COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Accompanying the document

Proposal for a Council and European Parliament Regulation on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species

This report commits only the Commission's services involved in its preparation and does not prejudge the final form of any decision to be taken by the Commission

Contents

1. Introduction.. 4

2. Procedural Issues and Consultations.. 5

2.1. Procedural issues. 5

2.2. Consultation of interested parties. 5

2.3. External expertise. 5

2.4. Consultation of the Impact Assessment Board.. 6

3. Policy context, Problem definition and Subsidiarity.. 6

3.1. Problem definition.. 6

3.1.1. An ecological problem.. 7

3.1.2. A policy problem.. 11

3.2. Who is affected and how?. 12

3.3. Policy baseline. 14

3.4. How will the problem evolve?. 17

3.5. The EU's right to act and justification.. 19

3.5.1. The legal basis for action. 19

3.5.2. Promoting solidarity. 20

3.5.3. Subsidiarity. 20

4. Objectives.. 21

5. Description of Policy Options.. 22

5.1. Option 0 - Business as Usual (baseline option) 22

5.2. Option 1 – Enhancing cooperation and supporting voluntary action.. 24

5.3. Option 2 – A dedicated legislative instrument.. 24

5.3.1. Option 2.1: the basic legislative instrument 27

5.3.2. Option 2.2: introducing provisions on permits for the release of IAS of Member State concern (i.e. basic legislative instrument with the addition of action C2). 29

5.3.3. Option 2.3: introducing a strict ban on the release of any alien species, unless included on an EU list of IAS approved for release (i.e. basic legislative instrument with the addition of action C3). 30

5.3.4. Option 2.4: introducing an obligation for rapid eradication of newly establishing IAS of EU concern, with the possibility for derogations (i.e. basic legislative instrument with alternative action D3). 30

6. Analysis of the Options.. 32

6.1. Economic impacts. 33

6.1.1. Option 0: Baseline. 33

6.1.2. Option 1: Cooperation and voluntary action. 34

6.1.3. Option 2.1: the basic legislative instrument 35

6.1.4. Option 2.2: Adding permits for releasing of IAS of Member State concern. 43

6.1.5. Option 2.3: Include a strict ban on release of any alien species into the environment unless it is included in a common EU list of species approved for release into the environment 45

6.1.6. Option 2.4: Obligation to rapidly eradicate newly establishing IAS of EU concern. 45

6.2. Social impacts. 48

6.2.1. Option 0: Baseline. 48

6.2.2. Option 1: Cooperation and voluntary action. 48

6.2.3. Option 2.1: The basic legislative instrument 48

6.2.4. Option 2.2: Adding permits for releasing of IAS of Member State concern. 48

6.2.5. Option 2.3: Introducing a strict ban for any release of any alien species unless included in the EU list of species approved for release into the environment 48

6.2.6. Option 2.4: Obligation for rapid eradication of newly establishing IAS of EU concern. 48

6.3. Environmental impacts. 48

6.3.1. Option 0: Baseline. 48

6.3.2. Option 1: Voluntary action. 48

6.3.3. Option 2.1: The basic legislative instrument 48

6.3.4. Option 2.2: Adding permits for releasing of IAS of Member State concern included in national catalogues 48

6.3.5. Option 2.3: Introducing a strict ban for any release of any alien species unless included in the EU list of species approved for release into the environment 48

6.3.6. Option 2.4: Obligation for rapid eradication of newly establishing IAS of EU concern. 48

7. Comparing the different Options.. 48

8. Monitoring and evaluation.. 48

8.1. Progress indicators. 48

8.2. Monitoring.. 48

8.3. Evaluation.. 48

1. Introduction

Alien species are species that are transported, outside of their natural range across ecological barriers, due to direct or indirect human action. Some of these species cannot adapt to the new environment and die out quite rapidly, but others may survive, reproduce and spread. A percentage of the species that become established can have a significant negative impact on the ecology of their new location as well as serious economic and social consequences: these are the Invasive Alien Species (IAS). It has been estimated that of the 12,046 alien species present in the European environment[1], 10-15 % have reproduced and spread and cause environmental, economic and/or social damage[2].

IAS have significant consequences for biodiversity and are considered to be second in importance only to habitat loss as a driver of biodiversity loss and recognised as being a major cause of species extinctions[3]. It is expected that biological invasions in Europe will only increase[4]. When it comes to social and economic impacts, IAS can be vectors of diseases or directly cause health problems (e.g. asthma, dermatitis, allergies). IAS can damage infrastructure and recreational facilities and hamper forestry or cause agricultural losses, to mention but a few examples. IAS are estimated to have cost the EU at least €12 billion/year over the past 20 years[5], and the damage costs continue to increase.

Invasive Alien Species may be introduced for a purpose or come into Europe accidentally, through different pathways[6]. Roughly one quarter of the IAS already present in Europe were intentionally introduced: they were traded for a purpose, e.g. as ornamental plant species, as pet species, for forestry or agriculture or as biocontrol agents. They had therefore an economic value or yielded certain benefits that made them desirable[7]. The remaining three quarters of IAS came into the EU unintentionally, i.e. accidentally either as contaminants of other commodities (e.g. ragweed seeds in bird feed mixtures) or as “hitchhikers” and “stowaways” linked to people travelling or transport vectors (e.g. organisms introduced via ballast water).

Seeing the economic damage they cause, Member States are taking a number of measures to tackle IAS, at an expense of around €1.4 billion/year. Action is predominantly reactive, seeking to minimise the damage already being caused without sufficient attention to prevention or to detect and respond to new threats. Efforts are fragmented, not covering all EU and often poorly co-ordinated, which means that their overall effectiveness is reduced.

While acknowledging that it will not be possible to address or prevent the entry of all IAS at all times, there is ample scope for a prioritised and proportionate approach that would be introduced gradually and that builds on the existing efforts whilst increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of current action. Such an approach can respect subsidiarity by improving the coordination of the current efforts whilst leaving suitable freedom to Member States to respond to their own geographical circumstances. At the same time, a coordinated and increasingly prioritised approach can allow for a shift towards a more preventive approach and in so doing increase the efficiency of actions, and over time could lead to lower damage costs and costs of action[8].

2. Procedural Issues and Consultations

2.1. Procedural issues

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 intensive rounds of consultation. In preparing this Impact Assessment, a dedicated Inter-Service Steering Group was established within the Commission (see Annex I).

2.2. Consultation of interested parties

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. Main comments are provided in the following sections and details in Annex II.

An online public consultation held in 2008[9] showed widespread backing for action on IAS at EU level. 91 % of respondents agreed on the urgent need to bring in new measures to prevent the spread of such organisms and 86 % thought that Member States should be legally obliged to take action against the most harmful IAS. The same year, a working group of Commission services, Member States and stakeholders produced a discussion paper[10] bringing together the latest information and summarizing opinions on key issues. A second online consultation focused on specific policy options was held from end January to mid-April 2012 and attracted 5101 replies.

A stakeholder consultation meeting was held in September 2010[11], followed in 2010-2011 by three working groups, which elaborated possible policy options to address respectively prevention, early warning/rapid response and the management of established species[12]. The stakeholder consultation and the working groups were attended by Commission services, a wide range of stakeholder groups, representatives from Member States and experts from different backgrounds.

2.3. External expertise

Over the last five years the Commission's work on IAS has been supported by several external studies and research[13]. In particular, the EU-funded research project DAISIE[14] compiled an inventory of alien species in the EU. The Joint Research Centre is now developing the European Alien Species Information Network (EASIN) to facilitate the exploration of existing alien species information from distributed sources[15]. The European Environment Agency has also been conducting projects in this area. Annex III provides more details on this scientific work.

