Topic 4: Implementing management plans - UKOTCF

A Sense of Direction: a conference on conservation in UK Overseas Territories and other small island communities, page 129

Topic 4: Implementing management plans

One of the most popular sessions (after widespread initial doubts!) at the Calpe 2000 conference was theone on site management planning, involving field exercises. More was called for then, and in the consulta-tion exercise on the agenda for the present conference. We again ran a set of field exercises which arereported at the end of this topic.

Preceeding this, we tried to assemble a set of reports on experience of planned management in a range ofdifferent situations. The National Trust (for England, Wales and Northern Island) started off with the builtenvironment, but with many other aspects too of heritage and public inclusion.

A planned presentation on South Georgia to represent uninhabited situations was unfortunately with-drawn. However, the contribution from Tristan da Cunha ably covered both uninhabited islands and smallremote communities.

Plans focusing on single species, but thereby having wider benefits, were represented by the Cayman BlueIguana and the Ouvea parakeet in New Caledonia. Ascension addressed restoration through dealing withinvasive species, a project with remarkably rapid initial success, after many years of attempts by theForum and others to secure funding to start this work. The subject of dealing with invasives is returned toin Topic 6.

All of these plans involve at least some degree of local involvement, and this is a central feature of thepresentation from the Turks and Caicos Islands, on a conservation plan of a Ramsar Wetland of Interna-tional Importance and its surroundings, involving also sustainable development with the local community.An inter-country approach is outlined by the project on marine turtles in Caribbean UKOTs.

That all this is not a new invention is underlined by the presentation from Jersey on management of theormer, a treasured shellfish, for decades if not centuries.

Leading into the practical exercise and feedback from each site investigated are updates of some relevantcurrent issues under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands and a general context and introduction to thefield exercise.

Chaired by: Andrew Dobson, Bermuda Audubon Society (left); andJoseph Smith-Abbott, British Virgin Islands National Parks Trust (right)


Conserving and managing the built environment - the mean-ing and value of heritageCatherine Leonard, The National Trust for England, Wales and Northern Ireland

Leonard, C. 2003. Conserving and managing the built environment - the meaningand value of heritage. pp 130-138 in A Sense of Direction: a conference on conser-vation in UK Overseas Territories and other small island communities (ed. M.Pienkowski). UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum, www.ukotcf.org

The historic environment comprises not only buildings and landscapes and othertangible survivals of our past, but also the history of all the communities who havemade their home there. Our physical and cultural heritage is central to how we seeourselves and to our identity as individuals, communities and nations. It reinforcesour sense of local and regional distinctiveness. It helps to enhance the quality ofour lives, to improve our sense of well being and is a catalyst for social and eco-nomic change.

While we in the heritage and environmental sectors understand the significance ofthe historic environment, its importance is not widely appreciated. This presenta-tion seeks to stimulate discussions about the meaning and value of heritage and toprovide an opportunity for sharing experience in protecting and managing the builtenvironment.

Catherine Leonard, National Trust of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, 36Queen Anne’s Gate, London, SW1H 9AS, [email protected]

The three central aims of the National Trust todayare:

• to show leadership in the regeneration of thecountryside;

Bob Scrambler is one of our 2,000 tenant farmers, whowe work with to promote sustainable land management,local foods, training and skills and learning about farm

food. He farms in Cornwall and specialises in rarebreed sheep. And his wife runs a washable nappy

business from one of the farm buildings.

• to promote the meaning and value of herit-age to the nation

This family (top of next column) are visiting CorfeCastle in Dorset.

• to make education and lifelong learningcentral to everything that we do.

Here young people are developing heritage craft skills.


This paper focuses on the second of these – themeaning and value of heritage - but it will, I amsure, come as no surprise to you that all threethemes are interrelated.

Kedleston HallFor the reason weare all here today,in such wonderfulsurroundings, isbecause heritage -built, natural andcultural - is impor-tant and what wedo matters. You,as stewards ofsome of the mostbeautiful places inthe world, somebuilt, some natural,and me because

the Trust owns and opens to the public a greatmany of the same.

After a year in which our Trust recorded recordvisitor and member numbers, I hope it is fair to saythat - in the UK at least, and I hope in your coun-tries too - public interest in our history and heritageis burgeoning. Numbers of visitors to heritagesites, museums and art galleries are rising; interestin family and local history is particularly strong;and history programmes on television and radio arebecoming increasingly popular.

A volunteer gardener chatting to a visitor at Chartwell,Kent, South East Region

And while the debate continues about the intellec-tual quality of TV pop-history there is no denyingits appeal – the programmes bring the past to life,they satisfy our thirst for historical accuracy, andthey entertain. The ways we acquire our sense ofthe past and of place may have changed, but the

significance of our historic environment persists.

Hugh Edgar, a National Trust volunteer who appearedas the butler in a TV series ‘The Edwardian House’.

Whether we learn about history from a televisionprogramme, a monument, a novel or biography,from a family photo album, a personal diary, ourown observations and memories or from books, oursense of place and heritage values are acutelypersonal. Indeed, I am sure this is behind thegrowing interest in local distinctiveness and localhistory.

People no longer simply want to come and stare inawe at historic buildings - they seek a more per-sonal interaction.

Family at Polesden Lacey, Surrey

A Mori poll commissioned by English Heritage,our statutory agency for the built environment, in2000 captured some of these attitudes and foundthat 96% of adults think that the heritage is impor-tant to educate us about the past. And 76% agreethat their lives are richer for having the opportunityto visit and see examples of our heritage.

The Trust’s recent campaign to save from sale andinevitable dispersal a magnificent Victorian estatenear Bristol in the West of England highlighted anumber of these points.


This beautiful place, called Tyntesfield, came onthe market after its owner, Lord Wraxall, diedleaving his estate to be split between as many as 19heirs. The fact that we were able to saveTyntesfield intact is thanks to the huge generosityof our supporters who, over just 100 days, enabledus to raise the money required to buy it and toestablish the seeds of its endowment.

But perhaps what was most staggering was thequantity of single donations. Although we werehelped on our way by two very large gifts, and ahuge contribution from the Heritage Lottery Fund,50,000 people made small (on average around £40)contributions to the appeal fund, which demon-strated a huge – and to a degree, it has to be said,unexpected – public enthusiasm for the historicenvironment.

And, less than a year after acquisition, I am de-lighted that we opened to visitors yesterday (24March 2003).

Perhaps one of the unique things about this projectis the way we are going to involve the public in thefuture repair and restoration of Tyntesfield. Thehouse and estate are very much as Lord Wraxhallleft them - full of the everyday detritus of familylife. And we haven’t cleared it up or brought in anarmy of expert conservators or hurriedly inter-

preted itshistoricalcontext.

We intendto useTyntesfieldas a trainingground forrare conser-vation skillsand hope toinvolvelocal communities with our interpretation work bylistening to their stories about the house, the familyand estate.

Nursery at TyntesfieldOur chal-lenge atTyntesfield(and indeedfor ourpropertiesas a whole)is to buildon people’sinterest inthe herit-age, toengagethem more closely in the decisions we take aboutmanagement and interpretation, to provide tangiblepublic benefit and to generate wider investment inthe heritage economy.

These are the issues I am going to address thismorning and they will, I hope, lead to a discussionabout the meaning and value of heritage to today’ssociety.

NT visitors buying a plant off a stall at a National TrustSpring Fair at Petworth House in Sussex.


For it is true to say that the huge public interest inthe heritage has sadly met with widespread politi-cal indifference. The historic environment failed toachieve a single reference in the UK’s 2002 Spend-ing Review and I’m sure I do not need to tell youhow little public money is available for the herit-age. And, linked to this, there is a widespreadmisunderstanding of what we actually mean byheritage – it is often viewed as ‘things’ rather thanfor what it really is: a universal value.

At the Trust we do not have all the answers – wealso struggle with the concept of ‘heritage’ and aretrying hard to understand the significance of ourhistoric environment. And we are doing this bytrying to pose as many questions as we are answer-ing - by developing local partnerships and net-works, by cataloguing oral histories, by rethinkingthe history we portray and by trying to quantify thesocial and economic benefits of a good qualityenvironment.

Schoolchildren, with arms raised to respond to aquestion, on an educational visit to Coleshill Farm,

Oxon

As far as economic benefits go, I think we wouldall agree that conservation organisations make avital contribution to tourism. And in the UK, therecent (and different) impacts of foot-and-mouth

Tourists arriving at the Farne Islands inNorthumberland

disease and September 11th have demonstrated theimportance of the domestic tourism industry to theUK economy.

Our organisations also create jobs and in researchcommissioned by the National Trust in severalparts of the UK, we have calculated that for eachjob the Trust creates, between 5 and 9 are createdin the local economy, which is a powerful multi-plier effect.

The exterior of the General Store, Bay Town, RobinHood’s Bay

I am now going to show you some examples ofhow we are seeking new and innovative ways ofinterpreting our built properties and also to showsomething of the Trust’s work as a mini develop-ment agency - raising money in more prosperousparts of the country and investing it, often inremote, rural areas, giving a vital boost to theireconomies as well as delivering major heritage andenvironmental benefits.

