The Forest Invasive Species Network for Africa (FISNA) was created in 2004 to coordinate the collation and dissemination of information relating to forest invasive species in sub-Saharan Africa for sustainable forest management and conservation of biodiversity. Invasive species are defined as biotic agents, not native to a specific forest ecosystem, whose introduction does, or is likely, to cause harm to the forest ecosystem. The Network is open to all countries in sub-Saharan Africa that wish to participate. There is no distinction by language or forest type.

 

Objectives of the network

• To facilitate exchange of information and provide a link for communication about forest invasive species
• To alert and provide policy advice on transboundary movement, phytosanitary measures and other relevant information
• To raise regional awareness on forest invasive species issues
• To encourage the publication and sharing of research results, management and monitoring strategies
• To facilitate taxonomic support
• To act as a link between and among experts, institutions, networks and other stakeholders concerned with forest invasive species
• To facilitate the mobilization of resources for critical activities in management of invasive species
• To provide technical guides on research and control of invasives for sustainable forest protection and health issues in Africa

For endorsement or participation of the network, please send your request to the Secretariat:

Clement Z. Chilima

Forestry Research Institute of Malawi (FRIM)

Kufa Road

P.O. Box 270

Zomba

Malawi

E-mail: [email protected]

 

 

The Kivu region is one of the most dangerous places in the world. In this region the Ugandan organisation Gourmet Gardens set up a vanilla and cocoa production chain that is fair trade (Fair for Life) and organic certified in 2005. Le Jardin Bio-Equitable is a local producer organisation that is created especially to meet the certification requirements and to manage the production. 

TDC finances a project of Gourmet Gardens that aims to set up a fair trade and organic chain with added value that will provide a sustainable income for some 1500 producers.

The Democratic Republic of Congo is the third most populous country of Africa and counts hundreds of ethnic groups. It is considered a treasury trove for its diamonds, valuable raw materials and rare metals… Its many
natural resources have aroused the appetites of armed groups and covert powers, which do not hesitate to resort to violence and corruption.Moreover, because of its size and central position at the heart of the continent, theDemocratic Republic of Congo has to deal with major influxes of refugees that destabilise the fragile ethnic and local balances.

The civil war, which killed more than four million and displaced another two million, officially ended in 2003, but the agony still remains. The Democratic Republic of Congo, probably even more than its neighbours, must transform
from a colonially modelled multi-ethnic format to a nation state with a shared identity.

Under such conditions, fair and sustainable trade offers interesting perspectives as it brings together communities and enriches the populations. A challenge for the hearth of Africa.

SURVIVE
In the east of the country, North Kivu is one of the regions that suffered
most from violence and the influx of refugees. Production infrastructure,
particularly in the coffee sector, has been very badly affected and the
populations of this border region have had a hard time surviving on subsistence farming and small trade.

Since a few years, the country is trying to come back as well as it can,
but the economy is not improving and the outlook remains bleak for
the local populations, as thousands of displaced persons are living in
makeshift camps. Investments remain negligible, the agricultural potential is greatly underused and local field hands are often condemned to emigrate or to plunder forestry resources, in particular in the Virunga National Park, the oldest and the
richest wildlife and flora national park in Africa.

MOUNTAINS OF THE MOON
Between the savannahs of eastern Africa and the large forests of the Great Lakes rise the Mountains of the Moon, whose slopes offer perfect conditions for a variety of agricultural activities. Here, in North Kivu, Gourmet Gardens, a Kampala-based Ugandan company, started up a fair(Fair for Life) and organic certified vanilla and cocoa production chain in 2005. “Le Jardin Bio-Equitable”, a local producers association, was established to meet the certification requirements and to manage production, which is then purchased by Gourmet Gardens and commercialised under the Mountains of the Moon brand.

AND NOW, QUALITY PLEASE
Certifying products of smallholder
members of the “Le Jardin Bio-Equitable” organisation helped implementing a first series of social programmes, to the benefit of farmers and their families. But commercialisation of their products suffered from the distance from Europe-bound export infrastructure (the port of Mombassa in Kenya and the airport of Entebbe in Uganda).

To further help the producers, Gourmet Gardens set up a new project that
aims at positioning the production of the “Le Jardin Bio-Equitable” farmers on
niche markets with high added value. The key idea of this programme is to
produce a “Single Origin” cocoa which is fair, organic and of the best quality,
and which can meet the requirements of the greatest European chocolate
makers.

