Invasive alien species (IAS) are acknowledged as one of the main causes of biodiversity loss worldwide, however they also impact economic activities and human health. Over the past two centuries, the rate of introductions has increased significantly, in step with the acceleration in commercial trade and the transportation of people and goods.
International policies exist to gain better control over the paths of introduction, e.g. the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediment, the EU IAS regula- tion, etc. However, to ensure maximum effectiveness, these measures must be implemented on all available organisa- tional levels and apply «from the planet to the plot» because all persons interacting with the natural environment can uninten- tionally transport and introduce IASs in the course of their multiple activities.
Biosecurity measures are already in place in the U.K. and Ireland, but no coordinated measures for aquatic environments have yet been set up in continental France and in most of the overseas territories.
Biosecurity, the indispensable means to avoid biological invasions in continental and marine waters
This document sums up the two-day cross-border meeting organised on 16 and 17 May 2019 in Concarneau by the IUCN French committee and the French Biodiversity Agency1, the two co-pilots of the Resource Centre for invasive alien species, and by the U.K. Animal & Plant Health Agency, the pilot of the EU LIFE RAPID project.
The event brought together some 50 participants from the U.K., Belgium, France and Ireland. The topic was the use of biosecurity measures in continental and marine waters as a means of avoiding biological invasions. The discussions on good practices and project feedback from the four countries served to identify potential synergies and to make recommendations.
Collective awareness of the risks involved is necessary in order to improve the situation in this field. To discuss these issues, incite stakeholders to assume their responsibility in preventing biological invasions, share information on European
projects and launch joint efforts, the British team piloting the LIFE RAPID project and the French team in charge of the IAS Resource Centre organised the two-day cross-border meeting.
1As of 1 January 2020, AFB and the National Agency for Hunting and Wildlife merged to form the new French Biodiversity Agency (OFB).
JULY 2020
N° 74
Meetings
attached to boats, animals on hulls and fishing equipment (waders, keepnets), etc.
To assess the role of recreational fishing in the unintentional introductions of IASs in the U.K. and other European countries, Emily Smith (University College London &
Angling Trust) surveyed British anglers4. The results indicate that 54 % go on fishing vacations at least once each year and France is the preferred destination.
On the 34 fishing spots in France visited by the British anglers, 19 aquatic IASs, inclu- ding 8 species regulated by the EU and 4 species not yet observed in the U.K., were detected (Figure 2). Anglers from up to eight different nationalities were met on one of the sites and very few among them were aware of the problem with IASs and the role they could unintentionally play in the dispersal of the species. Only a small minority of the anglers clean their equip- ment before returning to their country or going on to another site. The installations required to clean the equipment are also rare.
Species transfers and unintentional introductions
2Ballast water, used to stabilise ships when travelling with no load, contains plants and animals drawn in during loading and represents the most serious vector for introductions across the planet. In France, over 20 million cubic metres of ballast water are pumped back into the sea each year. Patrick Le Mao (Ifremer) noted during his presentation that commercial and recreational maritime activities also result in significant biofouling (Figure 1), i.e. the growth of organisms on the hull of ships. Finally, the sale of shellfish and aquaculture have produced intentional introductions (common slipper shells, Japanese littleneck clams, the Undaria pinifata alga) and unintentional introduc- tions. One example is Rapana venosa, a gastropod mollusc that is thought to have been introduced via shellfish from the Adriatic Sea. Certain commercial species transported in numerous mari- time regions, such as true oysters, have also served as effective vectors for the introduction of numerous organisms.
The strong growth in recreational boating has led to the creation of a wide range of man-made structures that facilitate the establishment of IASs, e.g. mooring blocks, floating piers, anchoring chains,
etc.This is an important economic sector, for example in the U.K., there are over 256 marinas, 50 000 berths and over 540 000 pleasure craft, i.e. a sector repre- senting over 31 000 jobs and generating over 3.5 billion euros of turnover per year.
To better understand the part played by recreational boating in the dispersal of IASs and identify the main species thus introduced, rapid assessment surveys were carried out in 81 marinas in the U.K.
