Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Developing the EU Strategy on Invasive Alien Species Huw Thomas Head, Protected Species & Non Native Species Team Defra.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Developing the EU Strategy on Invasive Alien Species Huw Thomas Head, Protected Species & Non Native Species Team Defra."— Presentation transcript:

1 Developing the EU Strategy on Invasive Alien Species Huw Thomas Head, Protected Species & Non Native Species Team Defra

2 The EU scene... EU – 27 member States > 4 million km million inhabitants Major trading block Several bio-geographic & climatic zones Collective economic interests Internal freedoms of trade and movement

3 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

4 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 Some common objectives & instruments

5 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

6

7 Assessment to support continued development of the EU Strategy to combat invasive alien species - IEEP, 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.

8 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

9 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. IEEP assessment of the 4 options:

10 Animal Health Regime / Plant Health Regime ideas….

11 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!

12 Stakeholder input… Working Groups have mixed representation Documents are made publicly available at: UK volunteers lead on 5 out of 11 Tasks!

13 PREVENTION ISSUES

14 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

15 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

16 Issues & implications – listing: Listing is basis for regulating: import of IAS, intra- EU 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…

17 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?

18 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

19 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

20 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

21 EARLY WARNING & RAPID RESPONSE Early warning: Q: What systems and structures are needed to deliver adequate early warning of threats in the EU?

22 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

23 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?

24 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? Whats the effective minimum we need?

25 RAPID RESPONSE Q: How should the Strategy drive rapid response?

26 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?

27 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?

28 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....?

29 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 1 st report will be 1 st occurrence?!

30 SURVEILLANCE & MONITORING Q: How to secure enough surveillance to adequately ensure EU is protected without imposing excessive requirements on MS?

31

32 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?!

33 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?

34 CONTROL & MANAGEMENT OF ESTABLISHED IAS Q: What actions and measures should the Strategy require with regard to established IAS?

35 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?

36 A legislative EU IAS Strategy? What are the implications?

37 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

38 Possible cost of EU+MS action on IAS? 40M - 190M / annum Community Plant Health Regime cost? About 150M / annum


Download ppt "Developing the EU Strategy on Invasive Alien Species Huw Thomas Head, Protected Species & Non Native Species Team Defra."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google