To get there, the Ugandan company has implemented a three-point action
programme. The first part was launched in 2010 and aimed at improving quality
and at enhancing fair and organic cocoa volumes. To do so, a network of extension farms was set up and training was given to farmers who, for the larger
part, had had very few training because of the years of civil war. A second
series of actions aim at improving the harvest-processing infrastructure, especially through the installation of solar-powered fermentation stations, as well
as the setting up of a cocoa bean drying and weather and parasite proof storage
station. Thirdly, resources are mobilised to provide the farmers’ association
with solid decision-making and management bodies.

A TOP-OF-THE-RANGE FAIR
AND ORGANIC COCOA VALUE
CHAIN

The Gourmet Gardens project is supported by the Trade for Development
Centre of BTC, the Belgian development agency. It aims at setting up a
fair and organic cocoa production chain of high quality, which should
generate a sustainable income for some 1,500 producers involved in
the project. The resources made available should strengthen the North Kivu farmers association, increase the profitability of the farms and in the end provide the cocoa growers of the region with decent incomes.

With the insecurity that still prevails in the region, the cost of certification and the deplorable state of infrastructure, there are still many obstacles to achieving these results. These obstacles should not be underestimated but the stakes are equally important.

 

The sisal plant has a 7-10 year life-span (longer in Mexico where growth is slower) and is usually cut first after 2-3 years and then at 6-12 month intervals. A typical plant will produce 200-250 commercially usable leaves in its life-time (hybrid varieties up to 400-450 leaves) and each leaf contains an average of around 1000 fibres.

The fibre element, which accounts for only about 4% of the plant by weight, is extracted by a process known as decortication.

In East Africa, where sisal is produced on an estate basis, the leaves are in the main transported to a central decortication plant after which the fibre is dried, brushed and baled – for export or for use in the domestic mills. In Brazil it is mainly grown by small-holders and the fibre is extracted by teams using portable raspadors.

East African sisal, being washed and decorticated, is considered to be superior in quality to Brazilian sisal (although the latter is more than adequate for the manufacture of agricultural twines and general cordage and is used domestically in craft paper production) and, in normal times, commands a significant price premium on the world market.

Sisal is the coarsest vegetable “hard” fibre. There are many varieties of the plant spread throughout the tropical and sub-tropical world, especially in Central America, but the most important on a commercial basis are AGAVE SISALANA (and its hybrids, the most common of which is known as 11648) and AGAVE FOURCROYDES (better known as henequen).

The East African sisal plant originated in the Yucatan, Mexico (and received its common name from the first port of export) and arrived in what is now Tanzania via Hamburg in 1893. A little later sisal bulbils sent from Kew Gardens were planted in Kenya.

After a difficult start sisal production in East Africa prospered and by the 1960’s Tanzania production alone totalled some 230,000 tons. Production in East Africa has contracted materially over the past three decades in response to the continuing movement in end products away from the low value agricultural twine market into considerably higher value more specialised end products, such as carpets, wire rope cores, dartboards, speciality pulps, plaster reinforcement and handicrafts.

Production is now approximately 20,000 tons per annum in Tanzania, 20,000 tons in Kenya and 12,000 tons in Madagascar. There is also production in Southern China of around 40,000 tons (very largely for domestic consumption) and smaller quantities in South Africa, Mozambique, Haiti, Venezuela and Cuba.

In Mexico henequen production (largely in the Yucatan peninsular) has fallen from a peak of about 160,000 tons in the 1960’s to about 15,000 tons today, all of which is converted into product locally.

The first commercial plantings in Brazil were not made until the late 1930’s and the first sisal fibre exports from there were made in 1948. It was not, however, until the 1960’s that Brazilian production really accelerated and the first of many spinning mills, largely devoted to the manufacture of agricultural twines, were established. Today Brazil is the major world producer of sisal at some 125,000 tons.

Traditionally sisal was the leading material for agricultural twine (“binder” and “baler” twine) but the importance of this is now tending to diminish (with competition from polypropylene and other techniques) although there is still a major business between Brazil and the United States.

Apart from ropes, twines and general cordage sisal is used in both low-cost and speciality paper, dartboards, buffing cloth, filters, geotextiles, mattresses, carpets and wall coverings, handicrafts, wire rope cores and macramé.

