5.7.1 Awareness-raising and communication
Suggested operational objective: IAS have visibility as a shared European concern to build understanding and engagement amongst decision-makers, industry, interest groups and the general public.
Spreading IAS messages to target audiences
The most desirable way to tackle IAS threats is to build awareness, foster responsible practices and support voluntary compliance. Europeans are a vital part of the solution. MS and the Commission have a key role in increasing public awareness, responsibility and education, and ensuring public participation and involvement.302
Education, information and awareness-raising campaigns are needed to influence future consumer behaviour and facilitating choices to reduce IAS risks. Better information on the reasons for concern and on the available alternatives can increase understanding of the challenges ahead and pave the way for more robust solutions.303
Improved public awareness can feed into political awarenesss and political support.304 This could help environment authorities compete successfully for resources, speed up the adoption of legislation, increase the visibility of biodiversity amongst policy-makers and create more accountable decision-making.
302 Council Conclusions §40.
303 Modelled on EC 2009a (Sust. Transport COM: Behaviour: educate, inform and involve).
304 e.g. public concern about the allergenic impacts of Ambrosia artemisiifolia in Switzerland and in Germany helped in monitoring the occurrence of the species and led to implementation of prevention and control measures on various levels from local to federal (Bohren 2006, Starfinger 2009).
158
Public awareness strategies are also an essential part of MS activities and should be planned and resourced as an integral element of IAS initiatives. Elements for consideration may include:
• incorporating information on biosecurity and prevention into educational materials;
• involving the public and relevant interest groups305 in monitoring activities, with appropriate training and information materials;
• targeted awareness-raising to increase the chances of early detection of new IAS306 and build understanding of why eradication may be necessary;
• actively encouraging the scientific and research community to support these efforts by ensuring prompt circulation of information on new arrivals;
• using an eradication or control programme to communicate information on what different stakeholders can do to reduce the chance of future incursions;
• involving interest groups and appropriate media channels in the design and dissemination of public awareness materials for both terrestrial and aquatic systems, including information on success stories and practical ways to reduce risks.
Information and communication campaigns
At EU level, the Commission may support national and/or regional initiatives through LIFE+
funding for information and communication campaigns.
Integrated EU communication strategies could be considered by relevant Commission DGs:
• for long-term information and education campaigns targeted at border inspection points and transportation carriers, to make travellers aware of applicable restrictions and the importance of quarantine for the public, transporters and producers;
• to discourage harmful introductions through e.g. passenger baggage, personal effects, mail services and the internet;
• to support communication tools for emergency alerts, such as airport and port posters;
• to incorporate information on IAS risks to biodiversity into relevant sectoral information materials (e.g. agriculture and forestry, fisheries, shipping, trade, animal and plant health);
• outreach activities to highlight applicable legal regulations and best practices through websites (e.g. for EU wildlife trade);307
• using possible ‘flagship’ IAS to build recognition and operationalise support (e.g. Asian Ladybird, red swamp crayfish, Asian tiger mosquito, Japanese knotweed, ragweed, Ludwigia).
305 e.g. hunters, fishermen, birdwatchers, botanists.
306 In the marine environment, several incursions have been detected by the general public (divers, fishermen) but usually only after the species is well established.
307 http://www.eu-wildlifetrade.org/html/en/topics.asp#Welfare
159
It is particularly important to communicate the environmental and economic benefits of a robust IAS Strategy to the industries and operators whose actions and investments are affected and who are in a position to influence markets and consumer demand. Awareness-raising should highlight the importance of traditional species/plants (e.g. in agriculture and forestry decisions) and promote these as the best choice, both in terms of resilience and in economic terms, supported by cost-benefit analysis where necessary. Over time this can encourage market substitution and preference for native or non-invasive species (see also 5.1.4).
Targeted outreach activities to the public, based on a cross-sectoral approach where appropriate, can include web sites, newsletters and other media to circulate specific alerts.
5.7.2 National IAS strategy development and coordination
Suggested operational objective: Policy level direction, coordination and planning on IAS issues is enabled between key authorities and agencies, supported by a framework for stakeholder consultation and engagement.
