Search the SPREP Catalogue

Following the incursion of rats (Rattus rattus) on Taukihepa (Big South Cape Island; 93.9 km²) off southern New Zealand in 1963, and the subsequent extirpation of several endemic species, the New Zealand Wildlife Service realised that, contrary to general belief at the time, introduced predators do not reach a natural balance with native species and that a safe breeding habitat for an increasing number of ‘at risk’ species was urgently needed. Off shore islands offered the best option for providing predator free habitat but there was a limited number of predator-free islands available and most were very small. Eradicating rodents on larger islands to provide a wider range and greater area of habitats was required and hand treating these larger areas using trapping and hand application of toxicants, the only methods available at the time, proved problematic and often impossible. Helicopters had been used to distribute bait for the control of rabbits and brushtail possums in the past but eradication of any particular predator species was considered ‘not feasible’. The development of a GPS-based aircraft guidance system, a suitable bait product, specialised bait delivery systems and second-generation anti-coagulant toxicants changed that. Now islands as large as South Georgia (3,900 km²) have been treated using this method

The impacts of house mice (Mus musculus), one of four invasive rodent species in New Zealand, are only clearly revealed on islands and fenced sanctuaries without rats and other invasive predators which suppress mouse populations, influence their behaviour, and confound their impacts. When the sole invasive mammal on islands, mice can reach high densities and influence ecosystems in similar ways to rats. Eradicating mice from islands is not as difficult as previously thought, if best practice techniques developed and refined in New Zealand are applied in association with diligent planning and implementation. Adopting this best practice approach has resulted in successful eradication of mice from several islands in New Zealand and elsewhere including some of the largest ever targeted for mice; in multi-species eradications; and where mouse populations were still expanding after recent invasion. Prevention of mice reaching rodent-free islands remains an ongoing challenge as they are inveterate stowaways, potentially better swimmers than currently thought, and prolific breeders in predator-free habitat. However, emergent mouse populations can be detected with conventional surveillance tools and eradicated before becoming fully established if decisive action is taken early enough. The invasion and eventual eradication of mice on Maud Island provides a case study to illustrate New Zealand-based lessons around mouse biosecurity and eradication.

Attempts to eradicate invasive terrestrial arthropods are often regarded as gambles. They o?er the possibility of long term freedom from a pest but are usually confronted with substantial uncertainty and come with a range of technical, economic, environmental, social and political risks. Few guidelines are available for evaluating eradication attempts against terrestrial arthropods. Here, we build on scienti?c literature, including six criteria previously developed to evaluate the feasibility of vertebrate eradications, and our own experiences to de?ne nine criteria that are intended to both assist experts to evaluate proposed arthropod eradication attempts and guide attempts that are underway. The criteria are straight forward and easily interpreted, though evaluating them for a particular programme relies on expert group assessment that will often benefit from rigorous supporting statistical and/or modelling analyses.

Pieris brassicae, large white butter?y, was ?rst found in New Zealand in Nelson in May 2010. The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) responded with a monitoring programme until November 2012 when the Department of Conservation (DOC) commenced an eradication programme. DOC was highly motivated to eradicate P. brassicae by the risk it posed to New Zealand endemic cress species, some of which are already nearly extinct. DOC eliminated the butter?y from Nelson in less than four years at a cost of ca. NZ$5 million. This is the ?rst time globally that a butter?y has been purposefully eradicated. Variation in estimates of bene?ts, costs, the e?cacy of detection and control tools, and the probability of eradication success all contributed to uncertainty about the feasibility. Cost bene?t analyses can contribute to assessing feasibility but are prone to inaccurate assumptions when data are limited, and other feasibility questions are equally important in considering the best course of action. Uncertainty does not equate to risk and reducing uncertainty through data gathering can inform feasibility and decision making while increasing the probability of eradication success.

The inextricable links between climate change and sustainable development have been increasingly recognised over the past decade. In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)1 concluded with very high confidence that climate change would impede the ability of many nations to achieve sustainable development by mid-century and become a security risk that would steadily intensify, particularly under greater warming scenarios. Article 4.8 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) lists several groups of countries that merit particular consideration for assistance to adapt to climate change “especially: (a) small island countries, (b) countries with low-lying coastal areas, c) countries with areas prone to natural disasters.” Small Island Developing States (SIDS) have characteristics which make them particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change, sea level rise (SLR) and extreme events, including: relative isolation, small land masses, concentrations of population and infrastructure in coastal areas, limited economic base and dependency on natural resources, combined with limited financial, technical and institutional capacity for adaptation.2

The nations of CARICOM16 in the Caribbean together with Pacific island countries contribute less than 1% to global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (approx. 0.33%17 and 0.03%18 respectively), yet these countries are expected to be among the earliest and most impacted by climate change in the coming decades and are least able to adapt to climate change impacts. These nations’ relative isolation, small land masses, their concentrations of population and infrastructure in coastal areas, limited economic base and dependency on natural resources, combined with limited financial, technical and institutional capacity all exacerbates their vulnerability to extreme events and climate change impacts. Stabilising global GHG emissions and obtaining greater support for adaptation strategies are fundamental priorities for the Caribbean Basin and Pacific island countries. CARICOM leaders recently unveiled their collective position that global warming should be held to no more than 1.5°C19 and continue to develop a Climate Change Strategic Plan. The Pacific island countries have expressed their priorities for addressing climate change regionally through the Pacific Leaders’ Call to Action on Climate Change20 and the Pacific Islands Framework for Action on Climate Change 2006-2015.21