of these agreements cover ranges including island countries and have SIDS as parties (Table 2).

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), controls or prohibits the trade in listed species or parts of species where this trade threatens the survival of the species (Bell 2012). It is a useful tool for reducing the pressure on island species for export.

Many islands have whales in their waters and interest in whale watching, and the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling and its International Whaling Commission (IWC), that formerly regulated the hunting of whales, now largely aim to protect the small remaining populations.

Another international convention of critical importance for islands and the survival of their biodiversity is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC). Islands have become major players in the negotiations at the Conferences of the Parties, and succeeded through a Marshall Islands initiative leading up to the Paris Agreement adopted in 2015 to have their aspiration of global warming limited to 1.5°C accepted by all countries. The challenges for island states under the UNFCCC are similar to those under the conservation conventions (Nurse and Moore 2005).

The Sustainable Development Goals (UN 2015) are the latest framework for integrating biodiversity challenges with other environmental, social and economic objectives in national planning and action until 2030. Two of the 17 SDGs directly address biodiversity conservation: Goal 14 on oceans and marine resources, and Goal 15 on terrestrial ecosystems and biodiversity loss. In addition, targets relevant to biodiversity are integrated under a number of other SDGs (Table 6).

All countries including SIDS are expected to adapt the global goals to their own situation, and to report regularly to the UN on their progress. Indicators have been identified for most of these targets (IAEG-SDGs 2016). SIDS should now be considering how they will measure their progress in biodiversity conservation within this new integrated framework for policy, action and reporting.

TABLE 6. Biodiversity Conservation in the SDG targets

REGIONAL CONVENTIONS AND ORGANIZATIONS OF ISLANDS

The second level of intergovernmental organization and action is regional, among islands sharing a common sea area. While the islands in a geographic area may share biological characteristics and physical proximity, they have often been separated by different colonial traditions with diverse legal and cultural systems and languages, retaining closer ties to the mother country than to their near neighbours. This impacts what international agreements they belong to, how they are implemented, and how much autonomy they have to adapt them to their local island situation.

The regional intergovernmental organizations and UNEP Regional Seas Conventions in the Pacific, the Caribbean and the Western Indian Ocean have played an important role in building island solidarity, and provide necessary expertise and support to very small countries. Atlantic, Asian and Mediterranean island states have grouped with adjacent continental countries (Table 3).

UNEP’s Global Environment Outlook programme of environmental assessments has produced two sets of reports for the major island regions, including a biodiversity component. Pacific Islands Environment Outlooks were prepared for UNEP by SPREP (UNEP 1999b, 2005c). Similar reports were prepared for the Caribbean (UNEP 1999a; UNEP 2005b) , and for the Western Indian Ocean (UNEP 1999c) and the Atlantic and Indian Oceans (UNEP 2005a). These reports review the state of the environment and policy responses, and discuss emerging issues, allowing island countries to compare their performance with their peers, and to learn from best practices.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has long been interested in island conservation. It has supported regional reviews of island protected areas, such as in Oceania (Dahl 1986), and extended this approach jointly with UNEP to provide a global review of island conservation needs and priorities in an Island Directory and database (Dahl 1991) including 2,000 islands, with indicators of conservation importance and human threat, among others.

Pacific

In the Pacific, the island countries and territories have a long tradition of regional cooperation on which biodiversity conservation action has built. The major intergovernmental organizations in the region with some impact on biodiversity and natural resources are the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), Pacific Community (SPC), Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) and the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP). The Council of Regional Organizations in the Pacific (CROP) under the PIF ensures cooperation among the regional organizations, both governmental and non-governmental (Table 3).

A short history of regional conservation action in the Pacific Islands illustrates how mechanisms for international cooperation, standard setting, and implementing institutions such as convention secretariats are mutually supportive, with interested governments, NGOs and international organizations working together over decades through a combination of formal agreements, action plans, intergovernmental meetings and scientific symposia to build interest in and capacity for nature conservation in the 22 small island countries and territories of the region.

