Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T05:34:26.550Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Priority Forests for Conservation in Fiji: landscapes, hotspots and ecological processes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2009

David Olson ,
Linda Farley ,
Alex Patrick ,
Dick Watling ,
Marika Tuiwawa ,
Vilikesa Masibalavu ,
Lemeki Lenoa ,
Alivereti Bogiva ,
Ingrid Qauqau  and
James Atherton
...Show all authors
David Olson*
Affiliation:
Wildlife Conservation Society-South Pacific Program, Suva, Fiji.
Linda Farley
Affiliation:
Wildlife Conservation Society-South Pacific Program, Suva, Fiji.
Alex Patrick
Affiliation:
Wildlife Conservation Society-South Pacific Program, Suva, Fiji.
Dick Watling
Affiliation:
Environment Consultants Fiji, and NatureFiji-MareqetiViti, Suva, Fiji.
Marika Tuiwawa
Affiliation:
South Pacific Regional Herbarium, University of the South Pacific, Suva, Fiji.
Vilikesa Masibalavu
Affiliation:
BirdLife-Fiji, Suva, Fiji.
Lemeki Lenoa
Affiliation:
Conservation International-Pacific Islands Program, Suva, Fiji.
Alivereti Bogiva
Affiliation:
Fijian Affairs Board, Suva, Fiji.
Ingrid Qauqau
Affiliation:
Wildlife Conservation Society-South Pacific Program, Suva, Fiji.
James Atherton
Affiliation:
Wildlife Conservation Society-South Pacific Program, Suva, Fiji.
Akanisi Caginitoba
Affiliation:
Wildlife Conservation Society-South Pacific Program, Suva, Fiji.
Moala Tokota'a
Affiliation:
Wildlife Conservation Society-South Pacific Program, Suva, Fiji.
Sunil Prasad
Affiliation:
Wildlife Conservation Society-South Pacific Program, Suva, Fiji.
Waisea Naisilisili
Affiliation:
Wildlife Conservation Society-South Pacific Program, Suva, Fiji.
Alipate Raikabula
Affiliation:
Wildlife Conservation Society-South Pacific Program, Suva, Fiji.
Kinikoto Mailautoka
Affiliation:
Wildlife Conservation Society-South Pacific Program, Suva, Fiji.
Craig Morley
Affiliation:
Division of Environmental Sciences, University of the South Pacific, Suva, Fiji.
Thomas Allnutt
Affiliation:
UC Berkeley & REBIOMA (WCS-Madagascar), Berkeley, California, USA.
*
#Wildlife Conservation Society-South Pacific Program, Suva, Fiji. E-mail [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Fiji's National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan encourages refinements to conservation priorities based on analyses of new information. Here we propose a network of Priority Forests for Conservation based on a synthesis of new studies and data that have become available since legislation of the Action Plan in 2001. For selection of Priority Forests we considered minimum-area requirements for some native species, representation goals for Fiji's habitats and species assemblages, key ecological processes and the practical realities of conservation areas in Fiji. Forty Priority Forests that cover 23% of Fiji's total land area and 58% of Fiji's remaining native forest were identified. The analysis confirms the majority of conservation priority areas previously identified, recommends several new areas, and supports the Government of Fiji's policy goal of protecting 40% of remaining natural forests to achieve the goals of the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan and sustain ecosystem services for Fijian communities and economies.

Keywords

Conservation prioritiesecosystem servicesFijiforest conservationnational biodiversity strategyOceaniaprotected area networkrepresentation
Type
Papers
Information
Oryx , Volume 44 , Issue 1 , January 2010 , pp. 57 - 70
Copyright
Copyright © Fauna & Flora International 2009

Introduction

The biodiversity of Fiji is increasingly being recognized as a global conservation priority (Davis et al., Reference Davis, Heywood and Hamilton1996; Stattersfield et al., Reference Stattersfield, Crosby, Long and Wege1998; Myers et al., Reference Myers, Mittermeier, Mittermeier, da Fonseca and Kent2000; Government of Fiji, 2001; Ryan, Reference Ryan2001; Olson & Dinerstein, Reference Olson and Dinerstein2002; Masibalavu & Dutson, Reference Masibalavu and Dutson2006). Fiji's unusual biogeographical history (Van Balgooy, Reference Van Balgooy1971; Green & Cullen, Reference Green, Cullen and Coleman1973; Kroenke, Reference Kroenke, Keast and Miller1996; Hall, Reference Hall2002; Evenhuis & Bickel, Reference Evenhuis and Bickel2006; Heads, Reference Heads2006) has imparted an exceptionally diverse forest biota characterized by pronounced endemism at the level of species and higher taxa (Ash, 1982; Gibbons, Reference Gibbons1984, Reference Gibbons, Grigg, Shine and Ehmann1985; Ash & Vodonivalu, Reference Ash, Vodonivalu, Campbell and Hammond1989; Davis et al., Reference Davis, Heywood and Hamilton1996; Heads, Reference Heads2006) and the presence of numerous basal and primitive lineages (Ash, Reference Ash1992; Miller, Reference Miller1989; Hollingsworth, Reference Hollingsworth, Alberts, Carter, Hayes and Martins2004), unusual radiations (Camponotus and Pheidole ants; Sarnat, Reference Sarnat2006, Reference Sarnat2008) and Gondwanan elements (Bickel, Reference Bickel2006; Davis et al., Reference Davis, Heywood and Hamilton1996).

The Government of Fiji, landowners, NGOs and the private sector have committed to protecting Fiji's natural forest heritage through the enactment of Fiji's National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (Government of Fiji, 2001), the Fiji Departments of Forestry and Environment's forestry certification programmes (Fiji Department of Forestry, 2007), and the ongoing establishment and recognition of a number of national and community-based forest protected areas (e.g. community-declared protected areas of Waisali, Bouma, Koroyanitu, Kilaka and Naicuvalevu). The conservation priorities for Fiji's forests identified in the Action Plan were based on a synthesis of existing conservation analyses (Lees, Reference Lees1989; Paine, Reference Paine1989; Tabunakawai & Chang, Reference Tabunakawai and Chang1991; Watling & Chape, Reference Watling and Chape1992; Government of Fiji, Reference Watling and Chape1993; Wright & Lees, Reference Wright, Lees, Keast and Miller1996) and consultations with biodiversity specialists (Government of Fiji, 1998a,b,c,d; Kretzschmar, Reference Kretzschmar2000).

The Action Plan promotes the ongoing refinement of conservation priorities as new data and analyses become available (Government of Fiji, 2001). As a contribution to this process we have synthesized biodiversity information and conservation analyses (Fiji Important Bird Areas, Masibalavu & Dutson, Reference Masibalavu and Dutson2006; Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund's Fiji Profile, Olson & Farley, Reference Olson and Farley2004; Key Biodiversity Areas, Conservation International, 2005) that have become available since 2001 and re-evaluated Priority Forests for Conservation. The Fiji Department of Forestry's (2007) policy goal of 40% of all extant natural forest (corresponding to 20% of Fiji's original natural forests) to remain forested provided a percentage target. Given this target, we asked which specific forests should be designated as Protection Forests (i.e. forests where the protection of native forest cover in a relatively undisturbed state is the primary management goal; Tabunakawai & Chang, Reference Tabunakawai and Chang1991; Watling, Reference Watling1994) to achieve conservation and ecosystem service goals based on existing knowledge, principles of regional conservation strategies that have been evolving through similar efforts elsewhere (e.g. representation of distinct assemblages and habitats, maintaining ecological processes and ecosystem services, minimum-area requirements; Noss & Cooperrider, Reference Noss and Cooperrider1994; Dinerstein et al., Reference Dinerstein, Powell, Olson, Wikramanayake, Abell and Loucks2000; Groves, Reference Groves2003; Jennings et al., Reference Jennings, Nussbaum, Judd and Evans2003; Forest Stewardship Council PNG, 2006), and practical consideration of development trends and goals, and land use.