Each MS should develop and periodically update an IAS strategy, either stand-alone or within the context of its national biodiversity strategy. The appropriate level for such a strategy will vary between MS depending on its legal and administrative framework and its biogeographic characteristics. Each strategy needs to identify the respective roles and responsibilities of relevant bodies for implementation to ensure a streamlined approach to IAS prevention and management.308
Mechanisms to operationalise coordination between key sectors can contribute to issue visibility as well as efficient IAS governance. The US National Invasive Species Council309 provides an example of legislative backing for coordination at federal level. The Great Britain Non-Native Species Programme Board, supported by a dedicated secretariat310, provides an example of a non-legislative platform involving key administrations.
At EU or appropriate biogeographic level, the creation of one or more stakeholder fora on IAS could facilitate consideration of different socio-economic and environmental interests, including with regard to species already in trade.
In the UK, an IAS Stakeholder Forum is held annually and brings together representatives from a wide range of sectors involved with IAS issues including representation from industry and local action groups. The Forum provides an opportunity for debate on strategic issues
308 See e.g. New Zealand’s Memorandum of Cooperation between key departments responsible for aspects of environmental biosecurity (Annex 2).
309 See Annex 2
310 https://secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/nonnativespecies/home/index.cfm .
160
and is a means of engaging stakeholders in the development of non-native species policy and objectives. It also helps facilitate information exchange.311
5.7.3 Research
Suggested operational objective: IAS knowledge gaps, uncertainties and areas for technical innovation are strategically addressed through EU Research and Technological Development policies and programmes with adequate funding.
The EU has already made substantial investments through its Research Framework Programmes to improve the IAS knowledge base and to develop more efficient risk assessment and management techniques for certain sectors.312
The Strategy should guide integrated research programming to decrease current biological uncertainties and improve science-based decision support to European institutions and MS, including within the framework of a future technical structure to support the IEWS (see 7.4).
IAS should be explicitly addressed in FP8 from 2013 to ensure the continued allocation of EU financial resources for practical activities to develop and implement IAS tools (e.g. as under DAISIE). The Commission may reference IAS in its annual Work Programmes in order to schedule some Calls for Proposals relevant to implementation of the EWRR system and/or the overall Strategy.
The EU has an important role to play in coordinating assessment frameworks and supporting the establishment of an appropriate network for information exchange. The results of IAS eradication and control actions and other relevant measures should be fed into the future IEWS to build knowledge on IAS as far as possible and target future research priorities. The results of EU-funded IAS research should be rapidly and freely accessible through online journals or equivalent mechanisms.
Priority topics for research should be defined in collaboration with relevant stakeholders, building on the objectives and activities envisaged under the Strategy. They may include:
• research to support the envisaged listing of ‘IAS of EU concern’ (4.4);
• continued development of common approaches and methodologies for RA (see 4.3);
• further streamlining of RA tools, procedures and capacity for specific sector pathways;
• design-focused research to improve industrial/transport equipment and practices (e.g. ship design) to reduce IAS vector risks;
311 https://secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/nonnativespecies/index.cfm?sectionid=45
312 e.g. DAISIE; PRATIQUE (Enhancement of Pest Risk Analysis Techniques); ALARM (Assessing Large-scale environmental Risk with tested Methods); IMPASSE (Environmental impacts of alien species in aquaculture); and EFFORTS (Effective Operations in Ports): see Scalera 2008 for details of other projects.
161
• improved surveillance and rapid screening techniques to support early warning and rapid response, including improved taxonomic identification tools;313
• studies on the ecological impacts of alien species and genotypes;
• studies on the effects of climate change on IAS;
• improved techniques for economic evaluation of IAS damage and cost-benefit analysis of prevention/management options relevant to specific sectors;
• continued development of indicators to measure IAS as a driver of biodiversity and ecosystem service loss and to support integration of IAS into EU and MS policies and programmes for relevant sectors.
High priority should be given to additional scientific and technical development under the WFD and the MSFD to support a common approach to developing potentially useful indicators, especially of impacts of IAS which remain the main concern for achieving good environmental status. At the European level, a programme should be planned to consider the scope to extend tools such as biopollution indices, developed in the marine context, across all types of surface waters, including their possible application to the WFD (based on ECOSTAT 2009).