In recent years sisal has been utilised as a strengthening agent to replace asbestos and fibreglass and is increasingly a component used in the automobile industry, where its “naturalness” and environmentally friendly characteristics are greatly appreciated.

Sisal for export has for long been “graded” for length, decortication characteristics and colour. The main specifications are:-

No 1
No 2
No 3L
No 3
UG
Tow 1

Type 2
Type 3
Refugo
Bucha

Detailed specifications may be obtained by reference to the Company.

INTRODUCTION
1. The fair-trade approach presents itself as an alternative strategy, positioned between free trade
and protectionism, to address the issue of poverty in developing countries. It also offers an alternative
way for consumers to express their opinion through “political consumerism” or “responsible
consumerism”. People buying fair-trade products are portrayed as using their consumer choice to
voice their concerns about poverty in less developed countries, and about a trading system that is
considered as unfavourable to these countries. Focusing on the food commodity market is a natural
choice for the fair-trade movement because most developing countries are dependent on these products
for export earnings.

2. In 1988, the first fair-trade labelled product (coffee) was launched under the Max Havelaar
brand. Since then, fair-trade has been growing at a rapid pace and now covers various products, such
as cocoa and chocolate, coffee, bananas, tea, honey products, textiles and handicrafts. Cocoa sold with
the fair-trade label captures a very small share of the cocoa market (0.1 percent). However, based on
the steady growth of fair-trade and the support of public opinion and governments, some fair-trade
participants claim that the idea will move beyond niche markets and become more mainstream.

3. Under Action 9 of its work programme of September 2004, the Consultative Board on the World
Economy requested the ICCO secretariat to undertake an analysis of the situation and prospects for
fair-trade cocoa and its potential market effects. The objective of the Board, according to the work
programme of the Board (document CB/3/2 Rev.1), is to assess whether “a very significant increase in
the tonnages of cocoa beans sold under the fair-trade brand, and therefore at the fair-trade premium
price, would lead to cocoa oversupply and/or depressed demand for non-fair-trade cocoa”.

4. This first document on fair-trade prepared by the ICCO secretariat provides only the basic facts
on fair-trade in cocoa; the volumes traded, the characteristics of the “fair-trade price” and the
additional benefits and costs of this approach. It is envisaged that the factual information on fair-trade
in cocoa provides a good basis for the Board to give guidance to future work by the secretariat.

THE KEY PARTICIPANTS IN THE FAIR-TRADE MOVEMENT AND DEFINITION

5. The fair-trade movement began to take its current form in the 1960s. It is united in the view that
conventional trading relations between the South and the North are unfair and unsustainable and that
this issue can be addressed through a different approach to the trading system. Its goal is to tackle
poverty in developing countries through trade and its pragmatic approach is one of the key reasons for
its success. However, the diversity of the movement, its lack of structure and economies of production
scale was an impediment to its sustainability. Since the early 1990s, the fair-trade movement has
become more organized to address the challenges it faces. The harmonization of definitions, the
increased professionalism and emphasis on quality assurance, the direct marketing through
supermarkets and the establishment of working relations with mainstream businesses to enable
economies of scale, have further secured steady growth of fair-trade.

6. The organizations engaged in fair-trade can be divided into three groups:
• The network and umbrella organizations of the fair-trade movement, which consist of the
following four organizations: the Fairtrade Labelling Organization (FLO), the International
Fair-trade Association (IFAT), the European Fair-trade Association (EFTA) and the Network
of European Worldshops (NEWS). The Fairtrade Labelling Organization (FLO) was
established in 1997, and is the worldwide fair-trade standard setting and certification
organization. Since 2004, it has been composed of two independent bodies, FLO-I for
standard setting and FLO-Cert Ltd. for fair-trade certification and auditing activities. The
FLO has established common principles, procedures and specific certification requirements
for fair-trade and certifies mainly commodity products.

This relates partially to the fact that non-commodity products are usually not subject to direct comparison of price and quality. The FLO deals with cocoa, as well as with coffee, bananas, tea, honey products, rice, fresh
fruits, juices, sugar, sport balls, wine and flowers. It estimates its total retail sale value at
$500 million in 2004. The FLO membership consists of the 19 National Initiatives located
across Europe, North America, Mexico and Australia/New Zealand, as listed in Table 1 and
has recently introduced a common label to be applied across all products in all countries.
The International Fair-trade Association (IFAT) was established in 1989 and is a worldwide
membership organization that brings together both producers and buyers. It is a federation to
promote fair-trade and a forum for exchanging information to help members increase benefits
for producers. It consists of approximately 110 producer organizations and 50 buying
organizations. The Network of European Worldshops (NEWS!), established in 1994, acts as
the umbrella body for the approximately 2,700 “world shops” that sell predominantly

fairtrade goods across Europe. The European Fair-trade Association (EFTA), established in
1990, is an association of 12 importing organizations in nine European countries across
Europe.

