Developing the EU Strategy on Invasive Alien Species

Huw ThomasHead, Protected Species & Non Native Species TeamDefra

The EU scene...

• EU – 27 member States• > 4 million km2

• 495 million inhabitants• Major trading block• Several bio-geographic & climatic zones• Collective economic interests• Internal freedoms of trade and movement

• DAISIE database• > 11,000 alien species• c.15% damaging to biodiversity, • similar proportion economically damaging

• IAS costing Europe at least €12.7 billion / annum

• EEA work shows an increasing trend of alien species introductions

• EU Action Plan for 2010 Biodiversity Target• EU Strategy is an outstanding action

• Habitats and Birds Directives• Water Framework Directive• Marine Strategy Framework Directive• Aquaculture Regulation• Animal health regime• Plant health regime• Wildlife Trade Regulations• Environmental Liability Directive

Some common objectives & instruments

December 2008 – Commission Communication

Proposed 4 options:

A: Business as usual

B: Maximise use of existing instruments + voluntary measures

B+: Adapt / enhance existing legislative instruments

C: Develop comprehensive, dedicated EU legal instrument

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/invasivealien/index_en.htm

“Assessment to support continued development of the EU Strategy to combat invasive alien species” - IEEP, 2010.

Proposed overall objective:• “To protect EU biodiversity and ecosystem

services against present and future impacts of invasive alien species and genotypes and minimise damage to our economy, human health and wellbeing, without limiting our use of species that do not threaten such interests.”

IEEP report – key Strategy components:

1. Prevention of intentional introductions [Trade]

2. Prevention of unintentional introductions [Pathways]

3. Early warning & rapid response [EWRR]

4. Management of established IAS

5. Ecological restoration

6. Incentives: responsibilities and financing

7. Cross-cutting: awareness, national strategies, research etc

A: Business as usual – not viableB: Maximise use of existing instruments + voluntary measures – not viable in isolation given the range of legislative needsB+: Adapt / enhance existing legislative instruments – would not address overarching issues and lacks strong IAS drivers and objectivesC: Develop comprehensive, dedicated EU legal instrument – a dedicated EU IAS Directive is recommended.

IEEP assessment of the 4 options:

Animal Health Regime / Plant Health Regime ideas….

Commission process3 Working Groups:• WG1 – Prevention issues

• 4 Tasks• Completion date 11 May

• WG2 – Early Warning & Rapid Response• 4 Tasks• Completion date 26 May

• WG3 – Eradication and Restoration• 3 Tasks• Completion date 30 June

Consensus NOT GUARANTEED!

Stakeholder input…• Working Groups have mixed representation

• Documents are made publicly available at: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/ias/library

• UK volunteers lead on 5 out of 11 Tasks!

PREVENTION ISSUES

Prevention of intentional introductionsImport, Export & Border control

IEEP report recommends:

• Develop White/Grey/Black lists as appropriate• Maximise use of existing border/quarantine

systems• Expand use of ‘species import’ provisions in

Wildlife Trade Regulations

Prevention of intentional introductionsIntra-EU movement / keeping

IEEP report recommends:• Expand use of Wildlife Trade Regulations to cover

keeping of IAS• Biogeographic framework for IAS listings• Harmonised risk-based framework for MS

decision-making

Issues & implications – ‘listing’:

• Listing is basis for regulating: import of IAS, intra-EU movement, keeping/holding, release

• White, Grey or Black listing?• Handling species new to trade and existing trade?• Existing EU captive populations, breeders etc?

New admin / compliance burdens for all…

Issues & implications – ‘risk assessment’:

• Single method for all EU-level RAs or framework for consistency?

• Who does them, who pays – EU panel / MS / beneficiary?

• How long will it take? May need screening / prioritising process?

EPPO Pest Risk Assessment process:

• 5 – 10 experts for 4 day workshop• Travel costs + per diems + EPPO staff costs +

national expert staff costs outside the workshop =

c.€42,000 / risk assessment

Prevention of unintentional introductionsPathway management & spread risks

IEEP report recommends:• AHR / PHR expansions?• Pathway risk analysis / biosecurity standards• Pathway inspection & compliance procedures• Cost-recovery mechanisms• Incentive framework & industry best practice

Prevention of unintentional introductionsPathway management & spread risks

IEEP report recommends:• AHR / PHR expansions?• Pathway risk analysis / biosecurity standards• Pathway inspection & compliance procedures• Cost-recovery mechanisms• Incentive framework & industry best practice

EARLY WARNING & RAPID RESPONSE

Early warning:

Q: What systems and structures are needed to deliver adequate early warning of threats in the EU?

