This section concludes the suggested outline for Strategy components. It brings together the list of the key vertical actions and cross-cutting elements with the measures that could be envisaged under each of the four Options proposed in the 2008 Communication. This synthesis is presented in Table 5-13 below.
The analysis in 5.1-5.7 has distinguished between voluntary and other measures not requiring a legislative basis and those that may require targeted legislative amendment, new legislation or a combination of the two. As noted, there are many possible combinations. Approaches to delivering the future Strategy are discussed in chapter 7 below.
318 The 2006 EU Biodiversity Action Plan supported action to ‘foster links between the WTO and biodiversity-related international agreements, and ensure biodiversity is taken into account as a Non-Trade Concern’ (Action A8.1.2 Action Plan (SEC(2006)621).
164
Table 5-13Synthesis of possible Strategy components under each of the COM Options STRATEGY COMPONENTCOM OPTION ACOM OPTION BCOM OPTION B+COM OPTION C Overarching element: common framework for IAS risk assessment National systems: some regional alignment (building on EPPO)
Regionally-driven informal technical expert network EU expert panel(s) linked to one or more existing bodies EU expert panel(s) linked to existing bodies or formally-constituted dedicated IAS expert panel Prevention: intentional introductions Import, export and border control frameworks •limited black listing •ad hoc MS action •strong coordination of existing systems •voluntary species substitution and other measures
•optimised use of border/quarantine infrastructure & capacity •black list system (main focus on species cf. pathways) •PHR expansion enables import ban for some HOs with environmental impacts •WTR coverage of more species and impacts •prioritisation and increased capacity
•builds on B+ border/quarantine infrastructure and capacity •combined listing system (grey/black) for ‘IAS of EU concern’ AND/ OR white listing for some taxonomic groups •possible white listing for Outermost Regions •overarching RA criteria for biodiversity/ ecosystem services (policy-proofing) •strong basis for pathway approach Intra-EU movement / holding•no common black listing •unilateral MS measures
•guidance for MS /regional measures affecting Single Market •expanded voluntary instruments •informal duty of care under codes •general environmental liability
•use of PHR ‘protected zone’ mechanism to prevent further spread of some HOs •expanded WTR coverage including containment/captivity •possible listing of IAS-related occupational activities under Annex III, Environmental Liability Directive
As under B+ (as applicable) and •continuum of measures for ‘IAS of EU concern’ with explicit application to containment/captivity •formal framework for biogeographic listing •common risk-based criteria for harmonised approach (Single Market) to MS decision making on IAS of local/regional concern (subsidiarity) •possible adapted approach for Outermost Regions •occupational derogations/ incentive framework Release into the natural environment •variable and complex •possibility but no guarantee of robust MS application •EU-level codes for key pathways (pets, horticulture, angling…) •EU occupational guidelines •voluntary consultation •general environmental liability •incentives for species substitution
•Similar to Option B •white list (presumption of no release without risk- based screening and appropriate management) •coupled with occupational activity derogations: coherence / IAS policy proofing •terrestrial, freshwater and marine systems •mandatory transboundary consultation •Commission oversight/stronger role •strong incentive element Prevention: unintentional introductions Pathway management for contaminants •AHR/PHR •limited voluntary •AHR/PHR combined with voluntary risk reduction measures •voluntary codes for vectors e.g. disposal of soil •general environmental liability •education and awareness
•optimised use of border/quarantine infrastructure & capacity •AHR limited expansion to some pathogens affecting biodiversity •PHR possible expansion to some IAS pathways (climate change dimension) As under B+ and •formalised inter-agency coordination •expanded pathway analysis addressing IAS •environmental biosecurity focus via respective implementation instruments
165
STRATEGY COMPONENTCOM OPTION ACOM OPTION BCOM OPTION B+COM OPTION C •new pathway/vector standards linked to international developments •cost recovery mechanisms •driver for industry best practices e.g. certification, HACCP Pathway management for transport vectors•IMO standards and guidance •limited voluntary
•additional voluntary codes for vectors e.g. recreational boating•optimised use of border infrastructure •expanded pathway coverage (e.g. hull- fouling) •EU technical support (EMSA etc.) •strong incentive framework
As under B+ and •EU-level decision support systems for key vectors •attention to inland (intra-EU) and inter-island water routes •increased investment in inspections & compliance Managing IAS dispersal within the EU•voluntary mainstreaming •guidance on avoidance/mitigation •cooperative management at catchment level
•IAS criteria in SEA/EIA frameworks for transport infrastructure •WFD-coordinated indicators/methods to address spread between river basins •possible PHR extension to cover natural spread (cf movement) backed by existing solidarity funds •fuller consideration of climate change risks in PHR context
As under B+ and •climate change mainstreaming in aquatic infrastructure management •coherence on policy trade-offs, criteria and priorities •natural IAS dispersal integrated as a management issue in broader policies Early warning and rapid response Inventories and horizon scanning•voluntary •coordination and exchange of information between concerned people
As under B + optimised use of AHR/PHR mechanisms •operational national systems for IAS data collation (linked to IEWS) Surveillance and monitoring •voluntary •regional voluntary networks •MS IAS surveillance & monitoring for existing and new IAS, integrated in existing systems where feasible
