Phoenix Islands Protected Area Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

Abstract

This Monitoring and Evaluation Plan guides collection of information required to support management of PIPA in accord with the objectives of the Phoenix Islands Protected Area Management Plan 2015-2020. These objectives encompass the range of values and issues that characterise the Protected Area and underpin listing on the UNESCO World Heritage register.

The Monitoring and Evaluation Plan will evolve as new methods, protocols, technologies or logistical considerations become prevalent. New partners and expanded spatial coverage are expected as capacity and resources increase. Accordingly, this Plan should be considered a ’living document’ with updates and revisions occurring as new technologies become available, resources and partnerships evolve, and the information needs of management change.

Full text

1
Phoenix Islands Protected Area
Monitoring and Evaluaon Plan

2
Phoenix Islands Protected Area
Monitoring and Evaluaon Plan
December 2017
Prepared for:
PIPA Implementaon Oce
Ministry of the Environment, Lands & Agricultural Development
Government of Kiriba
Prepared by:
Dr Paul Marshall, Dr Adam Smith, Nathan Cook
With contribuons from Dr Ray Pierce
Reef Ecologic
reefecologic@gmail.com
Ph +61418726584
Recommended citaon: Marshall P, Smith A, Cook N (2017). Phoenix Islands
Protected Area Monitoring and Evaluaon Plan. Reef Ecologic, Townsville,
Australia 72pp

3

4
Table of Contents
1 Overview 6
2 About this Plan 7
2.1 The context for the PIPA Monitoring and Evaluaon Plan 7
2.2 Geographic scope 8
2.3 Consultaon 9
2.4 Indicator selecon 9
2.5 A three-ered approach to monitoring 10
3 Introducon to the Phoenix Islands Protected Area 12
4 Monitoring and Evaluaon Framework 14
4.1 Set objecves 14
4.2 Select variables 14
4.3 Thresholds and triggers 15
4.4 Monitoring methods 16
4.5 Sampling design 16
4.6 Data management and reporng 17
4.7 Enabling condions 17
5 Eyes on the Island Program 19
5.1 Methods 19
6 Core Monitoring Program 22
6.1 Methods 22
7 Long Term Ecosystem Monitoring Program 27
7.1 Methods 27
8 Indicator proles 31
8.1 Seabird Populaons 31
8.2 Island ecosystem and vegetaon monitoring 34
8.3 Live coral cover/benthos 36
8.4 Reef sh and Invertebrate populaons 39
8.5 Reef shark populaons 42
8.6 Turtle populaons 44

5
8.7 Fisheries 46
8.8 Socioeconomic Monitoring 49
8.9 Pelagic condions, Seamounts and Submerged Reefs 51
9 Data Management 53
10 Reporng and Evaluaon 54
10.1 Reporng for adapve management 54
10.2 Evaluang Management Eecveness 55
Appendices 56
Appendix A - Nomenclature of seabirds present at the PIPA 56
Appendix B - Phoenix Islands Seabirds 57
Appendix C - Recommended monitoring approach Seabirds 58
Appendix D - Fly-on bird populaon surveys 59
Appendix E - Intensive survey data sheet 60
Appendix F - Example of pelagic seabird data sheet 61
Appendix G - Recorded plant species 2006-13 62
Appendix H - Photopoints at restored islands in the PIPA 63
Appendix I - Invasive Alien Species: Procedures 64
Appendix J - Eyes on the Island Weekly Data Record Sheet 65
Appendix K - Eyes on the Island Weekly Subsistence Fishing Record 66
Appendix L - Eyes on the Island Weekly Date Record Supporng Informaon 67
Appendix M - Core Monitoring Data Sheet 68
Appendix N - Permanent Coral Monitoring sites 69
Appendix O - Acronyms Used in this plan 71

6
1 Overview
The Phoenix Islands Protected Area (PIPA) of Kiriba
was established in 2008, and declared a UNESCO World
Heritage site in 2010. At approximately 425,300 km2,
it is one of the largest protected areas in the world.
Management of this vast and globally important area
is coordinated by the PIPA Management Commiee, in
accord with the PIPA Management Plan1.
Eecve implementaon of the Management Plan
requires reliable and mely informaon on the condion
and trends of important PIPA values and issues, as
described in the objecves of the PIPA Regulaons and
the Management Plan. Informaon on condion and
trend is also required to inform ‘State of PIPA reporng.
The Monitoring and Evaluaon Program described
in this document is designed to guide the collecon
of informaon about the Phoenix Islands Protected
Area in accord with these requirements. By providing
informaon on changes in the values and issues that
are the objects of management, the Monitoring and
Evaluaon Program also enables the eecveness of
management to be evaluated.
The remoteness and spaal extent of the Phoenix Islands Protected Area creates unique challenges for
management and monitoring. Only a very limited sta is resident within the Protected Area (on Kanton
Island), and expensive, mul-day expedions are required to access the area from Tarawa (the capital and
major populaon centre of Kiriba). Because of these circumstances, strong and enduring partnerships with
internaonal organisaons such as the New England Aquarium (NEAq) AND Conservaon Internaonal (CI) have
been especially important to the establishment and ongoing management of PIPA. These operaonal realies and
crucial partnerships have been key drivers in the design of the PIPA Monitoring and Evaluaon Program.
To maximise data collecon opportunies within the current landscape of resources, capabilies and partnerships,
the Monitoring and Evaluaon Program has been designed with three levels of monitoring. Eyes on the Island
ulises sta and other residents on Kanton, and visitors to other islands, to maintain vigilance for important and
obvious changes on the island and surrounding waters that can serve as an early warning of issues requiring
a management response. The Core Monitoring Program has been designed for implementaon by technical
personnel associated with PIPA management acvies. It requires only moderate skills in terrestrial and coral reef
monitoring, but will deliver reliable and regular informaon on the status and trends of key species and processes,
including human acvies, at focal areas within PIPA. The Long-Term Ecosystem Monitoring Program (LTEMP)
builds on the strong legacy of ecosystem monitoring established by partner organisaons. It requires dedicated
monitoring expedions involving ecosystem experts. It provides a more detailed picture of ecosystem health and
resilience over a larger spread of locaons across PIPA, but at lower frequency (every 3-5 years).
1 Phoenix Islands Protected Area Kiriba Management Plan 2010 – 2014 hp://phoenixislands.org/pdf/2010-2014_FINAL_PIPA_
Management_Plan.pdf
Figure 1: Locaon of Kiriba and the Phoenix Islands Protected Area
K.Lageux (NEAq)

7
2 About this Plan
This Monitoring and Evaluaon Plan guides collecon
of informaon required to support management of
PIPA in accord with the objecves of the Phoenix
Islands Protected Area Management Plan 2015-2020. These objecves encompass the range of values and issues
that characterise the Protected Area and underpin lisng on the UNESCO World Heritage register.
The Monitoring and Evaluaon Plan will evolve as new methods, protocols, technologies or logiscal
consideraons become prevalent. New partners and expanded spaal coverage are expected as capacity and
resources increase. Accordingly, this Plan should be considered a ’living document’ with updates and revisions
occurring as new technologies become available, resources and partnerships evolve, and the informaon needs of
management change.
This secon describes the context for the Monitoring and Evaluaon Plan and its geographic scope. It then
outlines partners consulted in development of the Plan,
followed by an overview of the key consideraons involved
in selecng indicators. It concludes with an introducon to
the three-ered approach to monitoring in PIPA.
2.1 The context for the PIPA Monitoring
and Evaluaon Plan
This Monitoring and Evaluaon Plan has been developed
to support the PIPA Management Plan. The Management
Plan has been developed as a requirement of the PIPA
Regulaons (2008) in accordance with the Environment
Act (1999) amendment (2007). PIPA’s Management Plan
guides the implementaon of acvies designed to protect
and preserve the substanal natural, ecological, cultural
and socio-economic values of PIPA. The Management
Plan recognises the important role scienc monitoring,
research and subsequent evaluaon play in determining
the eecveness of management acons. It specically
requires development of a Monitoring and Evaluaon Plan:
Strategic Acon Plan priories SAP 1.13 ‘PIPA Monitoring
and Evaluaon’ (Figure 2).
Accordingly, this Monitoring and Evaluaon Plan presents
an integrated approach to collecng informaon necessary
for eecve management and reporng against the nine
objecves outlined in the PIPA Management Plan (see
boxed text). The Monitoring and Evaluaon Plan aims to
support adapve management of PIPA by maximising the
availability of informaon on key indicators. While the
spaal coverage and temporal frequency of monitoring
is necessarily limited due to the logiscal challenges of
collecng data about such a large and remote protected
area, the Plan provides mechanisms for an early-warning
system that can detect changes that might warrant a
management response, especially for values and issues
Objecves of the PIPA Management Plan
2015-2020
1. To conserve and manage substanal examples
of marine and terrestrial systems to ensure
their long-term viability and to maintain
genec diversity;
2. To conserve depleted, threatened, rare or
endangered species and populaons and, in
parcular, to preserve habitats considered
crical for the survival of such species;
3. To conserve and manage areas of signicance
to the lifecycles of economically important
species such as tuna;
4. To prevent human acvies from detrimentally
aecng the PIPA;
5. To preserve, protect, and manage historical
and cultural sites and natural aesthec values;
6. To facilitate the interpretaon of marine and
terrestrial systems for the purposes of conser
vaon, educaon and tourism;
7. To accommodate within appropriate
management regimes a broad spectrum
of mul-use human acvies compable
with the primary goal of marine and
terrestrial conservaon and sustainable use,
including appropriate shing, ecologically-
sound tourism, and sustainable economic
development;
8. To provide for research and training, and
for monitoring the environmental
eects of human acvies, including the
direct and indirect eects of development
acvies; and
9. To ensure consistency between all acvies
taking place in the PIPA and any third-party
conservaon contracts into which the Minister
may choose to enter with the advice and
approval of the Cabinet for the conservaon
and long-term sustainable use of the PIPA.

8
pernent to Kanton Island.
The Plan will also play a key role in supporng delivery
of the ve-yearly State of the PIPA Report (SAP 3) as
required under the PIPA Annual Operaonal Work Plan
(SAP 1.15). In combinaon with historical data and
informaon collected by partners under other programs
(including scienc research conducted under the
PIPA Research Vision 2011-2020), the Plan will provide
reliable and mely informaon on key values and issues
that are the objecves of PIPA management.
The ‘State of the PIPA’ Report also provides the
mechanism for evaluaon of the eecveness of delivery
of the PIPA Management Plan, in accord with the IUCN
World Commission on Protected Areas Management
Eecveness Evaluaon Framework. Through the
State of the PIPA reporng process, the informaon
collected under this Monitoring and Evaluaon Plan
will enable PIPA management to evaluate the eects
of management in relaon to the nine management
objecves2.
The Monitoring and Evaluaon Plan will be
complemented by scienc research, which can play
a key role in improving the foundaon of knowledge
available to PIPA managers about the condion and
distribuon of key values (especially in more remote areas of the Protected Area) and about the processes that
support or threaten these values. Scienc research is the focus of Objecve 8 of the Management Plan and SAP
1.10 “PIPA Science and Research”. The priories and approach to addressing scienc research requirements are
outlined in the PIPA Research Vision 2011-2020 prepared by the Scienc Advisory Commiee (SAC) in 2010.
The Monitoring and Evaluaon Plan also facilitates a standardised approach to data collecon within PIPA to
maximise potenal for comparability between monitoring programs, and across me and locaons. This is
essenal to opmise the value of the various data collecon iniaves of the past, present and future, and to
ensure management eorts are informed by the most reliable esmate of condion and trend for key values
and issues. The methods presented in this Plan reect internaonal best pracce and regional standards, and
have been selected to maximise consistency with historical data collecon eorts in PIPA. While the logiscal
challenges and associated costs of monitoring PIPA necessitate a focus on priority areas such as Kanton Island, the
Plan has been designed to allow and encourage applicaon of the methods at other islands and throughout the
Protected Area.
2.2 Geographic scope
This Monitoring and Evaluaon Plan has been designed to provide informaon to support management of the
enre Phoenix Islands Protected Area. However, the large spaal scale, dicult access and low risk of local
anthropogenic stress throughout most of the area require a stronger focus on some areas than others. The
populated island of Kanton and its surrounding reef and waters (including lagoon) are the logical focus for regular
and frequent monitoring. Coral reef areas in other parts of PIPA are expected to be surveyed every 2-3 years as
part of long term ecosystem monitoring eorts. Terrestrial condions on the other seven islands/atolls, condions
at the two main submerged reefs (Winslow and Carondelet), and the status of the extensive oceanic areas of PIPA
will be surveyed on an irregular and more opportunisc basis, generally as part of research expedions.
2 Hockings, M., Stolton, S., Leverington, F., Dudley, N. and Courrau, J. (2006). Evaluang Eecveness: A framework for assessing
management eecveness of protected areas. 2nd edion. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. xiv + 105 pp.
Figure 2: Diagram illustrang the policy context for development and
implementaon of the PIPA Monitoring and Evaluaon Plan

9
2.3 Consultaon
The PIPA Monitoring and Evaluaon Plan has been developed through consultaon with experts in relevant elds
and disciplines, and review of monitoring approaches used by leading management agencies. These include the
Naonal Oceanographic and Atmospheric Associaon, (NOAA), the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
(GBRMPA) and the Australian Instute of Marine Science (AIMS). Addionally, the Plan has been designed to
opmise compability with programs and recommendaons by relevant internaonal and regional agencies, such
as the Secretariat of the Pacic Community (SPC), Secretariat of the Pacic Regional Environment Programme
(SPREP) and strategic research partners New England Aquarium (NEAq) and Conservaon Internaonal (CI).
2.4 Indicator selecon
A monitoring and evaluaon program is fundamental for eecve management. A good monitoring program
will provide the informaon necessary to evaluate and improve management eorts to conserve, protect and
promote the sustainable use of natural ecosystems. It is important to ensure the monitoring program is t for
purpose, adequately resourced and able to deliver reliable informaon to decision makers and stakeholders in a
mely manner.
PIPA has a history of data collecon through research and exploratory expedions. The variables and methods
used by researchers varied considerably, resulng in dicules integrang data sets and detecng historical
changes in condions. The aim of the PIPA Monitoring and Evaluaon Plan is to specify indicators and methods
required to support future management of PIPA, allowing for reliable spaal and temporal comparisons.
Wherever possible, indicators and methods have been chosen to maximise consistency with historical surveys
without compromising on future ulity of the data.
A monitoring program designed to eciently inform management decisions will likely involve a mixture of

10
qualitave and quantave data. For example, measuring stakeholder engagement may ideally be supported
by qualitave data while quantave informaon from monitoring and research is more suited to assessing
ecosystem condions. Quantave data can provide more robust and sensive measurements, but they are
usually more me consuming and resource intensive to collect. Consequently, inclusion of semi-quantave data,
qualitave informaon or expert judgment can help guide decisions and management iniaves in a mely, cost-
eecve, and sll defensible, manner.
Indicators for the PIPA Monitoring and Evaluaon Plan have been selected through expert consultaon &
working group meengs, and review of internaonal best pracce to meet the informaon requirements of PIPA
management. Broad categories are specied in Secon 6(2)(d) and Secon 6(6) of the PIPA Regulaons 2008,
which require monitoring of the following aspects of the PIPA environment and management regime:
i. Bird populaon trends;
ii. Ecosystem/vegetaon monitoring;
iii. Live coral cover trends;
iv. Reef sh populaon trends;
v. Reef shark populaon trends;
vi. Turtle populaon trends;
vii. Pelagic condions;
viii. Landings;
ix. Annual visitor number trends; and
x. Such other maers as required under the PIPA Management Plan.
Building on this list, the priority indicators have been selected to meet the contemporary needs of PIPA
management through consultaon and workshops with the PIPA MC, the PIPA Scienc Advisory Commiee (SAC)
and other key stakeholders. These indicators have been grouped into nine categories, each described in detailed
indicator proles in Secon 8.
The indicators used in this Monitoring and Evaluaon Plan reect contemporary values and pressures in PIPA,
some of which have changed since the inial establishment of the protected areas. This includes a focus on
monitoring for subsistence shing around Kanton Island, and a decrease in focus on shing in other areas of
PIPA. This change reects amendments to the shing regulaons within PIPA which prohibits all shing (except
subsistence shing) within the protected area. Addional socio-economic indicators have been added beyond
simply collecng tourism numbers. With expected increases in visitaon to the area, especially Kanton, it is
important to assess visitor experiences as a value that is important to management.
Due to the remoteness and the cost of accessing the region, monitoring patrols are expected to be irregular
and limited in frequency. Personnel based on Kanton have limited capacity to conduct intensive monitoring and
surveillance, but can provide valuable informaon on certain indicators regularly. Consequently, indicators will be
surveyed across three ers of monitoring based on their importance to management, their pernence to adapve
management, and the skills and me required for their assessment. Detailed outlines of each er of monitoring is
provided in Secons 5-7, while detailed descripons of indicators are provided as a series of “Indicator Proles” in
Secon 8. The following secon provides an overview of the three-er monitoring approach.
2.5 A three-ered approach to monitoring
This Monitoring and Evaluaon Plan will be implemented through a hierarchical structure involving three ers
of monitoring program: ‘Eyes on the Island’ monitoring program; Core monitoring program; and Long Term
Ecosystem Monitoring program (Figure 3).
The Eyes on the Island monitoring program is designed to be completed regularly by PIPA sta and residents of
Kanton Island, and opportuniscally by visitors to other locaons within PIPA. Eyes on the Island provides an early

11
warning system for abrupt changes (such as coral bleaching events) or emergent issues (such as arrival of invasive
species).
The Core Monitoring program is designed to enable a broader range of personnel, with varying skills and
experiences, to contribute meaningful data on ecosystem health in structured but accessible monitoring program.
It focuses on indicators that are more readily and reliably measured by less experienced observers, but enables
increased frequency of surveys. The core monitoring assists in tracking the condion and trends in key indicators
for management.
Long-Term Ecosystem Monitoring (LTEM) aims to instuonalise the long-term monitoring iniaves implemented
by PIPA research partners since its designaon. The LTEM Program is built around the methods of these ongoing
eorts, ensuring it connues to provide detailed and precise measures of a large range of reef health indicators
at established long term monitoring sites. The LTEM Program relies on skilled and experienced personnel and,
usually, dedicated vessel-based monitoring expedions. This means it provides less frequent assessments of
relevant indicators, but enables more condent assessments of long-term trends, potenally across a larger
spaal scale.
Beyond regular monitoring, PIPA partners and researchers are currently responsible for delivering scienc
research within PIPA as endorsed by the Scienc Advisory Commiee (SAC) and outlined in the PIPA Research
Vision (currently 2011-2020). Expedionary research trips commonly provide the plaorm for implemenng the
LTEM program, while also allowing specialists to pursue a range of scienc quesons relang to the biology,
ecology and resilience of PIPA ecosystems.
Each of the three ers of monitoring program, including the indicators and methods, is described in Secons 5, 6
and 7 below. Detailed indicator proles, grouped by the nine management objecves, are provided in Secon 8.
Figure 3: Diagram illustrang the three-ered approach to monitoring and the role of Expedionary research in
the process. Expedionary research at the top of the pyramid, provides greater accuracy of data, is expected to be
collected less frequently, and is considered beyond the scope of this Plan.

