taking the first steps to save our disappearing pacific birds...(gallicolumba e. erythroptera;...

1 CALL NewsletterIssue No. 1 January to March 1999

It is sad but true - and has been acknowledged and recognised for a long time -the birds of the Pacific are disappearing, and at an alarming rate. Recently, agroup of people with different backgrounds but all with the common thread ofknowledge, interest and commitment to saving the birds, met to address themyriad of problems facing Polynesian birds. This was in the form of a sub-

regional avifauna conservation workshop for Polynesia, held in Rarotonga, on 26-30 April, 1999.It was the first of three planned for SPREP Pacific island member countries, convened bySPREP. Future workshops are planned for the Micronesian and Melanesian sub-regions in theYear 2000.

Taking the first steps to save our disappearing Pacific birds

Greg Sherley Project Officer, Avifauna Conservation and Invasive Species

Issue no 1

ISSN 1562-4935

A newsletter for Conservation Areas in the Pacific

Twenty five people attended, with one representa-tive each from most of the 10 Polynesian countries,as well as representatives from NGOs in the sub-region with interest in bird conservation. FourPolynesian ornithologist specialists were invited toprovide advice and assist with facilitation. This groupincluded Drs’ Rod Hay and Hugh Robertson of NewZealand Department of Conservation; Dr DickWatling from Fiji and Dr David Baker-Gabb fromAustralia. NZ’s Department of Conservation gener-ously allowed the workshop time free of charge asdid the others. BirdLife International sent two rep-resentatives and funded the fares of the specialists

CONTENTS

1 Taking the first steps

for saving our

disappearing

Pacific birds

Greg Sherley

7 From the Manager

Joe Reti

8 Working on the

Crown-of-thorns

Eradication Project

Charlene Mersai

8 Turtles in Vanuatu

Peter Walker

9 Conservation Area

Summaries

10 Staff Changes in

Takitimu Conservation

Area

Ian Karika

11 Peacemaking - the

Conservation Dividend

Tamarii Tutangata

12 Community-driven

Biological Surveys

Do Work

Larry Orsak

14 The Story of Ikataea

A story from Tuvalu

16 El Nino Drought

Destruction: The Death

of Papua New Guinea’s

McAdam National Park

Larry Orsak &

Lawong Balun

Formerly called CASOLINK

CONSERVATION AREA LIVE LINK

A mature Kakerori, found only on Rarotonga, like many polynesian birds this species is unique but endangered

South Pacific Regional Environment Programme

and the Non governmental organisation representa-tives involved.

A stimulating field trip was held in the Takitumu Con-servation Area whose focus is the conservation ofthe Rarotongan Flycatcher (see picture below). Thisproject exemplifies good species recovery practicein the Pacific.

The workshop was opened by Dorice Reid, Te TikaMataiapo, who gave an inspiring speech relatingspirituality and traditions of Cook Island people andtheir birds to modern day conservation issues andtechniques.

SPREP


understanding of the needs and benefits ofconserving birds and their habitats.

5 Capacity building and involvementTo provide training and support for communi-ties and other stakeholders to implement thestrategy.

6 Legal FrameworkTo provide models of appropriate policies andlegislation that take into account traditionalcustoms and international agreements.

The aims of the PolynesianAvifauna Workshop

2Priority Avifauna Conservation Projectsdecided by the workshop

The workshop was divided into the same threegroups as reviewed the Regional Bird Conserva-tion Programme Plan for Action (it was discussedwhether to regroup but the concensus was to stickto the status quo) and priority topics were identi-fied based on the following categories:

1 single species,

2 important bird localities, and

3 processes, threats and regional topics.

The groups reported their topics to the workshopwhich reviewed and ranked them subjectively (high,medium and low). As a second tier of recordingimportance the workshop noted whether a high pri-ority project was “urgent” or “less urgent”.

Priority projects for species and locations weregrouped for each country while projects in the thirdcategory above were listed separately. The projectswere presented as short “project briefs” which in-cluded statements answering the following ques-tions:

1 What is the problem,

2 What is the justification for the project, and

3 What are the immediate actions required toredress the problem.

Ranking CriteriaThe workshop discussed criteria which they con-sidered important in assessing the importance of aconservation project for funding. The following cri-teria are singly or in combination essential and mustbe addressed by any project:

❚ Cultural significance, and/or

❚ Conservation or scientific status.

Discussions were held that identified and speci-fied further details (that fell into the above requiredcriteria) needed for funding, this also included dis-cussing the pros and cons of flagship species.Overall, it was decided that funding should alwaysensure some funds went to single species, indi-vidual locations and generic issues such as rat

1 To review the 1991 South Pacific RegionalBird Conservation Programme Plan for Action.

2 Other main topics covered involved discus-sions on criteria for assessing the importanceof avifauna conservation projects, and decid-ing on priority avifauna conservation projectson the basis of species, localities and proc-esses (threats, generic issues).

1South Pacific Regional Bird ConservationProgramme Plan for Action

This plan was originally developed by theAvifauna Working Group at the SPREP BiodiversityWorkshop held in Port Vila, Vanuatu on 24-28 Oc-tober 1991. This plan was reviewed and updatedat this workshop. Three groups reviewed the firsttwo pages of the existing plan then submitted theirimprovements to the whole workshop. Changeswere agreed and compiled for future submissionto the other workshops (Melanesia and Micronesia).The work programme described in the 1991 planwas not reviewed because, in effect, this was go-ing to be done by the workshop in establishing pri-orities. These priorities have been included for yourinformation later, as they are relevant for the wholePacific situation - not just the Polynesian countries.

The Goal

The goal of the 1991 Regional Bird ConservationProgramme Plan for Action is:

To ensure the appropriate management ofbirds and their habitats in order to recoverthreatened species and to conserve allother indigenous bird species.

The Objectives

1 InformationTo compile and obtain information on birds,their habitats and conservation status, andmake it available in appropriate forms.

2 Bird SurveysTo identify priority species and, wherenecessary, to carry out surveys to assess andmonitor their conservation status.

3 Species ManagementTo develop and implement species recoveryand management plans for those species andareas whose conservation or management isa priority.

4 Public Education and PublicityTo develop and implement an education andpublicity programme which promotes public


If readers would likecopies of the Issuesand Options Paper forthe conservation ofbirds in Polynesia orthe workshoppreoceedings, theseare available from theauthor.([email protected])

Many of the topicscovered are relevant toMelanesia and Micro-nesia. Proceedings ofthe Workshop will bepublished on SPREP’swebsite.(http:/www.sprep.org.ws).

Weighing the bird with a Pesola scale, the condition of the bird may be assessed

Participants from the

Rarotonga Bird Workshop

eradication methods. The project briefs for bird con-servation projects are recorded in the workshopproceedings which are available from the author.

