IAS Working Group on Prevention

IAS working group on prevention

IUCN submission (Invasive species in EU overseas entities (Ors and OCTs)

Prepared by Dominique Benzaken (IUCN)

8 December 2010

This submission focused on EU Outermost and Overseas Countries and Territories of the European Union.

BACKGROUND

The European Union includes9 Outermost Regions (OR) and 21 Overseas Countries and Territories (OCT) across all regions of the world. They:

Are found in biodiversity hotspots from tropics to polar latitudes
have a disproportionate vulnerability to invasive species due to high species endemism(half to 2/3 of species extinction occur on islands),which is likely to be exacerbated byimpacts of climate change
have complex legal, policy and institutional arrangements vis-a-vis the EU Member State, the EU and international conventions and agreements
have variable capacity (technical/institutional/skills/regulatory infrastructure/knowledge/human resources/financial)
Have limited awarenessof IAS impacts with decision makers and public

There is limited coordination, consistency of approach between EU Member states, OR and OCTs and the EU and SIDs in regions ORs and OCTs are located. There has been efforts though to address this issue, for example in the Pacific Region (e.g. Pacific Island Initiative) in the Caribbean and globally. In most cases, ORs and OCTs do not have legislation or strategies in place to address IAS.

Recommendations for the Conference of Reunion Island

In 2008, IUCN and the Government of France held a conference in Reunion Island to consider strategies to halt biodiversity loss and address climate change in EU ORs and OCTs. The message of Reunion Island adopted at the conference made specific recommendations to key actors on invasive species including.

For EU MS and local authorities

Development of local invasive species strategies including local inventories, monitoring and early warning system and awareness raising activities targeting decision makers and the general public

Strengthen legal framework, human resources and infrastructure for prevention, border control and taxonomic capacity
Integrate invasive species considerations in sectoral plans (agricultural fisheries etc.) and promote ecosystem resilience
Develop sanctuaries for threatened species and establish eradication programmes

For the European Commission

Integration of ORs and OCTs into EU policy on invasive species and programmes:

Legal measures for ORs to prevent introductions to protect island biodiversity
Support for interlinked inventories building on DAISIE and regional inventories
Regional cooperation for risk analysis taking into account climate change, economic analysis of impacts of damaging activities and cost benefits analysis of control programmes
Financial support for IAS prevention and control at the regional level and OR and OCT level

Regional and global context

There are a number of International policy framework and global initiatives on Islands and invasive species which are opportunities to address invasive species issues in ORs and OCTs:

The Review of the CBD Island Biodiversity Programme of Work.
The global Islands Partnership (GLISPA) Helping Island Adapt (April 2010), Regional action to combat invasive on islands to preserve biodiversity and adapt to climate change
IUCN review of the implementation of the CBD in EU overseas entities (2010)
IUCN review invasive species management in EU overseas entities in the context of climate change (2011).

An IUCN report on the implementation of the CBD in EU Outermost Regions and Overseas Countries and Territories, to be released in March 2011, reviews biodiversity planning In particular it provides an analysis at the local, national, regional EU level and highlights weaknesses in implementation linked in part to the complexity of institutional and legal frameworks operating at local, EU MS and EU levels, which should inform the development of an EU IAS strategy.

COMMENTS ON THE EU IAS- WORKING GROUP ONE PREVENTION

General comments

An EU strategy should contribute to CBD Target 9: By 2020, invasive alien species and pathways are identified and prioritized, priority species are controlled or eradicated, and measures are in place to manage pathways to prevent their introduction and establishment.

Based on the recommendations of the Message of Reunion islands, and the IUCN report mentioned above, an EU strategy should give special consideration to ORs and OCTs because of the global importance of their unique biodiversity (and vulnerability)which is a major asset- and a shared responsibility of not just the local institutions and the EU member state - but also the EU as a whole in the light of its international commitments.

An EU strategy should be mindful of the regions in which ORs and OCTs are found in terms of threats and take account of regional policies,initiatives and frameworks for IAS measures.For example, the Pacific region has in place a regional invasive strategy and the Caribbean are finalising theirs.

An EU instrument, although it would only apply to ORs, should consider applying non regulatory strategies to OCTs (for example, research, access to information and training, guidelines and tools) and support the development of complementary regulatory instruments, as most OCTs do not have an invasive species strategy and/or sufficient or effective legislation. Collaboration with DG REGIO and DEVCO and relevant EU MS would be critical in that respect.

There is a need for ORs and OCTs to be allowed, under a proposed EU legal framework, to develop border controls that are not necessarily compliant with the regulations of continental Europe. Although some OCTs or ORS have in place invasive species strategy, they are still not able to prevent introductions from other parts of Europe – whether from the mainland Member States, the ORs or the OCTs. This is a dangerous loophole that prevents even the need for risk assessment. Coordination of efforts is critical between the various authorities in the EU and EU Member states.