12
3 Introducon to the Phoenix Islands Protected Area
The Phoenix Islands Protected Area (PIPA) is centred on the group of Phoenix Islands, in the geographic centre of
the Republic of Kiriba in the central Pacic Ocean (Figure 1). Encompassing an area of approximately 425,300
km2, PIPA covers 11.34% of Kiriba’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and is one of the largest Marine Protected
Areas (MPA) in the world. PIPA includes 8 atoll/reef islands, submerged reefs and seamounts and the surrounding
deep water marine area. The islands within the boundary of PIPA are: Kanton (also called Abariringa /Canton),
Birnie, Enderbury, Manra (Sydney), McKean, Nikumaroro (Gardner), Orona (Hull), and Rawaki (Phoenix). The two
submerged reefs, Winslow and Carondelet, and at least 14 known seamounts together with open ocean and deep
sea habitat form an integral part of PIPA (Figure 4).
As one of the world’s largest intact oceanic coral archipelago ecosystems, PIPA is home to approximately 800
known species of fauna including approximately 200 coral species, 500 sh species, 18 marine mammals and 44
bird species 3. In recognion of these internaonally signicant values, 99.4% of the MPA was declared a no-take
(no shing) zone in 2015. The remaining 0.6% is designated for restricted use around Kanton Island, the only
inhabited island within the PIPA.
Kanton Island (2°48′S, 171°40′W) is the largest, and northern most of the Phoenix Islands. As the only inhabited
island, and the main access point to the PIPA, it is the logiscal hub for monitoring and management acvies and
the locaon of the limited tourism acvity in the area.
The broad spaal scale and remoteness of PIPA provides a high degree of protecon from local stressors oen
aributed to anthropogenic inuences and use. Despite its remoteness, global threats such as climate change and
associated ocean warming and acidicaon are inuencing PIPA’s ecosystems4. Despite signicant impacts from
3 World Heritage Nominaon - IUCN Technical Evaluaon Phoenix Islands Protected Area (Kiriba) - ID Nº 1325 (2008)
4 Obura D, Donner SD, Walsh S, Mangubhai S, Rotjan R. Phoenix Islands Protected Area climate change vulnerability assessment and
management, Report to the New England Aquarium, Boston, USA. 35 pp. Updated January 18, 2016
Figure 4: The 8 atolls and low reef islands, two submerged reefs and 14 submerged seamounts of PIPA.

13
previous coral bleaching events, the coral reefs around Kanton are thriving, demonstrang substanal resilience
in the face of global stresses. This resilience is due in large part to the low levels of local pressures, such as
polluon and overshing. In a world facing increasing pressures from climate change, PIPA has the potenal to be
a globally-important refuge for tropical marine biodiversity. Eecve management, including ecient and targeted
monitoring, is crucial to protecng the natural resilience of PIPA’s ecosystems.
The PIPA Monitoring and Evaluaon Plan will play a key role in building an understanding of the eects of climate
change on this remote and relavely prisne ecosystem. Through collecng informaon about the status of
species and habitats exposed to the eects of climate change, combined with data on environmental condions
such as air temperature, sea temperature and sea level available from global data sets (such as sea surface
temperature data from NOAA), the PIPA Monitoring and Evaluaon Plan will guide management responses
to climate change and contribute to global eorts to beer understand and manage coral reefs in a changing
climate.

14
4 Monitoring and Evaluaon
Framework
An eecve monitoring and evaluaon plan should ensure
that informaon is collected and provided in a form and
on a schedule that supports management decision-making. To ensure it is t-for-purpose, the design of the PIPA
Monitoring and Evaluaon Plan was guided by a 6-step process (Figure 5). Informing each step of this process
is a consideraon of the enabling condions that are important to sustaining the monitoring program through
me. The Plan supports evaluaon of the eecveness
of management in meeng its objecves, aligning with
the requirement to assess management outcomes in the
IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas Management
Eecveness Evaluaon Framework.
This secon provides an outline of the integrated
framework for monitoring and evaluaon in PIPA,
structured around the six-step process, together with
consideraon of enabling condions and evaluaon of
management outcomes.
4.1 Set objecves
Dening clear management objecves is essenal to
guide the design process. Monitoring is a crical step to
guiding adapve management, a systemac process for
connually improving management pracces through
learning from the outcomes of previous management
decisions. Monitoring assists in managing and maintaining
or improving the biological, cultural and socio-economic
values. Ensuring monitoring is targeted is challenging
when considering factors that are inherent in PIPA, such
as its large geographic scope, complex issues, cumulave
impacts and limited resources.
4.2 Select variables
Since managers cannot measure everything of potenal interest within their system, selecng variables for
including in a monitoring program is crical. Indicators, when properly selected, will provide mely and reliable
measures of changes that are most important to management. Essenal characteriscs of good indicator variables
include5:
• Reect underlying processes and are sensive to changes in levels of pernent stressors;
• Provide informaon on the state of the unmeasured resources and processes of the focal system; and
• Are measurable in a cost-eecve manner.
Addional features to consider when selecng indicator variables are provided in the text box.
A monitoring program designed to provide the informaon needs of managers should aim to track not only
ecosystem condion, but also the processes and drivers that can aect ecosystem condion and the implicaons
for human wellbeing. This “systems approach”, represented by the widely used DPSIR (Drivers-Pressures-State-
Impact-Response; (Antunes and Santos, 1999)) model (Figure 6), helps managers detect change, understand likely
causes, and assess social and economic implicaons. Importantly, it also helps ancipate change and respond
proacvely, creang the possibility of migang impacts by addressing the driver or pressure before it causes
unacceptable change in target values or human wellbeing.
5 Kaplan, I. C. 2003. Busch, D. E., and J. C. Trexler, editors. 2002. Monitoring Ecosystems: Interdisciplinary Approaches for Evaluang Ecoregional Iniaves.
Figure 5: Framework for designing the PIPA Monitoring and Evaluaon
program

15
The selecon of indicator variables for a monitoring program that is designed to support management will be
aided by a clear arculaon of management objecves. The indicators in the PIPA Monitoring and Evaluaon
Plan have been selected to address the PIPA management objecves (see secon 4.1), with consideraon of the
features that make for good indicators (listed above). The indicator variables have also been selected to maximise
alignment with standard monitoring programs in use in
the Pacic region, and in coral reef ecosystems globally.
They have also been selected with a view to maximising
connuity of historical data sets wherever possible.
Detailed indicator proles are provided in Secon 8.
4.3 Thresholds and triggers
The primary purpose of a management-focussed
monitoring program is to inform managers and
stakeholders of changes in important values, or changes
in the drivers and pressures that could lead to changes in
values. Knowing when management acon is required, or
when management objecves have been met, requires
an understanding of baseline condions, and of the
range of acceptable or desirable condions for each
indicator. These thresholds of concern, or trigger levels
for acon, are important, but oen very dicult to
establish. Ideally, for each indicator variable three levels
should be specied6: benchmark, target and red ag (or
warning) (Figure 7). These are based on reference levels,
which provide context for what is normal/desirable
versus concerning/undesirable. Wherever possible,
reference levels and triggers should be developed at
the start of a monitoring program. For the PIPA there is
insucient informaon, or further analysis is required,
to establish these levels for many indicators. However,
the early stages of the monitoring program will be used
to establish reference and trigger levels, and any major
changes in status of any indicator will be used as a “red
ag”, warranng further invesgaon and potenal
6 McField, M. and P. Richards Kramer. 2007. Healthy Reefs for Healthy People: A Guide to Indicators of Reef Health and Social Well-being in the Mesoamerican
Reef Region.
Addional features to consider when
selecng indicator variables
• Provide early warning of natural
responses to environmental impacts;
• Directly indicate the cause of change
rather than simply the existence of change
(e.g. Measuring fecundity and survival
rather than simple measurements of
abundance);
• Provide connuous assessment over a
wide range and intensity of stresses. This
allows to detect numerous impacts on the
ecosystem and also means that an indicator
will not boom out or level o at certain
thresholds; and
• Are cost-eecve to measure and can
be accurately esmated by all personnel
(even non specialists) involved in the
monitoring.
From: Carignan, V., Villard, M.A., 2002. Selecng indicator
species to monitor ecological integrity: review. Environ.
Monit. Assess. 78, 45–61.
Figure 6: Diagrammac representaon of the Driver, Pressures, State,
Impact, Response (DPSIR) framework, with illustrave indicators for a
coral reef system.
Figure 7: Denions of Benchmark, Target and Red Flag (or Warning)
levels for monitoring indicator variables, as dened in the Healthy
Reefs for Healthy People monitoring program of the Mesoamerican
reef region.

16
management response. Over me, the Monitoring and Evaluaon program will accumulate informaon about
status and trends that can be used to set benchmark, target and red ag levels for all indicators.
4.4 Monitoring methods
The next step is to select the appropriate method for measuring the variables. The most important consideraon
when selecng methods is to ensure that the data are in a form that suits the informaon needs of managers,
and is readily comparable with data on similar variables collected historically, or in other relevant locaons. For
example, abundance of reef sh could be measured as counts per unit me (med swim), or counts per unit area
(transect or point sampling). It is not appropriate to compare these two measures, so it is important to choose
and maintain a method that generates the appropriate unit of measurement to enable detecon of dierences in
space or changes through me.
Once the appropriate metrics are determined, issues such as repeatability (precision) and accuracy, the capacity
of personnel involved in monitoring and logiscal consideraons (such as equipment or me required) should
all be considered. The three-level design to the PIPA Monitoring and Evaluaon Plan (Eyes on the Island, Core
Monitoring and the Long-Term Ecosystem Monitoring Program) enable methods to be set for each indicator based
on the skills and experience of the personnel likely to be collecng data, and frequency with which informaon is
expected to be collected.
This Monitoring and Evaluaon Plan species
methods to be used for each indicator, but
it does not provide detailed instrucons or
standard operang procedures for each method.
Detailed instrucons can be accessed where
necessary from the many publicaons and
standards on monitoring methods for tropical
marine and coastal systems. Standard operang
procedures may also be developed as required
during the life of the Monitoring and Evaluaon
Plan.
4.5 Sampling design
Once indicators and methods have been
determined, it is necessary to select the locaon
and ming of monitoring. In selecng the
locaon, it is important to consider the sites that
are of relevance to the management objecves,
their spaal extent, and which values can be
expected to be found there. Some locaons
might also be beer choices for early detecon
of change, either because the composion
or abundance of target values makes them
sensive to change (such as seabird aggregaon
sites), or because the drivers of change are likely
to be detected here rst (monitoring for invasive
weeds around the main island access points, for
example). Replicaon of measurements is also
important, as natural variability from place to
place can make it dicult to detect real changes
in condions. Taking measurements at replicate
areas enables calculaon of averages and
some measure of variaon (such as standard

17
deviaon). This enables stascal analyses such as analysis of variance that can provide an indicaon of the level
of condence that a dierence in measurements is a real dierence in the indicator variable, and not an artefact
of the measurement process. The number of replicates also determines the sensivity of the monitoring program
(ability to detect smaller changes), but comes at increased cost.
The frequency and ming of measurements is also important. Greater frequency increases the chance of detecng
a change, and helps with aribuon (determining the cause of a change) by helping determine the precise ming,
and possible contribung factors, of a change. But greater frequency involves greater costs. Similarly, the ming of
measurements with respect to natural paerns of abundance of indicator species (or processes) is also important.
If a target value (such as seabirds) has highly seasonal paerns in abundance, it makes sense to carefully choose
the most relevant me of the year for measurements, and to maintain this ming throughout the life of the
program.
The PIPA Monitoring and Evaluaon Plan includes specicaon of the locaon, frequency and ming of
measurements for each indicator to opmise value of the informaon collected, while balancing logiscal and cost
consideraons.
4.6 Data management and reporng
A well-designed, and well-ulised, data management system is the nal ingredient in an eecve monitoring and
evaluaon program. All data collected as part of the monitoring program need to be checked, cleaned and entered
into a database to enable analysis, evaluaon and reporng. Data entry and management is best done through
a centralised approach, providing consistent quality control and reliable access. Key to success is the design of
the database structure, so that data can be readily entered, but also easily analysed and shared. Data security
is also important: the data management system must include adequate backup measures and protecon from
corrupon, accidental manipulaon or deliberate interference.
Currently, all data associated with PIPA monitoring is managed by the PIPA Oce (MELAD Tarawa) supported
by government departments with relevant responsibilies (e.g.G Fisheries). The aim is to establish a centralised
geospaal data management system for the all data relang to PIPA supporng the Monitoring and Evaluaon
Program.
4.7 Enabling condions
Establishing and maintaining a successful monitoring and evaluaon program requires sustained investment of
me, funds and experse. Funding needs to be secured in annual operang budgets, as well as strategic funding
plans. The operaonal context (accessibility of sites, availability of equipment, etc.) and capacity (experse, skills
and availability of personnel) need to be factored into the design of the program, both for establishment and
maintenance phases. As spulated in the PIPA Management Plan, the Annual Operaonal Work Plan (SAP1.15) will
be developed to support the compleon of required monitoring under the plan.
Partnerships are important to long term success, and the roles, duraon of support and type of investment
by partners should be conrmed through formal agreements to provide operaonal security to the program.
Currently, many of the LTEM deliverables are provided by research partners conducng long term monitoring as
integral elements of research expedions. This model is expected to connue. Addional monitoring methods,
involving a broader range of personnel, have been designed to complement the LTEM program. Through programs
tailored to the skills and availability of personnel based in Kiriba, the monitoring and evaluaon plan aims
to provide a sustainable program of regular monitoring that will foster stewardship while also providing early
warning and mely feedback to inform an adapve approach to management of PIPA.
A strategic capacity-building program will help ensure sustainability of the Monitoring and Evaluaon programs.
PIPA’s strong partnerships with conservaon groups and researchers since its designaon provide the foundaons
for sustaining the LTEM program. However, there remains scope to build the capacity of PIPA personnel,
community partners and visitors contribute to the LTEM program, and to build and maintain capacity necessary to

18
ensure connuity of the Eyes on the Island and Core Monitoring programs.
PIPA welcomes opportunies to work with partners to leverage and opmize the ability to eecvely monitor the
status and trends of the Phoenix Island’s Protected area. The PIPA MC supports monitoring outside of the scope
of this M&E plan. Many such monitoring acvies are undertaken by partners as part of the research vision.
This research is generally at smaller scales, addresses more direct management needs, or may address dierent
quesons than regional status and trends monitoring. Complementary monitoring is also conducted by other
operaonal units with the Government of Kiriba, including surveillance of sheries vessel acvies and the
vessel observers program.
Operaonal eciencies for program implementaon will connue to be explored, such as combining bird
surveys with marine research and monitoring survey trips, or, as currently occurs, compleng LTEM surveys as
part of broader research expedions. Monitoring and evaluaon partnerships will connue to be developed and
expanded with research and conservaon agencies, and exisng PIPA partners.

19
5 Eyes on the Island Program
The Eyes on the Islands Program has been designed as a
stewardship based monitoring program to deliver crical informaon on broad ecosystem health in a mely
manner. The Eyes on the Island program aims to support management by providing an early warning of obvious
environmental changes or threats within the ecosystems of Kanton and, where feasible, other islands within PIPA.
It has been designed as a simple, weekly monitoring program requiring the compleon of logbooks to record the
observaons of changes in key indicators and any unusual ecosystem changes and events. These may include
changes in water quality illustrated by obvious discoloraon of lagoon waters near selements, the arrival of
threatened or endangered seabirds or the presence of lier or trash on the island arriving by sea. Should these
events occur, they are likely to be unpredictable and short-lived, and thus readily missed by other monitoring
methods. In addion to observaons of ecosystem condions and environmental changes, surveyors are
requested to maintain regular records of subsistence shing catch.
Records of these events can provide crical informaon for management. The Eyes on the Island logbook
recording has been designed as a simple to complete weekly record, summarised monthly by the PIPA. Kanton
coordinator, and sent to the PIPA oce, Tarawa. Many records are simply nong presence/absence of certain
species or acvies. This alone can provide signicant informaon to guide management acons to preserve
PIPA’s ecosystems.
It is expected that the Eyes on the Island recording will occur most regularly on Kanton Island. The methods,
however, are designed to be useful across all of PIPA’s islands and atoll. This method of recording could be used by
all visitors to any of PIPA’s islands providing valuable snapshot informaon of remote locaons visited infrequently.
See Appendix J - Eyes on the Island Weekly Data Record Sheet for sample Eyes on the Island monitoring template.
In all cases, it is recommended to provide photos where possible.
5.1 Methods
5.1.1 Nature observaons logbook - weekly
All sighngs of unusual events noced under the Eyes on the Island monitoring should be recorded in the weekly
logbook record held at the PIPA Oce Kanton.
Throughout the course of daily and weekly acvies, residents and sta of PIPA should be on the lookout for
evidence or signs of any of the indicators listed under the Eyes on the Island monitoring program and report
their observaons to the PIPA Kanton coordinator. It is recommended surveyors should aempt to support all
observaons with photographs or images (where possible).
Observaons to support logbook recording should include:
• Keep an eye out for threatened or endangered seabird species, specically the Phoenix petrel
(Pterodroma alba, I-Kiriba - Te ruru) and the White-throated Storm-petrel (Nesofregea albigularis,
I-Kiriba - Te bwebwe ni marawa);
• When walking along beaches or other coastal perimeters, be on the lookout for any lier/trash or
seaweed washing up on island beaches;
• Be aware of any unusual changes in water colour (red, black, brown or green) that is out of the ordinary);
• Note the date and height of any unusually high des that may be inundang new areas. The dal gauge at
the port may provide accurate data on dal heights;
• Note the date and amount of any major rainfall events;
• All sighngs of invasive fauna (specically rats and cats) should be noted at all mes providing as much
detail as possible as to the number and locaon of the animal;
• New or invasive ant species may be dicult to idenfy. Record any new ant species or unusual acvity,

20
such as ants in new places in or around houses, or where they appear to be damaging vegetaon or
wildlife;
• The presence of invasive plants is also an important indicator however each sighng need not be
recorded. The weekly recording should note any new plant species idened as potenally being invasive.
Addionally, record sighngs of known invasive plants spreading to new areas;
• Any notable or unusual sh behaviour should be recorded. For example, groups of sh aggregang or
spawning in the channel at Kanton, or an abundance of manta rays or dolphins at a parcular locaon.
Any signs of sh dying because of environmental condions should also be recorded;
• Any notable or unusual behaviour involving sharks should be recorded. For example, aggregaons of
juvenile reef sharks at a parcular locaon. Any signs of sharks in distress or disturbed in any way should
be recorded; and
• Any illegal shing incidents should be recorded in the regular weekly log sheet AND reported to the
PIPA oce in Tarawa immediately providing as much informaon as possible (e.g.: vessel name, size and
method of shing, GPS coordinates, acvies being engaged in).
5.1.2 Nature observaons logbook – vessel trips
As part of regular monitoring of the coral reef habitat, surveillance of reefs from land or during forays by vessel
should be conducted at least once per week. Any signs of coral bleaching (large patches of coral turning white),
large patches of coral dying or other major disturbances aecng large areas of coral should be noted. Coral
bleaching can occur at any me of the year but is most likely in the warmest months between March - June.
Surveyors should be vigilant to record all sighngs of coral damage at any me.
5.1.3 Subsistence Fishing Record Sheet - weekly
All subsistence shing catch is to be recorded in the Eyes on the Island Weekly Subsistence Fishing record sheet
(Appendix K). Subsistence catch records should include the identy of all sh caught, the shing method used,
locaon of capture, the number taken and the approximate length of each sh. Invertebrates used for bait (e.g.
hermit crabs) and for consumpon (e.g. Land crab, lobsters) should also be recorded on the weekly form. The PIO
Kanton coordinator is required to ensure the log book is completed each week and a monthly report sent to the
PIPA oce in Tarawa.
5.1.4 Turtle nesting record sheet – nesting season
All suspected turtle nesng sites are to be surveyed
during nesng seasons. Terrestrial surveys of sea turtle
populaons are ideally conducted around nesng
sites during nesng season. Spot check should be
made at locaons historically linked to turtle nesng
success7. Nesng mes most likely between Nov-
March however this is to be conrmed. Note, in past
research, no nesng acvity was noted for beaches
facing the lagoon. For each locaon, the number
of nest pits idened should be counted. The best
me to survey for nesng turtles is at night me.
Idencaon of nest pits can be dicult, therefore
tracks leading up the beach can be used to indicate
likely nesng sites. Successful nest pits should have
two sets of tracks present, one for the approach and
one for the departure of the turtle. Aempts should
be made to avoid counng unsuccessful nesng
aempts.
7 Balazs, George H., 1975. Marine turtles in the Phoenix Islands.
Atoll Research Bullen 184:1-7.