In 1947, the governments with Pacific island territories established the South Pacific Commission (SPC, now the Pacific Community) to combine their efforts to rebuild the islands after World War II. The SPC had work programmes in economic development (including fisheries), social development and public health, but did not treat political questions. As island countries became independent, they joined the Commission, and today the SPC, headquartered in Noumea, New Caledonia, includes all independent states and dependent territories in the Pacific Islands.

An SPC meeting in 1969 recommended a special project on nature conservation and the recruitment of a Regional Ecological Advisor, and in 1971, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and SPC held a Regional Symposium on Conservation of Nature (SPC 1973). I took up the post of Regional Ecological Advisor 1974-1982, and assisted island countries with ecosystem surveys, conservation legislation, training, and the establishment of some of the first terrestrial and marine protected areas.

To build political interest, the governments of New Zealand and Australia then initiated a series of South Pacific Conferences on National Parks and Reserves in 1975 and 1979, inviting ministers from the island countries to learn about and commit to the creation of protected areas. These conferences on nature conservation continue as the main forum for regional planning for conservation action. IUCN funded SPC to prepare a Regional Ecosystems Survey of the South Pacific Area (Dahl 1980) to identify the conservation needs of the region, with the initial results presented at a Second Regional Symposium on Conservation of Nature in Apia, Samoa, in 1976, followed immediately by a plenipotentiary meeting to conclude a Convention on Conservation of Nature in the South Pacific (Apia Convention) drafted by IUCN.

The Apia Convention was the first island nature conservation convention. The number of parties was never large, since a dispute at the plenipotentiary meeting over representation of autonomous but not yet independent island territories interfered with the signature and ratification process. The Convention was suspended in 2006 to avoid duplication with the Noumea Convention.

UNEP also became interested in the region after being approached by SPC in 1974, leading to financial support to SPC to prepare national and regional state of the environment reports and a regional action plan for the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) launched at the Rarotonga Conference on the Human Environment in the South Pacific in 1982 (Fuse and Iwama 1981; Dahl & Baumgart 1982). UNEP considers SPREP as one of its Regional Seas Programmes, although with a broader focus than just oceans and coastal areas. What started as a joint programme of SPC, the Pacific Forum, UNEP and UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) with a secretariat at SPC, became a separate intergovernmental organization through the 1986 Convention for the Protection of the Natural Resources and Environment of the South Pacific region (Noumea Convention) and the 1993 Agreement Establishing SPREP, with the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme in Apia, Samoa, as the main regional body responsible for sustainable development, nature conservation, climate change and other environmental issues (Dahl 1984a, 1984b, 1985). IUCN continued to provide scientific support to regional conservation planning (Dahl 1984c, 1986).

SPREP is the Secretariat for three Conventions: the Apia Convention, the Noumea Convention, and the Waigani Convention on hazardous wastes. SPREP has built the capacity of countries in the region to participate in international conventions and negotiations (Herr 2002; Mougeot et al. 2003) such as through an information package on the CBD to assist governments with implementation (SPREP 2000), training on CITES, regional preparatory meetings prior to conferences of parties to international conventions, and a GEF Integrated Island Biodiversity (IIB) project. It has also explored how to rationalize the reporting requirements under the different biodiversity conventions.

As mentioned above, the regional conferences on nature conservation have continued every 5 years since 1975, with the most recent 9th Pacific Conference on Nature Conservation and Protected Areas in Suva, Fiji, 2-6 December 2013. It adopted an Action Strategy: Framework for Nature Conservation and Protected Areas in the Pacific Islands Region 2014-2020 (SPREP 2014). Part 1 is a Code of Conduct and Guiding Principles, while Part 2 serves as a bridge between the global targets for biodiversity and the implementation of the National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) under the CBD. SPREP has prepared a guide linking this framework to the CBD Aichi targets (SPREP 2016), but countries still have difficulties in using the guide in their reporting. To ensure coordination with the non-governmental organizations active in conservation in the region, SPREP established the Pacific Islands Round Table for Nature Conservation (https://sprep.org/pirt).

