Phoenix Islands Protected Area
Country
Kiribati
Inscribed in
2010
Criteria
(vii)
(ix)
The conservation outlook for this site has been assessed as "significant concern" in the latest assessment cycle. Explore the Conservation Outlook Assessment for the site below. You have the option to access the summary, or the detailed assessment.
The Phoenix Island Protected Area (PIPA) is a 408,250 sq.km expanse of marine and terrestrial habitats in the Southern Pacific Ocean. The property encompasses the Phoenix Island Group, one of three island groups in Kiribati, and is the largest designated Marine Protected Area in the world. PIPA conserves one of the world's largest intact oceanic coral archipelago ecosystems, together with 14 known underwater sea mounts (presumed to be extinct volcanoes) and other deep-sea habitats. The area contains approximately 800 known species of fauna, including about 200 coral species, 500 fish species, 18 marine mammals and 44 bird species. The structure and functioning of PIPA's ecosystems illustrates its pristine nature and importance as a migration route and reservoir. This is the first site in Kiribati to be inscribed on the World Heritage List. © UNESCO
Summary
2025 Conservation Outlook
Finalised on
11 Oct 2025
Significant concern
Current state and trend of VALUES
High Concern
Overall THREATS
Overall PROTECTION and MANAGEMENT
Full assessment
Description of values
Exceptionally pristine oceanic wilderness
Criterion
(vii)
Phoenix Islands Protected Area (PIPA) is in an exceptional oceanic wilderness due to its remoteness and lack of human impact on the atolls and in the adjacent seas. PIPA is a very large, uninhabited protected area with no permanent residents. The mid-ocean environment hosts a range of intact and functioning marine ecosystems from coral reefs, submerged reefs, seamounts to deep sea, in a remote region. The property exhibits a high degree of natural integrity through its healthy fish, coral and sea turtle populations; and demonstrated resilience of its reefs to coral bleaching (State Party of Kiribati, 2009; IUCN, 2010; World Heritage Committee, 2011; Mollica et al. 2019; Mangubhai et al. 2018; Fox et al. 2021).
Exceptional scale of the property and number of intact seamounts
Criterion
(vii)
The site is one of the very few large marine protected areas in the world that contains numerous intact seamounts. A total of 14 large seamounts have been confirmed within the boundaries of the Phoenix Islands Protected Area (State Party of Kiribati, 2009; IUCN, 2010; World Heritage Committee, 2011; Rotjan et al. 2014; Kennedy et al. 2019; Auscavitch et al. 2020).
An exceptional site for on-going marine and terrestrial evolutionary processes
Criterion
(ix)
The remoteness and excellent state of preservation allows the property to serve as a scientific global benchmark for identifying and monitoring the processes of sea level change, growth rates and age of reefs and reef builders (both geologically and historically) and in evaluating effects from climate change and coral bleaching events without the confounding factors of pollution or resource extraction (State Party of Kiribati, 2009; IUCN, 2010; World Heritage Committee, 2011; Rotjan et al. 2014).
Important site for microbial biodiversity
Culturable bacteria from the deep waters of the Phoenix Islands have novel properties, potentially with therapeutic value (Gauthier et al. 2021). The discovery of this cryptic biodiversity led to an invention and the first patent from the protected area and the Republic of Kiribati (US Patent 11,878,057).
Assessment information
The 2022 degazettement of much of the protected area has significantly increased the scope and scale of threats to the region, as it allows for extensive commercial fishing and the associated risks of bycatch, shipwrecks, oil spills, and groundings. Drifting Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs) pose an additional threat due to the risks of grounding and of fishing those areas currently protected. This resumption of harvest is occurring against a backdrop of climate change, which will continue to drive coral bleaching and acidification, endangering shallow and deep corals alike. Meanwhile, dissolving the PIPA Trust has severely undermined oversight and effective management of the World Heritage site.
Recreational Activities
(Illegal and unmanaged landings by unregulated visitors)
Inside site
, Localised(<5%)
Unregulated visitors pose threats through disposal of sewage and wastes, illegal collection and harvest of terrestrial and marine resources, potential introduction of invasive species (which would be disastrous and seriously undermine the restoration goals for the PIPA) and disturbance of bird populations (PIPA-MC, 2010). The movement of people to Kanton or to any of the PIPA islands is closely monitored with the obligatory completion of an arrival form for locals going to Kanton from Tarawa and Kiritimati (State Party of Kiribati, 2015).