21
Category Indicator Method
Seabirds Presence of threatened/endangered species
Weekly nature observaons logbook
Environmental
Presence of lier/trash
Presence of seaweed
Presence of unusual water colour events
Presence of unusually high des
Timing and amount of rainfall events
Island
ecosystems
Presence of invasive fauna (rats, cats, ants)
Presence of invasive plants
Fish &
Invertebrates Presence of unusual sh die os
Fish &
Invertebrates Presence of unusual sh behaviour
Sharks Presence of juvenile shark aggregaons
Fishing Presence of illegal shing incidents idened
All subsistence shing (sh and invertebrates) Weekly Subsistence Fishing Record
Benthos Visual sign of coral Impacts Boat trip nature observaons logbook
Turtles Presence turtle nesng acvity Turtle nesng record sheet
Abundance of nesng acvity
Table 1: Eyes on the Island monitoring indicator categories and method to be used

22
6 Core Monitoring Program
The Core Monitoring program is designed to collect more
detailed and robust informaon on status of a larger range of indicators, compared to the Eyes on the Island
program. Accordingly, it also requires surveyors to have some experience with monitoring of terrestrial and
marine ecosystems. Core Monitoring will be conducted annually around Kanton Island if praccable. It will be
conducted opportuniscally on other islands and reef areas as logiscs allow.
Monitoring for terrestrial ecosystems involves conducng surveys for the most sensive seabird species.
Surveillance for invasive species requires vigilance at all mes and is an integral element in the Eyes on the
Island logbook records. More detailed, annual surveys will be conducted under Core Monitoring to assist in the
priorising and targeng eradicaon eorts of invasive species on Kanton Island.
The Core Monitoring protocol for coral reef benthos represents an innovave approach to reef monitoring to
enable surveys of reef environments on a more regular, potenally opportunisc basis. The protocol is based
on internaonally recognised monitoring protocols using staonary point counts implemented by Secretariat of
the Pacic Community (SPC), the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) and previously for rapid
assessments of PIPA reefs. These surveys are designed to be conducted at xed, permanent survey locaons, but
can also be used as random samples of parcular sites or locaons.
6.1 Methods
6.1.1 Core Monitoring – Seabirds
The basis of core monitoring for seabirds is y-on surveys and pelagic surveys. Threatened/endangered and
Indicator species monitoring involves the use of passive y-on surveys to index seabird populaons of restored
islands. Fly-on monitoring involves simply counng a sample of the most sensive and threatened bird species as
they return to their night-me roosts on the islands. It is best undertaken at the three small restored islands and
at Enderbury. Refer to Pierce, Anterea et al. (2008) Appendix 48, for detailed descripon of methods and Pierce
(2011) Appendix 69, and Appendix D for sample data sheet. Fly-on surveys should be conducted at Rawaki, Birnie,
McKean, Enderbury at least every 2 years, with an aim to complete during all visits.
Pelagic surveys involve quanfying seabird abundance at sea. Encourage vising ornithologists and PIPA/MELAD
observers to document all seabirds within the PIPA. The PIPA marine resources provide feeding for an addional
c.30 species of non-breeding seabird visitors, most of them trans-equatorial migrants (R. Pierce, in li.). Refer
to Pierce et al (2008)10 for detailed descripon of methods. Refer to Appendix F. for sample datasheet. Pelagic
seabird surveys should be encouraged at every opportunity using vising ornithologists and/or WCU sta.
6.1.2 Core Monitoring – Island Ecosystems and Vegetaon
In addion to measuring the presence of invasive fauna, plants and lier as part of the Eyes on the Island
monitoring, more detailed surveillance to determine the abundance of invasive fauna (rats, cats, ants) and the
extent of invasive fauna should be conducted annually on Kanton as part of the core monitoring program. For
other locaons in PIPA, it is recommended to maximise every visit to a restored island and undertake surveillance
for rodents, invasive ants, cats, weeds and be alert for any other IAS, signs of landing, ensure “No Landing” signs
are in place. Methods to implement the monitoring programs are described in detail in several publicaons
including Republic of Kiriba Naonal Invasive Species Strategy and Acon Plan (2016), PIPA and Line Biosecurity
8 Pierce, R., Anterea, N., Anterea, U., Broome, K., Brown, D., Cooper, L., ... & Thorsen, M. (2008). Operaonal work undertaken to eradicate
rats and rabbits in the Phoenix Islands, Republic of Kiriba, May-June 2008. Pacic Expedions Ltd report for Government of Kiriba. NZ
Department of Conservaon, NZAID and Pacic Invasives Iniave, 1-73.
9 Pierce, R. (2011). “Biosecurity Guidelines for the Phoenix Islands Protected Area, Kiriba “ Biodiversy Conservaon Lessons Learned
Technical Series 8.
10 Pierce, R., Anterea, N., Anterea, U., Broome, K., Brown, D., Cooper, L., ... & Thorsen, M. (2008). Operaonal work undertaken to eradicate
rats and rabbits in the Phoenix Islands, Republic of Kiriba, May-June 2008. Pacic Expedions Ltd report for Government of Kiriba. NZ
Department of Conservaon, NZAID and Pacic Invasives Iniave, 1-73.

23
Acon Plan, Pierce and Teroroko (2011)11 and Early detecon and rapid response (EDRR) plan for priority invasive
species in Kiriba 2016-21. Use the Appendix E data sheet to summarise ndings, but also provide a detailed
report of all ndings as per EDRR.
6.1.3 Core Monitoring – Coral Reefs
The core monitoring program for marine observaons requires observers to assess benthic cover of a circular area
with a diameter of 10m. Surveyors assess overall benthic cover for both living (live coral, macroalgae) and non-
living components (rock, rubble, sand, recently dead coral) as outlined in the provided template (see Appendix M
Sample Coral Monitoring Data Sheet). Where suciently trained, surveyors should conduct further assessments
on coral condion and health, providing a greater level of detail of potenal impacts (coral bleaching, coral
disease, predaon, damage and lier). Sampling eort using the core monitoring protocol is most likely to be
conducted on snorkel rather than scuba at a single depth contour. At each locaon, a minimum of 3 replicates, 50
metres apart is recommended.
The abundance of selected reef sh and invertebrates are monitored in the same locaon as for the benthos
survey using a med (10 minute) swim between replicate benthic surveys. Fish & invertebrate surveys are to be
conducted along a belt transect 50m long by approximately 4m wide at the same depth as the benthic survey. All
indicator species in the target area are to be counted during the swim.
Marine monitoring for sea turtles is to be conducted in conjuncon with the visual underwater surveys under
the core monitoring program. Due to the transient nature of turtles, and the fact they can be viewed both above
and below the waterline, turtles should also be counted whilst in transit to/from monitoring sites. These sighngs
should be recorded in the comments secon of the survey forms as they are encountered outside of spaal limits
of the monitoring survey.
6.1.4 Core Monitoring – Fisheries
Monitoring of sheries in PIPA is the primary responsibility of the MFMRD who will monitor the Phoenix Islands
EEZ catch annually based on landings data in collaboraon with the Marine Resources Development, Tuna
Working Commiee and regional partners. Monitoring of landings represents a key indicator for quanfying
sheries take outside of the protected area.
Kiriba’s Ministry of Fisheries and Kiriba’s Marime Police have developed a Kiriba-EEZ wide surveillance
and enforcement program largely targeted at prevenng illegal shing and monitoring of licensed vessels. This
monitoring and surveillance represents an integral element of core monitoring for sheries. This program is in
cooperaon with other Forum member states under the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) and under a range of
bilateral and individual agreements including those provisions made with DWFN vessels. The use of AIS and VMS
to track vessels, and a range of addional surveillance opons have been implemented and are currently in place
with various Kiriba agencies. Introducon of mechanisms oered by Oceana’s Global Fishing Watch will be useful
in improving monitoring capacity in PIPA and should be explored by PIPA’s partners.
11 Pierce, R. and T. Teroroko (2011). “Enhancing biosecurity at the Phoenix Islands Protected Area (PIPA), Kiriba.” Veitch, CR, Clout, MN,
Towns, DR (Eds.): 481-486.

24
6.1.5 Core Monitoring – Socio-Economic
Socio-economic monitoring involves the compleon of specic survey quesonnaires to provide informaon and
feedback on the experiences of residents and visitors. There will be two separate surveys: one for residents and
one for visitors.
• Visitor numbers will be compiled from a combinaon of logbook entries and analysis of permits provided
by the PIPA oce in Tarawa.
• Visitor surveys are to be provided to every visitor aer their visit. The surveys should not be cumbersome
and may be completed before departure, or upon return to their home island/country and submied later
to the PIPA oce Tarawa.
• Resident surveys are to be coordinated by the PIPA coordinator Kanton and completed by residents of
Kanton every 6 months.

25
Category Indicator Methods
Seabirds
Presence of Threatened/Endangered species
Fly on surveys
Abundance of Threatened/Endangered species
Abundance of Rodent-Sensive species
Abundance of Globally Important species
Abundance of Sea-level/Climate-change Sensive species
Abundance of Pelagic species Pelagic surveys
Island
ecosystem
Presence of invasive fauna (rats, cats, ants)
Ground Surveys of islands and
Atolls
Presence of invasive plants
Abundance of invasive fauna (rats, cats, ants)
Cover of invasive plants
Benthos
Visual signs of coral impacts
Core Monitoring - Coral Reefs
(Visual Underwater Surveys)
Percentage live coral cover
Percentage macroalgal cover
Percentage recently dead coral
Percentage live coral rock
Percentage coral rubble cover
Percentage sand cover
Incidence of coral bleaching
Incidence of coral disease
Incidence of coral predaon
Abundance of drupella snails
Fish and Invertebrates
Abundance of angelshes
Abundance of bueryshes
Abundance of surgeonshes
Abundance of Humphead parroish
Abundance of other parroishes
Abundance of groupers
Abundance of snappers
Abundance of Napoleon wrasse
Abundance of other wrasses
Abundance of jacks/trevallies
Abundance of triggershes
Abundance of emperors
Abundance of sharks
Abundance of sea urchins
Abundance of giant clams
Abundance of sea cucumbers
Abundance of crown-of-thorns starsh
Sharks Abundance of all shark species
Table 2: Core monitoring indicator categories and methods to be used

26
Category Indicator Methods
Turtles Abundance of turtles
Core Monitoring - Coral Reefs
(Visual Underwater Surveys)
and monitoring in transit to
and from sites
Fisheries
Number illegal shing incidents idened AIS and VMS vessel tracking
with surveillance patrols
Intensity of illegal shing incidents (days)
Number illegal shing incidents prosecuted
Fisheries landings in the PIPA EEZ Monitoring Landings from PIPA
EEZ
Socio-Economic
Number of visitors Logbook and Permits approved
Reasons for vising
Visitor and Resident surveys
Acvies undertaken
Percepons regarding resource condion
Atude towards management strategies
Atude towards enforcement strategies
Awareness of conservaon issues
Knowledge of conservaon issues
Economic impact of tourism acvies
Community well-being
Parcipaon in reef monitoring

27
7 Long Term Ecosystem Monitoring Program
The Long-Term Ecosystem Monitoring Program (LTEMP) is designed to support regular monitoring of PIPA’s islands
and surrounding ecosystems, and provide essenal informaon to enable eecve management of the protected
area. Many of the methods and protocols used in the LTEMP have been in place for some me already, ensuring
this element of the Monitoring and Evaluaon Plan builds on a legacy of valuable data to management of the PIPA.
Seabirds, island ecosystems and invasive species have been comprehensively monitored on a number of PIPA’s
islands by Conservaon Internaonal and other PIPA partners. These monitoring programs have also supported
aempts to eradicate invasive species on four islands. The methods provided under the LTEMP – Seabirds
and Island Ecosystems are based on historical monitoring to align with consistency and provide connuity of
monitoring.
The LTEMP – Coral Reefs methods and protocols are based on long term monitoring that has been implemented
and rened since 2000. The development of benthic, sh and invertebrates survey methods and protocols for the
LTEMP is the result of extensive thought, consultaon and collaboraon, considering limited me at each site,
substanal nancial costs and the desire for a long-term record. These methods align with line intercept transects
(LIT) used in other areas of Kiriba. In addion, broad consultaon with representaves from SPC, GBRMPA,
Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network (GCRMN) and GoK representaves has ensured consistency with regional
standardised methods. Most LTEMP monitoring is conducted on permanent sites. See Appendix N – Permanent
marine monitoring sites for a comprehensive list of current permanent marine survey locaons within PIPA. Like
monitoring for seabirds and invasive species, the LTEMP for coral reefs is based on historical monitoring since
2000 conducted by PIPA partners to align with consistency and provide connuity of monitoring.
7.1 Methods
7.1.1 LTEMP – Seabirds
LTEMP monitoring for seabirds includes some of the methods already recommended for core monitoring. The
LTEMP is expected to be conducted by experts in the eld of terrestrial and biosecurity monitoring. Fly-on surveys
should be conducted to validate and support any core monitoring conducted by visitors or volunteers. References
for methods and locaons of sample data sheets are the same as listed under core monitoring – seabirds above
(Refer secon7.1.1). Note, if totals are lower than expected (refer summary reports and Appendix B Phoenix
Islands Seabirds – esmates of maximum number of pairs present per island in 2006-13) and me is available,
count on another night to test inter-night variability and/or arrange to go ashore to test for issues, e.g. IAS, failed
breeding, etc. (refer Island Ecosystem secon below (Secon 8.1.2) for methods regarding IAS surveillance,
biosecurity and safety).
The LTEMP includes surveys to measure nesng success, actual abundance of species, numerical responses to
IAS removal and behavioural responses. This involves ground surveys to determine more accurate populaon
sizes and a crude index of breeding success. Refer Pierce et al (2008)12 for detailed descripon of methods.
Aim to survey the whole of each small island (Rawaki, McKean and Birnie), but for the larger islands this might
not be possible, in which case include the lagoon edges and map the part of the island that was surveyed.
Focus on priority species rst – petrels, storm-petrels, shearwaters and blue noddies in case the survey is cut
short. Recommended survey frequency for islands and species are summarised in Appendix C - Recommended
monitoring approach for Seabirds.
Fly-on surveys should be conducted at Rawaki, Birnie, McKean, Enderbury at least every 2 years, with an aim for
all visits. Land based counts should be conducted at all islands, every 5 years for restored islands, 10 years for
others.
12 Pierce, R., Anterea, N., Anterea, U., Broome, K., Brown, D., Cooper, L., ... & Thorsen, M. (2008). Operaonal work undertaken to eradicate
rats and rabbits in the Phoenix Islands, Republic of Kiriba, May-June 2008. Pacic Expedions Ltd report for Government of Kiriba. NZ
Department of Conservaon, NZAID and Pacic Invasives Iniave, 1-73.

