Invasive Alien Species Working Group 1 – Prevention
Risk Analysis
The following text is the result of the collective effort of the members of the Invasive Alien Species Working Group, who operated under the lead of a volunteer task leader, with the support of one or more co-task leaders.
This text is meant to provide input to the European Commission policy-making process and it should provide a fair representation of different policy options available, with an analysis of the advantages or drawbacks of the different approaches. The exercise was not meant to come to a systematic consensus as to the preferred options, but rather to provide an overview of the different options and tools available. The present text has undergone different rounds of consultations with the members of the Working Group and it should reflect the different – possibly contradicting – opinions and positions of all its members.
By approving this text the members of the working group recognise the text as a fair representation of all views expressed during the debate but not necessarily endorsing all conclusions or recommendations.
This paper is intended purely to provide expert input and to collect stakeholders' views on different policy options. Furthermore this paper is the result of the efforts of the working group Therefore, the content of this paper should not be taken in any way to indicate the official position of the European Commission.
List of members
Member StatesFrank / Barsch / Ministry of Environment, Germany
Zoltán / Botta-Dukát / Institute of Ecology and Botany of Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Hungary
Sandra / Cellina / Ministère du Développement durable et des Infrastructures - Département de l'environnement, Luxembourg
Claire / Collin / Federal Public Service Health, Food Chain Security and Environment - DG Environment, Belgium
Ema / Gojdičová / State Nature Conservancy of SR, Regional Office, Slovakia
Melanie / Josefsson / Environmental Protection Agency, Sweden
Wiebe / Lammers / Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (Invasive Alien Species Team), Netherlands
Gerry / Leckey / Species Protection Unit -Science and Biodiversity Section National Parks & Wildlife Service - Department of Environment Heritage and Local Government, Ireland
Merike / Linnamägi / Ministry of Environment, Estonia
Hélène / Menigaux / Ministry of Ecology, Energy, Sustainable Development and the Sea, France
Johanna / Niemivuo-Lahti / Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Finland
Niall / Moore / GB Non-native Species Secretariat, UK
Branka / Tavzes / Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning, Slovenia
Organisations
Robert / Ashdown / European Cruise Council
Dominique / Benzaken / IUCN
Arianna / Broggiato / European Bureau for Conservation and Development - EBCD
Sarah / Brunel / European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization
Marie-Alice / Budniok / European Landowners' Organization – ELO asbl
Kristijan / Civic / ECNC - European Centre for Nature Conservation
Jim / Collins / Sustainable Users Network
Deborah / Long / Plantlife / Planta Europa
Staci / McLennan / Eurogroup for Animals/Eurogroup for Wildlife and Laboratory Animals - EWLA
Yves / Lecocq / Federation of Associations for Hunting and Conservation
Alex / Ploeg / Ornamental Fish International - OFI
Tania / Runge / Copa-Cogeca
Lieselot / van der Veken / IBMA
Paul / Walton / BirdLife International
Experts
Etienne / Branquart / Belgian Biodiversity Platform
Giuseppe / Brundu / Sardinian Forest Service (CFVA)
Dan / Cogalniceanu / University Ovidius Constanta, Romania
Franz / Essl / Austrian Environment Agency
Marc / Kenis / CABI Europe-Switzerland
Christian / Ries / Musée d'histoire naturelle, Luxembourg
Barbara / Tokarska-Guzik / University of Silesia, Faculty of Biology and Environmental Protection, Poland
Teodora / Trichkova / Institute of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Research, Bulgaria
Ahmet / Uludag / European Environment Agency
Jochen / Vandekerkhove / European Commission - Joint Research Centre
Marcus / Zisenis / European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity
EU Strategy on Invasive Alien Species
Working Group 1. Prevention
Risk Analysis
Version 4.1
Niall Moore
Wiebe Lammers
Etienne Branquart
Sarah Brunel
Lieselot van der Veken
4
List of Abbreviations
CBD Convention on Biological Diversity
CPHR EU Common Plant Health Regime
DAISIE Delivering Alien Invasive Species Inventories for Europe
EEA The European Environment Agency
EFSA European Food Standards Agency
EPPO European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organisation
IAS Invasive Alien Species
IMPASSE Environmental impacts of alien species in aquaculture
IPPC International Plant Protection Convention
PRA Pest Risk Analysis
PRATIQUE Pest Risk Analysis Techniques for Plant Health
WTO World Trade Organisation
Acknowledgements
The Task Group would like to thank John Kelly, Olaf Booy, Huw Thomas and Angela Robinson for their helpful comments and feedback on the initial draft documents. We also thank all those in the working group who contributed many helpful comments and suggestions.