As under B + optimised use of AHR/PHR mechanisms •possible mandatory actions for ‘IAS of EU concern’ •further consideration of funding through cost recovery mechanisms and/or possible co- financing Identification and screening •voluntary•extensive use of existing tools and further development/improvement of new tools (e.g. fact sheets, guides, etc.) •increased likelihood of adequate expertise available within the network
As under B + optimised use of AHR/PHR mechanisms •EU-level monitoring & rapid screening (IEWS) Notification and follow-up reporting•voluntary•regional voluntary networks with facilitated information flowAs under B + optimised use of AHR/PHR mechanisms •possible mandatory actions Contingency planning for rapid response actions •voluntary •voluntary, but with increased coordination between countries with same problem •increased synergy in terms of human and financial resources As under B + optimised use of AHR/PHR mechanisms •possible mandatory actions for ‘IAS of EU concern’ •further consideration of funding through cost recovery mechanisms and/or possible co- financing
166
STRATEGY COMPONENTCOM OPTION ACOM OPTION BCOM OPTION B+COM OPTION C Control and management Common framework for MS actions •national IAS action plans for national/local priorities As under B•EU framework for MS level actions •formal basis for liability/compliance EU-level actions •EU action/management plans for selected IAS As under B•possible mandatory actions for ‘IAS of EU concern’ •further consideration of funding through cost recovery mechanisms and/or possible co- financing Ecological restoration •voluntary and ad hoc •optimised use of existing funding instruments eg EAFRD •optimised use of liability instruments e.g. remediation responsibilities & cost recovery explicitly addressed •informal mainstreaming •exchange of best practices
•restoration of IAS damage explicitly addressed in FCS measures under nature Directives •green infrastructure •clarification /development of WFD/MSFD indicators •integration of restoration targets in e.g. marine biogeographic regions under MSFD
As under B & B+ + •clear baseline, targets and criteria for post-2010 •framework for policy trade-offs Responsibilities and financing •ad hoc •scaled up •supported by best practices •stakeholder backing
As under B + Annex III Environmental Liability Directive
Coordinated framework optimising use of codes of conduct, market-based instruments, cost recovery mechanisms and EU financial instruments Cross-cutting components Awareness raising and communication•voluntary•major programmes rolled out at EU and other levels As under BAs under B National IAS strategy and coordination•voluntary•voluntary and actively encouragedAs under B•mandatory IAS strategies •designation of competent authorities •high-profile stakeholder fora meeting regularly Research •no overall strategic coordination•strategic coordinationAs under BAs under B Capacity building•ad hoc •coordinated e.g. at biogeographic level •optimised use of EU funding instrumentsAs under B+ •scope to consider additional funding Development and international cooperation•no systematic consideration•voluntary inclusion by MS •IAS considerations formally integrated in e.g. SIA and SEA tools •formal framework for integration of IAS across EU external policies
167
6 Costs of suggested key components and benefits of investment
Chapter 6 presents an assessment of the foreseen total scale / level of costs of a comprehensive EU IAS policy, associated with the adoption and implementation of the EU IAS Strategy.
Given the data limitations, the costs presented in this Chapter should be treated as initial and indicative. Regardless of these limitations, however, the developed estimates are considered as a reasonably robust indication of the likely scale of costs associated with the future EU action on IAS.
Note: A number of the outlined measures for IAS are already taking place at the Member State level, therefore the costs presented in this Chapter are the foreseen overall costs of a comprehensive future policy on IAS in the EU, not incremental costs of the adoption and implementation of EU IAS Strategy. The costs of action noted in this report should therefore be seen as an overestimate of the incremental costs of action. The benefits values presented in this report, on the other hand, focus on the potential IAS cost avoidance benefits from actions beyond what is already done. The benefits assessments are from that perspective arguably an underestimate of total potential benefits of action (existing and new).
This Chapter provides an overview of the estimated, indicative level / scale of costs (e.g. a range of administrative costs) that may be associated with a comprehensive EU action on IAS, e.g. the implementation of the key components of the future EU Strategy. The measures / actions for which costs are estimated have been identified based on the discussion and analysis in Chapter 5 above.
The main measures / actions for which the possible level / scale of costs are estimated include:
• costs of preventative actions, e.g. EU information and early warning system, IAS risk assessments, management of key IAS pathways and monitoring (see 6.2-6.5);
• costs of rapid response actions, e.g. contingency planning and capacity for rapid response / eradication (see 6.2);
• costs of IAS control, management and restoration (see 6.7);
• costs of key horizontal measures e.g. costs of IAS policy development, administration and coordination of IAS policy, costs of stakeholder consultation and engagement and research (see 6.8-6.10); and
• costs of key voluntary actions (see 1).
168
• The chapter also aims to consider the overall costs of EU action on IAS, including highlighting the variety of possible benefits associated with the implementation of the future EU Strategy (see 6.12). In this context, the key new costs related to the implementation of the EU IAS Strategy (vs. costs of already existing efforts) and the possible time scale for different costs are being briefly discussed. Also, cost implications (i.e. cost savings) resulting from possible future synergies between the future EU IAS Strategy and other relevant policy sectors (e.g. the EU Plant Health Regime) have briefly been discussed. Finally, the possible level / share of cost of compliance and enforcement to private actors within the context of above measures has been discussed (see 6.12.2).