Methods

We employed a four-step approach to arrive at our recommended network of Priority Forests for Conservation:

  1. (1) Information used in the preparation of the Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan was reviewed. Data layers, such as existing protected areas, priority areas, natural forest cover and watersheds, were mapped. Using the geographical information systems MapInfo v. 8.5 (Pitney Bowes, Troy, USA) and ArcView v. 9.3 (ESRI, Redlands, USA) we overlaid watershed (Atherton et al., Reference Atherton, Olson, Farley and Qauqau2006) and topographic features with a map of remaining natural forests (Olson, Reference Olson2006) based on Landsat Thematic Mapper imagery (1991–1995) and Fiji Department of Forestry (1996) vegetation maps.

  2. (2) Studies published or otherwise available after the Action Plan was prepared were evaluated for relevant information (Keppel, Reference Keppel2002; Olson et al., Reference Olson, Tuiwawa, Niukula, Bicoloa, Keppel and Naikatini2002; Barker, Reference Barker2003; Tuiwawa & Naikatini, Reference Tuiwawa and Naikatini2003a,Reference Tuiwawa and Naikatinib; Watling, Reference Watling2003; WCS, 2003; Farley et al., Reference Farley, Olson and Patrick2004; Olson & Farley, 2004; Yanega et al., Reference Yanega, Olson, Shute and Komiye2004; Atherton, Reference Atherton2005; Conservation International, 2005; Keppel, Reference Keppel2005a,Reference Keppelb,Reference Keppelc; Keppel et al., Reference Keppel, Cawani Navuso, Naikatini, Thomas, Rounds and Osborne2005, Reference Keppel, Rounds and Thomas2006; Atherton et al., Reference Atherton, Olson, Farley and Qauqau2006; Chape, Reference Chape2006; Evenhuis, Reference Evenhuis2006; Evenhuis & Bickel, Reference Evenhuis and Bickel2006; Heads, Reference Heads2006; Masibalavu & Dutson, Reference Masibalavu and Dutson2006; Monaghan et al., Reference Heads2006; Sarnat, Reference Sarnat2006, Reference Sarnat2008; Savu, Reference Savu2006; Jackson & Jit, Reference Heads2007; Keppel & Tuiwawa, Reference Keppel and Tuiwawa2007; Palmeirim et al., Reference Palmeirim, Champion, Naikatini, Niukula, Tuiwawa and Fisher2007; Rounds, Reference Rounds2007).

  3. (3) Using a set of decision rules that considered natural habitats and ecological processes, representation of the full set of habitats and distinct species assemblages, and the realities of conservation (Table 1, Appendix 1), we assessed if there were any major gaps in how existing protected areas, priority areas and recently proposed priority areas (Olson & Farley, Reference Olson and Farley2004; Conservation International, 2005; Masibalavu & Dutson, Reference Masibalavu and Dutson2006) addressed these guidelines and decision rules. Generalized boundaries around Priority Forest blocks were then drawn using forest edges and watershed boundaries (Atherton et al., Reference Atherton, Olson, Farley and Qauqau2006) within contiguous forest if they corresponded to mataqali (i.e. traditional land ownership) and provincial boundaries. The emphasis on watershed boundaries is a practical consideration as landowners and logging companies can readily identify watershed boundaries when they are on the land. In some cases provincial and mataqali boundaries were used where they differed markedly from watershed boundaries.

  4. (4) Priority areas not identified in previous analyses were highlighted and existing priorities confirmed, where appropriate.

Table 1 Guiding principles and decision-rules for selection of Priority Forests for Conservation in Fiji. Appendix 1 provides the justification for the decision-rules.

We recognize that achieving agreement on the boundaries and management of protected areas often requires considerable negotiation with a variety of stakeholders, a process that will be influenced by many factors. Therefore, the generalized forest blocks delineated on our maps (Figs 1–3), and their biological justification, are more relevant to this process than the exact boundaries proposed.

Fig. 1 Priority Forests for Conservation proposed for Viti Levu. 1, Sovi Basin & Korobasabasaga; 2, Mt Evans/Koroyanitu/Abaca (Batilamu); 3, Waimanu (Nakobalevu to Nakoro); 4, Tomanivi/Wabu; 5, Nadrau Plateau; 6, Eastern Serua; 7, Nakauvadra; 8, Ovalau; 9, Nakorotubu; 10, Vatia; 11, Macuata Island.

Fig. 2 Priority Forests for Conservation proposed for Vanua Levu and Taveuni. 12, Taveuni Forest Reserve & Bouma National Heritage Park; 13, Qamea & Laucala; 14, Tunuloa/Natewa; 15, Dogutuki; 16, Saqani; 17, Dikeva; 18, Koroalau; 19, Delaikoro; 20, Vatuvonu (Tavea-Valili); 21, Kubulau; 22, Navotuvotu; 23, Rokosalase; 24, Naicobocobo.

Fig. 3 Priority Forests for Conservation proposed for Outer Islands of Fiji. 25, Gau; 26, Kuitarua, Koro; 27, Namenalailai; 28, Makodroga; 29, Yaduataba; 30, Delaivuiivi (Nabukelevu or Mt Washington); 31, Koronibanuve; 32, Vuaqava; 33, Vatu Vara; 34, Ogea Levu & Ogea Driki; 35, Moala; 36, Monuriki & Mono; 37, Sawa-i-Lau; 38, Kuata; 39, Devuilau; 40, Rotuma.

The forest cover data we used date from 1991–1995 and there has been considerable logging activity since. We therefore assume that the current area, boundaries and distribution of forest cover are not exactly the same as those depicted on our maps but our collective field experience suggests that these changes are not of sufficient scale to alter our Priority Forest list. However, mapping of forest cover at a greater resolution, along with the distribution of major habitat types such as dry, transition and moist forest, is required. Current biogeographical knowledge is most comprehensive for birds and herpetofauna. Certain groups of plants, such as palms, are relatively well-studied, but the majority of taxa have not been the subject of extensive biogeographical study. Similarly, some genera and families of invertebrates and freshwater fish have recently been the subject of archipelagic-wide surveys (Sarnat Reference Sarnat2006, Reference Sarnat2008) but the majority of groups are understudied (Jenkins & Boseto, Reference Jenkins and Boseto2003; Evenhuis & Bickel, Reference Evenhuis and Bickel2006). The second largest island of Vanua Levu, in particular, is poorly surveyed for a wide range of taxa. Koro, Gau, Yasayasamoala and the southern Lau Group are also inadequately surveyed.

Results

Habitats and ecological processes

Forty areas (Table 2; Figs 1–3) were identified as Priority Forests for Conservation where protection should be the major management emphasis to achieve national-level conservation and ecosystem services goals. Together these areas cover 23% of the total land area and c. 58% of the remaining natural forest. Twenty-two large blocks (> 100 km2) of remaining natural forest were identified for protection. Two of the largest blocks of natural forest, western Serua and Wainimala, both remote areas (Olson et al., Reference Olson, Farley, Naisilisili, Raikabula, Prasad, Atherton and Morley2006), were not selected as they are experiencing intensive logging and may lose much of their conservation value in the near future. These areas should be re-evaluated if this situation changes.

Table 2 The 40 identified priority forests for conservation (Figs 1–3), with description and justification, whether a Fiji Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan Site of Biological Significance (FBSAP; Government of Fiji, 2001), Important Bird Area (IBA; Masibalavu & Dutson, Reference Masibalavu and Dutson2006) or Key Biodiversity Area (KBA; Conservation International, 2005), and any site-specific references. The Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund Profile Priority Areas for Fiji (Olson & Farley, 2005) informed the development of the Key Biodiversity Areas. Alternate names given by different priority-setting efforts are provided where needed.