Invasive / Other Problematic Species, Genes & Pathogens, Invasive Non-Native/ Alien Species
(Invasive alien species)
Invasive/problematic species
Rattus exulans
Oryctolagus cuniculus
Felis catus
Inside site
, Localised(<5%)
Terrestrial invasive alien species (rats, rabbits, cats) on islands have reduced vegetation/shade cover and nesting bird numbers on some of the islands (State Party of Kiribati, 2009). Successful Pacific rat eradication on Birnie Island (UNESCO, 2012) and eradications of rabbits from Rawaki and Asian Rat from McKean (PIPA-MC, 2010) are very important steps forward, but these efforts have not been maintained in over a decade. Other invasive alien species (such as some ant species) could pose long-term threats and are currently un-monitored. Eradication and biosecurity programmes are reported as having been effective in the past (Rotjan et al., 2014), but lifting the ban on commercial fishing in 2022 has increased the numbers of vessels in the property, potentially increasing the terrestrial biosecurity threat. However, surveillance across the vast marine areas remains problematic (UNESCO, 2015), and there is no assessment of marine invasive species.
Shipping Lanes
(Vessel groundings)
Inside site
, Localised(<5%)
Coral damage occurs during grounding and break-up of ocean vessels, but the extent of the impact of rusting shipwrecks is unknown. These add iron to the surrounding seawater environment, which interacts with increased seawater temperatures to fuel microbial growth. In iron-limited regions such as the Central Pacific, iron addition can result in a phase shift from coral-dominated reefs to reefs dominated by iron-enriched microbial mats and turf algae (Rotjan et al., 2014), which have been described as “silent killer” black reefs in the Phoenix Islands (Mangubhai and Obura 2018). There is a shipwreck at Nikumaroro island that is accessible, and there are clear impacts from the iron on the environment (visibility is significantly lower around that area), which is worsening with increased temperature (Gawne et al, in prep). This could be a good place to gather data on this topic (IUCN Consultation, 2020). In addition, lifting the ban on commercial fishing in 2022 has increased the numbers of vessels in the property, potentially increasing the threat of vessel groundings.
Fishing, Harvesting & Controlling Aquatic Species
(Illegal fishing and overfishing by licensed and unlicensed vessels)
Other targeted species names
Tuna, sharks, other large pelagic fishes
Inside site
, Extent of threat not known
Outside site
The 2009 nomination dossier (State Party of Kiribati, 2009) and the IUCN evaluation noted concerns about potential over-fishing by DWFN (Distant Water Fishing Nations) and illegal shark finning. Even within the 3.12% of the protected area, illegal fishing occurs due to the use and increasing numbers of drifting fishing aggregating devices (Hanich et al., 2019 & 2020; Witting 2018). These devices are set and are intended to be collected outside PIPA. Their drifting through the site represents a real threat to its conservation and have been found to rapidly accumulate on islands and on reefs following grounding (Witting; SEA PIPA FAD report, 2018).
Fishing, Harvesting & Controlling Aquatic Species
(Legal fishing by licensed vessels)
Other targeted species names
Tuna, sharks, other large pelagic fishes
Inside site
, Widespread(15-50%)
Outside site
As of 2022, The Republic of Kiribati degazetted the majority of the protected area and opened it to commercial fishing, reverting the no-fishing zone from 100% of the protected area back to 3.12% of the protected area (the 12 nm surrounding islands). Throughout 2023 and 2024, there has been heavy fishing activity, including FAD fishing, in the protected area (Global Fishing Watch; UNESCO, 2024). Satellite data indicates that commercial fishing activity has resumed in the property since, at least, March 2023 (UNESCO, 2024) and fishing inside the protected area has also been observed in January 2025 (Global Fishing Watch data).
