Skip to main content

Search the SPREP Catalogue

Refine Search Results

Tags / Keywords

Available Online

Tags / Keywords

Available Online

10 result(s) found.

Sort by

You searched for

  • Tags / Keywords strategic environmental assessment
    X
  • Tags / Keywords beavers
    X
Strategic environmental assessment for invasive species management on inhabited islands.
BRB
Available Online

Russel, J.

,

Taylor, C.

2019
Over the past decade the challenges of managing invasive species on inhabited islands have clearly become limiting factors to scaling-up the area of invasive species eradications. Step-change is required to unleash the conservation and restoration potential of biodiversity on inhabited islands around the globe and avoid the pitfalls previous attempts to eradicate invasive species on inhabited islands have fallen into. Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) is a systematic decision support process, aiming to ensure that environmental and other sustainability aspects are considered effectively throughout policy, plan and programme making. Within the framework of SEAs, on target islands eradication planners could implement a number of tools including stakeholder engagement, social impact assessment and economic cost benefit analysis alongside existing environmental impact assessment. Such a suite of assessments captures the immediate impacts of an eradication operation on a range of values, alongside predicted long-term changes in these tightly coupled socio-ecological systems. In this paper we outline what SEA is, and then contrast invasive species management attempts occurring outside an SEA framework on two similar but also contrasting UNESCO World Heritage islands; Lord Howe Island, Australia and Fernando de Noronha, Brazil. We then demonstrate how an SEA approach to invasive species management would assist planning in New Zealand to eradicate introduced mammalian predators from two large off shore islands in New Zealand; Aotea (Great Barrier Island) and Rakiura (Stewart Island). We conclude with future prospects for applying SEA to invasive species management on inhabited islands.
Island invasives: scaling up to meet the challenge. Proceedings of the international conference on island invasives 2017
Island and Ocean Ecosystems, BRB
Available Online

Curto, E.

,

Escobar, J.

,

Jusim, P.

,

Schiavini, A.

2019
A pilot project for the eradication of beavers (Castor canadensis) in Tierra del Fuego started as part of a bi-national agreement, signed between Argentina and Chile, to restore the affected environments. The project covers nine pilot areas of different landscapes and land tenures in the Argentinian part of Isla Grande de Tierra del Fuego. We report on the results from operations in the fi rst of the pilot areas. From October 2016 to January 2017, ten trappers (named restorers for advocacy purposes) used body-grip traps, snares and an air rifle, in a first phase, which included 2,237 trapping nights and 1,168 trap-sets. Shooting eff orts were not monitored. Traps were set for 1,401 trapping-nights and caught 175 beavers at a success rate of 12.5% (captures per trap night). Snares were set for 936 snare-nights and caught 22 beavers at a success rate of 2.3%. Seven beavers were shot. Most beavers (65%) were removed during the fi rst week of trapping in the different watercourse sections. Stopping trapping for a week or more did not increase efficiency. From March to May 2017 restorers removed 24 survivors and/or reinvaders, including 10 from two previously untrapped colonies. Capture efficiency for this removal period was low for body-gripping traps but not for snares. The sex ratio of catches was 47% females to 53% males. The age structure of catches was 15% kits, 29% yearlings, 51% adults, with 4% not aged. An estimated total of 41 colonies was trapped, giving an average of 5.6 animals per colony. After nominal eradication was declared by restorers, 154 camera trapping nights were deployed to assess eradication success. Nine cameras (of 26 cameras used) detected beavers. Therefore, eradication was not achieved using the methods and eff orts in the first part of the pilot study. This highlights the need for more eff ort or the application of different techniques or trapping strategies. For example, daily checking of traps may cause the animals to be cautious so, the next step in the programme will involve exploring alternative trapping methods to reduce disturbance.