Carpenter and assistant measuring a length of replace-ment timber in the roof of cattle sheds at Llanerchaeron

Farm. The wood will be cut with an adze beforehandand pegged with wooden pegs. The charming C18thEstate Office at Llanerchaeron, set in a field of blue-bells. The rough stonework of the cottage is paintedpink and white and the windows and doorframe are

arched.At Llanerchaeron in a remote part of mid Wales,we are bringing life back to the estate of a late 18th


century Welsh family. The estate had its own farmand granary as well as large double walled gardens,which have remained largely unaltered (thoughsadly neglected) since its heyday. Llanerchaeronis currently undergoing an extraordinarily sensitiverestoration, returning many of the buildings to theiroriginal usage and appearance, using local skillsand craftsmen to do the work. The project alsoinvolves landscape and nature conservation toencourage greater diversity of wildlife habitats andspecies such as the red kite, otter, and brown hare.

And from remote rural Wales, to the Londonsuburbs, where the Trust has just this year acquiredthe home of artist/designer, William Morris, inBexleyheath, South East London. WilliamMorris shared with the founders of the NationalTrust a belief in the power of beauty to enhance thequality of our lives and this principle is as relevanttoday as it was 150 years ago. Through openingRed House and its garden as a community resourcewe hope to play an important part in boosting therole our heritage can play in Bexley’s future.

William Morris portrait from Wightwick Manor in theWest Midlands

And from the 1850s we jump forward in time tothe 1950s and Mendips in Liverpool. JohnLennon’s childhood home, where he lived with hisAunt Mimi from the age of 5 until he left home at

23, which hasbeen kindlydonated to theTrust by YokoOno Lennon,and which wewill open tothe public onSaturday 29March.

Paul McCartney lived a short walk away at number20 Forthlin Road in a 1940s semi also cared for bythe National Trust. And through these two Beatlesproperties, together with the home and collectionof Liverpool society photographer, EdwardChambré Hardman, recently secured by the Trust,we are beginning to play our part in Liverpool’scultural renaissance, and are very supportive of itsrecent nomination for World Heritage Site status.

We are constantly thinking of new and innovativeways to interpret our properties and here (below) atDolaucothi in Carmarthenshire, where visitors canalready explore the site above and below ground, anew exhibition explains how to measure the value


of gold, how different techniques have been usedto mine for gold, from the Romans to the Victori-ans, and how gold was used both in the past andmodern times.

Alongside exhibitions, we use drama and liveinterpretation to tell our properties’ stories or toexplore issues. This year we are launching a newtouring theatre workshop called ‘What’s the realdeal?’ which tells the story of a supermarket, calledReal Deal, where the supermarket manager, theowner of a local farm shop, a shopper and an eco-warrior engage the children (who are acting in roleas journalists) in debate about the issues of food,farming and sustainability. This workshop was

piloted last year as part of ‘Your Wake up Call’ - ayouth project aimed at involving young people inthe World Summit on Sustainable Development. Itis touring schools this spring alongside our existingtheatre programmes, Whose land is it anyway? andMud, Mulch and Marigolds.

Last year we opened the Workhouse in Southwell,Nottinghamshire. Here the Trust aims to create abetter understanding of the poor and destitute, andto explain the development of a system which wasthe foundation of social welfare today.

We were determined not to sanitise the experience

and visitors will not find gardens, shops orteashops but are confronted instead with barerooms, which they are encouraged to furnish withtheir imagination; and an exhibition about povertyand how we deal with it today.

And nextyear we willtake on therunning ofthe Back toBacks inBirmingham,where we arecurrentlyworking withthe Birming-ham Conser-vation Trustto restorethis completeand uniquecourtyard of back-to-back housing – a rare survivalof British social history. At the heart of the Backto Backs are the stories of the people who lived andworked in these houses from the time they werebuilt to the present day. They, unlike the back-to-backs of the northern mill cities, were artisan’shouses, in their time proud and relatively luxuriouscompared to the rural poverty whence their occu-pants came.


We will be using the stories of real people and thememories of recent occupants to trace the declineof these homes from the birthplace of Birming-ham’s wealth to condemnation as slums in the1960s.

These ideas draw on the experience of the trulyinspiring Tenement Museum in the Lower EastSide of New York. The museum, at 97 OrchardStreet, tells the stories of the people who lived inthe tenement over the years –Nathalie Gumpertzwho turned her apartment into a dressmaking shopwhen her husband left her; Abram and Zipe Hellerwho immigrated from Lithuania in 1901; Abrahamand Fannie Rogarshevsky, and other families. Itcaptures the atmosphere, spirit and collectivememory of the East Coast immigrants from whichsomething like a third of the entire Americanpopulation owes its origins today.

The new visitor centre at Sutton Hoo, an importantarchaeological site in East Anglia

All of these examples demonstrate the ever-widen-ing concept of the meaning of ‘heritage’ itself.Organisations like all of ours can help to redefinethe very nature of what is historically significant.We are making a small step towards this throughour acquisition of semis, workhouses and industrialsites.

Attingham Park in ShropshireHowever,simplybroaden-ing thedefinitionof theheritageportfoliois still tomiss thepoint.Thehistoricenviron-

ment is far more than what stands before us. It isan integral part of the wider environment andincludes landscape, culture and nature as well asbuildings.

You understand, instinctively I am sure, what Imean.

Our heritage is all around us. It may be above orbelow the ground. It includes cultural and intangi-ble elements as well as physical ones; and decayand decline, as well as wonder and splendour. It isatmosphere and mood as well as bricks and mortar.

This is the Cobham Memorial in Kent which the Trusthas recently acquired.

Castlerigg Stone Circle in the Lake District, a freestanding megalithic circle of 38 stones with a further 10

inner stones forming an inner rectangle

And yet the significance of our heritage goes even


further – to play a role in memory, in forgingidentity and in contributing to our quality of life. Itis people as well as place. This, I suggest, is whatis behind the current surge of interest in heritage.A growing awareness of how historic landscapesand buildings enrich the lives of whole communi-ties – and how their loss will impoverish us.

The part of the Giant’s Causeway World Heritage Site(in Northern Ireland) protected by the Trust.

And this shows a listed property at the entrance to thesite, which has been partly demolished by its owner tomake way for a Arts Crafts and Cultural Centre, whichwe feel would seriously compromise the context of the

World Heritage Site.

The impact in the wider countryside and aroundour towns and cities of sprawling or insensitivedevelopment, rising traffic levels and new infra-structure are all contributing to a loss of localcharacter and distinctiveness, leaving often anony-mous, indistinguishable towns, villages and coun-tryside.

It is clear that heritage has the capacity to contrib-ute that indefinable ‘glue’ which holds places andgroups of people together. Perhaps the nextchallenge is to ensure that between us we also offeran accessible and meaningful interpretation of

heritage to communities that are not yet persuadedof its importance. For us in the UK these includethose living in the poorest areas, from minoritybackgrounds, or those who simply feel excludedfrom notions of heritage.

The Asian Women’s Project – Hardwick Hall, Chester-field, Derbyshire

The Trust is not, of course, in a position to lectureanyone on social inclusion, and I know that manyof you are ahead of us in reaching out to newaudiences and we look forward to hearing aboutyour experiences.

A project in a London property where we have beenworking with homeless people exploring the idea of

home through photography and creative writing.

We are doing our best to approach this challengeintelligently and thoughtfully, including the in-volvement of local people in the development of‘Statements of Significance’ which provide thebedrock of our Property Management Plans.

These statements try to capture what matters aboutthese places – to everyone – and what we muststrive to retain through sensitive management, andexplain through excellent interpretation.

Like you, our commitment to providing involve-ment and access allows people the chance todirectly and intimately experience places of his-toric interest and natural beauty, and often, quite


Stourhead

simply, access to an inspirational experience.

So the final thread to my talk is how we cancapture and build on this sense of engaging peo-ple’s emotions and enriching their lives. We hopethat everyone who visits a National Trust propertygoes away enriched. With some – especiallychildren – this can be a formal learning experience.

The Butler inspects the children’s home-made butter atHam House.

But over time we are finding that more and more ofour visitors want the same chance; not only toenjoy but to learn, through the interpretation weprovide, but also by using our properties as asource of inspiration and instruction.

A painting course at Petworth House

These youngsters are refugees and they are using thestory of the Murray family of Ham House near London,

who fled to exile in France during the English CivilWar, as a way of reflecting on their own circumstances.

So I hope I have explained how, in addition to itsimportance for its own sake, heritage brings hugepublic benefit through education, training, commu-nity involvement and economic and social benefitsto local communities.

And when heritage trusts like ours decide to investin an area, we invest for ever – the investment wemake supports sustainable development, which notonly respects, but in many ways ‘is’ the very senseof place which people increasingly seek.

I realise that I am speaking to the converted, buthope I have excited your curiosity to learn moreabout some of the more unconventional approacheswe are taking, which complements the activity thatyou are probably more familiar with.

And I hope it goes without saying that we claim nomonopoly of wisdom on the management of thebuilt heritage or how it is interpreted and wedeeply value our relationships and the chance toexchange experiences and ideas with you.