We highlight as a priority two forested corridors that presently connect increasingly isolated Priority Forest blocks. These are: (1) the threatened Vunitorilau Corridor, which is the last undisturbed forest connection between the wider Sovi-Waimanu forests and the upland forests of Monasavu/Tomanivi, as well as the Serua forest blocks; and (2) the corridor between Monasavu and Tomanivi, which is disappearing rapidly. Forests of the Nakauvadra Range and Mt Evans Ranges on Viti Levu are increasingly isolated from the main forest block. Forest corridors linking the larger forests blocks of the dividing range of Vanua Levu are also of critical importance.

The relatively intact watersheds of Taveuni, southern Vanua Levu, eastern Kadavu (Koronibanuve), and south-west Viti Levu (Waimanu) were all selected. These areas, along with Gau, Tunuloa/Natewa and Nakorotubu, support some of Fiji's last forests that range from lowland to montane habitats. Several smaller islands are largely covered in native forest, including Sawa-i-Lau, western Macuata Island, Yaduataba, Namenalailai, Makodroga, Vatuvara, Vuaqava, Ogea Levu and Ogea Driki. Several larger forested watersheds that are adjacent to Fiji's high conservation value reefs (WWF, 2005; Atherton et al., Reference Atherton, Olson, Farley and Qauqau2006) were also selected (Nakauvadra, Nakorotubu, Navotuvotu, Kubulau, Vatuvonu, Delaikoro, Dogutuki, and Ovalau) to help protect these marine ecosystems.

Representation of distinct assemblages and habitats

The 40 areas represent all of the major islands and island groups, and major forest habitat types within the major islands. Mangroves, wetlands, Pandanus savannahs and littoral forests were not analysed. Most of the remaining fragments of tropical dry forest are encompassed. Tropical dry forest was formerly widespread on the leeward side of the larger islands but now occurs only in small remnant patches (Mueller-Dombois & Fosberg, Reference Mueller-Dombois and Fosberg1998).

All proposed biotic provinces and sub-provinces (see Appendix 1 for a description of identification and delineation; Fig. 4), except for Wainimala and western Serua, are represented. The four larger islands with notable bird endemism (Viti Levu, Vanua Levu, Taveuni and Kadavu) are represented, as are the majority of Important Bird Areas (Masibalavu & Dutson, Reference Masibalavu and Dutson2006). All biotic provinces for reptiles and amphibians are represented but the important site of Yanuya Island, Ono-i-Lau (the only known locality for Leiolopisma alazon) is not captured (Morrison, Reference Morrison2003a,Reference Morrisonb, Reference Morrison2005; Appendix 2: Fig. 5; biotic subdivisions may be less relevant for the relatively widespread Fijian herpetofauna; Morrison, Reference Morrison2005). Provisional biogeographic subdivisions for freshwater fish (Jenkins & Boseto, Reference Jenkins and Boseto2003; Appendix 2: Fig. 6) are all represented but two sites of special importance, the lower Sigatoka River and the Upper Lekutu River are not captured. All of the biotic provinces and sub-provinces for invertebrates (Appendix 2: Fig. 7) are represented except for the Wainimala Sub-province. Proposed biotic provinces for plants are all represented but the Wainimala Sub-province is not captured and two sites of special importance, central Kadavu and several sites with restricted-range palm species along the southern coast of Viti Levu and the southern Rewa River valley, are not captured (Fuller, Reference Fuller1997; Doyle & Fuller, Reference Doyle and Fuller1998; Zona & Fuller, Reference Zona and Fuller1999; Watling, Reference Watling2005; Appendix 2: Fig. 8).

Fig. 4 Preliminary biotic provinces and sub-provinces for Fiji (see Appendix 2). 1, Viti Levu Dry Forest; 2, Viti Levu Moist Forest; 2a, Mt Evans-Nausori; 2b, Nakauvadra-Tuvuca; 2c, Tomaniivi-Nadrau; 2d, Wainimala; 2e, Korotuba-Sawakasa; 2f, South-east Viti Levu; 2g, Ovalau; 3, Vanua Levu Dry Forest; 4, Vanua Levu Moist Forest; 4a, Western Vanua Levu; 4b, Central Vanua Levu; 4c, Eastern Vanua Levu; 5, Natewa; 6, Taveuni; 7, Lau Group; 7a, Yasayasa Moala Group; 8, Lomaiviti Group; 8a, Gau; 8b, Koro; 9, Kadavu; 10, Rotuma.

Several areas known to have high alpha richness of plants (south-eastern Viti Levu: Tuiwawa & Doyle, Reference Tuiwawa and Doyle1998; Tuiwawa & Naikatini, Reference Tuiwawa and Naikatini2003b; Vatuvonu and Kubulau, Vanua Levu: Government of Fiji, 1994; Kretzschmar, Reference Kretzschmar2000) and invertebrates (Mt Evans/Koroyanitu/Abaca, Kubulau, Tomanivi/Wabu and Waimanu; Sarnat, Reference Sarnat2006; S. Prasad et al., unpubl. data) are priorities. Areas notable for concentrations of endemic plants and invertebrates are also represented, including Kadavu, the cloud and montane forests of central Viti Levu, Mt Evans Range (Thaman, Reference Thaman1996; Thaman et al., Reference Thaman, Whistler, Vodonaivalu and Tuiwawa1999), and south-eastern Viti Levu; hotspots within this area include Waimanu, Mt Voma, Korobasabasaga, Mt Naitaradamu, and eastern Serua (Watkins, Reference Watkins1994; Tuiwawa, Reference Tuiwawa1999). Other endemism hotspots include Taveuni, Gau and Koro. The latter two may have the most distinctive invertebrate fauna, in terms of percentage single-island endemism, of all the Fijian islands (Barker, Reference Barker2003; E. Sarnat, pers. comm.; S. Prasad et al., unpubl. data).

The largest known populations of the Critically Endangered Fijian crested iguana Brachylophus vitiensis are selected, representing the Viti Levu (Macuata Island), Mamanuca (Monuriki and Mono), Yasawa (Devuilau), and the presumptive Vanua Levu (Yaduataba) forms (Gibbons, Reference Gibbons1981; Laurie et al., Reference Laurie, Uryu and Watling1987; Harlow & Biciloa, Reference Harlow and Biciloa1999, Reference Harlow and Biciloa2000; Olson et al., Reference Olson, Tuiwawa, Niukula, Bicoloa, Keppel and Naikatini2002; Olson & Keppel, Reference Olson and Keppel2004; Harlow et al., Reference Harlow, Fisher, Tuiwawa, Biciloa, Palmeirim and Mersai2007). The broad distribution of the Priority Forests may also capture some of the poorly known geographical variation of the banded iguana Brachylophus fasciatus.

The unusual karst habitats of Sawa-i-Lau are represented but known karst habitats of Wailotua and several of the Lau Group islands are not (Heads, Reference Heads2006). The Priority Forests within the Lau and Yasayasamoala Groups are probably underrepresented in this analysis. Two of the largest extant sago palm Metroxylon vitiense swamps, Maratu and Wainikevu (Rounds, Reference Rounds2007), are included in the Serua and Waimanu forest blocks, respectively. Sago swamps on Vanua Levu are not represented, and the few documented swamps near Savusavu are small and threatened. Fiji's tropical dry forests are represented on Macuata Island, Yadua Taba, Rokosalase and Naicobocobo. Mangroves and seabird and sea-snake islands (Government of Fiji, 2001; Masibalavu & Dutson, Reference Masibalavu and Dutson2006) were not analysed.