Most ORs and OCTs are islands and as such they provide opportunity for addressing IAS more effectively in terms of prevention, and control and an opportunity for researching impacts of invasive species and testing strategies in a relatively controllable situation.By and large though it is fair to say that prevention is probably the most cost effective way to address invasive species introductions, as eradication and control are costly and often beyond the reach of OCTs. A cost benefit analysis of management options should guide the establishment of an EU strategy with regard to OCTs and ORs.

Unlike continental Europe, EU ORs and OCTs have extensive marine EEZs and therefore addressing marine invasive species and associated pathways are a priority.For example, the Lion fish now spreading in the Caribbean region is of major concern and has been the subject of an International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI) regional workshop, recommending a regional strategy to be developed. Such a strategy needs to engage EU ORs and OCTs (and EU MS and EU) as well as neighbouring small island states.

Given the high biodiversity and vulnerability of EU overseas and in particular islands, the costs of prevention, management and risk assessment would place a heavy burden on their limited capacity and resources. This is particularly the case for OCTs which have environmental competence, but not necessarily matching expertise and resources. There is an important principle of equity to be addressed through a balanced approach between regulation and economic incentives to ensure an equitable cost distribution of invasive species prevention and management. The polluter pays principle might be an option for consideration.

Finally, a consultation period should be available once a draft strategy has been produced and ORs and OCTs should be given the opportunity and supported to provide input.

Comments on Task 5: communication

The paper provides a good start to a communication strategy to support and EU IAS instrument. The EU strategy should build on successful models in the EU and elsewherein developing its own communication strategy, some included in the paper. Some points to reinforce include:

Use ofeconomic evaluation tools to demonstratethe value of biodiversity and ecosystem services and the impacts of IAS on loss of biodiversity and ecosystems goods and services and associated economic costs, as well as costs benefits analyses of proposed strategies ( e.g. prevention, control et..). Some analyses of impacts of invasive species have been conducted and could be used in developing messages but also strategies to complement regulatory mechanisms.

In relation to invasive and ORs and OCTs it would be important to integrate a regional perspective and include targets groups from the region in which they are located. It would also be important that an EU strategy take account of regional strategies and communication efforts. It might be also necessary to tailor communication to the specifics of those audiences.

Finally it would be critical that an EU strategy include a dedicated awareness raising and capacity building components for OCTs in particular.

Task 1: Priority species and habitats

Support the approach of using IUCN and CBD definitions and incorporation in definitions of ecosystem goods and services.

In the case of ORs and OCTs, regardless of the proposed instrument, ORs and OCTs with their high biodiversity and endemicity should consider priority habitats and ecologically vulnerable ecosystems. This would require a white list approachto import and release in the natural environmentand a protected zone status for intra EU movements for the purpose of existing and future instruments.

Agreements at the regional level between relevant EU MS, ORs and OCTs and their neighbours would be necessary to regulate invasive species within their region as well as with the EU.

IUCN could assist by preparing a paper on regional meteorological and biogeographical groupings, mindful of the work of the S-W Pacific group, the Caribbean, the Mediterranean groups and the developing unity of the Western Indian Ocean and possibly the Antarctic islands, mindful that not all EU overseas would fall easily into regional groupings.

Task 3 Risk analysis

Support recommendations for the development of a common EU (bio) regional level risk analysis for species and pathways including a common methodology and process for assessmentand a centralized easily accessible database, building on existing tools and processes. As suggested earlier a meteorological and biogeographical regional groupings of islands would help – irrespective of whether they were all EU islands in those regions.This approach would require cooperation between island states and states owning islands as stated before.

With regards to ORs and OCTs, IUCN supports the status of special case proposed including the importance of ensuring OCTs which are not covered by EU instruments have access to risk assessment tools.

Tasks 2: priority pathways

Prioritization of critical pathways according Shine et al is supported.

In the case of EU ORs and OCTs, the vulnerability of the host habitat/ecosystem is a key criterion, with introduction, both intentional and unintentionalessentially through trade, transport (air, and sea), tourism and internal population movements with EU MS and within regions. The aquarium trade and migration, pathways due to climate change are key pathways to be addressed in EU ORs and OCTs.

The special case of largely uninhabited islands and islets of the OCTs (e.g. TAAFs or the islands of the Mozambique Channel and Western Indian Ocean) which have periodic (or occasional) visits to maintain infrastructure, refurbish equipment, police or patrol territory and even mercy missions for stranded seafarers are rarely thought of as pathways but are mostly carried out by personnel and agencies with little linkage to biodiversity or any consideration of biological invasions.

RECOMMENDATION

IUCN recommends that a dedicated section of an EU IAS strategy be developed taking into account the above points.