Phoenix Islands Protected Area

• Illegal fishing and overfishing by licensed and unlicensed vessels
• Degradation of seamounts

Total amount provided to the property: USD 13,864 in 2008 through the Stakeholder Workshop for the Phoenix Islands nomination organized by the UNESCO Office in Apia with funding from the France/UNESCO Cooperation and UNESCO/Italy Funds-in-Trust; USD 20,943 in 2008 to support the finalization of the nomination document. 

On 15 November 2021, the State Party issued a press release announcing its decision to lift the closure of the property for commercial fisheries and replace it with a Marine Spatial Planning Programme to sustainably develop the natural resources of the World Heritage property.

On 19 November 2021, the World Heritage Centre sent a letter to the State Party expressing concern about the announcement and requesting details about the decision made. The letter also announced that the state of conservation of the property would be examined at the present session of the World Heritage Committee and requested the State Party to submit a report by 1 February 2022, including: details about the decision made; an assessment of possible impacts on the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the property; mapping of the changes in protection resulting from the decision, including which no-take zones will remain; and the measures foreseen to enforce sustainable fishing practices outside the no-take zones under the envisaged Marine Spatial Planning Programme.

On 24 March 2022, a meeting was held between representatives of the State Party, UNESCO and IUCN. At the time of writing this report, the World Heritage Centre is still awaiting a formal response to its letter and the report on the state of conservation of the property.

At the time of inscription of the property in 2010, IUCN considered in its evaluation that the property did not meet the conditions for integrity because of the very limited extent of no-take zones in relation to the area of the property as a whole. Following the evaluation, the State Party made commitments to extend the no-take zone; as a result, the World Heritage Committee decided to inscribe the property on the World Heritage List and highly commended the State Party’s proposal to progressively expand the no-take zones over time (Decision 34 COM 8B.2). In 2015, the Committee highly commended the State Party for its landmark decision to fully close the entire area of the property for commercial fishing. The Committee further noted the concern expressed by the State Party that surveillance and enforcement of the full closure remained a challenge due to the size and remoteness of the property, and encouraged it to strengthen its collaboration with other countries and organizations.

The World Heritage Centre and IUCN acknowledge that the State Party’s decision to establish the property as a 100% no-take zone, making it fully off-limits for commercial fisheries, was made based on assurances that a ‘reversed fishing license’ regime through the Phoenix Islands Protected Area (PIPA) Trust would compensate foregone revenue that otherwise would have been gained from fishing activities. It is also noted that an independent advisory expert panel, composed of representatives from the Forum Fisheries Agency, the Secretariat of the Pacific Community and the Pacific Island Forum Secretariat, concluded that significant loss of revenue has occurred due to the closure of commercial fisheries in the property. The State Party’s subsequent statement that, however innovative and well-intended, the arrangement to compensate foregone fishing revenues through the reversed fishing license regime and the PIPA Trust is not sufficient to meet the present needs of the people of Kiribati, and the development needs of the country for the future, and thus its decision to replace the full no-take zone with a Marine Spatial Planning Programme that strikes a balance between natural resource use to benefit the Kiribati people’s livelihoods and the protection of the property’s OUV, is further noted.

Recalling the importance of no-take zones to protect the integrity of the property, it is noted with deep regret that the reversed fishing license regime, which aimed to guarantee livelihoods for communities while establishing a no-take zone across the entire property was unsuccessful. Moreover, it is of serious concern that the State Party has not provided any details on the analyses it took on the potential impacts on the OUV of the property of reopening the property to commercial fisheries, and what measures it is taking to protect the OUV. Satellite data indicates that commercial fishing activity has already resumed in the property. A thorough assessment of the potential impacts on the OUV is urgently needed together with careful marine spatial planning that incorporates no-take zonation in key areas of the property, underpinned by scientific evidence. Furthermore, the State Party should ensure best practices are applied and strictly adhered to by all commercial fishing vessels, and closely monitor the impacts on the OUV, fishing activities and fish stocks. Legal enforcement of any illegal fishing activity must also be effectively implemented immediately.

Therefore, the State Party should be urgently requested to provide details on the above to ensure the effective protection of the OUV. This should include details on the alternative options considered by the State Party that reconciles economic development and the needs for local livelihoods with the long-term protection needs for the property. Details should also be provided on the financial and technical arrangements, including specific proposals on future monitoring and surveillance of the property. the property may be faced with potential danger, in line with Paragraph 180 of the Operational Guidelines.

It is therefore recommended that the Committee request the State Party to invite a joint World Heritage Centre/IUCN Reactive Monitoring mission to the property, with a view to assessing the state of conservation of the property, assess if the property might meet the conditions for inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger and providing recommendations for a Marine Spatial Planning Programme.