Conservation challenges in small communities: conservationmanagement in the Tristan islandsJames P. Glass & Peter G. Ryan

Glass, J.P. & Ryan, P.G.. 2003. Conservation challenges in small communities:conservation management in the Tristan islands. pp 139-147 in A Sense of Direction:a conference on conservation in UK Overseas Territories and other small islandcommunities (ed. M. Pienkowski). UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum,www.ukotcf.org

Tristan da Cunha is a globally important biodiversity hotspot, with large numbers ofendemic taxa, including 11 birds, at least 60 invertebrates, 29 flowering plants and17 ferns found nowhere else. Endemism among other taxa is less well knownbecause of limited sampling, but it is not restricted to the terrestrial biota, with atleast 1 fish, 40 marine invertebrates and perhaps as many as 50 seaweeds endemic tothe islands. With the exception of the main island of Tristan, the impacts of humansand introduced organisms have been relatively limited. The uninhabited islands,especially Inaccessible and Nightingale, are among the least disturbed temperateislands. This importance has been recognised by the people of Tristan who havedeclared Inaccessible and Gough Islands nature reserves, and placed significantrestrictions on activities at Nightingale Island. Currently more than 44% of the landarea of Tristan is formally protected. Management plans have been produced forboth island reserves, and are being implemented to the extent that available fundingpermits.

Unfortunately, it is not all good news. Despite this significant commitment toconservation, many of the endemic taxa are threatened. Among birds, the bestknown group, 11 are listed as Threatened and a further 3 Near Threatened, including10 of the 11 endemic species. The picture for invertebrates is equally bleak, at leastat Gough and Tristan. The major threats to biodiversity are introduced organisms,uncontrolled fishing activity and climate change. Species already introduced to theislands pose a significant threat to a wide range of biodiversity. Where feasible,introduced species have been identified for eradication programmes, but for manyspecies we lack the capacity to eradicate or even control their populations. Inaddition, the ever present spectre of new introductions has to be guarded againstvigilantly. Evidence from Gough Island suggests that control measures have beenunable to halt the arrival of new species at the island. Unregulated fishing poses asignificant threat to several seabirds breeding on the islands, including three en-demic species. In the longer term, climatic warming also poses a significant threat,in part through facilitating the invasiveness of introduced species.

Tristan has limited capacity to address these threats to its globally importantbiodiversity. With a community of only some 300 people, there are insufficientpersonnel and infrastructure to address the island’s conservation needs. The shortfallof skilled personnel is partly addressed through an informal body of conservation‘advisors’ that provide advice to Tristan’s Natural Resources Department. However,there is a pressing need for greater skills and awareness development among theisland community. The long-term conservation of the islands’ wealth of biodiversitydepends on sustainable, well-managed fisheries throughout Tristan’s ExclusiveEconomic Zone (EEZ). Well regulated fisheries have limited impacts on naturalresources (including seabirds) and also ensure financial security for the islandcommunity, reducing pressure on natural systems through harvesting and agricul-ture. Although problematic, policing fishing activities within Tristan’s EEZ is animmediate conservation priority.

James P. Glass, Tristan Natural Resources Department, Edinburgh, Tristan daCunha, South Atlantic (via Cape Town). [email protected] G. Ryan, Percy FitzPatrick Institute, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch7701, South Africa. [email protected]

Peter Ryan


Introduction

Tristan da Cunha lies in the mid-South Atlantic,roughly mid-way between Cape Town and SouthAmerica. It comprises three main islands: Tristan(96 km2), Inaccessible (14 km2) and Nightingale (4km2), with the much smaller Stoltenhoff andMiddle (or Alex) Islands lying off Nightingale.Gough Island (65 km2) lies some 350 km SSE ofthe Tristan archipelago, but is administered fromTristan. The islands are all volcanic in origin,ranging from 18 to 0.2 million years old, and fromsome 300 m to more than 2000 m in elevation.Because they have never been connected to acontinental land-mass, the terrestrial biota isdisharmonic, lacking many organisms that havebeen unable to disperse across the almost 2500 kmfrom the nearest landmass. Like many oceanicislands, the biota contains many endemic forms,including several adaptive radiations that haveresulted from rapid evolutionary events.

The settlement of Edinburgh on the main island ofTristan is home to some 300 islanders, and isfamous as the most isolated community in theworld. Tristan has been inhabited since the early1800s, apart from a brief period in the early 1960s,when the community was evacuated to the UnitedKingdom following a volcanic eruption adjacent tothe settlement. The other islands are uninhabited,apart from a South African weather station on

remote Gough Island, which has a team of sixpersonnel on one-year contract appointments.Tristan is a United Kingdom Overseas Territory.Although it has its own Island Council and anAdministrator appointed from the UK, someaspects are treated by UK Government as formingpart of the St Helena Overseas Territory. Thisrather convoluted, dual administrative structureleads to some unhappiness, because it is perceivedas an impediment to accessing funding for conser-vation and other initiatives directly from the UK.For example, Tristan is dependent on inclusion inSt Helena’s single application to the EuropeanUnion for funding.

A biodiversity hotspot

The Tristan islands are the only temperate oceanicislands in the South Atlantic. They support a largenumber of endemic species, including 11 birds, atleast 60 invertebrates, 29 flowering plants and 17ferns found nowhere else. Endemism among othertaxa is less well known because of limited sam-pling, but it is not restricted to the terrestrial biota,with at least 1 fish, 40 marine invertebrates andperhaps as many as 50 seaweeds endemic to theislands. Among the flagship endemic species arethe Inaccessible Rail Atlantisia rogersi, which isthe smallest flight-less bird in theworld, five otherendemic landbirds,and five seabirdsthat are confined asbreeding species tothe islands. Manyother seabirdspecies have glo-bally importantbreedingpopulations at theislands, with GoughIsland being the


single most important UK site for seabirds. Thereare also significant populations of Subantarctic FurSeals Arctocephalus tropicalis as well as the mostnortherly breeding site for Southern Elephant SealsMirounga leonina. Tristan is the only archipelagoin the oceanic South Atlantic, and is thus the onlysite of an adaptive radiation among landbirds(island birds apparently require multiple islands tospeciate).

Trouble in paradise

The main island of Tristan has been quite severelyaffected by humans and their commensals. Grazingby livestock and introduction of grasses and otherplants have completely transformed the lowlandareas into alien pastures. Currently alien speciesoutnumber native flowering plants by almost 3:1.Direct exploitation and predation by introducedrats and cats have severely reduced numbers ofbreeding birds, causing local extinction of some

species, including the endemic bunting Nesospizaacunhae and moorhen Gallinula nesiotis. This isnot to say that the main island has little value forconservation. The steep cliffs and upland areas stillsupport significant areas of natural vegetation, andthe island is the only known site for several en-demic plants. The island also offers several oppor-tunities for habitat and species restoration pro-grammes.

By comparison, the uninhabited islands are amongthe best preserved temperate oceanic islands in the

world. Theyhave fewintroducedanimals andplants, and atleast to thecasual eye theyappear virtuallypristine. BothInaccessible andNightingalelack any intro-duced verte-brates (althoughboth had live-stock on themin the past), and have relatively few introducedplants (23 and 5, respectively). Fortunately, few ofthese alien plants are widespread, and most arerestricted to disturbed sites such as the coast,stream margins and areas disturbed by birds andseals. Gough Island also has few introduced plants,of which only a couple are widespread. However, itdoes have introduced House Mice Mus musculus,which are cause for grave concern because of theirlikely impacts on native invertebrates and, increas-ingly, on seabirds. Recent work suggests that themice, which have evolved large body size onGough, are killing significant numbers of seabirdchicks, including the threatened Tristan AlbatrossDiomedea dabbenena and Atlantic PetrelPterodroma incerta, both of which are virtuallyconfined to Gough Island.

Perhaps even moreworrying are thefindings of a recentDarwin Initiative-funded study of themacro-invertebrateson Gough Island.This found that 72% of macro-invertebrate speciesare likely to have been introduced, and that intro-duced species are distributed throughout the island,completely dominating the invertebrate fauna interms of abundance and biomass (Jones et al. inpress). Although no native species recorded byMartin Holdgate during the Gough Expedition in1956/57 has gone extinct, some are now extremelyrare, apparently as a result of displacement byclosely related introduced species. Also, there is areal concern that the introduced invertebrates couldalter ecosystem functioning at Gough Island.Several groups of invertebrates, such as earth-worms, slugs and millipedes, are represented solely


by aliens. Earthworms now dominate the biomassof invertebrates, and may well alter peat formationdynamics, which is essential for the entire func-tioning of the terrestrial ecosystem. Less is knownabout invertebrates on Inaccessible and Nightin-gale, but similar problems almost certainly occurthere.