Summary

Judging by the questionnaires, the workshop wasconsidered a success by participants. Improvementsfor the future will include better direction in settingranking criteria and more disciplined timetabling.From my point of view I was delighted with the out-comes: I learnt more about how Polynesian coun-

tries feel about conserving their birds and what weretheir issues; and I was left with a clear mandate ofpriority projects for funding. Since the workshop,comments on the proceedings have been received,improvements made, and the revised version dis-tributed to participating countries. Also threeprojects have received funding : Kakerori inRarotonga, Tahitian Flycatcher in Tahiti and Kakain Tonga. Others likely to receive assistance includeNina Fo’ou megapode education and monitoringand a Polynesian bird guide.

Greg Sherley took the following photographs dur-ing the workshop field trip. They are pictures of theendangered Kakerori or Rarotongan Flycatcherwhich is unique to the Rarotonga Cook Islands. TheKakerori recovery Programme had brought thepopulation back from 29 birds in 1989 to 181 in 1999.The successful programme includes:

❚ controlling the main predator of the birds -Ship Rats,

❚ colour banding birds during the annualKakerori census, and

❚ monitoring and recording nesting success ofthe birds.

Other research activities include testing for birddisease.

The Kakerori Recovery Programme


Data collection complete: colour banded, bloodsampled and measurements taken

Colour-banding allowsindividual recognition andgathering quality information ondemography in the future

Blood samples from the brachial artery. Tests forparasites and disease will allow assessments of therisk of translocating if birds are moved to form a newpopulation

Standard measurements such as bill length may allowsexing individuals on the basis of these measurements


Setting the scene - bird conservation status in Polynesia

Island Group/Species Status Summary

(IUCN categories)

Pitcairn Island/Henderson Island

Henderson Petrel (Pterodroma atrata) Vulnerable Henderson Island - 5 vulnerable species

Henderson crake (Porzana atra) Vulnerable Pitcairn Island - 1 vulnerable species

Henderson fruit-dove (Ptilinopus insularis) Vulnerable Pitcairn Group - 6 vulnerable species

Henderson lorikeet (Vini stepheni Vulnerable

Henderson reed warbler (Acrocephalus taiti) Vulnerable

Pitcairn reed warbler (Acrocephalus vaughani) Vulnerable

Tonga, Niuafo’ou Island

Malau Niuafo’ou Scrubfowl Endangered Niuafo’ou Island/Tonga -

1 endangered species

Samoa

Savai’i Island Samoan Moorhen Critical, possibly Savai’i Island

(Gallinula pacifica) extinct 1 critical, 1 endangered, 3 vulnerable

Tooth-billed pigeon (Didunculus strigirostris) Endangered Upolu Island - 1 endangered, 3 vulnerable

Samoan flycatcher (Myiagra albiventris) Vulnerable Various islands - 1 vulnerable

Samoan white eye (Zosterops samoensis) Vulnerable

Mao (Gymnomyza samoensis) Vulnerable

Seu-ta-peau (Samoan storm petrel, Probably Samoa

Nesofregetta moestissima) vulnerable 1 critical, 1 endangered, 4 vulnerable

American Samoa

Gallicolumba stairi, Vini australis, All at least locally Manu’a Group

Porzana tabuensis and Clytorhyncus vitiensis vulnerable (not at 3 at least locally vulnerable, 1 locally critical

Seabirds nesting in the montane forest a global level

may be threatened as well. sensu, Birds to

Watch 3) with the

exception of

P. tabuensis which

may be extinct in

American Samoa

but not elsewhere

in the Pacific.

Tuamotu archipelago (French Polynesia)

Tuamotu sandpiper (Prosobonia cancellata) Endangered Makatea Island - 1 critical, 2 vulnerable

Polynesian ground-dove Critical Tuamotu

(Gallicolumba e. erythroptera; G.e.pectoralis) 1 endangered, 1 critical, 1 vulnerable

Makatea fruit-dove (Ptilinopus chalcurus) Vulnerable Niau Island - 1 vulnerable

The following rankings of Polynesian species are likely to be reported in Birds toWatch 3 (Bird Life International, in preparation) and are defined using IUCN‘threatened’ categories. The lack of accurate survey information means theserankings are probably conservative estimates, unfortunately the real situation isprobably much worse.


Island Group/Species Status Summary

(IUCN categories)

Polynesian imperial pigeon (Ducula aurorae) Vulnerable Northern atolls - 1 vulnerable

Blue lorikeet (Vini peruviana) Vulnerable Tuamotu archipelago

1 critical, 1 endangered, 4 vulnerable

Tuamotu kingfisher (Todirhamphus gambieri) Vulnerable

Society Islands (French Polynesia)

Polynesian ground-dove Critical Tahiti Island

(Gallicolumba e. erythroptera; G.e.pectoralis) 1 critical, 1 endangered, 2 vulnerable

Polynesian imperial pigeon (Ducula aurorae) Vulnerable Motu One Island - 1 vulnerable

Blue lorikeet (Vini peruviana) Vulnerable Manuae Island - 1 vulnerable

Tahiti swiftlet (Collocalia leucophaeus) Endangered Society Islands


Tahiti reed warbler (Acrocephalus caffer) Vulnerable

Tahiti monarch (Pomarea nigra) Critical

Marquesas Islands (French Polynesia)

Marquesan ground-dove Endangered Hatuta’a Island - 1 endangered

(Gallicolumba rubescens)

Marquesan imperial pigeon (Ducula galeata) Critical Fatu Huku Island - 1 endangered

Ultramarine lorikeet (Vini ultramarina) Endangered Nuku Hiva Island - 1 critical, 1 endangered

Iphis monarch (Pomarea iphis) Vulnerable

Marquesan Monarch (Pomarea mendozae) Endangered Ua Pou Island - 1 endangered

Fatuhiva monarch (Pomarea whitneyi) Vulnerable Ua Huka Island

1 endangered, 1 vulnerable

Fatu Hiva Island


Mohotani Island - 1 endangered

Marquesas Islands


Austral Islands (French Polynesia)

Rimatara - Kuhl’s Lorikeet (Vini kuhlii) Endangered Rapa Island - 1 vulnerable/ endangered

Rapa fruit-dove (Ptilinopus huttoni) (Rapa Island) Vulnerable, poss.

endangered

Rimatara Island reed warbler Vulnerable Austral Islands

(Acrocephalus rimatarae) 1 endangered, 1 vulnerable

Cook Islands

Cook Islands fruit dove (Ptilinopus rarotongensis) Vulnerable Rarotonga Island


Blue lorikeet (Vini peruviana) Vulnerable

Atiu swiftlet (Collocalia sawtelli) Vulnerable Atui Island - 2 vulnerable

Mangaia kingfisher (Todirhamphus ruficollaris) Vulnerable Aitutaki Island - 1 vulnerable

Rarotonga monarch (Pomarea dimidiata) Endangered Mangaia Island - 1 vulnerable

Rarotonga starling (Aplonis cinerascens) Vulnerable Cook Islands - 1 endangered, 5 vulnerable

Totals for Polynesia Critical - 5

Endangered - 9

Vulnerable - 29

Acknowledgements

Joanna Sim helpedwith the article

Anna Tiraa and RutaCouper (SPREP) withorganising the work-shop

Rod Hay, HughRobertson, DavidBaker-Gabb and DickWatling helped (free ofcharge) with theirexpertise during theworkshop


From the Manager’s Desk

Joe Reti SPBCP Programme Manager

For those of you whohave been regularrecipients of theCASOLink, CALL nowreplaces theCASOLink but with amuch wider circulation.In other words, CALLis not restricted toconservation areaofficers under theSPBCP but is alsoavailable to others whoare working in conser-vation programmesespecially within thePacific region. And ifyou are wonderingwhat CALL stands for,it is:

ConservationAreaLiveLinkIt is the “living link”between all those whoare working on conser-vation issues in thePacific region. Forthose of you who arenot already on ourmailing list, send usyour postal addressnow together with anynews or information onyour projects and youwill receive a free copyof future issues.