Changes in Physical & Chemical Regimes, Changes in Temperature Regimes, Changes in Precipitation & Hydrological Regime
(Climate change)
Inside site
, Throughout(>50%)
Outside site
Climate change has been noted as the most substantial threat to this World Heritage site (Obura et al., 2016; Brainard et al. 2018). Mass coral bleaching occurred in 2002, and some bleaching damage was noted in 2010 and 2015; however, the relatively pristine nature of the ecosystem was said to increase resilience to coral bleaching (State Party of Kiribati, 2009; Fox et al. 2021; Mollica et al. 2019; Mangubhai et al. 2018). Ocean warming due to climate change is expected to lead to frequent heat stress on PIPA’s coral reefs, with the probability of bleaching alerts each year rising to 70% by mid-century (Obura et al., 2016) absent rapid global decarbonization and thermal adaptation (e.g., Lachs et al 2024). Ongoing thermal stress and associated habitat loss will continue to be major influences in future damage to the reefs within the site (Rotjan et al. 2014). In 2015, a lack of understanding of the sensitivity of deep sea communities to acidification high vulnerability of seamounts to climate change impact were noted (State Party of Kiribati, 2015); recent work showed that deepwater scleractinian corals were abundant on seamounts and banks within and around PIPA (Auscavitch et al. 2020; Kennedy et al. 2025), suggesting that they would be subject to any changes in acidification. The current El Nino ended in May 2024, but there are likely ongoing impacts within the protected area (currently unmonitored given the dissolution and degazettement of the PIPA Conservation Trust, Brennan, 2024).
Water-borne & other effluent Pollution, Garbage & Solid Waste
(Pollution from anthropogenic activity, marine debris and human waste )
Inside site
, Extent of threat not known
Marine debris in the form of derelict fishing gear and other items has been noted in the deep-sea of PIPA (Amon et al. 2020) as well as washed up fish aggregation devices on uninhabited island shores (SEA FAD report, 2018). Lifting the ban on commercial fishing in 2022 has increased the numbers of vessels in the property, likely increasing the threat of increased marine debris, oil spills, and offshore human waste disposal. Increased vessel traffic also has the potential for noise pollution, adding acoustic stress to a still-recovering sperm whale population in the region (Kennedy et. al. 2021), as well as other marine mammals that may be impacted.
Removing/Reducing Human Management
(Dissolution of international cooperation and foreign aid for protected area management )
Inside site
, Throughout(>50%)
In 2021, the Republic of Kiribati voted to dissolve the 501c3 “Phoenix Islands Protected Area Conservation Trust”, that was a majority Kiribati-led entity responsible for helping to support the financial and technical needs of the Protected Area, and also responsible to ensure that the Government was continuing to abide by their conservation contract. Despite being chaired by a former Kiribati Head-of-State, the PIPA Trust suffered from poor reputation and a still-controversial need for increased funds (Kittinger et al. 2024). The dissolution of the PIPA Trust and PIPA Trust office has eroded the majority of MPA management infrastructure; noting that the corresponding Kiribati government management system (the PIPA Implementation Office) has now also been dissolved, and the management of PIPA has moved from the Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Development to the Ministry of Fisheries. As such, there is a threat of undermanagement of the Marine Protected Area, which has already been largely de-gazetted and now only 3.12% of the protected area is protected.
Major potential threats include expanded terrestrial infrastructure associated with resettlement and tourism-related development (buildings, utilities, and other infrastructure, overuse of freshwater, pollution), large cruise ships, deep-sea mining, and escalating climate impacts. Terrestrial development poses localized, but significant threats.
Recreational Activities
(Increased tourism)
Inside site
, Localised(<5%)
The continued interest in promoting tourism is a concern, elevated by the newly re-elected President’s stated intent to encourage large cruise ships. If enacted, this would be a significant threat to these uninhabited islands, surrounding waters, and relatively pristine seamounts. However, the risk is currently deemed to be low because of the remoteness of these islands.
Mining & Quarrying
(Deep-sea mining )
Outside site
Recently, interest in deep-sea mining activities around the Phoenix Islands has been increasing (e.g. Offshore, 2025). Any effort to begin deep-sea mining in the vicinity of PIPA is a big potential threat to the area and needs to be carefully assessed.
Residential Areas
(Island resettlement and increased accompanying traffic and infrastructure, including the Kanton Airfield )
Inside site
, Localised(<5%)
Outside site
Increased habitation on these islands, especially if multiple islands, would increase the footprint of infrastructure, including residential and commercial buildings, roads, wharves, airport facilities, cables, pipes, and other facilities for wastewater, power and communications, and would increase the use of freshwater resources, etc. The Kiribati Government has already initiated conversations with China about upgrading the airfield on Kanton Island (Asia Times, 2021), and development of this airfield is further intentioned in the newly re-elected President’s manifesto.