Furthermore, all analysis performed in this report was based on scientifically robust data. The major part of the data used to describe the problem and to analyse impacts and costs was 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. Particular efforts were put into contacting directly the stakeholders involved in this issue, including those sectors that may be negatively impacted by the introduction of measures to tackle the IAS problem. Finally, the analysis also benefitted from the input of the world's top experts on IAS within and beyond the EU, which provided precious information and data on all aspects addressed by this report.

2.4. Consultation of the Impact Assessment Board

This impact assessment has been discussed at the 05/12/2012 meeting of the IA Board. The recommendations of the Board in the quality checklist and in its formal opinion have allowed improving the report. The following elements were addressed:

· Problem definition: while ultimately what needs to be solved is an ecological problem, it has been made clearer that what the EU action needs to address is a policy failure brought about by a very fragmented policy framework at European and national levels. From this new perspective, the text has improved the distinction between the problem, the drivers and the consequences. , the ;

· Definition of objectives: the formulation of the objectives and their relation to each other were clarified, namely through the introduction of tables. The evaluation arrangements were also re-formulated and clarified;

· Design of the options: the design, assessment and comparison of options was strengthened. In particular the text was streamlined so as to simplify the assessment and a table summarising the benefits and drawbacks of the different options was introduced. Cost estimates were clarified and the text screened to ensure the use of consistent language;

· Transposition and compliance: these issues were analysed in greater detail and an analysis of the interaction between the proposed measures and existing rules in Member States was added in Annex;

· Stakeholders' views: the views of stakeholders and Member States were more systematically introduced in the text and a section summarising the views of stakeholders was introduced in Annex.

3. Policy context, Problem definition and Subsidiarity

3.1. Problem definition

There are two facets to the problem of IAS in Europe: 1) the ecological problem created by the entry, establishment and spread of IAS, 2) the policy failure caused by a very fragmented and incoherent policy set up at EU and national levels that is allowing the ecological problem to worsen.

3.1.1. An ecological problem

An alien species is defined in the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) as "a species, subspecies or lower taxon, introduced outside its natural past or present distribution, including any part, gametes, seeds, eggs, or propagules of such species that might survive and subsequently reproduce." Some of these alien species are unable to adapt to the new environment and simply die off, other species (e.g. certain crop species) need careful tending to survive and will not spontaneously reproduce in the environment. Other species, however, may establish and reproduce in the new environment to an extent where they start causing problems, i.e. they would become invasive. The CBD defines an invasive alien species (henceforth IAS) as "an alien species whose introduction and/or spread threaten biological diversity"[16]. IAS include animals, plants, fungi and micro-organisms, and affect the EU’s continental landmass and water bodies, seas and islands.

Only a subset of the alien species in Europe is invasive and has a negative environmental, social or economic impact. It is estimated that 10-15% of the alien species present cause damage[17] which is borne by society at large as well as by businesses, including primary producers and landowners. This Impact Assessment will focus on IAS that are alien to the EU: species native in part of the EU but IAS in another will not be considered.

Climate change may aggravate the problems of IAS, as changing climatic conditions can lead to previously unsuitable ecological conditions becoming suitable, thus allowing an alien species to reproduce and start spreading and cause problems[18]. On the other hand it can be expected that alien species will naturally migrate to find more suitable conditions to evolve as the global temperature rises. It is not the intention of the Commission to hinder such natural and necessary migrations. Therefore these are not considered as IAS for the purpose of this exercise and would not be addressed.

IAS are a major, and growing[19], cause of biodiversity loss and species extinction, second in importance only to habitat loss, especially on islands and in freshwater habitats[20]. Some IAS lead to biodiversity loss by competition, predation or hybridisation with native species. Others modify habitats and ecosystems to the detriment of native species or have a broader impact on the environment, society and the economy, for example by disrupting ecosystems and their services[21], causing allergies or transmitting diseases, damaging infrastructure and properties[22] (see Table 1).

Table 1: Main types of impact caused by IAS[23]; IAS often have multiple impacts and an immediate direct impact can often lead to broader consequences, leading to loss or interference with the provision of ecosystem services that sustain livelihoods and which are the basis of many economic activities.

Impact || Sub-category of impact || Example || Consequences

On economic activities || Damage to infrastructure || Zebra mussels || Zebra mussels can cause damage by blocking pipes, vents or holes for the passage of water it is a major macrofoulant of power generating plants, industrial and municipal water systems.

Disruption of recreational activities || Water hyacinth || Water hyacinth creates dense floating mats on water bodies, interfering with recreational activities, such as boating and fishing.

Damaging agriculture || Coypu || The coypu feeds on crops causing agricultural production losses. Moreover, with its burrowing activities, coypu causes great damage to river banks, leading to increased risk and severity of flooding as well as damaging irrigation systems.

On human health || Disease vector || Asian tiger mosquito, raccoon dog || Tiger mosquitoes can spread the Chikungunya virus, yellow fever, Rift valley fever and dengue. Raccoon dogs carry rabies, besides being a reservoir and vector of parasites that infects humans, e.g. sarcoptic mange, trichinella worms and fox tapeworm.

Health impacts || Common ragweed, giant hogweed || Common ragweed is a common allergen causing rhinitis, dermatitis, asthma. Giant hogweed causes severe burning and dermatitis.

On ecosystem services || Interference with supporting services (necessary for the provision of other ecosystem services) || Japanese knotweed || Japanese knotweed builds up dense stands inhibiting growth of other plants, outcompetes native plants, disrupts invertebrate species communities, affects soil environment, its roots seriously damage infrastructure.

Interference with provisioning services (products obtained from ecosystems) || Pontic rhododendron, Spanish slug || Pontic rhododendron displaces native species and affects species diversity, alters the ecosystems, thus affecting timber production. The Spanish slug feeds on horticultural plants and damages private gardens and agricultural fields.

Interference with regulating services (benefits supplied by self-maintenance of ecosystem) || Yellow-legged hornet || The yellow-legged hornet is a highly effective predator of native bees and other beneficial insects, thus having an impact on the activities of pollinators.

Interference with cultural services (non-material benefits derived from an ecosystem) || Killer shrimp, tree of heaven || Killer shrimp can quickly dominate the invaded habitats directly affecting fisheries quality with consequent impacts on recreational use of water bodies. The tree of heaven is a fast growing plant that can create dense stands leading to profound changes in touristic and culturally important landscapes: Mediterranean islands show for example 24% decrease in species richness, leading to an impoverished landscape.

On biodiversity || Competition || Bullfrog || The bullfrog colonises a range of habitats and has the ability to outcompete indigenous amphibians

Predation || Common slider, harlequin ladybird || The omnivorous common slider predates on several species from insects to other invertebrates and vertebrates, including amphibians, reptiles, small mammals and birds. The harlequin ladybird predates on native ladybirds and caused the decline of several populations.

Disease vector || Red swamp crayfish, grey squirrel || The red swamp crayfish is a carrier of crayfish plague, which kills native crayfish. The grey squirrel is a carrier of Poxvirus a disease which kills the native red squirrel.

Hybridisation || Ruddy duck || The ruddy duck breeds with the native and vulnerable white headed duck and produce fertile hybrids which can gradually make the white headed duck species disappear.

Changing habitats and altering ecosystems || Black locust || Black locust is a nitrogen fixing species that can achieve early dominance on soils where nitrogen is a limiting factor for other species, thus leading to completely different species composition.

The ecological problem has two main causes: 1) certain alien species are desirable and brought into the EU e.g. through trade for a reason (e.g. commercial interests, ornamental purposes, companion animals, biological control); 2) some alien species are unintentionally introduced as contaminants of goods (trade in other commodities), can be hitchhikers or stowaways in transport vectors or be transported unwittingly by travellers. Some IAS can also travel through transport infrastructure (e.g. Danube-Mainz canal). The growing pressure of IAS on biodiversity is linked to the substantial increases in volume and extent of trade and travel, leading to more species being transported across the globe[24].

