1. Development of IAS policy
Results of 2008 consultation
3 September 2010

2. Public consultation Online consultation, May 2008
Carried out ahead of the publication of the Communication "Towards an EU Strategy on Invasive Species"
Overall support for an EU Strategy to tackle invasive alien species
Profile of respondents:
roughly ¾ of respondents replied as individuals
roughly ¼ of respondents replied on behalf of organisations
Good geographical spread
881 replies: ¾ from individuals, ¼ from organisations
Geographical spread although noticeable prominence of replies from UK, Germany, Spain, Italy and France.
A number of non Member States (Canada, New Zealand, Switzerland, Ukraine)
Islands: New Caledonia, Reunion, St Helen Island

3. The problem Section 1 - scale of the problem
Need to review measures for prevention and control of IAS
The following impacts were considered important:
Biodiversity
Natural functions and resilience of ecosystems
Landscapes
Public health
Business and livelihoods
Leisure and recreation opportunities
Ability to adapt to climate change

4. Prevention Section 2 - prevention Majority thought it important to:
Prevent introduction of potential IAS into the wild
Prevent import of IAS into the EU
Prevent trade and spread within the EU
Prevent native species in one area from reaching other EU areas where they could become invasive
Border control options in particular:
Screening of species/commodities indicated as a priority
Clear and accessible information for importers and exporters
Listed in decreasing order of importance
Border controls:
- avoidance of new administrative burdens and minimal change of familiar procedures were considered least important!!

5. Prevention Section 2 (continued)
Effective regulation of trade and use of potential IAS considered acceptable in most sectors
Top three measures proposed to increase awareness:
Awareness and information campaigns
Ban on sale of IAS
Ban on keeping and breeding IAS
Top three measures to foster responsible practice:
Regulation of specific pathways and vectors
Codes of best practice
Criminalisation of the act of introducing IAS into the wild
Effective regulation of trade and use – answer less clear cut when it comes to scientific research
Other measures for awareness:
labelling and certification schemes, voluntary codes of conduct, registration system for approved suppliers
Other measures for responsible practice:
financial incentives to the use of natives (and/or tax on IS), liability and compensation regimes, compulsory insurance

6. Early warning and rapid response
Section 3 – early warning and rapid response
Majority of respondents agreed on:
Member States responsible for monitoring
Member States should provide the necessary information
System with consistent information / early warning throughout Europe
System with prompt exchange of alerts between countries
Information publicly accessible
No significant increase in administrative burden
Interestingly however, the administrative burden was not the main concern with a majority responding it was relatively important, followed by those who thought it was no important, a bit less thought it really important

7. Control Section 4 – control of IAS
Member States should be required to:
take control action for worst IAS
cooperate with neighbouring countries where species may have cross border impact
Eradication/control:
acceptable to conserve biodiversity and ecosystems and protect economic interests
plans should be developed at EU level for worst IAS and for species with cross border impacts
Questions on acceptability focused on:
All invasive species
Birds and mammals
Acceptability and prior information

8. Horizontal issues Section 5 – horizontal issues
Main elements considered important:
building public awareness
building long term partnerships with concerned sectors and users
one-stop easy access information source on invasive species
encouraging voluntary approaches and best practices
evaluation of costs of inaction vs. costs of prevention and eradication/control
involvement of the public in finding alternatives solutions
Important elements: in decreasing order of importance
Other elements-
Giving Member States lead responsibility for implementation
Streamlining the regulatory framework
Minimising the costs of any new measures

9. Horizontal issues Section 5 (continued) Barriers to action in the EU:
Lack of awareness and species knowledge among users
Those responsible for the introductions do not bear the costs of the consequences
Little political or media attention
No incentives to switch to native species
Alternatives to IAS are not marketed efficiently
Lack of awareness of users:
Both on what is native and what is not
And the actual risks posed by invasive species
Other barriers include:
Lack of cooperation between governments and industry
Complex legislations
Compliance costs

10. Horizontal issues Section 5 (continued)
EU funds for eradication/control programmes:
where an EU action plan is in place to coordinate control and long term monitoring
where control is linked to restoration of native biodiversity
where IAS has cross border impact
International dimension:
Role of EU as potential exporter of IAS needs to be recognised
EU should minimise its impact in export activities and development programmes

11. Conclusions Main outcomes
introduction and spread of IAS should be prevented
an EU-wide early warning system would be needed
MS should be required to tackle the most harmful IAS
awareness of the problem should be raised
the profile of the issue needs to be raised

12. Next steps An EU Strategy on Invasive Alien Species
Working group with representatives of MS and stakeholder organisations
Commission inter-service group
Impact assessment
Publication expected in 2011
WG – simply say that the original working group will be revitalised.