Involvement of stakeholders and rightsholders, including indigenous peoples and local communities, in decision-making processes
The dissolution of the PIPA Trust Act, the PIPA Trust, and the PIPA Implementation Office was initiated in Cabinet, and dissolved by Parliament. There was no broad outreach to stakeholders in consultation for that decision.
Legal framework
The 2009 PIPA Trust Act was amended in 2019, and then dissolved in December 2022, thereby also dissolving a multinational partnership NGO and depleting (forgoing) the Trust funds raised to-date. This also dissolved the 501c3 organization, hampering further fundraising to support the management of the Protected Area.
Governance arrangements
Governance of the Phoenix Islands Protected Area moved from the Ministry of Environment, Land, and Agricultural Development (MELAD) to the Ministry of Fisheries in 2022/2023 (Wiseman, 2024). At that time, the PIPA Implementation Office was dissolved. Concerns surrounding this change (e.g., to a ministry focused on exploitation) could be alleviated with the establishment of an effective management plan.
Integration into local, regional and national planning systems (including sea/landscape connectivity)
The dissolution of the PIPA Trust Act, the PIPA Trust, and the PIPA Implementation Office was to be replaced by a Marine Spatial Planning Process. To date, despite repeated requests by UNESCO, no Marine Spatial Plan has been shared. The most recent request had a deadline of Feb 1 2025 (46 COM 7B.66), and was not met.
Boundaries
At the time of inscription of the property in 2010, the State Party made commitments to expand the no-take zone to ensure the integrity of the property (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 from commercial fishing. Changes have been made to the PIPA outer boundaries following boundary delimitation negotiations between the Government of Kiribati, the USA and Tokelau. The State Party is yet to submit an official boundary modification. Nevertheless, in 2021, the State Party replaced the full no-take zone with a MSP Programme that intended to strike a balance between natural resource use to benefit the Kiribati people’s livelihoods and the protection of the property’s OUV, given the significant loss of revenue due to the closure of commercial fisheries in the property. Satellite data indicates that commercial fishing activity has resumed in the property since, at least, March 2023. It is of serious concern that the State Party has not provided any details regarding the reopening of the property to commercial fisheries, including details requested in the letter sent to the State Party on whether an assessment of possible impacts on the OUV of the property has been undertaken, and if so, details of the assessment; mapping of the changes in protection, including which no-take zones will remain; and the measures foreseen to enforce sustainable fishing practices outside the no-take zones under the envisaged MSP Programme (UNESCO, 2024).
Overlapping international designations
N/A
Implementation of World Heritage Committee decisions and recommendations
The World Heritage Centre has repeatedly requested the following documents relating to boundaries and the envisioned marine spatial planning process for review by the IUCN:
- The assessments, which were undertaken to forecast any impact on the OUV of the property as a result of the reported decision;
- Maps indicating changes in protection under the envisaged MSP, including areas which will remain as no-take zones;
- The measures it is taking and foreseen to monitor, survey and enforce sustainable best fishing practices within and outside of the no-take zones under the envisaged MSP.
To date, none of these documents have been received (UNESCO, 2024).
- The assessments, which were undertaken to forecast any impact on the OUV of the property as a result of the reported decision;
- Maps indicating changes in protection under the envisaged MSP, including areas which will remain as no-take zones;
- The measures it is taking and foreseen to monitor, survey and enforce sustainable best fishing practices within and outside of the no-take zones under the envisaged MSP.
To date, none of these documents have been received (UNESCO, 2024).
Climate action
There is no active climate action plan for the Marine Protected Area. Considering the high threat from climate change related impacts, this is extremely concerning.
Management plan and overall management system
The most recent PIPA management plan was in effect from 2015-2020, when it expired. There has been no new management plan since.
Law enforcement
Since the MPA reverted to only 3.12% protected (instead of 100%), much of the exploitative activity in the MPA is legal. For the 3.12% remaining, there is little law enforcement available, as the MPA is remote. However, given the availability of vast legal fishing areas, the extent of geographically illegal fishing may be low.
