United Nations

The early 1970s saw the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (Stockholm 1972), the creation of the UNEP and the birth of some specialized conservation conventions. By 1974, the UNEP was establishing Regional Seas Programmes including islands, starting with the Mediterranean. Their action plans and conventions have provisions and protocols on protected areas and wildlife (see below).

In the lead up to the UNCED, the Rio Earth Summit, in 1992, Maurice Strong, the Conference Secretary-General, asked me to join the conference secretariat to prepare a section on the sustainable development of islands in the ‘Oceans’ chapter of Agenda 21. This section presented the special needs and requirements of SIDS including their biodiversity, stimulated their recognition as a specific entity in the UN and called for global conferences on the sustainable development of SIDS in order to help them identify and express their common interests. The UN defines SIDS as low-lying coastal countries that share similar development challenges and concerns about the environment, especially their vulnerability to the adverse effects of global climate change. Agenda 21 recognized that SIDS and islands supporting small communities are special cases both for environment and development due to their small size, isolation and vulnerability. Currently, 39 SIDS are included in the list used by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA) (Taylor et al. Reference Taylor, Stroud and Peteru2013).

The UN Secretariat established a SIDS Unit in UN DESA, as well as an Inter-Agency Consultative Group on SIDS. In 2001, the UN General Assembly established the United Nations Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States to follow-up on the implementation of their respective action plans. The UN has supported and hosted the Small Island Developing States Network (Table 4).

Table 4 Other mechanisms supporting small island developing states’ collaboration on conservation.

After an initiative by Malta and other islands at the UN in 1988, the island countries organized themselves in 1990 as an intergovernmental organization – the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) – to carry out advocacy for small island states and to influence international environmental policy, including presenting common positions in international negotiations such as those on climate change. This is particularly important since individual small island states have few resources for diplomacy and gain much from working collectively. Another important island grouping on biodiversity is the Global Island Partnership, which organizes high-level events at international conferences and collaborations among SIDS (Table 4).

SIDS conferences

The proposal in Agenda 21 for an international conference for all SIDS led to a series of UN intergovernmental conferences (Table 1). The first Global Conference on the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States was held in Bridgetown, Barbados, on 25 April–6 May 1994. It adopted the Barbados Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States. The Second International Meeting to Review the Implementation of the Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States in Port Louis, Mauritius, on 10–14 January 2005, adopted the Mauritius Strategy for the Further Implementation of the Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States. The third International Conference on Small Island Developing States held in Apia, Samoa, on 1–4 September 2014, adopted the SIDS Accelerated Modalities of Action (SAMOA) Pathway. For this conference, the UNEP prepared a report on Emerging Issues for Small Island Developing States (UNEP 2014a) and GEO Environment Outlook for Small Island Developing States (UNEP 2014b).

These conferences helped SIDS to recognize that their impact increases when they act together, and they have been good at creating mechanisms for sharing and collaborating in support of convention objectives. In the Micronesia Challenge, the islands have committed to conserving at least 30% of near-shore marine resources and 20% of terrestrial resources across Micronesia by 2020. In the Caribbean Challenge Initiative, nine Caribbean leaders agreed to protect 20% of their marine and coastal environment by 2020, accompanied by a Corporate Compact of business leaders and supported by a Caribbean Biodiversity Fund. The Western Indian Ocean Coastal Challenge is supported by the Indian Ocean Commission ISLANDS Project (Table 4).

The SAMOA Pathway includes three priority areas that are relevant to biodiversity. Under oceans and seas, the target is to conserve by 2020 at least 10% of SIDS coastal and marine areas, especially areas of importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services. It supports SIDS to conserve biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources. On forests, it supports the implementation of the Non-Legally Binding Instrument on All Types of Forests, calls for a halt to deforestation and forest degradation, and for effective reforestation and looks to financing to improve the state of biological diversity by conserving and safeguarding ecosystems, species and genetic diversity. Another priority is invasive alien species that threaten biodiversity.

Law of the Sea

While the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is not directly concerned with island biodiversity conservation, it has played an important role in defining what is an island and how far its maritime jurisdiction extends, including over biological resources (Jacovides Reference Jacovides, Lodge and Nordquist2014). One innovation was the definition of archipelagic states, incorporating the waters between islands into their sovereign territory (Cogliati-Bantz Reference Cogliati-Bantz and del Castillo2015). UNCLOS has adopted an Agreement concerning islands, and the Fish Stock Agreement, which creates a framework for regional fisheries conventions and agreements.