Threats to the islands’ biota are not restricted to theland. All the albatrosses and most of the largerpetrels that breed on the islands are killed acciden-tally by longline fisheries, and this is listed as theprimary threat facing three of the five threatenedseabird species that breed at the islands (BirdLifeInternational 2000). Recent analysis of demo-graphic data for two albatross species from GoughIsland indicate that their populations are decreasingeven faster than previously thought, and proposalshave been drafted to upgrade their threat status,including the first listing of Atlantic Yellow-nosedAlbatross Thalassarche chlororhynchos. Thelimited data on sanctioned demersal longlinefishing within Tristan’s EEZ suggests that thisfishery has relatively minor impacts on breedingseabirds (Glass et al. 2000). Pelagic fisheriesprobably kill more birds, and control of thesefisheries is more problematic (Glass et al. 2000).However, the greatest threat is posed by illegal,unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing, becausethese pirate vessels make little if any attempt tolimit bird bycatch.

Conservation legislation

The islands were at the forefront of the develop-ment of modern conservation thinking, thanks tothe insightful Man and nature in the Tristan daCunha islands (1976) written by Nigel Wace andMartin Holdgate, both members of the originalGough Island expedition. This booklet resulted inthe drafting of the Tristan da Cunha ConservationOrdinance, 1976, which provided a sound frame-work for modern conservation legislation andaction. Inter alia, the 1976 ordinance placedcontrols on the importation of plants and animals,limited the use of pesticides and herbicides and putin place broad protection measures for the nativevegetation and soil. It also declared Gough Island awildlife reserve and placed restrictions on directexploitation of seabird and marine mammalpopulations.

The protection afforded the natural environment atTristan has been extended by subsequent amend-

ments to this legislation, which have increased theextent of protected areas and further limited therange of birds that can be exploited by islanders.The most significant amendment was the Tristan daCunha Conservation (Amendment) Ordinance,1997 which declared Inaccessible and GoughIsland to be nature reserves, and extended theboundaries of the marine reserves around theseislands from 3 to 12 nautical miles. This resulted in44% of the islands’ land area being formallyconserved, and afforded protection to most of theislands’ endemic species.

The conservation ordinance is augmented in themarine environment by the Tristan da CunhaFishery Limits Ordinance, 1983 (and amendmentsin 1991, 1992 and 1997). This act provides strictcontrols on fishing activities within the ExclusiveEconomic Zone that extends 200 nm aroundTristan and Gough.

Management plans and management capac-ity

Although sound legislation was in place, Tristanlacked the institutional capacity to translate thelegislation into conservation management plans. Inthe early 1990s, then Administrator BernardPauncefort obtained funding from WWF-UK forthe drafting of a management plan for the GoughIsland Wildlife Reserve. It was Bernard’s visionthat the UK apply for World Heritage Status forGough Island, and a management plan for theisland was an important prerequisite for thisapplication process. The management plan wasduly published in 1994 using the expertise ofscientists based in Cape Town but who had consid-erable research experience of the island (Cooper &Ryan 1994). A key aspect of the management planwas setting up the Gough Island Wildlife ReserveAdvisory Committee, an informal group of special-

Limited domestic capacity


ists that could be called on to provide advice onspecific management issues. Gough Island wasduly inscribed as the UK’s second natural WorldHeritage Site in 1995, and this proved so popularwith the island community that it provided theimpetus to have Inaccessible Island declared anature reserve in 1997.

Two other significant developments took place inthe mid-1990s. First was the formation of Tristan’sNatural Resources Department. This was set upunder the leadership of James Glass, primarily tomanage the sustainable use of the territory’s marineresources. The department is small, and strugglesto meet its fishery observer obligations, but it alsoprovides a mechanism for conservation manage-ment at the islands. Second, the island took deliv-ery of a small fisheries patrol vessel as well as apolice/customs rigid inflatable, which greatlyincreased the ability of the Natural ResourcesDepartment to patrol the waters around the north-ern islands, and land on the uninhabited islands.

Finally, in 1999, WWF-UK agreed to fund thedrafting of a management plan for the newlydeclared Inaccessible Island Nature Reserve (Ryan& Glass 2001). This was written jointly by PeterRyan and James Glass during a six-month visit to

the islands in 1999/2000 by PGR, and accepted bythe Island Council in early 2001. Implementation ofthe plan was the responsibility of Tristan’s NaturalResources Department, although there remains abody of off-island expertise that can be called onfor advice. Once again the management plan was aprecursor towards applying for Inaccessible to beawarded World Heritage Status as part of theGough Island site. The decision on this applicationis pending, following its submission in 2002.

Managing threats

The management plans interpret the ConservationOrdinance to provide practical management guide-lines and protocols for each of the island reserves.


The issues included are:• protection of the biota• control of introduced (alien) organisms• preventing the introduction of new alien

species• setting policy for local extinctions and ex

situ conservation measures• preserving historical sites• controlling access to the islands• zoning of the islands and defining allowable

activities in each zone• placing restrictions on use of hazardous

materials• waste management and pollution prevention

(including light pollution)• fire prevention

Of these, the main issues are managing alienspecies and preventing the arrival of new alienspecies. We shall not report on specific protocols inany detail here, because they are dealt with inconsiderable detail in the management plans forGough and Inaccessible Island (Cooper & Ryan1994, Ryan & Glass 2001). The management plansalso require record keeping of visits, and setguidelines for revision to management plans on aregular basis.

Have the management plans been success-ful?

It is too early to assess whether the InaccessibleIsland plan has been effective; indeed there havebeen only a couple of day visits to the island sincethe plan was published. However, it is almost 10years since the Gough Island Management Planwas adopted. Its success can be measured from thereports of environmental inspectors who accom-pany the annual re-supply visit to the weatherstation on Gough Island, as well as scientificsurveys of the island’s birds, larger plants andmacro-invertebrates that have taken place in thelast few years.

The management plan for Gough Island has greatlyimproved the logistic operations surrounding theweather station on the island. Major advancesinclude careful screening of all materials taken tothe island, inspection of all warehousing facilitiesand vessels prior to sailing for Gough, and banningof materials deemed to carry an unacceptably highrisk of introducing alien organisms (e.g. fresh fruitand vegetables, building sand, etc.). Other issuesalso were addressed, such as improved wastemanagement, appropriate controls on light pollu-tion and limits on routes walked. The South Afri-can Department of Environment Affairs & Tour-ism’s Antarctic Division has to be congratulated forthe progress made, although in some instances ittook several years before measures were adopted.For example, the ban on the re-use of storagecontainers previously used on Marion Island, theother South African sub-Antarctic station, onlycame into force after these containers were almostcertainly responsible for carrying a particularlyaggressive invasive plant from Marion to Gough.

Despite the improvements in logistic activities,new species are still reaching Gough Island.During the late 1990s, one alien plant Sagina


procumbens andseveral newinvertebrates wereintroduced to theisland. Fortunatelythe insects did notestablishpopulations, butSagina wasalready wellestablished withinan area of approxi-mately 1 haaround the landingarea when it wasspotted by the

environmental inspector in 1998. Funds were madeavailable for rapid action to deal with this species,which has the potential to overrun the highlandareas of the island. Niek Gremmen initiated acontrol and eradication programme that initiallyhad marked success, but it requires ongoing sup-port if the programme is to be ultimately success-ful.

Another problem that has emerged since themanagement plan was implemented at GoughIsland is dieback of the island trees Phylicaarborea. This appears to be the result of a novelplant pathogen. It is unknown how or when thispathogen arrived on the island, but it highlights theproblems of halting the introduction of micro-organisms to the islands. These failures of themanagement plan to halt introductions emphasisethe need for continued vigilance. The Goughmanagement plan is overdue for review, and it ishoped that funds for this process will be awardedin 2003. This review will take on board lessonslearned during the last 10 years, as well as updatingthe conservation status of the island, based onrecent surveys of especially breeding birds andmacro-invertebrates. One alarming result to emergefrom recent studies is the apparent impact intro-duced mice are having on populations of threat-ened, endemic seabirds through direct predation ofchicks. This finding places even greater pressureon finding ways to tackle the island’s mousepopulation.

Off-island problems

The management plans deal primarily with land-based activities at Gough and Inaccessible IslandNature Reserves, but the boundaries of thesereserves include adjacent waters out to 12 nautical

miles, which include commercial fishing groundsfor Tristan rock lobster Jasus tristani. Althoughmost of the controls placed on this fishery are setby Tristan’s Natural Resources Department underthe Tristan da Cunha Fishery Limits Ordinance, themanagement plans provide guidelines for control-ling solid wastes and light pollution from fishingvessels. However, the seals and most of theseabirds breeding at the islands range well outsidethe marine limits of the reserves, and thus are notprotected during much of their lives.

IUU fishing activity takes place inside Tristan’sEEZ, but there is virtually no capacity to assess, letalone control, this activity. Tristan’s Fishery Limits


Ordinance provides for punitive fines for fisherytransgressions, and there is urgent need for deep-water patrols (aerial or ship-based) to provide atleast some deterrence to IUU fishing. Unfortu-nately to date repeated appeals to the Royal Navyto conduct patrols when vessels pass Tristan enroute to and from the Falklands have failed toresult in any action. In the longer term, the UKOverseas Territories and other small island statesneed to lobby for legislation requiring satellite-tracking vessel monitoring systems (VMS) on allvessels, so that Tristan can track vessels operatingin or close to its waters. However, most seabirdspecies that breed at the Tristan islands range welloutside the 200 nautical mile EEZ, extendingthroughout the South Atlantic, or in the case ofGreat Shearwaters Puffinus gravis, throughout boththe North and South Atlantic. The effective long-term conservation of these species depends oncontrol of longline fishing mortality throughoutinternational waters as well as the EEZs of nationsbordering the Atlantic Ocean.

