Options and analysis: IAS contingency planning and rapid response actions 130

Criteria for success in early eradication of newly detected alien species - except those recognised as low risk - include informed personnel, rapid-response capacity, sufficient resources and the legal authority necessary to deal with issues that often arise in eradication projects.

The goal of rapid response should be eradication, where feasible. This aims to completely remove an IAS and is more cost-effective than long-term control. However, it is difficult to predict with any certainty the length of the critical period during which eradication is feasible after species detection (i.e. before the IAS reaches a certain level of population and/or range expansion). Eradication is especially difficult in the marine environment once the species is abundant and widespread (see

Box 5-2).

Box 5-2 Monitoring and incursion management in the marine environment

A monitoring programme to provide early warning of IAS incursions may be undertaken quarterly, focusing on sites in close proximity to potential species introduction activities (e.g. ballast water discharge sites).

An rapid response plan should be prepared. Once a known or suspected IAS has been detected, the first steps are to survey and delineate the infected area, and then to take quarantine actions to remove vectors that could assist its spread. After the incursion has been contained, the response team can focus on reviewing incursion management options, including impact mitigation (ICES WGITMO 2010²⁴⁸).

Management options include eradication, containment and control. Eradication in the marine environment should only be attempted if it is ecologically feasible, has the necessary financial and political commitment to be completed and when the target species is confined to a very limited range. In other cases, the species may be controlled by physical, chemical or biological methods. The response plan may be used to address the feasibility or practicality of management options, undertake a cost-benefit analysis, estimate the damage and select management options. Post-control monitoring is necessary to determine the success of an eradication programme for a specific target species with limited distribution and to assess the efficacy of control techniques and the effects on non-target species and the environment (ICES WGITMO 2010).

When new invaders are found, the RA-based exemption of ballast water management measures need to be double checked as the low risk evaluation seems to be/may be wrong. Ballast water management requirements put in place for high risk shipping routes should also be revisited as new invaders indicate that the protection measures implemented may not be sufficient. Further, outbreaks of harmful organisms can be documented which triggers warnings to shippers that no ballast water should be taken onboard under these circumstances (IMO Risk Assessment Guideline G7²⁴⁹).

Lastly, a comprehensive port baseline study may be undertaken to document all species (native and introduced) in the area considered. This study will facilitate the risk assessment and will also support an evaluation of the impact of the port facilities should the study be repeated e.g. every two years (IMO Risk Assessment Guideline G7).

248 Report of the ICES Working Group on Introductions and Transfers of Marine Organisms 2010 Meeting.

249 IMO Guideline for Risk Assessment under Regulation A-4 of the BWM Convention.

131

Risk management (i.e. selection of appropriate response) needs to be location- and species- specific. Assessment of feasibility and related risks is important but should not prejudice the chances of success (i.e. a rapid decision process is needed without conditions that undermine the efficacy of the project).

Option A: business as usual

For certain diseases and harmful organisms regulated through the animal and plant health sectors, mandatory contingency planning and rapid response obligations are in place with co-financing via the solidarity funds. Procedures are thus designed to ensure a harmonised response to the most serious threats to EU interests, with the cost burden shared between the EU and MS.

Outside the animal and plant health sectors, preparation, contingency planning and implementation of emergency actions for early eradication are primarily an MS responsibility. As noted in the baseline, lack of up-front technical, personnel and financial capacity regularly compromises MS efforts to take early and efficient actions when an incursion is detected. With certain exceptions (e.g. the Invasive Species Ireland initiative covering the all-island biogeographic unit), there are no structures in places to leverage cooperation between MS.

Option B: scaled-up voluntary MS planning with response coordinated by expert network At this level, a coordinated EWRR framework can facilitate the diffusion of expertise and relevant technical protocols to reduce delay, duplication of effort and inconsistency (e.g.

following indication of IAS action plans).

Each MS needs to provide for emergency control authority to take the necessary steps to address IAS. This requires:

• clear allocation of roles and responsibilities between competent authorities (environment, agriculture and health and at local and protected area level);

• defined legal powers to remove IAS and alien species with a high potential to become invasive, including prior authorisation to use regulated control agents;

• emergency orders where urgent action is needed e.g. to co-opt services of other agencies, to activate powers of access to land/water for officials or their agents (see new draft Scottish legislation and also 5.4.2).

These powers can be underpinned by legislation. At EU level, the aquaculture Regulation provides an example of a continuum of prevention, pilot release, monitoring, contingency and response obligations linked to intentional introductions for aquaculture (see 3.2.4).

At MS level, contingency planning can be generic and/or targeted at specific threats. In both cases, it will require response teams to be provided with adequate funds, materials and equipment with staff trained to use the control methods selected.

132

A more ambitious technical network could provide regional economies of scale through advance preparation of technical protocols based on prediction tools and by developing generic contingency plans for groups of species with similar characteristics that could be adapted to MS conditions.

Option B could also involve the development of subregional or catchment-scale contingency plans tailored to biogeographic scale. Emergency action networks could be created to leverage available expertise and capacity, particularly for smaller MS, local governments and isolated regions that do not have the necessary field capability.

At this level, it would be possible to identify possible conflicts of interest e.g. the possible impacts of some toxic products on protected species or sites. This assessment could be circulated to concerned sectors and be used to identify areas in which targeted research is needed to develop lower-impact eradication and control techniques and products.

Option B+:

Under the baseline, EU solidarity-type funding is available for defined actions under the animal and plant health regimes to maximise efforts to prevent a species from establishing or to control its further spread. MS may receive an EU financial contribution to co-finance the costs of eradicating or containing HOs that are spread through trade-related movement.