I said in the last issue of CASOLink that this was going to be a busy year for allof us in the SPBCP, and how true that has already turned out to be? I couldhardly find time to write this brief report let alone take my much needed andlong overdue leave! In any case, I do not think the situation is any different formost of you and… Did I hear anyone complaining?

Progress for Conservation Areas

It is encouraging to hear of impressive progressbeing made by a number of CAs. Visitation to theTakitumu CA in the past few months have exceededexpectations by an incredible margin, and the CACChas taken necessary steps to ensure self-reliancefor the project past the SPBCP era. In the mean-time, kakerori populations continue to increasepointing to the success of the rat eradication pro-gramme.

The Komarindi Eco-trek project is continuing tomake steady progress with the backing of the com-munities and the Department of Forests, Environ-ment and Conservation. A number of tour guidesfrom the communities have been selected andtrained and an Eco-tourism Management Plan forthe CA is being prepared.

Despite the resignation of the CASO, Semi Lotawa,the Koroyanitu CA continues to make progress par-ticularly in its eco-tourism component with guidanceand support from the Tourism Resource Consult-ants (TRC) under contract to NZODA. New signsand other necessary infrastructure have been setup thereby achieving a “new look” for the CA. Ms.Unaisi Tawake has now been appointed as the newCASO and we look forward to working with andsupporting her in her work.

The Vatthe CA has been quick to recover from thedamage caused by cyclones Danny and Hella a fewmonths ago. Except for the fallen trees, the forest isreported to have regained its lush, green appear-ance. Visitations is now back to normal and the com-munities are again showing great optimism aboutthe CA.

There are of course many other developments thatI have not listed here as you would see from thesummary of CA achievements reported elsewherein this issue. These achievements are being re-corded by the SPBCP Secretariat and will come inhandy when we carry out evaluation of your projectslater this year.

Conservation area award

In 1997, the then Deputy Director of SPREP, Mr.Don Stewart announced a Conservation Area Awardunder the SPBCP. Unfortunately, we were unableto follow up on this initiative due to our extremelybusy workload. However, I am pleased to say thatwe have been able to revive the idea and will begiving away the first award at the end of this year.For this year, the award will be based on progress

achieved during the last six months of 1999 due toour late announcement of this initiative. So, if youwant to compete for this inaugural award, get on toimplementing those work plans on time and tell uswhat you have achieved through your quarterlyreports. And don’t forget to send those reports inon time.

Pacific Conservation Network

Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to issuean open invitation to all our colleagues who, likeus, are working hard to protect and conserve natu-ral resources in the Pacific island countries to joinus in the Pacific Conservation Network we havenow launched.

The Pacific Conservation Network idea wasadopted by resolution of the 1997 Conference onNature Conservation (Pohnpei, FSM) which calledon SPREP “to develop and service a Pacific Con-servation Network to facilitate the sharing of infor-mation, experiences and resources amongst allconservation area projects and organisations ac-tive in the field of community-based conservationin the Pacific region”.

As a first step in the establishment of the network,we have decided to change the name of theCASOLink (to avoid misconception that this is anewsletter for CASOs only) and to expand its dis-tribution to all others who are active in nature con-servation in the Pacific region.

Expansion of this newsletter

Closer co-operation between those of us workingin the field of conservation in the Pacific is enshrinedin Objective 6 of the Action Strategy for NatureConservation in the Pacific Region, and the urgencyof the need has been reiterated at successive con-ferences and meetings on nature conservation.However, while we all agree that it is in our interestto work together more closely and share resources,facilitating this process has been problematic. Thetime is now ripe to rejuvenate the idea and the ex-pansion of this newsletter is a first step in that di-rection. The success of the Network is dependenton your active participation and support, so pleaseregister your interest to participate by writing to usnow.

I look forward to your participation and support forthe Pacific Conservation Network and to your shar-ing experiences and lessons learned through theCALL newsletter.

Greetings andwelcome to the firstissue of the CALL


Just when we thought the RockIslands Conservation Area has hadenough of its share of natural dis-asters, another one comes along.Concerned dive guides and gen-eral community members have

brought their concerns to Palau Conservation Soci-ety (PCS) regarding the unusual abundance ofcrown-of-thorns starfish (COTS) seen in the RockIslands area.

In February PCS and Koror State conducted quickreconnaissance surveys in a variety of sites amongthe Rock Islands to gauge the extent of damage tocorals from the recent bleaching event, which re-sulted from the recent El Nino incident. In addition,we wanted to see if and how badly COTS are threat-ening the corals in the area. It was found that thenumber of COTS on a given reef was strongly cor-related with the amount of live coral - the more livecoral, the more COTS. This is not surprising, giventhat COTS rely solely on live corals for food. Whilethe healthy reefs had high numbers of COTS, it doesnot appear to be an “outbreak” of COTS - that is asituation where there is a population explosion.Rather, it appears that COTS are congregating atthe reefs with more corals. Since there are few reefswith healthy corals, the number of COTS at healthyreefs is quite high in some cases, and they there-fore pose a strong threat to the live corals on thosereefs.

In an attempt to save what live coral we have re-maining in the Rock Islands Conservation Area, PCSand Koror State have enlisted the assistance of lo-

The gateway waters to Vanuatu,Banks & Torres in the north andAniwa/Aneityum in the south;these were the targets of the twoturtle play tours this year. Both ar-eas, especially Banks & Torres are

important marine resources in Vanuatu.

Health Force Theatre spent 2 weeks in the Banks &Torres with Efate turtle monitors, Joseph Kaloran,accompanying them. The people of these islandsadmitted to the group that they ate many turtles &turtles eggs. They also, the group discovered, taketurtles as hatchlings and keep them in containers.After seeing the play & talking with the turtle moni-tor, the people on the island of Hiu were willing torelease the turtles.

continued on page 15

In order to join thePacific ConservationNetwork, all you needto do is provide thefollowing informationto the SPREP Secre-tariat.