Sustainable finance
The PIPA Trust was charged with assisting the Government of Kiribati with sustainable financing for the Marine Protected Area. Although agreement on need was not unanimous, millions of dollars had been raised, and the management of PIPA was fully financed by international actors. The dissolution of the PIPA Trust Act ended this support, and Trust funds were returned.
Staff capacity, training and development
The PIPA Trust Office and the PIPA Implementation Office have been closed and their capacity has not been replaced. Associated training and development programs (MPA 101, Deep-sea 101, PIPA Observer training, etc) have been cancelled.
Education and interpretation programmes
The PIPA Scholar Program was dissolved; there is no actively-maintained website or social media site for the Phoenix Islands Protected Area. The last facebook post was on May 22, 2022. The last “X” post by @phoenix_islands was on July 12, 2022. There is no active Bluesky account. The phoenixislandsmpa instagram account appears inactive.
Tourism and visitation management
No current management plan exists. This will become increasingly problematic if the tourism industry develops.
Sustainable use
No current marine spatial plan exists for PIPA, so it is unclear whether or how local fisheries management will go beyond PNA agreements. Due to the vessel day scheme, PIPA waters that are now re-opened to fishing will be counted as part of the general Kiribati waters (noting that overall, PIPA is 11% of the Kiribati EEZ). As such, no additional vessel days are expected to be granted to Kiribati due to the opening of PIPA, thereby spreading the same fishing effort over a now larger area, one the one hand possibly reducing fishing pressure in any one place, but on the other hand, reducing any potential for increased fish densities and spillover.
Monitoring
With the dissolution of the PIPA Trust Office and the PIPA Implementation Office, there is no more on-the-ground monitoring of invasive species, illegal activities, or ecosystem status. The World Heritage Centre has repeatedly made requests of the state party to provide “The measures it is taking and foreseen to monitor, survey and enforce sustainable best fishing practices within and outside of the no-take zones under the envisaged MSP”; to-date, no documents have been received (UNESCO, 2024). Third party, retrospective estimates of fishing effort are available from Global Fishing Watch.
Research
Since the dissolution of the PIPA Trust and the PIPA Implementation Office, all known scientific research by international partners has ceased. It is not known whether there is ongoing research in-country or if other research partnerships are being developed.
Effectiveness of management system and governance in addressing threats outside the site
Mining of deep-sea deposits has been proposed in the Clarion Clipperton Fracture zone. The distance between PIPA and the CCZ suggests severe impacts of future mining are unlikely, but there is currently no monitoring capacity to measure such impacts.
Effectiveness of management system and governance in addressing threats inside the site
The Ministry of Fisheries is now responsible for management and governance inside the site and has previously indicated the onset of a new Marine Spatial Planning process. Although this change does not necessarily reduce management effectiveness, the World Heritage Committee requested a report on the state of conservation of the property from the State Party multiple times (in 2022, 2023, and most recently in 2024), each time stating their utmost concern that “the property might meet conditions for inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger, in line with Paragraph 180 of the Operational Guidelines). The most recent request had a deadline of 1 February 2025. These reflect decisions 34 COM 8B.2, 39 COM 7B.14, 45COM 7B.17, and 46COM 7B.66. To-date, the World Heritage Centre has received no response.
No management plan currently exists, and the results of a spatial planning exercise are past due and remain unknown. Management capacity lost following the dissolution of the PIPA Trust and Implementation Offices has not yet been replaced, and all management now lies within the Ministry of Fisheries – which may not prioritize conservation.
Exceptionally pristine oceanic wilderness
High Concern
Trend
Deteriorating
Although many characteristics of marine wilderness remain, ongoing climate change and the reversal of the previous fishing ban in the World Heritage Site has substantially imperiled and endangered oceanic wilderness, which is the vast majority of PIPA. Drifting fish aggregating devices have always been an issue, but numbers appear to be increasing (e.g. Schiller et al. 2025), and their impact is now compounded by increased fishing on the property, with an intent to further develop and exploit natural resources for commercial gain, suggesting a long-term deterioration in state.
