Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2013)620 - Prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2013)620 - Prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species. |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2013)620  |
| date | 09-09-2013 |
Invasive alien species (IAS) are species that are initially transported through human action outside of their natural range across ecological barriers, and that then survive, reproduce and spread, and that have negative impacts on the ecology of their new location as well as serious economic and social consequences. It has been estimated that of the over 12 000 alien species that are found in the European environment, 10-15 % have reproduced and spread, causing environmental, economic and social damage.
The impact of IAS on biodiversity is significant. IAS are one of the major, and growing, causes of biodiversity loss and species extinction. When it comes to social and economic impacts, IAS can be vectors of diseases or directly cause health problems (e.g. asthma, dermatitis and allergies). They can damage infrastructure and recreational facilities, hamper forestry or cause agricultural losses, to mention but a few. IAS are estimated to cost the Union at least € 12 billion per year and damage costs are continuing to rise.
With the 2020 Biodiversity Strategy, the Union undertook to halt the loss of biodiversity by 2020, in line with the international commitments adopted by the parties to the Convention for Biological Diversity in 2010 in Nagoya, Japan. Indeed, the problem of IAS is not limited to Europe, but found throughout the world. Unlike some of its trading partners, the European Union currently lacks a comprehensive framework to address the threats posed by IAS..
There is currently no EU framework for tackling IAS comprehensively. Few IAS are addressed by EU legislation. Disease agents and pests of animals and plants and their products are covered respectively by the animal health regime (various regulations and directives) and by the plant health regime (2000/29/EC). The Wildlife Trade Regulation (338/97) restricts imports of endangered species, including imports of seven IAS. The Regulation on the use of alien and locally absent species in aquaculture (708/2007) addresses the release of alien species for aquaculture purposes. The regulations on plant protection products (1107/2009) and on biocides (528/2012) address the intentional release of micro-organisms as plant protection products or biocide respectively. Finally, the Birds Directive (2009/147/EC) and the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC), the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC) require the restoration of ecological conditions and refer to the need to take IAS into consideration. Nevertheless, existing Union action leaves most IAS unaddressed.
Member States are taking a number of measures to tackle IAS, but such action remains predominantly reactive, seeking to minimise the damage already being caused without paying sufficient attention to prevention or to detecting and responding to new threats. Efforts are fragmented, with substantial gaps in species coverage, and are often poorly coordinated. IAS do not respect borders and can easily spread from one Member State to another. Thus, action taken at national level will be insufficient to protect the Union from the threat of certain IAS. Moreover, this fragmented approach can lead to action in one Member State being undermined by a lack of action in neighbouring Member States. Furthermore, different restrictions on the commercialisation of IAS between Member States are highly ineffective, as species can easily be transported or spread across borders throughout the Union. Moreover, such differentiated bans are hampering the free circulation of goods in the internal market and disrupting the level playing field for sectors which use or trade in alien species.
IAS are being introduced into the Union through two channels: 1) some alien species are desirable and are brought into the Union intentionally (e.g. commercial interests, ornamental purposes, companion animals, biological control); 2) some alien species are introduced unintentionally as contaminants of goods (trade in other commodities), as hitchhikers or stowaways in transport vectors, or can be transported unwittingly by travellers. Some IAS can also travel through transport infrastructure (e.g. Danube-Main canal).
IAS affect businesses, citizens, public authorities and the environment. In the case of small and micro enterprises in particular, IAS often affects primary producers in agriculture, animal husbandry, fisheries, aquaculture and forestry, suffering considerable economic damage as a result. Businesses linked to tourism and recreational activities, which rely on pristine landscapes, clean water bodies and healthy ecosystems, are often also affected. However, other small and micro enterprises, e.g. traders in companion animals and horticultural species, draw benefits from IAS as they focus mainly on trade in alien species. IAS also affect society at large, causing a loss of biodiversity and compromising the ability of ecosystems to provide ecosystem services. Moreover, they may transmit diseases, damage property and affect cultural heritage.