Caribbean

The Caribbean region also has intergovernmental organizations of islands, including the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) which is associated with a Climate Change Centre (http://www.caribbeanclimate.bz/), and the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS).

The Caribbean Environment Programme (CEP), a UNEP Regional Seas programme, provides the legal framework for regional cooperation on biodiversity conservation, including both island and coastal states. The Caribbean Action Plan and the Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region (Cartagena Convention) are facilitated by a Regional Coordinating Unit (CAR/RCU) in Kingston, Jamaica. An associated protocol on Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife is implemented by a Regional Activity Centre in Guadeloupe (http://www.car-spaw-rac.org/). As with most Regional Seas programmes outside the Pacific and South Asia, the focus is marine and coastal conservation rather than terrestrial conservation.

Indian Ocean, Mediterranean, Atlantic

The Indian Ocean Commission groups Comoros, Réunion (France), Madagascar, Mauritius and Seychelles, with a secretariat in Mauritius. It includes sustainable development and the conservation of resources and ecosystems among its areas of focus, with projects on biodiversity, climate change and coastal zone management. Beyond this, it is the UNEP Regional Seas Programmes including the relevant island countries and territories, that provide Action Plans and often regional Conventions with a biodiversity conservation component.

The Eastern African Regional Seas Programme covers the Comoros, Madagascar, Mauritius and Seychelles as well as the coastal states, with an Action Plan and the Nairobi Convention for the Protection, Management and Development of the Marine and Coastal Environment of the Western Indian Ocean, and a protocol concern Protected Areas and Wild Fauna & Flora. The Eastern African Regional Coordinating Unit is based in Seychelles.

In the East Asian Seas (EAS), Singapore is the only SIDS, although the region includes many islands. The Coordinating Body for the Seas of East Asia (COBSEA) in Bangkok is responsible for the Action Plan for the Protection and Development of the Marine and Coastal Areas of the East Asian Region. There is no regional convention, but instead the programme promotes compliance with existing environmental treaties. Long term strategies for the EAS Action Plan are adopted periodically.

The South Asian Seas, including the Maldives, Sri Lanka, and India’s Andaman, Nicobar and Laccadive Islands, are covered by the 1995 South Asian Seas Action Plan (SASAP) but no convention, with the South Asia Cooperative Environment Programme (SACEP) as secretariat. SASAP follows existing global environmental and maritime conventions with Law of the Sea as its umbrella convention. Its actions for biodiversity conservation include assistance to National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan updating, a Coral Reef Management Strategy with a list of protected areas (SACEP 2008), capacity development, and technical assistance to SACEP member countries to develop a South Asia Regional Biodiversity Clearing House Mechanism.

For Mediterranean islands, Cyprus and Malta were considered SIDS until they joined the European Union. The Mediterranean became the first region to adopt a Regional Seas Action Plan in 1975, supported by the Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution (Barcelona Convention) and a protocol on Specially Protected Areas and Biodiversity, with a Coordinating Unit (MEDU) in Athens. A strategic Action Programme for the Conservation of Biological Diversity was adopted in 2003.

The Regional Seas Programme for West and Central Africa (WACAF) includes Cape Verde, and Sao Tome and Principe, with an Action Plan and the 1981 Abidjan Convention. However the programme has been under-resourced and has only recently been reactivated.

Apart from Cape Verde, the islands in the Atlantic Ocean Macaronesia Region (Azores, Madeira, Canary Islands) all belong to countries of the European Union (EU), as are the islands in the Mediterranean and the North Sea, so they are covered by biodiversity action at the national and EU levels beyond the scope of this review.

Fisheries conventions and agreements

Fish represent another biological resource with significant problems of over-exploitation and conservation, and coastal fisheries are an important conservation concern for islands within the frameworks described above. However, oceanic fisheries are not insular but in the waters between islands and require management at their own regional scales (Aqorau 2014). Numerous fisheries conventions and agreements include islands, so only a few examples are reviewed here.