The results of the three-year survey on approximately 20 IASs, presented by John Bishop (Marine Biological Association), indicate a 30 % increase in their occur- rence. As for biofouling, at least four IASs were observed on all 74 of the boats monitored. Transfers of species were also noted between France and the U.K., for example Asterocarpa humilis, an ascidian (sea squirt) introduced in France in 2005 was subsequently detected in the U.K.
in 2009.
Transfers of species from one country to another have been observed in conti- nental waters as well. In France, for example, 36 % of non-native fish species were introduced for recreational fishing, 11 % for aquaculture and 15 % resulted from unintentional introductions3. The movements of certain persons, e.g.
anglers and boaters, from one aquatic environment to another, can result in the transport of IASs, such as plant fragments
Myriam Dumortier, EU Commission, DG Environment What is biosecurity?
According to the FAO (2007), biosecurity is an integrated, strategic approach to risk management in view of protecting the life and health of people, plants and animals and avoiding the related risks for the environment. It deals with food safety, zoonoses, the introduction of harmful organisms and plant and animal diseases, the propagation of living modified
organisms (LMO) and the introduction and management of IASs.
It includes all measures to prevent the risks of contamination, environmental pollution and loss of biodiversity.
Biosecurity comprises pre-border monitoring (detection of potential threats), measures at borders (inspections on imports) and post- border measures (coordinated detection and reaction to threats).
“Exchanging ideas, feedback and working together are the best way to ensure the success of a European policy.”
To limit the unintentional introductions of IASs to a strict minimum, action plans for the introduction paths/vectors, in conjunction with biosecurity measures, must be set up by the EU Member States in the framework of the ad hoc EU regulation. This preventive action is all the more important for marine IASs given that the applicable management measures are much more difficult and complex to implement once the species have become established in the environment.
The exchange of good practices and project feedback among the European countries, as proposed by the LIFE RAPID projetc and the IAS Resource Centre, is a source of inspiration and mutual benefit. This work should be encouraged to initiate effective regional cooperation in view of closing introduction paths/vectors affecting several Member States.
2See the review of current knowledge on marine biological invasions and the implications for management drafted by the IAS Resource Centre in 2019.
3Keith, P. & Allardi, J. (1997). Bilan des introductions des poissons d’eau douce en France. Bulletin Français de la Pêche et de la Pisciculture, (344-345), 181-191.
4Smith, E. R. C., Bennion, H., Sayer, C. D., Aldridge, D. C. & Owen, M. (2020). Recreational angling as a pathway for invasive non-native species spread: awareness of biosecurity and the risk of long distance movement into Great Britain. Biological Invasions, 22(3), 1135-1159.
N° 74 JULY 2020
Meetings
environments and the large number of samples that must undergo expensive analysis.
In addition to standard taxonomic techniques, molecular tools currently being experimented were presented by Frédérique Viard (CNRS biological station in Roscoff). For example, barcoding, a technique based on the molecular signa- ture specific to each species, made it possible to discover a new solitary asci- dian in the English Channel (Asterocarpa humilis) and to detect the arrival of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leydii in English waters, as noted by Elvire Antajan (Ifremer) in her presentation. The technique is also capable of distinguishing between cryptic species and differentiating between native and introduced species. Contrary to barcoding, metabarcoding is based on the molecular signature of a group, e.g. diatoms, and can be used to iden- tify within a sample the various species belonging to the taxonomic group in a single sweep.
Knowledge to
monitor and prevent introductions
The best way to limit new biological inva- sions is to reduce the unintentional transport of species. Examples of successful IAS management are rare5 for fresh waters and even more exceptional for marine waters6 due to late identification of species, relati- vely ineffective management of dispersal vectors and a lack of knowledge on the life-history traits of species, all of which facilitate rapid propagation, particularly in marine environments were dispersal is so easy. There was general consensus among participants in favour of early detection and rapid intervention, notably at the points of introduction.
Knowledge on introduced species The system of prevention would consist of monitoring and early detection of marine IASs, however the necessary methods and tools must be available.