Comparisons to previous priority-setting analyses

This analysis confirms existing priorities identified in the Fiji National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (i.e. the Department of Environment's List of Sites of National Significance and Nature Reserves) and highlights several new areas of conservation importance, namely the Nakauvadra Range, the Waimanu region (south-east Viti Levu), eastern Serua, Macuata Island, Koro, Sawa-i-Lau, Nakorotubu, Yasayasamoala Group, Vatuvara, Kuata, Devuilau, Aiwa Levu and Aiwa Lailai, Vuaqava, and much of the remaining forest of southern Vanua Levu including Navotuvotu, Kubulau, Vatuvonu, Korolau (the larger forested landscape around Waisali Reserve), Dikeva and Sagani. Several of these new areas were previously identified in the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund's Fiji assessment (Olson & Farley, 2003; Conservation International, 2005), Important Bird Areas (IBAs would cover 39% of the remaining natural forest if implemented; Masibalavu & Dutson, Reference Masibalavu and Dutson2006) and Conservation International's (2005) Key Biodiversity Areas (KBA) draft analysis. The western and central portions of Serua (Serua Forest Wilderness and Upper Navua Gorge KBAs) and the Nausori Highlands KBA were not selected as Priority Forests because of the intensive logging in these areas.

Discussion

This Priority Forests for Conservation analysis confirms and complements previously identified priorities for the archipelago, including those of Fiji's National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (Government of Fiji, 2001). There is strong consensus amongst Fiji's conservation community on important areas for protection, and the list and areas of proposed priorities continues to expand as knowledge of the archipelago's biodiversity increases and conservation strategies are refined. The Priority Forest map also addresses a broad range of conservation and ecosystem service goals. If all the Priority Forests and proposed marine priority areas (WWF, 2005) could be designated for protection, Fiji would have one of the most comprehensive and robust systems of protected areas (IUCN/UNEP, 1986; Rodrigues et al., Reference Rodrigues, Akçakaya, Andelman, Bakarr, Boitani and Brooks2004).

National development goals and the needs and aspirations of local people (Government of Fiji, 2004, 2005) may, however, preclude protection for the entire proposed Priority Forest network. However, our analysis suggests that the Government of Fiji's (Fiji Department of Forestry, 2007) policy goal of protecting 40% of Fiji's remaining forests may represent a minimum threshold, below which unacceptable losses of biodiversity may occur, both in forests and coastal marine ecosystems. Levels of 10–20% for protected areas that are commonly discussed in conservation negotiations (Desmet & Cowling, Reference Desmet and Cowling2004; Svancara et al., Reference Svancara, Brannon, Scott, Groves and Pressey2005) are inadequate to protect the full range of species in the archipelago. Recent biogeographical studies (Watling, Reference Watling2005; Heads, Reference Heads2006; Sarnat, Reference Sarnat2008) suggest that patterns of local endemism in Fiji may be more complex than previously documented, especially for invertebrates and plants. Multiple and widespread protected forests will be needed to represent the biota adequately.

Protecting < 40% of Fiji's remaining natural forest may also compromise important ecosystem services. Almost every remaining native forest has communities living within it, downstream, or utilizing coastal resources influenced by run-off. At a minimum, upper watersheds should all be protected, as indicated in Fiji's Forest Function map (Watling, Reference Watling1994), for their role in maintaining healthy freshwater and coastal fisheries, diminishing flood impacts, providing clean water, enhancing local rainfall and seasonal water availability, and as a source of non-timber forest products. Fiji's islands are sufficiently small that the effects of altering watersheds are immediately and dramatically felt in freshwater and coastal marine ecosystems, with cascading effects on subsistence and commercial fisheries and community health.

The current proliferation of high-impact logging operations in smaller coastal watersheds of Vanua Levu and Viti Levu is probably one of the major drivers of degradation in Fiji's freshwater and coastal resources (Atherton et al., Reference Atherton, Olson, Farley and Qauqau2006). Greater weight should be given to the critical role of intact forests in providing ecosystem services to Fiji's people and economy, and the substantial economic value of these services needs to be recognized and integrated into cost/benefit analyses and planning (Cambie & Ash, Reference Cambie and Ash1994; Government of Fiji, 1998b; Balmford et al., Reference Balmford, Bruner, Cooper, Costanza, Farber and Green2002). Fiji's efforts to develop a certification programme for forestry operations reflects a growing recognition of the importance of ecosystem services provided by protected forests (Fiji Department of Forestry, 2007).

If a protected area system based on the Priority Forest network is put in place then the entire forest product industry in Fiji could potentially receive a national-level forestry certification (i.e. landscape-scale certification; Farley et al., Reference Farley, Olson and Patrick2004), as long as standards relating to logging practices, social values, and High Conservation Value Forests (i.e. a certification category of the Forestry Stewardship Council's widely-adopted certification programme that emphasizes a narrower range of conservation considerations; Forest Stewardship Council, 2003; Jennings et al., Reference Jennings, Nussbaum, Judd and Evans2003) are upheld. While challenging to implement (Gullison, Reference Gullison2003; Lenoa, Reference Lenoa2003; Sesega, Reference Sesega2003), the economic and societal benefits of landscape-scale forestry certification may, in the long-term, outweigh those from certifying single operations (Pierce & Ervin, Reference Pierce and Ervin2003; Farley et al., Reference Farley, Olson and Patrick2004; Olson, Reference Olson2006).

The Government of Fiji continues to work towards the commitment it made in 2007 to protect 40% of its remaining natural forest. Our analysis recommends 58% protection to achieve conservation and ecosystem service goals. We, collectively, are thinking at a similar scale of protection, a pre-condition for success in the task that lies ahead, working with landowners and the forest industry to turn protection goals into reality.

Acknowledgements

We thank the Government of Fiji for their interest and support, the landowners for their interest, support and permission to work in their forests and for their hospitality and generosity. We are indebted to Fiji's Department of Environment (DOE), particularly to Manasa Sovaki and Epeli Nasome; the Department of Forestry (MAFF), particularly to Susana Tuisese, Inoke Wainiqolo, Joe Ceinturaga and Sanjana Lal; and Fiji Fisheries, particularly Aisake Batibasaga and Sunia Waiqanabete. We are grateful for the support and assistance of the Fijian Affairs Board, Provincial governments and traditional leaders and councils. We appreciate and recognize the following organizations for sharing data and expertise for our analyses: MAFF, DOE, Native Land Trust Board, The Pacific Islands Applied Geoscience Commission, Fiji Department of Lands and Survey, Fiji Hydrology, Mineral Resource Department, The National Trust for Fiji, University of the South Pacific, BirdLife, South Pacific Regional Herbarium, WWF and Wetlands International. This study was supported by a grant from the East Asia and Pacific Environment Initiative Program of the US Agency for International Development (Fiji Forestry Landscape Certification Project). Additional support came from the US Department of State, the US National Science Foundation Fiji Arthropod Survey Project, and the Schlinger Foundation. One of the authors, Lemeki Lenoa, passed away before completion of this study. We dedicate this paper to him, a great colleague and among Fiji's most committed and enlightened foresters and conservationists. We thank John Morrison, Neal Evenhuis, Dan Bickel, Eli Sarnat and two anonymous reviewers for reviewing earlier drafts.

Appendices 1–2

The appendices for this article are available online at http://journals.cambridge.org

Biographical sketches

The authors are naturalists, scientists, conservationists, natural resource managers, foresters, field researchers and conservation geographical information system specialists who share an interest in, and concern for, the future of Fiji's forests. They share a belief that a functional balance between conservation and sustainable development, livelihoods and quality of life for Fijians is attainable through science-based analyses, participatory planning and decision-making, respect for tradition, and partnerships and collaboration among all stakeholders. The decisions Fijians make today about preserving their natural wealth and heritage are critical because opportunities are likely to diminish in the coming decades if trajectories of forest loss continue. This analysis is a contribution from the authors' collective efforts to find the balance.

