Search

Policy makers increasingly acknowledge the importance of considering ecosystem services (ESs) and biodiversity in impact assessment (IA) to reduce ecosystem degradation and halt ongoing losses of biodiversity. Recent research demonstrates how ESs can add value to IA, i.e., by shifting the focus from avoiding negative impacts to creating opportunities, by linking effects on ecological functioning to benefits for society, and by providing a multi-disciplinary framework that allows to consider cross-sectoral effects. However, challenges exist to its implementation in practice. The most commonly used ES models do not consider interactions among ESs. This restricts their capacity to account for cross-sectoral effects. Integrating ESs into IA also increases time investments as they cover a wide variety of disciplines and need detailed information. This paper presents a pragmatic approach that tackles these challenges and may facilitate the inclusion of ESs into IA. The approach focuses on ecosystem processes as the driver of ESs and biodiversity and the basis to evaluate effects of a project. Using the Belgian coastal ecosystem, we illustrate how the approach restricts data needs by identifying the priority ESs, how it improves the coverage of cross-sectoral effects in IA, and how it contributes to a more objective selection of impacts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Biological invasions are a threat to biodiversity, society and the economy. There is an urgent need to provide evidence‐based assessments of the risks posed by invasive alien species (IAS) to prioritize action. Risk assessments underpin IAS policies in many ways: informing legislation; providing justification of restrictions in trade or consumer activities; prioritizing surveillance and rapid response. There are benefits to ensuring consistency in content of IAS risk assessments globally, and this can be achieved by providing a framework of minimum standards as a checklist for quality assurance. From a review of existing risk assessment protocols, and with reference to the requirements of the EU Regulation on IAS (1143/2014) and international agreements including the World Trade Organisation, Convention on Biological Diversity and International Plant Protection Convention, coupled with consensus methods, we identified and agreed upon 14 minimum standards (attributes) a risk‐assessment scheme should include. The agreed minimum standards were as follows: (1) basic species description; (2) likelihood of invasion; (3) distribution, spread and impacts; (4) assessment of introduction pathways; (5) assessment of impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems; (6) Assessment of impact on ecosystem services; (7) assessment of socio‐economic impacts; (8) consideration of status (threatened or protected) of species or habitat under threat; (9) assessment of effects of future climate change; (10) completion possible even when there is a lack of information; (11) documents information sources; (12) provides a summary in a consistent and interpretable form; (13) includes uncertainty; (14) includes quality assurance. In deriving these minimum standards, gaps in knowledge required for completing risk assessments and the scope of existing risk assessment protocols were revealed, most notably in relation to assessing benefits, socio‐economic impacts and impacts on ecosystem services but also inclusion of consideration of climate change. Policy implications. We provide a checklist of components that should be within invasive alien species risk assessments and recommendations to develop risk assessments to meet these proposed minimum standards. Although inspired by implementation of the European Union Regulation on invasive alien species, and as such developed specifically within a European context, the derived framework and minimum standards could be applied globally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Effective prevention and control of invasive species generally relies on a comprehensive, coherent and representative list of species that enables resources to be used optimally. European Union (EU) Regulation 1143/2014 on invasive alien species (IAS) aims to control or eradicate priority species, and to manage pathways to prevent the introduction and establishment of new IAS; it applies to species considered of Union concern and subject to formal risk assessment. So far, 49 species have been listed but the criteria for selecting species for risk assessment have not been disclosed and were probably unsystematic. We developed a simple method to systematically rank IAS according to their maximum potential threat to biodiversity in the EU. We identified 1,323 species as potential candidates for listing, and evaluated them against their invasion stages and reported impacts, using information from databases and scientific literature. 900 species fitted the criteria for listing according to IAS Regulation. We prioritised 207 species for urgent risk assessment, 59 by 2018 and 148 by 2020, based on their potential to permanently damage native species or ecosystems; another 336 species were identified for a second phase (by 2025), to prevent or reverse their profound impacts on biodiversity; and a further 357 species for assessment by 2030. Policy implications. We propose a systematic, proactive approach to selecting and prioritising IAS for risk assessment to assist European Union policy implementation. We assess an unprecedented number of species with potential to harm EU biodiversity using a simple methodology and recommend which species should be considered for risk assessment in a ranked order of priority along the timeline 2018–2030, based on their maximum reported impact and their invasion history in Europe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]