Alien Species.vp - IUCN

Piero Genovesi and Sandro Bertolino
whose lapse is difficult, if not impossible, to predict with a high level of certainty (Genovesi,
2000).
In the case of the grey squirrel in Italy, the problem was first reported in 1980, and its
eradication became unfeasible in 2000 (Table 1). If the process for arriving to an eradication
(decision process, planning, and implementation) had started soon after the species was
localised, 20 years would probably have been a sufficient time for its completion.
Unfortunately, the local authorities responsible for pest programmes, although repeatedly
urged by scientists, wildlife managers, and conservation organisations, did not implement any
initiative, and when the NWI decided to directly carry out the trial eradication, time had already
expired.
Lessons for the future
Addressing the threats posed by IAS requires a comprehensive approach, based on
information, awareness, an adequate legal framework, public involvement in the decision
process, commitment of the political decision makers, and adequate technical means.
Weakness in a single link of the chain may result in the failure of the entire campaign.
The development of specific human dimension tools, aimed to involve public and to build up
consensus on strategies, roles, and responsibilities, should thus represent a priority. For
example, public involvement in the decision process for the creation of bio-security agencies
with the power to eradicate alien species, or in the definition of national/international strategies
to reduce threats posed by biological invasions, can result in more effective action than trying
to build consensus for single eradication projects.
Wildlife managers need to be aware of the existence in society of different positions
regarding animals, ranging from hunters to animal rights supporters, and to consider these
different targets when informing the public on the priorities and actions. Every decision
involving animals control or eradication, even if widely supported, may be considered
unacceptable by groups or individuals that ethically or philosophically do not agree. In these
cases, no scientific evidence on the conservation threats can solve the conflict, and a political
decision needs to be taken. In fact, animal rights activists place the no-kill ideal above the
ecosystem conservation objective and do not put great emphasis on population and species
conservation (Decker and Brown, 1987; Thompson and Lapointe, 1995). Opposition groups
can be constituted by a few people with strong motivation. Usually they are prepared to argue
their case in court, because litigation often is a more effective way for them to be heard
(Thompson and Lapointe, 1995). The only possibility to limit their actions is to design and
implement a legal framework that clearly considers the need to eradicate alien species when
they threaten ecosystems and native species.
Time is also an important parameter. In fact, the decision process in the case of eradications,
different from other controversial wildlife management alternatives (for example carnivore
translocations), cannot last indefinitely, especially when addressing mainland biological
invasions. A rapid alert mechanism and a clear decision process can determine the success of an
eradication project on the mainland.
118