In the wider Caribbean, FAO's Western Central Atlantic Fisheries Commission (WECAFC) partners with the Caribbean Environment Programme (CEP), with biodiversity related activities like species resource assessment and management plans, and training in marine protected area management. The Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism (CRFM) manages island fisheries more broadly.

Unlike the successful single-species Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA), the Western Pacific illustrates the challenge for conservation action when national interests differ. The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) manages a tuna fishery that is multi-species, multi-jurisdictional, and multi-gear, where big-eye tuna which is seriously overfished is an incidental catch in other tuna fisheries, and its protection would have economic impact on the other fisheries. Different island countries benefit from different kinds of fisheries, producing conflicting interests, and a conservation burden with winners and losers that is not easily shared. The convention is proof that all the countries acknowledge the need for conservation action, but in fact each gives priority to its own benefit and there is little interest in compromise (Hanich 2014; Hanich and Tsamenyi 2014). Negotiations failed again in 2016. In islands as elsewhere, national sovereignty generally wins out over common interest.

Challenges and gaps

Returning to the questions asked in the introduction, the special interests and needs of island conservation are well covered in international and regional conventions and agreements, particularly in regions where SIDS have organized their own regional intergovernmental organizations. Most island governments have come to accept the importance of biodiversity conservation, and have contributed island leadership to international processes from the Law of the Sea through climate change negotiations to biodiversity conservation. Intergovernmental organizations of island states participate in international conferences and formulate and present island viewpoints. They also train island diplomats and help island countries to prepare their national positions for international negotiations. AOSIS has been the international focus, and SPREP has played an important regional role. Some island states with limited human resources bring outside experts onto their negotiating teams, magnifying their impact.

On the other hand, government action often results more from external demands rather than internal motivation and conviction. A review of national reporting on the state of the environment since 1992 which I prepared for the UNEP Governing Council in 2008 (UNEP 2008) identified c. 900 reports from the 22 Pacific Island governments, mostly prepared in response to external requirements and at the request of donors, with little evidence that they had much impact on national policy.

Island capacity

The main challenge is in the means available for implementation, since the isolation and diversity of islands require adaptation to many different local situations. For the smallest island countries and territories, there will never be sufficient technical expertise locally to respond to all conservation needs, requiring regional technical support. Conservation measures for species and ecosystems must be adapted to islands where land is too limited to create traditional parks and reserves, and indigenous tenure may be important, involving local populations in community-managed conservation areas.

Politicians, in islands as elsewhere, often have short-term priorities and change frequently, so it is civil servants who can maintain some continuity and longer term vision. When the total government staff is very small, the departure of even a single person can leave a large gap in experience and institutional memory.

If anything, there are too many biodiversity-relevant conventions and agreements, overloading the absorptive capacity of at least the smaller SIDS to make full use of them, and creating an administrative burden detracting from real action on the ground. Sometimes a regional organization can serve as an interface, helping to identify the specific conservation needs of the island and delivering only the assistance necessary, as well as assisting with reporting requirements under the conventions.

More could be done by convention secretariats and conferences of parties to adapt to the needs and capacities of SIDS. Some financial support is provided, but limited time and local human capacity, if only to assist outside consultants, is a more important obstacle. Chasek, in her review of treaty implementation in the Pacific, identified four implementation challenges linked to island capacity: capacity building, coordination, information and data collection and sharing, and prioritization and funding (Chasek 2010).

Island size and culture

A defining characteristic of island reality is small size and clear limits. Traditional island populations were limited by local subsistence. With overseas support and food imports, island populations can now grow without fear of starvation, sometimes reaching very high population densities and degrading biological resources.

One issue that is important for those islands, especially in the Pacific, with indigenous populations, is the integration of biodiversity conservation with their traditional cultures. Pacific peoples learned early out of necessity how to live sustainably within their natural resources, with traditional conservation practices that are still relevant. There was complete interdependence of nature and culture, with an understanding of their environment and indigenous species often far beyond what modern science has yet discovered (Johannes 1981, 2002; Dahl 1989). Islanders, like other indigenous peoples, have pushed to have this cultural dimension acknowledged in international legal frameworks for biodiversity conservation, including in the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Law of the Sea (Chang 2013; Guth 2013).

