Search

Prioritizing the management of invasive alien species (IAS) is of global importance and within Europe integral to the EU IAS regulation. To prioritize management effectively, the risks posed by IAS need to be assessed, but so too does the feasibility of their management. While the risk of IAS to the EU has been assessed, the feasibility of management has not. We assessed the feasibility of eradicating 60 new (not yet established) and 35 emerging (established with limited distribution) species that pose a threat to the EU, as identified by horizon scanning. The assessment was carried out by 34 experts in invasion management from across Europe, applying the Non‐Native Risk Management scheme to defined invasion scenarios and eradication strategies for each species, assessing the feasibility of eradication using seven key risk management criteria. Management priorities were identified by combining scores for risk (derived from horizon scanning) and feasibility of eradication. The results show eradication feasibility score and risk score were not correlated, indicating that risk management criteria evaluate different information than risk assessment. In all, 17 new species were identified as particularly high priorities for eradication should they establish in the future, whereas 14 emerging species were identified as priorities for eradication now. A number of species considered highest priority for eradication were terrestrial vertebrates, a group that has been the focus of a number of eradication attempts in Europe. However, eradication priorities also included a diverse range of other taxa (plants, invertebrates and fish) suggesting there is scope to broaden the taxonomic range of attempted eradication in Europe. We demonstrate that broad scale structured assessments of management feasibility can help prioritize IAS for management. Such frameworks are needed to support evidence‐based decision‐making. [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]

Simple Summary: International agreements commit nations to control or eradicate invasive alien species. The scale of this challenge exceeds available resources and so it is essential to prioritise the management of invasive alien species. Species prioritisation for management may consider the likelihood and scale of impact (risk assessment) and the feasibility, costs and effectiveness of management (risk management). Risk assessment processes are widely used, risk management less so. To assess the cost effectiveness of prioritisation, we considered 26 high-risk species considered for eradication from Great Britain (GB) with pre-existing risk assessment and risk management outputs. We used these to consider the relative reduction in risk per unit cost when managing prioritised species based on different criteria. We showed that the cost effectiveness of prioritisation within our sample using risk assessment scores alone performed no better than a random ranking of the species. In contrast, prioritisation including management feasibility produced nearly two orders of magnitude improvement compared to random ranking. We concluded that basing management actions on priorities based solely on risk assessment without considering management feasibility risks the inefficient use of limited resources. In this study, the cost effectiveness of species prioritisation action was greatly increased by the inclusion of a risk management assessment. International agreements commit nations to control or eradicate invasive alien species. The scale of this challenge exceeds available resources and so it is essential to prioritise the management of invasive alien species. Species prioritisation for management typically involves a hierarchy of processes that consider the likelihood and scale of impact (risk assessment) and the feasibility, costs and effectiveness of management (risk management). Risk assessment processes are widely used, risk management less so, but are a crucial component of resource decision making. To assess the cost-effectiveness of prioritisation, we considered 26 high-risk species considered for eradication from Great Britain (GB) with pre-existing risk assessment and risk management outputs. We extracted scores to reflect the overall risk to GB posed by the species, together with the estimated cost and the overall feasibility of eradication. We used these to consider the relative reduction in risk per unit cost when managing prioritised species based on different criteria. We showed that the cost-effectiveness of prioritisation within our sample using risk assessment scores alone, performed no better than a random ranking of the species. In contrast, prioritisation including management feasibility produced nearly two orders of magnitude improvement compared to random. We conclude that basing management actions on priorities based solely on risk assessment without considering management feasibility risks the inefficient use of limited resources. In this study, the cost-effectiveness of species prioritisation for action was greatly increased by the inclusion of risk management assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]