1. Name of organisa-tion

2. Type of organisa-tion (governmentagency; NGO;regional; interna-tional; communitygroup; other)

3. Country

4. Nature of workcarried out inPacific

5. Name of contactperson in organisa-tion

6. Postal address ofyour organisation(include phone, faxand email)

7. Are you on theSPREP mailing listfor the CASOLink?

8. Are you willing toshare experiencesand knowledgewith other mem-bers of the Net-work?

How to join thePacific ConservationNetwork

Working together on Crown-of-Thorns eradication project

Charlene Mersai Conservation Area Officer, Rock Islands, Palau

cal dive guides to initiate a COTS eradicationproject. We are also recruiting volunteers from thecommunity and so far several individuals have al-ready approached us to offer their assistance

The objective of this project is to remove COTSfrom high-value areas, where “value” is a functionof the amount and types of live corals present plusthe value of the area for tourism, recreation, etc.The two main actions for this project include:

1. Gather and manage information on locationsand sizes of COTS aggregation.

❚ Gather information from dive guidesthrough survey cards

❚ Gather information from PCS and otherobservers using uniform survey methods;do both before- and after-control surveys

❚ Maintain data, including a list of surveyedsites prioritized for control

2. Remove COTS

❚ Organize and conduct COTS killing trips withtrained people

❚ Maintain data on numbers of COTS killed,by area and effort

Thus far, PCS and Koror State have surveyed 27sites in the Rock Islands area and have identifiedpriority sites. With assistance from dive guides andcommunity volunteers we are now able to surveymore sites and remove COTS from specific sitesin the Rock Islands Conservation Area muchquicker.

Turtles in Vanuatu: Wan Smol Bag play tours 1996-99

Peter Walker Director, Wan Smol Bag Theatre

The larger ones were tagged. On another islandten turtles were released but they were too smallto be tagged. It was clear in both Banks & Torresthat people had no idea of the breeding cycle of aturtle and they said that now they knew the situa-tion, they would attempt to change their turtle eat-ing habits. The group found audiences very respon-sive and interested in the work of the North Efatemonitors work; they were quick to choose their ownmonitors and their willingness to return the captiveturtles showed their enthusiasm to participate inthe project.

They say they are not the only creatures eatingturtles on their island; there is the small problem ofmarine crocodiles and they wanted advice from fish-eries department on how to handle this problem!


Komarindi(Solomon Islands)

Conservation area summaries 1st quarter January- March 1999

Ha’apai (Tonga)\

Organising painting competitionsfor schools in Ha’apai to producea wall mural

Working closely with ‘Uiha Youthconcerning using empty drumsfor rubbish bins and establishinga village nursery to be jointly runby ‘Uiha Youth and ‘UihaWomen in Development

People are beginning to fenceoff their pigs, and some wander-ing pigs have been shot bypolice to enforce this

A workshop was held by projectstaff with the Ministry of Agricul-ture & Forestry on nurserydevelopment and management

A cross-island tour leadershiptraining was conducted by terrafirma and was attended by 10guides from Kusumba and 6from Veraboli. This involved theguides spending 4 nights in thebush working out the logistics ofthe trek, which included decidingon interpretational and opera-tional plans as well as meal,evacuation and emergencyplans

A community tourism awarenessworkshop was held at Kusumbain March for one day which wasconducted by terra firmaAssociates, Solomon Islandsvisitors Bureau, a travel agentand the CASO. It helped giveeveryone a better idea of howthe tourism industry operates inthe Solomon Islands

There has been ethnic tension inthe Guadalcanal Province whichhas caused fear amongst peopleon both sides and adverselyaffected implementation of someof the projects activities. Tourism

Funafuti (Tuvalu)

The project received a new aircompressor from the CanadaFund

Regular patrols of the Conserva-tion Area are continuing, a goodsign is that no one was caughtthis quarter

A new CO was employed toreplace one who resigned lastyear

Seven fact sheets have beencompleted in English andTuvaluan, concerning theConservation Area, turtles,biodiversity, coconut crabs, fish,corals and community conserva-tion and planning

Radio programme every weekon biodiversity conservation

A CACC member from thetourism department gave a talkon the importance of theConservation Area to a youthgroup, discussing rules and aimsof the project at the latest YouthWorkshop

Held discussions with professorof Law from Victoria UniversityNew Zealand about setting up atrust fund for the ConservationArea

The AVA biodiversity officer hasextended her contract for afurther 7 months

Community fisherman havereported increased numbers ofseabirds on the fishing groundsbeyond the Conservation Areaand also complained that theTuvalu national Fishing corpora-

tion has not been respecting theConservation Area who were inturn reprimanded by the CAPand the law

An increase in advertising (thehotel and local newspaper) hasresulted in most of the visitors toTuvalu visiting the ConservationArea

Research work in the lagoon hasbeen hindered by the boatproving to be inadequate - poorsteering and draining whichmaking it unsafe in roughweather

Takitumu (Rarotonga)

A tour guide workshop was heldin February which had emphasison bird watching, with partici-pants from different islands ofRarotonga attending

Three articles on the TakitumuConservation Area wereproduced for the newspaper

Takitumu Conservation Areastaff conducted a public surveyto see if people supported pearlfarming development onSuwarrow Atoll or if theypreferred to maintain it as aNational Wildlife Reserve. Of thepeople surveyed, the vastmajority wish to leave it as areserve. A submission waspresented to the Cook IslandInvestment Corporation basedon their survey results

Nature tours were busy thisquarter, especially in comparisonto the same time last year. A parttime guide started working andis paid from funds generatedfrom the tours

Huvalu (Niue)

An awareness programme was

prepared by the Hakupu Village

Committee and Taskforce, with

information provided by the

Conservation Officers, for school

children. This involved declaring a

Uafato (Samoa)

In February after SPBCP visitedUafato and a subsequent CACCmeeting, to discuss the pigproblem, it was decided toimplement the Pig FencingProgram immediately. This wasfollowed by a 3 days survey ofthe village and quotes obtainedfor associated costs

An avifauna survey was carriedout by visiting ornithologist Dr.Ulf Beichle over a 3 day period -the results are yet to be pub-lished

Area was cleared on land forconstruction of a green housenursery

Discussions were held withForestry personnel to discussassisting with tree nurseryconstruction

Sa’anapu/Sataoa (Samoa)

The Conservation Area officewas officially opened in March,which was started with a kavagreeting by the village chiefs,followed by a religious speech,then the keynote address by theDirector of the Lands, Surveyand Environment Department.The SPBCP representative,Francois Martel, cut the ribbonwhich marked the officialopening of the office. This eventwas covered by Televise Samoa

Hakupu Litter Free Day, and a

study tour to part of the Conser-vation Area for the students

Students from the Niue HighSchool carried out a coconutcrab study, which was aided byConservation Area staff

Both village communities ofLiku-Hakupu have agreed tohave their Information kiosksconstructed at the main villagecentres, with the HakupuCommittee already startingworking on a room for the kiosk

9 CALL Newsletter

Issue no 1 December 1999

will be affected negatively,especially in regard to ecotours -people have shown interest inthe tours but the project hasadvised to wait until the situationcalms down and safety isguaranteed


Well, its up to you! To makethis newsletter more usefuland interesting, we needinput from you. Contributionsto this newsletter are alwayswelcome. Any one of theSPBCP staff at SPREP wouldbe grateful to receive anarticle from you.