The monitoring programme7 for marine non-native species (NNS), required by the Marine strategy framework direc- tive, has proposed a pressure descriptor (D2) based on the number of NNSs, their abundance and their range.
To date, in all European waters, approximately 1 460 NNSs have been inventoried. However, the monitoring system suffers several gaps in knowledge and observational biases due, Figure 1. Biofouling on the motor of a pleasure boat.
Figure 2. Map showing the transfers of non-native freshwater species caused by fishing activities between the different European countries, based on the results of the survey carried out by Emily Smith.
©E. Smith
5Booy, O., Mill, A. C., Roy, H. E., Hiley, A., Moore, N., Robertson, P., ... & Campbell, S. (2017). Risk management to prioritise the eradication of new and emerging invasive non-native species. Biological Invasions, 19(8), 2401-2417.
6Ojaveer, H., Galil, B.S., Carlton, J.T., Alleway, H., Goulletquer, P., Lehtiniemi, M., et al. (2018). Historical baselines in marine bioinvasions: Implications for policy and management. PLoS ONE 13(8): e0202383.
7See the full article on the monitoring and management of marine species, including the discussion on the D2 pressure descriptor and the monitoring programme.
©F. Urtizberea
among other things, to the decline in taxo- nomic competency, the high number of cryptic species and the difficulties in iden- tifying species in the larval stage. Further problems include difficulties in accessing
Figure 3. An example of the signs informing on biosecurity measures, intended for recreational boaters in the framework of the Check, Clean, Dry campaign.
It is today possible to apply the metabar- coding technique to the DNA present in compartments such as water and sedi- ment (environmental DNA) and to identify the species present there. This method has the advantage of simultaneously detecting several NNSs and it increases observational capacities. It could supply the information required to meet the D2 criterion of the MSFD and contribute to more active monitoring targeting a limited number of NNSs. Plans are also being made to use this technique for monitoring IASs in freshwater environments, notably mussels, amphibians, fish and certain mammals8.
Knowledge on the participants in prevention
In parallel with acquiring the necessary knowledge and developing the tech- niques required for monitoring, in-depth knowledge on the many participants involved is a further indispensable factor for effective implementation of the preventive measures.
In the U.K., surveys carried out on the general public and people active in aquatic environments assessed their awareness of the problem and analysed
their activities in relation to aquatic environments. «Key categories» of stake- holders were identified and specific campaigns and biosecurity protocols were developed (a message, a protocol) for each category. Rebecca Jones (APHA) presented the national Check, Clean, Dry campaign that initially targeted approximately ten categories of stakehol- ders, before being deployed on a more local level. The 60 local partners involved in the campaign raised the awareness of stakeholders via posters, videos and messages during sporting events, and thanks to cleaning stations for equip- ment. A total of 2 800 signs informing on biosecurity were posted throughout the U.K. (Figure 3).
Governmental and local-government personnel were closely involved in sprea- ding good practices and deploying the biosecurity measures. The U.K.
Environment Agency, with 10 000 employees in regular contact with natural environments, developed biosecurity protocols for its teams in the field. In his presentation, Trevor Renals explained that training on the risks of invasion and on the necessary protocols, in addition to the creation of a network of biosecurity
policy officers in each sector, has contri- buted to greater awareness on the part of employees concerning their responsi- bility in avoiding unintentional transfers of species from one site to another. A biodiversity strategy was proposed in 2014 for the various territories managed by the Environment Agency. The strategy is designed to identify introduction paths and zones and it proposes measures to reduce risks by taking into account local needs in terms of equipment and training.
Biosecurity in action
The feedback from U.K. and Irish poli- cies presented during the second part of the meeting illustrated the numerous successes in raising awareness and spreading good practices, as well as common areas where improvements are possible. In spite of the existing IAS regulation offering a framework to acce- lerate certain management procedures, work must be put into raising the aware- ness of politicians concerning preventive measures.