Contents
1. Introduction 1
2. Scope 2
3. Components of the EU RA Framework 2
3.1 Summary of Requirements 5
3.1.1 EU or (Bio)regional level risk analysis 5
3.1.2 Member State Level Risk analysis 5
3.2 Risk Analysis Methodology (Tool) 6
3.2.1 EU/Bio-regional/Multi-MS 6
3.2.2 Member States 7
3.3 Experts 8
3.4 Peer review/validation of Risk Analyses 8
3.5 Secretariat to run the RA Framework 10
3.6 Decision makers 10
3.7 Training 10
3.8 Centralised EU Database 11
3.8.1 Experts 11
3.8.2 Information sources 11
3.8.3 Risk Analyses 11
3.8.4 General 12
4. Prioritisation 13
4.1 Screening tool to prioritise full risk analyses 13
4.2 Prioritisation of species and pathways for action 13
4.2.1 Species 13
4.2.2 Pathways 14
5. Emergency action 14
6. Special cases 15
6.1 Outermost regions 15
6.2 Overseas countries and territories (OCTs) 16
7. Risk Communication 16
8. Financing 16
9. References 17
4
1. Introduction
Invasive alien species (IAS) can cause adverse impacts on ecosystem processes, biodiversity, the economy and human health. Fortunately, not all alien species are likely to become invasive and cause significant harm. Risk analysis of alien species is extremely useful to help distinguish invasive organisms from the larger pool of alien species that (i) have already been introduced or (ii) could be introduced in a specific area.
Risk analysis (which includes: Risk Assessment, Risk Management and Risk Communication) is a vital component of any Invasive Alien Species decision-making process. With respect to IAS, risk analysis is a key tool to assist decision makers in making the best decisions despite the often large element of uncertainty. Risk analysis is important for underpinning many elements of the EU IAS Strategy – from prevention (e.g. underpinning legislation/justifying restrictions), through early warning/rapid response (e.g. helping prioritise/justify rapid action, support surveillance strategies) to long-term control (e.g. supporting control measures or helping prioritise species for control). It helps ensure that the proper balance is achieved between being precautionary and proportionate in response.
Shine et al. (2010) list the ‘lack of a common framework for IAS risk assessment’ as one of the key gaps to be addressed in the EU IAS Strategy and have the development of a strong risk assessment platform as one of four suggested priorities for the Strategy. A recent Convention on Biological Diversity report (CBD 2010) cites the urgent need for regional cooperation on risk assessment while a harmonisation of approach within Europe was called for by the NOBANIS workshop on early warning and rapid response (NOBANIS 2010).
However, developing such a framework is not simple as the EU covers a large geographical area spread over 35º of Latitude and including many bio-geographical and climatic zones. There are also many islands (including some island MS) and several MS have outermost regions, while others have overseas countries and territories. Risk analysis will be needed at several levels – some will be at an EU level, some at a (bio)regional level (covering parts or all of several MS) while others will be at an MS level or within an area of an MS (an island or archipelago or outermost region). Therefore the components of an EU IAS Risk Analysis Framework (EU RA Framework) will vary depending on the geographical context of the risk analysis. Furthermore, the use to which a risk assessment will be put will also dictate what validation process is needed to make sure it is fit for purpose.
This report aims to propose ways in which a risk analysis framework for IAS in the EU could work. It does not dictate what scheme or combination of schemes should be adopted.
2. Scope
The following are within the scope of this report:
Risk analysis (Risk Assessment, Risk Management and Risk Communication).
All MS of the EU, including its outermost regions. There will also be mention of the overseas countries and territories.
Both species and pathway risk analyses.
Only IAS not covered by existing EU Regimes. Therefore, species covered by the Aquaculture regulation fall under the remit of that legislation, species that are primarily of animal health concern fall under the Animal Health regime and species that primarily affect Plant Health i.e. plant pests (insects, viruses, nematodes, bacteria, etc.) or pest plants (invasive alien plants) fall under the Plant Health Regime.
