stakeholder consultation
EU Strategy on Invasive ALIEN Species
Brussels, 3 September 2010
minutes
Date: 3 September 2010, from 09.00 to 17.00, Brussels
Agenda: see Annex 1
Participants: ~62 participants, representing a broad range of interests, including from member States ministries and institutions, NGOs, trade associations, including European Commission services (see list of organisations in Annex 2).
Morning session
After an introduction by François Wakenhut, Head of Unit B2, the morning was devoted entirely to presentations so as to give an update on the invasive alien species (IAS) file and on other policy areas with which synergies could be found.
The following presentations were made (the ppt slides have been uploaded on CIRCA):
o IAS state of play and mandate – Myriam Dumortier, European Commission
o Results of the 2008 online public consultation on IAS – Valentina Bastino, European Commission
o Presentation of the study "Assessment to support continued development of an EU Strategy to combat invasive species", commissioned by DG Environment:
§ Support to an EU IAS Strategy – Clare Shine, Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP)
§ Key Strategy components – Piero Genovesi, IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group
§ Estimated costs of key measures & foreseen benefits of EU action – Marianne Kettunen, IEEP
o Presentation of the study "Evaluation of the Common Plant Health regime", commissioned by DG SANCO – Conrad Caspari, Agra CEAS Consulting Ltd.
o IAS and CITES – Marco Valentini
There was no debate during the morning session but the audience was given the chance to ask questions and make initial comments.
Some questions related to the results of the 2008 online consultation. One participant wondered whether it was possible to differentiate the answers from Member States, stakeholders and individuals. This was not possible. The audience was referred to the DG Environment webpage with the full set of results:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/invasivealien/docs/results_consult.pdf.
A couple of questions related to the next steps as regards the IEEP study and the Evaluation of the Plant Health Regime. The IEEP report on an EU IAS Strategy is expected to be made public by the end of September 2010. The study on the Plant Health Regime has already been made public (available on http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/strategy/index_en.htm) and a conference on the subject will be held on 28 September 2010 (more information on http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/strategy/conf_280910_en.htm). This is the first step towards a new strategy to be finalised by 2012.
Some questions related to the synergies between the CITES Regulation and IAS and criticisms were made to the choice of species currently included in the scope and whose importation into the EU is banned, as they are not the only invasive alien species imported. The example was given of the trade-banned red-eared slider; such ban resulted in an increase in trade of the equally invasive common slider. The slow procedure was also criticised. Furthermore, a participant stated that some breeders are now tempted to breed trade-banned species like ruddy duck. Replying to such comments, Marco Valentini explained that the list is not perfect and the process certainly needs to be refreshed. He assured that the Commission welcomes expert input and reminded the audience that the CITES regulation is a tool that can be used to deal with IAS via the regular amendments to its annexes. A full scale revision of the Regulation is a lot more difficult and it is not envisaged at the moment.
Afternoon session
The afternoon session was entirely devoted to debating the various aspects of the background document, which had been circulated in advance to the registered participants.
Many participants spoke openly and strongly in favour of a legislative instrument, taking into consideration that fact that IAS do not respect national borders and that the current fragmentation and inconsistencies of approaches across Member States hamper and undermine what national efforts are being made. In their views, the fact that problems with invasive alien species are increasing indicates that the present policy framework is not adapted. . There was also a warning not to construct a paper tiger: enforcement measures should be put into place. Some participants expressed more caution on legislative approaches and called for solid assessments as a basis for further action.
No comments against these arguments were made nor recorded. Some participants however pointed out that even an EU approach would not be sufficient, unless coupled with an international system. Respondents also pointed to the need to have a nuanced approach, able to account for geographic and sectoral differences, based on biogeographic regions rather than strictly on national borders.
Mostly, the discussion focused on how the issue of IAS should be tackled in a comprehensive manner and it was organised around separate areas, or "clusters", based on the sections of the questionnaire presented by the background document.
These clusters were:
o Prevention
o Early warning and rapid response
o Control/eradication and management
o Financing
o Horizontal issues
Prevention
· There was consensus that prevention is an important element of a Strategy to tackle IAS.
· Mostly, the discussion focused on whether the most effective method to prevent IAS from entering and spreading into the EU would be a white list or a black list.
· A White List for species release into the wild would presume that no species can be released into the wild, with due exceptions. A merit of such approach would be to send a strong and clear message to the public and to practitioners that releasing species into the wild is not acceptable, unless proven safe. It could be complemented by a black list for keeping.
· The advocates of the white list approach understood the need to introduce several large exceptions, e.g. for agricultural products, but were convinced of the importance of sending the correct signals.
· Others agreed on the importance of sending a strong signal and the presumption that just releasing species into the wild is not acceptable, but cautioned that a white list would not be feasible or acceptable as it would end up crushing trade or other legitimate activities, thus jeopardising jobs.
· Some participants, also in favour of a white list, found that this was the most efficient approach, avoiding to having to carry out a risk assessment for each potentially invasive species in order to include it in a black list and as such delay prevention. It was thought that a white list would best respect the precautionary principle. It was asked to take into account that new species keep going into trade, and that climate change increases the risk of alien species becoming invasive.
· However, the importance of risk assessments (RAs) was mentioned by several and some respondents cautioned against banning imports or trade of species without a proper risk assessment, as this would most likely create WTO issues, besides being politically unfeasible. Some participants were worried about white lists, because insufficient information might be available to allow for a RA and thus to allow the species.