References

Ash, J. (1988) Stunted cloud-forest in Taveuni, Fiji. Pacific Science, 41, 191–199.Google Scholar
Ash, J. (1992) Vegetation ecology of Fiji: past, present, and future perspectives. Pacific Science, 46, 111–127.Google Scholar
Ash, J. & Ash, W. (1984) Freshwater wetland vegetation of Viti Levu, Fiji. New Zealand Journal of Botany, 22, 377–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ash, J. & Vodonivalu, S. (1989) Fiji. In Floristic Inventory of Tropical Countries: The Status of Plant Systematics, Collections, and Vegetation, Plus Recommendations for the Future (eds Campbell, D.G. & Hammond, D.H.), pp. 166–176. New York Botanic Gardens, New York, USA.Google Scholar
Atherton, J. (ed.) (2005) Ecosystem Profile: Polynesia-Micronesia Biodiversity Hotspot. Final draft submitted to the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund. Conservation International & Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme, Apia, Samoa.Google Scholar
Atherton, J., Olson, D., Farley, L. & Qauqau, I. (2006) Watershed Assessment for Healthy Reefs and Fisheries: Fiji Watersheds at Risk. Technical Report submitted to the Fiji Department of Environment and Fiji Department of Fisheries by the Wildlife Conservation Society–South Pacific, Suva, Fiji.Google Scholar
Balmford, A., Bruner, A., Cooper, P., Costanza, R., Farber, S., Green, R.E. et al. (2002) Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science, 297, 950–953.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barker, G. (2003) Biotic Regionalization of Fiji and Priorities for Reserve Networks: Land Snails. Technical Report prepared for the Wildlife Conservation Society–South Pacific, Suva, Fiji.Google Scholar
Bickel, D.J. (2006) Parentia (Diptera: Dolichopodidae) from Fiji: a biogeographic link with New Caledonia and New Zealand. Bishop Museum Occasional Papers, 89, 45–50.Google Scholar
Bogiva, A. (1993) Vunivia Catchment Reserve Proposal, Dogotuki, Macuata: A Field Investigation Report. Fiji Department of Forestry, Environmental Forestry Division, Colo-I-Suva, Fiji.Google Scholar
Brownlie, G. (1977) The Pteridophyte Flora of Fiji. J. Cramer, Vaduz, Liechtenstein.Google Scholar
Bush, E. (1997) The ecology and conservation biology of Acmopyle sahniana Buchh. & N.E. Gray (Podocarpaceae). MSc thesis, University of the South Pacific, Suva, Fiji.Google Scholar
Cambie, R.C. & Ash, J. (1994) Fijian Medicinal Plants. CSIRO, Collingwood, Australia.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chape, S. (2006) Assessment of the Suitability of Placing the Taveuni Forest Reserve and Ravilevu Nature Reserve on Fiji's World Heritage Tentative List. Report prepared for BirdLife International Fiji, Fiji National Committee for World Heritage & The National Trust for Fiji, Suva, Fiji.Google Scholar
Conservation International (2005) Conservation Outcomes: Polynesia and Micronesia, Fiji Inset, Draft Map, 1:3,200,000. Conservation International & The Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Davis, S.D., Heywood, V.H. & Hamilton, A.C. (eds) (1996) Centres of Plant Diversity: A Guide and Strategy for their Conservation—Asia, Australasia and the Pacific Ocean. WWF & IUCN, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Desmet, P. & Cowling, R. (2004) Using the species–area relationship to set baseline targets for conservation. Ecology and Society, 9, 11. Http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art11/ [accessed 24 April 2009].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dinerstein, E., Powell, G., Olson, D., Wikramanayake, E., Abell, R., Loucks, C. et al. (2000) A Workbook for Conducting Biological Assessments and Developing Biodiversity Visions for Ecoregion-based Conservation. WWF, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Doyle, M.F. & Fuller, D. (1998) Palms of Fiji–1, endemic, indigenous and naturalised species: changes in nomenclature, annotated checklist, and discussion. Harvard Papers in Botany, 3, 95–100.Google Scholar
Duffels, J.P. (1988) The Cicadas of Fiji, Samoa, and Tonga Islands: Their Taxonomy and Biogeography. Entomonograph 10. E.J. Brill/Scandinavian Science Press, Vinderup, Denmark.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evenhuis, N.L. (2006) The genus Holorusia Loew (Diptera: Tipulidae) from Fiji. Bishop Museum Occasional Papers, 85, 3–21.Google Scholar
Evenhuis, N.L. & Bickel, D.J. (2006) The NSF-Fiji Terrestrial Arthopod Survey: overview. Bishop Museum Occasional Papers, 82, 3–25.Google Scholar
Farley, L., Olson, D. & Patrick, A. (2004) Conservation of Fiji's Forests & Wildlife: Building Conservation Landscapes into Forestry Operations & Forest Certification. Technical Report submitted to the Fiji Department of Environment & Fiji Department of Forestry, Wildlife Conservation Society–South Pacific, Suva, Fiji.Google Scholar
Fiji Department of Forestry (1996) Vegetation Map of the Fiji Islands. Government of Fiji, Suva, Fiji.Google Scholar
Fiji Department of Forestry (2007) Forest Policy Statement. Government of Fiji, Suva, Fiji.Google Scholar
Forest Stewardship Council (2003) FSC Principles and Criteria. FSC, Bonn, Germany.Google Scholar
Forest Stewardship Council–Papua New Guinea (2006) High Conservation Value Forest Toolkit. PNG–FSC, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea. Http://www.panda.org/what_we_do/how_we_work/conservation/forests/tools/hcvf_toolkit/ [accessed 1 September 2009].Google Scholar
Fuller, D. (1997) Conservation status, diversity and systematics of the indigenous palms of Fiji. MSc thesis, University of the South Pacific, Suva, Fiji.Google Scholar
Gibbons, J.R.H. (1981) The biogeography of Brachylophus (Iguanidae) including the description of a new species, B. vitiensis, from Fiji. Journal of Herpetology, 15, 255–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbons, J.R.H. (1984) Iguanas of the South Pacific. Oryx, 18, 82–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbons, J.R.H. (1985) The biogeography and evolution of Pacific island reptiles and amphibians. In Biology of Australasian Frogs and Reptiles (eds Grigg, G., Shine, R. & Ehmann, H.), pp. 125–143. Surrey Beatty and Sons, Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
Government of Fiji (1993) The National Environment Strategy (eds Watling, D. & Chape, S.). IUCN, Suva, Fiji.Google Scholar
Government of Fiji (1994) Fiji-German Forestry Project/GTZ: Fiji's Natural Forest Inventory, Terms, Method and Results (1991–1993). Technical Report prepared by GOPA Consultants, FGFP/GTZ Technical Report, Suva, Fiji.Google Scholar
Government of Fiji (1998a) FBSAP TG2: Terrestrial Vertebrates and Invertebrates. Technical Group 2 Report. Fiji Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, Department of Environment, Suva, Fiji.Google Scholar
Government of Fiji (1998b) FBSAP TG3: Botanical Biodiversity Report. Technical Group 3 Report. Fiji Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, Department of Environment, Suva, Fiji.Google Scholar
Government of Fiji (1998c) FBSAP TG5: The Economic Value of Fiji's Ecosystems. Technical Group 5 Report. Fiji Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, Department of Environment, Suva, Fiji.Google Scholar
Government of Fiji (1998d) FBSAP TG7: Location and Justification of Priority Sites for the Conservation of Fiji's Biodiversity in the Marine Environment. Technical Group 7 Report. Fiji Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, Department of Environment, Suva, Fiji.Google Scholar
Government of Fiji (2001) Fiji Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (FBSAP). Department of Environment, Suva, Fiji.Google Scholar
Government of Fiji (2004) Millennium Development Goals: Fiji National Report. National Planning Office, Ministry of Finance and National Planning, Suva, Fiji.Google Scholar
Government of Fiji (2005) Strategic Development Plan: Rebuilding Confidence for Stability and Growth for a Peaceful, Prosperous Fiji. Draft. National Planning Office, Ministry of Finance and National Planning, Suva, Fiji.Google Scholar
Green, D. & Cullen, D.J. (1973) The tectonic evolution of the Fiji region. In The Western Pacific (ed. Coleman, P.J), pp. 127–145. University of Western Australia Press, Perth, Australia.Google Scholar
Groves, C.R. (2003) Drafting a Conservation Blueprint. The Nature Conservancy, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Gullison, R.E. (2003) Does forest certification conserve biodiversity? Oryx, 37, 153–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, R. (2002) Cenozoic geological and plate tectonic evolution of SE Asia and the SW Pacific: computer-based reconstructions and animations. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 20, 353–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harlow, P.S. & Biciloa, P.N. (1999) The Population Status of the Crested Iguana (Brachylophus vitensis) on Monuriki Island, Mamanuca Group, Fiji. Technical Report prepared for The National Trust for Fiji & The Department of Environment, Suva, Fiji.Google Scholar