All the Member States are facing problems caused by IAS. While some IAS affect most Member States, others are only a problem in certain regions, or under certain ecological or climatic conditions. Nevertheless, all the Member States do have IAS on their territory. IAS impacts are relevant to the whole of the Union and all the Member States will be equally affected by IAS, albeit at different times and by different species. Coordinated action to tackle IAS would thus benefit all the Member States, while clearly requiring efforts from all of them.
If no action is taken to tackle the problem, it will get worse as new IAS establish themselves and those already established spread further. This will result in an increase in damage costs and management costs.
This proposal aims to tackle the issues highlighted above by establishing a framework for action to prevent, minimise and mitigate the adverse impacts of IAS on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Furthermore, it will seek to limit social and economic damage. This will be achieved through measures to ensure coordinated action, focusing resources on priority species and on increasing preventive measures, in accordance with the Convention of Biological Diversity approach and with the Union’s plant and animal health regimes. In practical terms, the proposal seeks to attain these objectives through measures addressing the intentional introduction of IAS into the Union and their intentional release into the environment, the unintentional introduction and release of IAS, the need to set up an early warning and rapid response system, and the need to manage the IAS spread throughout the Union.
Contents
Consultation process
In 2008 the European Commission published a Communication ‘Towards an EU Strategy on Invasive Species (2008)’ setting out the case for tackling IAS. The 2010 Communication ‘Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020’ proposes action on IAS. Both Communications were preceded and followed by thorough consultations.
A series of intensive rounds of stakeholder consultations took place between 2008 and 2012, which attracted the whole spectrum of interested parties, from nature conservation organisations to operators in the private sector, including organisations representing Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) relying on alien species for their business. An online public consultation was held in 2008 and a second one in 2012. A working group composed of Commission departments, Member States, stakeholders and academics was convened in 2008 and produced a discussion paper i bringing together the latest information and summarising opinions on key issues. This Working Group was then reconvened and reorganised into three working groups in 2010-2011, which drew up possible policy options to address prevention, early warning/rapid response and the management of established species respectively. Finally a stakeholder consultation meeting was held in September 2010.
The Commission’s work on IAS has also been supported by several external studies and research[2]. Furthermore, all of the analysis set out in the impact assessment was based on scientifically robust data, mostly retrieved from peer-reviewed scientific articles. Information on damage cost, spread of species and the costs of measures in place were also provided or checked by Member States. Special efforts were made to contact directly the stakeholders involved in this issue, including those sectors that might be negatively impacted by the introduction of measures to tackle the IAS problem. Finally, the analysis also benefited from the input of the world’s top experts on IAS within and beyond the Union.
Various options were identified for addressing the IAS issue, and in particular for addressing all aspects of the problem that were identified, but with a different level of ambition.
Based on feedback from the consultation, a number of levels of ambition and intervention were identified for each of the operational objectives pinpointed through the analysis of the problem, resulting in different sub-options for the design of the legislative instrument. An initial screening led to the discarding of sub-options that were not feasible, or simply not as effective as others. For each option identified, each of the operational objectives was addressed systematically, proposing practical measures to tackle IAS.
In addition to the baseline option (option 0), which would maintain the status quo, the following options were identified:
Option 1 — Enhancing cooperation and supporting voluntary action: This would include the development of guidelines, sectoral codes of conduct and other awareness-raising and educational campaigns. This option would also seek to encourage cooperation between Member States in setting up an early warning and rapid response system. The Commission could promote existing initiatives in this area through communication campaigns.
Option 2.1 — Basic legislative instrument: This involves a series of legal obligations banning the import, keeping, sale, purchase and exchange of certain IAS listed as IAS of Union concern. Further obligations would be linked to release into the environment of IAS of Union concern, rapid response to newly establishing IAS of Union concern and management of widely spread IAS of Union concern.
Option 2.2 — Basic legislative instrument + permits for release of IAS of Member State concern: This option would go beyond the list of IAS of Union concern for the release into the environment, by requiring permits for IAS deemed of concern by Member States.