Early Warning & Rapid Response (EWRR)

IEEP report recommends:• National IAS systems linked to EU Information &

Early Warning System (IEWS)• Surveillance & Monitoring obligations• Notification requirements • Possible mandatory actions for “IAS of EU

concern”• Cost recovery &/or co-funding

EU data centre – information system:

• Broad & shallow –v- Narrow and deep?• How ambitious should we be - operational needs

–v- totally comprehensive encyclopaedia?• Relationship with other databases: regional,

national, sectoral?• Admin, maintenance and updating – who?, cost?

Ensuring additional value from an EU data centre - how will we practically use it?

Early Warning – 2010 EEA report - delivery options:

1. A voluntary EU network of MS authorities

2. An independent, non-institutional European scientific panel (c.12 people)

3. a European technical observatory like EPPO – (Committee, Council, expert panels etc)

4. “European Agency on Invasive Species” (up to 40 people)

5. a EU Central Authority

Efficiency & value for resources?

What’s the ‘effective’ minimum we need?

RAPID RESPONSE

Q: How should the Strategy ‘drive’ rapid response?

Issues & implications:

In what circumstances should the EU Strategy impose rapid response obligations?

• IAS absent from the EU?• IAS absent from a region of the EU?• IAS absent from a MS?• Even more local? N2K?

What powers are we going to need if we are to meet a legal obligation to “rapidly respond”?

• Entry to land…• Prohibition / restriction of activities…• Power to compel certain actions…• Powers for cost recovery…• Powers to incentivise...• …others?

‘Emergency powers’ - like AHR/PHR?

What are the capacity issues to meet the legal obligation?

• Expertise on containment measures?• Control tools, techniques and methodologies per

IAS?• Funding available at short notice – for research,

management, etc?• Others....?

Assuming we are “rapidly responding”, what if...?

• The picture changes with new detections elsewhere in the EU or at home?

• Another MS is failing or has declared “battle lost”?• When should we call it a day and move to longer

term management?

• How should the Strategy cater for these?

How safe to assume 1st report will be 1st occurrence?!

SURVEILLANCE & MONITORING

Q: How to secure enough surveillance to adequately ensure EU is protected without imposing excessive requirements on MS?

General surveillance

Existing MS systems

Existing MS obligations • Habitats Directive• Birds Directive• MSFD• WFD

Surveillancefor very vulnerablesites, e.g. islands,seas, freshwater

Involvement of volunteer-specialists?

Voluntary stakeholder involvement: nature conservationists, farmers, hunters, gardeners, local authorities, anglers, foresters, fishermen, …

Other surveillance processes?

Risk-oriented surveillance + inspection• Surveillance: ports, around zoos, …• Inspection: ballast water, import, trade in animal feed and in seed and plant propagating material, trade in pets and ornamental species, others?

Ex-post monitoring• effectiveness of eradicationand control• side-effects of non-routine intentional releases

Horizon scanning

Issues & implications:

• Maximising existing biodiversity surveillance (Habs. Dir, Birds Dir, WFD, MSFD etc) – but does that cover it all?

• Relative priority between general and targeted surveillance?

How hard do we look for something that may not

be there?!

Practical implications?

• What should we be looking for – anything that is not a plant pest or disease pathogen?

• Where do we look for it?• How do we find / detect it?• How often or intensively should we look for it?• Who should look for it?• How ambitious should we expect to be in trying to

detect new introductions early: effort –v- VFM?

How much surveillance & monitoring is realistic?

CONTROL & MANAGEMENT OF ESTABLISHED IAS

Q: What actions and measures should the Strategy require with regard to established IAS?

Control & management of established IAS

IEEP report recommends:

• EU action plans for selected IAS• Possible mandatory actions for “IAS of EU

concern”• EU framework for MS level actions• Eradication is default objective?

Realistic? MS discretion? Best use of resources?

A legislative EU IAS Strategy?

What are the implications?

If the Strategy is a Directive, challenges include:• Additionality of EU measures – EWRR, data

centre, etc• Balance between EU compulsion and MS

discretion• Collective benefits of legal obligations…but…• Responsiveness and adequate derogation

provisions for changing circumstances?• Realistic obligations

Possible cost of EU+MS action on IAS?

• €40M - €190M / annum

Community Plant Health Regime cost?

• About €150M / annum