Figure 1 analyses the causal chain of the ecological problem: the top layer representing the drivers; the second layer from the top illustrating the pathways into the environment; the third layer from the top illustrating the state; and the bottom layer illustrating the consequences of the presence of IAS in the environment in the EU.

Figure 1: Analysis of the ecological problem, with estimates of the proportion of IAS intentionally or unintentionally introduced in Europe through trade, of IAS intentionally released in the environment, of IAS escaped from containment and IAS that entered the EU as stowaways or contaminants and then established and spread in the environment[25]

Based on research from Genovesi and Scalera (2007) who studied IAS introduced in Europe[26], it is estimated that 27% were intentionally introduced, while 76% were unintentionally introduced[27]. These figures show that for roughly three quarters of IAS introduced into Europe the benefits would be negligible as these species were not meant to be brought into the EU for any purpose. This is not the case for the remaining quarter of IAS intentionally introduced purposely in Europe for their benefits.

Of the IAS intentionally introduced into Europe, at least 74% were intended for release into the environment and more than half of those are plants used for forestry, landscaping or similar activities (e.g. black cherry in forestry). At least 44% were intended to be kept in containment but escaped into the environment (e.g. muskrat introduced for fur-breeding or pets), while 18% of the species were intended for both release and keeping in contained conditions. Of the IAS unintentionally introduced through trade into Europe and ending up in the environment, 71% came as contaminants in a traded commodity (e.g. weed seeds in pots of horticultural plants) and 45% as stowaways in a transport vector (e.g. marine organisms in ship ballast water). 16% of IAS entered the EU through both pathways (e.g. ragweed seeds contaminating animal feed grains and hitchhiking on agricultural machinery). For more information on the pathways of introduction see Box 1.

Box 1: pathways of release into the environment

The pathways of release in the environment vary considerably according to the species group[28] (Figure 2). Plant species mostly escape from cultivation (e.g. gardens) because their seeds spread around (e.g. giant hogweed), with other important pathways being escapes from agriculture, stowaways in transport vectors and seed contaminants[29]. Vertebrate animals, besides escape (e.g. coypu escaping from fur farms), are also released intentionally in the environment (e.g. for hunting), while invertebrate animals often disperse unintentionally into the environment after being introduced in Europe as a contaminant in a commodity or a stowaway in a transport vector (e.g. zebra mussels on ship hulls). Transport networks are corridors through which IAS can colonise new territories. To date this has mainly been an issue for aquatic species (e.g. killer shrimp spreading though the Danube-Mainz canal). The pathways of release into the environment also vary across biomes. In freshwater ecosystems, for example, most alien species are the result of intentional releases for aquaculture and angling, although escapes from aquaculture are also important. In the marine environment, most alien species are the result of unintentional releases, i.e. from biofouling or mariculture escapes and ballast water contaminants.

Figure 2: Pathways of intentional and unintentional release in the environment per species groups in the world[30]

The economic and social costs are widely recognised as being significant. One estimate is that IAS have cost the EU at least €12 billion/year over the past 20 years. Costs for key economic sectors, including agriculture, fisheries, aquaculture, forestry and health sectors account at over €6 billion/year[31], including damages costs and management costs[32] of IAS.

The problem is not limited to Europe: IAS are causing damage and management costs of similar magnitude across the globe. Despite being difficult to compare as they were collected with different methods, the data provided in Table 2 give an indication of the magnitude of the damage and management costs caused by IAS. The data may significantly underestimate the total economic cost as some costs, such as the loss of biodiversity and the damage to ecosystem services, are not fully quantified.

Table 2: Estimated economic losses due to IAS across the globe[33]

|| Estimated economic losses due to IAS || Comments

Globally || c. €1 trillion/year (almost 5 % of global GDP) - Pimentel et al., 2001 || Includes damage costs and management costs, including also costs linked to human viruses and bacteria

US || c. €90 billion/year - Pimentel et al., 2005 || Includes damage costs and management costs, including costs linked to human viruses and bacteria (c. €5 billion/year),

China || c. €11 billion/year (1.36 % of China's GDP in 2000) - Xu et al., 2006 || Includes direct damage costs and management costs as well as estimated costs of ecosystem services loss (no costs linked to human viruses and bacteria)

New Zealand || c. €2 billion/year[34] || Includes damage and management costs for pests, weeds and pathogens (no costs linked to human viruses and bacteria).

EU || €12 billion/year - Kettunen et al., 2009 || Includes damage and management costs of IAS in Europe, including some organisms covered by animal and plant health (no costs linked to human viruses and bacteria).

UK || €2 billion/year - Williams et al., 2010 || Includes direct damage costs (losses) and management and management costs of IAS, including plant pathogens, but excluding viruses, microorganisms and diseases of animals.

Finally, over time the damage and management costs have been observed to grow continuously[35] (see section 3.5): these economic losses stem from the costs of the increasing introduction of new IAS in the EU and the costs generated by the continuing spread of IAS already widely established in the European territory.

3.1.2. A policy problem

All Member States are taking some type of action to combat IAS. Few have comprehensive legal frameworks to address the ecological problem; others rely on voluntary actions or species specific programmes. Most Member States also appear to concentrate their effort on tackling IAS that are long established, rather than on prevention or early warning and rapid response. Annex V provides a detailed analysis of the current national policy frameworks for the Member States. Moreover, the responses to existing invasions are fragmented, uncoordinated and they do not constitute a coherent approach[36].

As regards the EU policy framework, it includes a variety of regulatory initiatives on IAS but these only address few parts of the problem and provide a fragmented response. There are substantial gaps in species covered and important inconsistencies between the use of terms and concepts in legal texts[37], which are leading inter alia to legal uncertainty in the context of the internal market. Similarly, integration of IAS policies into other policy areas, such as border controls, is largely absent Further details are given in section 3.4. .

The patchy approach in the Member States has two important consequences:

1. Action in one Member State is often undermined by lack of action in a neighbouring Member State, as IAS respect no borders. This is the case for example of Wallonia (Belgium), which is investing €0.5 mio/yr to eradicate giant hogweed, but efficiency and effectiveness will remain suboptimal as France has no such programme, and there will therefore be a permanent pressure of reinvasion along rivers entering the region from France[38]. Similar examples of measures on one species being taken in one Member States with no action or non-comparable action being taken in neighbouring Member States abound (e.g. the so far successful eradication campaign on ruddy ducks could be undermined if no coordinated action is taken in all countries affected[39] - see also Box 3).

2. Different restrictions of commercialisation of IAS between Member States are highly ineffective as species can easily be transported or spread across borders throughout the EU. Such differentiated bans are moreover hampering the free circulation of goods in the internal market and disrupting the level playing field for those sectors using or trading alien species.

3.2. Who is affected and how?

IAS affect businesses, citizens, public authorities and the environment (See Table 3). In particular, when it comes to small and micro enterprises, primary producers in agriculture, animal husbandry, fisheries, aquaculture and forestry are often affected by IAS and suffer considerable economic damage. Businesses linked to tourism and recreational activities, which rely on pristine landscapes, clean water bodies and healthy ecosystems are often also affected. In addition, these businesses are burdened by the management costs to keep damaging IAS in check, although the majority of these costs are usually faced by the public authorities (see Annex VII). These enterprises suffer from a lack of prevention and coordinated action to tackle IAS. However, other small and microenterprises, e.g. traders in pets and horticultural species, draw benefits from IAS as they focus largely on alien species trade. In such cases, prevention and coordinated action to tackle IAS may pose some restrictions to these businesses. IAS also affect society at large, through biodiversity loss and compromising the ability of ecosystems to provide ecosystem services; moreover they transmit diseases, damage properties and affect the cultural heritage. A lack of prevention and coordinated action to tackle IAS has negative consequences in social terms.

The costs and benefits from IAS are typically distributed unevenly: those benefitting from bringing IAS into the EU usually have few or no economic incentives to minimise any IAS-related risks, while the costs associated with IAS damage and management are generally met by primary producers, public authorities and society.