28
7.1.2 LTEMP – Island Ecosystems
LTEMP monitoring for island Ecosystems includes some of the methods already recommended for core
monitoring. The LTEMP is expected to be conducted by experts in the eld of terrestrial and biosecurity
monitoring and therefore will potenally be able to complete required monitoring to a greater level of detail. The
LTEMP Island Ecosystems Monitoring requires detailed monitoring of individual islands and atolls to determine
the abundance and extent of invasive fauna (rats, cats, ants). The LTEMP should be implemented at a minimum
every 5-10 years as part of the long-term monitoring and eradicaon programs for PIPA’s 8 islands. Methods to
implement the monitoring programs are described in detail in a number of publicaons and are listed above under
the core monitoring protocols (Secon 7.1.2) Use the Appendix E – Intensive survey data sheet to summarise
ndings, but also provide a detailed report of all ndings as per EDRR.
Conservaon Internaonal’s Biosecurity Guidelines for the Phoenix Islands, Kiriba13, provides detailed
surveillance methods for detecng invasive species, parcularly mammals, weeds and invasive ants required
under the LTEMP. See Atoll Restoraon in the Phoenix Islands14 for a list of addional plant species that may be
sighted during monitoring.
Note that the above methods apply to intensive surveys ashore. However, some clues to possible IAS issues can
be gleaned from vessels oshore. Appendix I - Invasive Alien Species provides some general guidelines as to
responses to specic scenarios that may be encountered while observing from vessels.
Monitoring of biota responses on restored islands includes esmang ground cover and permanent photopoints
(four photos per site and esmaon of the plant species % cover). Refer Appendix G - List of plant species
recorded on three restored atolls of the Phoenix Islands 2006-13 for a list of plants recorded for the three
restored islands and some addional species. Any addional species found should be added to the list and any
invasive species removed from the sites as described in recommended publicaons above. Refer Appendix H for
permanent established photopoints and recommendaons for future establishment and temporal frequency of
past surveys.
Vegetaon/ora photopoints and lists should be conducted at Rawaki, Birnie, McKean, Enderbury at least every
5 years. Invasive species should be surveyed at all 8 islands at least every 5 years for restored islands, ongoing at
Kanton, every 10 years for others.
7.1.3 LTEMP – Coral Reefs
LTEMP surveys comprise benthic cover surveys including photo quadrats and permanent benthic photomosaics,
coral genus size class distribuons, surveys on coral recruitment and coral condion (bleaching, disease). Benthic
monitoring methods used for the LTEMP15 are adapted from the IUCN Resilience Assessment protocol (Obura and
Grimsditch 2009)16. Benthic cover is measured using a combinaon of methods:
• Benthic habitats are surveyed using 1m2photoquadrats. At least 40–45 images were taken from a height of
approximately 0.6–0.75 m above the substrate, at a depth 10–15 m and subsequently analysed for benthic
composion;
• Benthic seaoor mapping using photomosaics of 100 m2 permanent quadrats has been conducted.
Photographs are taken from a height of approximately 1.5-2.0 m above the reef at 10-12 m deep. Coral
community structure is surveyed along 25 x 1 m belt transect. The number of colonies in the targeted
genera (>10 cm) are counted to the nearest cm. All hard coral genera are recorded, as well as their
condion Coral bleaching is recorded in a 25 x 1 m belt transect, and coral disease within a 25 x 0.5 m
transect. The genus of each colony is recorded as well as the proporon of ssue that is normal, bleached,
13 Conservaon Internaonal Pacic Islands Program. 2011. Biodiversity Conservaon Lessons Learned Technical Series 8: Biosecurity
Guidelines for the Phoenix Islands Protected Area, Kiriba. Conservaon Internaonal, Apia, Samoa
14 Conservaon Internaonal Pacic Islands Program. 2011. Biodiversity Conservaon Lessons Learned Technical Series 7: Atoll Restoraon
in the Phoenix Islands, Kiriba: Survey Results in November–December 2009. Conservaon Internaonal, Apia, Samoa
15 Mangubhai, S., & Rotjan, R (2015) Phoenix Islands Protected Area 2015 Expedion Report
16 Obura, D., & Grimsditch, G. (2009). Resilience assessment of coral reefs: assessment protocol for coral reefs, focusing on coral bleaching
and thermal stress. Gland: IUCN.

29
pale or recently dead;
• Coral recruitment is surveyed by measuring those colonies ≤10 cm in maximum diameter, in 18 x 1 m2
circular quadrats randomly placed at permanent monitoring sites, on either side of the transect line at 10-
15 m depth. All recruits were idened to genus and sizes are recorded.
Transect surveys of reef sh provide data enabling the esmate of species and size-specic densies and
length-weight regression parameters necessary for converng numbers to biomass. Density and biomass are
standardized to one square metre. At each site surveyors counted all shes by species, or to lowest recognizable
taxon, encountered within three, xed length (25 m), 8m wide transects, 10-12m deep. Large-bodied free moving
shes ≥20cm in length were tallied within an 8 m wide transect (total area 600m2), while small-bodied, more site-
aached sh <20 cm were counted within a 4m wide transect (Total area 300m2). Some mobile reef invertebrates
are only surveyed as part of the LTEMP benthic monitoring categorising threats to coral cover (e.g.: crown of
thorns starsh, drupella snails).
Reef sharks are monitored as part of broader reef sh surveys as described above. More detailed reef shark
studies involving acousc tags and satellite tracking will provide addional informaon on PIPA’s reef shark
populaons, however these methods are considered beyond the scope of the LTEMP.
LTEMP monitoring should be conducted at a minimum every 5 years. Surveys should priorise the permanent
survey locaons (Appendix N) sampling a minimum of three sites for each aspect (including lagoons where
relevant) of islands and atolls (where condions, resources and logiscs allow).

30
LTEMP Monitoring
Category Indicator Method
Seabirds
Presence of threatened/endangered species
LTEMP - Seabirds
Abundance of threatened/endangered species
Abundance of pelagic species
Abundance of rodent-sensive species
Abundance of globally important species
Abundance of sea-level/climate-change sensive species
Nesng success - all species
Behavioural responses - all species
Island
ecosystems
Presence of invasive fauna (rats, cats, ants)
LTEMP - Island Ecosystems
Presence of invasive plants
Abundance of invasive fauna (rats, cats, ants)
Cover of invasive plants
Inventory of plant species
Benthos
Visual signs of coral impacts
LTEMP Coral Refs
Percentage live coral cover to genus (or species) level
Percentage macroalgal cover
Percentage recently dead coral
Percentage live coral rock
Percentage coral rubble cover
Percentage sand cover
Incidence of coral bleaching
Incidence of coral disease
Incidence of coral predaon
Abundance of coral recruits
Fish &
Invertebrates
Abundance of all shes to species level
Biomass of all shes to species level
Abundance of drupella snails
Abundance of crown-of-thorns starsh
Sharks Abundance of all shark species to species level
Table 3: Long Term Ecosystem Monitoring Program indicator categories and methods to be used

31
8 Indicator proles
The status and trends of key values and issues
idened as important in the PIPA Management
Plan will be assessed by monitoring a range of indicators. These include indicators of island ecosystem condion,
such as bird populaons and island vegetaon, as well as indicators of coral reef and open ocean ecosystem
condions. They also include of indicators of human acvies in PIPA, such as visitor numbers and sh landings.
This secon provides a summary of the indicators that will be measured in the three levels of the PIPA Monitoring
and Evaluaon Program, grouped under the nine indicator categories, as specied in the PIPA Management Plan.
Each prole includes a brief explanaon of the nature and relevance of the indicator category, a short history of
monitoring and a summary of the status and trend of key indicators within each category. It concludes with a table
outlining the indicator variables used to capture informaon about the indicator category and the monitoring
program (Eyes on the Island, Core Monitoring or Long Term Ecological Monitoring) that will be collecng
informaon on each indicator.
i. Bird populaon trends;
ii. Ecosystem/vegetaon monitoring;
iii. Live coral cover trends;
iv. Reef sh populaon trends;
v. Reef shark populaon trends;
vi. Turtle populaon trends;
vii. Pelagic condions;
viii. Landings;
ix. Annual visitor number trends; and
x. Such other maers as required under the PIPA Management Plan.
8.1 Seabird Populaons
The Phoenix Islands are an internaonally important seabird haven supporng 19 species of breeding seabirds.
These include two Endangered species, the Phoenix petrel and White-throated Storm-petrel, and several globally
important breeding colonies of boobies, frigatebirds, tropicbirds and terns (Appendix A). Recent assessments17,
supported by CI and EcoOceania, indicate that populaons of many of these species declined in the late 20th
century and became conned to fewer islands in the PIPA. This decline included the two Endangered bird species
in the PIPA, which had by 2006 had become conned to one island, Rawaki.
This decline in species diversity and populaon sizes at PIPA is consistent with trends elsewhere in the Pacic. The
Pacic Islands have more threatened bird species per unit of land area than any other region in the world, and are
home to around a quarter of the world’s globally threatened bird species18. Populaon declines in the Pacic have
come about mainly through the arrival of invasive species, with a few arriving during the Austronesian selement
period19 , but as with most islands impacts have escalated during the period of European colonizaon and present
day trade20 .
8.1.1 History and status
In the PIPA, invasive species include the early-arriving Raus exulans, 19th century arrivals including the European
rabbit, and a plethora of more recent arrivals, including black rat, Asian rat, feral house cat, lantana and other
weeds. Despite the increased risk of invasive species, the Phoenix Islands through their very isolaon and rich
marine food resources, oer tremendous opportunies for recovering seabird populaons. Invasive species
17 Pierce, R. J. (2013). Birds and Invaders. Chapter 4, University of Chicago Press
18 Prevenng Exncons – Pacic, Birdlife Internaonal, Pacic http://www.birdlife.org/pacic/programmes/preventing-extinctions-pacic
19 Steadman, D. W. (1995). “Prehistoric exncons of Pacic island birds: biodiversity meets zooarchaeology.” science 267: 1123-1131
20 Croxall, J. P., Butchart, S. H., Lascelles, B. E. N., Staerseld, A. J., Sullivan, B. E. N., Symes, A., & Taylor, P. H. I. L. (2012). Seabird conserva-
on status, threats and priority acons: a global assessment. Bird Conservaon Internaonal, 22(1), 1-34

32
eradicaons in support of seabird recovery have already been achieved at Rawaki (European rabbit 2008), McKean
(Asian rat 2008) and Birnie (Pacic rat 2011). There are already signicant posive responses of seabirds to
these restoraon iniaves21. The challenge now is for the producvity of these seabird islands to be maintained
through strong biosecurity and surveillance, and for addional priority islands to be restored.
All PIPA islands have a unique assemblage of seabirds reecng each island’s habitat and invasive species history.
Appendix B provides current esmates of seabird abundance on each island. Despite its small size, Rawaki has the
greatest seabird breeding diversity (16 species) in the PIPA, because it was the only island never to be invaded by
rats.
McKean and Birnie Islands are now also very important for seabirds because both have been de-raed. Seabird
species (petrels, shearwaters and blue noddies) are starng to return to these two islands aer a long absence.
The dicult landing at all three of the small restored islands provides some natural biosecurity protecon, and
with further biosecurity precauons for landing pares these gains should be sustained into the future.
In 2015, on behalf of the Kiriba Government and the Phoenix Islands Protected Area Implementaon Oce
(PIO), seven signs were installed (on seven of the eight islands) detailing the MPA rules and restricons for each
island. Future installaons should include basic “no landing” signs that are easily visible from sea.
8.1.2 Indicators
The status and trend of seabird populaons is an important indicator of the health of the PIPA ecosystem, and of
the eecveness of management measures aimed at restoring and maintain island ecosystem health (such as the
range of biosecurity approaches implemented in recent years22).
The health of four important seabird groups will be monitored:
• Endangered species – Phoenix Petrel, White-throated Storm-petrel as the PIPA is one of only 3-4
archipelagos supporng these species, their strongholds being Kirima;
• Rodent-sensive species – above two plus Blue Noddy, Tropical shearwater, Christmas Shearwater as
these will connue to increase if rats and cats are absent;
• Globally important populaons – Red-tailed Tropicbird, Frigatebirds (2 species), Boobies (3 species),
other terns and noddies (5 species) as the PIPA is the most important breeding ground for some of these
species;
• Sea-level/climate-change sensive species (Wedge-tailed Shearwater, potenally others)
For each seabird group, populaon sizes will be esmated and monitored via a two-ered approach, involving
simple but very eecve y-on monitoring of key indicators, complemented by
more detailed surveys of populaon sizes and breeding producvity.
Due to the distribuon and habitat preferences of seabirds, monitoring will be
geographically focussed to address the following island-specic quesons:
1. Are the two endangered species above connuing to ulise Rawaki?
2. Are the two endangered species beginning to use other restored islands,
i.e. Birnie, McKean and any others as they are restored?
3. Are the rodent-sensive species (Blue Noddy, shearwaters) connuing
to recolonise/ulise other restored islands, i.e. Birnie and McKean and
others in future?
4. Are the globally important seabird populaons being sustained at healthy levels on all islands?
21 Pierce, R. J. (2013). Birds and Invaders. Chapter 4, University of Chicago Press
22 Republic of Kiriba Naonal Invasive Species Strategy and Acon Plan, 2016 Government of Kiriba
Lack of defensive behaviours
in conjuncon with small
populaons ensures oceanic
bird species are vulnerable to
introduced species. Globally the
greatest threat to seabirds is
invasive species aecng 75% of
all threatened seabird species.

33
Lack of defensive behaviours
in conjuncon with small
populaons ensures oceanic
bird species are vulnerable to
introduced species. Globally the
greatest threat to seabirds is
invasive species aecng 75% of
all threatened seabird species.
Category Indicator
Eyes on the Island
Core monitoring
LTEMP
Seabirds
Presence of threatened/endangered species ✓✓✓
Abundance of threatened/endangered species ✘ ✓ ✓
Abundance of pelagic species ✘ ✓ ✓
Abundance of rodent-sensive species ✘ ✓ ✓
Abundance of globally important species ✘ ✓ ✓
Abundance of sea-level/climate-change sensive species ✘ ✓ ✓
Nesng success - all species ✘ ✘ ✓
Behavioural responses - all species ✘ ✘ ✓
Table 4: Indicator categories and methods to be used for seabird monitoring

34
8.2 Island ecosystem and vegetaon
monitoring
PIPA includes eight atolls and low reef islands
comprising, from smallest to largest, McKean, Birnie,
Rawaki, Nikumaroro, Manra, Orona, Enderbury and Kanton. The islands are crical habitats for seabirds, and have
therefore been a focus for removal of predatory invasive alien species (IAS). The ora of the islands, although
limited in diversity because of the dominant oceanic environment and low rainfall, is nonetheless dominated by
nave species. While the three smaller islands have been mostly restored to natural biodiversity, the ve larger
islands sll have introduced plants and animals, some of them invasive. Previous monitoring eorts have been
strongly supported by CI and EcoOceania. Monitoring restored islands is important to detect any re-introducons,
while monitoring on the larger islands is important to detect arrival or spread of invasive species and to guide and
evaluate future restoraon eorts.
8.2.1 History and status
PIPA has only one selement of about 30-50 people living on Kanton, made up of government employees and
their families. The other seven islands of the PIPA are uninhabited. PIPA provides protecon for terrestrial habitats
on each of its islands safeguarding globally important nesng grounds for seabirds, including endangered species,
non-breeding feeding grounds for migrant shorebirds, and several tradional plants that have cultural and
medicinal values in Kiriba, but are now depleted on more populated islands. These include Pandanus tectorius,
Morinda citrifolia, Guearda speciosa and Sida fallax, for which the PIPA provides a natural genec depository.
Several invasive plants are already established
at the PIPA, including Lantana and Pluchea, both
of which are present on Kanton and have been
reported in the past from other islands, including
Orona. Casuarina equisifolia and several garden
escapees are also established at Kanton. The three
southern islands support plantaons of coconuts
which were planted between the 1890s and 1940s.
Terrestrial restoraon eorts in the Phoenix Islands
began with a conservaon survey in 2006, followed
by New Zealand and Packard-CI-CEPF funded
eradicaons of rats (McKean) and rabbits (Rawaki)
on two islands in 2008, and rats on Birnie in 2011
(see Table below). Enderbury was also treated for
rats in 2011 but this operaon failed. The biota on
the islands of Rawaki and McKean has responded posively from restoraon acvies conducted in 2008, which
has increased the available nesng sites on both islands and allowed more successful nesng of many species in
the absence of pests. Plants such as Sida fallax, Portulaca lutea and Boerhavia spp. for instance have recovered
spectacularly from over 100 years of rabbit impact23. Birnie appears to be following this paern where a 2013 visit
revealed that a greater diversity of seabirds was present and breeding there than had been recorded during the
presence of rats. The next highest priority islands for restoraon are Enderbury (rats) and Kanton (rats and cats),
with funding the only obstacle to implementaon.
23 Pierce, R. J. (2013). Birds and Invaders. Chapter 4, University of Chicago Press

35
Island Pest mammal status Comments
Rawaki Rabbits (targeted 2008) Eradicaon declared successful December 2009
McKean Asian rat (targeted 2008) Eradicaon declared successful November 2009
Birnie Pacic rat (targeted 2011) Eradicaon declared successful May 2013
Enderbury Pacic rat (targeted 2011) Rat eradicaon aempted 2011; failed
Kanton Cat, two Raus spp. Pacic rat and black rat present
Orona Cat, Pacic rat Dogs and pigs previously present now gone
Nikumaroro Pacic rat
Manra Cat, two Raus spp. Cats, Pacic rat and black rat present
The priories for PIPA terrestrial monitoring, as idened in the PIPA Management Plan and Republic of Kiriba
Naonal Invasive Species Strategy and Acon Plan (2016) are:
1. Undertake monitoring of biota responses of the three restored island ecosystems and others that are
restored in future and compare with those of unmanaged islands;
2. Undertake surveillance of all restored islands to ensure early detecon of newly arriving IAS;
3. Undertake surveillance of all other PIPA islands to ensure early detecon of newly arriving IAS.
8.2.2 Indicators
Indicators of changing inuences or condions on PIPA’s islands include signs of lier/trash, seaweed washing
up on beaches, changes in water colour and the presence of high des and substanal rainwater events. These
indicators will be monitored regularly by residents of Kanton, and opportuniscally at other islands.
Key indicators of the health of island ecosystems include seabirds (described above), vegetaon (nave and IAS)
and invasive animals. Invasive mammals, plants and insects are the main IAS surveillance targets. It is important to
detect any invasive species early to help with eradicaon.
Category Indicator
Eyes on the Island
Core monitoring
LTEMP
Island ecosystems and vegetaon
Presence of lier/trash ✓ ✘ ✘
Presence of seaweed ✓ ✘ ✘
Presence of unusually high des ✓ ✘ ✘
Presence of unusual water colour events ✓ ✘ ✘
Timing and amount of rainfall events ✓ ✘ ✘
Presence of invasive fauna (rats, cats, ants) ✓✓✓
Presence of invasive plants ✓✓✓
Abundance of invasive fauna (rats, cats, ants) ✘ ✓ ✓
Cover of invasive plants ✘ ✓ ✓
Inventory of plant species ✘ ✘ ✓
Table 6: Indicator categories and methods to be used for island ecosystems and vegetaon monitoring
Table 5: Pest mammal status in PIPA 2006-13