Exceptional scale of the property and number of intact seamounts
Low Concern
Trend
Deteriorating
Although most seamounts remain intact, climate change and the reversal of the previous no-take protections in PIPA has substantially put them at risk, given the potential for increased marine debris and gear entanglements. Increased bottom exploitation (e.g., from mining, trawling, etc), and increased development on islands, alongside an increased potential for cable laying, increased shipping traffic and tourism, and other traffic that could compromise the integrity of the seamounts.
An exceptional site for on-going marine and terrestrial evolutionary processes
High Concern
Trend
Deteriorating
The reversal of the previous no-take protections in PIPA, coupled with the increased damage from climate change (mostly elevated seawater temperatures), will likely interrupt marine and terrestrial evolutionary processes. On-land, interruptions will come from increased development and settlement (and all of the infrastructure that accompanies development), as well as increased potential for invasive species and overexploitation of delicate island ecosystems. Under water, increased traffic will disrupt marine mammal communications, disrupt natural tuna aggregations via fish aggregating devices and large biomass removal due to fishing, which will increase spawning dynamics that have a direct link to evolutionary processes. In coastal areas, increased risk of coral bleaching coupled with increased anthropogenic influence may disrupt the potential for Kiribati to harbor “super reefs”; an evolutionary process of resilience and adaptation to increased seawater temperatures (Brennan, 2024).
Assessment of the current state and trend of World Heritage values
Deteriorating
The current status of all assessed World Heritage values for the Phoenix Islands Protected Area are of concern and deteriorating. Perhaps most importantly, the reversal of protections, combined with the increased intent to develop and exploit on top of observed climatic change suggest that all values are likely to deteriorate absent meaningful conservation measures. Although a marine spatial plan has been promised, it has not been produced despite repeated requests from UNESCO. As such, the deterioration of values is compounded by the absence of intent to communicate, conserve, or cooperate with international assessments.
Assessment of the current state and trend of other important biodiversity values
Data Deficient
Data Deficient
Microbial biodiversity and ecosystem processes may be disrupted by the increased activity and exploitation within PIPA’s waters., however there is a lack of up-to-date monitoring data to arrive at a current state and trend for this value.
Additional information
Sacred natural sites or landscapes
The World Heritage site and its natural resources are central to the economic and spiritual wellbeing of the people of Kiribati. They regard PIPA as a traditional storehouse of food reserves and other treasures, to be used in the future if needed (Rotjan et al., 2014).
Fishing areas and conservation of fish stocks
Well-protected sanctuary zones have a demonstrated positive impact on fish populations elsewhere.
Importance for research
An important area for marine research without the confounding effects of human habitation, pollution and resource extraction.
Outdoor recreation and tourism
Currently there is almost no tourism within the site, but there is potential.
History and tradition
Relicts of archaeological Micronesian and Polynesian settlements are found within the site.
Fishing areas and conservation of fish stocks
Benefits of protection to pelagic fisheries
Recent science has demonstrated that the closures of PIPA from 2008-2015 were effective in increasing tuna abundance both inside the MPA and in adjacent waters, commonly known as “the spillover effect” (Lynham et al. 2024). Previous research was controversial but came to the same conclusion (Medoff et al. 2022, Hampton et al. 2023). The Phoenix Islands Protected Area has also been shown to be a spawning ground for larval tuna across ENSO states (Hernandez et al. 2019).
The site benefits the local and global community for protecting wildlife and wilderness values, and providing ecosystem services. Its no-fish sanctuary zones provide a nursery for fisheries outside of the site, and potential tourism benefits. The decision to stop all commercial fishing within in the site will greatly improve its capacity as a fisheries nursery. An important resource for scientific studies, with more study it could provide increasing benefit in cultural and historic knowledge. The islands are said to harbour species of plants used medicinally elsewhere which have become rare due to over-use. The declaration of PIPA has been a source of national pride for all Kiribati citizens and the Kiribati government continues to disseminate knowledge by means of outreach programs and via the media to them.