Table 3: Examples of damage caused by IAS

IAS || Who is affected and how || Damage cost estimate

ECONOMIC DAMAGE

Ragweed (most of EU) || Farmers: yield reduction (its resistance to herbicides and the germination capacity of its seeds of more than 30 years makes it difficult to manage) || Hungary: yield losses of €130 mio/yr (Kemives et al. 2006) EU: agricultural damage of €1.302 to 3.307 billion/year (Bullock 2012)

American mink (most of EU) || Animal husbandry and aquaculture: predates free ranging chickens, reared game birds, farmed salmon || Germany: €4.2 mio/yr (Bonesi, 2009)

Zebra mussel (most of EU) || Fishermen and fisheries: interference with fishing gear, alteration of fish communities Aquaculture: fouling the cages Water and electricity companies: clogging the water intake pipes Aquatic transport: fouling the ship hulls and navigational constructions Recreation: sharp shells cause injuries || North America: annual multimillion losses (Zaiko & Olenin, 2009) US and Canadian water users: €370 mio/yr (Millennium Ecosystems Assessment, 2005)

Musk rat (most of EU) || Water utility companies, electricity companies, transport companies, public authorities: undermines riverbanks, railroads, dams and fences, irrigation structures and aquaculture || Netherlands: €23 mio/yr (Van der Wijden et al., 2007) Germany: additional expenditure for waterway maintenance €2.3 mio/yr (Reinhardt et al. 2003) and for maintenance of aquaculture facilities €1.6 mio/yr

Coypu (most of EU) || Water utility companies, electricity companies, transport companies, farmers, public authorities: undermines river banks and increases the risk and severity of floods || Italy: exceeded €10 million riverbank damage and exceeded €0.9 million impact on agriculture (Bertolino, 2009)

Japanese knotweed (most of EU) || Real estate companies, citizens, banks, public authorities, property owners: leads to loss of property value, refusal of mortgages || England, Scotland and Wales: €205 mio/yr (Williams et al., 2010) Germany: €7 mio/yr for embankment repair and €16.7 mio/yr for embankment reinforcement

SOCIAL DAMAGE

Ragweed (most of EU) || Citizens: allergic asthma and allergic rhinitis that cause severe public health problems || EU: medical costs of €118 to 763 million/year and workforce productivity loss of €0.049 to 1.361 billion/year (Bullock 2012) Germany: medical costs (prescribed medication) of €17-47 mio/yr (Reinhardt et al., 2003)

Giant hogweed (most of EU) || Citizens: severe skin burning, tens of thousands of people affected every year, in the worst cases being fatal || Germany: medical treatment costs of €1 mio/yr (Reinhardt et al., 2003)

Musk rat (most of EU) || Citizens: transmits echinococcosis that cause severe public health problems || Germany: medical treatment costs of €4.6 mio/yr (Reinhardt et al., 2003)

Tiger mosquito (IT, FR, ES) || Citizens: vector of at least 22 arboviruses including Chikungunya and Dengue, often fatal to children ||

ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE

Black cherry (most of EU) || Forest biodiversity and foresters: Hinders natural regeneration of trees, impedes forest management measures such as thinning, timber harvesting or planting || Germany: additional expenditures for thinning and timber harvesting at least €1.4 mio/yr, manifest additional expenses for planting not included (Reinhardt et al. 2003)

Harlequin ladybird (UK, FR, BE, LU, NL, DE, DK, CZ, AT, GR, IT, ES) || Displaces native ladybirds, causes decline in native biodiversity, could impact on the resilience of ecosystems and severely diminish the services they deliver (Roy et al. 2012) ||

Comb jelly (Black sea, Baltic sea, E-Mediterranean sea) || Marine biodiversity and fishermen: drastic decline in pelagic fish and fisheries catch || Black sea: several €100 million in total for collapse of fish stocks (Shiganova & Panov, 2009)

Canada goose (UK, IE, FR, BE, NL, DE, SE, FI) || Displaces native waterfowl, causes habitat modification, disturbs ecosystem functioning. ||

Grey squirrel (UK, IE, IT) || Drives the red squirrel to extinction (Genovesi and Bertolino, 2009), damage trees by stripping bark, which allows the entry of rot and staining fungi, and reduces damages trees and timber quality || In the UK, the cost of damage caused by grey squirrels to tree species and their services to be about €12.5 million in total, of which €10 million is the estimated cost to private estates and €2.5 million to publicly owned woods. This is not an annual cost but the loss of value of the woodlands[40].

IAS in general affect all Member States, albeit perhaps at different times and by different species (see also Annex VII). While some IAS affect most EU Member States, others are only a problem in certain regions, or under certain ecological or climatic conditions. As shown by Figure 3, all Member States have IAS in their territories, with numbers varying, but within a similar order of magnitude across all Member States. It can be assumed that countries with higher trade volumes and numerous entry points are likely to suffer more introductions of IAS. It is not possible to ascertain the magnitude or concentration of intra-EU movements as there are no internal checks for commodities or monitoring of aliens species moving in the wild across the borders. As IAS impacts are relevant to the whole of the EU, coordinated action to tackle IAS would thus benefit all EU Member States, while clearly requiring efforts from all Member States.

Figure 3: Map of the number of worst IAS (causing the most damage) per country and an approximate estimate of their density, given as number of species per country per 1000 km2.

3.3. Policy baseline

IAS are widely recognised as a problem by international organisations[41], with a significant number of international conventions focusing on IAS[42]. See Annex IV for details.

Major EU trade partners have already developed streamlined and stringent IAS policies, considerably more advanced – in particular on the prevention side - than the current policies and actions in the EU Member States. Interesting examples are New Zealand, Australia, the US and Canada[43] where strict border control and quarantine measures apply. Risk assessment procedures are in place, not only applying to species (intentional introductions), but also to commodities, pathways and modes of transport (unintentional introductions). Both Australia and New Zealand are treating IAS, pathogens and pests through the same system, thus implementing an integrated plant health, animal health and IAS-regime. Both countries are following the strictest approach, considering all alien species to be potentially invasive, unless a risk assessment has declared them harmless. The US and Canada, by contrast, only consider alien species to be harmful if proven so by a risk assessment. Stakeholders in these countries tend to have a higher level of awareness of IAS related problems than in the EU[44].

In terms of baseline, the current and historical load of alien species in the EU is 12,046 out of which 10-15% are IAS. Figure 4 shows that at the EU level few IAS are addressed by 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). These policies adopt a preventive approach, and require rapid response in case of outbreaks, similar to the approaches taken in the US and Canada. Action focuses on list of priority species for the EU and is based on risk assessments, an approach which has delivered significant results[45] (see also Box 2). The Commission proposals for a revised animal and plant health regime include pest and disease agents affecting wild plants and animals. The Wildlife Trade Regulation (338/97) restricts the import of endangered species, including the import of seven IAS[46]. The Regulation concerning the use of alien and locally absent species in aquaculture (708/2007) addresses the release of alien species for aquaculture[47]. The regulations on plant protection products (1107/2009) and on biocides (528/2012) address the intentional release of micro-organisms respectively as plant protection product or biocide. 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 into consideration IAS. Nevertheless, existing EU action leaves most IAS unaddressed and what action is taken at national level focuses on damage mitigation rather than on addressing the drivers of the problem (see also Annex V).

Figure 4: IAS unaddressed by existing EU legislation – the non-shaded boxes describe what species are currently unaddressed by EU legislation

Box 2 – lessons drawn from the plant health regime (PHR)

The issue of plant pests is close to that of IAS: in fact plant pests and diseases are IAS that are already tackled by PHR. The measures in place through PHR have therefore provided substantial inspiration for the proposed actions to tackle IAS. Since its adoption, the PHR has successfully protected the EU against the introduction and spread of many pests; however, with the increasing globalisation of trade, the systems faced new challenges that brought about the need to review its functioning.