Harlow, P.S. & Biciloa, P.N. (2000) Abundance of the Fijian crested iguana (Brachylophus vitiensis) on two islands. Biological Conservation, 98, 223–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harlow, P.S., Fisher, M., Tuiwawa, M., Biciloa, P.N., Palmeirim, J., Mersai, C. et al. (2007) The decline of the endemic Fijian crested iguana in the Yasawa and Mamanuca archipelagos, western Fiji. Oryx, 41, 44–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haynes, A. (1998a) The Land Snails of Fiji. Report of Technical Group 2. Fiji Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, Department of Environment, Government of Fiji, Suva, Fiji.Google Scholar
Haynes, A. (1998b) The Freshwater Invertebrates of Fiji. Report of Technical Group 2. Fiji Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, Department of Environment, Government of Fiji, Suva, Fiji.Google Scholar
Heads, M. (2006) Seed plants of Fiji: an ecological analysis. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 89, 407–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollingsworth, B. (2004) The evolution of iguanas: an overview of relationships and a checklist of species. In Iguanas: Biology and Conservation (eds Alberts, A.C., Carter, R.L., Hayes, W.K. & Martins, E.P.), pp. 19–44. University of California Press, Berkeley, USA.Google Scholar
IUCN/UNEP (1986) Review of the Protected Areas System in Oceania. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Jackson, D. & Jit, R. (2007) Population density and detectability of three Fijian forest birds. Notornis, 54, 99.Google Scholar
Jenkins, A.P. & Boseto, D. (2003) A Preliminary Investigation of Priority Ichthyofaunal Areas for Assessing Representation in Fiji's Network of Forest Reserves. Technical Report of Wetlands International–Oceania & Wildlife Conservation Society–South Pacific, Suva, Fiji.Google Scholar
Jennings, S., Nussbaum, R., Judd, N. & Evans, T. (2003) High Conservation Value Forest Toolkit. Edition 1. WWF & IKEA Co-operation on Forests Project, ProForest, Oxford, UK. Http://assets.panda.org/downloads/hcvf_toolkit_part_1_final.pdf [accessed 24 April 2009].Google Scholar
Keppel, G. (2002) Coastal vegetation of Taunova Bay, Pacific Harbour, Viti Levu, Fiji—a proposed development site. South Pacific Journal of Natural Sciences, 20, 25–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keppel, G. (2004) Vascular Plants, Vegetation and Conservation Perspectives on Monuriki Island, Southern Mamanucas, Republic of the Fiji Islands: Preliminary Observation. Technical Report submitted to the Wildlife Conservation Society–South Pacific & The National Trust for Fiji, Suva, Fiji.Google Scholar
Keppel, G. (2005a) Vascular Plants and Vegetation of Macuata Island, Vunitogoloa, Ra, Viti Levu, Republic of the Fiji Islands. Technical Report submitted to the Wildlife Conservation Society–South Pacific & The National Trust for Fiji, Suva, Fiji.Google Scholar
Keppel, G. (2005b) Botanical studies within the PABITRA Wet-Zone Transect, Viti Levu, Fiji. Pacific Science, 59, 165–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keppel, G. (2005c) Summary Report on Forests of the Mataqali Nadicake Kilaka, Kubulau District, Bua, Vanua Levu: A Proposed Forest Watershed Reserve. Technical Report submitted to the Wildlife Conservation Society–South Pacific, Suva, Fiji.Google Scholar
Keppel, G., Cawani Navuso, J., Naikatini, A., Thomas, N.T., Rounds, I.A., Osborne, T.A. et al. (2005) Botanical diversity at Savura, a lowland rain forest site along the PABITRA Gateway Transect, Viti Levu, Fiji. Pacific Science, 59, 175–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keppel, G., Rounds, I.A. & Thomas, N.T. (2006) The flora, vegetation, and conservation value of mesic forest at Dogotuki, Vanua Levu, Fiji Islands. New Zealand Journal of Botany, 44, 273–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keppel, G. & Tuiwawa, M. (2007) Dry zone forests of Fiji: species composition, life history traits, and conservation. New Zealand Journal of Botany, 45, 545–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kretzschmar, J.S. (2000) The Location of Biodiversity Hotspots in Fiji: An Analysis of Tree Biodiversity. Technical Group 7 Report. Fiji Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, Department of Environment, Government of Fiji, Suva, Fiji.Google Scholar
Kroenke, L.W. (1996) Plate tectonic development of the western and south-western Pacific: Mesozoic to the present. In The Origin and Evolution of Pacific Island Biotas, New Guinea to Eastern Polynesia: Patterns and Processes (eds Keast, A. & Miller, S.E.), pp. 19–34. SPB Academic Publishing, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Laurie, W.A., Uryu, H. & Watling, D. (1987) A faunal survey of Yaduataba Island reserve with particular reference to the crested iguana (Brachylophus vitiensis Gibbons 1981). Domodomo, 5, 16–28.Google Scholar
Lees, A. (1989) Representative National Parks and Reserves System for Fiji's Tropical Forests. Maruia Society Policy Reports Series No. 9. Maruia Society & Bird Protection Society, Nelson, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Lenoa, L. (2003) Assessing the Efficacy of Landscape Forest Certification for Strengthening Fiji's Forest Reserve Network. Technical Report prepared for the Wildlife Conservation Society–South Pacific, Suva, Fiji.Google Scholar
Masibalavu, V.K. & Dutson, G. (2006) Important Bird Areas in Fiji: Conserving Fiji's Natural Heritage. BirdLife International Pacific Partnership Secretariat, Suva, Fiji.Google Scholar
McClatchey, W., Thaman, R. & Vodonaivalu, S. (2000) A preliminary checklist of the flora of Rotuma with Rotuman names. Pacific Science, 54, 345–363.Google Scholar
Miller, J.M. (1989) The archaic flowering plant family Degeneriaceae: its bearing on an old enigma. National Geographic Research, 5, 218–231.Google Scholar
Monaghan, M.T., Balke, M., Pons, J. & Vogler, AP. (2006) Beyond barcodes: complex DNA taxonomy of a South Pacific island radiation. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 273, 887–893.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morley, C.G. (2004) Has the invasive mongoose Herpestes javanicus yet reached the island of Taveuni, Fiji? Oryx, 38, 457–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, C. (2003a) Forest Conservation in Fiji: Herpetological Provinces for Assessing Representation in Fiji's Forest Reserve Network. Technical Report prepared for the Wildlife Conservation Society–South Pacific, Suva, Fiji.Google Scholar
Morrison, C. (2003b) A Field Guide to the Herpetofauna of Fiji. Institute of Applied Science, University of the South Pacific, Suva, Fiji.Google Scholar
Morrison, C. (2005) Distribution and diversity of Fiji's terrestrial herpetofauna: implications for forest conservation. Pacific Science, 59, 481–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller-Dombois, D. & Fosberg, F.R. (1998) Vegetation of the Tropical Pacific Islands. Springer-Verlag, New York, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., da Fonseca, G.A.B. & Kent, J. (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403, 853–858.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Noss, R.F. & Cooperrider, A. (1994) Saving Nature's Legacy: Protecting and Restoring Biodiversity. Defenders of Wildlife & Island Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Olson, D.M. (2006) Fiji's National Forest Policy Statement: Wildlife Conservation Society Comments on Draft Statement. Invited Report to Fiji Department of Forestry (MAFF) by the Wildlife Conservation Society–South Pacific, Suva, Fiji.Google Scholar
Olson, D.M. & Dinerstein, E. (2002) The Global 200: priority ecoregions for global conservation. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden, 89, 199–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, D.M. & Farley, L. (eds) (2004) Polynesia-Micronesia Hotspot Ecosystem Profile & Five-year Investment Strategy–Fiji Subregional Profile. Technical Report for the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund, Suva, Fiji.Google Scholar
Olson, D.M., Farley, L., Naisilisili, W., Raikabula, A., Prasad, O., Atherton, J. & Morley, C. (2006) Remote forest refugia for Fijian wildlife. Conservation Biology, 20, 568–572.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olson, D.M., Farley, L. & Patrick, A. (2004) Conservation of Fiji's Forests & Wildlife: Building Conservation Landscapes into Forestry Operations & Forest Certification. Report presented to Fiji's Ministry of Fisheries and Forests. Wildlife Conservation Society–South Pacific, Suva, Fiji.Google Scholar
Olson, D.M. & Keppel, G. (2004) Results of a Rapid Survey for the Presence of Fiji's Crested Iguana (Brachylophus fasciatus) on Macuata Island, Vunitogoloa, Ra Province, Viti Levu, Republic of the Fiji Islands. Technical Report submitted to Fiji Department of Environment by the Wildlife Conservation Society–South Pacific, The National Trust for Fiji, University of the South Pacific Biology Department & South Pacific Regional Herbarium, Suva, Fiji.Google Scholar
Olson, D.M., Tuiwawa, M.V., Niukula, J., Bicoloa, P., Keppel, G., Naikatini, A. et al. (2002) Conservation of Fijian Dry Forest and Fijian Crested Iguanas on Yadua Taba Island. Technical Report to The National Trust for Fiji by the Wildlife Conservation Society, South Pacific Regional Herbarium & University of the South Pacific, Suva, Fiji.Google Scholar
