EU Strategy on Invasive ALIEN Species
Working group 1 - prevention
meeting 2
Brussels, 11 May 2011
minutes
Date: Wednesday 11 May 2011, from 9:00 to 16:30, Brussels
Agenda: see Annex 1
Participants: 32 participants, representing a broad range of interests, including from Member States ministries and institutions, NGOs, trade associations, including European Commission services (see list of WG-members in Annex 2).
After an introduction by François Wakenhut (Head of Unit B2), Valentina Bastino (Unit B2) presented the updated timetable and next steps in the work of the working group. François Wakenhut welcomed the adoption of the Biodiversity Strategy by the College of Commissioners one week before (on 3 May 2011) which announces the development of a dedicated legislative instrument on invasive alien species at European Union level (target 6, measure 15) and thus confirms the importance of the work in progress carried out by the different working groups.
Prior to discussion, some administrative questions were raised by working group members.
On communication issues, Valentina Bastino and Myriam Dumortier (Unit B2) committed to reviewing the mailing list in order to include missing members and continuing to send emails to inform the group about the work in progress and updates on CIRCA. They invited members of the group that may receive no news from the IAS team within two weeks, to get in contact with one of its members. The representative of FACE was given some extra time to provide input as he had not received all the necessary documents during the process. This was due to a misunderstanding and some IT technical issue.
When it comes to the final endorsement of the working group documents, due by 22 July 2011, Valentina Bastino and Myriam Dumortier specified that working group members shall share the main comments as early as possible in the timeline (before 14 July) so that the final document represents all views of the members and only requires minor modifications and could be eventually agreed by all. Further specifications on the procedure will be circulated together with the minutes of the meeting.
After endorsement of the final document by all working group members, the documents will be published on CIRCA and the Commission will continue to work internally on a dedicated legislative instrument on invasive alien species.
The rest of the morning was devoted to the presentation and discussion on Task 1 – priority species. First, Melanie Josefsson (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Task-leader for task 1) presented the main outcomes of the work achieved by the working group members. Afterwards, the group went through the four items proposed for discussion. Main outcomes of the discussion are reported at the end of this document.
In the course of the afternoon, all three remaining tasks were presented and discussed. The second task on priority pathways was presented by its task-leader Giuseppe Brundu (Sardinian Forest Service, CFVA); the third task on risk analysis was presented by its task-leader Niall Moore (GB Non-Native Species Secretariat); and the fourth task on awareness and communication was presented by its task-leader Wiebe Lammers (Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority, Netherlands). The main outcomes of the discussion following the presentations are reported in the second part of this document.
It was decided that the tasks related to Communication and Awareness from all three working groups should be merged into one horizontal document, to avoid overlaps. The task leaders agreed to work together towards this integration and Wiebe Lammers (Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority, IAS Team, Netherlands) agreed to take the lead on the coordination work. Further input from the members of the working group was needed on prioritisation of the communication priorities. Wiebe Lammers already circulated a mail asking for input (16 May).
Working Group 2 and Working Group 3 will also have the chance to comment on the single contributions produced on communication and awareness by their task leaders. The three texts will then be merged by 20 June and open for final comments to the three Working Group a final draft for endorsement should be ready by 14 July 2011.
Action points
§ The PowerPoint presentations and the minutes of the meeting are open for comments until 6 June 2011 at 12.00 am.
§ The tables with the timetable for all 3 groups are also circulated to remind everyone of the next steps. Do not hesitate to contact the IAS team if in doubt.
Timetable for working group 1:
Step / WG1First meeting / 8 December 2010
First draft / 11 February 2011
WG comments / 28 February 2011
Consolidated version / 25 March 2011
Last WG Comments / 15 April 2011
Text for discussion / 1 May 2011
Second meeting / 11 May 2011
Final draft / Integration comm 1+2+3
20 June / 14 July
Publication / 22 July 2011
Main outcomes of the discussions
General point
The link to the animal and the plant health regime: it has been accepted that legislation in the fields of animal and plant health already exists. The future instrument on invasive alien species will not overlap with the scope of those existing instrument, but will rather close the remaining gaps. However, this does not preclude the future instrument from acknowledging all possible impacts of invasive alien species (including impacts on animal and plant health) while clearly specifying which matters are already covered by existing legislation.
Task 1: priority species
· Prioritisation of species: it was pointed out that prioritisation of species will be necessary in order to be able to focus resources on the most troublesome species. In case a black list approach is adopted, the list should be kept to a manageable length in order not to lose focus. A possible solution would be to create a list and then select from that list those with the highest impact. Whatever list system is chosen, it will be crucially important to regularly review the lists. Lists might be developed for import and trade, however some participants stressed that possession is a MS-competence. For islands / overseas regions, white lists could be considered. Certain species groups were brought forward as deserving special attention because of being often problematic: aquatic plants, fishes,…
· Biogeographic approach: there was large consensus on the need to adopt as far as possible, a biogeographic approach on the issue of invasive alien species. In order to make this approach work, it is necessary to favour listing and managing of species at biogeographic, regional level, whereas liability will have to be defined at national level. It was suggested that the EU should provide a framework for national and regional authorities and that it may be necessary to put in place a permanent expert group at EU level to help coordinate a biogeographic approach.