· CABI announced that its Invasive Species Compendium will be released soon and will be publicly accessible. They emphasised that the Compendium will contain all necessary information for risk assessments.
· Some stakeholders spoke in favour of EU legislation, calling especially for proper allocation of liability, including possibly the criminalisation of releasing species into the wild, and calling for proportionate measures that safeguards legitimate trade and other professional activities linked to invasive species. The example of the American mink was given, where 99 % of the releases into the wild are illegal releases, until now only sanctioned by the UK and the Netherlands.
· It was stressed by a number of respondents that there are some alien species that are not invasive and do not create problems and should therefore not be subject to bans or restrictions. It was highlighted that in some cases the introduction of alien species may relieve pressure from native species.
· Participants also raised the issue of species that are not problematic in one area, but that may start creating problems if they are brought to another area.
· The need to introduce a review mechanism for the list of species (white or black) was highlighted as well as a proper assessment (and prioritisation) of pathways.
· As regards pathways, it was stressed that invasive species are a consequence of increasing trade, transport, etc. and that therefore invasive species considerations should be introduced in all relevant policy areas. Also our export should be considered.
· The importance of a proper definition of IAS was also recalled so as not to leave loopholes in the rules and to include all organisms, including viruses and diseases. There was a preference for using the CBD-definition.
· A respondent mentioned that the possibility of developing sterile organisms (e.g. triploid grapes) could be considered in some cases as a possible solution to allow trade activities.
· The importance of implementing the Ballast Water Convention was mentioned.
Early warning and rapid response
· There was consensus that early warning and rapid response is crucial to tackle IAS. In this context the useful role of databases of IAS were mentioned, such as NOBANIS and the forthcoming CABI Compendium. The importance of the continuity of such databases, in terms of updating, and therefore in terms of funding and commitment was stressed. The example of DAISIE was given, where lack of continuous commitment resulted in absence of updates.
· Nobanis referred to the recommendations from its last workshop: http://www.nobanis.org/files/Workshop%20recommendations_FINAL.pdf
· The European Anglers Alliance announced that their 25 million anglers were ready to cooperate in the information and early warning system.
· The debate focused on how to turn the useful information collected through databases into concrete action on the ground. An information and early warning system without obligations for rapid response was considered useless. It was asked to go beyond voluntary measures.
· The need to introduce mandatory provisions to ensure that early warning is linked to rapid response and contingency planning was underlined by many participants. Given the internal market, it has become easier for species to travel across the EU once they are inside. The need therefore to introduce sanctions to ensure compliance with the rules were considered necessary.
· However some issues need to be considered, namely on what basis species would qualify for rapid response? How to assess the viability of rapid response? Such variables need to be examined before committing funds to rapid response, with the challenge that action needs to be rapid in order to be effective.
· Funding difficulties for rapid responses were mentioned. For Member States it is difficult to park money for unpredictable emergency actions and the hope was raised for an EU emergency fund.
· The need for sufficient information before committing resources to rapid eradication was stressed. It should be clear to which extent the species has established, which methodology will be used to get rid of the species conclusively, how long this will take, etc. The UK announced a report on this issue to be finalised soon.
· Other issues mentioned included: the need to create alert lists for Europe linked to horizon scanning exercise to identify upcoming threats; capacity building and training.
· Training of professionals and non-professionals was considered an important element of an information and early warning system. Sectors could be involved here.
Control/eradication and management
· Mostly the participants agreed on the need to focus on prevention, as control and eradication are difficult and costly and success is not guaranteed.
· There was a warning to be careful not to waste money. If we focus on control, 95 % of the funds might be spent for it, but it should be the other way round: 95 % of the funds for prevention. Only go for control where the battle is winnable. If we are not selective we might end up in an unaffordable burden. The example of the ruddy duck was given, an expensive and long term control programme.
· The importance of committing enough resources so as to see the eradication process until the end was mentioned, as well as the need to ensure coordinated action at EU level.
· The need to carry out an appropriate analysis of the ecological costs and benefits was stressed, not so much for the rapid response, but mainly for the long term control. The right trade off has to be made. The EU has experience here with the control of the pinewood nematode.
· The issue of ensuring the welfare of animals and of choosing humane eradication methods were mentioned.
· The issue of illegal internet trade was mentioned and the difficulties faced by customs to control everything that comes into Europe. This issue was linked also on the need to raise awareness and to bring the issue to a high level of political attention.
· DG SANCO affirmed that it is very difficult to control internet markets and postal services. Live animals can be easily detected. Live insects are more difficult to detect. Nevertheless the rule is that all live animals have to be presented for inspection at the customs. Other imports are illegal. The animal health legislation is also in review, to be finalised by 2012. The animal health regime focuses on farm animals, but it is open to take on board diseases that are significant for wild animals.
· The role of volunteers was mentioned as a useful resource to be used in carrying out eradication and control efforts. Partnerships with local action groups may tackle the problem. Government intervention is not always needed.
· The issue of biological control was also mentioned. The UK is testing the control of Japanese knotweed with a sap-sucking psyllid – Aphalara itadori.
· Questions were raised about long established invasive alien species, that became socially acceptable. Another question is about the control of species invasive in one part of Europe but native in another? Or about species invasive and uncontrollable in one part of Europe and not yet established in another?
· DG SANCO explained how the plant health regime is establishing protected zones for pest-free areas. The prioritisation of prevention above control is fine in theory, but in practice you also have the issue of solidarity. It is not fair to give up control in infested areas, it is necessary to contain.
· It was suggested to make use of best available practices in the rest of the world.