• The Southern producer organisations, which supply the products, are traditionally cooperatives or associations. Presently, 15 have the FLO certification to sell cocoa beans under the fair-trade label. While cocoa is mainly produced in Africa (71%), 12 FLO registered cocoa producer associations are located in the Latin American and Caribbean region. FLO registered traders only buy part of the cocoa beans produced by the participating cooperatives. The remainder is sold in the mainstream market. Table 2 provides an exhaustive list of the producer organizations with their main characteristics.

• The fair-trade importing organizations, known as Alternative Trading Organisations (ATOs)
are traditionally non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in Northern countries. These are
the buying organizations, which act as importers, wholesalers and retailers of the products
purchased from the producer organizations. They focus on improving market access and
strengthening producer organizations. In Europe, they sell their products through “world
shops”, local groups, campaigns, wholesale and mail-order catalogues. Table 3 provides an
exhaustive list of the 47 FLO registered cocoa traders.

7. There have been various definitions of fair-trade developed in the past. However, in an attempt
to produce a widely accepted definition, an informal group of umbrella bodies and network organizations called FINE (composed of FLO, IFAT, EFTA and NEWS) has defined fair-trade as follows: “Fair-trade is a trading partnership based on dialogue, transparency and respect, that seeks greater equity in international trade. It contributes to sustainable development by offering better trading conditions to, and securing the rights of, marginalized producers and workers – especially in the South. Fair-trade organizations (backed by consumers) are engaged actively in supporting
producers, awareness raising and in campaigning for changes in the rules and practice of
conventional international trade.” 

THE COMPONENTS OF FAIR-TRADE
8. The FLO approved producer organizations must comply with a number of requirements. Only
organizations of small farmers can be given the FLO certification. The FLO fair-trade standards for
cocoa require the following :
• The fair-trade activity is to promote the “social development” of the organizations. To this
end, the FLO certified producer organizations have to consist mainly of farmers managing
their own farms and the organizations must have a democratic and transparent structure.
• The fair-trade activity is supposed to enhance the “economic development” of the
organization. To this end, the FLO certified producer organizations must have the capacity to
export their production to strengthen their business operations. Moreover, the fair-trade
premium is supposed to be managed democratically.
• Under the heading of “environmental development”, the FLO registered producer
organizations have to include the environment in farm management. More specifically, the
use of certain listed pesticides is prohibited and the production of organic cocoa beans is
encouraged.
• Working conditions in FLO registered producer associations have to follow the International
Labour Organisation (ILO) Conventions. The FLO “standard on labour conditions”
describes how child labour can be used, as well as the requirements in terms of freedom of
association and collective bargaining. All farm workers have to work in a safe environment
and under fair conditions of employment, especially regarding wages.

BENEFITS AND COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH FAIR-TRADE AT THE PRODUCER LEVEL
9. The most essential characteristic of fair-trade is that producer organizations receive a higher
price for their cocoa beans. The fair-trade price represents the necessary condition for the producer
organizations to have the financial ability to fulfil the above requirements, and to cover the
certification fees. The differential in the price of cocoa beans between the conventional market and the
fair-trade market represents the consumers’ willingness to pay for a certified product. The fair-trade
prices are calculated on the basis of world market prices, plus fair-trade premiums. The fair-trade
premium for standard quality cocoa is US$150 per tonne. The minimum price for fair-trade standard
quality cocoa, including the premium, is US$1,750 per tonne. If the world market price of the
standard qualities rises above US$1600 per tonne, the fair-trade price will be the world market price
plus US$150 per tonne.

FLO cocoa price per tonne =
Max {FLO floor price (US$1600); f.o.b. market price} + premium (US$150)
Chart 1 provides the f.o.b. prices for fair-trade cocoa beans that purchasers had to pay during the
September 1998 – February 2005 period and the corresponding monthly averages of the ICCO daily
prices, which reflect the prices of cocoa beans in the London and New York futures markets. It is
obvious that the incentive to sell under the fair-trade market for producers and, conversely, the
opportunity cost for fair-trade purchasers is higher during periods of low market prices, as was the case
in 1999-2001.