One of the chief architects in the design and implementation of the Law of the Sea was an islander, Satya N. Nandan from Fiji, first Secretary-General of the International Seabed Authority (https://www.isa.org.jm/) in Kingston, Jamaica. He was also involved in some of the important fisheries conventions involving island states (Lodge & Nordqvist Reference Lodge and Nordquist2014).

Convention on Biological Diversity

The overarching international legal text on biodiversity is the UN Framework CBD. The special conditions in small island states are mentioned in the Preamble and the article on financial resources, but not in the substantive text. A number of instruments adopted under the convention (Table 2) include issues of concern to islands, such as impacts on indigenous communities and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets to be achieved by 2020 through the implementation of National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs). In 2006, the Convention adopted a Thematic Programme of Work on Island Biodiversity (https://www.cbd.int/island/). It has also published reports on progress in island biodiversity (CBD 2014).

The funding mechanism for the CBD is the Global Environment Facility (GEF) of the World Bank, the UNDP and the UNEP, which support the international dimension of environmental actions. One of its early projects was the South Pacific Biodiversity Conservation Programme (1993–2001), executed by the SPREP in order to pioneer the establishment of 17 community-based Conservation Areas in 12 participating Pacific Island countries, leading to the spread of the locally managed marine areas model (Govan et al. Reference Govan, Tawake, Tabunakawai and Jenkins2009). The GEF has also supported trust funds for island protected areas through the Micronesia Challenge. This shows how international mechanisms can pioneer solutions that are appropriate to island biodiversity and customary ownership.

Other conservation conventions

There are other global conventions that address particular aspects of biodiversity conservation from which islands benefit. Several mechanisms provide international recognition for protected natural areas (Table 5) including the World Heritage Convention of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), which adopted a World Heritage Programme for SIDS in 2005 (http://whc.unesco.org/en/sids/). There are 27 island states and territories or offshore islands with natural World Heritage sites. The Ramsar Convention lists wetlands of international importance as waterfowl habitats, including many island sites. UNESCO has established a World Network of Biosphere Reserves under its Man and Biosphere Programme combining conservation and sustainable development, with many islands and parts of islands protected as Biosphere Reserves (Table 5).

Table 5 Internationally recognized island protected areas.

The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals provides the framework for specific agreements on wide-ranging or migratory species that need to be protected across their range such as waterbirds, marine turtles and marine mammals. A number of these agreements cover ranges including island countries and have SIDS as parties (Table 2).

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) controls or prohibits the trade in listed species or parts of species where this trade threatens the survival of the species (Bell Reference Bell2012). It is a useful tool for reducing the pressure on island species for export.

Many islands have whales in their waters and interests in whale watching, and the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling and its International Whaling Commission (IWC), which formerly regulated the hunting of whales, now largely aims to protect the small remaining populations.

Another international convention of critical importance for islands and the survival of their biodiversity is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Islands have become major players in the negotiations at the Conferences of the Parties, and through a Marshall Islands initiative leading up to the Paris Agreement adopted in 2015, they succeeding in having their aspiration of global warming limited to 1.5°C accepted by all countries. The challenges for island states under the UNFCCC are similar to those under the conservation conventions (Nurse & Moore Reference Nurse and Moore2005).

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (UN 2015) are the latest framework for integrating biodiversity challenges with other environmental, social and economic objectives in national planning and action until 2030. Two of the 17 SDGs directly address biodiversity conservation: Goal 14 on oceans and marine resources; and Goal 15 on terrestrial ecosystems and biodiversity loss. In addition, targets that are relevant to biodiversity are integrated under a number of other SDGs (Table 6).

Table 6 Biodiversity conservation in the Sustainable Development Goal targets.

All countries including SIDS are expected to adapt these global goals to their own situation and to report regularly to the UN on their progress. Indicators have been identified for most of these targets (IAEG-SDGs 2016). SIDS should now be considering how they will measure their progress in biodiversity conservation within this new integrated framework for policy, action and reporting.

