The case for preventive policy action at the EU level to tackle these future threats rests on strong foundations: the exponential growth in current and predicted introductions, the scale of IAS-related costs and damage and the technical constraints of taking effective control action once a species has become widespread. Existing evidence comparing the costs of policy action versus inaction (e.g. as discussed in Shine et al. 2009b and in chapter 6 below) shows that inaction or delayed action leads to more serious impacts, costs more to the EU economy and societies and damages function and resilience of Europe’s ecosystems.
However, IAS have low visibility in the EU. In a 2010 survey commissioned by DG ENV on Attitudes of Europeans towards the issue of biodiversity, only 3 per cent of respondents selected IAS as the most important threat to biodiversity29, a very small increase on the previous 2007 survey (see Figure 2-4). The range across individual MS went from 1 per cent (Portugal) to 5 per cent (Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Ireland and The Netherlands).
Figure 2-4 Survey results on attitudes of Europeans towards threats to biodiversity
Source: Flash Eurobarometer 290 (Gallup Organisation 2010)
2.4 The mandate from EU institutions
29 Note that respondents were asked to select only one of the threats from a given list.
25
In 2006, EU institutions committed to develop an EU strategy to substantially reduce the impacts of IAS and alien genotypes and to establish an early warning system.30 They supported alignment of the future Strategy with the CBD Guiding Principles, taking account of the European Strategy for Invasive Alien Species developed under the pan-European Bern Convention (Genovesi and Shine 2004).
In 2008, as noted in 1.1, the Commission issued a Communication outlining four policy options for further consideration. The Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Council, in their responses, supported the development of dedicated legislation and emphasised the need for urgent and immediate action.31
In 2009, the Environment Council32 called for an effective Strategy to fill existing gaps at EU level and establish a comprehensive EU IAS framework in a proportionate and cost-effective manner, based on strategic cooperation at EU and MS level. It should, in particular:
• cover i) prevention, including trade-related aspects, and information exchange, ii) early detection, warning and rapid response, including prevention of spread and eradication, iii) monitoring, control and long-term containment, and iv) restoration of biodiversity affected by IAS as far as feasible (§33);
• take into account the biogeographic approach and the specific circumstances of islands and ultra-peripheral regions (§34); and
• provide for the establishment and maintenance of a comprehensive inventory of IAS and common standards for risk assessment processes (§35).
The Council also stressed the need for the Commission and MS to:
• jointly develop an appropriate information system for early warning and rapid response and improve cooperation on biosecurity and control measures within and beyond the EU (§37);
• integrate IAS considerations into relevant EU and national policies, in particular trade, agricultural, forestry, aquaculture, transport and tourism policies, with a view to preventing the threats caused by IAS (§38);
• address unintentional introductions of IAS, particularly in marine ecosystems (§39);
and
• note the importance of adequate financing for all aspects of IAS activities and increase public and sectoral awareness, responsibility and education, and ensuring public participation and involvement (§40).
30 Communication on Halting the Loss of Biodiversity by 2010 and Beyond (COM(2006)216) and Action Plan (SEC(2006)621); Council Conclusions of 18 December 2006 and of 3 March 2008; European Parliament Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (Report of 28 March 2007); Opinion of the Committee of the Regions of 6 December 2006; Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 15 February 2007.
31 Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on A New Impetus for Halting Biodiversity Loss (DEVE-IV-039, 80th Plenary Session, 17-18 June 2009); Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication – Towards an EU strategy on invasive species (NAT/433 Invasive Species dated 11 June 2009).
32 Council Conclusions on a mid-term assessment of implementing the EU Biodiversity Action Plan and Towards an EU Strategy on Invasive Alien Species (2953rd Environment Council meeting, 25 June 2009).
26
In 201033, the Council identified the lack of additional efficiently-targeted instruments to tackle specific problems such as IAS as one of the reasons for not achieving the EU 2010 biodiversity target. It agreed:
• a long-term vision that by 2050 EU biodiversity and ecosystem services are protected, valued and appropriately restored for biodiversity's intrinsic value and for their essential contribution to human wellbeing and economic prosperity, and so that catastrophic changes caused by the loss of biodiversity are avoided;
• the EU headline target of halting the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services by 2020, and restoring them in so far as feasible, while stepping up the EU contribution to averting global biodiversity loss.
It is envisaged that the EU’s post-2010 Biodiversity Strategy - to be submitted by the Commission after the tenth meeting of the CBD Conference of the Parties (Nagoya, October 2010) - will set sub-targets for different driving forces and pressures, including IAS. The expected aim is to ensure integration of these sub-targets into relevant internal and external EU sectoral policies and promote the use of best practices and the use of flexible approaches in line with existing legislation.
33 Council Conclusions on Biodiversity: Post-2010 EU and global vision and targets and international ABS regime (15 March 2010), building on the Communication Options for an EU vision and target for biodiversity beyond 2010 (COM(2010) 4 final, adopted 19 January 2010).
27
3 Evaluation of the policy baseline
This chapter provides an overview of the complex IAS policy framework to assess how far the baseline meets the mandate for action from EU institutions (see 2.4) and identify key issues and constraints to be addressed through the EU IAS Strategy. Further background information is available in an earlier study for the Commission.34
Specific sections cover:
• the most relevant trends in the international IAS policy framework (3.1);
• IAS coverage under key EU instruments and financial mechanisms (3.2);
• coherence with other EU objectives and policies (3.3);
• relevant rulings from the European Court of Justice (3.4);
• the current state of play and trends in MS frameworks (3.5);
• major voluntary initiatives (3.6);
• overall conclusions on the policy baseline (3.7).