The ability of Tristan to police its waters effec-tively has conservation importance that extendsbeyond the need to limit seabird bycatch. Tristan’seconomy is based largely on revenues derived fromfishing and fishing concessions. Recent soundmanagement of fishery resources has resulted insignificant increases in income for the island’scommunity, which has had positive benefits for theenvironment. There is now less reliance on harvest-

ing seabird products from Nightingale Island, andreduced pressure for access to grazing on theoffshore islands. Every effort should be made toensure that Tristan’s fishery resources are secureand continue to be managed relatively conserva-tively.

Priorities for action and the challengesahead

There is a need for more conservation managementcapacity on Tristan, but very few people enter theworkforce on the island each year, limiting the poolof available candidates. Greater emphasis onconservation as a potential career track is needed,and it is hoped that the forthcoming Darwin Initia-tive-funded programme based on Tristan willstimulate such interest. The production of a simpleguide to the islands’ fauna and flora, designed fortourists and residents alike, will also help to raiseawareness of the islands’ unique diversity.

Throughout we have emphasised that the greatestthreats to the islands’ biodiversity are posed byalien species, and the risk of new aliens arriving atthe islands. The dangers of alien species already onthe islands are likely to be exacerbated due toongoing climate change. Mean air temperatures atGough Island have increased significantly over thelast three decades (Jones et al. in press), andexperience elsewhere indicates that climate changehas the potential to alter the invasiveness of natu-ralised species.

In a sense, the management plans for Gough andInaccessible Island have started with the ‘easy’conservation issues in the Tristan islands, becauseof limited overlap with the activities of the islandcommunity. There is a need for management plansfor Nightingale and ultimately the main island ofTristan. These are more sensitive and complexissues, with activities such as exploitation of


seabirds and guano at Nightingale and agricultureat Tristan not included in the Gough and Inaccessi-ble Island management plans. However, plans forthe conservation of these islands will be a valuabletool for long-term planning and management of theislands, and go a long way to meeting Tristan’sinternational obligations to conserve itsbiodiversity.

Acknowlegements

We thank the conference organisers for the oppor-tunity to attend the meeting in Bermuda; it isunfortunate that James was unable to attend due tocommitments on Tristan.

References

BirdLife International. 2000. Threatened birds of theworld. Lynx Edicions & BirdLife International,Barcelona & Cambridge, UK.

Cooper, J. & Ryan, P.G. 1994. Management plan forthe Gough Island Wildlife Reserve. Governmentof Tristan da Cunha, Tristan da Cunha.

Glass, N., Lavarello, I., Glass, J.P. & Ryan, P.G. 2000.Longline fishing at Tristan da Cunha: impacts onseabirds. Atlantic Seabirds 2: 49-56.

Jones, A.G., Chown, S.L., Ryan, P.G., Gremmen,N.J.M. & Gaston, K.J. In press. A review ofconservation threats on Gough Island: a casestudy for terrestrial conservation in the SouthernOcean. Biological Conservation.

Ryan, P.G. & Glass, J.P. 2001. Inaccessible IslandNature Reserve Management Plan. Governmentof Tristan da Cunha, Tristan da Cunha. (Availableat www.ukotcf.org)


Species Action Plan for the Ouvéa parakeet Eunymphicusuvaeensis in New Caledonia, 1997-2002Alison Duncan, Ligue pour la Protection des Oiseaux/BirdLife Partner for France andOlivier Robinet, French Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Duncan, A. & Robinet, O. 2003. Species Action Plan for the Ouvéa parakeetEunymphicus uvaeensis in New Caledonia, 1997-2002. pp 148-154 in A Sense ofDirection: a conference on conservation in UK Overseas Territories and other smallisland communities (ed. M. Pienkowski). UK Overseas Territories ConservationForum, www.ukotcf.org

The Ouvea parakeet Eunymphicus uvaeensis is endemic to the small raised-coralatoll of Ouvéa, east of the main island of New Caledonia, a French overseas terri-tory in the South Pacific. This island has never suffered from European domination,and so is still run in the traditional Melanesian way, with tribes owning land,sometimes resulting in local conflict. The local people live essentially off fishing,and cut and burn cultivation; and an important supplementary income is from theselling of parakeets for the pet trade. In 1992 a NGO for the protection of theparakeet was set up by the chiefs of the island tribes together with members of theCIRAD, a French research and development institution. The study and protection ofthis bird were included in 1993 in the work plan of this institution. The vet of theLoyauté Islands worked on this species for his PhD, work which culminated in thewriting of an action plan at the end of 1996 as the outcome of an internationalseminar. The first five years of the plan have been completed very successfully withthe Ouvéa parakeet well established as the symbol of the island. It is now recog-nised as a species and classified as Endangered under the IUCN criteria, and was puton Appendix 1 of CITES in order to reduce the illegal trade.

Alison Duncan, Ligue pour la Protection des Oiseaux/BirdLife Partner for France,BP 263, 17305, Rochefort Cedax, France. [email protected] Robinet, French Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

IntroductionThis talk is about one of only two species actionplans for birds prepared in the French overseasterritories (territoires outre-mer TOM), none hasyet been prepared in an overseas départment(DOM) of France. For biodiversity action plans thesituation is similar. There is one for metropolitanFrance, but none inany of the DOM-TOMs.

The Species ActionPlan for the OuvéaParakeet does not fitinto an official proto-col within France orthe European Union.Those who initiated itshould therefore becommended, and fullrecognition shouldalso be given for the

considerable support that has come from localMelanesian provincial government. This ActionPlan has been validated by experts in bird conser-vation from the South Pacific and Europe.

The table below on avian biodiversity in theFrench DOM-TOMs is a reminder of the impor-

Avian importance of French DOM-TOMs(CT + collectivité territoriale, a third category)


tance of these areas for biodiversity and endemism.The Territories are particularly important.

The French DOM-TOMs are almost all islands,with the exception of French Guiana and Terred’Adélie (the latter in the Antarctic), and essen-tially in the tropical or sub tropical zone. Theirinsularity is one of the reasons for their speciesrichness. French Polynesia has 23 world endan-gered bird species, 15 of which have such smallpopulations they could go extinct in the next fewdecades.

This action plan is for a species in New Caledonia,in the South Pacific, the jewel in the crown ofFrench biodiversity with 25 endemic bird species,40 endemic reptiles and over 2500 endemic plantspecies. The species occurs on Ouvéa Island, araised atoll of 132 km² which lies 80 km NE of LaGrande Terre and is one of the Loyalty Islands.

Inhabited by Melanesian people, this island wasnever occupied by Europeans, and suffered badlyin the violent political troubles of 1988. Thepopulation density, with 27 inhabitants/km², isthree times as high as the neighbouring islands.Responsibility for the environment is devolved tothe territories, and within New Caledonia down tothe Province level of which there are 3, the LoyaltyIslands being one.

The speciesconcernedis theOuvéaparakeet,onceconsidereda sub-species.Since 1999,it has beenrecognisedas a speciesin its ownright. It isendemic toOuvéa, andonceoccurred allover theisland, butis nowessentially restricted to the north of the island, witha small population in the south.

Throughout the 20th century this species has beenperceived to be in decline, but there had never beenan accurate census until 1993. In 1947, Warnerpublished an estimate of 1000, more recently Hahnpublished in 1993 an estimate as low as 70-90.

Location of some of the French DOM-TOMs


What are the reasons for the species de-cline?

1. Loss of forest habitat

In 1930s large areas of forest were lost due to fire.Since then there has been continual clearance ofthe forest for subsistence agriculture on this coralatoll where soils are thin. This activity comple-ments the income from fishing. It is estimated thathalf of the remaining forest has disappeared be-tween 1950 and 1990.

2. Illegal pet tradeThese birdsare easy totame, andwould seempredestined forthe pet trade !There hasalways been atradition onthe island tohave them aspets, andtoday there isalso a majormarket inNouméa,capital of NewCaledonia, and

a small number go overseas, estimated at 50 inFrance. The birds are worth 200 US$/bird, which isa third of monthly salary. Legislation was passedin 1972 to forbid this trade; however the fines aresmall, and have little dissuasive impact.

Key Events

Human activities are commonly the cause ofdeclines in wildlife populations. The conservationof a species is also frequently dependent on the

vision of one or two people; this was the case forthe Ouvéa parakeet. Olivier Robinet was the vet onthe Loyalty Islands in 1993, salaried by the Prov-ince. Not only did he recognised the plight of theOuvéa parakeet, but also that the conservation ofthe species had to begin by convincing the influen-tial people of the island. The Province wereprepared for him and his technician to work on thisspecies.