Pacific

In the Pacific, the island countries and territories have a long tradition of regional cooperation on which biodiversity conservation action has built. The major intergovernmental organizations in the region with some impact on biodiversity and natural resources are the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), the Pacific Community (SPC), the Forum Fisheries Agency and the SPREP. The Council of Regional Organizations in the Pacific under the PIF ensures cooperation among the regional organizations, both governmental and non-governmental (Table 3).

A short history of regional conservation action in the Pacific Islands illustrates how mechanisms for international cooperation, standard setting and implementing institutions such as convention secretariats are mutually supportive, with interested governments, non-governmental organizations and international organizations working together over decades through a combination of formal agreements, action plans, intergovernmental meetings and scientific symposia to build interest in and capacity for nature conservation in the 22 small island countries and territories of the region.

In 1947, the governments with Pacific Island territories established the South Pacific Commission (SPC; now the Pacific Community) to combine their efforts to rebuild the islands after World War II. The SPC had work programmes in economic development (including fisheries), social development and public health, but did not respond to political questions. As island countries became independent, they joined the Commission, and today the SPC, headquartered in Nouméa, New Caledonia, includes all independent states and dependent territories in the Pacific Islands.

An SPC meeting in 1969 recommended a special project on nature conservation and the recruitment of a Regional Ecological Advisor, and in 1971, the IUCN and SPC held a Regional Symposium on Conservation of Nature (SPC 1973). I took up the post of Regional Ecological Advisor from 1974 to 1982 and assisted island countries with ecosystem surveys, conservation legislation, training and the establishment of some of the first terrestrial and marine protected areas.

To build political interest, the governments of New Zealand and Australia then initiated a series of South Pacific Conferences on National Parks and Reserves in 1975 and 1979, inviting ministers from the island countries to learn about and commit to the creation of protected areas. These conferences on nature conservation continue as the main forum for regional planning for conservation action. The IUCN funded the SPC to prepare a Regional Ecosystems Survey of the South Pacific Area (Dahl Reference Dahl1980) in order to identify the conservation needs of the region, with the initial results presented at a Second Regional Symposium on Conservation of Nature in Apia, Samoa, in 1976, followed immediately by a plenipotentiary meeting to conclude a Convention on Conservation of Nature in the South Pacific (Apia Convention) drafted by the IUCN.

The Apia Convention was the first island nature conservation convention. The number of parties was never large, since a dispute at the plenipotentiary meeting over the representation of autonomous but not yet independent island territories interfered with the signature and ratification process. The Convention was suspended in 2006 in order to avoid duplication with the Nouméa Convention.

The UNEP also became interested in the region after being approached by the SPC in 1974, leading to financial support being given to the SPC to prepare national and regional state-of-the-environment reports and a regional action plan for the SPREP, launched at the Rarotonga Conference on the Human Environment in the South Pacific in 1982 (Fuse & Iwama Reference Fuse, Iwama, Kato, Kumamoto and Matthews1981; Dahl & Baumgart Reference Dahl and Baumgart1982). The UNEP considers the SPREP to be one of its Regional Seas Programmes, although with a broader focus than just oceans and coastal areas. What started as a joint programme of the SPC, the Pacific Forum, the UNEP and the UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific with a secretariat at the SPC became a separate intergovernmental organization through the 1986 Convention for the Protection of the Natural Resources and Environment of the South Pacific Region (Nouméa Convention) and the 1993 Agreement Establishing SPREP, with the SPREP in Apia, Samoa, as the main regional body responsible for sustainable development, nature conservation, climate change and other environmental issues (Dahl Reference Dahl1984a, Reference Dahl1984b, Reference Dahl1985). The IUCN continued to provide scientific support to regional conservation planning (Dahl Reference Dahl, McNeely and Miller1984c, Reference Dahl1986).

The SPREP is the Secretariat for three conventions: the Apia Convention, the Nouméa Convention and the Waigani Convention on hazardous wastes. The SPREP has built the capacity of countries in the region to participate in international conventions and negotiations (Herr Reference Herr, Sotkke and Thommessen2002; Mougeot et al. Reference Mougeot, Piest and Dodds2003), such as through an information package on the CBD to assist governments with implementation (SPREP 2000), training on CITES, regional preparatory meetings prior to conferences of parties to international conventions and a GEF Integrated Island Biodiversity project. It has also explored how to rationalize the reporting requirements under the different biodiversity conventions.