3. Components of the EU RA Framework
Current IAS risk analysis practice in the EU (where some MS carry out risk analyses for a variety of purposes using a number of methodologies) is complex. MS have no way of validating their risk analyses and are unsure if these risk analyses are fit for the purpose of, for instance, restricting trade into and within the EU. If the current laissez faire attitude persists the existing situation is likely to become more complicated as risk analysis methodologies and practices will develop in an ad hoc manner. The uncertainty over whether these potentially diverging risk assessments are fit for purpose will persist. Overall there would be a substantial wastage of resources as many MS will ‘re-invent the wheel’ – developing their own separate methodologies, finding their own experts, searching for data on IAS distribution and impact and potentially repeatedly developing their own risk analyses on the same species.
However, in any new common framework that is devised, differing components will be needed depending on what a risk analysis will be used for and also the geographical level at which the risk analysis is being carried out. If a risk assessment is to assess the level of risk to the whole EU, one of the nine bio-geographic regions (bio-regions) or a number of MS it will need to be more stringent and to sit within a strong validation framework. This is particularly true if it is being used to justify trade or movement restrictions. Risk analyses conducted by individual MS will, however, not need such a high degree of scrutiny and oversight, unless they are being used to restrict trade. Table 1 provides a summary of the potential uses of risk analysis in an EU IAS Strategy.
Use / 3rd countries involved / Level / EU Scrutiny needed?EU / Regional / MS
Prevention / EU / Restricting imports to the EU / ü / ü / ü
Restricting trade to / from OM regions[1] / Sometimes / ü / ü / ü / ü
MS / Restricting trade between MS / ü / ü / ü / ü
Possession within a MS / ü / ?
Sale within a MS / ü / ?
Release within a MS / ü / ü / ?
Rapid response / Prioritisation of action / ü / ü / ü / ü for EU Level only
Surveillance / Prioritisation of species and pathways for monitoring and surveillance / ü / ü / ü / ü for EU Level only
Long term management / Prioritisation of action / ü / ü / ü / ü for EU Level only
Table 1: Summary of the potential uses of risk analysis in an EU IAS Strategy. The ‘Level’ column refers to who will commission/carry out the risk analysis. Note: there were varied views expressed on the level of EU oversight needed for release, sale and possession within an MS.
1
2
3
3.1 Summary of Requirements
3.1.1 EU or (Bio)regional level risk analysis
Tools
An agreed tool/methodology for EU Level risk assessments
Risk Management/Decision Support tool
Central database of risk assessments available to all MS
Agreed end points for EU level risk assessments
Experts
To do risk assessments
To advise on risk management options and what are acceptable risks/risk levels
To provide data/information needed for the risk analyses
Review mechanism
Peer Reviewer(s) +/or Expert Panel
Stakeholder/Public consultation
‘Secretariat’ to run it
Decision makers
To decide on risk management options
To decide on acceptable risk levels
To provide financing for risk assessment and reviewing systems
3.1.2 Member State Level Risk analysis
Guidance on what to include in risk analyses (see Appendix 2)
Database of information – risk analyses, experts, sources of information etc.
Central EU review process where risk analyses are used to inhibit trade etc.
3.2 Risk Analysis Methodology (Tool)
3.2.1 EU/Bio-regional/Multi-MS
There are many risk analysis methodologies in different parts of the world to assess the risk posed by individual IAS. Current practice and recent progress within plant health is particularly relevant. Within the framework of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) a standard has been developed for pest risk analysis of plant pests (ISPM 11). The European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) has developed a practical Pest Risk Analysis (PRA) scheme that is based on ISPM 11. Within the EU, the EPPO scheme is being used by MS for risk analysis of plant pests and pest plants. The ‘Guidelines for EC coordination and handling of PRA documents and other scientific justification documents supporting the decision-making process for EC phytosanitary measures’ provide guidance for the development, coordination and handling of PRA documents within the EU. EFSA has clarified the roles of different institutions in this process http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/plhtopics/topic/planthealth.htm?WT.mc_id=EFSAHL01&emt=1.
A procedure has also been proposed for conducting environmental risk assessments under Article 9 of the Council Regulation No 708/2007 concerning the use of alien and locally absent species in aquaculture.
However, for IAS that are not aquaculture species nor plant pests there is no accepted standard methodology within the EU (although GB has developed a generic risk assessment module based on the EPPO PRA and for biological control agents (BCA) the Rebeca project developed EU guidelines for risk assessment of the introduction of new BCA’s (see Ehlers (2011), also http://www.rebeca-net.de/?p=510 )). Australia has also developed several risk assessment models which could also be useful: for invasive plant species (Phelong et al. 1999) and for a range of vertebrate taxa (Bomford 2008). The efficacy of the vertebrate risk assessment models were validated and refined by Massam et al. (2010).