10. The “fair-trade price” or “FLO price” represents the price received by the co-operatives. The use
of the funds derived from the premium (US$150 per tonne) is decided by the General Assembly of the
Co-operatives, which is required to act with total transparency. A proportion of the premium may be
paid out to farmers but, in general, it is pooled in a social fund for the benefit of the community rather
than passed on directly to the farmers. The money is used for either cocoa related projects, such as
farmer training and creation of nurseries for new planting materials, or for social projects, such as
boreholes, schools and other investments. These benefit the whole community or the farmers
specifically.

11. In contrast to the premium of US$ 150 per tonne, there are no prescriptions under the fair-trade
arrangements on the use of the difference between the FLO minimum price of US$ 1,750 per tonne
minus premium (US$ 150) and the mainstream price. For example, if the mainstream market price is
US$ 1,200 per tonne, the difference with the FLO minimum price minus premium is US$ 400 per
tonne. It is up to the individual co-operative to decide on the use of these funds.

12. It is further noted that, in most cases, the farmers, at the moment of selling to their co-operatives,
receive the same price for their cocoa as when the co-operative sells mainstream cocoa. In most cases,
the co-operatives pay the same price to all farmers and they sell only part of their total trade volume
under the fair-trade arrangement. The co-operatives do not know which farmers have delivered to
them the cocoa they sell under their fair-trade arrangements. The situation naturally leaves open the
possibility for a co-operative to distribute advantages of the fair-trade arrangements among all their
members.
13. The cost of compliance includes the fees paid by the farmer organizations to the fair-trade
organization and indirect costs to comply with the FLO requirements. The cost of certification used to
be borne by the importers and not the producers. This made the FLO certification unique, by passing
the whole cost of the certification to the buyer. However, since December 2004, both registered
producer associations and traders have to support certification fees, mainly to provide additional
resources to the newly created FLO-Cert Ltd. For traders, as stated in Table 4, the costs are composed
of an initial application fee (up to €2 000 and payable only once) and an annual certification fee (up to
€3 000) dependent upon the total turnover of the trading company.

To get the FLO certification, producer organizations have first to pay an initial application fee (up to €5 200 and payable only once). For the following years, the fee is composed of a fixed amount (€500 per year), and a variable amount
depending on the value of cocoa sold under fair-trade (0.45% of the f.o.b. value), as shown in Table 5.
This implies that a co-operative, which sells 50 tonnes of cocoa in one season has to pay fees of
US$ 20 per tonne. With a fair-trade turnover of 500 tonnes the average fee is cut in half, amounting to
US$ 10 per tonne.

14. Financial benefits and additional costs for co-operatives associated with fair-trade, compared to
the conventional market are summarized below:

Sources of additional benefits
• Fair-trade price: the f.o.b. price paid to the co-operative is higher than the
conventional price and, by definition, more stable.
• Direct sales: the fair-trade supply chain does not usually involve as many
intermediaries as the conventional one.

Source of additional costs
• Cost of participation in the FLO system: certification fees, documentation costs, etc.
• Production costs to meet the FLO standards: possible additional labour, social and
environmental costs.

The size of the fair-trade market
15. FLO registered cocoa producer associations and National Initiatives have to report to FLO,
respectively, on their sales of cocoa beans and cocoa semi-finished products and sales of chocolate and
chocolate products under the fair-trade label. The corresponding volumes are modest, representing
less than 0.1% of the total cocoa market. In 2003, producers sold 2 687 tonnes of cocoa beans and
cocoa semi-finished products, in beans equivalent, under the fair-trade label. Table 6 gives an
overview of the share of total exports of fair-trade cocoa by country of origin during the period 1994-
2003.

As country information on sales is related to a very limited number of co-operatives in some
cases, the disclosure of volumes would have been against the FLO confidentiality policy. In 2003,
more than 90% of the sales originated from two producers: Kuapa Kokoo Ltd. (Ghana) and Conacado
Inc. (Dominican Republic). Consequently, the nine other producers concerned in 2003 sold less than
10% of the total, representing less than 200 tonnes. This highly concentrated market may be the result
of lower costs associated with trading for larger cocoa producers. Since 2003, five new small cooperatives in Peru, and a large one in Côte d’Ivoire have received the fair-trade certification. In Peru,
this is mainly the result of an ongoing United Nations programme to convert coca producers to
alternative crops.

