Options and analysis: IAS surveillance and monitoring

Surveillance (aimed at identifying alien species new to a country) and monitoring (of patterns of distribution and spread) are essential to collect the information needed to guarantee rapid response actions.

Effective surveillance programmes need to focus on entry points and other high-risk areas.

Prioritisation of surveillance effort requires support tools such as alert lists and appropriate indicators and modalities for collecting and reporting information on new incursions. In general terms, surveillance programmes would be of limited efficacy if carried out on a unilateral local scale.

Monitoring programmes can be adapted to specific areas and species and used proactively to improve understanding of IAS ecology, distribution, patterns of spread and response to management. This information can build capacity to predict the consequences of alien species introductions and provide a stronger scientific basis for decision-making and allocation of resources.

Option A: Business as usual

Outside the animal and plant health sectors, IAS surveillance/monitoring remains mainly voluntary (MS discretion) except for:

• a generic requirement to monitor possible threats to Natura 2000 sites and protected species under the habitats and birds Directives. As far as possible, IAS should be integrated within existing programmes focused on native species to minimise new administrative burdens. Some expansion may be needed to bridge the gaps in taxonomy and environments not covered by such programmes. Public reporting can be encouraged through national species observation gateways;

• explicit monitoring obligations under the aquaculture Regulation;

• monitoring linked to the qualitative descriptors for determining good environmental status under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, which are now covered by Commission guidance adopted in 2010 (see 4.3). These can support consistency at the biogeographic level (European marine regions).

Current wide variations of MS approach to monitoring ecological status under the water framework Directive would continue, with some best practices supporting transboundary monitoring of shared watercourses (e.g. Republic of Ireland/northern Ireland).

Option B: Voluntary coordination of programmes with technical support

To increase the ability of MS and local governments to detect new incursions of alien species promptly, the number of surveillance activities and monitoring programmes dedicated to alien species could be increased with EU-level support.

121

Advisory alert lists or reference guides could be developed for dedicated surveillance programmes at EU entry points (i.e. ports, airports), building on existing systems for border control and quarantine where possible to make best use of available capacity and expertise.

Additional taxonomic training may be required. Particular efforts could be focused on ecologically vulnerable areas, such as islands, including the Outermost Regions.

Public alert mechanisms, linked to interactive national portals, are already in place in some MS (e.g. Sweden, Ireland) and are being tested in the participating countries of the NOBANIS network. This approach could be rolled out on a broader scale if given backing under the Strategy. Species alerts and information materials could be developed to engage target audiences (e.g. truck drivers, garden centres, pet shops, anglers, tourists).

Data obtained through existing monitoring programmes (e.g. Natura 2000, EU Forest Monitoring System, public health systems for allergenic plants etc.) could be integrated into the IEWS (see 7.4 below) to efficiently circulate information on relevant sightings. Additional monitoring targeted at high-risk pathways and vectors could be coordinated at the EU level in collaboration with appropriate sectors and stakeholders e.g. through the development of an EU Ballast Water Sampling Strategy.

Alien species should be formally included as a monitoring parameter through guidance under the WFD to phase out current disparities of approach. This would require IAS to be systematically addressed within existing monitoring programmes for freshwater systems, consistent with the approach already in place under the MSFD.

Innovative new practices could be used to tailor monitoring effort to the appropriate biogeographic context. Within the NOBANIS network, for example, early warning ‘risk maps’

based on a biogeographic approach are being developed for selected species, again to ensure a coordinated approach to IAS established in different countries.²⁴⁴

At the MS level, general issues that would need to be addressed include:

• who is responsible for surveillance/monitoring? Active programmes are typically undertaken by government, local government, NGOs or research providers but can be extended to promote collaboration with key stakeholders (farmers, foresters, hunters etc.). They may be complemented by passive surveillance/monitoring where members of the public are encouraged to look out for certain things e.g. bird watchers, gardeners, volunteers;

• how are priorities established?

• what to look out for (species/impacts)?

• is additional training needed to support these activities?