Vatthe (Vanuatu)

Promotion of Vatthe Lodge withIsland Safaris Vanuatu andDestination Vanuatu, both ofwhich, are Vanuatu basedpromoters. Island Safaris is a TourOperator which provide marketingservices for Vanuatu IslandBungalow Association (VIBA)

In March, Francois Martel andSue Maturin assessed thedamage caused by cyclonesHella and Danny. They also

introduced themselves to theCACC and gave a presentationof their work

CASO attended meetings toresolve land issues and allega-tions of mismanaging thetourism business, betweenvillagers

An officer from the departmentof Water Resources carried outa feasibility study on the differentoptions for a water supplysystem for Vatthe Lodge. Theviable option identified is to usethe rain water. We are waiting awritten report and costs

As part of developing SaraTours, Nelson began working onorganising the communities andcame up with a 1999 tourismworkplan for Sara. Bill Tavueand his brothers cleared thetracks and made them accessi-ble again, within two weeks afterthe cyclones

Being member of Vanuatu IslandBungalow Association, Nelsonattended the first VIBA manage-ment meeting for 1999 early inJanuary

Ian Karika Conservation Area Support Officer, TakitumuConservation Area

The first quarter of 1999 was a period of much personnelmovement in the TCA which affected both the project staffand the CACC.

Rebecca Blackburn - Australian Volunteer

Firstly on the 5th of January Rebecca Blackburn our AVA (AustralianVolunteer) completed her 18-month term with us. Her innovative con-tribution to the TCA will be greatly missed as she was instrumentalin the setting up of our Ecotours i.e. track design, marketing research,price structure and the setting up of transportation and lunch suppli-ers from within the community. She was also very active in ‘Aware-ness’ by featuring the TCA in the local Environment Exhibition in1998 by speaking at schools and to community groups and she alsoproduced a children’s tape for radio. She gave invaluable assist-ance to Anna Tiraa our CASO and was also a very keen competitivesportswoman in the Takitumu district. She was well liked by the CACCand the community as a whole, kia manuia (good luck) Rebbecca.

Philomena Williams Chairperson of the CACC

My appointment as CASO commencing at the beginning of the yearmeant I stepped down as Chairman of the CACC and a new mem-ber from my family, Tukurangi Hosking Jr, was elected to the com-mittee. The CACC subsequently elected Mrs. Philomena Williamsto the position of Chairperson as she had been involved with theproject from 1995 well before it being part of the SPBCP. Her socialinvolvement in the community will play an important part with organ-izing activities within the TCA. I understand that she is the only womanchairperson amongst all the SPBCP Conservation areas.

Anna Tiraa leaves the TCA

I worked along side Anna all January and February to familiarizemyself with the CASO’s position before she quietly made an exitfrom the project. The TCA is not going to be the same without her, infact, I’m not so sure if she is going to cope with not being involvedwith the project. Anna has spent 10 years within the area initially asconservation officer with the Kakerori Recovery Program in 1989and then as CASO for the TCA in 1996. She has seen the areaslowly transform under the guidance of the SPBCP, a program sheworked hard to get the TCA to be a part of. Her regular articles in theCook Islands News and many other publications have made manypeople aware of the TCA locally, regionally and further afield. Annahas been able to take ideas suggested by the CACC and implementthem but at the same time been able to speak out against an issue ifshe thought it not appropriate, sometimes not without a few tears.She has served the Takitumu Conservation Area admirably andleaves behind a project that has been very efficiently establishedand ready to move confidently into the new millenium. Anna’s genu-ine concern for the wellbeing of our environment has meant she hasbeen very active with our local conservation organizations such asTaporoporo Ipukarea Society, PICCAP and WWF. Her zealous cam-paign for the preservation of the national park status of Suwarrowduring the release of the EIA for the Development of Pearl Farmingon Suwarrow in my opinion came second to none. Not only are wegoing to miss Anna in the TCA but she will be missed by the nation.The Staff & Management of the TCA wish her every success in hernew ventures in Samoa.

Staff changes in Takitumu Conservation Area

and also reported in severallocal newspapers

A project Office sign wascompleted and posted in front ofthe office

CASO attended a video trainingworkshop in January whichaimed to enhance the quality ofvideos produced for its publicawareness campaign

Another workshop attended was“Learning by Doing” run by theVisitors Bureau, which dealt withAttraction Site problems - howtourist operators can maintaintheir long term sustainability andwhat activities should not bedone

In March, a Conservation Areaevaluation exercise wasundertaken with SPBCP staffand key people involved in theConservation Area from thevillages, talks discussed thecontinuation of the project infuture when the funding iseventually phased out. PossibleIncome generating activitieswere also discussed andprioritised

In January, the CASO accompa-nied, and talked to visitors to theConservation Area -theseincluded school children, a filmcrew, and members of the UNDPoffice

Is yourConservationAreamentionedhere?


Conservation of valued resources

In Vanuatu, on the island of Espiritu Santo, the vil-lages of Sara and Matantas had for decades dis-puted ownership of parts of the Big Bay forest. Thedispute periodically erupted into raids, one of whichresulted in Vanuatu’s Supreme Court being askedto rule on which village had legal rights to the for-est’s resources. But then, with the support ofSPREP’s South Pacific Biodiversity ConservationProgramme (SPBCP), working through the Govern-ment of Vanuatu, both villages decided they wantedto protect the resources in the forest, which by thenwas the only remaining extensive lowland alluvialand limestone forest in Vanuatu that had not beenlogged. Their decades-old differences became ir-relevant: instead of arguing boundaries and owner-ship of resources, both villages found they were infull agreement on the importance of conserving amutually-valued resource.

To symbolise this new accord, Chief Lus of Saraand Chief Moses of Matantas planted a cycad treein Matantas village. That tree still stands, and to-day, members of those communities can sleep ineach others’ villages – something they were neverbefore able to do. They work together in what isnow the Vatthe Conservation Area, establishing anecotourism venture which includes six bungalowsand a small restaurant for tourists. Young men andwomen from both villages have been trained to guidetourists through the forest, and other communitymembers are building up a market for vegetables,forest and craft products, and transport services.

Community owned the resources

Vatthe is only one of many examples where con-cern for protecting a precious environment eventu-ally overrode age-old community rivalries. To date,funding from the Global Environment Facility, theUnited Nations Development Programme andAusAID has made it possible for the SPBCP to helpPacific island communities establish 17 conserva-tion areas in 12 Pacific island countries. Other or-ganisations have established a further 17. In allcases, the first principle has been that the commu-nities own the resources and must always be theones who make the decisions about using thoseresources.

The emphasis on a community-based approacharose out of earlier failed efforts to conserve the

Peacemaking - the conservation dividend

Tamari’i Tutangata Director, SPREP (Reprinted from Islands Business)

Pacific’s natural resources. Five years ago, SPREP,the World-Wide Fund for Nature and The NatureConservancy designed the programme, basing thatdesign on the recognition that in the Pacific, at-tempts to lock away valuable areas of biodiversityby declaring them national parks or nature reserveswere unlikely to work.

Setting up conservation areas

In the Pacific, the communities which own 80 – 90percent of land and coastal resources will not ac-cept that they should be forbidden access to natu-ral resources that have nurtured their families forgenerations. They do, however, have a strong in-terest in protecting these resources, and this isborne out in the ongoing demand from communi-ties for SPBCP assistance in setting up conserva-tion areas.