16. Until 2003, cocoa and chocolate products were sold in the fair-trade market in 16 countries,
mainly in Europe. Table 7 provides sales information by country during the 1994-2003 period.
Presently, only information on total sales of chocolate and chocolate products is available, as the
National Initiatives do not provide detailed data on the cocoa content of these products. In 2003, 80%
of the total sales of chocolate and chocolate products were realized in only five countries, the
United Kingdom (35%), Italy (13%), Germany (13%), Switzerland (10%) and France (nine per cent).
Since 2004, fair-trade chocolate and chocolate products have also been sold in Japan, Australia,
New Zealand and Mexico. As shown in Table 8, the estimated market share of fair-trade labelled
cocoa in each country of destination is less than one per cent, with the highest shares (0.9%) in
Switzerland and Luxembourg.

17. Fair-trade certified chocolate and chocolate products are composed of various ingredients. It is
not always possible for all these ingredients to be sourced from a fair-trade-certified producer
organization and consequently for a chocolate product to be “fully fair-trade”. FLO policy defines the
conditions that allow a composite product to carry the fair-trade label. It is stated that all the
ingredients for which the certification exists must be sourced from fair-trade certified producer
organizations and 50% of all the ingredients, by dry weight, must be sourced from fair-trade, certified
producer organizations. However, exceptions to this rule exist as many manufacturers find it difficult
to strictly apply this rule. The implementation of these exemptions requires FLO approval.

 

Islands are at the forefront of the extinction crisis, with invasive vertebrates as the primary driver of extinctions and threatening nearly half of our world’s most endangered species [7]. Extensive research has recognized the negative impacts that invasive species have on islands with emerging research documenting effects on the surrounding marine ecosystems through predation of native species and degradation of critical ecosystem functions. It has been well established that invasive species can negatively impact local economies, food security, and health through crop damage and erosion, and as vectors for zoonotic disease transmission. These effects are especially relevant for islands with developing economies and limited economic development opportunities.

Invasive rats present on Floreana Island, Galapagos contribute to food insecurity through damage of subsistence crops. Credit: Andrew Wright

We’ve long understood that there are benefits to removing invasive species from island ecosystems for both the conservation of native wildlife and for the people who live in these communities.” stated co-author Dr. Nick Holmes of The Nature Conservancy, “By aligning this conservation tool with the United Nations goals for sustainable development, we are able to draw clear lines between human health and economic benefit to give communities more data for decision-making.”

The removal of invasive species is one of the most effective conservation initiatives available, with more than 1,200 invasive mammal eradications attempted on islands worldwide and an average success rate of 85% [2]. As a proven conservation tool, eradication has repeatedly been shown to revive island ecosystems and pull wildlife back from the brink of extinction. As practitioners pursue restoration on more complex, inhabited islands, it is critical to understand the implications for island communities and sustainable development goals.

Research indicates that seabird islands without invasive rats contribute to healthier coral reef ecosystems with greater resilience to climate change and increased fish biomass. Credit: Island Conservation

This study sought to identify how invasive vertebrate eradications could aligned with the United Nations framework for sustainable development which outlines 17 goals with 169 specific targets, including improving human health, biodiversity conservation, and socioeconomic benefits. By analyzing historical successes, the researchers found that the eradication of invasive vertebrates from islands contributes to 13 SDGs and aligns with up to 25% of the global targets. The team analyzed 292 islands where future eradications are a priority for biodiversity conservation and are considered possible within the next decade or would be possible with advances in technology [4]. In comparing past and future projects, researchers found that moving forward projects are likely to align with more sustainable development targets than they have in the past, which is attributed to the fact that, until recently, practitioners have predominantly restored uninhabited islands. Additionally, the team noted that restoration of islands that are used by nearby communities but not inhabited also present opportunities for sustainable development that encompass island communities beyond those studied.