The creation of the Association for the Conserva-tion of the Ouvéa Parakeet made it possible tobring on board the owners and managers of theland, i.e. the chiefs of the tribes, particularly thetraditional high chief who became the chairman,without whom no conservation could be done.Local politicians who could finance the plan andscientists who could provide the methods on howto gather the necessary information about thespecies were also included. The scientists were partof the French agricultural development organisa-tion (CIRAD). These scientists were interested inwildlife, even though it was not the number onepriority of their work. They were able to put ontheir work plan the study of several world endan-gered species found in New Caledonia, includingthe Ouvéa parakeet. With their support, OlivierRobinet began his PhD on the species. Towardsthe end of three years work it became clear that onemeans of extending the work on the parakeetwould be through the preparation of a speciesaction plan.

Species action plans in France generally have thisprocedure. The species selected, at the request ofthe Ministry of Environment, are those on theFrench Red Data list. The choice is validated bythe national committee for nature protection, andthe Plan is funded by the Ministry, with a yearlyevaluation by experts.

At a European level the species for which planshave been written are the globally threatenedspecies on Annex 1 of the European Union’s WildBirds Directive. They are validated by the EU’sOrnis Committee, and actions are often funded bythe European Commission’s budget line LIFE.

The action plan for the Ouvéa parakeet waslaunched by the conviction of a small group ofpeople who considered it was essential to startsome conservation action for this endemic species.Getting Melanesians and metropolitan French towork together on such an issue after the seriouspolitical troubles in 1988 was no mean feat.


The starting point was the creation of the associa-tion for the conservation of the parakeet. Its aimsturned out to be essentially the basis for the objec-tives for the species action plan.

After working on his PhD for 3 years, it becameclear to Olivier Robinet that it was necessary tohave a species action plan written by internationalexperts, in order to give it credibility and accept-

ance by the chiefs and politicians of the IslandsProvince.

In 1996, a 3-day seminar was organised by Olivierand the CIRAD, bringing in international experts inbird conservation, particularly on pscittasidae, fromthe South Pacific, Europe and New Caledonia.Various sources of funding were found.

Organisations present:• New Zealand Department of Conservation

(experience on parrots)• Wildlife Branch Tasmanian Parks and

Wildlife Service (orange-bellied parrot)• Vogelpark Walsrode, Germany (bird park in

Tonga)• BirdLife International• Ligue pour la Protection des Oiseaux/

BirdLife France• Environment Service Province Sud, New

Caledonia Province des Iles Loyauté• CIRAD Wildlife Programme

Recovery Plan

Main objectives1. Taxonomy (We Ming Boon, Auckland

University, New Zealand + Victoria Univer-sity, Australia)

2. Illegal trade – CITES meeting 1999 3. Captive breeding

4. Habitat protec-tion andenhancement

5. Translocation 6. Predator

control andprevention

7. Legislation 8. Population

assessment andmonitoring:1993, 1998,2000

9. Nest sitemanagement

10. Public Aware-ness


Population Assessment and Monitoring

Objective: To determine population trends bydeveloping a repeatable census method whichincorporates local knowledge and baseline datagathered to date.

Methods will be:• Annual monitoring during the breed-

ing season – December.• Fixed line transects established at 2-3

representative sites.• Monitoring to be conducted by local

people able to identify the species bysight and call, this will be co-ordinated by the project officer.

Surveys conducted:

• 1993 – estimated 500 birds (+/- 200); fewindividuals in the south part of the island.

• 1997 - problems of access to the main areasdue to conflict with tribes, survey postponed.

• 1998 – second survey estimated 800 birds(increase due to change in observers, not areal increase in numbers), population in-creasing in the southern part of the island

• 2000 – population stable in north, smallincrease in the south.

Local people in the surveys were paid for theirtime.

A survey of nest sitesuses GPS, in order tolocate nest sites to moni-tor breeding success.

The youngbirds areringed.

There is aspreading ofintroducedbees intotrees beingused as nestsites forparakeets.Attempts arebeing madeto controlthem whenthey interferewith parakeetnesting holes.

Public AwarenessMajor investment has been put into raising theawareness of the local people since 1994 about theplight of the parakeet, providing information aboutthe biology of the species and efforts that could bemade for the conservation of its habitats.In 1997 the conservation society started a newslet-ter called Baginy (next page), with as wide adistribution as possible. Each year the societymans a stand at the fair on the island where T-shirts, postcards etc are sold and information


provided about the species. French national TVcame to prepare a programme on the parakeet, andmade cassettes of the programme available forschools. It was recognised that there was a need toemploy someone to devote his time to the work ofawareness raising.

In 1998 a website was created www.netacces.com/aspo. An article was written in National Geo-graphic Magazine. A second person was taken onfor the awareness raising work.

In 1999, information panels on the species wereprepared and first placed in the Province adminis-trative buildings and thentransferred to the airport,together with a statue of Ouvéaparakeet. A coloured brochureon the species was published.

In 2000, carstickers wereprepared (right). Increasingnumbers of tourists wererequesting the ConservationSociety for guides to showthem the parakeet; theseguides were receiving pay-ment.

Evaluation of the species actionplan

In November 2002, a meeting wasplanned to bring together the expertswho had contributed to the preparationof the action plan, in order to evaluatethe work done over the past 6 years.

There was a change over in personneland a new vet joined; so this meetinghas been postponed until autumn 2003

Here is an evaluation of before and afterthe action plan.

Before: Endemic genus to New Caledo-nia, subspecies Eunymphicus cornutusuvaeensisAfter: Endemic species Eunymphicusuvaeensis. Work on the taxonomy of thespecies resulted in it being recognised asa species.

Before: IUCN category – subspeciesAfter: IUCN category – EndangeredAfter being defined as a species, it has

been categorised as Endangered using the IUCNcriteria.

Before: CITES Appendix IIAfter: CITES appendix I. To stop the illegaltrading in the species it was moved on to Appendix1 of CITES.

Before: 1993 : estimated numbers c.500After: 1998, 2000 : estimated numbersc.600-800. The surveys have shown that thenumbers have stabilised around 6-800. There hasnot been an increase except in the small populationin the southern part of the island

Before: Money throughillegal tradeAfter: Money throughconservation and tourismThe illegal trade has notcompletely stopped, butincreasingly opportunities arearising of earning moneythrough the conservation ofthe parakeet. The Province isputting an increasing amountof money into the conserva-


tion of the parakeet.

Before: Little awareness of the value of thespeciesAfter: Increased awareness of the plight ofthe species. Symbol of the island – airport, inflightmagazine

The effort of co-operation between French, foreignconservationists and Melanesians has been asuccess. Most importantly credit should be givento the island authorities, Province des IlesLoyautés, who have been far sighted in the financ-ing of these conservation actions.


Ascension – focus on dealing with invasive speciesTara George and Richard White, Conservation Officers, Ascension Island

George, T. & White, R. 2003. Ascension – focus on dealing with invasive species.pp 155-160 in A Sense of Direction: a conference on conservation in UK OverseasTerritories and other small island communities (ed. M. Pienkowski). UK OverseasTerritories Conservation Forum, www.ukotcf.org

Ascension Island was discovered a little over 500 years ago, at which time is washome to millions of seabirds, ten species of endemic plant and two species ofendemic land-bird. The island has been permanently settled since 1815. With thearrival of humans came many non-native species of animal and plant. The impact ofsome of these non-native species on native plants and animals has been dramatic,and today the two endemic species of land-bird are extinct, four species of endemicplant are extinct and seabirds number less than a quarter of a million pairs. Theimpact on less well known taxa, such as invertebrates, is unknown. The AscensionIsland Management Plan (AIMP) was produced by the Royal Society for theProtection of Birds for the Island Administrator in 1999. One of the main aims ofthe management plan was the control or eradication of non-native species, such asferal cats, rats, donkeys, sheep and Mexican thorn. In 2002, with a grant from theForeign and Commonwealth Office, two of the key recommendations of the AIMPwere implemented. Firstly, two Conservation Officers were appointed to look afterthe wildlife interests of the island and second, a team of specialists was contracted toundertake feral cat eradication on the island.

Tara George, Ascension Island Government Conservation Officer, ConservationOffice, Georgetown, Ascension Island, ASCN 1ZZ. [email protected] White, RSPB Conservation Officer - Ascension Island

Introduction

Ascension Island is one of the lesser knownUK Overseas Territories. It is situated in theSouth Atlantic Ocean Latitude 7o57 ’SLongitude 14ˆ 22’W, and consists of a singleisland with a few tiny off-shore stacks. Thenearest island is St Helena, situated some1,300 km to the south, and the nearest largeland-mass is the continent of Africa, situatedsome 1000 miles east. Ascension was discov-ered in 1501. However it remained uninhab-ited until 1815, when a garrison was sta-tioned there as a result of the imprisonment

of Napoleon on St Helena that same year.

Ascension remained an island without a people,developing a role as a military and communica-tions post in the South Atlantic. Last year saw thefirst attempts to change this status, with the elec-tion of an island council – an advisory bodyrepresenting those who live on Ascension. Theseembryonic stages of democracy spearhead theinitiation of private land ownership and permanentresidency on the island.


