Options and analysis: IAS inventories and horizon scanning

For both prevention and rapid action, it is essential to identify those alien species that are likely to invade new territories. This requires development and maintenance of inventories of alien species at different scales. The starting point should be the European biogeographical region, followed by the most connected areas to this region (notably the EU Overseas Entities) and then other parts of the globe.

Useful information on IAS, their geo-referenced invasion occurrence and climate conditions in invaded areas is currently stored in different databases. At the European level, the DAISIE inventory developed by the Delivering Alien Invasive Species Inventories for Europe project can allow identification of species not yet present in a country, but recorded in neighbouring countries. It also provides information on the known impacts caused by the species systems (e.g. risk/impact assessments) and for on-the-ground management.

As introduction pathways and vectors are increasingly globalised, it is also essential to coordinate and network the European IAS inventory and database with global information systems providing additional data. Examples of existing accessible online databases include:

• IUCN Invasive Species Specialist Group’s Global Invasive Species Database (GISD)²⁴² and Global Registry on Invasive Species (GRIS);

• the upcoming CABI Invasive Species Compendium;²⁴³

• the Global Invasive Species Information Network (GISIN);

• the Invasives Information Network of the Inter-American Biodiversity Information Network (IABIN-I3N).

In terms of added value, a regionally interlinked scheme can play a much more systematic role in horizon scanning, particularly if coordinated with animal and plant health information systems. By making it possible to identify IAS moving in trade into and within the EU and also the emergence or substitution of new subspecies or varieties, this type of

239 European Network on Invasive Species (formerly North European and Baltic Network on Invasive Alien Species) ; www.nobanis.org . 240 Assessing Large scale Risks for biodiversity with tested Methods.

241 http://www.eppo.org/PUBLICATIONS/reporting/reporting_service.htm 242 http://www.issg.org/database/welcome/.

243 http://www.cabi.org/isc/ . This is a global project led by CABI and the US Department of Agriculture, in partnership with EPPO and OIE, to develop and maintain a strategic knowledge tool for use in biodiversity maintenance, sustainable environmental management and IAS management e.g. in response to climate change. Several MS have supported the development of this Compendium financially and have access to its content during the pilot phase. Access to this maintained data will be subject to a fee to cover costs of development and upkeep.

118

system can facilitate compliance with applicable regulations and reveal where new or amended regulations may be needed.

Formalised horizon scanning procedures are in place under the EU animal health regime.

Pending modernisation, the legal framework behind this system is very complex and not based on a single directive. The list of alarm pathogens is codified by OIE, based on the movements of pathogens among countries as reported from MS. At the pan-European level, EFSA is in charge of analysing the risk of introduction of listed pathogens. The EU establishes an alert framework based on this decision support system.

Robust maintained data is a precondition for developing prioritised alert lists for prompt detection and identification of newly arrived alien species and to characterise alien species that are already present in Europe but have not yet become invasive and/or widespread.

Comprehensive and regularly updated lists (information on host commodities, source region, seasonal/environmental factors important for their introduction and establishment, and actual/potential pathways for their introduction) should be available to EU and national/local authorities.

This information may be used to identify the highest-risk IAS (including source areas and pathways) for which it may be appropriate to develop an EU alert list for ‘IAS of EU concern’

(see Table 5-7).

119

Table 5-7Summary of options: IAS horizon scanning and inventories HORIZON SCANNING AND INVENTORY: PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF EACH OPTION COM OptionDescriptionImpact (compared to baseline) Advantages Disadvantages AOnly selected sectors (plant health, animal health) covered by existing EU frameworks Comprehensive DAISIE inventory available at European scale. Some MS (GB, Ireland, Sweden, etc.) have full inventories NOBANIS provides a network with number of MS regularly increasing Negative(many invasivealienspecies are expected to be introduced and being unnoticed for years before they become a threat)

Existing inventories provide very solid information basis NOBANIS network ensures (limited) updating

Major information gaps are expected to increase with time Adjustment and correction of existing databases not ensured No harmonisation and interlink of different datasets and/or terminology used Risk of rapid outdating of available information Limited horizon scanning for emerging risks Possible waste of invested resources Lack of economic resource is a key limiting factor for effective use of the existing systems BAs under A + Network of national focal points without a centralised structure

Formal establishment of network required with limited operational funding (see Architecture A in 7.4) NOBANIS network provides potential basis for enlargement to EU-27 Voluntary basis for networking guarantees high level of commitment and motivation

Fragmented approach may undermine overall efficacy (weakest link in chain may undermine regional action) Maintains problems of harmonisation of different datasets and terminology Lack of funding may affect continuity B+Maximised use of AHR/PHR systems for matters covered by their remits + Structured permanent centralised information for IAS, supporting an EU database based on a common and agreed data shell

Establishment of more complex technical structure to ensure comprehensive IAS coverage (see Architecture B under 7.4) Support common data format and harmonised terminology Maintained links to global and other regional databases Authoritative information provided as basis of effective EWRR

New obligations to act in order to keep the system updated Complexity of required organisational structure may increase in the future Risk of inefficiency / duplication if roles and remits not well defined CAs under B+ + EU database recognised for regulatory purposes (species listing)

As above (see Architecture B or C under 7.4) Can support proposals for ‘IAS of EU concern’ (e.g. EU/European alarm lists, black lists, etc.)

As above

120