The European Commission carried out a review and commissioned an evaluation which thoroughly examined the functioning of the system, including the opportunities to tackle more IAS. The evaluation was conducted by the Food Chain Evaluation Consortium (FCEC) and completed in 2010. The current revision and the FCEC study provided a useful oversight of pitfalls and shortcomings of the system in place, from which valuable lessons can be learnt: 1) prevention should be strengthened and more coordination of action will be needed to stop the spread of pests across the EU, namely through surveillance, contingency planning, rapid outbreak eradication and containment, were pests may have gone unnoticed during import inspection; 2) more solidarity needed, with a move from national to EU action; 3) implementation of some aspects of the regime has not always been consistent, hampering the effectiveness of the system, more consistency of action needed (see annex V for more details)

Most Member States have taken regulatory or non-legislative initiatives on the IAS which are not already covered by EU legislation (Table 4 and Annex V). However, as outlined in section 3.1.2, those initiatives are predominantly reactive rather than preventive and they are fragmented and uncoordinated, they do not constitute a coherent approach[48] and leave substantial gaps.

Table 4: Overview of IAS-measures in the EU-27: legal provision (black), provision in preparation (vertical lines), informal provision (horizontal lines) and scattered initiatives (dots) (updated from Sonigo et al. 2011)

Note: this table aims at giving an overview of different types of measures already taken at national level, categorised according to broad categories of intervention. This necessarily leads to a simplification and the table might not reflect accurately some of the nuances of measures taken. The data was collected in 2011 and the situation may have evolved in some Member States.

3.4. How will the problem evolve?

If no action is taken to tackle the policy problem, the ecological problem 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.

Growing number of IAS - The number of alien species introduced into the EU and in the environment has been steadily growing (Figure 5): over the period 1970-2007 their numbers grew by 76%[49].

Figure 5: Cumulative number of introduced alien plant species, with the number of species alien to Europe continuously increasing (grey line)[50] over time in Europe.

International trade has been growing at an average of 12 % per year over the last decade and is projected to carry on rising[51]. While increased awareness might reduce the trade of IAS as commodities, this trade coupled with limited deployment of bio-security measures will lead to continued unintentional introductions of IAS. Furthermore, some established, but not yet invasive, alien species may start showing an invasive behaviour after a certain time lag[52].

IAS have regularly been released in the environment intentionally, e.g. for agriculture/forestry, hunting/angling or for purely ornamental purposes. While the proportion of intentional releases has been observed to decrease due to increased awareness of the problem[53], we can expect that new species will continue to be released, as new needs/markets emerge. Based on the above observations, we may reasonably assume that the number of IAS in the environment will continue to increase.

Spread of IAS and increased damage per IAS - A characteristic of IAS is that, once established in the environment, they rapidly reproduce and spread. If an IAS is allowed to spread, the damage it causes will increase in line with its population size. Climate change, pollution, habitat loss and land use change are expected to aggravate this trend, by disturbing ecosystems and reducing their resilience to invasions.

Many data are available on the damage cost of IAS (Table 3), but this data is hardly ever available in the form of trends. Where such trends are available they are mostly based on single species, but they consistently indicate that costs per IAS tend to increase in line with their spread, as illustrated by the evolution of costs of the zebra mussel invasion in the Ebro delta in Spain (see Figure 6). There is evidence that many IAS are continuing their expansion and, consequently, it is reasonable to expect that the average damage per IAS will increase.

Figure 6: Evolution of the total annual cost of the zebra mussel invasion in the Ebro delta in Spain from 2001 to 2009 (in €)[54]

Growing total damage by IAS - As new IAS will continue to enter into the EU, the number of IAS present and causing damage will be increasing. This will add to the increasing damage of established IAS reproducing and spreading. The overall result will be ever increasing damage and management costs across the EU in the years to come. Table 5 identifies the five main aspects of the IAS problem where intervention would be needed and illustrates the expected evolution of the problem.

Table 5: How the problem would evolve without additional measures (based on problem analysis in Figure 1)

Problem || Expected trend in IAS || Comments

A. Intentional introduction of IAS in the EU through trade || ↑ || Trade volumes will continue increasing, including trade in alien species, with consequently continuous intentional introductions of IAS in the EU

B. Unintentional introduction of IAS in the EU and unintentional release of IAS in the environment || ↑ || Trade volumes will continue increasing, which will lead to further unintentional introductions and releases of IAS in EU as contaminants of other commodities or as stowaways on transport vectors.

C. Intentional release of IAS in the environment || ↑ || Intentional release of IAS in the environment is expected to continue increasing

RESULT of A+B+C (in respect to number of IAS in the EU) || ↑↑ || Cumulative number of IAS in the environment will continue increasing (Figure 5)

D. Reproduction and spread of IAS in the environment || ↑↑ || The number of specimens per IAS in the environment will continue increasing

E. IAS causing economic, social and environmental damage || ↑↑ || The damage caused by every IAS will continue increasing (Figure 6)

RESULT of D+E (in respect to spread and damage from IAS) || ↑↑↑ || Total damage by IAS will be the sum of the damage increase per IAS, leading to increasing management costs

3.5. The EU's right to act and justification

3.5.1. The legal basis for action

The EU has already acted on pests and pathogens (plant and animal health) and developed measures towards alien species in aquaculture. The right for the EU to act in the field of IAS causing environmental damage is set out in Articles 191 and 192 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union requiring a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment and human health in the EU. The management of species and habitats has trans-boundary considerations and the principle of EU involvement in managing biodiversity is now well established.

Tackling IAS has important implications for the achievement of other EU legal obligations, such as the targets of the Birds and Habitats Directives (favourable conservation status), the Water Framework Directive (good ecological status) and Marine Strategy Framework Directive (good environmental status), as well as international commitments. Current EU legislation only addresses a small proportion of IAS, as discussed in section 3.4. To address this gap, the Commission adopted a Communication: "Towards an EU Strategy on Invasive Species (2008)"[55], which was endorsed by the Council on 25 June 2009[56]. In its Conclusions of both 25 June 2009 and 21 June 2011[57] the Council expressed its support for action on IAS, including legislative elements. Support was also expressed by the Committee of Regions[58] and the European Economic and Social Committee (2009)[59].

In March 2010, the EU leaders endorsed a 2050 vision and an ambitious 2020 headline target[60] aiming at "halting the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services in the EU by 2020, and restoring them in so far as feasible, while stepping up the EU contribution to averting global biodiversity loss." This was reflected at international level, in the context of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020[61] agreed in the 10th meeting of the Parties of the CBD, when the following global target was set: "By 2020, IAS and their pathways are identified and prioritised, priority species are controlled or eradicated, and measures are in place to manage pathways to prevent their introduction and establishment."

The Commission Communication "Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020"[62], endorsed by the Council on 19 December 2011, responds to both the EU and the CBD and mandates that "by 2020, Invasive Alien Species (IAS) and their pathways are identified and prioritised, priority species are controlled or eradicated, and pathways are managed to prevent the introduction and establishment of new IAS". To achieve this target the Communication proposes to fill the existing policy gap by developing a dedicated legislative instrument on IAS by 2012. The European Parliament urged the Commission to come forward with a legislative proposal to combat IAS[63].

Finally, action to tackle IAS will contribute to the Europe 2020 Strategy responding to the sustainable growth priority and contributing to other priority areas, namely employment and poverty reduction (e.g. avoiding collapse of Baltic Sea fishing industry due to an IAS)

3.5.2. Promoting solidarity

EU action on IAS promotes the “solidarity principle”, since IAS and their impacts are unevenly distributed across Member States. Indeed IAS may be more damaging in one country than in another (e.g. water hyacinth affecting Mediterranean countries, but unable to survive in North-European countries). Moreover, some IAS may be invasive in one country, but extend their damage to other countries (e.g. ragweed invasion in Hungary leading to pollen dispersal and allergenic problems in Poland). In such cases, exercising the solidarity principle among Member States will protect the interest of those that are likely to suffer the most negative consequences. Tackling IAS will require efforts from Member States, but it will bring significant benefits for the EU as a whole in the medium and long term.

