Search the SPREP Catalogue

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.

The 2015 Human Development Report is the latest in the series of global Human Development Reports published by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) since 1990 as independent, analytically and empirically grounded discussions of major development issues, trends and policies.

Reducing the risk of climate change requires large and rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, most of which are caused by the burning of fossil energy sources (1). The debate around emission reductions has been dominated by concern for economic growth, and its reliance on cheap and plentiful energy. Instead, I believe energy’s role in achieving human development should be our core priority.

The concept of ‘climate finance’ has gained considerable currency following commitments from developed countries to provide new and additional funding for action on climate change. There have been a series of studies estimating the size of the financing need and assessments of how the international financing architecture can meet those needs. Sources of ‘climate finance’ comprise not only finance that governments spend, but also private finance for private actions on climate change. These studies have served a useful purpose of putting the mobilization and effective use of increased international resources for action on climate change firmly on the agenda.

The Pacific Islands Greenhouse Gas Abatement through Renewable Energy Project (PIGGAREP) is a Global Environment Facility (GEF) US$5.25 million project in eleven Pacific Island Countries (PICs). Implementation of the project started on 1 January 2008. PIGGAREP’s planned five year duration has been extended to six and a half years, with a scheduled end date now of December 2013.

In 1989, the Asian Development Bank provided technical assistance to the then Department of Agriculture and the Survey Department through a NZ Consulting Firm - ANZDEC under an ADB Land Resource Planning Survey Project. The Project provided training on mapping and GIS capability for the survey staff who were involved in the mapping work. Electronic GIS data and equipment were handed over to the Department of Agriculture at the end of the project which were later on damaged by Cyclone Ofa in 1990. A decade later, the Integrated Climate Change Risks in Agriculture and Health Sectors (ICCRAHSS) Project funded by the GEF through UNDP contracted the services of a consultant to provide: -improved GIS maps for soil, crops and rainfall distribution under different climatic projections; -review existing GIS systems and possible areas for collaboration; -consider a program to support capacity building on the use of the system and; -some applications that addresses options for climate change adaptation for the agriculture sector. Based on this report, a GIS system for the Ministry of Agriculture was procured to address the need for such a system to be in place with the expectation that the system will be properly utilized and maintained by relevant people.

In collaboration with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment and members of the health technical team in the project Integrating Climate Change Risks into Agriculture and Health, the development of this Synthesis Report formulates the baseline of the linkages in climate change and health based on the local context of Samoa. The purpose of this report is to compile and consolidate efforts in addressing risks of climate change to health with scenarios outlines throughout the analysis. The development was reviewed by experts involved in the areas of climate services and health experts in the areas of communicable diseases. This report has developed a baseline to future research work into climate change and health to guide policy formulation as well as to consolidate resource prioritisations for health services to adverse impacts of climate change.

The Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) submitted its Initial National Communication in October, 1999. This Second National Communication uses it as the baseline to document the increases in FSM's vulnerability to climate change, and changes in its greenhouse gas emissions, since the Initial National Communication was prepared. This National Communication also reports on the efforts FSM is making to reduce its emissions and to identify and implement adaptation options that reduce climate risks.