Options and analysis: EU-level actions for IAS management

IAS that threaten Europe’s biodiversity heritage, including but not limited to EU-protected species and natural habitats, need to be treated as a shared problem entailing common responsibilities at the appropriate biogeographic scale.

A regionally coordinated approach to control can have a range of benefits: to contain problems before they affect neighbouring units²⁵⁹, to prevent spread to other MS even if local eradication fails or simply to slow down IAS spread to postpone its foreseeable social, economic and environmental impacts.²⁶⁰

At the biogeographic/regional level, a well-structured approach to assess the need for and feasibility of action could be based on the following criteria:²⁶¹

• does the species affect species / habitats of EU importance at a transboundary scale?²⁶²

• does the species still have a significant area suitable for further spread in the EU?

• based on available information, would eradication/containment be technically feasible?

• is it possible to permanently avoid supply of new propagules from nearby areas?²⁶³

258 On the use of this approach in the UK, see 155.

259 e.g. in Austria, control of Asian Longhorned Beetle (Anoplophora glabripennis) has been carried out for the last ten years and the species – although still present locally – has not spread from this single point of occurrence to nearby areas.

260 e.g. Western corn rootworm (Diabrotica virgifera virgifera) or ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia).

261 Broadly aligned with prioritisation criteria developed by EPPO Invasive Plants Panel (meeting of 23-24 February 2010).

262 e.g. in the case of the Ruddy duck, the main concern that justified EU financial support for a coordinated control programme was the threat that its continued expansion posed to an endangered protected EU species.

263 This is essential to avoid the common situation where, following control investments, the situation reverts to the original problem because the species has invaded the site again.

138

Technical (i.e. non-legislative) level

EU-level action plans could be prepared for selected key species / groups of species that threaten biodiversity and other values of EU relevance. These could address information on the species, its biology, ecology, control methods, to be supplemented by mapping and legislative information specific to the country/region concerned.

Clear biological goals, indicators, environmental safeguards and monitoring arrangements are integral to the design of long-term control programmes supported through EU funding instruments. The choice of the best management strategy should involve a range of considerations e.g. evaluation of available techniques for the target species, legal aspects, costs and environmental impacts.²⁶⁴ Results should be monitored and findings fed back into the future EU / Europe-wide information and early warning system (see 7.4) .

Screening of proposed control measures could be facilitated through the technical support structure hosting the IEWS to ensure access to state-of-the-art protocols and best practice²⁶⁵ and avoid duplication of MS effort. This structure could also identify and monitor possible inconsistencies with EU legislation on e.g. health and safety, pesticide use and biocontrol.²⁶⁶

Eradication may be an appropriate EU / biogeographic management goal for IAS affecting public greens and natural habitats: if timely and well-targeted, it can be justified on environmental as well as economic grounds (e.g. pinewood nematode). However, control techniques must be subject to impact assessment to avoid excessive damage when eradication measures go beyond reasonable scope. Management objectives also need to provide for a second-best target where eradication does not achieve its objective in order to contain the risk of escalating environmental damage. These choices feed into ecological restoration (see 5.5).

• building on synergies with other relevant sectors, IAS with human health impacts e.g.

Tiger mosquito Aedes albopictus²⁶⁸, ragweed Ambrosia artemisiifolia.²⁶⁹

264 For introduced marine pests, Australia’s CRIMP system supports a web-based interactive approach that provides access and guides the user to available information on control options: http://crimp.marine.csiro.au/nimpis/controls.htm.

265 e.g. the Forest Stewardship Council has banned the pesticide Cypermethrin from their list of permitted chemicals in sustainable forest practices because of its toxicity to fish, aquatic organisms, water insects and bees.

266 e.g. measures regulating the use of anticoagulants should not prevent or unduly delay key island mammal eradication programmes to the detriment of native wildlife, notably seabirds (BirdLife, pers.comm).

267 Plan under development in Denmark, completion expected in 2010.

268 A study on possible expansion due to climate change was published recently by European Centre for Disease Control:

139

Linked to the EU Post-2010 Biodiversity Strategy, control programmes could also identify and assess key ecosystem services impacted by IAS. The level of ambition required by the target will determine the degree to which such services will be factored into the agreed target, ranging from maintenance to full restoration (COM 2010).

The EU could support the development of ‘risk maps’ to zone areas at risk in which IAS interventions may be prioritised. These could take account of climate modelling predictions to identify possible future range expansion, as a support for targeted surveillance. The EU could additionally support MS actions through research projects/technical guidance on:

• management options for already widespread IAS;²⁷⁰

• containment strategies and standards²⁷¹; and

• regional training courses for land and water resource managers.

Possible legislative actions

Protected species lists under the nature Directives should be reviewed as necessary to remove legal protection from known IAS and enable control actions (see 3.2.5).

The Strategy could require mandatory control actions²⁷² for ‘IAS of EU concern’ in order to ensure a consistent response at the appropriate biogeographic scale, irrespective of jurisdictional boundary. Listing criteria could be drawn up in accordance with the approach envisaged in 4.4. As a starting point, the environmental objectives should be closely aligned with the acquis and could include:

• maintenance or restoration of favourable conservation status of the Natura 2000 network and/or nature Directive Annex 1 habitats and species;

• achieving good ecological status of inland and coastal waters covered by the WFD.

