116 - Building Madagascar’s capacity to counter the threat from invasive species

116 - Building Madagascar’s capacity to counter the threat from invasive species

Latest version in this language: Version for electronic vote | Published on: 01 Sep 2020

RECALLING Recommendation 5.151 Safeguarding Madagascar’s unique and highly threatened natural heritage (Jeju, 2012);

EMPHASISING that Madagascar’s extraordinary concentration of endemic animal and plant species makes the country a global conservation priority;

THANKFUL for the enormous efforts of the government of Madagascar and non-governmental organisations to conserve the country’s biodiversity despite limited resources;

ALARMED that invasive alien species (IAS) are a major and growing threat to Madagascar’s biodiversity;

NOTING that IAS of concern include the house sparrow (Passer domesticus) and the Asian common toad (Duttaphrynus melanostictus) which, in 1975 and around 2010 respectively, were both accidentally introduced to Toamasina, Madagascar, and now both number well over seven million individuals;

FEARING that the eradication of both species is likely unachievable due to technical and/or economic constraints, and that control or mitigation methods to reduce environmental and economic impacts will be expensive and will need to be applied in perpetuity;

ACKNOWLEDGING that such costs seriously challenge Madagascar’s limited financial resources;

NOTING that these costs could have been avoided through adequate preventive actions or through rapid action to remove these IAS soon after their arrival in the country;

ENCOURAGED that decisive steps are being taken to control the Asian common toad and to eradicate the invasive house crow (Corvus splendens) from Madagascar;

RECOGNISING the existing Malagasy phytosanitary, veterinary, human health, and international trade legislation and procedures that aim to reduce the import of non-native animals, animal and human diseases, and agricultural pests;

NOTING that Madagascar’s growing connections with international trading partners and limited biosecurity and capacity will increase its vulnerability to IAS; and

RECALLING that Resolution 5.021 Implementing the provisions on invasive alien species of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020, (Jeju, 2012) called for development of strong national programmes to counter growing threats to biodiversity and human livelihoods from IAS;

The IUCN World Conservation Congress, at its session in Marseille, France:

1. REQUESTS that:

a. the IUCN Environmental Law Centre and the World Commission on Environmental Law (WCEL) support the Malagasy Government to strengthen existing legislation to further protect against IAS;

b. the Species Survival Commission (SSC) and other experts provide critical data and advice to key decision makers on Madagascar’s priority IAS (current and potential), pathways of introduction, and sensitive or susceptible sites, in order to inform policy and procedures; and

c. SSC and donors help raise funds to build capacity within Madagascar to develop and implement a country-wide programme to counter IAS; and

2. CALLS ON the government of Madagascar to establish a country-wide programme to counter the growing threat from IAS, with the following suggested components:

a. a lead government agency (lead agency) specifically tasked and legally empowered to tackle invasive species and biosecurity issues;

b. improvement of existing legislation to regulate the import (accidental and intentional) of IAS into Madagascar, including a framework for the management of IAS that includes, when possible, their control and eradication;

c. a cross-sectoral national invasive species committee comprised of government, private sector and non-governmental organisation members to support the lead agency;

d. a country-wide invasive species reporting and learning network that links to regional networks such as the Western Indian Ocean Network on Invasive Species (WIONIS);

e. a national database of IAS species in Madagascar;

f. a national invasive species strategy with clear objectives; and

g. a rapid-response capability within the lead agency to implement measures to remove newly detected IAS without delay.

Madagascar is renowned as one of the richest and most threatened biodiversity hotspots in the world (Myers et al. 2000; Goodman and Benstead 2005).
Invasive species are recognised as being amongst the primary drivers of biodiversity loss and degradation of ecosystem function worldwide (Butchart et al. 2010, Mack & Antonio 1998) and are now also being recognised as such in Madagascar (Kull et al. 2014). Goodman et al (2018) highlight the issue using several key examples of recent terrestrial animal invaders now proliferating to such numbers that, most likely, negate the possibility of eradication, which pose large environmental and economic threats. Likewise, there are numerous problematic alien invasive plant species in Madagascar (Binggeli 2003). The Malagasy National Biodiversity Action Plan (NBASP) 2015-2025, states that a key objective is to “promote mechanisms for regulation, management and governance for invasive species to protect natural ecosystems”. Yet, as pointed out by Randriamoria (2018), existing legislation, preventative measures and capacity currently in place in Madagascar are limited and in urgent need of further development to prevent, or at least reduce, the arrival of new IAS or to tackle current invasions. It will be essential to coordinate between multiple Malagasy government departments to align existing phytosanitary, veterinary, human health and international trade legislation that addresses biosecurity and pest management issues and to build on these. Randriamoria (2018) further identifies, amongst other suggestions, the urgent need for a dedicated governmental agency to deal with invasive species and biosecurity issues, risk pathway analysis to identify severe potential threats, a national invasive species strategy, capacity building within Madagascar, and indeed many of the actions highlighted in the present motion, to facilitate the beginning of the process to address these gaps. With limited resources available, it will be vital for the SSC and the international community to support the proposed efforts through fundraising and the identification of donors.

References
Butchart S.H.M., Walpole M. & Collen B. (2010) Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science, 328, 1164–1168.
Binggeli, P. (2003) Introduced and invasive plants. In: The Natural History of Madagascar. S. M. Goodman, J. P. Benstead (eds.), pp 257–268. University of Chicago Press.
Goodman S.M. & Benstead J.P. (2005) Updated estimates of biotic diversity and endemism for Madagascar. Oryx, 39(1): 73–77.
Goodman S.M., Raselimanana A.P., Andriniaina H.A., Gauthier N.E., Ravaojanahary F.F., Sylvestre M.H. & Raherilalao M.J. (2017) The distribution and ecology of invasive alien vertebrate species in the greater Toamasina region, central eastern Madagascar. Malagasy Nature 12: 95–109
Kull C.A., Tassin J. & Carrière S.M. (2014) Approaching invasive species in Madagascar. Madagascar Conservation and Development, 9(2): 60–70.
Mack M.C. & Antonio C.M. (1998) Impacts of biological invasions on disturbance regimes. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 13, 195–198.
Myers N., Mittermeier R.A., Mittermeier C.G., Da Fonseca G.A. & Kent J (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403(6772): 853–858.
Randriamoria T.M. (2019) Revue des stratégies nationales sur la biosécurité et perspectives sur la gestion des espèces exotiques envahissantes à Madagascar. Malagasy Nature, 13: 76-87.
  • Island Conservation [United States of America]
  • St. Louis Zoological Park [United States of America]
  • Synchronicity Earth [United Kingdom]
  • Zoo Leipzig GmbH [Germany]
  • Zoologischer Garten Köln [Germany]

Hosts