Development of IAS policy Results of 2008 consultation 3 September 2010

Public consultation Online consultation, May 2008 Carried out ahead of the publication of the Communication "Towards an EU Strategy on Invasive Species" Overall support for an EU Strategy to tackle invasive alien species Profile of respondents: roughly ¾ of respondents replied as individuals roughly ¼ of respondents replied on behalf of organisations Good geographical spread 881 replies: ¾ from individuals, ¼ from organisations Geographical spread although noticeable prominence of replies from UK, Germany, Spain, Italy and France. A number of non Member States (Canada, New Zealand, Switzerland, Ukraine) Islands: New Caledonia, Reunion, St Helen Island

The problem Section 1 - scale of the problem Need to review measures for prevention and control of IAS The following impacts were considered important: Biodiversity Natural functions and resilience of ecosystems Landscapes Public health Business and livelihoods Leisure and recreation opportunities Ability to adapt to climate change

Prevention Section 2 - prevention Majority thought it important to: Prevent introduction of potential IAS into the wild Prevent import of IAS into the EU Prevent trade and spread within the EU Prevent native species in one area from reaching other EU areas where they could become invasive Border control options in particular: Screening of species/commodities indicated as a priority Clear and accessible information for importers and exporters Listed in decreasing order of importance Border controls: - avoidance of new administrative burdens and minimal change of familiar procedures were considered least important!!

Prevention Section 2 (continued) Effective regulation of trade and use of potential IAS considered acceptable in most sectors Top three measures proposed to increase awareness: Awareness and information campaigns Ban on sale of IAS Ban on keeping and breeding IAS Top three measures to foster responsible practice: Regulation of specific pathways and vectors Codes of best practice Criminalisation of the act of introducing IAS into the wild Effective regulation of trade and use – answer less clear cut when it comes to scientific research Other measures for awareness: labelling and certification schemes, voluntary codes of conduct, registration system for approved suppliers Other measures for responsible practice: financial incentives to the use of natives (and/or tax on IS), liability and compensation regimes, compulsory insurance

Early warning and rapid response Section 3 – early warning and rapid response Majority of respondents agreed on: Member States responsible for monitoring Member States should provide the necessary information System with consistent information / early warning throughout Europe System with prompt exchange of alerts between countries Information publicly accessible No significant increase in administrative burden Interestingly however, the administrative burden was not the main concern with a majority responding it was relatively important, followed by those who thought it was no important, a bit less thought it really important

Control Section 4 – control of IAS Member States should be required to: take control action for worst IAS cooperate with neighbouring countries where species may have cross border impact Eradication/control: acceptable to conserve biodiversity and ecosystems and protect economic interests plans should be developed at EU level for worst IAS and for species with cross border impacts Questions on acceptability focused on: All invasive species Birds and mammals Acceptability and prior information

Horizontal issues Section 5 – horizontal issues Main elements considered important: building public awareness building long term partnerships with concerned sectors and users one-stop easy access information source on invasive species encouraging voluntary approaches and best practices evaluation of costs of inaction vs. costs of prevention and eradication/control involvement of the public in finding alternatives solutions Important elements: in decreasing order of importance Other elements- Giving Member States lead responsibility for implementation Streamlining the regulatory framework Minimising the costs of any new measures

Horizontal issues Section 5 (continued) Barriers to action in the EU: Lack of awareness and species knowledge among users Those responsible for the introductions do not bear the costs of the consequences Little political or media attention No incentives to switch to native species Alternatives to IAS are not marketed efficiently Lack of awareness of users: Both on what is native and what is not And the actual risks posed by invasive species Other barriers include: Lack of cooperation between governments and industry Complex legislations Compliance costs

Horizontal issues Section 5 (continued) EU funds for eradication/control programmes: where an EU action plan is in place to coordinate control and long term monitoring where control is linked to restoration of native biodiversity where IAS has cross border impact International dimension: Role of EU as potential exporter of IAS needs to be recognised EU should minimise its impact in export activities and development programmes

Conclusions Main outcomes introduction and spread of IAS should be prevented an EU-wide early warning system would be needed MS should be required to tackle the most harmful IAS awareness of the problem should be raised the profile of the issue needs to be raised

Next steps An EU Strategy on Invasive Alien Species Working group with representatives of MS and stakeholder organisations Commission inter-service group Impact assessment Publication expected in 2011 WG – simply say that the original working group will be revitalised.