1. Assessment to support continued development of EU strategy to combat invasive species
 ENV.B.2/SER/2009/0101r
Clare Shine and Marianne Kettunen
Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP)
and
Piero Genovesi
IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group
and partner experts
Stakeholder consultation
3 September 2010
DG ENV, Brussels, Belgium

2. Presentation coverage
Key tasks under the study
Gaps & constraints in the policy baseline
Proposed conceptual framework for the Strategy
Suggested outline for Strategy components
Costs and benefits of key measures

3. Key tasks under the study
Task A: Outline suggested Strategy components, integrating elements for the future EU Information and Early Warning System, and develop proposals for amended/new legislation if appropriate
Task B: Identify and analyse costs of suggested key components with a particular focus on administrative costs of implementation
Task C: Develop further insights regarding IAS impacts in the EU, including implications of EU policy inaction versus foreseen benefits of implementing an EU-level Strategy

4. Gaps & constraints in the EU policy baseline (1) ‘System’ constraints
Awareness
(public, political, pan-EU)
Scale of the problem (now and to come)
Causes and drivers
Alternatives
Economic arguments
Administrative
Complexity & fragmentation
Weak leverage for environment department
MS working in separation
Information
Lack of fully interlinked portal(s)
Affects all IAS interventions
Cost-inefficient (delays)
Incentives
Few carrots & sticks
IAS-related costs not internalised
Perverse incentives 4

5. Legislative constraints
Gaps & constraints in the EU policy baseline (2)
Legislative constraints
Coverage gaps
Alien animals; most invasive alien plants
Sub-species; marine species & ecosystems
Terms & definitions
Key terms used differently between instruments, sectors and MS
Barrier to database linkage
Risk assessment
Capacity gaps and non-harmonised protocols – risk of inconsistent results or duplication
EU framework only for aquaculture
EFSA restricted legal mandate
Lack of policy continuum
Weak on precaution
Poorly adapted to scales of conservation
Poor integration with major budget lines
Legal uncertainty in Single Market
Few clear rules
Deduce from case-by-case ECJ rulings
Unilateral measures by some MS 5

6. Gaps & constraints in the EU policy baseline (3)
Broader policy trade-offs
e.g. landscape connectivity and climate change
WSFD & MFD
(using IAS in ecological status classification)
Monitoring and management
(especially for already established species)

7. General constraints for IAS with environmental impacts
No joined-up approach to threat identification and response
No criteria for prioritising action post-2010
Approach to species native in parts of EU & invasive elsewhere ?
Few mechanisms for coordination and consistency
Legal constraints such as:
species status (protection of new arrivals/species invasive in parts of the EU)
environmental impacts of control techniques
private land rights that conflict with control programmes
incentives/derogations in favour of exotics
sanctions and remedies (liability, compliance, enforcement)

8. Proposed conceptual framework for the Strategy
overall objective and strategic goals
a common understanding of key terms
prioritisation: towards ‘IAS of EU concern’
a common framework for risk assessment to strengthen the scientific platform for decision making

9. Overall objective
Protect EU biodiversity and ecosystem services against IAS impacts
and minimise damage to our economy, human health and well-being,
without limiting use of species that do not threaten such interests.
Strategic Goal 1:
Risk-based prioritisation protocols for EU-level action and capacity building
Strategic Goal 2:
Streamlined framework focused on prevention and rapid reponse
&
underpinned by an effective EU information and early warning system
Strategic Goal 3:
Integrated IAS management linked to ecological restoration and ecosystem resilience
taking account of climate change as a future driver of IAS spread
Strategic Goal 4:
Improved awareness, responsibility and incentives adapted to target audiences and key stakeholders

10. A common understanding of key terms
build on CBD definitions
clarify equivalencies with EU acquis
specific clarification in context of climate change (native species extending their range in response to CC not to be considered as IAS)

11. Prioritisation: towards ‘IAS of EU concern’
what should trigger EU-level oversight/intervention i.e. when is IAS exclusion or control not just of local or national interest?
need for a procedure to categorise IAS threats that present an unacceptable level of risk to the EU’s environment or economy
basis for coordinated and possibly co-funded approach at EU level

12. Possible criteria for defining ‘IAS of EU concern’
impacts on sites / species protected under habitats & birds Directives;
impacts on ecological status of waters (WFD, MSFD);
significant environmental / economic / health impacts affecting other EU sectors & policy goals (e.g. sustainable forestry), even if only locally;
bilaterally or regionally problematic IAS - potential to expand;
IAS covered by EU action plans or subject to formal management;
impacts affecting biodiversity hotspots in the EU Outermost Regions.

13. Possible categories of ‘IAS of EU concern’13

14. Developing a common framework for IAS risk assessment (RA)
underpin the listing of ‘IAS of EU concern’
improve consistency & efficiency of MS interventions
technical procedure to inform political/administrative decisions on risk management
essential (in context of WTO framework) to justify EU measures that may be trade restrictive
EU options: business as usual; informal expert panel; dedicated IAS panel e.g. constituted within EFSA

15. Suggested outline for Strategy components
vertical components aligned with the 3-stage hierarchy: prevention; early warning & rapid response; control and management of established IAS
complementary vertical component: ecological restoration (build on IAS management to restore native biodiversity where feasible and promote ecosystem resilience)
responsibilities, liability and financing
cross-cutting components: awareness & communication; strategic research; capacity building; prevention beyond EU borders – development & international cooperation

16. Tackling prevention at the EU level
High number of entry points
Single Market
Very different biogeographic regions + effects of climate change
High proportion of biodiversity in Outermost Regions

17. Prevention adapted to local scale & biodiversity hotspots
The prevention continuum
External EU frontiers
Intra-EU prevention
Prevention adapted to local scale & biodiversity hotspots

18. Developing a two-tier approach
EU-level obligation for most serious threats
Clear parameters for MS/local action

19. Rethinking introductions to the wild: towards a holistic approach to risk management
Biofuel plantation
Selection of forestry
& agricultural species 19