The SPBCP approach is a softly-softly one whichtakes the time to establish trust between commu-nities and outside partners and experts. SPBCPprogramme officers help establish a coordinatingcommittee, made up of representatives from thecommunity, Government agencies, non-govern-mental organisations, and regional and internationalagencies working in the conservation field. Thecommunities themselves decide on the appoint-ment of a Conservation Area Support Officer, whoacts as the liaison point between the coordinatingcommittee and the community.

Income generation options

The coordinating committee supplies the expertisewhich the community needs to make its decisionsabout how best to use its resources, but all deci-sions are the responsibility of the community itself.After the area’s biodiversity has been researched,feasibility studies are made of potential incomegeneration options. Some of those options now inoperation around the Pacific include:

❚ ecotourism

❚ butterfly farming

❚ beekeeping

❚ sports fishing and

❚ handicraft production.

It all takes time. The SPBCP experience has been

Where there’s land, there are boundaries, and where there are boundaries, thereare disputes. But a pioneering programme set up to conserve the Pacific’sbiodiversity has seen boundary disputes dissolve as previously warring commu-nities discovered they shared a common desire to protect their natural heritagefor future generations.

Their decades-olddifferences be-

came irrelevant:instead of arguing

boundaries andownership of

resources, bothvillages found

they were in fullagreement on the

importance ofconserving a

mutually-valuedresource.

continued on page 15


Biodiversity surveys in PNG happen now and again in different parts of thecountry and it is likely these activities will continue, if not increase, if PINBio getsoff the ground. This essay describes a process of planning for biological surveysthat seems to avoid a lot of problems that such surveys have faced in the past.

I started thinking about all this after several yearsof carrying out insect surveys in Madang with a teamof “mangibinatang” school leavers, where we did alot of collecting mostly of butterflies and other in-sects. Through all those collections, in many vil-lages, we never had a problem or misinterpretationwith the landowners. This was in stark contrast withsome experiences I had had with more formal bio-logical surveys, including those arranged by PNG-NGOs. Why the difference?

Why biological surveys?

First, there’s now little doubt in my mind that eventhe ‘difficult’ landowners we’ve worked with, basetheir reactions on fairly simple assessments of oursurvey work. In essence: what do they feel the re-searchers are getting out of the survey versus whatdo they think they’re getting out of it? Indeed, whatDO landowners think they’re getting out of thesebiological surveys? And what do they want to reap?Money? Work? Certainly money and jobs seemparticularly prominent anytime I’ve been involvedin big biological surveys. But ironically, when we car-ried out biodiversity surveys in Madang, apart fromthe first area we visited, no jobs were given and nomoney was paid as a result of these surveys. Infact, this was made very clear from the beginning.So what were people in the village getting out ofwhat we were doing in those cases? They must havefelt they were getting something else out of whatwe were doing. If not, we most certainly would havefaced difficulties.

Let’s analyse this further. During these small sur-veys, what we did never looked like a big produc-tion, big money programme. The school leavers didmost of the work. Apart from the first survey in theAdelbert Mountains, we never needed carriers orother major village assistance, and we most cer-tainly never used helicopters. Which begs this ques-tion again: what were the landowners getting out ofour work that made them so receptive to what wewere doing? The answer is: Information! This com-prised two types:

1 information on interesting and unique specieswe were finding, and

2 information on wildlife (always insects orplants) that people could sell or farm if theywanted.

A few times, the information we provided was in re-sponse to a specific community need. Invariably,

Community-driven biological surveys do work!

Larry Orsak (Reprinted from The New Guinea Tropical Ecology and Biodiversity Digest)

these requests were related to trying to stopnonsustainable industrial logging.

Collaborative work with communities

Probably the most important key to working col-laboratively with communities was that they hadasked us to work on their land first, rather than usasking them. Sounds like a minor variation, but theresults were dramatically different. More villagesfound out that we offered a service – biologicalsurvey. And they must have felt they got significantinformation out of that service, because they in-vited us to work on their land, and after the sur-veys were over, we didn’t hear any complaints.

There’s an important detail in all this – when I saypeople in the village asked us to carry out biologi-cal surveys on their land, this does not mean thatwe planted the idea into their head, and they re-sponded with their request. Nogat tru! That is whatthe big biological surveys have often done in thename of “letting the people decide”. In reality, it’snothing more than passive imposition of the sur-vey on local communities. When that’s the strat-egy, it’s pretty hard for people to feel, deep down,that it was really their idea to have the scientistscome survey. So my “lesson learned” is that therecan be no imposition, either passive or active, onthe communities in arranging biodiversity surveyson their land, if you want the highest guarantee oftrouble-free results. I’m not so naïve to think thatvillages throughout PNG are so enamoured withbiodiversity surveys that they’ll contact us beforewe contact them. But we can make contact in adifferent way than how it tends to be done now.When we were carrying out our small biologicalsurveys along the North Coast and in the GogolValley area, we didn’t tell people what we weredoing directly. Instead, people found out what wewere doing through the educational materials weproduced, talks at local schools, and via word-of-mouth from both the Papua New Guinean staff atCRI and the villagers we had already worked with.In time, our activities became fairly well known.Even when only a small fraction of people who hadheard about our work came to invite us to go totheir land, this still resulted in us doing 2 – 3 localsurveys a year. It could have been even more thanthat, had we made a specific effort to develop thisactivity.

What were the land-owners getting out of

our work that madethem so receptive to

what we were doing?

The answer is:

Information!...A few times, the

information we pro-vided was in re-

sponse to a specificcommunity need.Invariably, these

requests were re-lated to trying to stop

nonsustainableindustrial logging.


The planning of biological surveys

PNG is becoming increasingly information-starved.Villagers are usually smart enough to figure out ifwhoever is speaking to them is a much better re-source person than themselves, or is someone whoknows only a little bit more than they do. The latter,they often dismiss; the former, they are often at-tracted to. This is how “sources of information” fitinto the big picture of PNG today, and shows moreclearly how it can fit into the planning of biodiversitysurveys.

You’ll notice that our experiences in “pleasant bio-logical surveying” concerned small-scale, limitedactivities. Does this have relevance to doing large-scale, multi-taxa biodiversity expeditions? Can suchlarge-scale events become problem-free simply bybeing community-driven mechanisms for acquiringinformation on the local plants and animals? I don’tknow. But I do know what 2 prerequesites wouldbe, even for the large-scale expeditions. First, if wetruly want biological surveys to be community driven,we can’t put our fingers on a map and say, “that’swhere we will carry out the survey.” If we do that,we automatically prevent the result from being com-munity-driven. It’s okay to select a general regionas the survey focus, but beyond that, flexibility isthe name of the game.

Time interaction with the community

The second prerequestie is time investment. Re-searchers involved in biodiversity surveys need totax themselves a considerable block of time to in-teract with local communities, both before the sur-vey and afterwards. As a field biologist, you shouldplan on contributing a “time tax” to….