Community involvement within island restoration projects not only ensures that the voices of communities contribute to decision making, but also provide job and skill training, increasing capacity for these kinds of projects within the region. Credit: Island Conservation

A Global Priority for People and the Planet

These findings suggest an opportunity for investment in the removal of invasive vertebrates from islands as a method for improving human well-being through health and economic development in addition to curbing the extinction crisis and fighting climate change. Invasive vertebrate eradication on islands is an effective conservation tool and often one-time intervention that can build more resilient and sustainable ecosystems and human communities. Unlike many conservation and social interventions, results from invasive species eradication often occur over relatively short time frames; the rapid-results and numerous benefits are particularly significant for islands and communities with developing economies and those facing growing environmental uncertainty.

Eradication of invasive species is a critical tool for stemming the extinction crisis and has been touted as a ‘conservation silver bullet,’ capable of incredible environmental gains for island wildlife and native ecosystems, but beyond preventing extinctions, it is increasingly important to understand the implications for people and island communities,” said Dr. Karen Poiani, Island Conservation CEO.

By identifying the applications for eradication to promote human well-being and biodiversity conservation, the researchers hope to encourage investment and innovation in the field. As eradication efforts increase in scope and scale, it is essential that biodiversity conservation supports the sustainable development of islands, contributing to improved human health and well-being, economic development, education, and the future of life on Earth.

Additional Background

• Invasive species devour eggs, young and even adults of native animals and plants, spread invasive seeds, and destroy vegetation [3,8,6].
• Islands offer hope that we can prevent extinctions and protect biodiversity.
• Eradication of invasive mammals from islands is a proven conservation tool [9].
• Larger, more remote and technically challenging islands are being successfully cleared of invasive species populations each year.
• Many of these investments have resulted in remarkable stories of restoration success, including the recovery of globally threatened species [5].
• Protecting island wildlife and improving the resiliency and sustainability of natural and cultural resources for island communities will require innovative new tools to increase the scale, scope, and pace of restoration to match the magnitude of this conservation challenge [1].

About the partners

Island Conservation is the only global, not-for-profit conservation organization whose mission is to prevent extinctions by removing invasive species from islands. We work where the concentration of both biodiversity and species extinction is the greatest – islands. Removing a primary threat – introduced invasive vertebrates – is one of the most critical interventions for saving threatened plants and animals and restoring island ecosystems. Once invasive species are removed, native island species and ecosystems can recover, often with little additional intervention. To date, we have successfully restored 64 islands worldwide, benefiting 1195 populations of 487 species and subspecies. Island Conservation is headquartered in Santa Cruz, CA, with field offices in British Columbia, Chile, Ecuador, Hawai’i, New Zealand, Palau, and Puerto Rico.

Pacific Rim Conservation’s mission is to maintain and restore native bird diversity, populations, and habitats in Hawaii and across the Pacific region. Founded in 2006, we work together with local communities, government agencies, and other conservation organizations to achieve these goals through predator control and avian translocation techniques. Throughout all of our work, we strive to use a science-based approach to management, using research to improve our methods and inform future conservation actions. To date, we have published more than 120 peer-reviewed papers in high-profile scientific journals and have had our work featured in media outlets such as the New York Times, National Geographic and the BBC.

The Nature Conservancy is a global conservation organization dedicated to conserving the lands and waters on which all life depends. Guided by science, we create innovative, on-the-ground solutions to our world’s toughest challenges so that nature and people can thrive together. We are tackling climate change, conserving lands, waters and oceans at an unprecedented scale, providing food and water sustainably and helping make cities more sustainable. Working in 72 countries, we use a collaborative approach that engages local communities, governments, the private sector, and other partners. To learn more, visit  www.nature.org or follow @nature_press on Twitter.

