Transcript Document

Developing the EU Strategy on
Invasive Alien Species
Huw Thomas
Head, Protected Species & Non Native Species Team
Defra
The EU scene...
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
EU – 27 member States
> 4 million km2
495 million inhabitants
Major trading block
Several bio-geographic & climatic zones
Collective economic interests
Internal freedoms of trade and movement
• DAISIE database
• > 11,000 alien species
• c.15% damaging to biodiversity,
• similar proportion economically damaging
• IAS costing Europe at least €12.7 billion /
annum
• EEA work shows an increasing trend of alien
species introductions
• EU Action Plan for 2010 Biodiversity Target
• EU Strategy is an outstanding action
Some common objectives & instruments
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Habitats and Birds Directives
Water Framework Directive
Marine Strategy Framework Directive
Aquaculture Regulation
Animal health regime
Plant health regime
Wildlife Trade Regulations
Environmental Liability Directive
December 2008 – Commission
Communication
Proposed 4 options:
A:
Business as usual
B:
Maximise use of existing instruments +
voluntary measures
B+:
Adapt / enhance existing legislative
instruments
C:
Develop comprehensive, dedicated EU
legal instrument
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/invasivealien/index_en.htm
“Assessment to support continued
development of the EU Strategy to combat
invasive alien species” - IEEP, 2010.
Proposed overall objective:
• “To protect EU biodiversity and ecosystem
services against present and future impacts of
invasive alien species and genotypes and
minimise damage to our economy, human health
and wellbeing, without limiting our use of species
that do not threaten such interests.”
IEEP report – key Strategy components:
1. Prevention of intentional introductions [Trade]
2. Prevention of unintentional introductions
[Pathways]
3. Early warning & rapid response [EWRR]
4. Management of established IAS
5. Ecological restoration
6. Incentives: responsibilities and financing
7. Cross-cutting: awareness, national strategies,
research etc
IEEP assessment of the 4 options:
A: Business as usual – not viable
B: Maximise use of existing instruments + voluntary
measures – not viable in isolation given the range of
legislative needs
B+: Adapt / enhance existing legislative instruments
– would not address overarching issues and lacks
strong IAS drivers and objectives
C: Develop comprehensive, dedicated EU legal
instrument – a dedicated EU IAS Directive is
recommended.
Animal Health Regime / Plant Health
Regime ideas….
Commission process
3 Working Groups:
• WG1 – Prevention issues
• 4 Tasks
• Completion date 11 May
• WG2 – Early Warning & Rapid Response
• 4 Tasks
• Completion date 26 May
• WG3 – Eradication and Restoration
• 3 Tasks
• Completion date 30 June
Consensus NOT GUARANTEED!
Stakeholder input…
• Working Groups have mixed representation
• Documents are made publicly available at:
http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/ias/library
• UK volunteers lead on 5 out of 11 Tasks!
PREVENTION ISSUES
Prevention of intentional introductions
Import, Export & Border control
IEEP report recommends:
• Develop White/Grey/Black lists as appropriate
• Maximise use of existing border/quarantine
systems
• Expand use of ‘species import’ provisions in
Wildlife Trade Regulations
Prevention of intentional introductions
Intra-EU movement / keeping
IEEP report recommends:
• Expand use of Wildlife Trade Regulations to
cover keeping of IAS
• Biogeographic framework for IAS listings
• Harmonised risk-based framework for MS
decision-making
Issues & implications – ‘listing’:
• Listing is basis for regulating: import of IAS, intraEU movement, keeping/holding, release
• White, Grey or Black listing?
• Handling species new to trade and existing trade?
• Existing EU captive populations, breeders etc?
New admin / compliance burdens for all…
Issues & implications – ‘risk assessment’:
• Single method for all EU-level RAs or framework
for consistency?
• Who does them, who pays – EU panel / MS /
beneficiary?
• How long will it take? May need screening /
prioritising process?
EPPO Pest Risk Assessment process:
• 5 – 10 experts for 4 day workshop
• Travel costs + per diems + EPPO staff costs +
national expert staff costs outside the workshop =
c.€42,000 / risk assessment
Prevention of unintentional introductions
Pathway management & spread risks
IEEP report recommends:
• AHR / PHR expansions?
• Pathway risk analysis / biosecurity standards
• Pathway inspection & compliance procedures
• Cost-recovery mechanisms
• Incentive framework & industry best practice
Prevention of unintentional introductions
Pathway management & spread risks
IEEP report recommends:
• AHR / PHR expansions?