As mentioned above, the regional conferences on nature conservation have continued every 5 years since 1975, with the most recent 9th Pacific Conference on Nature Conservation and Protected Areas in Suva, Fiji, on 2–6 December 2013. It adopted an Action Strategy: Framework for Nature Conservation and Protected Areas in the Pacific Islands Region 2014–2020 (SPREP 2014). Part 1 is a Code of Conduct and Guiding Principles, while Part 2 serves as a bridge between the global targets for biodiversity and the implementation of the NBSAPs under the CBD. The SPREP has prepared a guide linking this framework to the CBD Aichi targets (SPREP 2016), but countries still have difficulties in using the guide in their reporting. To ensure coordination with the non-governmental organizations that are active in conservation in the region, the SPREP established the Pacific Islands Roundtable for Nature Conservation (https://sprep.org/pirt).

Caribbean

The Caribbean region also has intergovernmental organizations of islands, including the Caribbean Community, which is associated with a Climate Change Centre (http://www.caribbeanclimate.bz/), and the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States.

The Caribbean Environment Programme (CEP), a UNEP Regional Seas Programme, provides the legal framework for regional cooperation on biodiversity conservation, including both island and coastal states. The Caribbean Action Plan and the Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region (Cartagena Convention) are facilitated by a Regional Coordinating Unit in Kingston, Jamaica. An associated protocol on Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife is implemented by a Regional Activity Centre in Guadeloupe (http://www.car-spaw-rac.org/). As with most Regional Seas Programmes outside the Pacific and South Asia, the focus is on marine and coastal conservation rather than terrestrial conservation.

Indian Ocean, Mediterranean and Atlantic

The Indian Ocean Commission groups Comoros, Réunion (France), Madagascar, Mauritius and Seychelles, with a secretariat in Mauritius. It includes sustainable development and the conservation of resources and ecosystems among its areas of focus, with projects on biodiversity, climate change and coastal zone management. Beyond this, it is the UNEP Regional Seas Programmes, including the relevant island countries and territories, which provide Action Plans and often regional Conventions with a biodiversity conservation component.

The Eastern African Regional Seas Programme covers the Comoros, Madagascar, Mauritius and Seychelles, as well as the coastal states, with an Action Plan and the Nairobi Convention for the Protection, Management and Development of the Marine and Coastal Environment of the Western Indian Ocean, as well as a protocol concerning Protected Areas and Wild Fauna and Flora. The Eastern African Regional Coordinating Unit is based in Seychelles.

In the East Asian Seas (EAS), Singapore is the only SIDS, although the region includes many islands. The Coordinating Body for the Seas of East Asia in Bangkok is responsible for the Action Plan for the Protection and Development of the Marine and Coastal Areas of the East Asian Region. There is no regional convention, but instead the programme promotes compliance with existing environmental treaties. Long-term strategies for the EAS Action Plan are adopted periodically.

The South Asian Seas, including Maldives, Sri Lanka and India's Andaman, Nicobar and Laccadive Islands, are covered by the 1995 South Asian Seas Action Plan (SASAP) but no convention, with the South Asia Cooperative Environment Programme (SACEP) as secretariat. The SASAP follows existing global environmental and maritime conventions with the Law of the Sea as its umbrella convention. Its actions for biodiversity conservation include assistance in National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan updating, a Coral Reef Management Strategy with a list of protected areas (SACEP 2008), capacity development and technical assistance to SACEP member countries in order to develop a South Asia Regional Biodiversity Clearing House Mechanism.

For Mediterranean islands, Cyprus and Malta were considered to be SIDS until they joined the European Union (EU). The Mediterranean became the first region to adopt a Regional Seas Action Plan in 1975, supported by the Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution (Barcelona Convention) and a protocol on Specially Protected Areas and Biodiversity, with a Coordinating Unit in Athens. A strategic Action Programme for the Conservation of Biological Diversity was adopted in 2003.

The Regional Seas Programme for West and Central Africa includes Cape Verde and São Tomé and Principe with an Action Plan and the 1981 Abidjan Convention. However, the programme has been under-resourced and has only recently been reactivated.