This will require progress on a common approach to using alien species data in WFD ecological status classification (ECOSTAT 2009: see 3.2.6);

• achieving good environmental status of marine waters under the MSFD.

More broadly, the concept could be applied to IAS that are problematic in the EU Outermost Regions, which are not covered by the nature Directives.

http://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/Publications/0905_TER_Development_of_Aedes_Albopictus_Risk_Maps.pdf

269 The European Parliament has called for a study on ways to manage / control the negative impacts of ragweed at the EU level noting its current expansion (e.g. due to a longer growing season, Ambrosia artemisiifolia is now able to establish in Denmark). The EFSA opinion on ambrosia has now been published: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/scdocs/doc/1566.pdf .

270 The EPPO system uses non-binding PM9s to publish standards describing desirable national measures against pests too widely distributed for international regulation. Current examples include Ambrosia artemisiifolia, Eichhornia crassipes and Heracleum mantegazzianum, H. sosnowskyi, H. persicum (http://archives.eppo.org/EPPOStandards/regulatorysystems.htm).

271 e.g. buffer zones around specific biotopes to protect against invasive trees used in forestry.

272 The PHR Evaluation noted that the most successful results for HO control had been obtained under HO-specific control directives (i.e.

strict and detailed measures with common procedures in place) (see FCEC 2010).

140

A precedent for an overarching listing of this type is found in Australia.²⁷³ Under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act, the Commonwealth-level technical assessment and regulatory listing of a ‘key threatening process’ triggers the development and implementation of IAS threat abatement measures across affected states and territories. A key threatening process is defined to cover a process that ‘threatens or may threaten the survival, abundance or evolutionary development of a native species or ecological community’ protected under the EPBC.²⁷⁴

Use of EU funding instruments to support co-financing of mandatory management measures for ‘IAS of EU concern’ would need to be optimised and possibly considered in further detail. A procedure would need to be developed to ensure compliance and address possible inaction by Member States.

273 See Annex 2.

274 Current listings cover predation by the European red fox, feral rabbits or unmanaged goats, rodents on islands, red imported fire ants, Phytophthora cinnamomi, chytrid fungus and Psittacine beak and feather disease.

141

Table 5-12Summary of options: control and management of already established IAS CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT OF ALREADY ESTABLISHED IAS: PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF EACH OPTION COM OptionDescriptionImpact (compared to baseline) Advantages Disadvantages AStatus quo •neutral •continued escalation of IAS damage•full subsidiarity •voluntary prioritisation by MS according to national/local needs

•continued gaps and inconsistencies at MS level •continuing lack of basic EU IAS management instruments •no change to gaps in current intervention logic •not coordinated across political/administrative boundaries •resource inefficient BCommon framework for MS actions + Voluntary IAS action plans (MS and/or EU level)

•dependent on MS level of ambition•framework for consistent MS approaches •stronglocal driver:cantarget most vulnerable ecosystems •criteria to guide MS prioritisation •optimise use of liability provisions •promotes voluntaryconsultationand cooperation across borders and sectors •leverageof regional informationand technical resources

•non binding (weakest link) •no leverage to secure consistent action •continued lack of EU visibility for IAS management •continued fragmentation •legal uncertainty for certain control techniques B+Common framework for MS actions + EU technical IAS action plans

•medium-high, depending on scope •scope for some cost recovery through e.g. liability-based systems •increase in costs to be balanced against potential benefits of avoided impacts (see 6)

•possible fuller consideration of climate change risks (spread) in PHR context •possible use of PHR protected zone mechanism)to prevent spread of limited number of IAS affecting plant diversity •optimise existing funding instruments (e.g. EAFRD, LIFE+, REGIO) •formalise cooperation between sectors •can require environmental assessment of IAS control techniques

•continued fragmentation and lack of EU-level visibility •limited scope of black listing, depends on extent and focus of PHR modernisation •grey area for e.g. invasive plants if not listed as harmful organisms under PHR •financing remains ad hoc except for matters covered under PHR CCommon framework with mandatory elements + Mandatory control of ‘IAS of EU concern’

•potentially high for COM and MS, depending on scope •resource implications linked to mandatory controls •scope for some cost recovery through e.g. liability-based systems •increase in costs to be balanced against potential benefits of avoided impacts (see 6).

•consistent basic framework across all MS •highest contribution to raising visibility •highest contribution to tackling regime complexity and fragmentation •EU-coordinated action for most serious threats, implemented at appropriate biogeographic scales and across sectors •environmental assessment of control techniques •mandatory monitoring of outcomes to feed back into knowledge base

•time involved in stakeholder consultation procedures •possible high resistance linked to mandatory nature of controls (though may be reduced if more locally proportionate approaches are seen as acceptable) •additional administrative requirements (MS- COM) •need for oversight & consistency procedure

142

CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT OF ALREADY ESTABLISHED IAS: PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF EACH OPTION COM OptionDescriptionImpact (compared to baseline) Advantages Disadvantages

143