The EU currently has a low record in terms of evidence on IAS impacts (Vilà et al. 2010). This is essential for prioritisation. The Strategy could provide for an up-to-date synthesis report on IAS impacts to be produced every 4-5 years by an appropriate body (possibly the European Environment Agency and the Joint Research Centre), based inter alia on the results from the EU Research Framework Programmes and national research.
5.7.4 Capacity building
Suggested operational objective: Targeted education and training of specialist personnel supports effective implementation of the Strategy and optimises synergies with capacity building programmes in related fields.
The main needs identified through this study concern :
• training of and information materials on IAS legislation and other related issues for the staff of the national and local authorities in charge of implementing the Strategy (e.g. Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Agriculture, environmental agencies, etc.)
• training of and information materials for biosecurity officers/border control personnel, particularly for IAS diagnosis (taxonomic identification) and interception;
• training in RA in accordance with common EU approaches and available international standards314, including with reference to risks associated with climate change;
313 The forthcoming INTERREG Ballast Water Opportunity programme will provide for the development of rapid detection technologies for species in ballast water.
162
• training in IAS eradication and management;
• training of local staff in monitoring and surveillance.315
5.7.5 Beyond EU borders: external policies and international cooperation
Suggested operational objective: EU global footprint policies integrate IAS risks in sustainability impact assessment for external development and cooperation activities and trade negotiations. The EU cooperates actively with relevant international organisations to develop effective standards and policies to address IAS risks to biodiversity and ecosystem services.
External assistance and development cooperation
Biodiversity and ecosystem services are critical to human wellbeing. Particularly in countries dependent on their natural resource base, IAS impacts can compromise livelihoods, food security, economic development prospects, adaptation to climate change and capacity to reach the Millennium Development Goals.
Activities under the Strategy funded by MS and the Commission should contribute to overarching EU objectives on sustainable development. IAS risks should be addressed as an integral part of biodiversity mainstreaming activities in the development strategies of both donor and recipient countries, using existing EU sustainability tools (EIA, Strategic Environmental Assessments).
For programmes that may provide pathways for potentially harmful introductions (e.g erosion control, reafforestation), IAS screening should be used in relevant EU-funded external assistance and development cooperation activities. Reference may be made to the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development’s Environmental and Social Policy 2008, aligned with EU environmental policy, which sets out detailed requirements for clients seeking funds for projects involving IAS risks, including in the context of forestry and fisheries (EBRD 2008).316
At the biogeographic level, the Strategic Goals and suggested activities should guide the allocation of EU and MS funding for programmes and interventions in border regions and neighbouring countries that face common challenges of IAS prevention and management.
This may include cooperation on biosecurity and control measures317 to minimise the risk of
314 NB Existing WTO-SPS training courses, including capacity-building to meet the standards set by IPPC and OIE, do not specifically address the risks associated with trade of pets, aquarium and terrarium species, as live bait and live food as standard-setting for these matters are currently outside the mandate of standard-setting organisations..
315 This is a pivotal point also emphasised in other IAS strategies e.g. US, New Zealand and Great Britain.
316 In Australia, if invasive species are identified as an issue through AusAID's environmental assessment and management processes, an activity environmental management plan will be prepared. A country level SEA can provide information for partner countries and regional organisations to raise the issue of invasive species in aid programme consultations.
317 Particularly in former Yugoslavia and eastern Europe, Norway and Black Sea countries e.g. western corn rootworm was found in Serbia and now causes a damage > 147 million EUR / year in Europe.
163
IAS spreading across borders into the EU, including in shared international river basins and in European regional seas.
International cooperation with trade partners
The Committee of the Regions has drawn ‘particular attention to the significant risks inherent in opening up the markets to the distribution of potentially invasive natural or genetically modified species (and urged) the inclusion of biodiversity conservation requirements in all international trade agreements’ (COR 2009).318
Assessment of IAS risks linked to trade and transport pathways should be included in Sustainability Impact Assessments (SIA) for future trade agreements at bilateral or broader level, and in targeted consultations with trading partners for specific pathway risks.
The EU should work in partnership with relevant international organisations (CBD, IPPC, OIE, WTO-SPS, IMO, CITES, etc.) that cooperate through the CBD-led Inter-Agency Liaison Group established in 2010, in particular on ways to address current gaps in the international regulatory framework for IAS prevention and management.