36
8.3 Live coral cover/benthos
Corals and other organisms that grow aached to the seabed (benthos) play crucial roles in building and
sustaining coral reef ecosystems. Many species produce calcium carbonate skeletons that are the physical
foundaons for coral reefs, form structures that provide habitat, or consolidate and bind calcareous material to
maintain reefs in the face of erosive forces like waves. Hard corals (scleracnia) are especially important, providing
structure and habitat while contribung the majority of the calcareous material that comprises acvely growing
coral reefs and islands. The health of coral communies and other key benthic populaons are thus valuable
indicators of the overall condion and trend of coral reef ecosystems. Corals are suscepble to a wide range of
stresses, and are especially sensive indicators of pressures associated with climate change, such as increasing
sea temperatures. Coral populaons are also remarkably resilient, although this can be compromised by exposure
to chronic stressors such as polluon and changes in temperature. The resilience of coral reefs to major threats,
such as those associated with climate change, depends also on many other species and processes. The coral reefs
of PIPA have the potenal to be some of the most resilient in the world due to their remote locaon and low
exposure to local stressors such as polluon and overshing. However, this history of low stress might also make
them suscepble to new pressures. Measuring a suite of indicators that together represent the key drivers of coral
reef resilience is crucial to eecve management of the Phoenix Islands Protected Area.
8.3.1 History and Status
The coral reefs of the Phoenix Islands are relavely small, covering an area approximately 34km2 24. Marine
ecosystem surveys of PIPA’s reefs began in 1972-73 with a comprehensive study of the Kanton Atoll25, including
work on coral taxonomy and species richness26 and coral reef assemblages27. Regular coral reef monitoring began
in 2000 as research partners began the process of systemacally monitoring the biodiversity of PIPA’s coral reefs28.
Baseline surveys conducted in 2000 found coral cover of reefs of the Phoenix Islands averaged 58.1% with some
reefs exhibing 100% coral cover29.
The coral reefs of the Phoenix Islands were severely damaged
during the mass-bleaching event that occurred in 2002.
Mortality at some locaons was esmated between 62-100% in
some locaons30. Recent invesgaons have shown promising
recovery due to the abundance and diversity of herbivorous sh,
limited shing and lile to no polluon31. The remoteness of
PIPA’s reefs acts as a refuge for many corals from anthropogenic
threats and localised stressors common in many developed
coastlines. The events of 2000 and subsequent coral mortality
illustrates the PIPA’s remoteness alone will not eecvely
migate the eects of climate change. With the increasing
frequency and intensity of natural disturbances, PIPA’s resilience
will become increasingly important in the face of climate related
24 Obura, D., Donner, S., Walsh, S., Mangubhai, S., & Rotjan, R. (2016). Phoenix Islands Protected Area Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment and
Management.
25 Smith, S. V., & Henderson, R. S. (1976). An environmental survey of Canton Atoll Lagoon, 1973 (No. NUC-TP-395). SPACE AND MISSILE SYSTEMS
ORGANIZATION LOS ANGELES CA.
26 Maragos, J. E., & Jokiel, P. L. (1976). Reef corals of Canton atoll: I. Zoogeography. An Environmental Survey of Canton Atoll Lagoon 1973. Final Report NUC
TP 395, Naval Undersea Center, Hawaii Laboratory, Kailua, Hawaii, p 55-70, June 1976. 3 tab, 19 ref.
27 Jokiel, P. L., & Maragos, J. E. (1976). Reef corals of Canton atoll: II. Local distribuon. An Environmental Survey of Canton Atoll Lagoon 1973. Final Report
NUC TP 395, Naval Undersea Center, Hawaii Laboratory, Kailua, Hawaii, p 71-97, June 1976. 7 g, 10 tab, 18 ref.
28 Rotjan. R., Jamieson.R., Carr.b., Kaufman.L., Mangubhai.S., Obura.D., Pierce.R., Rimonjj.B.,Ris.B., Sandin.S., Shelley.P., Sumaila.U.R., Taei.S., Tausig.H.,
Terorokojj.T., Thorrold.S., Wikgren.B., Toatu.T., Stone.G., (2014). Establishment, management, and maintenance of the Phoenix Islands Protected Area. Marine
Managed Areas and Fisheries, 69, 289
29 Obura, D., Stone, G., Mangubhai, S., Bailey, S., Yoshinaga, A., Holloway, C., & Barrel, R. (2011). Baseline marine biological surveys of the Phoenix Islands,
July 2000. Atoll Research Bullen, (589).
30 Alling, A., Doherty, O., Logan, H., Feldman, L., & Dustan, P. (2007). Catastrophic coral mortality in the remote central Pacic Ocean: Kiriba, Phoenix
islands. Atoll Research Bullen, 551, 1-19.
31 Rotjan. R., Jamieson.R., Carr.b., Kaufman.L., Mangubhai.S., Obura.D., Pierce.R., Rimonjj.B.,Ris.B., Sandin.S., Shelley.P., Sumaila.U.R., Taei.S., Tausig.H.,
Terorokojj.T., Thorrold.S., Wikgren.B., Toatu.T., Stone.G., (2014). Establishment, management, and maintenance of the Phoenix Islands Protected Area. Marine
Managed Areas and Fisheries, 69, 289.
Figure 8: The percentage of corals that were normal,
parally bleached, bleached or dead at each of the atolls
and islands in the Phoenix group. Source: Phoenix Islands
Protected Area Expedion 2015 – Assessment Report.
NEAq2015

37
coral losses around the world. This will be especially relevant should PIPA’s reef prove either resilient to climate
related stressors or eecvely illustrate strong recovery abilies.
Following inial reef surveys in 2000, comprehensive mul-disciplinary studies of PIPA’s reefs were conducted in
2002, 2005, 2009, 2012, 2015,32. These expedions have supported the collecon of data to service the needs
of PIPA management. Addionally, and increasingly, these expedions have focused on addressing the research
objecves outlined in the PIPA research vision 2011-2020.
Monitoring coinciding with temperature induced bleaching events has highlighted trends and changes to the
coral reef environments provide insights into changes in community assemblages33. In 2002-3, the Phoenix Islands
experienced a bleaching event because of increased sea surface temperatures. Assessments in 2004-5 indicated
the community of Acropora spp. corals inside the lagoon of Kanton suered near 100% mortality34, with an
esmated 60% mortality of corals throughout the island group35. By 2009, the Phoenix coral reefs had shown rapid
recovery, regaining signicant coral cover in 50% of survey locaons, and nearly 100% recovery in some locaons.
In studies of the coral reefs of PIPA there was a low evidence of predaon by crown-of-thorns starsh and Drupella
snails. In addion, signicant coral disease has not been recorded, despite signicant mortality aributed to coral
bleaching in 200236.
Since 2000 the long-term monitoring program has been designed to examine various biological paerns in PIPA
including biodiversity, abundance and biomass of crical corals, sh and invertebrates. The long-term monitoring
data these surveys provide support management of PIPA. Previously, the benthos has been monitored using a
mix of visual assessments, haphazardly chosen photoquadrats, and opportuniscally placed transects, but will be
expanded to include permanent benthic photoquadrats and selement plates37.
8.3.2 Indicators
Monitoring coral reef health by measuring the condion and trend of benthic species like corals has been a core
focus of coral reef monitoring for decades. There is a large body of knowledge, and strong convergence among
experts, on the choice of indicators. The PIPA Monitoring and Evaluaon Programme will monitor the health
of coral reef systems using a range of indicators that align with contemporary best pracce, and which also
connue the legacy of benthic monitoring begun prior to the ocial declaraon of PIPA. Standard and easily
measured indicators such as percentage cover of
major categories of benthos (live coral, dead coral,
macroalgae, etc.) are the foundaon of the Core
Monitoring Program, while addional indicators
that require greater experse but which provide
deeper insights into reef resilience (outlined in
Obura and Grimsditch, 2009)38 will be monitored
in the connuaon of the Long Term Ecosystem
Monitoring Program. Key resilience indicators
are also found under the secon on Reef Fish
Populaon Trends.
32 Phoenix Islands Protected Area Expedion 2015 – Assessment Report. New England Aquarium
33 Rotjan. R., Jamieson.R., Carr.b., Kaufman.L., Mangubhai.S., Obura.D., Pierce.R., Rimonjj.B.,Ris.B., Sandin.S., Shelley.P., Sumaila.U.R., Taei.S., Tausig.H.,
Terorokojj.T., Thorrold.S., Wikgren.B., Toatu.T., Stone.G., (2014). Establishment, management, and maintenance of the Phoenix Islands Protected Area. Marine
Managed Areas and Fisheries, 69, 289.
34 Obura, D. and S. Mangubhai (2011). “Coral mortality associated with thermal uctuaons in the Phoenix Islands, 2002–2005.” Coral reefs 30(3): 607-619.
35 Alling, A., Doherty, O., Logan, H., Feldman, L., & Dustan, P. (2007). Catastrophic coral mortality in the remote central Pacic Ocean: Kiriba, Phoenix
islands. Atoll Research Bullen, 551, 1-19.
36 Obura, D. and S. Mangubhai (2011). “Coral mortality associated with thermal uctuaons in the Phoenix Islands, 2002–2005.” Coral reefs 30(3): 607-619.
37 Rotjan, R.D. and D.O. Obura. 2010. Phoenix Islands Protected Area 10-Year Research Vision. New England Aquarium. 36 pgs.
38 Obura, D., & Grimsditch, G. (2009). Resilience assessment of coral reefs: assessment protocol for coral reefs, focusing on coral bleaching and thermal
stress. Gland: IUCN.

38
Category Indicator
Eyes on the Island
Core monitoring
LTEMP
Coral reef benthos
Visual signs of coral impacts ✓✓✓
Percentage live coral cover ✘ ✓ ✓
Percentage macroalgal cover ✘ ✓ ✓
Percentage recently dead coral ✘ ✓ ✓
Percentage live coral rock ✘ ✓ ✓
Percentage coral rubble cover ✘ ✓ ✓
Percentage sand cover ✘ ✓ ✓
Incidence of coral bleaching ✘ ✓ ✓
Incidence of coral disease ✘ ✓ ✓
Incidence of coral predaon ✘ ✓ ✓
Abundance of drupella snails ✘ ✓ ✓
Abundance of coral recruits ✘ ✘ ✓
Table 7: Indicator categories and methods to be used for live coral cover and benthos monitoring.

39
8.4 Reef sh and Invertebrate populaons
Reef sh and invertebrates are a crical part of the living
resources on Pacic coral reef ecosystems. They are
important sources of food for subsistence shers, potenal sources of income to arsanal and commercial shers,
and they play key roles in ecosystem resilience. The condion of reef sh populaons is related to reef and overall
ecosystem health, and can be an indicator of changes in other oceanographic processes and funcon. Regular
collecon of informaon on the status and trend of species that are important to reef resilience, or are important
indicators of changes in shing pressures, is essenal to eecve management of PIPA.
8.4.1 History and Status
Abundant and diverse reef sh communies inhabit the waters surrounding the Phoenix Islands. At present,
there are 516 species of shallow reef sh recorded for the PIPA with potenally many more sll to be discovered.
Comprehensive reef sh surveys have been conducted regularly since 2000 with increasing level of detail.
Fish surveys to a family level idencaon were conducted in in 2000, 2002 and 2005 and to a species level of
idencaon in 2009, 2012, and 2015 as part of the LTEMP (Figure 9). These surveys highlight the abundance
of reef sh across all trophic groups39. Survey species diversity in PIPA is consistent with other remote, relavely
prisne locaons in the Pacic. Exceponal sh size and abundance are indicave of the quality of PIPA’s reef
habitats and the relavely low level of exploitaon and disturbance. Exceponal communies of surgeonshes
(Acanthuridae), parroish (Scaridae), pelagic jacks (Carangidae) and populaons of Napoleon Wrasse (Cheilinus
undulatus) are posive indicators of an absence of local shing and other exploive pressures.
Spectacular mass spawning by parroish and wrasse
species have been observed and documented within
PIPA. Also, large shoals of the threatened Bumphead
Parroish (Bulbometopon muricatum) and abundance
of Napoleon Wrasse (Cheilinus undulatus) have been
witnessed in Orona40. PIPA hosts a large proporon
of regional (Central Pacic) and local endemic
species, species new to science, and unusual species
assemblages. The near-prisne coral reefs provide
important protected habitat for populaons of higher
predators such as sharks.
Recent expedions to the PIPA connue to highlight
the incredible abundance and health of reef sh
assemblages across all islands and atolls. The
maintenance of sh abundance and biomass is testament to the health of PIPA’s sh populaons and how
remoteness and an absence of disturbances can maintain populaons over me (Table 2).
Mobile reef invertebrates were observed in low numbers
in baseline studies. Abundances of popular beche-de-mer
invertebrates - sea cucumbers, sea urchins – have tradionally
been very low. An almost complete absence of crown-of-
thorns starsh (COTS) ensures the likelihood of outbreaks, as
has occurred on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia, is unlikely.
The one excepon has been the recorded abundances of
threatened species of giant clams, specically Tridacna
39 Mangubhai, S., Strauch, A. M., Obura, D. O., Stone, G., & Rotjan, R. D. (2014). Short-term changes of sh assemblages observed in the
near-prisne reefs of the Phoenix Islands. Reviews in sh biology and sheries, 24(2), 505-518.
40 Allen, G., & Bailey, S. (2011). Reef shes of the Phoenix Islands, Central Pacic Ocean. Atoll Research Bullen, (589).
Figure 9 : Density esmates (number of sh per unit area) of shes
from the Phoenix Islands. Bars are separated by trophic level. Error
bars represent standard error of total biomass for each island. Source:
NEAq Expedion Report 2015
Year Average Fish
Density (#/m2)
Average Fish Bio-
mass (g/m2)
2009 5.5 259.6
2012 4.1 220.9
2015 5.29 235
Table 8: Fish density and biomass data from recent expedions.

40
maxima and T. squamosal, is posive, however the Orona populaon was patchy and spaally diuse41.
Giant clams provide habitat complexity and homes to a variety of epibionts. Clams also have signicant water
ltraon qualies and can assist in managing water quality through their water ltraon capabilies. Sea urchins
are crical herbivorous grazers on many coral reefs worldwide and sea cucumbers graze on substrate detritus
removing excessive nutrients from that habitat. Giant clams, sea cucumbers and sea urchins are oen targeted
for beche-de-mer sheries. COTS are voracious corallivores able to decimate coral cover in a short me. With the
proposed increase in residents and possibly visitors to PIPA, populaons of these popular reef invertebrates will be
monitored to assess recovery and potenal declines.
8.4.2 Indicators
Total sh species counts will be conducted under the LTEMP. Where total species counts are not completed,
indicator species have been selected to include shes common to coral reefs that full important ecological roles
and are potenally threatened or at risk from either past or future disturbances. Abundance of selected reef
sh and invertebrates are monitored using the core monitoring protocol. Indicators include key sh families, in
addion to key indicator species, such as Napoleon wrasse and bumphead parroish which have been highlighted
for their conservaon signicance. Addional sighngs of iconic or rare species (for example manta rays - Manta
birostris, dolphins – Tursiops spp) should also be recorded).
The abundance of key invertebrate families are also monitored including giant clams (Tridacnidae), sea urchins
(echinoidea), sea cucumbers (holothurians), and crown-of-thorns starsh (COTS - Acanthaster planci).
More detailed surveys under the LTEMP, all sh species are surveyed for abundance and biomass to the
lowest recognizable taxon. Invertebrates generally are not captured in the LTEMP however some reef dwelling
invertebrate habitats are the subject of targeted studies during expedions. However coral predators (such as
COTS and drupella snails) are likely to be captured in benthic cover surveys.
41 Obura, D., Stone, G., Mangubhai, S., Bailey, S., Yoshinaga, A., Holloway, C., & Barrel, R. (2011). Baseline marine biological surveys of the
Phoenix Islands, July 2000. Atoll Research Bullen, (589).

41
Category Indicator
Eyes on the Island
Core monitoring
LTEMP
Reef sh and invertebrates
Presence of unusual sh die os ✓ ✘ ✘
Presence of unusual sh behaviour ✓ ✘ ✘
Abundance of angelshes ✘✓✘
Abundance of bueryshes ✘✓✘
Abundance of surgeonshes ✘✓✘
Abundance of Humphead parroish ✘✓✘
Abundance of other parroishes ✘✓✘
Abundance of groupers ✘✓✘
Abundance of snappers ✘✓✘
Abundance of Napoleon wrasse ✘✓✘
Abundance of other wrasses ✘✓✘
Abundance of jacks/trevallies ✘✓✘
Abundance of triggershes ✘✓✘
Abundance of emperors ✘✓✘
Abundance of sharks ✘✓✘
Abundance of sea urchins ✘✓✘
Abundance of giant clams ✘✓✘
Abundance of sea cucumbers ✘✓✘
Abundance of Drupella Snails ✘ ✓ ✓
Abundance of crown-of-thorns starsh ✘ ✓ ✓
Abundance of all shes to species level ✘ ✘ ✓
Biomass of all shes to species level ✘ ✘ ✓
Table 9: Indicator categories and methods to be used for reef sh and invertebrate monitoring.