Today, even the most remote islanders are exposed to the world and its values, eroding traditional culture. Many emigrate for education or better opportunities, so that some SIDS have a majority of their population residing overseas. Sometimes they or their children return, bringing with them values less adapted to island life, producing a clash of cultures even within the island population itself. Biodiversity values may suffer. They may also bring positive values to address the new problems introduced with globalization.

Conflicting priorities

The development of SIDS has highlighted two opposing tendencies. On the one hand, islanders recognize how much they have in common socially, economically and environmentally, and are aware of limits and the need for sustainability and biodiversity conservation. On the other hand, island states have formed within the present paradigm of national sovereignty and economic growth, and island political leaders are just as interested in short-term gain and defensive of their national interests as in any other state. The pressures, both legitimate and sometimes corrupting, to favour development and exploitation of resources over conservation, may be even harder to resist in small governments with fewer checks and balances. This is where the support for conservation from outside can make an important difference in maintaining a priority for biodiversity over short-term gain. The role of international and regional organizations is important in defining the common interest and working for state adhesion to that common agenda.

Islands are no longer ignored on the international stage. There is now a considerable pool of island specialists and organizations looking out for island interests, including within the United Nations itself, and the international conferences on SIDS have defined an island agenda and helped to carry it forward to implementation. Islands have been laboratories not only for evolution, but also for creative approaches to biodiversity conservation, often combining traditional knowledge and modern science.

What is needed now is alternative paradigms beyond national sovereignty that would make it easier for island states to meet their needs collectively. New forms of multilevel governance could maintain the rich diversity of island nations, while allowing them to collectively become parties to international conventions and fulfil the accompanying obligations. This would be more reasonable than expecting the diplomatic corps of a tiny island to be as effective as that of a large nation. The European Union, which can become a party to conventions and negotiate on behalf of all of its state members, is a possible model.

Among the unmet needs are helping islands to adapt to accelerating environmental changes beyond their control, such as from climate change, sea level rise, and ocean acidification. The human challenges are already great, and the impacts on unique island biodiversity will probably be similar. The exception would be if the depopulation of an island eliminated human pressures on biodiversity, allowing for recovery. There is also a related gap in international legislation under the Law of the Sea, which never anticipated rapidly rising sea level. If an island state drowns and loses all its national territory, it loses both the basis for its national sovereignty and its rights over its territorial sea and exclusive economic zone, which would leave its marine biodiversity unprotected. A legal modification to freeze present limits would allow island peoples to retain rights to their marine resources even if they are forced to become climate-displaced persons (Rayfuse 2011).

Another need that is only partly met is in combating alien invasive species and preventing further introductions (Jupiter et al. 2014). Species are often transported accidentally during trade, or introduced in ships’ ballast water. International cooperation is necessary to address this beyond what islands are able to do at ports of entry. Exterminating a species once it has become established is a complex and expensive process beyond the means of island governments themselves, if it is possible at all.

Genetic diversity is often overlooked in conservation policy and action (Laikre 2010). The emerging issue of marine genetic resources will be important to islands with their extended exclusive economic zones (Kim and Lee, 2013), but the international legal framework for the conservation of marine biodiversity is still rudimentary.

All of the above is rather defensive, trying to reduce the erosion of island biodiversity and to prevent extinctions. Hopefully it will soon be possible to consider island restoration, rebuilding the natural systems within which unique island biodiversity evolved and which can support, if not ensure, long-term sustainability. The science of ecosystem restoration is still embryonic, and international cooperation will be needed to help islands that are ready to go in this direction.