❚ Get out information to the community related tothe wildlife in that area, or on whatever othertopics that might stimulate community discus-sion, followed by a community request for abiological survey on their area.

❚ Fully explain, prior to the biological survey,what the survey will or will not accomplish. Ifyou don’t sleep in the village so that you canstory at length with people and provide followup discussions, forget it! If you can’t speakeither tok pisin or the local vernacular, forget it!Such things can’t be compromised, if you wantto effectively interact.

❚ Develop, produce, and disseminate a villager-relevant, villager-absorptive permanentproduct that describes the results of thebiological survey. The technical, English-as-a-first-language reports full of species lists thatnormally come out of these surveys arevirtually useless as a transmitter of informationto village communities. Such reports are nolonger sufficient. A “time tax” block should bedevoted to preparing a number of copies of acolour-illustrated, tok pisin language (orwhatever is the local lingua franqua) publica-tion that is laminated or printed in such a wayto guarantee a long shelf life, then presentedboth to local schools/churches, and localcommunities.

❚ Personally present to the community the basicfindings of the survey, after it is finished.

Of all researchers that I’ve seen working in PNG,overseas graduate students have been the best atpaying this “time tax”. Most outstanding of all theresearchers I’ve known was bat biologist NancyIrwin, who devoted 1–2 days per week teaching atlocal schools. Her “time tax” puts the rest of us toshame! More established researchers tend tospend a lot less time doing anything other than theactual field research. As a result, increasingly inPNG, as communities become more empowered,they are likely to face problems. Or, if they finishtheir work and have left before the problems sur-face, those coming after them will suffer. In es-sence, if you don’t pay the time tax, someone elsewill suffer the results of your lapse, somewheredown the line.

“Time tax” and areas of communication

In biodiversity surveys I’ve been involved in overthe last 5 years, I’ve noticed that Papua NewGuinean biologists largely don’t pay a “time tax” inpreparing written results of survey but, they are andcan be quite effective at doing the other groundwork communications with villagers.

The large-scale biological surveys I’ve been in-volved in thus far, have been commendable in pay-ing the “time tax” in pre-survey community meet-ings. But they haven’t paid much “time tax” in post-survey meetings, and so far have paid zero “timetax” in preparing village-appropriate written prod-ucts that describe the survey results. I stand amongthe accused.

Villager’s assessments and surveyersbenefits

Sometimes even all that investment won’t stopmisinterpretations and unhappiness within the lo-cal communities over the survey. Villagers are notonly assessing “what we’re getting out of the sur-vey” but also, “what they [scientists] are getting outof the survey”. They’re comparing what rewards

Working with communities in the bush

Researchersinvolved in

biodiversity surveysneed to tax them-

selves a consider-able block of time to

interact with localcommunities, bothbefore the survey

and afterwards.


they see as going to each party as much as they’relooking at the absolute rewards being gained. Theuse of helicopters automatically suggests consid-erable benefits accruing to visiting researchers.Fancy foods in the bush, while good for expatriatescientists’ morale, adds to the perception. Use thesethings at your peril. Be forewarned: none of it goesunnoticed by members of the local community!

Biological surveys organised by Papua NewGuinean biologists tend to go very smoothly but onlyif that biologist is not only actively involved in thesurvey work but also pays the pre-survey and post-survey “time tax”. Our small-scale surveys inMadang always created an impression that relativelyfew benefits were going to us. Thus, the “time tax”we had to pay to achieve an acceptable balancewas probably a lot lower than would probably need

This is the story of how ikataea grew up in Funafutilagoon. Her parents were part of a big school oftaea who lived on a reef slope at Nanumea or wasit Vaitupu? Anyway it was an island quite far fromFunafuti.

Around the time of the full moon, all the men andwomen taea came together in a big group and re-leased their eggs and sperm into the water. Thenthey separated and continued gathering their foodwithout any further thought for the children they hadjust given birth to.

Ikataea’s mother was quite a big fish and she re-leased about four million eggs. Her sister who wasonly half her size only produced about one millioneggs. Their eggs were fertilised in the water andquickly developed into larval/baby fish. So ikataea

The story of Ikataea (Paddle Snapper) - Part one

A story from Tuvalu

was one of a very big group of very very small fish.In fact they did not look at all like their parents yet.Ikataea was very skinny and clear like a small pieceof glass.

As the big group of small fish floated on the oceancurrents, they realised that they were partly pro-tected from fish who wanted to eat them becausethey were so small and clear they were almost in-visible. Unfortunately, many of ikataea’s cousinsand brothers and sisters did get eaten by otheranimals. Those who survived had a very hard jobto find enough food to help them survive and grow.Mostly they tried to catch other very small animalsfloating in the water, like worms and baby crabs.Many more of ikataea’s friends did not find enoughfood in the big ocean, so the group of fish becamesmaller and smaller.

Ikataea and the other survivors floated for 60 daysin the ocean before they entered Funafuti lagoonand came close to a reef. When they arrived theyrealised that they had lost some more of their cous-ins who must have floated past Funafuti and wouldprobably die in the ocean. The remaining 4,000 fishwho had entered the lagoon became excited whenthey could feel that they were close to a reef. Theyfound a nice place of small rocks at the bottom of areef near Funafatu islet and decided to settle there.

The next day ikataea woke up and looked for herfriends but she could not see them anywhere. In-stead she was surrounded by 3,999 small grey andred fish. She was very confused, but when shelooked down she realised that she too had changedcolour (they had all metamorphosed - like the but-terfly from the caterpillar). In their excitement thegroup of fish split up and went to explore their newhome.

Part 2 will be continued in the next issue of CALL

to be expended for larger, more involved expedi-tions.

To summarise. Paying a “time tax” to local com-munity to explain what we’re up to, when we wantto carry out biodiversity surveys, seem to bringgood payoffs in terms of the cooperation we thenget from the communities on whose land we work.Even more importantly, a key to trouble-free sur-veys seems to be to create a situation where thesebiodiversity surveys are sensed by landowners asbeing community-driven, not just community-based. This is easier to do than it might sound,but the strategy has to be carefully implemented,and above all, it takes time.

Ah, my appetite is whetted now. When are we go-ing to the bush again?

As the big group ofsmall fish floated onthe ocean currents,

they realised thatthey were partly

protected from fishwho wanted to eat

them because theywere so small and

clear they werealmost invisible.

Unfortunately, manyof ikataea’s cousins

and brothers andsisters did get eaten

by other animals.


that it takes at least two years to build trust in thecommunity and establish solid linkages between keydecision-makers, key stakeholders and potentialpartners. In those two years, donors don’t see a lotof money being spent. But after the groundwork hasbeen done, things tend to move rather more rap-idly, as the painstaking work involved in full consul-tation and community decision-making begins tobear fruit.

The importance of consultation

Time and again, consultation has been shown tobe critical to the success of any project. Take thecase of the Arnavon Islands, for example.

The Solomon Islands Government decided to setup a conservation area there, but didn’t consult theArnavon Islanders. Government officials started

building a project headquarters on one island. Thecommunities burned it down and barred any gov-ernment officials from landing on the islands again.