Apart from Cape Verde, the islands in the Atlantic Ocean Macaronesia Region (Azores, Madeira and Canary Islands) all belong to countries of the EU, as are the islands in the Mediterranean and the North Sea, so they are covered by biodiversity action at the national and EU levels, which are beyond the scope of this review.

Fisheries conventions and agreements

Fish represent another biological resource with significant problems of over-exploitation and conservation, and coastal fisheries are an important conservation concern for islands within the frameworks described above. However, oceanic fisheries are not insular but in the waters between islands and require management at their own regional scales (Aqorau Reference Aqorau, Lodge and Nordquist2014). Numerous fisheries conventions and agreements include islands, so only a few examples are reviewed here.

In the wider Caribbean, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN's Western Central Atlantic Fisheries Commission partners with the CEP on biodiversity-related activities like species resource assessment and management plans and training in marine protected area management. The Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism manages island fisheries more broadly.

Unlike the successful single-species Parties to the Nauru Agreement, the Western Pacific illustrates the challenges for conservation action when national interests differ. The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission manages a tuna fishery that is multi-species, multi-jurisdictional and multi-gear, where big-eye tuna (which is seriously overfished) is an incidental catch in other tuna fisheries, and its protection would have economic impacts on the other fisheries. Different island countries benefit from different kinds of fisheries, producing conflicting interests and a conservation burden with winners and losers that is not easily shared. The convention is proof that all of the countries acknowledge the need for conservation action, but in fact each gives priority to its own benefit and there is little interest in compromise (Hanich Reference Hanich, Schofield, Yi and Kwon2014; Hanich & Tsamenyi Reference Hanich, Tsamenyi, Lodge and Nordquist2014). Negotiations failed again in 2016. In islands, as elsewhere, national sovereignty generally wins out over common interest.

Island capacity

The main challenge is in the means available for implementation, since the isolation and diversity of islands require adaptation to many different local situations. For the smallest island countries and territories, there will never be sufficient technical expertise locally to respond to all conservation needs, requiring regional technical support. Conservation measures for species and ecosystems must be adapted to islands where land is too limited to create traditional parks and reserves, and indigenous tenure may be important, involving local populations in community-managed conservation areas.

Politicians, in islands as elsewhere, often have short-term priorities and change frequently, so it is civil servants who can maintain some continuity and longer-term vision. When the total government staff is very small, the departure of even a single person can leave a large gap in experience and institutional memory.

If anything, there are too many biodiversity-relevant conventions and agreements, overloading the absorptive capacity of at least the smaller SIDS to make full use of them and creating an administrative burden that detracts from real action on the ground. Sometimes a regional organization can serve as an interface, helping to identify the specific conservation needs of the island and delivering only the assistance that is necessary, as well as assisting with reporting requirements under the conventions.

More could be done by convention secretariats and conferences of parties to adapt to the needs and capacities of SIDS. Some financial support is provided, but limited time and local human capacity, if only to assist outside consultants, is a more important obstacle. Chasek, in her review of treaty implementation in the Pacific, identified four implementation challenges linked to island capacity: capacity building; coordination; information and data collection and sharing; and prioritization and funding (Chasek Reference Chasek2010).

Island size and culture

A defining characteristic of island reality is small size and clear limits. Traditional island populations were limited by local subsistence. With overseas support and food imports, island populations can now grow without fear of starvation, sometimes reaching very high population densities and degrading biological resources.

One issue that is important for those islands with indigenous populations, especially in the Pacific, is the integration of biodiversity conservation with their traditional cultures. Pacific peoples learned early out of necessity how to live sustainably within their natural resources, with traditional conservation practices that are still relevant. There was complete interdependence of nature and culture, with an understanding of their environment and indigenous species often far beyond what modern science has yet discovered (Johannes Reference Johannes1981, Reference Johannes2002; Dahl Reference Dahl and Gland1989). Islanders, like other indigenous peoples, have pushed to have this cultural dimension acknowledged in international legal frameworks for biodiversity conservation, including in the CBD and the Law of the Sea (Chang Reference Chang and Van Dyke2013; Guth Reference Guth and Van Dyke2013).

