Search the SPREP Catalogue

Small Island developing states (SIDS) have ongoing projects and projects in the pipeline which are targeted at implementing adaptation measures. In the Pacific alone there have been a range of such initiatives starting with the PICCAP project in the late 90s to the ongoing PACC project, the latter building on the lessons learnt from its predecessors to help increase resilience to the impacts of climate change. On a global, regional and national level these projects have stringently involved strengthening of institutions, policy and regulations, but more importantly evolved to implement on the ground-level tasks, many of which follow on from, or are acting in synergy with other projects for the mainstreaming of climate change adaptation (CCA) and disaster risk reduction (DRR) initiatives in communities. A key challenge in this context for decision makers, policy makers, and development partners is to understand and adopt strategies that are effective in mobilizing people and resources in response to CCA and DRR. All efforts in this context must be made to learn from past lessons and concerted action taken to refine, augment and deploy these initiatives appropriately and urgently.

This paper provides a brief examination of capacity development needs for climate change adaptation (CCA) and disaster risk reduction (DRR) in small island developing states (SIDS). It is noted that this is a critical time for SIDS which must contend with ongoing developmental pressures in addition to growing pressures from risks associated with global environmental change and economic liberalisation that threaten their physical and economic security. Much depends in this context on the orientation of SIDS in global economic and political systems. Getting the policies right is proving to be very difficult as SIDS continue to be deficient in a critical mass of intellectual capital, policy coherence, financial resources and qualified personnel that are needed to develop and implement sustainable development policies and projects. In turn, this critically hampers the emergence of adequate systemic capacity. SIDS however have a history of changes at the global and regional levels which not only created constraints but can be seen as a source of new opportunities for building resilience to natural disasters. How effective this process transpires in the end will depend on how well lessons learnt from preceding years are taken on board and effectively acted upon.

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.