42
8.5 Reef shark populaons
As apex predators, sharks are an in integral part of the
reef ecosystem and an important control mechanism
on other reef organisms. Shark populaons are
declining globally due to overshing as a target species in addion to incidental by-catch.
PIPA’s isolaon, its shallow atoll lagoons and islands surrounded by vibrant coral reef communies is an
ideal locaon for reef shark populaons. With the decimaon of shark populaons around the world due to
overexploitaon, it is parcularly important to monitor the trajectory of shark populaons in PIPA, and to quickly
respond to any emerging threats.
8.5.1 History and status
Research has been conducted on shark populaons in PIPA’s shallow reef environments, as well as in deep
waters using remote cameras. Recent studies recorded six species of sharks around the Phoenix Islands. Grey
reef (Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos), blackp (Carcharhinus melanopterus) and whitep (Triaenodon obseus)
reef sharks were the most common around healthy coral reefs, with Nikumaroro Island exhibing the highest
overall abundances 42. During baseline surveys, addional species sighted, but less frequently, included grey
nurse (Carcharias taurus), silverp (Carcharhinus albimarginatus) and scalloped hammerhead (Sphyrna lewini)
sharks. Deep water cameras recorded new sighngs of six-gilled (Hexanchus griseus) and Pacic sleeper sharks
(Somniosus pacicus).
Around the turn of the century, permission was provided to a single foreign shing vessel in the waters
surrounding four Phoenix Islands. Addionally, a small human selement was established on Orona where they
harvested sharks for consumpon and the burgeoning shark n trade. Consequently, shark populaons dropped
42 Rotjan. R., Jamieson.R., Carr.b., Kaufman.L., Mangubhai.S., Obura.D., Pierce.R., Rimonjj.B.,Ris.B., Sandin.S., Shelley.P., Sumaila.U.R., Taei.S., Tausig.H., Terorokojj.T., Thorrold.S., Wikgren.B.,
Toatu.T., Stone.G., (2014). Establishment, management, and maintenance of the Phoenix Islands Protected Area. Marine Managed Areas and Fisheries, 69, 289

43
dramacally43. During a 2002 expedion by the New England Aquarium not a single shark was spoed at Orona
44 The apparent damage to shark populaons by foreign shing vessels underlines their fragility. Recent records
of healthy shark populaons illustrate the resilience of PIPA’s reef populaons, when protected, highlighng the
need for connued enforcement of regulaons.
PIPA’s shark populaons are dominated by reef sharks inhabing lagoons and surrounding islands. A range of
methods and survey techniques can be applied to measuring shark populaons and dynamics. Recent research
by AIMS has indicated that that shark populaons and dynamics recorded by visual census of cizen sciensts
mirrored those from tagging studies45. Large numbers of juvenile sharks spoed in waters surrounding PIPA’s
islands on recent expedions suggest the benets of full protecon of PIPA is bearing fruit. Cauon must be
taken with conclusions as data from the 2015 NEAq suggested reef shark abundances had declined from baseline
condions. As a keystone species, it is clear monitoring shark populaons into the future must remain a clear
focus to support management acons for protecon. The NEAq connues to conduct a number of detailed
studies on shark genecs and movements within PIPA, inserng acousc receivers in sharks caught at Kanton
and Nikumaroro. These studies can provide more detailed informaon to populaon dynamics and connecvity
between the islands however such studies are beyond the scope of this monitoring and evaluaon plan.
8.5.2 Indicators
All shark species are important and will be recorded during all underwater surveys. At a minimum reef shark
species to be recorded include grey reef shark (Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos), blackp reef shark (Carcharhinus
melanopterus) and whitep reef shark (Triaenodon obseus). Addional species that may be encountered (and
therefore should be recorded) or for more detailed monitoring include (but is not limited to) tawny nurse shark
(Nebrius ferrugineus), silverp shark (Carcharhinus albimarginatus) and the Scalloped hammerhead shark
(Sphyrna lewini).
Table 10: Indicator categories and methods to be used for reef sharks monitoring.
Category Indicator
Eyes on the Island
Core monitoring
LTEMP
Reef sharks Presence of juvenile shark aggregaons ✓✘✓
Abundance of all shark species ✘ ✓ ✓
43 Obura, D., Stone, G., Mangubhai, S., Bailey, S., Yoshinaga, A., Holloway, C., & Barrel, R. (2011). Baseline marine biological surveys of the Phoenix Islands, July
2000. Atoll Research Bullen, (589).
44 Obura, D., Stone, G.S., 2002. Phoenix Islands. Summary of Marine and Terrestrial Assessments, Conducted in the Republic of Kiriba, June 5–10, Primal
Ocean Project Technical Report: NEAq-03-02.
45 Vianna, G. M., Meekan, M. G., Bornovski, T. H., & Meeuwig, J. J. (2014). Acousc telemetry validates a cizen science approach for monitoring sharks on
coral reefs. PLoS One, 9(4), e95565.

44
8.6 Turtle populaons
Sea turtles are long-lived, slow growing animals that ulise a range of habitats over the course of their lives.
Sea turtle populaons are subject to a variety of natural and anthropogenic disturbances. Environmental
variability, habitat loss and degradaon, and direct and indirect eects of shing can all eect turtle populaons.
Furthermore, the eects of climate change have the potenal to skew sex raos (determined by incubaon
temperatures) and habitat loss due to rising sea levels can inuence nesng behaviours and success. Research has
shown green turtles have exhibited an ability to adapt to environmental stochascity caused by El Nino events46.
Major changes to environmental condions have aected turtle populaons worldwide, leading to drasc declines
in their numbers. Like coral cover and reef sh populaons, PIPA’s remoteness and limited human interacons
may be important as a refuge for PIPA’s sea turtle populaons. Monitoring of sea turtles is important to ensure
the sustainability of the populaons in the Phoenix Islands and potenally as indicators for more discrete changes.
For example, ooded nests because of rising sea levels and higher des may be an indicator of the eects
of a changing climate. The success of nesng is dependent on a healthy adult turtle populaon. In addion,
invasive predators may consume eggs thereby compromising nesng success. Sea turtle populaons may also be
inuenced by changes in trophic dynamics induced by climate change or other migang factors.
8.6.1 History and Status
Green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas) are common throughout the Phoenix Islands. Baseline studies observed
turtles at all islands in PIPA. Green turtles (Chelonia mydas) and hawksbill turtles (Eretmochyles imbricata) are
the dominant species with green turtles outnumbering hawksbill by a factor of 20:1. Turtles were surveyed both
above and below the water with the most signicant locaons for turtles being Manra for abundance of turtles
sighted during inwater survey, and Enderbury, Nikumaroro and Kanton for nesng acvity47.
A decline in sea turtle populaons was seen between 2000 and 2002. The decline was most evident on Kanton
potenally linked to the subsistence shing by the resident populaon harvesng turtles for food and trade in
shells. A small selement was also established on Orono between 2001-2003 which, as evidenced by turtle shells,
potenally contributed to declines in the region. Marked declines were also evidenced in Manra and Enderbury
and less so for Nikumaroro and Rawaki islands. These declines can potenally be aributed as bycatch by foreign
shing eets. A 2017 study (Reef Ecologic 2017) recorded turtles at Kanton which supported earlier assessments
for turtle abundance with a mean number of turtles observed just fewer than 2 per sample48.
Under the Phoenix Islands Management Plan, all turtle species are fully protected throughout PIPA Expansion of
the no take zones in 2015 will likely assist turtle populaons to connue a posive recovery trajectory by reducing
the threat posed by incidental bycatch, however climate change inuences, may play a role in future nesng
success.
Regular surveys of species diversity, abundance and nesng success are to be conducted through a combinaon
of marine monitoring (in conjuncon with planned coral reef monitoring programs) and island nesng surveys.
Nesng surveys will be conducted by residents on Kanton and potenally coordinated and conducted as part of
broader biosecurity surveys.
8.6.2 Indicators
All turtle species are important and any encounters should be recorded during all surveys. The only recorded
species for the PIPA include green turtles (Chelonia mydas) and hawksbill turtles (Eretmochyles imbricata) and
these remain the most likely to be encountered during turtle monitoring.
46 Heppell, S. S., Snover, M. L., & Crowder, L. B. (2002). 1 I Sea Turtle Populaon Ecology. The biology of sea turtles, 2, 275.
47 Obura, D., Mangubhai, S., & Yoshinaga, A. (2011). Sea Turtles of the Phoenix Islands, 2000-2002. Atoll Research Bullen, (589).

45
Category Indicator
Eyes on the Island
Core monitoring
LTEMP
Turtles
Presence Turtle nesng acvity ✓ ✘ ✘
Abundance of nesng acvity ✓ ✘ ✘
Abundance of turtles ✘✓✘
Table 11: Indicator categories and methods to be used for turtle monitoring.

46
8.7 Fisheries
Fisheries, in the context of PIPA, have three primary elements to consider for management. Firstly, there
is the need to monitor the protected area to ensure eecve enforcement following closure to all shing.
Fisheries impacts can have a lasng and detrimental eect on oceanic resources if not managed and conserved
appropriately. For decades, the remote expanses of PIPA have oered some form of protecon to overshing and
damaging shing methods. With increasing technology, industrialisaon and protability of oceanic sheries,
remote seascapes alone do not prevent overexploitaon of ecosystem resources. Promisingly, new technology
through the access of big data and satellite tracking can assist in providing monitoring data to assess the
eecveness of closures in places like PIPA and whether these closures are being accepted49.
Secondly, measuring the eect sheries the closure has on landings in the PIPA EEZ will be an important queson
to answer into the future. Oceanic shing grounds provide substanal economic benets to Pacic island naons
through the sale of shing licences to Distant Water Fishing Naons (DWFN). Therefore, the introducon of
marine protected areas has the potenal to signicantly aect the income streams of those naons who invest
large ocean expanses in marine protected areas, like PIPA. One of the arguments for the development of marine
protected areas is known as the ‘spillover eect’, the net movement of sh from marine reserves to the remaining
shing grounds50. The potenal increase in sheries take beyond the borders of those protected areas is lauded
as a signicant long term benet of marine protected areas. The potenal for increased catches may, in the
long term, provide increased licence income due to the increased availability of marine resources. Evidence of a
‘spillover’ eect may be many years away. In the meanme, management should take steps to measure sheries
take from areas outside PIPA to measure the change in sheries landings from the PIPA EEZ. Ulmately the aim is
to measure the change in catch that can be aributed to PIPA’s closure.
Finally, managing the subsistence take from Kanton is crical to ensure the sustainability of connued take in
49 Witkin, T., Reyer, A., & Savitz, J. (2016). Global shing watch reveals a sheries management success in the Phoenix Islands. Ocean Rep, 1-20.
50 Buxton, C. D., Hartmann, K., Kearney, R., & Gardner, C. (2014). When is spillover from marine reserves likely to benet sheries?. PloS one, 9(9), e107032.
Figure 10: Evidence of the eecveness of the Global Fishing Watch technology illustrated in images pre-and post closure. From January 1 unl October 15,
2014, 5,206 likely shing days by 155 vessels were recorded within PIPA. During the same dates in 2015, following closure of PIPA to all commercial shing,
only 16 likely shing days by 12 vessels were recorded This is a 99.7% decline and illustrates the eecveness of monitoring tools to illustrate the eecveness
of management and enforcement acvies. Source: Witkin et al ( 2016) Note, in 2013, a new agreement on PIPA’s boundaries was signed between Kiriba,
Tokelau. Consequently, the PIPA boundaries given to the Forum Fisheries Agency varies from the current boundaries authorised in the PIPA (Amendment)
Regulaons 2014 (Annex 1) [state of PIPA 2015]. This misalignment remains an issue to be resolved with the Forum Fisheries Agency.

47
subsistence basis. Coastal communies tradionally
rely on the ocean to provide sucient resources to
support their subsistence requirements the world over.
Subsistence shing has long been an element of common sheries throughout the Pacic. Between 200 and 300
species of sh are caught in coastal sheries in the Pacic Islands ulising a range of shing gear types51. Where
small communies have been established in PIPA, in the absence of substanal terrestrial resources, oceanic
resources are important to sustain these populaons. Historically, where populaons remain small, subsistence
sheries are sustainable, providing sucient resources whilst having minimal eect on the eected ecosystem.
Managing subsistence sheries in the face of potenal growth and development remains the challenge. If the PIPA
is to open its shores to tourists, who may interact with sh populaons as consumers or shers, the potenal for
increased impacts on these limited resources must be carefully monitored and managed to ensure sustainability
and maintenance of the ecosystem values.
8.7.1 History and status
Kiriba’s sheries law has implemented several strategies and restricons on shing within PIPA. Conservaon
measures have included the restricon of the use of shing aggregaon devices (FADs) at certain mes of the
year and the introducon of observers on all DWFN vessels within PIPA. At the designaon of the PIPA, 3.1% was
designated a no-take zone. Apart from tuna sheries (long line and purse seine), commercial shing was banned
within a 12-naucal mile zone around all the Phoenix Islands, except Kanton where the designated no shing
zone extended to 60 naucal miles. The exclusion around Kanton provided an excepon for arsanal subsistence
shing by the resident populaon. The PIPA MC had originally intended to increase the no-shing zone to 25% of
PIPA’s total area, however in 2014 it was decided to increase the no-take area to include almost all the protected
area (99.4%), excluding 0.6% immediately around Kanton for subsistence shing needs. Monitoring of the region
is challenging and assistance is provided by nearby countries through internaonal surveillance iniaves. New
satellite based technologies are providing realisc opons to support the management and enforcement of
sheries bans in remote, dicult to access locaons like PIPA
The globally used, open source AIS (automac ship idencaon system) oers opportunies for monitoring
of vessel movements in PIPA. The Kiriba Ministry of Fisheries and Marime Police currently ulises vessel
monitoring systems (VMS) technology to monitor shing acvity in the PIPA. The tradional vessel monitoring
systems (VMS) are usually closed source systems that do not operate well across jurisdiconal boundaries. The
development by Oceana of the Global Fishing Watch (www.globalshingwatch.org), a publicly accessible online
technology plaorm tracking global shing acvity, enables the ability to improve the transparency of shing
acvies in the PIPA. Global Fishing watch provides near real me monitoring of shing acvity translang data
into easy to read, readily available maps highlighng acvity in exclusive economic zones (EEZs) and marine
protected areas (MPAs)52.The addion of a virtual electronic perimeter using geofence technology that conforms
to the boundaries of the PIPA has enhanced the vessel monitoring and reporng capabilies in the region.
Prior to its closure in 2015, commercial shing was commonplace in PIPA. Data illustrated a sharp drop in shing
acvity following closure of the PIPA on 1 January 201553. Internaonally, only a small percentage of vessels are
required to carry AIS and even then, the system may be used improperly combining AIS with registraon details
of the Internaonal Marime Organisaon (IMO), as required by many large tuna shing vessels, could assist in
improving management and enforcement of no-take zones like PIPA.
51 Guide and informaon sheets for shing communies / produced by the Secretariat of the Pacic Community (SPC) 2011
52 Witkin.T., Reyer.A., & Savitz.J., (2016). Global shing watch reveals a sheries management success in the Phoenix Islands. Ocean Rep, 1-20.
53 McCauley, D. J., Woods, P., Sullivan, B., Bergman, B., Jablonicky, C., Roan, A., ... & Worm, B. (2016). Ending hide and seek at sea. Science, 351(6278), 1148-
1150.

48
In addion to remote tracking of vessels, the Kiriba Ministry of Fisheries (MFMRD ) and Marime Police manages
a sheries observer scheme, requiring all DWFN vessels to carry trained Kiriba sheries observers. Aerial
surveillance support is provided by the New Zealand and Australia Air Forces and a Kiriba Patrol boat for on
water response54. The PIO currently maintains daily reports including images on all vessel movements inside PIPA
waters. These reports are useful when it comes to prosecung vessels shing illegally in PIPA. Coupled with the
new technology Global Fishing Watch provides, monitoring the open expanses of PIPA is more feasible than ever
(Figure 9).
The comparison of pre- and post- closure sheries landing will be an important measurement of the eecveness
of PIPA as a sheries management tool. It is unclear to what degree foregoing harvests in all or part of PIPA will
aect total DWFN landings in the Phoenix Islands EEZ. Also, a reducon in catch from the PIPA area may result
in an equivalent reducon in total catch (from open areas in the Phoenix Islands EEZ as well as DWFN operaons
in the rest of the Kiriba EEZ), because some or all the catch and shing eort that historically took place in
potenally closed areas of the PIPA would be displaced to dierent areas. Answering some of these quesons will
be an important role of future monitoring of PIPA.
Subsistence shing at Kanton remains the only permied shing acvity in the PIPA. With the intenon to develop
a sustainable resource use plan for Kanton and tourism opportunies, it is important to ensure such development
does not compromise the ecological values provided by the sh and invertebrate communies around Kanton.
Monitoring for subsistence shing in Kanton is important to ensure the acvity is sustainable into the future. Daily
reporng to the Kanton coordinator of the local take will provide evidence on the sustainability of the pracce. In
conjuncon with marine surveys, data will idenfy the eect on local marine stocks of key species.
8.7.2 Indicators
Indicators of eecve management of PIPA will be measured by the number and intensity of illegal shing
incidents idened within PIPA. Fisheries landings in the PIPA EEZ will be measured and compared with take pre-
and post-closure. In addion, measuring the economic impact of full closure will require me and careful analysis
that will only be apparent in the coming years. Quanfying income generated from the EEZ landings will be
compared with post-EEZ income generaon, considering the highly reduced spaal scale of current catch.
All subsistence take (sh and invertebrates) will be recorded and quaned. In addion, all species and quanes
taken as bait (e.g. hermit crabs) will also be quaned.
Category Indicator
Eyes on the Island
Core monitoring
LTEMP
Fisheries
Presence of illegal shing incidents idened ✓ ✘ ✘
All subsistence take (sh and invertebrates) ✓ ✘ ✘
Number illegal shing incidents idened ✘✓✘
Intensity of illegal shing incidents (days) ✘✓✘
Number illegal shing incidents prosecuted ✘✓✘
Fisheries landings in the PIPA EEZ ✘✓✘
54 Phoenix Island Protected Area Management plan, 2015-2020
Table 12: Indicator categories and methods to be used for sheries monitoring.

49
8.8 Socioeconomic Monitoring
The management of coral reefs today requires more than
understanding the biophysical pressures and ecosystem
states and responses. How communies and visitors
perceive, interact with, and value natural resources has implicaons for management in its aempt to implement
regulaons and strategies to maintain and improve ecosystem health and resilience.
Socio-economic monitoring assists management to understand the trends and changes to use of the protected
area. It also helps to establish an understanding of levels of acceptance regarding management policies and
pracce, and ancipate likely responses to management acvies or changes in ecosystem health. Such
monitoring can also assist in determining the eecveness of management intervenons and the contribuon of
management to maintaining or building social resilience.
8.8.1 History and status
Despite having no permanent inhabitants, the Phoenix Islands have an acve cultural history extending back over
1000 years. Evidence exists that the Phoenix Islands were inhabited by Polynesian selers around 950AD, and
were also visited by Micronesians from the Caroline Islands. Europeans began frequenng the region in the early
1800s as the whaling industry developed. The largest and northernmost island in the Phoenix Group, Kanton,
has a rich history of astronomy, scienc research and human selement. The island has been used for mining,
shing, transport, strategic war bases, space tracking and tourism. Kanton is the gateway to PIPA and is currently
home to a small resident community working with the PIO to support the management of PIPA.

50
PIPA’s popularity amongst the broader community of Kiriba is noceable. Media outlets regularly broadcast news
of PIPA. Messaging is focused on the conservaon example set by the development of one of the largest protected
areas in the world and the conservaon mindset this insls amongst the populaon of Kiriba55.
Currently there are limited economic opportunies in Kiriba generally, and PIPA specically. With the
development of PIPA, opportunies for eco-tourism development and employment may emerge. Opportunies
include ecotourism acvies, and catch and release shing by vising tourists. These, along with any addional
potenal opportunies for revenue generaon for the Government of Kiriba need to be invesgated carefully
for sustainability and value. Socio-economic monitoring will assist in evaluang outcomes of management acons
aecng to the people that reside in the PIPA (predominantly Kanton) and future visitors to the protected area.
8.8.2 Indicators
Survey data collecon will focus on a variety of socio-economic indicators. Some will have specic segment
applicaon (residents as opposed to visitors) while others will be broadly relevant to both segments. Visitor
numbers provide useful informaon, however more detailed quesonnaires will be developed targeng specic
socio-economic consideraons. Social surveys can help determine the eecveness of management in its aim to
preserve PIPA’s values. Inquiries will focus specically on knowledge, atudes, expectaons and percepons of
residents and visitors. Socio-economic monitoring of the resident populaon in Kanton will provide informaon
contribung to understanding how coastal resources are used, assisng managers to make informed decisions
about the sustainable use of those resource Community well-being is another measure to provide guidance on
whether management acons have a posive eect on the local community.
Table 13: Indicator categories and methods to be used for socio-economic monitoring.
Category Indicator
Eyes on the Island
Core monitoring
LTEMP
Socio Economic
Number of visitors ✘✓✘
Reasons for vising ✘✓✘
Acvies undertaken ✘✓✘
Percepons regarding resource condion ✘✓✘
Atude towards management strategies ✘✓✘
Atude towards enforcement strategies ✘✓✘
Awareness of conservaon issues ✘✓✘
Knowledge of conservaon issues ✘✓✘
Economic impact of tourism acvies ✘✓✘
Community well-being ✘✓✘
Parcipaon in reef monitoring ✘✓✘
55 Rotjan. R., Jamieson.R., Carr.b., Kaufman.L., Mangubhai.S., Obura.D., Pierce.R., Rimonjj.B.,Ris.B., Sandin.S., Shelley.P., Sumaila.U.R., Taei.S., Tausig.H.,
Terorokojj.T., Thorrold.S., Wikgren.B., Toatu.T., Stone.G., (2014). Establishment, management, and maintenance of the Phoenix Islands Protected Area. Marine
Managed Areas and Fisheries, 69, 289.