Option C: Mandatory contingency planning and response for ‘IAS of EU concern’

For ‘IAS of EU concern’, mandatory contingency planning and emergency action may be considered. The enabling legislation could be based on the approach under the plant health Directive. This would establish a procedure for fast-track decisions to support emergency action, including for newly-identified threats that have not yet been listed (see 4.4). The initial assessment of risk would be carried out by competent MS authorities and / or with technical support through the IEWS (see 7.4). Depending on the threat level, risk management activities could then be coordinated at appropriate level (EU, biogeographic, localised) with support from MS and Commission services. Response powers would need to be enabled under MS legislation.

When developing new legal restrictions e.g. on toxicants, the need to ensure availability of effective management tools should be taken into account. Derogations for IAS eradications may need to be considered and possibly cost-benefit analysis.

An additional option would be to provide for an EU-supported emergency team to ensure that for the most serious threats, the necessary response can be secured. This type of approach is already in place in the animal health sector and, under a networked approach, in New Zealand (see Annex 2). In the biodiversity context, it might be a practical option for high biodiversity / low local capacity areas, possibly including the Outermost Regions.

133

Table 5-11Summary of options: IAS contingency planning and rapid response actions CONTINGENCY PLANNING AND RAPID RESPONSE ACTIONS: PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF EACH OPTION COM OptionDescriptionImpact (compared to baseline) Advantages Disadvantages ANo framework for contingency planning or mobilising emergency action Some member states (GB, Ireland) have established frameworks for contingency action

Neutral Mobilisation of contingency funds and actions possible at the national level Lack of contingency planning framework reduces ability to respond promptly to new incursions Lack of framework reduces ability to respond in a coordinated manner to established IAS Difficulties in obtaining funding for transboundary actions BNetworking among national competent authorities to coordinate responses to new incursions Low-medium: establishment of network and of coordinated funding mechanism required.

Improved ability to respond to new incursions Improved harmonisation of actions

Decentralised framework substantially limits promptness of reaction and efficacy of regional action Lack of regional funding mechanisms limits efficacy of action B+Structured system to mandate rapid response to highest-risk category (possibly with EU co- financing)

High, depending on scope Ensures promptness of response. Secures consistent national actions for highest risks Positive incentives for MS to act [(co- financing)] Possible sanctions for inaction Can overcome the weakest link problem

Additional costs due to the introduction of new obligations to act Commission machinery required Introduces additional decision step CAs above + ‘IAS of EU concern’, mandatory contingency planning and emergency action

High (but depending on allocated resources) As above + a dedicated focus on ‘IAS of EU concern’

As above

134

5.4 Control and management of already established invasive species

Suggested operational objective: An integrated management framework, based on realistic priorities and stakeholder engagement, prevents further spread of already established invasive species in order to reduce impacts on EU biodiversity and ecosystem services.

The following sections proposes a common framework to guide effective and mutually supportive actions by MS and then consider specific situations in which complementary EU-level actions may be appropriate. These are synthesised in Table 5-12 with reference to the COM Options.

5.4.1 Background and general approach

This part of the Strategy addresses the transition from rapid response to ongoing management of already-established IAS.

The EU role in regulating IAS management on the ground needs to comply with the subsidiarity principle. Under the baseline, control, eradication and management investments are decided at decentralised (often local) level without higher coordination.

However, IAS spread and associated impacts do not stop at jurisdictional boundaries. One country’s management efforts are integrally connected to prevention across the border.

IAS do not respect boundaries between public and private goods. Pests affecting the managed environment (e.g. agriculture, commercial forests, horticulture) can spread into the natural environment and have serious environmental as well as social and economic impacts. Conversely, failure to address IAS spreading in the natural environment can have implications for the long-term production potential of key economic sectors (see Kettunen et al. 2009). Impacts to key ecosystem services like water supply potentially affect an even wider range of stakeholders.

Although coordination is important and recommended, it should be stressed that Europe is a large continent with different climates / landscapes and that a specific IAS may be a greater problem in one region than in another. From the EU perspective, a biogeographic approach is fundamental to proportionate action. A strong information system is also essential to build knowledge on the behaviour of an IAS in order to design an effective and timely response strategy to maximise chances of eradication.

The overarching aim of control is the long-term reduction in the distribution, abundance or density of an IAS to maintain its population at a level that does not cause significant economic, ecological and/or health impacts. Where complete eradication is not feasible, and where serious impacts on native species and ecosystems are evident, long-term control is sometimes the best available option, particularly in areas of high biodiversity value.

135

There are broadly three types of control option:

• physical control: in situ decrease or reduction by mechanical removal of individuals that may involve trapping, barriers and various equipment and/or treatments. It is labour intensive, often very expensive and may increase dispersal of vegetative propagating species. It can include the harvesting/fishing of commercially valuable IAS but care must be taken not to create perverse incentives in the process;

• chemical control: in situ decrease or reduction by release of toxic chemicals that should be as specific as possible and with minimal effects on non-target species.

However, most chemicals are not highly specific and their environmental and safety risks should therefore be assessed before use. Particularly for aquatic environments, application methods that directly target IAS need to be developed;²⁵⁰

• biological control: in situ decrease or reduction by use of habitat, pathogens, parasites, predators and/or genetic manipulation for long-term control (not suited to rapid response) (see 5.1.4).²⁵¹

Integrated IAS control may be described as the optimum combination of the above control methods to reduce populations to an economical acceptable level with as few harmful effects as possible on the environment and non-target organisms.²⁵²