References
| № | References |
|---|---|
| 1 |
Amon, D.J., Kennedy, B.R., Cantwell, K., Suhre, K., Glickson, D., Shank, T.M. and Rotjan, R.D., (2020). Deep-sea debris in the central and western Pacific Ocean. Frontiers in Marine Science, 7, p.369.
|
| 2 |
Auscavitch, S.R., Deere, M.C., Keller, A.G., Rotjan, R.D., Shank, T.M. and Cordes, E.E., (2020). Oceanographic drivers of deep-sea coral species distribution and community assembly on seamounts, islands, atolls, and reefs within the Phoenix Islands protected area. Frontiers in Marine Science, 7, p.42.
|
| 3 |
Brainard, R.E., Oliver, T., McPhaden, M.J., Cohen, A., Venegas, R., Heenan, A., Vargas-Ángel, B., Rotjan, R., Mangubhai, S., Flint, E. and Hunter, S.A., (2018). Ecological impacts of the 2015/16 El Niño in the central equatorial Pacific. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 99(1), pp.S21-S26.
|
| 4 |
Brennan, P. (2024). NASA Sea Level Change: Observations from Space. NASA Sea Level Team Examines an Island Nation at Risk. Published online September 3, 2024. Available at: https://sealevel.nasa.gov/news/276/nasa-sea-level-team-exam….
|
| 5 |
Fox, M.D., Cohen, A.L., Rotjan, R.D., Mangubhai, S., Sandin, S.A., Smith, J.E., Thorrold, S.R., Dissly, L., Mollica, N.R. and Obura, D., (2021). Increasing coral reef resilience through successive marine heatwaves. Geophysical Research Letters, 48(17), p.e2021GL094128.
|
| 6 |
Gauthier, A.E., Chandler, C.E., Poli, V., Gardner, F.M., Tekiau, A., Smith, R., Bonham, K.S., Cordes, E.E., Shank, T.M., Zanoni, I. and Goodlett, D.R., (2021). Deep-sea microbes as tools to refine the rules of innate immune pattern recognition. Science immunology, 6(57), p.eabe0531.
|
| 7 |
Global Fishing Watch data, 2021-2025 activity. Accessed February 2025. Available at: https://globalfishingwatch.org/datasets-and-code/
|
| 8 |
Hampton, J., Lehodey, P., Senina, I., Nicol, S., Scutt Phillips, J. and Tiamere, K., (2023). Limited conservation efficacy of large-scale marine protected areas for Pacific skipjack and bigeye tunas. Frontiers in Marine Science, 9, p.1060943.
|
| 9 |
Hanich, Q., Davis, R., Holmes, G., Amidjogbe, E. R., & Campbell, B. (2019). Drifting Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs): Deploying, Soaking and Setting–When Is a FAD ‘Fishing’?. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 34(4), 731-754.
|
| 10 |
Hanich, Q., Schofield, C., & Smyth, C. (2020). Going Big in the Pacific: Large-Scale Marine Protected Areas in the Pacific Ocean. Asia-Pacific Journal of Ocean Law and Policy, 5(1), 186-204.
|
| 11 |
Hernández, C.M., Witting, J., Willis, C., Thorrold, S.R., Llopiz, J.K. and Rotjan, R.D., (2019). Evidence and patterns of tuna spawning inside a large no-take Marine Protected Area. Scientific reports, 9(1), p.10772.
|
| 12 |
IUCN (2010). IUCN Technical Evaluation Phoenix Islands Protected Area (Kiribati).
|
| 13 |
IUCN Consultation (2020). IUCN World Heritage Confidential Consultation form: Phoenix Islands Protected Area, Kiribati.
|
| 14 |
Kennedy, B.R., Auscavitch, S., Shank, T.M., Sartor, C., Tennaba, A., Weinnig, A.M. and Rotjan, R.D., (2025). Multi-faceted examination of a deepwater seamount reveals ecological patterns among coral and sponge communities in the equatorial Pacific. Scientific Reports, 15(1), p.2270.
|
| 15 |
Kennedy, B.R., Cantwell, K., Malik, M., Kelley, C., Potter, J., Elliott, K., Lobecker, E., Gray, L.M., Sowers, D., White, M.P. and France, S.C., (2019). The unknown and the unexplored: Insights into the Pacific deep-sea following NOAA CAPSTONE expeditions. Frontiers in Marine Science, 6, p.480.
|
| 16 |
Kennedy, B.R., Hakam, L., Witting, J., Milani, R., Taei, S., Smith, T., Taylor, E., Teemari, T. and Rotjan, R.D., (2021). Historical trends of sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) distribution in the Phoenix archipelago. Frontiers in Marine Science, 7, p.583326.
