Value of Contingency Planning

In document A REVIEW BEST PRACTICE FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF INTRODUCED MARINE PESTS (Page 80-83)

5. LITERATURE REVIEW - BEST PRACTICE MANAGEMENT

5.2 BEST PRACTISE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR MARINE SPECIES

5.2.4 Value of Contingency Planning

The decisions to respond to a reported incursion and to decide if eradication should be attempted are not easy. Contingency planning allows a ‘Rapid Response Plan’ to be developed and put in place before the crisis arises. Factors that increase the ability to make an appropriate decision include:

1. Early and accurate detection of the species incursion (via a pre-arranged Surveillance-Response connection)

2. Pre-existing Rapid Response arrangements, including a pre-agreed funding allocation to cover initial decision making, authorisations and logistical needs.

3. Legal mechanisms to allow effective quarantining of the area (i.e. to reduce spread and ‘buy time’ for taxonomic confirmation, knowledge gap-filling, eradication/control decision-taking, and engagement of logistics for same).

4. A monitoring capacity to confirm if the species is indeed restricted to quarantine area 5. Pre-knowledge of its lifecycle, physiology and environmental tolerances

6. Knowledge of the treatment options available for eradicating/controlling the species or closely-related taxa

7. Pre-determined supportive network of technical, field, administrative, funding and legal contacts for implementing an eradication or control campaign;

8. Sufficient resources to monitor and review progress (for modifying or terminating the eradication campaign)

Developing a Rapid Response Plan requires review of the marine and estuarine invasive species eradication, control and mitigation literature, development of a rapid response

5. LIT. REVIEW - BEST PRACTISE MANAGEMENT

decision-taking system (decision-tree), and listing a ‘toolbox’ of the control measures and associated legal considerations/actions required for mounting each option15.

Eradication technologies need not be highly species specific provided their impacts on non-target species are limited by the size of the NIS infected areas. The decision to eradicate a potential marine pest species requires careful evaluation with respect to:

• the balance of the benefits and hazards from using the available eradication method/s,

• the level of effort, funds and disturbance to stakeholders to achieve eradication success

• the benefits and hazards of leaving the potential pest to spread in either:

- an unrestricted fashion;

- a controlled fashion; or

- a controlled fashion supported by mitigation actions.

Once a pest becomes more widespread, control techniques need to be more specific and carefully applied to maintain cost-effectiveness and avoid serious impacts to native species.

The point where eradication is deemed impractical using currently available technologies is the point where long-term control becomes the preferred response. Long term control often warrants an Integrated Pest Management program (IPM) aimed at reducing, constraining and maintaining the population/s to levels that avoid unacceptable economic or ecological impact.

Box 5: Treatment options in the interactive ‘Rapid Response Toolbox’

of the NIMPIS system

Australia’s Rapid Response Toolbox is a web-based database of control options that was developed following elimination of the black-striped mussel (Mytilopsis sp.) at the Darwin marinas in 1999.

Lessons from this exercise showed the need for agencies to have ready access to information on potential control options for introduced marine species, in order to better respond to future incursions.

The NIMPIS system maintained on the CSIRO website now provides control option information for the 14 species first designated as targeted ‘marine pests’ by Australia (Alexandrium catenella, Alexandrium minutum, Alexandrium tamarense, Gymnodinium catenatum, Asterias amurensis, Carcinus maenas, Corbula gibba, Crassostrea gigas, Musculista senhousia, Sabella spallanzanii, Undaria pinnatifida, Vibrio cholerae, Mnemiopsis leidyi and Potamocorbula amurensis). Other species have been since been added, including Mytilopsis sallei, Caulerpa taxifolia (aquarium strain), Codium fragile ssp.

tomentosoides, Sargassum muticum, Balanus eberneus and Perna viridis.

Information on potential control options such as application methods and rates, health and safety information and the side effects and constraints is provided within the web-based toolbox. The toolbox also lists contact details of the relevant Commonwealth and State Authorities and addresses legal issues.

There is also some information included for other closely related species or species that are very similar functionally, for which control options can be extrapolated to the target species. Production of this web-based toolbox involved an extensive review of the terrestrial, freshwater and marine control and mitigation literature (Appendix C), and examination of the success and failure of various methods. This culminated in the development of a rapid response decision tree (Figure 7) and a report on the control options reported in the literature (Appendix A).

While the Rapid Response Toolbox has been incorporated into NIMPIS, the control information remains limited. Control options for the 70+ other potential and ‘next pest’ species currently listed in the NIMPIS database may be added in the future. Some of the available control options which may be relevant for these or other pest species can be examined at higher taxonomic or functional levels (e.g. by searching for control options for ‘Crassostrea’, ‘Mytilidae’ or ‘mussels’). To search the Rapid Response Toolbox for control options go to: http://crimp.marine.csiro.au/NIMPIS/toolbox.htm. References and publications collated for the control options are listed in Appendix C and can also be downloaded from:

http://crimp.marine.csiro.au/NIMPIS/RefDetail.asp?bib=61&navbar=cont

15 Regulations used in Australia for the availability and use of chemicals for marine pest control in the marine and estuarine environment are summarised in Appendix B.

5. LIT. REVIEW - BEST PRACTISE MANAGEMENT

Figure 7: CSIRO’s

Decision Tree to facilitate Rapid

Response Actions

1. DEFINE PROBLEM magnitude certainty

2. SET OBJECTIVES regional stakeholders implications of problem socio-economic valuation

legal constraints

3. CONSIDER FULL RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES

locate existing data consider benefits and costs

5. COLLECT DATA FOR BEST ALTERNATIVES

feeding preferences habitat requirements

reproduction 4. DETERMINE RISKS

Benefits greater than risks?

REGIONAL STAKEHOLDER REVIEW

ecological, economic sociological, legal

PROCEED ON EXPERIMENTAL BASIS

adaptive approach reversible

MONITOR RESULTS

6. Benefits greater than risks?

FULLSCALE IMPLEMENTATION STAKEHOLDER REVIEW Monitor to improve

problem definition

Insufficient knowledge

Insufficient agreement

Unsuitable or insufficient alternatives

NO NETT BENEFIT

NO

NO

YES

YES

5. LIT. REVIEW - BEST PRACTISE MANAGEMENT

In document A REVIEW BEST PRACTICE FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF INTRODUCED MARINE PESTS (Page 80-83)