Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
su cient to prevent or minimize new biological invasions. International action is
required, at global as well as regional level (Clout and De Poorter 2005).
IAS are found in all taxonomic groups: (e.g. Lowe et al . 2000; UNEP 2001;
and see http://www.issg.org/database). h ey are associated with many pathways,
and they have invaded and aff ected terrestrial, freshwater, and marine habitats in
virtually every ecosystem type in almost all regions of the world (UNEP 2001,
2005a,b; Matthews and Brand 2004; Matthews 2004, 2005). Management to
address IAS must be able to deal with any IAS taxa, any pathway for introduction,
and any 'receiving' habitat or ecosystem type, in any area. In addition, diff erent
aspects of management are not isolated from each other (e.g. Cromarty et al . 2002;
Chapters 7 and 15, this volume). For instance, an IAS eradication plan's success
may depend on research, human dimensions such as public awareness and accept-
ance or attitude (Genovesi and Bertolini 2001; Cromarty et al . 2002; Chapter 7,
this volume), and on political and fi nancial support as much as on the technical
feasibility of the methodology proposed. In other words, practical management is
best formulated within an overall strategy.
Legal and institutional arrangements are crucial to support and underpin prac-
tical management. Without them, it might not be possible to address IAS eff ectively;
for instance when existing wildlife or pollution laws result in impediments to man-
age IAS, such as prohibitions to hunt them, wildlife laws actually protecting them,
blanket restrictions on biocide use against them etc. (see Shine et al . 2000 for more
examples and discussion). h is is illustrated by the Indian Wildlife Protection Act,
1972, for example. Many of the species that are alien and invasive in the Andaman
Islands cannot be removed because they are native on the Indian mainland and are
hence protected by the national legislation—these include chital ( Axis axis ) and
elephant ( Elephas maximus ) which were introduced to the islands and are damaging
their biodiversity (Sivakumar 2003). h ere can also be signifi cant impediments to
management due to lack of institutional mandate; for example, in a survey under-
taken by IUCN's Global Marine Programme and the IUCN/SSC Invasive Species
Specialist Group in 2005, most respondents were aware of the threat that would be
posed by marine invasives if they arrived in their Marine Protected Areas (MPA),
but over half of the respondents reported that existing MPA regulations did not
have provisions for eradication, even if they were to fi nd such new incursions. In
other words, they did not have a mandate. While some respondents elaborated that
they would be able to seek approval to take action on a case-by-case basis, others
simply stated that they would be able to do 'nothing'. A lack of mandate to deal with
IAS can be a signifi cant impediment to conservation managers, and the creation of
such an institutional mandate is one of the key roles of legal instruments, which is
often undervalued (Shine et al 2000). Addressing IAS has to be done within a stra-
tegic framework that integrates: an overall strategy or vision; institutional arrange-
ments; and legal aspects with the practical day-to-day implementation. h ese four
major components have areas of overlap with each other; they infl uence each other
and support each other (Wittenberg and Cock 2001; De Poorter 2006).
 
Search WWH ::




Custom Search