More fundamental still is the challenge for each island society to define and evolve a sustainable island culture and economy in harmony with its unique island environment and biodiversity, as suggested in the GEO SIDS Outlook (UNEP 2014b). Rather than falling into the trap of the globalized consumer culture and a society fixed within the geographic limits of a nation state, islands could consider a more dynamic population spread between their islands and other countries and benefiting from both, with a choice of lifestyles adapted to the environmental limits of each location, and favouring human well-being, culture, arts and science more than material accumulation. While this is a challenge for all parts of the world set by the Sustainable Development Goals, many island societies have a head-start in their traditional island cultures and lifestyles, with the potential to define island life in harmony with biodiversity in new and creative ways.

CONCLUSIONS

This review has documented the extensive set of international and regional conventions and agreements that together provide a substantial framework for efforts to conserve island biodiversity, sometimes more than the islands can cope with. These international instruments should continue to be sensitive and responsive to the special challenges of SIDS. Island governments also need to learn, with the assistance of their regional organizations, how to obtain the support they need in a way that is relevant to their capacity to absorb it, including through community-based conservation that is less dependent on government.

The progress that has been made in protecting island biodiversity in recent decades can be attributed in part to these regional and international measures. The future should extend this multilevel approach to governance with both international coherence and local empowerment for the benefit of island peoples and their biodiversity heritage.

REFERENCES

Aqorau, T. (2014) The evolution of international fisheries law in the island nations of the Pacific: the quest for control. In: Peaceful order in the world's oceans, ed. M. Lodge & M.H. Nordquist, pp.338-357. Leiden/Boston: Brill/Nijhoff, 2014.

Bell, L. (2012) SPREP: Pacific Islands Region and CITES. Environmental Policy and Law, 42(4/5): 282-284

CBD (2014) Island Biodiversity - Island Bright Spots in Conservation and Sustainability. Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. URL: https://www.cbd.int/idb/image/2014/idb-2014-booklet.pdf

Chang, W.B.C. (2013) Indigenous values and the Law of the Sea. In: Governing ocean resources: new challenges and emerging regimes, ed. J.M. Van Dyke, chapter 20, pp. 427-445. Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff.

Chasek, P.S. (2010) Confronting Environmental Treaty Implementation Challenges in the Pacific Islands. Pacific Islands Policy 6. Honolulu: East-West Center. URL: http://www.eastwestcenter.org/publications/confronting-environmental-treaty-implementation-challenges-pacific-islands

Cogliati-Bantz, V.P. (2015) Archipelagic States and the New Law of the Sea. . In: Law of the sea: from Grotius to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. ed. L. del Castillo, chapter 18, pp. 299-317. Leiden/Boston: Brill/Nijhoff.

Dahl, A.L. (1980) Regional ecosystems survey of the South Pacific area. Tech. Paper 179. 99 p. Noumea: South Pacific Commission.

Dahl, A.L. & Baumgart, I. (1982) The state of the environment in the South Pacific. In: Report of the Conference on the Human Environment in the South Pacific, Rarotonga, Cook Islands, 8-11 March 1982, p. 47-71. Noumea: South Pacific Commission; and UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies No. 31.

Dahl, A.L. (1984a) Oceania's most pressing environmental concerns. Ambio 13(5-6): 296-301.

Dahl, A.L. (1984b) Biogeographical aspects of isolation in the Pacific. Ambio 13(5-6): 302-305.

Dahl, A.L. (1984c) Future directions for the Oceanian Realm, pp. 41-49. In: Proceedings of the World Congress on National Parks, Bali, Indonesia, October, 1982, ed. J.A. McNeely & K.R. Miller. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Dahl, A.L. (1985) Adequacy of coverage of protected areas in Oceania. In: Report of the Third South Pacific National Parks and Reserves Conference, Apia, Western Samoa, Vol. 2, p. 2-8. Noumea: SPREP, South Pacific Commission.

Dahl, A.L. (1986) Review of the protected areas system in Oceania (including Oceania island list). Gland & Cambridge: IUCN. 73+239pp.

Dahl, A.L. (1989) Traditional environmental knowledge and resource management in New Caledonia. In: Traditional Ecological Knowledge: a Collection of Essays, ed. R.E. Johannes. Gland & Cambridge: IUCN.