Option 2.3 — Basic legislative instrument + a strict general ban on the release of alien species, unless found to be safe: This option would go beyond the list of IAS of Union concern for release into the environment by prohibiting the release of any alien species unless they are included in a Union list of alien species approved for release.
Option 2.4 — Basic legislative instrument + an obligation for the rapid eradication of newly establishing IAS of Union concern: With this option, when it comes to rapid response, Member States would not have a choice, but rather an obligation to eradicate quickly any newly establishing IAS of Union concern and share information. Derogations are possible if approved by the Commission.
Option 2.4 was retained and informs the present proposal.
The legal basis of this proposal is Article 192 i of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, implementing the EU objectives of preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment, protecting human health, ensuring prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources, and promoting measures dealing with regional or worldwide environmental problems.
Union-level action is necessary as IAS problems are increasing and are cross-border by nature. In view of the lack of Union-level action, Member States are putting measures in place to cope with the problem at national level. They are investing resources and efforts in eradicating harmful IAS but such efforts can be undermined by a lack of action in a neighbouring Member State where the species is also present. Equally, there is no coordinated Union action to ensure that when IAS first enter the Union, Member States take prompt measures for the benefit of other Member States not yet affected. Furthermore, the protection of the internal market — and the free circulation of goods — have to be taken into consideration. A coordinated approach will ensure legal clarity and a level playing field for those sectors using or trading alien species while avoiding a fragmentation of the internal market due to different restrictions on the commercialisation of IAS between Member States.
Current efforts are highly fragmented and inconsistent, leaving considerable policy gaps. These lead to ineffectiveness and do not solve the IAS problem. A mixture of Union and national, regional and local measures will be needed, in line with the principle of subsidiarity. However, a coherent approach at Union level will increase the effectiveness of the measures.
This proposal puts forward measures based on the following guiding principles:
Prioritisation — There are over 12,000 alien species in the EU out of which 10 to 15% are causing damage (which means 1200 to 1800 invasive alien species) and new ones keep arriving. There is ample scope for a prioritised and proportionate approach, building upon existing efforts and increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of current action.
Shift towards prevention — Prevention is internationally recognised as the most effective way of avoiding the IAS problem. Measures focusing on prevention need to be accompanied by an effective early warning system to take prompt action on species eluding the prevention measures.
Building upon existing systems — Valuable work is already being done in the Union both at national level and at Union level. This proposal intends to maximise the efficiency of the system and to make full use of what already exists.
Gradual and phased-in approach — Member States need legal certainty and reassurance regarding the extent and costs of the actions they will be expected to take. Therefore, this proposal includes a prioritisation of invasive alien species based on very stringent listing criteria, as well as an initial capping of the number of priority species to the top 3% of some 1500 invasive alien species in Europe. Further, a review clause will allow to develop the system progressively and build upon the experience gained. Any extension of the list of species of EU concern will only take place following this review.
Chapter I — General provisions. This section sets outs the subject matter, the scope and the basic obligation of the proposal. It also provides the tools for prioritising IAS of Union concern to enable Union resources to be prioritised on the basis of risk and scientific evidence.
Chapter II — Prevention. This section sets out the measures necessary to prevent the introduction into the Union and the introduction or release into the environment of IAS.
Chapter III — Early detection and rapid eradication. This section sets out the tools to ensure that IAS of Union concern can be detected early in the environment and at the Union borders and describes the measures that are triggered when these IAS are detected.
Chapter IV — Management of IAS that are widely spread. This section sets out the obligations necessary to tackle IAS of Union concern that are already present in the Union or new ones that have eluded the prevention measures and early detection measures and managed to spread widely.
Chapter V — Final provisions. This section sets out reporting obligations and the legal tools needed to ensure implementation, enforcement and review of the proposed measures.
There will be only some limited financial implication to be financed under Heading 5 of the Multi-annual Financing Framework 2014-2020 for the Committee under Article 22. See Financial Fiche attached.