· White listing for release in the wild: there was large consensus that release into the wild should not be permitted, unless a species has been granted a permit. Those permits should be delivered in a consistent way across MS. However, it was pointed out that setting out a precise definition of "release into the wild" is not a simple exercise. Members of the working group shared national experiences in regulating intentional release. Sweden has in place a system of permits by "use", but this system proved to be confusing. Biocontrol was mentioned by several members of the working group. In France and in the Netherlands, biocontrol is subject to authorisation/permit requirements, unless the agent is put on a white list of authorised species for release. The REBECA project on biological control offers guidance on how to assess biological control agents. Members of the working group agreed on the need to define a common protocol for assessment at EU level to avoid the duplication of assessments within Member States.
· Liability: it will also be necessary to define who will be liable for damages caused by an intentionally released species, if it has been authorised for release and has received a permit. It will be important to explore whether the environmental liability directive could cater for this issue. This was an opportunity to invite the members of the working group to share their opinions on this point in the horizontal task on liability and financing.
Task 2: priority pathways
· What should be regulated by legislation on pathways: some pathways are already dealt with by a series of other EU legislations (plant, animal health, aquaculture…), while others are addressed through international instruments (e.g. ballast water - the convention on ballast water should enter into force soon but at the moment no legislation at EU level exists to transpose the provisions of the convention). Other pathways are not addressed. Internet trade was mentioned as an additional pathway that should be listed in the final document. It will be essential to devise ways to prioritise pathways. It was clearly pointed out that it may not be possible to devise one general framework to address all pathways. Pathways vary in different Member States and regions and while general guidance may be issued, risk assessments will need to be performed to evaluate the risk associated with one particular pathway. Member States could be required to control major pathways of IAS, which should be further specified in their national strategy or action plans. It was suggested that the working group could focus on the identification of the main pathways and associated policy instruments. In this context, the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive was mentioned as a possible tool to assess the potential risk of new invasions being facilitated by large infrastructure projects.
· It was pointed out that risk assessments should be performed not only for species but for pathways too. It was brought to the attention of the group that pathway risk assessments seem to be gaining importance over species risk assessment. It was also stressed that certain species could be used as indicators to assess the effectiveness of measures taken to address certain pathways.
· Exclusion zones and targeted surveillance: these were mentioned as two tools to manage pathways, although it was recognised that IAS Working Group 2 on early warning and rapid response had more competence on the issue. However, it was stressed that an EU framework on invasive alien species should focus on increasing the level of surveillance of pathways in order to avoid further invasions. This could be made by defining a general obligation of surveillance or imposing pathways risk assessments.
· Contradictory elements in legislation or policies: it has been recognised that in the area of forestry, some species may be promoted although they are invasive. Another point that was raised regarded green infrastructure: would green infrastructure not support the spread of invasive alien species and therefore be contradictory with the development of an instrument dedicated to invasive species? However, it was made clear that the development of green infrastructure would rather increase the resilience of ecosystems and thus contribute to prevent the spread of invasive alien species.
Task 3: risk analysis
· It was stressed that common guidance on risk analysis would be required and that an EU centre of expertise should be established with competence on invasive alien species. Neither the European Environment Agency nor the European Food Safety Authority currently have the mandate to take over such role.
· It was also stressed that Member States should be informed on methods, best practices and other guidance to carry out risk assessments. Reference standards at EU level should be developed. It was suggested that an EU risk analysis method on invasive alien species should be based on the existing work on risk assessments carried out by EPPO with PRA, the Environmental Impact Assessment, as well as learning from the experience in the fields of plant and animal health. Also Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point or HACCP from the field of food safety might provide ideas.
· Another issue that was raised was that risk analysis should be an open and dynamic process. Biological processes are inherently unpredictable and risk assessments will have to be reviewed after a certain time.
· The issue of financing risk assessments was discussed and it was mentioned that financing tools should be devised on a case-by-case basis: for example, in the case of an intentional release, the applicant interested in releasing a species could finance the risk assessment.
Task 5: awareness and communication
· Prioritisation of tools for communication and capacity building was discussed.
· The main issues highlighted included: the need to tailor the messages to the audience and the need to have a carefully planned communication around specific invasion cases or eradication efforts, in order to gain the support of all stakeholder and not risking putting out conflicting messages. It was also stressed that the target audience need to be defined region by region.
· The possibility to including voluntary groups for surveillance and monitoring was stressed and the Eye on Earth initiative on invasive alien species that the European Environment Agency intends to set up was mentioned as an important element in communication.
Action points:
§ The task leaders will prepare a final draft of their documents by 20 June. This will be posted on CIRCA ready for approval by the members of the Working Group (Instructions on the approval procedure will be provided).