Dahl, A.L. (1991) IUCN/UNEP Island Directory. UNEP Regional Seas Directories and Bibliographies, No. 35. Nairobi: UNEP. 573 p. URL: http://islands.unep.ch/isldir.htm

Fuse, T., & Iwama, T. (1981) Regional Cooperation for the Protection of the Environment in the East Asian Seas and the Pacific. In: Environmental Law and Policy in the Pacific Basin Area, ed. I. Kato, N. Kumamoto & W.H. Matthews, pp.183-199. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.

Giraud-Kinley, C. (1999) The Effectiveness of International Law: Sustainable Development in the South Pacific Region. Georgetown International Environmental Law Review 12(1):125-176.

Govan H, Tawake A, Tabunakawai K, Jenkins A, et al. (2009) Status and potential of locally-managed marine areas in the South Pacific: meeting nature conservation and sustainable livelihood targets through wide-spread implementation of LMMAs. SPREP/WWF/WorldFish-Reefbase/CRISP, Suva, Fiji

Guth, H.K. (2013) Protecting and perpetuating Papahanaumokuakea: involvement of native Hawaiians in governance of Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, In Governing ocean resources: new challenges and emerging regimes, ed. J.M. Van Dyke, chapter 19, pp.407-425. Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff.

Hanich, Q. (2014) Distributing a conservation burden across multiple jurisdictions: a case study of the Western and Central Pacific Tuna Fisheries, In The limits of maritime jurisdiction, ed. C.H. Schofield, S. Yi & M.S. Kwon, chapt. 18, pp. 407-430. Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff.

Hanich, Q. & Tsamenyi, M. (2014) Progress in the implementation of conservation and management measures for Bigeye and Yellowfin tunas in the Western and Central Pacific: sharing the conservation burden and benefit. In: Peaceful order in the world's oceans, ed. M. Lodge & M.H. Nordquist, pp.358-380. Leiden/Boston: Brill/Nijhoff.

Herr, R. (2002) Environmental protection in the South Pacific: The effectiveness of SPREP and its conventions. In: Yearbook of international cooperation on environment and development 2002/2003, ed. O.S. Sotkke & Ø.B. Thommessen. London: Earthscan.

IAEG-SDGs (2016) Report of the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goal Indicators, 19 February 2016 - United Nations E/CN.3/2016/2/Rev.1 URL: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/statcom/47th-session/documents/2016-2-SDGs-Rev1-E.pdf

Jacovides, A. (2014) Islands. In: Peaceful order in the world's oceans, ed. M. Lodge & M.H. Nordquist, pp.68-90. Leiden/Boston: Brill/Nijhoff.

Johannes, R.E. (ed.). (1981) Words of the Lagoon: Fishing and Marine Lore in the Palau District of Micronesia. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Johannes, R.E. (2002) The renaissance of community-based marine resource management in Oceania. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 33:317-340.

Jupiter, S., Mangubhai, S., & Kingsford, R.T. (2014) Conservation of Biodiversity in the Pacific Islands of Oceania: Challenges and Opportunities. Pacific Conservation Biology 20(2):206–220.

Kim, B. & Lee, S. (2013) Existing legal frameworks relevant to marine genetic resources. In: Governing ocean resources: new challenges and emerging regimes, ed. J.M. Van Dyke, chapt.24, pp.503-519. Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff.

Laikre, L (2010) Genetic diversity is overlooked in international conservation policy implementation. Conservation Genetics 11: 349-354.

Lodge, M. & Nordquist, M.H. (eds), (2014) Peaceful order in the world's oceans: essays in honor of Satya N Nandan. Leiden/Boston: Brill/Nijhoff.

Mougeot, J., Piest, U. & Dodds, S.E.H. (2003) Pacific Island Countries Regional Study on Inter-linkages. Work in Progress 17(1): 10-11. URL: http://www.unu.edu/hq/ginfo/wip/wip17-1-spr03.pdf.

Mougeot, J. (2003) SPREP’s perspectives on inter-linkages among MEAs in the South Pacific. Work in Progress 17(1): 19–20. URL: http://www.unu.edu/hq/ginfo/wip/wip17-1-spr03.pdf.

