Search the SPREP Catalogue

Humanity has altered the planet in many detrimental ways, from the warming of our climate to the ever-diminishing wildernesses on land and in the sea. But in such a complex system as the Earth, science must always keep searching – for both solutions to problems already identified and new threats coming our way. UNEP’s Frontiers Report does this by identifying and exploring areas of emerging or ongoing environmental concern. The 2022 edition delves into three issues: noise pollution in cities, the growing threat of wildfires and shifts in seasonal events – such as flowering, migration and hibernation, an area of study known as phenology.

Humanity is waging war on nature. This is senseless and suicidal. The consequences of our recklessness are already apparent in human suffering, towering economic losses and the accelerating erosion of life on Earth. This report represents a scientific blueprint for howclimate change, biodiversity loss and pollution can be tackled jointly within the framework of the Sustainable Development Goals. The report is a synthesis based on evidence from global environmental assessments.

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

Breeding success of 5 Cory’s shearwater Calonectris diomedea sub-colonies of Lavezzu Island (Lavezzi Archipelago, Corsica) was checked annually for 25 consecutive years from 1979 to 2004. Between 1989 and 1994, 4 ship rat Rattus rattus controls were performed in several subcolonies. In November 2000, rats were eradicated from Lavezzu Island and its 16 peripheral islets (85 ha) using traps then toxic baits. We compare cost (number of person-hours required in the field) and benefit (Cory’s shearwater breeding success) of control and eradication. The average breeding success doubled when rats were controlled or eradicated (0.82) compared to the situation without rat management (0.45). Moreover, the average breeding success after eradication (0.86) was significantly (11%) higher than after rat controls (0.75). Furthermore, the great variation in breeding success recorded among sub-colonies both with and without rat control declined dramatically after eradication, suggesting that rats had a major impact on breeding success. The estimated effort needed to perform eradication and checking of the permanent bait-station system during the year following eradication was 1360 person-hours. In contrast, rat control was estimated to require 240 or 1440 person-hours per year when implemented by trained and untrained staff, respectively. Within 6 yr, eradication cost is lower than control cost performed by untrained staff and confers several ecological advantages on more ecosystem components than Cory’s shearwater alone. Improved eradication tools such as hand or aerial broadcasting of toxic baits instead of the fairly labour-intensive eradication strategy we used would dramatically increase the economic advantage of eradication vs. control. Therefore, when feasible, we recommend eradication rather than control of non-native rat populations. Nevertheless, control remains a useful management tool when eradication is not practicable.