3.5.3. Subsidiarity

Necessity test: IAS problems are increasing and cross-border by nature: due to the lack of EU level action, Member States are putting in place measures to cope with the problem at national level. They are investing resources and efforts in eradicating a harmful IAS but such efforts can be undermined by lack of action in a neighbouring Member State where the species is also present. Equally, no coordinated EU action exist to ensure that where IAS first enter the Union, Member States take prompt measures to the benefit of other Member States not yet affected. Furthermore, the protection of the internal market – and the free circulation of goods – has 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 of commercialisation of IAS between Member States.

EU Value added-test: the fact that the number of IAS and damages are increasing across the EU despite national/regional policies/initiatives, indicates that the problem cannot be solved without EU action. Current efforts are highly fragmented and inconsistent, leaving considerable policy gaps and leading to ineffectiveness (see 3.1.2, Table 4 and Annex V) and they do not solve the IAS problem. A mixture of EU and national, regional and local measures will be needed, in line with the principle of subsidiarity, and a coherent approach at EU level will increase the effectiveness of the measures. Member States which currently have legislation on IAS will benefit from a common approach which will guarantee that neighbouring Member States take actions for the same species (see Box 3).

4. Objectives

The growing damage costs expected in the coming years show the need for action to close the current policy gap. The general objectives of this action are the following:

· to minimise the negative impact of IAS on biodiversity and the environment and to contribute to the EU 2020 biodiversity target[64], by fulfilling its Target 5 stating that: "by 2020, IAS and their pathways are identified and prioritised, priority species are controlled or eradicated, and pathways are managed to prevent the introduction and establishment of new IAS;

· to minimise the negative economic and social impact of IAS for the EU economy and the Europeans and in particular protect their wellbeing and health, thus contributing to the Europe 2020 Strategy.

While ultimately the EU will need to tackle the ecological problem caused by IAS, it must be stressed, that, given the current trade patterns and the rate at which species are transported across the globe, action to address all of IAS in the EU would be prohibitively expensive. Some IAS are already present in the EU (legacy of the past) and are so widely spread that at most it will be possible to mitigate or reduce the damage they cause. When it comes to preventing new IAS coming into Europe, given the permeability of the EU borders with its long coastlines and borders with third countries, and multiple harbours and airports, it must be accepted that some species will anyway come in undetected.

Therefore the real added value of EU actions stems from addressing the policy failure identified. Thus action should not seek to deal with the problem in its entirety, but rather to devise a cost-effective system, based on identified priorities for action and improved responses. Therefore the specific objectives to address the policy failure will be the following:

· shifting the current reactive to a more preventive approach towards IAS;

· prioritising action towards IAS where the highest net benefits are to be obtained;

· fostering a coherent approach on IAS across the EU.

Table 6: Relation between general (columns) and specific (rows) objectives

|| General objectives

Specific objectives || EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy and EU 2020 Strategy

1 - More preventive approach || Prevention will seek to reduce the number of new IAS coming into EU thus avoiding increasing threats to biodiversity and negative impacts on society and economy.

2 - Prioritising action || Prioritisation will allow acting efficiently by focusing resources on the worst IAS, i.e. where most benefit is to be obtained for biodiversity and for society and the economy

3 - Fostering a coherent approach || Acting in a coherent and coordinated manner across the EU will increase the effectiveness and efficiency of actions at EU level, i.e. avoiding action in one Member State being undermined by lack of action in another Member State

Based on the analysis of the ecological problem (Figure 1), the policy failure will be addressed by applying the 3 specific objectives to the five elements of the ecological problem which constitute the five operational objectives (Table 7).

Table 7: Relation between specific objectives (columns) and operational (rows) objectives

|| Specific objectives

Operational objectives || 1 - More preventive approach || 2 - Prioritising action || 3 - Fostering a coherent approach

A – Prevent intentional introduction of IAS of EU concern into the EU || More focus on preventing IAS being intentionally introduced into the EU || Focus resources to prevent the worst IAS from entering || Common approach to prevent the worst IAS from entering

B - Prevent unintentional introduction of IAS into the EU and unintentional release into the environment || More focus on preventing IAS being unintentionally introduced into the EU and into the environment || Focus resources on the major pathways of introduction || Common approach addressing the major pathways of introduction

C – Prevent intentional release of IAS into the environment || More focus on preventing IAS being intentionally introduced into the environment || Focus resources to prevent the worst IAS from being released into the environment || Common approach to prevent the worst IAS from being released into the environment

D – Early warning and rapid response to prevent reproduction and spread of IAS of EU concern || More focus on a rapid eradication of IAS that circumvented the prevention measures || Focus resources to prevent the worst IAS from spreading || Common approach towards newly establishing IAS

E – Eliminate, minimise or mitigate damage by managing IAS of EU concern established in the environment || The above prevention efforts aim at reducing and avoiding new invasions so as to avoid the need to manage established IAS || Focus resources to keep the worst damage under control || Common approach towards the worst established IAS

5. Description of Policy Options

Different options have been identified to address the ecological problem and the policy failure. All of the options address the five operational objectives, but with a different level of ambition. The options were constructed using a dual approach, which included at the same time an analysis of the measures needed to tackle the operational objectives (the content), as well as the type of policy instrument (the form). For each option identified, each of the operational objectives was systematically addressed, proposing concrete measures to tackle IAS.

5.1. Option 0 - Business as Usual (baseline option)

This option maintains the current policy actions as identified in the policy baseline.

Prevention - Prevention of the intentional introduction into the EU through trade and transport (operational objective A) would be possible for IAS included in the Wildlife Trade Regulation (WTR) (see 3.4). The list of IAS covered could be extended; moreover, WTR includes a provision to include rules on possession and holding of certain species. As it is the case now, Member States would continue to introduce trade bans on species problematic in their territory (see Annex V). Existing voluntary codes of conduct (e.g. codes of conduct on horticulture and on companion animals drawn within the Bern Convention) encourage sectoral action to tackle IAS trade, marketing and transport.

The unintentional introduction of IAS in the EU and their accidental release into the environment (operational objective B) is currently addressed for certain groups of species: pests and diseases, that are generally introduced unintentionally, would continue to be addressed by the animal and plant health regimes[65]. The planned revision of the plant health regime will explicitly include disease agents and pests of wild plants in its scope[66]. Similarly, the new animal health law will cover diseases of wild animals, besides those of commercially reared animals, where the former could threaten human or animal health or the environment. For the aquatic environment, the Ballast Water Convention, once entered into force, will address stowaways in ballast water; while biofouling is being addressed through the voluntary application of dedicated guidelines (see 3.4). Existing voluntary codes of conduct focus attention on pathways of introduction into the EU and the environment. Member States have also developed a variety of measures at national level (Table 4).

When it comes to the intentional release of IAS into the environment (operational objective C), the EU Birds Directive[67] and Habitats Directive[68] refer to the need to regulate or prohibit the release of IAS into the environment, but it has led to a myriad of actions (some regulatory some voluntary), which are often species-based and seldom coherent. The Regulation on the use of alien and locally absent species in aquaculture (708/2007) prohibits the release into the environment for aquaculture purposes of species, unless they obtained a permit or were listed in the annex of the regulation, while the legislation on plant protection products and on biocides addresses the release of micro-organisms for plant protection and biocidal purposes. Further, Member States would continue taking initiatives for those species that pose problems in their territory (see Annex V).

Reaction - The EU has early warning and alert systems (operational objective D) for disease agents and pests affecting animal and plants – animal and plant health regimes. For other IAS, there is no EU system although some intergovernmental networks exist, for example NOBANIS[69], a northern European network which includes 14 EU Member States. Efforts to rapidly respond to newly establishing IAS are the responsibility of Member States.