244 Branquart et al. 2010. Harmonising the invasiveness concept: the EPPO prioritization scheme as a tool to identify the most invasive plant species in Europe.

http://www.nobanis.org/files/Wed%209.30_Harmonising%20the%20invasiveness%20concept_Etienne%20Branquart.pdf

122

Option B+: Optimised integration of IAS into animal and plant health surveillance

Optimum use of existing capacity can be made by coordinating surveillance at the EU or European scale.

Under the EU animal health regime, the import of live animal or derived products is prohibited except under bilateral agreements agreed with the exporting country and is subject to inspection by the EU Food and Veterinary Office (FVO), based in Dublin. Early warning is a mandatory element of bilateral agreements and clear duties apply both to exporting and importing countries. An MS is required to notify the FVO electronically when it detects an infection of a listed alarm pathogen in their territory. This information is officially circulated to border offices and regional local health offices. Competent agencies are required to increase their surveillance following standard operation procedures.

Decisions on trade regulations are taken by the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health (formerly the Standing Veterinary Committee).²⁴⁵

Under the EU plant health regime, the EC Food and Veterinary Office manages EUROPHYT, an electronic rapid alert system between the Commission and MS. MS are required to conduct regular and systematic official surveys of the presence of HOs on their territory and to notify new occurrences to the Commission.

At the pan-European level, in the plant health sector, EPPO operates as a central authority, developing reference lists, collecting information on new incursions and notifying member countries of the presence in their territory of new plant pests that need to be managed. To run such a system EPPO has a central headquarters, a permanent secretariat and a small permanent staff dedicated to reporting.

Option C: Mandatory surveillance / monitoring for ‘IAS of EU concern’

This option would additionally require surveillance for listed ‘IAS of EU concern’, similar to the approach already used under the animal and plant health regimes. As envisaged under 4.4, this risk-based list would be developed by the Commission and MS based on technical advice from the future IEWS structure. Legislation would be required to establish relevant requirements, define responsibilities and provide as appropriate for specific tasks (see 5.6).

245 See http://ec.europa.eu/food/committees/regulatory/scfah/animal_health/summary36_en.pdf for a description of how the Committee’s work is organised.

123

Table 5-8Summary of options: IAS surveillance and monitoring SURVEILLANCE AND MONITORING: PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF EACH OPTION COM OptionDescriptionImpact (compared to baseline) Advantages Disadvantages ANo EU coordinated IAS surveillance and monitoring schemes (except plant health/animal health) Some MS (GB, Ireland) have established coordinated programmes of surveillance and monitoring Negative(many invasivealien species areexpectedtobe introduced and being unnoticed for years before they become a threat) Surveillance and monitoring follow national priorities Some proactive initiatives in place

Limited efficacy No harmonised procedures and approaches Lack of knowledge about already-existing monitoring schemes Limited circulation of information and data Risk of major information gaps expected in the future Lack of economic resources is a key limiting factor for filling in the gaps BVoluntarycoordinationof programmes with technical support Extension and improved integration of IAS in surveillance and monitoring

Establishment of networkof institutions or single experts (see Architecture A in 7.4)

Advisory Harness and promote consistency across existing efforts Address WFD gap Active stakeholder engagement with EU support for materials Existing LIFE+ funds can support

Limited harmonisation of procedures and approaches Lack or uncertainty of economic resources is a key limiting factor for expanding the network to all MS B+Centralised EU system with formally required reporting mechanism for defined informationAdvancedtechnical structureto providerisk-basedadviceto informlistingdecisions (see Architecture B in 7.4)

Delivers coordinated EU/MS surveillance tailored to risk level Standardised and more robust approach Better definition of responsibilities and incentives Sound implementation of database and information system Increased synergies from monitoring schemes established at the regional level

Needs development of criteria and indicators for listing Needs development of criteria to identify gaps and priority monitoring schemes to support CAs under B+ + Mandatory surveillance/ monitoring for ‘IAS of EU concern’

As above + regulatoryfunctions (see Architecture C in 7.4) Can support proposals for ‘IAS of EU concern’ (e.g. EU/European alarm lists, black lists, etc.)Introduction of new obligations to act, outside the existing EWRR obligations Further consideration of financing options necessary

124