Ascension is, geologically, a relatively youngisland, with estimates that the most recent volcaniceruption occurred a mere 1000 years ago. Becauseof Ascension’s geological youth, it does not boasthigh levels of biodiversity. However its geographi-cal isolation inevitably has led to endemism.Ascension’s endemics include: 10 plant species (4of which are now extinct); 8 inshore fish species;26 invertebrate species; and 1 species of bird.

Non-endemic flagship species also find refuge inthis isolated territory. Ascension’s beaches providethe second largest nesting site for green turtles inthe South Atlantic, and its terrain host large num-bers of the native land crab. Its shoreline andoffshore stacks similarly provide a welcome homefor 11 species of seabirds.

This presentation focuses on the effect of two ofAscension’s alien invasive species – Prosopisjuliflora (Mexican Thorn) and feral cats.

Alien invasive species and their effect on theGreen Turtle Chelonia mydas

BackgroundThe 32 beaches that surround Ascension’s coasthost one of the most important breedingpopulations of the GreenTurtle in the world. Therehas been a Darwin Initia-tive project run fromUniversity of Wales,Swansea to study theseturtles over the past 4years,. This has includedthe implementation of along term monitoringprogramme. Figures showthat last year as many as5,000 turtles laid up to17,000 nests in total.Green turtles spend themajority of time feedingin coastal sea grass off thecoast of South Americaand return to Ascension asadults to nest once theyhave attained sexualmaturity (around 20-30years).

Threats to turtles from alien invasive species

Dealing with these threats.

Mexican Thorn - Prosopis juliflora – invading beaches

• Alters insolation and consequently incubation temperature of sand

• Alters sand hydrology and oxygen availability

• Vegetation line will reduce the area available for nesting

Programme to keep turtle nesting beaches free of Mexican thorn

Humans • Artificial lights near turtle beaches may

cause failure to lay • Disorientation of emerging hatchlings • Uncontrolled viewing and photographs

can cause turtles to abort nesting attempts

• Sand removal from beaches lowers height of beach

• Uncovered pipes etc. can trap nesting turtles

• Most of the lighting has been

changed to sodium vapour lights.

• Conservation Centre runs turtle tours twice a week

• Leaflets contain information about viewing turtles issued at airhead

• Sand removal still an issue being debated

• Pipes removed by organisations – e.g. USAF

• Establishment of protected areas.

Feral Cats Patrol beaches and eat hatchlings

• Seabird Restoration Project –

eradication of feral cats.

Outline of main threats – highlighting Mexican Thorn

Green Turtle – Chelonia mydas

Ascension Goby – one of Ascension’s endemic fish


Clearing pipes from Turtle nesting beaches

Alien invasive speciesand their effect onendemic plants

Before man settled Ascen-sion, there were very fewspecies established. At thetime of discovery therewere probably only about25 indigenous species, 10of which were endemic. Ofthe 25 indigenious species,only 21 are found onAscension, and 4 of theendemic plants have be-come extinct. The vegeta-tion of Ascension is nowdominated by plants thathave been introduced byman. Some of these plantshave become invasive, and

Euphorbia origanoides –Ascension’s only flowering endemic


Dealing with these threats.Threats to endemic plants fromalien invasive species

•Also potentially beneficial in limiting thegrowth of invasive species, and thuslimiting competition.•Goats eradicated decades ago

Feral animalsGrazing by feral sheep, goats anddonkeys.

•Public awareness programme in place•Spurge plants being grown in nurseryfor sale.•USAF commissioned study pre-road.•Establishment of protected areas

Humans•Introduce feral animals•Introduce competitive plant species•Building roads through Euphorbiacolony

•Lack of information about species•Long term monitoring initiated•Study of Ascension spurge by USAF•Attempts at propogation•Creation of seed banks•Mexican thorn controlled in knownlocations of endemic plants.

Introduced plant species•Compete with endemic plants•Eg (1) introduced Greasy grass Melinisminutiflora was responsible for outcompeting the endemic grass,Sporobolus durus (now feared extinct)•Increased rainfall – alters climate.•Mexican Thorn – grows in conditionssimilar to that of Euphorbia

the most recently introduced Mexican thorn posesthe largest threat.

Alan Gray – commissioned to study Euphorbiaoriganoides on Ascension


Alien invasive species and their effects oninvertebrates

Until recently, very littlewas known about thenative terrestrial inverte-brate fauna of Ascension.In 1995, a study by Phillipand Myrtle Ashmolerevealed that there are 298species in total of which26 are endemic and 147introduced.

Endemic pseudoscorpionfrom Boatswainbird Island

Alien invasive species and their effects onimportant geologicalfeatures

Ascension is the tip of avolcano about 60km indiameter. The oldest rocks arearound 1.5 million years andthe youngest around 1,000years. It is host to a numberof volcanic features includingscoria cones, erosion caves,dykes, and obsidian. All ofthese and more make theisland a geologists paradise.

Ascension ManagementPlan

All of the issues mentioned in this document aredealt with cohesively in an Ascension ManagementPlan which was drawn up in 1999 by the RSPB.

Dealing with these threats.Threats to geological featuresfrom alien invasive species

•Establishment of protec ted areasHumans•Destruction by recreation ac tivities

•Removal of invasive plant species from geologicalfeatures designated as protected areas.

•Further studies needed.

Introduced plant species•Obscure physical form of the feature

•Alter the typical landscape

•Mexican Thorn – growth rate so fast it poses thelarges threat of all introduced plant speci es.

Dealing with these threats.Threats to invertebrate s fromalien invasive species

•All new land devel opment will have EIA.

•Organisations r esponsible for appropriate m ethods ofdisposing of chemicals.

Humans•Destruction or disturbance of habitat•Chemical poisoning

•Lack of information still about the invertebrates

•Only species identification i nformation exists•Small scale Mexican Thorn control in place.

Introduced plant species•Increase shading and thus ground tem peratures

•Increase rate of soil formation•Increase populations of non-native invertebr ates

•Mexican Thorn – growth rate so fast it poses thelarges threat of all introduced plant speci es.


Lava flow from Sisters Peak – site of the most recentvolcanic eruption on Ascension

Due to numerous political and structural changes inthe way that Ascension is run, the document is dueup for review this year, however its role in formal-izing and prioritizing conservation issues onAscension is invaluable.


Not know nNot know n1001,500 pairsMadeiran storm-petrel

335901,000 pairsYellow-billed tropicbird

52095500 pairsRed-billed tropicb ird

<1700200,000 pairsSooty tern

150802,000 pairsFairy tern

3507510,000 pairsBlack noddy

<1300400 pairsBrow n noddy

<1108015 pairsRed-footed booby

<13040900 pairsBrow n booby

Not know n50994,000 pairsMasked booby

1001001003,000 pairsAsc ensionf rigatebird

% w orldpopulation

% Atlanticpopulation

% breeding onBoatswainbird

Asc ensionpopulation

Seabird Restoration Project

The RSPB went on to manage a FCO fundedSeabird Restoration Project which began in thelatter months of 2001. The focus of the project wasthe eradication of cats, in an attempt to restoreseabirds to the mainland.

Cats were introducedto Ascension in1815. They quicklyestablished a feralpopulation andpredated the vastseabird coloniesfound on the main-land at that time.Two landbirds, anight heron and aflightless rail, are

known only from sub-fossil remains and a sightingby a 17th century visitor. It is not known whenthese species became extinct, but cats most likelycontributed to or caused their decline. Evidence ofthe impact of feral cats on seabird populations canbe seen in the numerous middens of bones andfeathers that litter the landscape of Ascension(photo to right).

As a result ofthe presence ofcats, seabirdshavewithdrawmfrom nesting onmainlandAscension (withthe exception ofthe Sooty Tern)and are limitedto offshorestacks, thelargest beingBoatswainbirdIsland. The table below shows the number of birdsthat nest around Ascension today, and demonstratestheir global significance.

In 2001, with funding from the Foreign and Com-monwealth Office, a feral cat eradication pro-gramme started. The main aim of this programmeis to create suitable conditions to allow seabirds torecolonise the mainland of Ascension Island. Theferal cat eradication programme employed a teamof seven personnel for one year. During that year:

• 350 cat traps were deployed for a total of40,500 trap nights

• 4,000 bait stations were deployed• Over 70,000 poison baitswere placed• An estimated total of750 feral cats have been killedby the programme

The programme was ambitiousin that it attempted to keep petcats on the island. To do this,all domestic cats were regis-tered, neutered andmicrochipped. All cats trappedwere scanned for the presence

The breeding seabirds of Ascension Island


of a microchip to distinguish between feral anddomestic animals; and poison bait was only usedbeyond 1 km from settlements, where all cats wereassumed to be feral.

The successes of the project came earlier thaninitially anticipated in that before total eradication

of cats, seabirds were already starting to nest on themainland. Four of a possible nine seabird specieshave recolonised the mainland in the first year ofthe project. This is the first time in over a centurythat these species have bred successfully on themainland. The figures to date stand at:

• 20 brown booby territories, seven of whichhave fledged young

• 3 masked booby territories, two of whichfledged young

• 5 yellow-billed tropicbird territories, threeof which fledged young

• 1 brown noddy territory

In addition, sooty terns had a very successfulbreeding season in 2002, with low adult mortalityand high productivity.

