Search the SPREP Catalogue

Le plan de Biosécurité des îlots de Wallis pose les standards par lesquels les risques de réintroductions de rongeurs ou d’introduction de nouvelles espèces seront minimisés. Il tend à atteindre ce standard de protection pour Wallis via des mesures volontaires ou rendues obligatoires sur le territoire. Les mesures permettant de viser ces standards sont présentées dans ce plan et les rôles et responsabilités y sont identifiés. L’acceptation et l’approbation de ce plan sont portés par le Service Territorial de l’Environnement de Wallis en consultation étroite avec la population locale.

Au Mont Lulu à Wallis, le Service Territorial de l’Environnement a mené des opérations de retrait d’agaves américaines sur trois sites totalisant 400 m2. Après les premières opérations de retrait de 30 individus adultes (mesurant 2m de hauteur et 1,5 m de diamètre), 120 individus moyens et plus de 1500 plantules ont également été enlevés. Un travail important de suivi a été déployé, permettant de contrôler la repousse.

Les plantes envahissantes représentent un risque important pour la biodiversité. Elles accaparent les ressources des espèces indigènes ou endémiques. A Wallis et Futuna dans le cadre du projet PROTEGE, les agents du Service territorial de l’environnement (STE) créent une pépinière afin de reboiser les espaces sur lesquels le merremia pelcata, une liane très envahissante, a recouvert la forêt.

La mise en œuvre du projet PROTEGE sur la thématique des EEE sur le Paysage Culturel Taputapuatea ne peut être garantie sans un appui en termes de sensibilisation et de communication. En effet, cela permettra une meilleure appropriation des actions de mise en œuvre de la gestion et de la restauration du site UNESCO par la population locale, et cela permettra également aux acteurs locaux de mieux agir sur cette thématique et de faire évoluer les pratiques à court, moyen et long terme afin de garantir l’intégrité du Bien et la reconduction du label UNESCO. La mission de sensibilisation va permettre d’informer les acteurs locaux sur les généralités des EEE et leurs moyens de lutte/éradication associés, et sur les EVP et leur conservation et restauration. Elle passera par des phases d’information, de connaissances, et d’actions pédagogiques, ludiques avec des visites et ateliers de terrain. L’élaboration du plan de sensibilisation place au cœur de sa stratégie des publics cibles auxquels sont associés : des objectifs et messages de sensibilisation, des moyens, et des outils/supports adéquats et adaptés aux publics cibles.

Une Espèce Exotique est une espèce végétale ou animale introduite par l’homme, de manière volontaire ou non, en dehors de sa zone habituelle. Elles deviennent Envahissantes lorsqu’elles possèdent une forte capacité de prolifération et qu’elles éliminent les plantes indigènes (locales) et endémiques. Le « Paysage Culturel Taputapuātea » (PCT), inscrit sur la liste du Patrimoine mondial de l’UNESCO, est le site retenu pour l’opération de « Mise en œuvre d’actions de lutte contre les Espèces Exotiques Envahissantes (EEE) et d’actions de gestion de la biodiversité ». C’est la raison pour laquelle ce guide a été réalisé. - d’informer sur les dangers des EEE - d’ expliquer les impacts de ces espèces - d’aider à les reconnaître - de limiter leur développement

In Aotearoa New Zealand, a significant threat to biodiversity, conservation efforts and Indigenous cultural identity is the unwanted introduction of invasive pests, plants and pathogens. Currently methods to control invasive species in Aotearoa New Zealand, in particular mammalian pests (i.e. possums (Trichosurus vulpecula)) have had decreasing public support. This has likely come about for a number of reasons, including lack of social engagement and concerns over impacts combined with an increasing distrust of top-down initiatives. Aims and methods. We analysed opinions towards existing and emerging technologies to manage invasive species. Data were obtained from 1015 respondents who identified as Indigenous Maor ¯ i from a national survey of 8199 respondents. Utilising psychological frameworks to investigate underlying beliefs of social acceptance, we analysed the responses using exploratory and latent class analysis methods to summarise the main perspectives.

This webinar provided an overview on the PRISMSS five regional programmes, and introduced the Resilient Ecosystems Resilient Communities approach - priority area and ecological restoration,. In this session, David Moverley, technical lead for PRISMSS RERC programme talks about the processes involved in restoring ecosystems and their services at high valued ecological sites, as well as managing multiple types of invasive species. The webinar was an introductory session for the Pacific Island Forest Restoration Initiative (PIFRI)

The introduction and spread of non-indigenous marine species to Pacific Island countries and territories is a threat to biodiversity, commerce, and socio-cultural values. Yet, little is known about what marine non-indigenous species (NIS) are present throughout the Pacific Island region or what their impacts are. We define here an invasive species as an NIS if (i) the species has demonstrated impact anywhere outside its indigenous range, (ii) the species is widespread, abundant, fast-spreading or has a high population growth rate anywhere outside its indigenous range, or (iii) the species is widespread, abundant, fast spreading or has a high population growth rate in the reporting country (McGeoch et al. 2012). Not all NIS are considered harmful or “invasive”.

Ecosystems have immeasurable intrinsic value that can never be priced. Ecosystems also exist as ecological infrastructure that delivers valuable ecosystem services for human wellbeing including supporting, regulating, provisioning, and cultural services. The conceptual framework underlying the analysis in this report focuses on the way that ecosystem services cross over from the biophysical to the social and economic world. This enables the pricing of the human labour and technology cost of protecting and enhancing ecosystems (ecological infrastructure) that provide these services that benefit human wellbeing. We routinely price this cost of protecting ecosystems in organisational budgets for core and grant funding. We can also price these same costs in a manner that does not rely on government core or grant funding, but instead on a sustainable financing framework.

Much research effort has been invested in understanding ecological impacts of invasive alien species (IAS) across ecosystems and taxonomic groups, but empirical studies about economic effects lack synthesis. Using a comprehensive global database, we determine patterns and trends in economic costs of aquatic IAS by examining: (i) the distribution of these costs across taxa, geographic regions, and cost types; (ii) the temporal dynamics of global costs; and (iii) knowledge gaps, especially compared to terrestrial IAS. Based on the costs recorded from the existing literature, the global cost of aquatic IAS conservatively summed to US$345 billion, with the majority attributed to invertebrates (62%), followed by vertebrates (28%), then plants (6%). The largest costs were reported in North America (48%) and Asia (13%) and were principally a result of resource damages (74%); only 6% of recorded costs were from management. The magnitude and number of reported costs were highest in the United States of America and for semi-aquatic taxa. Many countries and known aquatic alien species had no reported costs, especially in Africa and Asia. Accordingly, a network analysis revealed limited connectivity among countries, indicating disparate cost reporting. Aquatic IAS costs have increased in recent decades by several orders of magnitude, reaching at least US$23 billion in 2020. Costs are likely considerably underrepresented compared to terrestrial IAS; only 5% of reported costs were from aquatic species, despite 26% of known invaders being aquatic. Additionally, only 1% of aquatic invasion costs were from marine species. Costs of aquatic IAS are thus substantial, but likely underreported. Costs have increased over time and are expected to continue rising with future invasions. We urge increased and improved cost reporting by managers, practitioners and researchers to reduce knowledge gaps. Few costs are proactive investments; increased management spending is urgently needed to prevent and limit current and future aquatic IAS damages.