Paine, J.R. (1989) Fiji: An Overview of its Protected Areas System. World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Palmeirim, J.M., Champion, A., Naikatini, A., Niukula, J., Tuiwawa, M., Fisher, M. et al. (2007) Distribution, status and conservation of bats of the Fiji Islands. Oryx, 41, 509–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parkinson, B., Hemmen, J. & Groh, K. (1987) Tropical Landshells of the World. Kyodo-Shing Loong Printing Industries Pte. Ltd, Singapore, Singapore.Google Scholar
Pernetta, J.C. & Watling, D. (1979) The introduced and native terrestrial vertebrates of Fiji. Pacific Science, 32, 223–243.Google Scholar
Pierce, A.R. & Ervin, J.B. (2003) Can Independent Forest Management Certification Incorporate Elements of Landscape Ecology? Forest Stewardship Council, Minneapolis, USA.Google Scholar
Rigamoto, R.R. (2000) A floristic survey of the coastal littoral vegetation of Rotuma. MSc thesis, University of the South Pacific, Suva, Fiji.Google Scholar
Robinson, G.S. (1975) The Macrolepidoptera of Fiji and Rotuma. E.W. Classey, London, UK.Google Scholar
Rodrigues, A.S.L., Akçakaya, H.R., Andelman, S.J., Bakarr, M.I., Boitani, L., Brooks, T.M. et al. (2004) Global gap analysis: priority regions for expanding the global protected-area network. BioScience, 54, 1092–1100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rounds, I. (2007) Conservation, management, and ethnobotany of sago (Metroxylon vitiense) in South-East Viti Levu, Fiji Islands. MSc thesis, University of the South Pacific, Suva, Fiji.Google Scholar
Ryan, P.A. (2001) Fiji's Natural Heritage. Exisle Publishing Ltd, Auckland, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Sarnat, E.M. (2006) Lordomyrma (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) of the Fiji Islands. Bishop Museum Occasional Papers, 90, 9–42.Google Scholar
Sarnat, E.M. (2008) A taxonomic revision of the Pheidole roosevelti group (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in Fiji. Zootaxa, 1767, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savu, S. (2006) Background Report for the Review of Natural Sites on Fiji's Tentative World Heritage List. Draft Report for The National Trust for Fiji, Suva, Fiji.Google Scholar
Sesega, S. (2003) Forest Conservation in Fiji: Assessing the Efficacy of Forest Certification for Strengthening Fiji's Forest Reserve Network. Technical Report prepared for the Wildlife Conservation Society–South Pacific, Suva, Fiji.Google Scholar
Smith, A.C. (1951) The vegetation and flora of Fiji. The Scientific Monthly, 7, 3–15.Google Scholar
Smith, A.C. (1979–1996) Flora Vitiensis Nova: A New Flora of Fiji. Pacific Tropical Botanical Garden, Kalāheo, Hawaii.Google Scholar
Stattersfield, A.J., Crosby, M.J., Long, A.J. & Wege, D.C. (1998) Endemic Bird Areas of the World: Priorities for Biodiversity Conservation. Burlington Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Svancara, L.K., Brannon, R., Scott, J.M., Groves, C.R. & Pressey, R.L. (2005) Policy-driven versus evidence-based conservation: a review of political targets and biological needs. BioScience, 55, 989–994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swinnerton, K. & Maljkovic, A. (2002) Preliminary Report on the Status and Distribution of the Red-throated Lorikeet Charmosyna amabilis in Fiji. Technical Report submitted to The National Trust for Fiji & World Parrot Trust, Suva, Fiji.Google Scholar
Tabunakawai, K.M. & Chang, A. (1991) Register of Nature, Forest Reserve and Protected Forests in Fiji. Fiji Department of Forestry, Suva, Fiji.Google Scholar
Thaman, R.R. (1996) The biodiversity of Koroyanitu National Park. Domodomo, 10, 20–51.Google Scholar
Thaman, R.R., Whistler, W.A., Vodonaivalu, S. & Tuiwawa, M. (1999) The Flora of the Koroyanitu Massif and Conservation Area, Ba Province, Western Viti Levu, Fiji Islands. Technical Report 99–02, Institute of Applied Science & South Pacific Regional Herbarium, University of the South Pacific, Suva, Fiji.Google Scholar
Tillyard, R.J. (1924) The dragonflies (Order Odonata) of Fiji, with special reference to a collection made by Dr. H.W. Simmonds, F.E.S., on the island of Viti Levu. Transactions of the Entomological Society London, 3–4, 305–345.Google Scholar
Tuiwawa, M. (1999) The flora, ecology, and conservation of the botanical biodiversity of Waisoi and the south-eastern slopes of the Korobasabasaga Range in Namosi Province, Fiji. MSc thesis, University of the South Pacific, Suva, FijiGoogle Scholar
Tuiwawa, M. & Doyle, M. (1998) Preliminary checklist of the flora of Waisoi–Namosi and the surrounding area. The South Pacific Journal of Natural Science, 16, 28–36.Google Scholar
Tuiwawa, M. & Naikatini, A. (2003a) Baseline Flora and Fauna Survey of the Sovi Basin, Naitasiri. South Pacific Regional Herbarium, Wildlife Conservation Society–South Pacific, BirdLife International, Wetlands International & University of the South Pacific, Suva, Fiji.Google Scholar
Tuiwawa, M. & Naikatini, A. (2003b) Report of the Preliminary Baseline Survey of the Flora and Vegetation of Waivaka South, Namosi Province, Fiji. Mineral Resources Department (Fiji), Japan International Co-operation Agency, MMAJ Mineral Exploration Project, Viti Levu South, Suva, Fiji.Google Scholar
Van Balgooy, M.M.J. (1971) Plant geography of the Pacific. Blumea Supplement, 8, 1–222.Google Scholar
Watkins, A. (1994) A biogeographic database for seed plants of Fiji: a preliminary communication. South Pacific Journal of Natural Science, 15, 75–96.Google Scholar
Watling, D. (1988) Notes on the ecology and status of the Ogea Flycatcher Mayrornis versicolor. Bulletin of the British Ornithological Club, 108, 103–112.Google Scholar
Watling, D. (1994) Determination of Potential Forest Functions. Fiji Department of Forestry, Suva, Fiji.Google Scholar
Watling, D. (1998) Conservation Status of Fijian Mammals and Freshwater and Land Birds (Draft). Report of Technical Group 2. Fiji Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, Department of Environment, Government of Fiji, Suva, Fiji.Google Scholar
Watling, D. (2001) A Guide to the Birds of Fiji and Western Polynesia including American Samoa, Niue, Samoa, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu and Wallis & Futuna. Environment Consultants Fiji, Suva, Fiji.Google Scholar
Watling, D. (2003) Report of the Preliminary Baseline Survey of the Terrestrial Vertebrate Fauna of the Waivaka Catchment, Namosi, Viti Levu. IAS Technical Report No. 2003/02. South Pacific Regional Herbarium, University of the South Pacific, Suva, Fiji.Google Scholar
Watling, D. (2005) Palms of the Fiji Islands. Environmental Consultants Fiji, Suva, Fiji.Google Scholar
Watling, D. (2006) Sovi Basin–Report on Review for Management Plan Preparation. Report prepared for The National Trust for Fiji, Suva, Fiji.Google Scholar
Watling, D. & Chape, S.A. (eds) (1992) Environment Fiji: The National State of the Environment Report. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Watling, D. & Zug, G.R. (1998) Annotated List and Conservation Status of Fijian Terrestrial Reptiles and Amphibians. Report of Technical Group 2. Fiji Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, Department of Environment, Government of Fiji, Suva, Fiji.Google Scholar
WCS (Wildlife Conservation Society) (2003) Heritage Trees of Fiji. Technical Report to the Department of Environment & Fijian Affairs Board by the Wildlife Conservation Society–South Pacific, Suva, Fiji.Google Scholar
Whittier, H.O. (1975) A preliminary list of Fijian mosses. Florida Scientist, 38, 85–106.Google Scholar
Woodroffe, C.D. (1987) Pacific island mangroves: distribution and environmental settings. Pacific Science, 41, 166–185.Google Scholar
Wright, S.D. & Lees, A.M. (1996) Biodiversity conservation in the island Pacific. In The Origin and Evolution of Pacific Island Biotas, New Guinea to Eastern Polynesia: Patterns and Processes (eds Keast, A. & Miller, S.E.), pp. 445–461. SPB Academic Publishing, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
WWF (2005) Setting Priorities for Marine Conservation: The Fiji Islands Marine Ecoregion. WWF–Fiji, Suva, Fiji. Http://assets.panda.org/downloads/fime_rpt.pdf [accessed 1 September 2009].Google Scholar
Yanega, D., Olson, D., Shute, S. & Komiye, Z. (2004) The Xixuthrus species of Fiji (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae: Prioninae). Zootaxa, 777, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zona, S. & Fuller, D. (1999) A revision of Veitchia (Arecaceae–Arecoideae). Harvard Papers in Botany, 4, 543–560.Google Scholar
Zug, G.R. (1991) Lizards of Fiji: Natural History and Systematics. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu, Hawaii.Google Scholar
Zug, G.R., Springer, V.G., Williams, J.T. & Johnson, G.D. (1988) The vertebrates of Rotuma and surrounding waters. Atoll Research Bulletin, 316, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1 Guiding principles and decision-rules for selection of Priority Forests for Conservation in Fiji. Appendix 1 provides the justification for the decision-rules.