Nurse, L. & Moore, R. (2005) Adaptation to Global Climate Change: An Urgent Requirement for Small Island Developing States. Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, 14:100-107.

Rayfuse, R. (2011) International law and disappearing states: maritime zones and the criteria for statehood. Environmental Policy and Law, 41(6):281-287. URL: http://lup.lub.lu.se/record/2340621

Rosabal, P. (2004) Protected Areas: Benefits to Islanders. In: Island biodiversity - Sustaining life in vulnerable ecosystems, ed. P. Deda, C. Marín & K.J. Mulongoy, pp. 21-28. INSULA, the International Journal on Island Affairs, February/September 2004. URL: https://www.cbd.int/island/insula.shtml

SACEP (2008) Regional Strategy for Coral Reef Management in South Asia. Technical Report, South Asia Cooperative Environment Programme. URL: http://www.sacep.org/pdf/Reports-Technical/2008.12-Regional-Strategy-for-Coral-Reef-Management-in-South-Asia.pdf

SPC (1973) Regional Symposium on Conservation of Nature - Reefs and Lagoons. Proceedings and Papers. Noumea, New Caledonia, 5-14 August 1971. Noumea: South Pacific Commission. xi+156+314 pp.

SPREP (2000) Convention on Biological Diversity: An Information Package for Pacific Island Countries. Apia: SPREP. URL: http://www.sprep.org/att/publication/000289_CBD_publication.pdf

SPREP (2014) Action Strategy: Framework for Nature Conservation and Protected Areas in the Pacific Islands Region 2014-2020. URL: https://www.sprep.org/attachments/pacificnatureconference/Draft_Regional_Framework_Action_Strategy_2014_-_2020_Final_EDIT.pdf

SPREP (2016) A guide to the linkages between the Aichi biodiversity targets, NBSAPs and the objectives of the Framework for Nature Conservation and Protected Areas in the Pacific islands region 2014–2020. Apia: SPREP.

Taylor, P., Stroud, L. & Peteru, C. (2013) Multilateral environmental agreement negotiator’s handbook: Pacific region 2013. Apia: SPREP, and New Zealand Centre for Environmental Law.

UN (1992) Agenda 21: Programme of Action for Sustainable Development. United Nations Conference on Environment & Development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3-14 June 1992. New York: United Nations. URL: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf

UN (2015) Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A/70/L.1. New York: United Nations.

UNEP (1999a) Caribbean Environment Outlook. Nairobi: UNEP.

UNEP (1999b) Pacific Islands Environment Outlook. Nairobi: UNEP.

UNEP (1999c) Western Indian Ocean Environment Outlook. Nairobi: UNEP.

UNEP (2005a) Atlantic and Indian Ocean Environment Outlook. Nairobi: UNEP.

UNEP (2005b) Caribbean Environment Outlook. Nairobi: UNEP.

UNEP (2005c) Pacific Environment Outlook. Nairobi: UNEP.

UNEP (2008) Overview of environmental assessment landscape at national level: State of state-of-the-environment reporting: Note by the Executive Director. UNEP/GC.25/INF/12/Add.1. URL: http://new.unep.org/gc/gcss-x/download.asp?ID=1016

UNEP (2014a) Emerging Issues for Small Island Developing States. Nairobi: UNEP. URL: http://apps.unep.org/publications/index.php?option=com_pmtdata&task=download&file=-Emerging Issues for Small Island Developing States-2014Emerging issues.pdf

UNEP (2014b) GEO Small Island Developing States Outlook. Nairobi: UNEP. URL: http://apps.unep.org/publications/index.php?option=com_pmtdata&task=download&file=-Global Environment Outlook: small island developing states-2014GEO_SIDS_final.pdf

Wright, A., Stacey, N. & Holland, P. (2006) The cooperative framework for ocean and coastal management in the Pacific Islands: Effectiveness, constraints and future direction. Ocean & Coastal Management, 49(9-10):739-763.