Search the SPREP Catalogue

While invasive species eradications are at the forefront of biodiversity conservation, ant eradication failures are common. We reviewed ant eradications worldwide to assess the practice and identify knowledge gaps and challenges. We documented 316 eradication campaigns targeting 11 species, with most occurring in Australia covering small areas (b10 ha). Yellow crazy ant was targeted most frequently, while the bigheaded ant has been eradicated most often. Of the eradications with known outcomes, 144 campaigns were successful, totaling approximately 9500 ha, of which 8300 ha were from a single campaign that has since been partially re-invaded. Three active ingredients, often in combination, are most commonly used: fipronil, hydramethylnon, and juvenile hormone mimics. Active ingredient, bait, and method varied considerablywith respect to species targeted,which made assessing factors of eradication success challenging. We did, however, detect effects by active ingredient, number of treatments, and method on eradication success. Implementation costs increased with treatment area, and median costs were high compared to invasive mammal eradications. Ant eradications are in a phase of increased research and development, and a logical next step for practitioners is to develop best practices. A number of research themes that seek to integrate natural history with eradication strategies and methodologies would improve the ability to eradicate ants: increasing natural history and taxonomic knowledge, increasing the efficacy of active ingredients and baits, minimizing and mitigating non-target risks, developing better tools to declare eradication success, and developing alternative eradication methodologies. Invasive ant eradications are rapidly increasing in both size and frequency, and we envisage that eradicating invasive ants will increase in focus in coming decades given the increasing dispersal and subsequent impacts.

Small Island developing states (SIDS) have ongoing projects and projects in the pipeline which are targeted at implementing adaptation measures. In the Pacific alone there have been a range of such initiatives starting with the PICCAP project in the late 90s to the ongoing PACC project, the latter building on the lessons learnt from its predecessors to help increase resilience to the impacts of climate change. On a global, regional and national level these projects have stringently involved strengthening of institutions, policy and regulations, but more importantly evolved to implement on the ground-level tasks, many of which follow on from, or are acting in synergy with other projects for the mainstreaming of climate change adaptation (CCA) and disaster risk reduction (DRR) initiatives in communities. A key challenge in this context for decision makers, policy makers, and development partners is to understand and adopt strategies that are effective in mobilizing people and resources in response to CCA and DRR. All efforts in this context must be made to learn from past lessons and concerted action taken to refine, augment and deploy these initiatives appropriately and urgently.

This paper provides a brief examination of capacity development needs for climate change adaptation (CCA) and disaster risk reduction (DRR) in small island developing states (SIDS). It is noted that this is a critical time for SIDS which must contend with ongoing developmental pressures in addition to growing pressures from risks associated with global environmental change and economic liberalisation that threaten their physical and economic security. Much depends in this context on the orientation of SIDS in global economic and political systems. Getting the policies right is proving to be very difficult as SIDS continue to be deficient in a critical mass of intellectual capital, policy coherence, financial resources and qualified personnel that are needed to develop and implement sustainable development policies and projects. In turn, this critically hampers the emergence of adequate systemic capacity. SIDS however have a history of changes at the global and regional levels which not only created constraints but can be seen as a source of new opportunities for building resilience to natural disasters. How effective this process transpires in the end will depend on how well lessons learnt from preceding years are taken on board and effectively acted upon.