Joe Caffrey (INVAS Biosecurity) explained that in Ireland, the health problems caused by IASs appeared to be better
©GB NNSS
8See the Meeting Recap titled Environmental DNA for biodiversity studies - the state of the art and the outlook for management (2019, in French).
understood by the general public and decision-makers, similar to the situation for crayfish plague or Gyrodactylus salaris, the parasite affecting Atlantic salmon.
A bottom-up approach is preferable to ensure the success of biosecurity campaigns. An understanding of the issues and of the need to act responsibly must be developed among the local stakeholders who are in daily contact with the people in the field. Biodiversity proto- cols should be developed in a partnership with the key, local stakeholders to ensure correct implementation,notably by taking into account the available equipment, any constraints induced by local sites, the organisation of personnel in their work, etc.It is also worthwhile to opt for the most simple and effective protocols for a given situation. For example, cleaning and drying of equipment are generally suffi- cient, however disinfection is required in cases (crayfish plague, Chytridiomycota, parasites, etc.) where the transmission of pathogens must absolutely be avoided.
An assessment of the effectiveness of the measures is also necessary. What impact do the biosecurity campaigns have on the practices of stakeholders and on the movement of IASs? The results of the surveys organised by Emily Smith on anglers in the U.K. from 2011 to 2018 revealed an improvement in the aware- ness of the issues and a 44 % increase in the systematic cleaning of equipment.
However, the actual impact of these efforts on the movement of species remains very difficult to determine.
Recommendations for biosecurity in France
The ecological and economic issues that biodiversity policies are intended to address should induce us to change our relationship with the natural environments that we use. We can no longer assume that our presence is without risk for the biodiversity of those environments, nor can we disregard our responsibility in the dispersal of IASs and pathogens when we travel from one environment to another without taking the necessary precautions.
If we are to assume that responsibility, we must profoundly modify our behaviour and accept the new constraints imposed by biosecurity protocols.
The discussions among participants during the meeting, led by Niall Moore (Great Britain Non-native Species Secretariat), Alexia Fish (APHA), Emmanuelle Sarat (IUCN French committee) and François Delaquaize (French Ecology Ministry), produced several recommendations for France in the effort to prevent biological invasions.
• Propose a national biosecurity strategy, developed, adopted and implemented by all the relevant State services (ministries, customs, public agencies, etc.) and addressing the impacts on both biodiversity and health issues. Further keys to success for
«The overseas territories must meet significant challenges in order to prevent marine biological invasions.»
In the recent status report that we published, we listed approximately 60 non-native marine species and that is certainly an underestimation of the situation given the insufficient number of inventories and suitable monitoring systems.
The introduction and dispersal of these species will probably increase with the development of activity in ports, recreational boating, aquaculture and environmental changes.
Monitoring of hot spots (ports, marinas, marine protected areas) and a significant increase of awareness on the part of people in contact with marine
environments are still required. However, some local governments have set up monitoring programmes on the regional level, for example Saint-Pierre et Miquelon launched in 2012 a cooperative effort with the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We should also mention the work done by the National Nature Reserve of St.
Martin to organise the mooring of pleasure craft in view of limiting the dispersal of Halophila stipulacea, an invasive aquatic plant. Such initiatives should be
encouraged and further developed in all of the overseas territories.
Yohann Soubeyran, coordinator of the IAS initiative in the French overseas territories, for the IUCN French committee
biosecurity policies are training for State representatives and their acceptance of responsibility for the issues involved.
The actual implementation of the stra- tegy must bring into play the personnel of local governments and all stakehol- ders (non-profits, local people, etc.) to ensure the involvement of the many networks on the local level.
• Use the existing informational mate- rial and codes of good practice. For example, protocols and many informa- tional documents from the Check Clean Dry campaign have been made available via the LIFE RAPID project and could easily be adapted to the French public.
The EU commission, the International Maritime Organisation, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and the IUCN have all published codes of good practice and guidelines provi- ding a policy framework to prevent the introduction of IASs. These documents could constitute the basis for launching a biosecurity policy in France.