51
8.9 Pelagic condions, Seamounts and
Submerged Reefs
The central Pacic Ocean supports an expanse of open
ocean habitat interspersed sporadically with islands, seamounts and submerged reefs. The remoteness and largely
uninhabited nature of the region oers some protecon from anthropogenic inuences, however technological
advances, and a burgeoning populaon ensures all ecosystems are aected by human use and acons. A large
proporon of PIPA encompasses deep ocean across a large bathymetric range, with ocean depths averaging
4500m. Ancient volcanoes dot PIPA’s seaoor with bathymetric surveys highlighng the presence of at least 14
seamounts and two submerged reefs, Winslow and Carondelet. PIPA’s geography provides an opportunity to
explore the structure of deep-sea benthic and associated communies. These seamounts are oen hotspots of
biodiversity and home to many unique, endemic species. Upwellings and counter-currents provide ecological
condions that oen contribute to areas of high producvity and endemism, and potenally many species new to
science.
The size of PIPA and its recent closure to commercial shing provides a unique opportunity to explore the eects
of large protected areas on the deep-sea and seamount environments56. An expedion in 2000, conducted deep
sea remote camera deployments at seven locaons around 4 PIPA islands57. Further exploraons of the benthic
deep sea environment include the rst known underwater exploraon of Carondelet Seamount58 in 2015 and
exploraon of the Tokelau Ridge and the Winslow seamount59 in 2016.
The role large expanses of deep pelagic ocean regions play in supporng the important sheries industries and
incomes of Pacic naons should not be underesmated. Tuna are the most economically valuable species within
PIPA60. An ever-increasing demand for marine resources, especially those species in high demand, such as tuna,
places an unreasonable expectaon that the ocean will connue to support such sheries in perpetuity. On 1
January 2015, 99.4% of PIPA was declared a no-take zone and commercial shing was prohibited. The remaining
0.6% supports subsistence shing around PIPA’s only inhabited island, Kanton. As an important tuna shing and
spawning locaon, it is expected that closure of PIPA to commercial shing will support tuna stocks, and landings,
in the surrounding waters. Most historical data and informaon from these regions stems from sheries landing
data. With the increase in protecve measures, landing data will vary substanally for the region, and research
into pelagic species within PIPA, whilst important, is exploratory in nature and therefore limited. In recent
years, collaboraon with research teams from the Sea Educaon Associaon (SEA) and associated partners have
conducted tuna larval spawning monitoring of PIPA’s pelagic waters to idenfy tuna spawning hotspots predicted
by historical sheries data61. The inference is that increased protecon within PIPA will lead to a ‘spillover eect’,
where growth in numbers of a species within the protected area will increase the volume of tuna and other
species outside the protected area. In future, the eect of PIPA’s closure to commercial shing may be measured
in changes to the commercial catch outside of PIPA, however the eects of this change may not be evident for
some me. These changes will be measured by monitoring sheries data through changes in landings from the
PIPA EEZ outside the no-take zone, and in surrounding areas. (See secon 9.7).
PIPA’s remoteness and infrequency of visitaon are substanal barriers to eecve and ecient monitoring
of pelagic species, the deep sea or seamounts. Monitoring of tuna spawning in conjuncon with surveys of
pelagic oceanic condions is ongoing with PIPA partners62 with expedions conducted in 2014, 2015, 2016 &
2017. Similarly, any research into seamounts should be aimed at determining the overall biodiversity of these
56 Derek C. Sowers.D.C., (2017) Falkor Cruise File Mapping data acquision and processing report. Cruise EX-17-03, Howland/Baker PRIMNM and PIPA (rov/
mapping), United States, Naonal Oceanic and Atmospheric Administraon., Oce of Ocean Exploraon and Research,
57 Obura, D., Stone, G., Mangubhai, S., Bailey, S., Yoshinaga, A., Holloway, C., & Barrel, R. (2011). Baseline marine biological surveys of the Phoenix Islands,
July 2000. Atoll Research Bullen, (589).
58 Phoenix Island Protected Area Management plan, 2015-2020
59 Rotjan.R., Wing.J., Thorrold.S., Braun.C., (2017) The scienc and conservaon value of Winslow Reef as part of the Phoenix Islands Protected Area
60 Witkin.T., Reyer.A., & Savitz.J., (2016). Global shing watch reveals a sheries management success in the Phoenix Islands. Ocean Rep, 1-20.
61 Wing, Jan, 2017. Final Report for S.E.A. cruise S-268. Sea Educaon
62 Wing, Jan, 2017. Final Report for S.E.A. cruise S-268. Sea Educaon

52
ecosystems, developing baseline data for future
reference. Addional areas of research could include
collecng and describing new or endemic species,
aempng to idenfy seamount connecvity and
linkages between deep and shallow communies within PIPA63.
Future research of these important ecosystems and species will connue to be conducted through strategic
alliances with research partners where resources allow. Presently, elements of this research are being pursued
as part of the PIPA Research Vision64. Research into the pelagic oceanic regions, including deep-sea habitats and
seamounts, is considered expedionary research and, while important, is beyond the scope of this plan.
63 , Rotjan, R.D. and D.O. Obura. 2010. Phoenix Islands Protected Area 10-Year Research Vision. New England Aquarium. 36 pgs.

53
9 Data Management
Monitoring in the PIPA will generate a broad range of biological, physical, and socioeconomic data that will be
highly valuable to the conservaon and preservaon of the enre PIPA. To date the PIPA Oce (MELAD, Tarawa)
is the primary caretaker of all informaon, les and
records pertaining to PIPA. These are backed up by
original data sheets and records maintained by partners
who have led implementaon of previous research
and monitoring expedions (notably the New England
Aquarium, Conservaon Internaonal and Wildlife
Conservaon Society).
Data generated through research and monitoring
campaigns is currently stored and managed by the New
England Aquarium on an in-house data storage system.
Experts from this organisaon also provide data analysis
and reporng services to support management of PIPA.
The current protocol includes replicang (mirroring)
the dataset in a system maintained by the PIPA
Implementaon Oce.
There remains scope to build local data storage and
management capacity that is operated and maintained
by PIPA sta in Tarawa. The essenal elements of a data management system can be built with relavely simple
database architecture, and operated on a desktop computer with suitable backup and network access. The
usability of the database would be enhanced by development of user-friendly data entry interfaces, and a
standardised query and reporng interface. Protocols would need to be developed to ensure adequate quality
control procedures for data entry, and to ensure data security both through roune entering of data (as soon as
possible aer collecon) and reliable back up and rewalls. A sustainable strategy for capacity building, including
training and expert support, would be a key element of an in-country data storage system.
More sophiscated data management and reporng/visualisaon systems could also be developed over me. This
could occur through adaptaon of exisng systems developed for other countries or by regional organisaons,
or through developing a dedicated, tailored system for PIPA. Data management systems developed by SPC for
use in sheries and coral reef monitoring in the Pacic may be applicable to the data management needs of PIPA,
although signicant modicaon and some level of training would be required. However, the use of a database
based on a regional system oers the prospect of ongoing capacity building and user support from regional
partners, which are likely to be important ingredients in system sustainability. Working with SPC to explore
feasibility of adopng exisng regional systems is a priority for further development under the PIPA Monitoring
and Evaluaon Plan.
The scope for producon of a dedicated, tailored, geospaal data management system could also be explored.
Inial focus should be on exploring the feasibility of the proposed Phoenix Islands Protected Area Geospaal
Data Management System (PIPA Geo), which is a specied output under the PIPA Research Vision 2011-2020.
This system aims to provide the framework to house all the historic, current, and future data within a geospaal
framework. The power of integrang all these data into a geospaal framework is that all data will be searchable
based upon the geographic locaon and/or metadata of each record. The geographic context can draw links
between other ongoing or historical projects or data and provide contacts between researchers. The intenon
is to develop PIPA Geo with a web-based interacve interface that can be quite simple; for example, a large
expansive map (possibly Google Earth API) embedded onto a webpage with a simple interface to search and turn
layers on and o. This vision has many appealing elements, but it will be important to explicitly consider issues of
capacity and resourcing for its operaon, and the long-term sustainability of such a system.
Figure 11: Framework for evaluaon of management eecveness (from
Hocking et al. 2006)

54
10 Reporng and Evaluaon
The informaon collected under this Monitoring and
Evaluaon Plan will provide a valuable picture of the
status and trend of indicators that are essenal for understanding the health, and level of threat, to the Phoenix
Islands Protected Area. Monitoring data will be especially useful for informing adapve management, evaluang
management eecveness, and communicang about the condion of PIPA to the Kiriba community and other
stakeholders.
10.1 Reporng for adapve management
The PIPA Management Plan calls for monitoring to “ensure that management is adapve, and to address new
issues and threats as they may arise”. Monitoring and reporng must therefore be designed to meet the ming
and types of management intervenons available under the Management Plan. The remoteness and low level of
local human inuence in PIPA mean that opportunies for acve management intervenons to address threats
to priority values are relavely few. However, where these opportunies exist, management must be targeted,
responsive and eecve. The primary focus for adapve management opportunies is Kanton Island, where
terrestrial and marine ecosystems have the greatest exposure to local pressures from human acvies (from both
resident populaons and visitors). Terrestrial ecosystems on other islands (which are suscepble to establishment
of alien and invasive species) and pelagic sheries are a secondary focus for adapve management. To support
adapve management and ensure mely ow of informaon from each monitoring program, informaon will be
delivered to the PIPA Management Commiee in the form of an early warning system, annual status update, and
through State of PIPA reporng.
10.1.1 Early warning system
The Monitoring and Evaluaon Plan has been designed to align with adapve management priories. The Eyes on
the Island program collects informaon about the terrestrial system to enable detecon of new species of plants
and animals on the island, or expansion of invasive species. It also provides a mechanism for detecng important,
but short-lived impacts in the marine ecosystem, such as coral bleaching events or sh kills. Any signicant change
in condions of key indicators detected through the weekly Eyes on the Island monitoring program will be brought
to the aenon of the PIPA Management Commiee immediately. Weekly reports will be summarised and
interpreted as part of an annual review of the Eyes on the Island program presented as part of the annual Core
Monitoring program summary, allowing subtler but potenally important trends to be detected and reported to
the Management Commiee.
10.1.2 Annual status update
Adapve management will also be supported by the Core Monitoring program, which aims to provide annual
updates on the condion of island and reef ecosystems associated with Kanton Island. The Core Monitoring
program will provide informaon that can be used to detect signicant changes in human acvies on Kanton
Island, providing an early warning of changes in potenal drivers that could signify increased risk to PIPA values.
The key ndings of the Core Monitoring program will be summarised in an annual report that also includes
a synthesis of results from the Eyes on the Island program. The data from the Core Monitoring program will
also be integrated into the central data storage system managed by New England Aquarium. This will provide
opportunies to analyse long term paerns, and potenally to detect more subtle trends that can inform strategic
management responses.
10.1.3 State of PIPA Reporng
Core monitoring at locaons beyond Kanton Island, Long Term Ecosystem Monitoring and data from research
expedions will all be collected at intervals greater than annual, and oen opportuniscally (and therefore
irregularly). The informaon from these surveys will be captured and summarised as part of the ve-yearly
State of PIPA Reporng process. The State of PIPA Reports provide a regular update of status and trend for all

55
key indicators, allowing for evaluaon of management eecveness in achieving outcomes against management
objecves. These reports thus serve as crical junctures for reviewing and adapve management of PIPA in light of
management objecves and changing condions.
10.2 Evaluang Management Eecveness
Monitoring and evaluang management eecveness is a vital component of responsive, pro-acve protected area
management. Management eecveness is generally organised around three major themes65:
• design issues relang to both individual sites and protected area systems;
• adequacy and appropriateness of management systems and processes; and
• delivery of protected area objecves including conservaon of values.
Design (context and planning; Figure 11) issues are generally the subject of major, independent evaluaon
processes done at key periods over the life of a protected area management program (such as at 5 or 10-yearly
intervals, or prior to major revisions to a management plan). These will be iniated by the PIPA Management
Commiee and PIPA Trust as required.
The adequacy and appropriateness of management systems and processes is an important focus for roune
reviews of business systems and operaonal work programs. Implementaon of the PIPA Management Plan -
addressing inputs, process and outputs from the IUCN Framework (Figure 11) - will be monitored by the PIPA Oce
based on the PIPA Annual Operaonal Work Plan. The results will be annually reported and evaluated under the
PIPA Annual Operaonal Work Plan requirements, as outlined in SAP 1.13 of the PIPA Management Plan.
The data collected under this Monitoring and Evaluaon Plan will complement the above processes by enabling
managers to evaluate the outcomes of management (Figure 11). This vital step in the evaluaon of management
eecveness will be enabled through review of status and trend of key indicators that represent the focus of
management eorts (as arculated in the PIPA Management Plan). Data on indicator status will be provided
through the three ers of monitoring in the Monitoring and Evaluaon Plan, enabling summaries of status
and trend which are produced as part of the 5-yearly State of the PIPA Report. Progress toward management
objecves is an integral part of the State of the PIPA reporng process, meeng the requirements of management
eecveness evaluaon in relaon to management outcomes.
65 Hockings, M., Stolton, S., Leverington, F., Dudley, N. and Courrau, J. (2006). Evaluang Eecveness: A framework for assessing management eecveness
of protected areas. 2nd edion. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. xiv + 105 pp.

56
Appendices
Appendix A - Nomenclature of seabirds present at the PIPA
Kiriba name English name Species Family
Te ruru Phoenix petrel Pterodroma alba Procellariidae
Bulwer’s petrel Bulweria bulwerii Procellariidae
Te tanguoua Wedge-tailed shearwater Punus pacicus Procellariidae
Te nebu Christmas Is shearwater Punus navitas Procellariidae
Te nna Tropical (formerly Audubon’s) shearwater Punus tropica Procellariidae
Te bwebwe ni marawa White-throated storm-petrel Nesofregea fuliginosa Hydrobadae
Te taake Red-tailed tropicbird Phaethon rubricauda Phaethondae
Te gnutu White-tailed tropicbird Phaethon lepturus Phaethondae
Te mouakena Masked booby Sula dactylatra Sulidae
Te kibwi Brown booby Sula leucogaster Sulidae
Te koota Red-footed booby Sula sula Sulidae
Te eitei are e bubura Great frigatebird Fregata minor Fregadae
Te eitei are e aki rangi ni
bubura
Lesser frigatebird Fregata ariel Fregadae
Te tarangongo Grey-backed tern Sterna lunata Sternidae
Te keeu Sooty tern Sterna fuscata Sternidae
Te io Brown noddy Anous stolidus Sternidae
Te mangikiri Black noddy Anous minutus Sternidae
Te raurau Blue-grey noddy Procelsterna cerulea Sternidae
Te matawa White tern Gygis alba Sternidae

57
Appendix B - Phoenix Islands Seabirds
Esmate of maximum number of pairs present per island in 2006-13.
Common name Scienc
name
Rawaki Ender-
Bury
McK-
ean
Birnie Kanton Orona Nikum-
aroro
Manra Approx
total pairs
Tropical
shearwater
Punus
tropica
1000+ 40+ 60+ 10 0 001100+
Christmas
shearwater
P. navitas 800+ <10 020 0 00800+
Wedge-tailed
shearwater
P. pacicus 250+ 10-50 <10 10 0 00300
Phoenix petrel Pterodroma
alba
50 V 00<10 0 0060+
Bulwer’s petrel Bulweria
bulwerii
50 0 000 0 0050
White-throated
storm petrel
Nesofregea
albigularis
50+ 00? 00 0 0050+
Red-tailed
tropicbird
Phaethon
rubricauda
100 1000 100 10 <50 50+ 100+ 1000 2400
White-tailed
tropicbird
P. lepturus 000005 5 5 15
Masked booby Sula dactylatra 1000 2000+ 600+ 1400 <10 <10 4 150 5000+
Brown booby S. leucogaster 24 100+ 75 9 50 i V 00230+
Red-footed booby S. sula <10 2000+ 78 <10 500 500+ 200+ 100 3000+
Great frigatebird Fregata minor <10 1200+ 400 <10 <10 50+ <10 <10 1250
Lesser frigatebird F. ariel 15000 4000+ 4000 50 50+ 600 60 50 21000+
Sooty tern Sterna fuscata 600000+ 200000+ 500 i 500 50+ 200,000 9 i 3500 1,000000
Grey-backed tern S. lunata 3000+ 500+ 800 i 1000 2000+ 0 0 1100 8000+
Black noddy Anous minutus V 1500+ V 10 50+ 2000+ 500 200 4200
Brown noddy A. stolidus 4000 2500i 6000 3000 2000+ 10 1000i? 5600 22000
Blue noddy Procelsterna
caerulea
2500 10 1 10 0 0 0 0 2500
White tern Gygis alba 20+ 50+ 100 50 10+ 300 200 100 900+
Approx total pairs 625000+ 215,000 12400 6000 4000+ 200,000 1000 12000 1100000
Total species 18 16 15 15 13 11 10 12 19
Note: based on ve surveys during May-June 2006, April-May 2008, Nov-Dec 2009, July 2011 and May 2013 (Pierce
2013 and unpublished)
All gures represent esmated total pairs except where “i” indicates “individuals”. V = visitor