But then, some time later, they decided to ask theGovernment what it had planned to do with thosebuildings. When they found out, they asked whythey hadn’t been consulted – they’d been talkingfor a long time about establishing a conservationarea there.

The Government stepped back, insisted that thecommunity take the lead role with Government sup-port, and now the Arnavon Islands ConservationArea is a reality – providing yet one more exampleof how concern for protecting the Pacific’s fragileecosystems can overcome seemingly insoluble dif-ferences.

A dramatic accident last year on Aniwa brought tur-tles to the forefront of the people’s thoughts. A youngman was drowned when trapped by the rope of hisspear gun with which he had hit a turtle. The turtledragged him deeper and deeper. He could not breakfree and drowned. A five year tabu has been put onthe reef since the man’s death. Some seem to haveinterpreted the death as a signal from somewhere.

The chief on Aniwa said they were very proud toreceive a visit from Wan Smolbag Theatre (it wasWan Smolbag Kids who visited Aneitym & Aniwa.)They had heard the name many times althoughsome thought it was Wan Smolbag Toyota! Perhapsthis might be a good reason to demand sponsor-ship from Toyota!!

The chief readily admitted that on Aniwa many tur-

tles were killed and that it was still possible to findturtles regularly when wanted. This was similar tothe situation on the neighbouring island of Aneitymwhere in the village of Angelghowat they have aplace called ‘backstore’ which means a place fullof turtles and this is the place where people alwaysgo when they wish to eat turtle meat.

Again on both islands, communities said they wereresolved to change their ways now that they un-derstood the turtle’s breeding cycle. Of course it isvery pleasing to feel that one’s work has planted aseed for change, but experience tells us that wemust find ways of encouraging the villages to keeptheir promises but you have to start somewhereand both Health Force & Wan Smolbag Kids foundthe tours very rewarding.

Peacemaking - the conservation dividend continued from page 11

Turtles in Vanuatu: Wan Smol Bag play tours 1996-99 continued from page 8

Members of Wan Smol Bag, Health Force Theatre in action during the Banks/Torres tour last year

ReleasingTurtles inCaptivity


El Nino drought destruction: the death of Papua New Guinea’s McAdam National Park

Larry Orsak and Lawong Balun

The ultimate cause of death was a massive fireduring the El Nino drought months in September1997. It started on the Bulolo end (from garden-mak-ing) and burned for weeks, generally consuming theleaf litter layers. The park is mostly an island of for-est today, since much of the surrounding area hasalready become kunai grassland, coffee plantation,and non-native Piper scrub. The view from the BuloloGorge shows nearly 100 per cent fire consumption,so the entire park of more than 1000 hectares hasapparently burned.

Loss of the tallest tropical trees

Morobe Provincial officials recently embarked on anew tourism promotion. While we’ve missed anystories about the destruction of one of PNG’s fewnational parks, we’ve seen several items about howmuch money tourists could bring to Morobe Prov-ince, Klinki Pines are thought to be the tallest tropi-cal trees in the world, and the “world’s tallest” ofanything is effective tourist bait. McAdam had thatpotential because it was the best place in the worldto see virgin stands of Klinki and Hoop Pine(Araucaria). This tourism potential was occasion-ally tapped by Bulolo’s Pine Lodge Resort and WauEcology Institute. But it would be an obscenity nowfor the government or anyone else to promoteMcAdam National Park as home for the world’s tall-est tropical trees, for the tallest of them all is prob-ably now a skeleton.

It’s not just the world’s tallest tropical trees that werespecial. It was also the fact that these trees weregraced by various species of some of the world’smost spectacular birds, including about 10 bird-of-paradise species. And for those with more attentionto detail, the bark of those trees were graced byone of the world’s most remarkable stalk-eyed flies,a species whose eye stalks were several times thelength of the rest of the body. It used to walk with asense of purpose in shady, moist spots in the park.

Efforts to restore this protected area

The fire has opened fantastic opportunities for gar-den-making; the final solution to the park is now inprogress. At this stage, it would take some effort torestore this protected area and there is no indica-tion at all that any such interest exists. The PNGOffice of Environment & Conservation has decen-tralised all national park management responsibili-ties and expenses to provincial governments who

often have no significant source of revenue them-selves. Thus, it can be stated with near certaintythat the most beautiful piece of land on the longroad between Lae and Wau is gone. But few willnotice, since obviously no one cared enough toreport the loss in the first place. We’ll still be ableto see Klinki pines in the backyards of Lae and inthe monoculture plantations around Bulolo andWau. They aren’t the world’s tallest trees, but wecan still say they are, since at least they’re the rightspecies. We can see many of the larger creaturesof McAdam in zoo cages here and there, so wedon’t have to think much that a native home is gone.Opportunities for fooling ourselves and denying thetragedy are endless. The zoos containing McAdambirds and animals, the tourism promotion, and eve-rything else that exploits the park’s biodiversitywould be great, worth supporting and above criti-cism if people had put as much effort into protect-ing the roots of these benefits. That is the greatestobscenity – reaping the rewards of McAdam’sbiodiversity while investing virtually nothing in itsprotection. We all share in the blame.

Food for the termites

And yet, the local people will get one last short-termbenefit fromMcAdam National Park’s bio-diversity. For the dead and weakened trees are nowproducing a phoenix of new life – millions of showywood-boring beetles which are now breeding in thedying wood. The last gasp of McAdam before thetermites commence? Hopefully all the village in-sect collectors around Bulolo will gather up thebeetle bounty, and sell them to the nearby InsectFarming & Trading Agency. That way, overseascollectors can buy these beautiful specimens andbe in awe of PNG’s megadiversity, while remain-ing blissfully ignorant of the fact that the PNG splen-dour in their display cases were products of an evengreater splendour being destroyed.

The death of McAdam National Park should neverbe blamed on lack of money. Lack of money is alame excuse, not a valid reason. The real reasonfor McAdam National Park’s loss was disinterest,inattention, and this intriguing prevailing attitude thatit is possible to milk a biodiversity cash cow with-out ever having to feed it.

This biodiversity cash cow is dead. May you lingerin our memories, McAdam National Park.

We’ve waited for months hoping to see some article or any announcement of atragic setback in people’s uphill efforts to protect Papua New Guinea’s remark-able biodiversity for future generations. Nothing apparently has appeared, sowe’re taking it upon ourselves to announce the death of McAdam National Park inMorobe Province. There are only a handful of national parks in PNG, so the lossis especially painful.

For at least12–15 years, thepark has steadilybeen encroached

by gardens andcoffee plots.

These breaks inthe canopy

undoubtedlyhelped the flames

repeatedlyflare up.

CALL is the newsletter of

SPREP’S South Pacific

Biodiversity Conservation

Programme, based in Apia,

Samoa.

Editor

SPREP’s Publication Unit

Technical editor

Joanna Sim

Layout and graphics

Catherine Appleton

SPREP

PO Box 240, Apia, Samoa

Phone (685) 21929

Fax (685) 20231

Email [email protected]

taking the first steps to save our disappearing pacific birds...(gallicolumba e. erythroptera;...

Documents