• Pathway risk analysis / biosecurity standards
• Pathway inspection & compliance procedures
• Cost-recovery mechanisms
• Incentive framework & industry best practice
EARLY WARNING & RAPID RESPONSE
Early warning:
Q: What systems and structures are needed to
deliver adequate early warning of threats in the
EU?
Early Warning & Rapid Response (EWRR)
IEEP report recommends:
• National IAS systems linked to EU Information &
Early Warning System (IEWS)
• Surveillance & Monitoring obligations
• Notification requirements
• Possible mandatory actions for “IAS of EU
concern”
• Cost recovery &/or co-funding
EU data centre – information system:
• Broad & shallow –v- Narrow and deep?
• How ambitious should we be - operational needs
–v- totally comprehensive encyclopaedia?
• Relationship with other databases: regional,
national, sectoral?
• Admin, maintenance and updating – who?, cost?
Ensuring additional value from an EU data centre how will we practically use it?
Early Warning – 2010 EEA report - delivery
options:
1. A voluntary EU network of MS authorities
2. An independent, non-institutional European
scientific panel (c.12 people)
3. a European technical observatory like EPPO
– (Committee, Council, expert panels etc)
4. “European Agency on Invasive Species” (up
to 40 people)
5. a EU Central Authority
Efficiency & value for resources?
What’s the ‘effective’ minimum we need?
RAPID RESPONSE
Q: How should the Strategy ‘drive’ rapid response?
Issues & implications:
In what circumstances should the EU Strategy
impose rapid response obligations?
•
•
•
•
IAS absent from the EU?
IAS absent from a region of the EU?
IAS absent from a MS?
Even more local? N2K?
What powers are we going to need if we are to meet
a legal obligation to “rapidly respond”?
•
•
•
•
•
•
Entry to land…
Prohibition / restriction of activities…
Power to compel certain actions…
Powers for cost recovery…
Powers to incentivise...
…others?
‘Emergency powers’ - like AHR/PHR?
What are the capacity issues to meet the legal
obligation?
• Expertise on containment measures?
• Control tools, techniques and methodologies per
IAS?
• Funding available at short notice – for research,
management, etc?
• Others....?
Assuming we are “rapidly responding”, what if...?
• The picture changes with new detections
elsewhere in the EU or at home?
• Another MS is failing or has declared “battle lost”?
• When should we call it a day and move to longer
term management?
• How should the Strategy cater for these?
How safe to assume 1st report will be 1st
occurrence?!
SURVEILLANCE & MONITORING
Q: How to secure enough surveillance to
adequately ensure EU is protected without
imposing excessive requirements on MS?
Horizon scanning
General surveillance
Risk-oriented surveillance + inspection
• Surveillance: ports, around zoos, …
• Inspection: ballast water, import, trade in
Existing MS obligations
animal feed and in seed and plant
• Habitats Directive
propagating material, trade in pets and
• Birds Directive
ornamental species, others?
• MSFD
• WFD
Ex-post monitoring
Surveillance
• effectiveness of eradication
for very vulnerable
and control
sites, e.g. islands,
• side-effects of non-routine
seas, freshwater
intentional releases
Existing MS systems
Involvement of volunteer-specialists?
Voluntary stakeholder involvement: nature conservationists,
farmers, hunters, gardeners, local authorities, anglers, foresters,
fishermen, …
Other surveillance processes?
Issues & implications:
• Maximising existing biodiversity surveillance
(Habs. Dir, Birds Dir, WFD, MSFD etc) – but does
that cover it all?
• Relative priority between general and targeted
surveillance?
How hard do we look for something that may not
be there?!
Practical implications?
• What should we be looking for – anything that is
not a plant pest or disease pathogen?
• Where do we look for it?
• How do we find / detect it?
• How often or intensively should we look for it?
• Who should look for it?
• How ambitious should we expect to be in trying to
detect new introductions early: effort –v- VFM?
How much surveillance & monitoring is realistic?
CONTROL & MANAGEMENT OF
ESTABLISHED IAS
Q: What actions and measures should the Strategy
require with regard to established IAS?
Control & management of established IAS
IEEP report recommends:
• EU action plans for selected IAS
• Possible mandatory actions for “IAS of EU
concern”
• EU framework for MS level actions
• Eradication is default objective?
Realistic? MS discretion? Best use of resources?
A legislative EU IAS Strategy?
What are the implications?
If the Strategy is a Directive, challenges
include:
• Additionality of EU measures – EWRR, data
centre, etc
• Balance between EU compulsion and MS
discretion
• Collective benefits of legal obligations…but…
• Responsiveness and adequate derogation
provisions for changing circumstances?
• Realistic obligations
Possible cost of EU+MS action on IAS?
• €40M - €190M / annum
Community Plant Health Regime cost?
• About €150M / annum