It looks as if the Seabird Restoration Project willbe able to be viewed as a successful eradication ofan invasive species. There are still sightings of catsbeing recorded however; so we will wait in antici-pation for the declaration of a feral cat free island,and observewith vigilancethe conse-quences thathas on seabirdpopulationson Ascension.

Seabird ghost colony at Sisters Peak

Boatswainbird Island

Sooty tern colony

Ascension Frigatebird

Masked booby chick on themainland at Cocoanut Bay

Poison bait station on coast nearBoatswainbird Island


Cayman Blue Iguana Management PlanFred Burton

Burton, F. 2003. Cayman Blue Iguana Management Plan. pp 161-166 in A Senseof Direction: a conference on conservation in UK Overseas Territories and othersmall island communities (ed. M. Pienkowski). UK Overseas Territories Conserva-tion Forum, www.ukotcf.org

In November 2001 the IUCN Iguana Specialist Group met in Grand Cayman, andworked with the National Trust for the Cayman Islands and other local stakeholdersto create a Species Recovery Plan for the critically endangered Cayman BlueIguana.

A little over a year later, grant income to the Blue Iguana Recovery Program hasincreased from ca $6,200 per annum to $40,000 in 2002, and human resourcesapplied to the programme locally have increased tenfold. Technical support fromoverseas has increased dramatically, and the Blue Iguana has gained a high profileamong US zoos and conservation groups.

Fred Burton, UKOTCF - Cayman Islands, P O Box 10308 APO Grand [email protected]

The Cayman Islands are three very smallislands, strung out along a couple of hundredkilometres of submarine ridge, on the southernedge of the N. American tectonic plate. TheBrac is 200 km from Cuba and Jamaica. GrandCayman is even more isolated at 280 km fromCuba and 300 km from Jamaica. There were nopast “land bridge” connections to larger islandsor the mainland.

For the last 12 years, the National Trust for theCayman Islands has been running a conserva-tion programme for the Grand Cayman BlueIguana Cyclura nubila lewisi, a subspecies

endemic to GrandCayman. The BlueIguana is a stunningcreature. It is a giant bluelizard, growing to 5 ft(1.5 m) long or more,with red eyes, and acolour which varies fromdark grey to denim bluedepending on tempera-ture and arousal.

It is the most criticallyendangered of all theWest Indian rock igua-nas. It is a classic story ofan island endemic fallen


victim to non-native predators, land-use changes,hunting, trapping, and fast cars. There are onlyabout a dozen individuals left from the originalwild population.

Conservation actions began in 1990, led by NTCI.When we started this programme, informationabout the wild Blue Iguana population was almostnon-existent. It took us years to get a handle onwhere they were, and how many were left. Mean-while we developed captive breeding techniques,and began trial releases into protected areas. Westarted with a single pair returned to Cayman fromthe USA, and bred 6 young the very first year. Bythe year 2000, we had restored a small breedingpopulation in the QE II Botanic Park, but at thesame time we had worrying indications of ongoingdecline in the wild population.

Blue Iguanas mate in April and May. This is a pair ofreleased captive: the smaller female subsequently laid 8

fertile eggs.

Back then I wasdirecting all theTrust’s environmentalprogrammes, andcould spend at most8% of my time on theBlue Iguanas. We hadhalf a dozen pro-gramme volunteers,and we were paying 1hour a day to aBotanic Park em-ployee to feed thecaptives. It just wasnot enough.

What we needed wasto pull in a lot morehuman and financialresources, and to

develop a much more ambitious strategy, whichcould actually make a serious difference. So, with agrant from the FCO’s former Environment Fundfor Overseas Territories (EFOT), we offered to hostthe 2001 annual meeting of the World Conserva-tion Union’s (IUCN) Iguana Specialist Group. Wepersuaded the participants to stay on an extra twodays to help develop a formal Species RecoveryPlan for the Blue Iguana.

That exercise cost US$ 17,500 - which was a lotcheaper than it could have been because most ofthe participants had budgeted to attend the ISGmeeting anyway, so we didn’t have to pay. Weshould also consider that the exercise cost severaldays time from over 30 busy professional people,local and from overseas. These planning exercisesare expensive in more ways than one.

A year and four months has passed. I now want totake a look at what return we have seen from that


effort and expenditure. First up, we have a plan. It says we are going torestore a wild population of the Grand Cayman

Blue Iguana sufficiently toremain viable in the long term.And it lays out how we are goingto do that, down to the specificsof who will do what, by when. Sonow we are implementing thatplan.

It is impossible to present in thisshort time frame the details of theplan, and the itemized degrees towhich we have achieved the tasksset. I have brought a few copiesof the SRP if anyone wants totake a closer look at the detailedplan itself. Instead of the detail, Iwant to give you a feel for howthe entire program has beentransformed in the wake of thatplanning workshop.

One way of looking at it is tolook at the money. From 1991 to2000, the average programincome was $6,200 per year.From 2001 to the present, theaverage income has been $40,000per year. That is more than a five-fold increase. Mind you, saving


Searching: Quentin Bloxam, Durrell WildlifeConservation Trust

the Blue Iguana is ultimately going to cost about$8 million, so we still have a way to go! I can saywith confidence, we could not have accessed morethan a fraction of that increased grant income,without the backing of an internationally endorsedSpecies Recovery Plan.

Another measure is the staffing level. I am nowworking on the programme full time, albeit as avolunteer for now. My successor at the Trust, DrMat Cottam is now giving the program the 8% orso of his time that I used to be able to spare. Wealso have a part-time Blue Iguana Warden takingcare of the captive facility. That is more than atenfold increase in local human resources dedicatedto the programme.

Monitoring: Rachel Goodman, University of Tennessee

Maintaining: Desiree Ebanks, Iguana Warden

Harder to quantify is the hive of activity in a wholenetwork of overseas partners and supporters, whichhas grown enormously since the meeting.

This has all translated into a surge of programmeactivity. We gathered an international volunteercrew to re-survey the remnant wild population,coming up with the shock result I gave you at thestart, 10-25 left in the wild. We hosted a master’sstudent who came up with a rich vein of informa-tion relevant to managing released populations. Wedoubled the capacity of the captive breedingfacility for juveniles, and quadrupled the capacityfor breeding adults. We have an all-time record of30 hatchlings being head-started from last yearalone. This year is “the year of the Blue Iguana” inthe Cayman Islands, with a wave of public educa-tion and awareness initiatives (see picture on nextpage).

Obviously, $17,500 spent on a species recoveryplan workshop has paid off handsomely.

Will it save the species? Well, the Recovery Planhas set the stage. We have some momentum now,


but have to keep pushing harder and growing fasteruntil we really do have the capacity to save aspecies. Still ahead, somehow we have to fundpurchase of some 450 acres of privately ownedland, to protect and manage enough area to restoreand support 1,000 wild Blue Iguanas. We have toset up sustained income systems to support a coreproject staff for the long haul. The costs are goingto make $40,000 a year look pretty inadequate.

Of course, saving the Blue Iguana for 8 milliondollars will also save a host of other equallyimportant wildlife. The same habitat we need toprotect for the flagship Blue Iguana, will protect allthe biodiversity of Cayman’s xerophytic shrublandcommunities, which is very poorly represented inprotected areas at the moment. The conservationawareness generated will resonate through the localcommunity. The international attention will influ-

ence govern-ment environ-mental policy.Working tosave a speciesis, in reality,much morethan that.

To close, I justwant to gener-alize a bit aboutSpecies Recov-ery Plans andtheir implemen-tation, based onmy own experi-ences withseveral of these.

Successfulimplementationof any strategic


plan depends hugely on the quality of that plan,and that depends critically on the selection ofparticipants and the preparation for the originatingworkshop. The seeds to success or failure ofimplementation are usually sown very early in theplanning process.

Species Recovery Plan workshops can be tremen-dously effective, as I have found for the BlueIguana, but conversely they can sometimes be awaste of precious resources. Because internationalworkshops are expensive and conservation fundingand staff time are scarce resources, it pays to becareful and selective in their use, to pick thesubjects where absence of formal planning can beseen to be a real obstacle to progress. Strategicplanning is a tool, and like any tool it is only usefulwhen it is applied to the right material, in the rightway.

One of the hardest things in small island situationswhere conservation workers are often few and farbetween, is to bring all the relevant local players tothe table for two or more days at a time. If it isreally impossible to involve all the key players, andsenior decision-makers from all the relevantstakeholder groups, it is almost impossible togenerate a complete and authoritative plan. Andtrying to implement an incomplete plan can be afrustrating experience!

To survive, this beast is going to have to become amajor conservation symbol. It’s got the looks, it’sgot the charisma, and sadly it’s got the crisisappeal.

Now it needs the promotion, the serious funding,and a lot more hard work.

Topic 4: Implementing management plans - UKOTCF

Documents

Transcript of Topic 4: Implementing management plans - UKOTCF