For the management of established IAS (operational objective E) there is currently no obligation to address the problem of already established IAS in the acquis. Member States would continue to act on an ad hoc basis driven by damage costs on a species basis. Such efforts are sometimes carried out in collaboration with neighbouring Member States. Such initiatives can be supported by EU funds, e.g. LIFE, ERDF and EAFRD. Management of established species could also be driven by the aim of complying with the objectives of the Birds and Habitats Directives (favourable conservation status), the Water Framework Directive (good ecological status) and Marine Strategy Framework Directive (good environmental status).

5.2. Option 1 – Enhancing cooperation and supporting voluntary action

Fostering voluntary action and enhancing cooperation would include the development of guidelines, sectoral codes of conduct and other awareness and educational campaigns. This would be in addition to what is already done with option 0.

Prevention - A voluntary approach would not generate EU trade bans for certain species to prevent the intentional introduction of IAS into the EU (operational objective A), but the Commission could produce an inventory of any trade, marketing and transport bans existing at Member State level. In particular, the Commission could provide guidance for developing IAS regimes at national of regional levels. It could also foster further development of codes of conduct that different sectors could voluntarily adopt. Similarly, the Commission could promote awareness-raising initiatives and communication campaigns to encourage consumers and operators to refrain from buying, keeping or trading IAS.

The Commission would adopt a similar approach to address the unintentional introduction into the EU and unintentional release (escape) into the environment by addressing the pathways (operational objective B) as well as the prevention of intentional releases of IAS (operational objective C). It would promote the development of guidelines or codes of conduct to address the major pathways of introduction of IAS into the EU and of release into the environment, be it intentional or unintentional. The Commission could engage in awareness raising campaigns to complement national initiatives and to alert consumers, and it could promote the use of codes such as those developed under the Bern Convention (e.g. for horticultural plants).

Reaction - In order to encourage cooperation between Member States and achieve an early warning and rapid response to prevent the reproduction and spread of newly establishing IAS (operational objective D), the Commission would promote initiatives such as the NOBANIS network, e.g. through communication campaigns. Actions to rapidly respond to newly establishing IAS and to manage established IAS would, however, mostly be left to Member States, albeit with some EU funding possible.

5.3. Option 2 – A dedicated legislative instrument

Adding to option 0 and 1, the introduction of legal provisions to tackle the problems caused by IAS would build on actions already being taken under the acquis (Option 0) and voluntarily (Option 1) by Member States and sectors.

For such a fairly new policy area, the legislative instrument could be based on a gradual approach, whereby a set of priorities would be established in the proposal while in-building the possibility of reviewing the regime after a first phase of implementation when more coordinated experience is gained. The gradual approach would be an inherent part of some of the provisions in particular as regards:

1. the number the species that would be tackled through the regime which could be limited at the beginning

2. the number of routes of entry that would need to be addressed

3. the information system underpinning the regime

These aspects would evolve over time, starting with a simple and manageable framework to be reviewed (see Box 4).

A legislative instrument tackling the issue of IAS would need to set up a simple framework for action and a process. It would not be possible to aim for an obligation of results with predefined environmental objectives included therein. Rather, the environmental objectives to be reached are included in other environmental Directives (favourable conservation status under Habitats and Birds Directives, good ecological status in the Water Framework Directive and the good environmental status in the Marine Strategy Directive). The Member States would be required to take certain actions against IAS and the Commission would screen the measures taken for IAS pursuant to this legislation against the above objectives. This entails that some control mechanisms need to be introduced (notifications and exchange of information).

Box 4 – A gradual approach to tackling IAS.

A gradual approach is necessary to ensure that in a new area of EU policy such as this, experience is gathered and developed before actual obligations start applying. This could be done through tackling a limited number of species, through limiting the numbers of routes of entry to be addressed and through establishing gradually an information system to underpin the regime. All of these aspects would evolve over time as experience is gathered.

Such mechanisms could be embedded in a dedicated legislative instrument: bans and obligations would be applicable to a selected set of species considered to be of concern for the EU, but before IAS are recognised as species of concern for the EU, there would be the need to perform a full assessments of the risks linked to that species, examining the impacts it has, its features, the likelihood of entry into the EU and spread, its route of entry, its invasive characteristics, etc. Thus before a species gets listed, and bans and obligations start applying, Member States would have the chance to thoroughly assess the candidate species and acquire extensive knowledge on it. Listing would thus be done with full knowledge of the consequences involved and with the full participation of Member States. Such list of species of EU concern would need to be reviewed periodically, with the possibility of adding species or removing species depending on need and in light of experience. Equally, the measures to manage the pathways of introduction would only be applicable to pathway deemed by Member States to deserve priority action, after the Member States have performed several stages of analysis (screening of pathways, identification of priorities, etc) that would provide them with a solid knowledge base and experience on all aspects of pathways, which would enable them to devise realistic and efficient measures. A similar gradual approach would apply to the development of an information system, which could initially be a simple interface to access and share existing information and gradually develop into a tool to manage notifications linked to the early warning system and only later develop into a more comprehensive information management system.

Linked to the gradual approach is also the need to set up a mechanism to target action to a limited number of priority species and pathways. This would need to be a core feature of a dedicated legislative instrument. Listing of IAS of EU concern would be based on precise elements to perform a thorough risk assessment, giving a very clear idea now on which grounds the species would be listed, including an assessment of the possible uses of the species, its potential benefits as well as a quantification of its impacts so as to explicitly target the species that justify action at EU level. Similarly, the management of pathways would be limited only to those which the Member States concluded to be the route of entry of a large number of IAS or of IAS with large negative impacts.

Based on feedback from the consultation, different levels of ambition and/or intervention were identified for each operational objective which resulted in different sub-options for the design of the legislative instrument (Table 8). An initial screening led to discarding sub-options which were unfeasible, or simply not as effective as others (see Annex VI).

Table 8: Five operational objectives with three levels of intervention: retained (bold) and discarded actions

Problems (see Figure 1) || Operational objectives (see Table 7) || Range of Options to address the operational objectives, with different level of ambition

-Intentional Introduction of IAS of EU concern into the EU (e.g. through species trade) || A - Prevent intentional introduction of IAS of EU concern into the EU || A.1 – list of IAS of EU concern Example: EU Wildlife Trade Regulation

A.2 - list of IAS of EU concern + emergency measures Example: EU Plant health regime

A.3 – all alien species considered to be potentially of EU concern, unless included in an EU list of approved alien species Example: EU Regulation on biocidal products

-Contained holding and escape -Contaminant in commodity and escape -Stowaway in transport vector and escape || B - Prevent unintentional introduction of IAS into the EU and unintentional release into the environment || B.1 - Member States manage major pathways

B.2 - Member States manage major pathways, share information and Commission provides guidance

B.3 - Member States manage major pathways, share information and require approval from the Commission

Intentional release in the environment || C - Prevent intentional release of IAS into the environment || C.1 - IAS of EU concern are not allowed to be released into the environment.

C.2 – no release of IAS of EU concern + permitting system for IAS of Member State concern

C.3 – strict ban on any release of any alien species unless included in an EU list of species approved for release into the environment

Reproduction and spread in the environment || D – Alert and Rapid Response to prevent reproduction and spread of IAS of EU concern into the environment || D.1 - Member States eradicate, control or contain newly establishing IAS of EU concern

D.2 - Member States quickly eradicate, control or contain newly establishing IAS of EU concern, share information and Commission provides guidance

D.3 -Member States do not have the choice they have an obligation to quickly eradicate newly establishing IAS of EU concern and share information. If Member States wish to resort to control or containment instead, they need to seek the approval of the Commission.