• Develop awareness campaigns and biosecurity protocols in a partnership with a maximum number of stakehol- ders and bring into play the existing groups and territorial networks already working on IASs to ensure that the campaigns and protocols are effectively implemented and correctly adapted to the needs and constraints of each orga- nisational level. The involvement of local partners in direct and regular contact with the local people is also a means to enhance the effects of biosecurity campaigns.
• Identify the links between the various international agreements and policies (BWM convention, MSFD, EU regulations on aquaculture and on IAS prevention and management, OSPAR convention, etc.) dealing with marine and freshwater IASs, in order to take action in a coordinated and inte- grated manner.
• Launch or reinforce regional cooperation in the field of IAS preven- tion between the EU Member States, as well as in the French overseas territories and in the main marine regions.
The strong participation in the discus- sions held during the meeting highlighted the value of cooperation in Europe in N° 74 JULY 2020
Rencontres
LESMeetings
Editor: Pierre Dubreuil (OFB)
Coordination: Béatrice Gentil-salasc (OFB) Author: Emmanuelle Sarat, IUCN French committee
Proof readers: Alain Dutartre (independent expert), Nicolas Poulet (OFB), Yohann Soubeyran (IUCN French committee) and Rebecca Jones (APHA) Translation: Bartsch & Cie (info@bartsch.fr)
Meeting organisation: Emmanuelle Sarat (IUCN French committee), Rebecca Jones and Alexia Fish (APHA), Nicolas Poulet (OFB) Production: Parimage
Printed by: ESTIMPRIM - Printed on paper from sustainably managed forests Published by: OFB – 5 square Félix-Nadar - 94300 Vincennes
Document available at: https://professionnels.afbiodiversite.fr/fr/rencontres ISBN web: 978-2-38170-082-3
ISBN print: 978-2-38170-083-0 Free of cost
For more information:
• Web page on the meeting, with the text of all the presentations.
• Articles on biosecurity written by the Resource Centre on IASs and IAS biosecurity, including information on how to contribute to preventing biological invasions.
Stakeholders and the biosecurity of aquatic environments.
• Biosecurity resources provided by Life RAPID
RAPID INNS Management Toolkit: Freshwater Biosecurity Resources RAPID INNS Management Toolkit: Marine Biosecurity Resources working to prevent the spread of IASs.
The IAS Resource Centre, in conjunction with its network of French and European partners, will continue to share informa- tion and disseminate know-how between countries. It will also assist in the launch of projects in France. Since the meeting, a number of initiatives have been
LIFE RAPID project
(Reducing and Preventing Invasive Alien Species Dispersal) The objective of this three-year project (2017-2020), a part of the EU LIFE programme, is to create an innovative approach to IAS management in aquatic ecosystems (freshwater, coastal and riparian environments) in the U.K., to demonstrate the effectiveness of the approach and to prepare the transfer of good practices to other European countries. Bringing together different stakeholders, LIFE RAPID developed tools specifically designed for the biosecurity of marine and freshwater environments, including biosecurity protocols, training courses for people active in aquatic environments, analysis of the main introduction paths/vectors, dissemination of the Check Clean Dry campaign.
http://www.nonnativespecies.org/index.cfm?sectionid=139
Resource Centre for invasive alien species
The IAS Resource Centre is co-managed by the IUCN French committee and the French Biodiversity Agency. It provides practical assistance and contributes to reinforcing the effectiveness of IAS policies in France.
Among other functions, it develops methods, training courses, and disseminates knowledge, know-how and good practices to all concerned stakeholders, including managers of natural areas, non-profits, researchers, local governments, companies, State services, public agencies, etc.
www.especes-exotiques-envahissantes.fr
©IAS Resource Center
Figure 4. Biosecurity poster prepared by the French Sailing Federation, with support from the IAS Resource Centre and based on the Check Clean Dry campaign.
©FFV
undertaken, including a poster (Figure 4) drafted by the French Sailing Federation, based on the U.K. Check Clean Dry protocol, as well as efforts to raise aware- ness by fishing federations and a number of State services (departmental territorial and maritime directorates, regional envi- ronmental directorates, etc.).