58
Appendix C - Recommended monitoring approach Seabirds
Indicators of status of seabird populaons monitored in each of the three sub-programs (Eyes on the Island; Core Monitoring; Long Term
Ecosystem Monitoring (LTEMP)). The species included in each group (Threatened/Endangered; Pelagic; Rodent-sensive, Climate-change
sensive) are listed in the main text.FO = y-on counts at every opportunity, GS 10y = ground surveys about every 10 years, but moving to 5
years post rat/cat. Green shading indicates priority species and sites most sensive to IAS.
Common name Scienc name Rawaki Ender-
Bury
McKean Birnie Kanton Orona Nikum-
aroro
Manra
Tropical
shearwater
Punus tropica FO, GS 5y FO, GS 5y FO, GS 5y FO, GS 5y GS 10y GS 10y GS 10y GS 10y
Christmas
shearwater
P. navitas FO, GS 5y FO, GS 5y FO, GS 5y FO, GS 5y GS 10y GS 10y GS 10y GS 10y
Wedge-tailed
shearwater
P. pacicus FO, GS 5y FO, GS 5y FO, GS 5y FO, GS 5y GS 10y GS 10y GS 10y GS 10y
Phoenix petrel Pterodroma alba FO, GS 5y FO, GS 5y FO, GS 5y FO, GS 5y GS 10y GS 10y GS 10y GS 10y
Bulwer’s petrel Bulweria bulwerii GS 5y GS 5y GS 5y GS 5y GS 10y GS 10y GS 10y GS 10y
White-throated
storm petrel
Nesofregea
albigularis
FO, GS 5y FO, GS 5y FO, GS 5y FO, GS 5y GS 10y GS 10y GS 10y GS 10y
Red-tailed
tropicbird
Phaethon rubricauda GS 5y GS 5y GS5y GS 5y GS 10y GS 10y GS 10y GS 10y
White-tailed
tropicbird
P. Lepturus FO, GS 5y FO, GS 5y FO, GS 5y FO, GS 5y GS 10y GS 10y GS 10y GS 10y
Masked booby Sula dactylatra FO, GS 5y FO, GS 5y FO, GS 5y FO, GS 5y GS 10y GS 10y GS 10y GS 10y
Brown booby S. leucogaster FO, GS 5y FO, GS 5y FO, GS 5y FO, GS 5y GS 10y GS 10y GS 10y GS 10y
Red-footed booby S. sula FO, GS 5y FO, GS 5y FO, GS 5y FO, GS 5y GS 10y GS 10y GS 10y GS 10y
Great frigatebird Fregata minor FO, GS 5y FO, GS 5y FO, GS 5y FO, GS 5y GS 10y GS 10y GS 10y GS 10y
Lesser frigatebird F. ariel FO, GS 5y FO, GS 5y FO, GS 5y FO, GS 5y GS 10y GS 10y GS 10y GS 10y
Sooty tern Sterna fuscata FO, GS 5y FO, GS 5y FO, GS 5y FO, GS 5y GS 10y GS 10y GS 10y GS 10y
Grey-backed tern S. lunata FO, GS 5y FO, GS 5y FO, GS 5y FO, GS 5y GS 10y GS 10y GS 10y GS 10y
Black noddy Anous minutus GS 5y GS 5y GS5y GS 5y GS 10y GS 10y GS 10y GS 10y
Brown noddy A. stolidus GS 5y GS 5y GS5y GS 5y GS 10y GS 10y GS 10y GS 10y
Blue Noddy Procelsterna caerulea FO, GS 5y FO, GS 5y FO, GS 5y FO, GS 5y GS 10y GS 10y GS 10y GS 10y
White tern Gygis alba GS 5y GS 5y GS5y GS 5y GS 10y GS 10y GS 10y GS 10y
Source: Pierce (2011) Biosecurity Guidelines for the Phoenix Islands Protected Area, Kiriba

59
Appendix D - Fly-on bird populaon surveys
Fly-on sample data sheet

60
Appendix E - Intensive survey data sheet
Example of intensive survey data sheet
Island name Rawaki Summary
Date and me 23 – 24 June 2009,
Area surveyed (ha) All lagoon perimeter and western edge, total c.22 ha
Observers Full names
Kimoa/rat sign Nil, no gnawing, no sighngs in 3 h spotlighng, all abandoned eggs intact 0
Cat sign Nil 0
Weeds One possible lantana seedling at GPS … Removed for later examinaon 1?
Other IAS Ants lured at landing area at 20 staons, no IAS ants suspected but two samples
collected at GPS points xxx for closer analysis later
0
Bird species Running Totals (see below for codes) Total pairs
Te Ruru N 1 N N J F N N 1 2 1 N N 1 13+
Tanguoua 2F F F 1 1 2 1 4+
Te Tinebu 1 2 1 N 1 N 6
Te Nna N 1 2 N N N N N N N N 11+
Bulwer’s petrel F F 1+
Bwebwe ni marawa P P P N N N F N N P 9+
Te Taake N N N N N N N 7
Te Gnutu 0 0
Mouakena Nx52 Px47 Jx29 1x48 2x36 202
Te Kibwi Nx15, J x3 18
Te Koota N x 5, J x1 6
Te Etei area Esmated 50 nests c.50
Te Etei rangi Esmated 15000 birds in evening 15000 i
Tarangongo Esmated 2000 pairs c.2000
Te Keeu One colony:
By GPS area 50300 m2 and 5 transects each of 100 m2 revealed 423, 355, 372,
310, and 478 nests
c.190000
Te Io Esmated 3000 pairs c.3000
Te Mangikiri 0 0
Te Raurau 2500 counted at night across 50% island area c.5000
Te Matawa Esmated <50 <100
Te Kewe (BT Curlew 3-5 present 3-5
Other birds 0 0
Skink/geckos 0 0
Notes: Surveyed lagoon edge and western island perimiter late aernoon and during
night unl 10pm
Running totals, 1 = single bid not nesng, 2 a pair not nesng, N = nest with bird sing on egg/chick,
P = prospecng/nest building, C = older/feathered chick, J = ying juvenile, F = ying overhead

61
Appendix F - Example of pelagic seabird data sheet
Pelagic Seabird Hourly Counts in PIPA waters
Date: Observers:
Sea/view condions
GPS start point
GPS nish point
Time start
Time nish
Tahi/Phoenix petrel
Moled petrel
Kermadec petrel
Herald petrel
Juan Fernandez petrel
White-necked petrel
Black-winged petrel
Unidened small petrel
Bulwer’s petrel
Streaked shearwater
Flesh-footed shearwater
Wedge-tailed shearwater
Buller’ shearwater
Sooty shearwater
Short-tailed shearwater
Christmas shearwater
Tropical shearwater
Unidened shearwater
Wilson’s storm-petrel
White-throated storm-petrel
Leach’s storm-petrel
Unidened storm-petrel
Red-tailed tropicbird
White-tailed tropicbird
Masked booby
Red-footed booby
Brown booby
Great frigatebird
Lesser frigatebird
Pomarine skua
Great crested tern
Grey-backed tern
Sooty tern
Black-naped tern
Brown noddy
Black noddy
Blue noddy
White tern
Bristle-thighed curlew
Other

62
Appendix G - Recorded plant species 2006-13
List of recorded plant species on the three restored atolls of the Phoenix Island 2006-13
Note: numbers denote number of individuals of rarely recorded species for that island. “Now absent” denotes
specically searched for species previously recorded but not found in 2006-13.
* Note: Sida fallax was seen only as 1-2 seedlings in 2006-08, but became common within 18 months of rabbit
removal.
Family Rawaki Birnie McKean
Graminae Digitaria pacica
Lepturus pilgerianus
Lepturus repens

Not seen

Urcaceae Laportea ruderalis 
Nyctaginaceae Boerhavia albiora
Pisonia grandis


Alzoaceae Sesuvium portulacustrum 
Portulaceae Portulaca a. Lutea 
Zygophyllaceae Tribulus cistoides 
Tiliaceae Triumfea procumbens Now absent
Malvaceae Sida fallax  (2) *  
Boraginaceae Cordia subcordata (1)  (1)

63
Appendix H - Photopoints at restored islands in the PIPA
Rawaki
No. Site name Locaon S Locaon E Photo orientaons
(magnec)
1 South Rock – on top 03 43’ 29.2” 170 42’ 46.8” N E S W
2 Landing historic site 03 43’ 22.4” 170 42’ 51.2” N E S W
3 Lagoon mound 03 43’ 21.5” 170 42’ 44.9” N E S W
4 N Point survey plaque 03 43’ 00.1” 170 42’ 56.6” E S SE
McKean
No. Site name Locaon S Locaon E Photo orientaons
(magnec)
1 Great Wall SE corner 03 35’ 44.1” 174 07’ 32.0” N E S W SE
2 North Wall NE corner 03 35’ 37.2” 174 07’ 32.3” N E S W NE
3 East historic outhouse 03 35’ 47.3” 174 07’ 30.1” N E S W
4 Coral block 03 35’ 53.7” 174 07’ 24.8” N E S W
Birnie
No. Site name Locaon S Locaon E Photo orientaons
(magnec)
1 Historic Well W side 03 34’ 59.0” 171 31’ 06.7” N E S W SE
Note: Photos can be compared with previous photos taken in 2008 (baseline), 2009 and 2013 (CEPF 2009, Pierce
2013) and copies of which are best taken into the eld for ease of orientaon.
Vegetaon photo-point sites and recommended new sites at the PIPA.
Island No. exisng
sites
Years
photographed
New sites
needed
Timing of future photos
Rawaki 4 2008, 2011, 2013 0c.2018 and every 5 years
McKean 4 2008, 2011, 2013 0c.2018 and every 5 years
Birnie 12011, 2013 1c.2018 and every 5 years
Enderbury 0- 4 c.2018 and every 5 years
Kanton 0- 4 c.2018 and every 5 years
Southern islands 0- 4 c.2018 on at least one island; repeat every
5 years

64
Appendix I - Invasive Alien Species: Procedures
Invasive Alien Species: Procedures listed below assist with assessing biosecurity risks
Stage Acon Required
1• From oshore, scan the enre foreshore for signs of illegal landings, shipwrecks, and, if it is possible to get in
close enough, any sign of cats/rats on the upper beaches.
• If bird counts are high on Rawaki and nothing suspicious seen, then no further work is required except to
complete the survey form. If y-on counts of blue noddies at Rawaki are < 50 and/or there is sign of landing
or other suspicious sign at either island go to stage 2
2• If you suspect there is a problem on the island and landing condions are OK, follow biosecurity landing
protocols and go ashore to search for invasives and their sign parcularly focusing on:
• tern/noddy colonies - are there any rat-eaten egg-shells or gnaw marks on any bird bones?
• are there any ants on eggs or chicks or at the landing sites/structures?
• If invasive sign is found on eggs or birds photograph and go to step 3 (rodents) or 4 (ants)
3• From late aernoon search for rats and other vertebrate predators into the night, and esmate numbers
seen and map where they were seen and map where you have been.
• If rats are more extensively spread and there is not enough bait at hand (5 kg/ha required) to cover the
island, do not aempt to poison them. Instead conrm species by catching and collecng several individuals
by running them down (easy to do during the day) and weigh and measure and collect specimen as per data
sheet.
• If rats or other IAS are found alert the PIPA oce immediately
4• If invasive ants are found at seabird colonies, determine their distribuon on the island by establishing
standard ant survey staons
• If invasive plant species (e.g., lantana, Pluchea) are found, photograph, determine the locaon of these sites
by GPS and mark on a map of the island.
• If there are few plants, remove all the plants by digging them out taking care to include the enre root
system as well as all seeds and place all these in a sealable container for later incineraon. Also mark the
sites on the ground with coral cairns in order to check for re-growth on later visits.
5• All surveillance data and reports to be sent to PIPA oce for follow-up acon and ling
Staged approach to seabird surveillance and pest management to idenfy biosecurity risk (Pierce and Teroroko 2011).

65
Appendix J - Eyes on the Island Weekly Data Record Sheet

66
Appendix K - Eyes on the Island Weekly Subsistence Fishing Record

67
Appendix L - Eyes on the Island Weekly Date Record Supporng Informaon

68
Appendix M - Core Monitoring Data Sheet

69
Appendix N - Permanent Coral Monitoring sites
Sites surveyed in 2015 NEAq Expedion (addional permanent sites availabe from PIPA Scienc Advisory Commiee)
Date Island Code Site name Longitude (W) Latude (S) Exposure
4/9/15 Kanton K19 Weird Eddie 171.71745 2.81205 Leeward
5/9/15 Kanton K22 Satellite Beach 171.09195 3.10520 Leeward
5/9/15 Kanton K18 President Taylor 171.71645 2.81598 Leeward
5/9/15 Kanton K20 Six Scks 171.72066 2.80561 Leeward
5/9/15 Kanton K29 Glass Bowl 171.70538 2.81141 Lagoon
6/9/15 Kanton K24 Oasis 171.68581 2.83496 Windward
6/9/15 Kanton K25 Steep To 171.70856 2.83310 Windward
6/9/15 Kanton K21 Crash Landing 171.72250 2.76065 Leeward
7/9/15 Kanton K22 Satellite Beach 171.09195 3.10520 Leeward
7/9/15 Kanton K17 Brish Gas 171.71540 2.82105 Leeward
7/9/15 Kanton K11 Coral Castles 171.70646 2.80523 Lagoon
9/9/15 Enderbury E4 Mystery Wreck 171.07871 3.12448 Windward
9/9/15 Enderbury E5 Southern Ocean 171.07935 3.14758 Windward
9/9/15 Enderbury E3 Lone Palm 171.09273 3.11766 Leeward
10/9/15 Enderbury E1 Shark Village 171.09195 3.10520 Leeward
10/9/15 Enderbury E2 Obs Spot 171.09248 3.14231 Leeward
10/9/15 Enderbury E6 Short Trip 171.09340 3.12490 Leeward
12/9/15 Birnie B3 Prognathus Point 171.52340 3.57923 Windward
12/9/15 Birnie B2 Rock n Roll 171.51560 3.57661 Windward
12/9/15 Birnie B1 Pu Magic 171.51821 3.58938 Leeward
13/9/15 Rawaki R4 Farwater 170.71185 3.71545 Windward
13/9/15 Rawaki R1 Deepwater 170.71756 3.72036 Leeward
14/9/15 Rawaki R3 Clearwater 170.71316 3.72666 Leeward
14/9/15 Rawaki R2 Sllwater 170.71695 3.72100 Leeward
16/9/15 Manra M2 Harpoon Corner 171.26501 4.45525 Leeward
16/9/15 Manra M1 Northern Lee 171.25213 4.44125 Leeward
16/9/15 Manra M3 Northern
Exposure
171.24390 4.43606 Windward
17/9/15 Orona O11 Aerials 172.21588 4.53268 Windward
17/9/15 Orona O7 Algae Corner 172.22693 4.51853 Leeward
17/9/15 Orona O8 Dolphin Ledge 172.18220 4.49145 Leeward
18/9/15 Orona O16 Soies 172.20821 4.50211 Leeward
18/9/15 Orona O17 Manta Ledge 172.20808 4.50206 Leeward
19/9/15 Orona O19 Windward City 172.15254 4.48395 Windward
20/9/15 Orona O13 Far Side 172.13735 4.49113 Windward
21/9/15 McKean Mc1 Rush Hour 174.12744 3.59155 Leeward
21/9/15 McKean Mc2 Guano Hut 174.12755 3.59682 Leeward
21/9/15 McKean Mc4 Moose Crossing 174.12206 3.58815 Windward
22/9/15 McKean Mc3 Wreck City 174.11671 3.59405 Windward
22/9/15 McKean Mc5 Cuda Corner 174.11932 3.59986 Windward

70
23/9/15 Nikumaroro N3 Amelia’s Lost
Causeway
(Landing)
174.54360 4.67461 Leeward
23/9/15 Nikumaroro N10 SW Corner 174.54016 4.68116 Windward
23/9/15 Nikumaroro N4 Nai’a Point 174.54495 4.65558 Leeward
24/9/15 Nikumaroro N9 Electra Landing 174.52170 4.68650 Windward
24/9/15 Nikumaroro N6 Norwich City 174.54745 4.66086 Leeward
24/9/15 Nikumaroro N10 SW Corner 174.54016 4.68116 Windward
25/9/15 Nikumaroro N7 Ameriki 174.49011 4.69365 Windward
25/9/15 Nikumaroro N8 Turtle Nest Beach 174.51508 4.66680 Windward
25/9/15 Nikumaroro N11 Windwardward
Wing
174.54253 4.65080 Windward
26/9/15 Nikumaroro N3 Amelia’s Lost
Causeway
(Landing)
174.54360 4.67461 Leeward
26/9/15 Nikumaroro N5 Kandy Jar 174.54540 4.65681 Leeward
27/9/15 Nikumaroro N14 Nikita’s Lookout 174.49425 4.69979 Windward
27/9/15 Nikumaroro N15 Hydroid Hole 174.51094 4.68890 Windward

71
Appendix O - Acronyms Used in this plan
ALD Agriculture and Livestock Division of MELAD
AIMS Australian Instute of Marine Science
AIS Automac ship idencaon system
AusAID Australian Assistance for Internaonal Development
CEPF Crical Ecosystem Partnership Fund of CI
CI Conservaon Internaonal
COTS Crown-of-thorns starsh
CXI Kirima, Christmas Island
DWFN Distant water shing naons
ECD Environment and Conservaon Division
EDRR Early Detecon and Rapid Response Plan
EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone
FAD Fishing Aggregaon Device
FFA Forum Fisheries Agency
FLEU Fisheries, Licensing and Enforcement Unit
GEF-PAS The Global Environment Facility Pacic Alliance for Sustainability
GCRMN Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network
GoK Government of Kiriba
GBRMPA Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
IAS/IS Invasive alien species or somemes invasive species if it is a nave species
IASC Naonal Invasive Species Commiee of Kiriba
IMO Internaonal Marime Organisaon
IUCN Internaonal Union for the Conservaon of Nature
IUU illegal, unreported and unregulated shing
K-NISSAP Kiriba Naonal Invasive Species Strategy and Acon Plan
KBA Key Biodiversity Area of Conservaon Internaonal
KDP Kiriba Development Plan
KPMU Kiriba Police Marime Unit
LTEMP Long Term Ecosystem Monitoring Program
LRD Land Resources Division of SPC
MELAD Ministry of Environment, Lands and Agricultural Development
MFMRD Ministry of Fisheries, Mineral and Resource Development
MPA Marine Protected Area
NBSAP Naonal Biodiversity Strategy and Acon Plan
NEAq New England Aquarium
NZAID New Zealand Agency for Internaonal Development
PIO PIPA Implementaon Oce
PIPA Phoenix Islands Protected Area
PIPAMC Phoenix Islands Protected Area Management Commiee
PSASC PIPA Surveillance Advisory Sub-commiee
SPC Secretariat for the Pacic Community
SPREP Secretariat for the Regional Environment Programme
UNEP United Naons Environment Programme
VMS Vessel Monitoring Systems
WCS Wildlife Conservaon Society
WCU Wildlife Conservaon Unit, MELAD, Kirima
YCA Yellow crazy ant

72