Resources

1. Campbell, K. J., J. Beek, C. T. Eason, A. S. Glen, J. Godwin, F. Gould, N. D. Holmes, G. R. Howald, F. M. Madden, J. B. Ponder, D. W. Threadgill, A. S. Wegmann, and G. S. Baxter. 2015. The next generation of rodent eradications: Innovative technologies and tools to improve species specificity and increase their feasibility on islands. Biological Conservation 185:47-58.
2. DIISE. The Database of Island Invasive Species Eradications, developed by Island Conservation, Coastal Conservation Action Laboratory UCSC, IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group, University of Auckland and Landcare Research New Zealand. http://diise.islandconservation.org 2014.
3. Doherty TS, Glen AS, Nimmo DG, Ritchie EG, Dickman CR. Invasive predators and global biodiversity loss. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2016;113(40):11261-5.
4. Holmes ND, Spatz DR, Oppel S, Tershy B, Croll DA, et al. (2019) Globally important islands where eradicating invasive mammals will benefit highly threatened vertebrates. PLOS ONE 14(3): e0212128. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212128
5. Jones HP, Holmes ND, Butchart SHM, Tershy BR, Kappes PJ, Corkery I, et al. Invasive mammal eradication on islands results in substantial conservation gains. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2016;113:4033–8.
6. Medina FM, Bonnaud E, Vidal E, Tershy BR, Zavaleta ES, Donlan CJ, et al. A global review of the impacts of invasive cats on island endangered vertebrates. Global Change Biology. 2011;17(11):3503-10.
7. Spatz, D. R., Zilliacus, K. M., Holmes, N. D., Butchart, S. H., Genovesi, P., Ceballos, G., … & Croll, D. A. (2017). Globally threatened vertebrates on islands with invasive species. Science Advances, 3(10), e1603080.
8. Towns DR, Atkinson IAE, Daugherty CH. Have the harmful effects of introduced rats on islands been exaggerated? Biological Invasions. 2006;8(4):863-91.
9. Veitch CR, Clout MN, Towns DR, (eds). Island Invasives: Eradication and Management. Proceedings of the International Conference on Island Invasives. Gland, Switzerland and Auckland, New Zealand: IUCN; 2011.

 

 

The fungi phylum Glomeromycota is essentially unknown by the general public, however behind the scenes these taxa are ubiquitous, one of the most widespread and most important (economically and ecologically) fungal group, despite the small number of species it includes (about 150).  Although many species are not known biologically, all glomeromycotan species are believed to form obligate symbiotic relationships with phototrophs.  Most of these relationships occur (in an enormous diversity of plant species) via formation of “arbuscular mycorrhizal” (AM) associations within the roots, which allow the fungi to use carbohydrates produced by the plant.  In exchange the fungi dramatically increase mineral uptake (phosphorus, in particular) for the plant, essentially extending the plants’ root network with a vast mycorrhiza network. 

Glomeromycotan fungi appear to have low host specificity and a plant might be colonized by multiple species of glomeromycotan species, furthermore, the fungi themselves may form complex underground webs, even indirectly connecting the roots of different species of plants.  Glomeromycota are recorded to significantly impact the growth of most herbaceous plants and tropical trees including almost all human food crops, influence the composition of plant species in plant communities, control pests and fungal pathogens, and ameliorate effects of pollution on plant fitness.  These fungi may be fundamental in sustainable agriculture practices to solve the problem of rapidly depleting rock phosphate reserves, and are relevant to global warming as a significant CO2 sink, receiving and holding fixed carbon in the soil. 

Only very few plants (including less than 20% of existing vascular plants) are known to not form these AM relationships with glomeromycotans.  Some of these are plants in families Brassicaceae (e.g. cabbage, Arabidopsis), Caryophyllaceae (e.g. carnation) and Chenopodiaceae (e.g. spinach).  A small number of glomeromycotan species form other kinds of symbioses, some form external (ectomycorrhizal) associations with trees and shrubs, some form mycorrhizal associations with Asco- or Basidiomycota fungi.  One glomeromycotan (Geosiphon pyriformis), thought to be a primitive representative of the group, forms a symbiosis with cyanobacteria, in which they are the macrosymbiont, housing a consortium of the cyanobacteria in specialized bladders; a relationship possibly representing an ancestral type of symbiosis evolving before terrestrial plant life.   

The Glomeromycota are the oldest known fungi group, found in Ordovician fossils from 460 million years ago, and are hypothesized to have originated 600 million years ago, before the divergence of Asco- Basidiomycota fungi.  Scientists hypothesize these fungi had an important role in the process of early (rootless) land plants colonizing terrestrial habitats. 

The phylum Glomeromycota was created in 2001 as the smallest of the seven currently recognized fungi phyla, representing a very recent understanding of this group.  As late as 1974, glomeromycotan species were all placed in genus Endogone within Zygomycota.  Beginning in the early 2000’s molecular studies uncovered far more diversity at species-, genus- and family-level than traditional morphological characterizations documented (primarily as spore morphologies).  Glomeromycota currently is considered to contain between 150-200 “morphospecies,” however this may well be an underestimate.  Nice descriptions of diversity and evolution of this group can be explored at the Schüßler lab web site. 

(Redecker and Raab 2006; Redecker 2008; Schüßler, Schwarzott and Walker 2001; Wikipedia 2014a, b)