|
| 17 |
Kittinger, J.N., Rotjan, R.D., Hanich, Q., Pasisi, B. and Rambourg, C., (2024). Balancing protection and production in ocean conservation. npj Ocean Sustainability, 3(1), p.24.
|
| 18 |
Lachs, L., Bozec, Y.M., Bythell, J.C., Donner, S.D., East, H.K., Edwards, A.J., Golbuu, Y., Gouezo, M., Guest, J.R., Humanes, A. and Riginos, C., (2024). Natural selection could determine whether Acropora corals persist under expected climate change. Science, 386(6727), pp.1289-1294.
|
| 19 |
Lynham, J. and Villaseñor-Derbez, J.C., (2024). Evidence of spillover benefits from large-scale marine protected areas to purse seine fisheries. Science, 386(6727), pp.1276-1281.
|
| 20 |
Mangubhai, S. and Obura, D.O., (2018). Silent killer: black reefs in the Phoenix Islands Protected Area. Pacific Conservation Biology, 25(2), pp.213-214.
|
| 21 |
Mangubhai, S., Nand, Y. and Rotjan, R., (2018). Discovery of a recovering climax Acropora community in Kanton Lagoon in the remote Phoenix Islands Protected Area. Pacific Conservation Biology, 25(3), pp.322-323.
|
| 22 |
Mangubhai, S., Strauch, A.M., Obura, D.O., Stone, G. and Rotjan, R.D., (2014). Short-term changes of fish assemblages observed in the near-pristine reefs of the Phoenix Islands. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 24, pp.505-518.
|
| 23 |
Medoff, S., Lynham, J. and Raynor, J., (2022). Spillover benefits from the world’s largest fully protected MPA. Science, 378(6617), pp.313-316.
|
| 24 |
Mollica, N.R., Cohen, A.L., Alpert, A.E., Barkley, H.C., Brainard, R.E., Carilli, J.E., DeCarlo, T.M., Drenkard, E.J., Lohmann, P., Mangubhai, S. and Pietro, K.R., (2019). Skeletal records of bleaching reveal different thermal thresholds of Pacific coral reef assemblages. Coral Reefs, 38, pp.743-757.
|
| 25 |
Obura D, Donner SD, Walsh S, Mangubhai S, Rotjan R. (2016). Living document. Phoenix Islands Protected Area climate change vulnerability assessment and management, Report to the New England Aquarium, Boston, USA. 35 pp. Updated January 18, 2016
|
| 26 |
Offshore (2025). Kiribati explores deep-sea mining partnership with China. Offshore. Published online 11 April 2025. Available at: https://www.offshore-mag.com/special-reports/news/55281426/…
|
| 27 |
Rotjan et al. (2014) Establishment, Management, and Maintenance of the Phoenix Islands Protected Area. In: Magnus L. Johnson and Jane Sandell, editors, Advances in Marine Biology, Vol. 69, pp. 289-324 Oxford: Academic Press
|
| 28 |
Schiller, L., D’Costa, N. G., & Worm, B. (2025). The global footprint of drifting fish aggregating devices. Science Advances, 11(19), eads2902.
|
| 29 |
State Party Report of Kiribati (2015). Report of the State Party to the World Heritage Committee on the state of conservation of the Phoenix Islands Protected Area (Kiribati) http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1325/documents/
|
| 30 |
State Party of Kiribati (2009). Phoenix Islands Protected Area. Nomination for inclusion in the World Heritage List natural sites. Government of Kiribati.
|
| 31 |
UNESCO (2024). Report on the State of Conservation of Phoenix Islands Protected Area, Kiribati. State of Conservation Information System of the World Heritage Centre. [online] Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre, pp.3. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1325/documents/
|
| 32 |
Wiseman, D. (2024). Kiribati presidential candidates release manifestos. RNZ News. Published online 10 October 2024. Available at: https://www.rnz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/530382/kir…
|
| 33 |
Witting, J. (2018). SEA PIPA FAD Report: Report of FAD transponder float collection on Nikumaroro Island, Phoenix Islands Protected Area during SEA Cruise S-281, 4 August – 13 August 2018.
|
| 34 |
World Heritage Committee (2011). Phoenix Islands Protected Area (Kiribati) Statement of Outstanding Universal Value. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1325/documents/
|