Figure 1

Fig. 1 Priority Forests for Conservation proposed for Viti Levu. 1, Sovi Basin & Korobasabasaga; 2, Mt Evans/Koroyanitu/Abaca (Batilamu); 3, Waimanu (Nakobalevu to Nakoro); 4, Tomanivi/Wabu; 5, Nadrau Plateau; 6, Eastern Serua; 7, Nakauvadra; 8, Ovalau; 9, Nakorotubu; 10, Vatia; 11, Macuata Island.

Figure 2

Fig. 2 Priority Forests for Conservation proposed for Vanua Levu and Taveuni. 12, Taveuni Forest Reserve & Bouma National Heritage Park; 13, Qamea & Laucala; 14, Tunuloa/Natewa; 15, Dogutuki; 16, Saqani; 17, Dikeva; 18, Koroalau; 19, Delaikoro; 20, Vatuvonu (Tavea-Valili); 21, Kubulau; 22, Navotuvotu; 23, Rokosalase; 24, Naicobocobo.

Figure 3

Fig. 3 Priority Forests for Conservation proposed for Outer Islands of Fiji. 25, Gau; 26, Kuitarua, Koro; 27, Namenalailai; 28, Makodroga; 29, Yaduataba; 30, Delaivuiivi (Nabukelevu or Mt Washington); 31, Koronibanuve; 32, Vuaqava; 33, Vatu Vara; 34, Ogea Levu & Ogea Driki; 35, Moala; 36, Monuriki & Mono; 37, Sawa-i-Lau; 38, Kuata; 39, Devuilau; 40, Rotuma.

Figure 4

Table 2 The 40 identified priority forests for conservation (Figs 1–3), with description and justification, whether a Fiji Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan Site of Biological Significance (FBSAP; Government of Fiji, 2001), Important Bird Area (IBA; Masibalavu & Dutson, 2006) or Key Biodiversity Area (KBA; Conservation International, 2005), and any site-specific references. The Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund Profile Priority Areas for Fiji (Olson & Farley, 2005) informed the development of the Key Biodiversity Areas. Alternate names given by different priority-setting efforts are provided where needed.

Figure 5

Fig. 4 Preliminary biotic provinces and sub-provinces for Fiji (see Appendix 2). 1, Viti Levu Dry Forest; 2, Viti Levu Moist Forest; 2a, Mt Evans-Nausori; 2b, Nakauvadra-Tuvuca; 2c, Tomaniivi-Nadrau; 2d, Wainimala; 2e, Korotuba-Sawakasa; 2f, South-east Viti Levu; 2g, Ovalau; 3, Vanua Levu Dry Forest; 4, Vanua Levu Moist Forest; 4a, Western Vanua Levu; 4b, Central Vanua Levu; 4c, Eastern Vanua Levu; 5, Natewa; 6, Taveuni; 7, Lau Group; 7a, Yasayasa Moala Group; 8, Lomaiviti Group; 8a, Gau; 8b, Koro; 9, Kadavu; 10, Rotuma.

Supplementary material: PDF

Olson supplementary material

Appendices.pdf

Download Olson supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 307.4 KB