Today, even the most remote islanders are exposed to the world and its values, eroding traditional culture. Many emigrate for education or better opportunities, so that some SIDS have a majority of their population residing overseas. Sometimes they or their children return, bringing with them values that are less adapted to island life, producing a clash of cultures even within the island population itself. Biodiversity values may suffer. They may also bring positive values to address the new problems that have been introduced with globalization.

Conflicting priorities

The development of SIDS has highlighted two opposing tendencies. On the one hand, islanders recognize how much they have in common socially, economically and environmentally, and are aware of limits and the need for sustainability and biodiversity conservation. On the other hand, island states have formed within the present paradigm of national sovereignty and economic growth, and island political leaders are just as interested in short-term gain and defensive of their national interests as in any other state. The pressures, both legitimate and sometimes corrupting, to favour development and exploitation of resources over conservation may be even harder to resist in small governments with fewer checks and balances. This is where the support for conservation from outside can make an important difference in maintaining a priority for biodiversity over short-term gain. The role of international and regional organizations is important in defining the common interest and working for state adhesion to that common agenda.

Islands are no longer ignored on the international stage. There is now a considerable pool of island specialists and organizations looking out for island interests, including within the UN itself, and the international conferences on SIDS have defined an island agenda and helped to carry it forward to implementation. Islands have been laboratories not only for evolution, but also for creative approaches to biodiversity conservation, often combining traditional knowledge and modern science.

What is needed now is alternative paradigms beyond national sovereignty that would make it easier for island states to meet their needs collectively. New forms of multilevel governance could maintain the rich diversity of island nations, while allowing them to collectively become parties to international conventions and to fulfil the accompanying obligations. This would be more reasonable than expecting the diplomatic corps of a tiny island to be as effective as that of a large nation. The EU, which can become a party to conventions and negotiate on behalf of all of its state members, is a possible model.

Among the unmet needs are helping islands to adapt to accelerating environmental changes beyond their control, such as from climate change, sea level rise and ocean acidification. The human challenges are already great, and the impacts on unique island biodiversity will probably be similar. The exception would be if the depopulation of an island eliminated human pressures on biodiversity, allowing for recovery. There is also a related gap in international legislation under the Law of the Sea, which never anticipated rapidly rising sea levels. If an island state drowns and loses all of its national territory, it loses both the basis for its national sovereignty and its rights over its territorial sea and exclusive economic zone, which would leave its marine biodiversity unprotected. A legal modification to freeze present limits would allow island peoples to retain rights to their marine resources, even if they are forced to become climate-displaced persons (Rayfuse Reference Rayfuse2011).

Another need that is only partly met is in combating alien invasive species and preventing further introductions (Jupiter et al. Reference Jupiter, Mangubhai and Kingsford2014). Species are often transported accidentally during trade or are introduced in ships’ ballast water. International cooperation is necessary to address this beyond what islands are able to do at ports of entry. Exterminating a species once it has become established is a complex and expensive process that is beyond the means of island governments themselves, if it is possible at all.

Genetic diversity is often overlooked in conservation policy and action (Laikre Reference Laikre2010). The emerging issue of marine genetic resources will be important to islands with their extended exclusive economic zones (Kim & Lee Reference Kim, Lee and Van Dyke2013), but the international legal framework for the conservation of marine biodiversity is still rudimentary.

All of the above is rather defensive, trying to reduce the erosion of island biodiversity and to prevent extinctions. Hopefully it will soon be possible to consider island restoration, rebuilding the natural systems within which unique island biodiversity evolved and that can support, if not ensure, long-term sustainability. The science of ecosystem restoration is still embryonic, and international cooperation will be needed in order to help islands that are ready to go in this direction.

More fundamental still is the challenge for each island society to define and evolve a sustainable island culture and economy in harmony with its unique island environment and biodiversity, as suggested in the GEO SIDS Outlook (UNEP 2014b). Rather than falling into the trap of the globalized consumer culture and a society fixed within the geographic limits of a nation state, islands could consider a more dynamic population spread between their islands and other countries and benefiting from both, with a choice of lifestyles adapted to the environmental limits of each location and favouring human well-being, culture, arts and science more than material accumulation. While this is a challenge for all parts of the world set by the SDGs, many island societies have a head start in their traditional island cultures and lifestyles, with the potential to define island life in harmony with biodiversity in new and creative ways.