- Environmental damage - Economic damage - Social damage || E - Eliminate, minimise or mitigate damage by managing IAS of EU concern established in the environment || E.1 - Member States eradicate, control or contain the IAS of EU concern

E.2 - Member States eradicate, control or contain IAS of EU concern, share information and Commission provides guidance

E.3 - Member States eradicate, control or contain IAS of EU concern, share information and require approval from the Commission for the measures envisaged

The problems and objectives of this proposal can be addressed in a proportional and realistic manner by the following sub-options retained for further analysis, presented below.

The basic legislative instrument, containing actions A2, B2, C1, D2 and E2, represents the minimum level of EU intervention. The main delivery mechanism would be a single list of IAS of EU concern, linked to certain harmonised EU obligations: bans on import, holding, sale, purchase, exchange; no release into the environment, early warning and rapid response to newly establishing IAS, as well as eradication, control and containment of established IAS of EU concern. Furthermore, there would be obligations linked to the management of pathways of introduction and spread of IAS. Stakeholders supported also elements which go beyond the basic legislative instrument, thus the following actions have been considered, as add-ons or alternatives:

a) adopting a more stringent approach and extending the scope of certain provisions to go beyond the single list of IAS of EU concern for the release into the environment by:

§ add-on C2: introducing provisions on permits for release of IAS of Member State concern; or

§ add-on C3: strict ban on any release of any alien species unless included in an EU list of alien species approved for release.

b) adopting a more stringent and interventionist approach as regards early warning and rapid response by:

§ alternative action D3: Member States do not have the choice they have an obligation to quickly eradicate newly establishing IAS of EU concern and share information. If Member States wish to resort to control or containment instead, they need to seek the approval of the Commission.

This resulted in the analysis of the following variants of the legislative instrument:

§ option 2.1: the basic legislative instrument (A2, B2, C1, D2 and E2)

§ option 2.2: introducing provisions on permits for the release into the environment of IAS of Member State concern (A2, B2, C1+C2, D2, and E2)

§ option 2.3: introducing a general strict ban on the release of any alien species, unless included on an EU list of IAS approved for release (A2, B2, C1+C3, D2 and E2)

§ option 2.4: introducing an obligation for rapid eradication of newly establishing IAS of EU concern, with the possibility for derogations (A2, B2, C1+C2, D3 and E2).

5.3.1. Option 2.1: the basic legislative instrument

The basic legislative instrument would be underpinned by a single list of IAS of EU concern. The use of a list linked to obligations is an effective, reliable and science-based tool to set priorities for regulating species. It has been used with success in other policy areas, at EU level (e.g. animal and plant health), by third countries (e.g. US and Canada) and by EU Member States (e.g. Germany, France, Latvia, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal). Notably, the mechanisms governing the basic legislative instrument would be similar to those supporting the EU plant health regime and would build on lessons learned therein[70].

This list would include alien species proven to be invasive by risk assessment[71], performed, as it is the case presently, by Member States, consortia of Member States or other organisations (e.g. EPPO[72]), based on pre-agreed criteria (including environmental as well as socio-economic considerations)[73]. A technical process would be established with Member States to decide on minimum standards to perform the risk assessments, in order to ensure sufficient coherence and mutual recognition amongst Member States. Risk assessments would then be evaluated by a dedicated standing committee, which would include Member States representatives and which would also decide on whether a species should be included in the list or otherwise. In order to reduce administrative burden the procedure to decide on listing of IAS should be triggered for several species at a time.

Building up the single list of IAS of EU concern will be a gradual process, as it is not expected that all IAS will be listed immediately. The process could start with a limited number of IAS. Furthermore, the list would be a dynamic one to enable the inclusion of new IAS requested by Member States, whose invasiveness has been ascertained based on new scientific evidence, as well as the exclusion of listed species when justified. The risk entailed by the listed species would be high enough to justify harmonised EU-wide action, even if the species is only affecting certain Member States (see 3.6.2 on solidarity). Although it is not possible at this stage to know how many species will be listed as IAS of EU concern, the 167 species listed in the SEBI list of IAS threatening biodiversity has been used as a reference[74] in this Impact Assessment but they will not constitute the EU list.

The list of IAS of EU concern is associated with obligations aiming both to stop listed species from entering into the EU (prevention) and to address the listed species that have already entered the EU and become established (reaction) to avoid their further spreading. These species might also be listed in national lists; in that case listed species would be subject to EU rules as well as to national rules. The obligations triggered by the list of IAS of EU concern would be:

Prevention - Species listed as IAS of EU concern would be banned from trade/import/marketing/transport (operational objective A) as well as from release into the environment (operational objective C). Similar to the plant health regime, provisional emergency bans would be possible for alien species that are not yet listed, but that are thought to be invasive and should therefore be listed, while the risk assessment is in preparation. The border checks, to establish whether plants and live animals intentionally introduced are on the EU list, would be integrated within the border control system of Regulation 882/2004: this would maximise the synergies of the IAS legislative instrument with existing legislation, thus achieving considerable cost savings. Other border control checks, including those to detect illegal or unauthorised introductions, will be performed by customs officials at EU entry points (e.g. airports, harbours). It is expected that such checks would add to the current responsibilities of customs officers and there would be a need to organise trainings or to develop guidelines to facilitate their task.

A proportion of the listed species would, however, be introduced unintentionally in the EU and escape or disperse into the environment. Moreover, many other unlisted alien species can be brought into the EU unintentionally and may become invasive. To capture these species in the regime (objective B), it will be necessary to manage their pathways of introduction and release. Pathway management, which received special attention in the Council Conclusions[75], would include, but would not be limited to, border checks (e.g. on cargo or commodities shipments) to help detect IAS, alongside other biosecurity measures. While the pathways of pests and diseases are very specific (i.e. infected animals and plants), the pathways of IAS are varied and numerous (see 3.2).

Here again a gradual approach could be proposed. The legislative instrument would concentrate on a very limited number of priority pathways of introduction known to be major routes of entry of IAS on all Member States (such as ballast waters) as well as requiring Member States identify other pathways of relevance to their territory.

Member States would then be required to take action to control the limited set of priority pathways and those they have identified at national level. The measures taken, which could include merely awareness and voluntary measures and possibly regulatory measures, similar, for example, to the system under the plant health regime, would have to be reported to the Commission. The latter could thus maintain an oversight of the process and engage with the Member States to review the approach if need be. The system is designed to develop with increasing implementation experience.

Reaction – the species listed as IAS of EU concern would also be subject to the following obligations: listed IAS newly establishing in the environment would need to trigger an immediate reaction (operational objective D). The choice of the appropriate and proportionate type of reaction, to quickly eradicate, control or contain that species, would rest with the Member States. They would have to notify the Commission and other Member States of the presence of that species on their territory and the measures taken.

Finally, the list of IAS of EU concern may also include species that are already known to be established in the territory of some Member States (legacy of the past). In these cases, concerned Member States would be obliged to take action to manage such species: they would be free to select the appropriate and proportionate measures for the management (eradication, containment or control)[76] of established IAS (operational objective E) and would have to inform the Commission and other Member States of the measures taken. The Commission could provide guidance, if appropriate, to optimise effectiveness across the EU.

In summary, Member States would be required to notify the measures taken to 1) manage major pathways for listed and unlisted IAS; 2) rapidly respond to newly establishing listed IAS and 3) manage the established listed IAS. The Commission would provide advice where appropriate.

The above package of actions would need two implementing mechanisms: 1) a dedicated standing committee (mentioned above for its role in evaluating risk assessments and adding/removing species to/from the list of IAS of EU concern) and 2) a repository of information to collect and exchange information on IAS. The notification obligations to report to the Commission on measures taken and the sharing of information to the repository of information will act also as implementation mechanisms: they will be check points enabling an overview of the process and monitoring and measuring progress against the operational objectives and against the targets set by the Birds and Habitats Directives, the Water Framework Directive and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive; they will also facilitate improved co-ordination amongst Member States and the Commission.

5.3.2. Option 2.2: introducing provisions on permits for the release of IAS of Member State concern (i.e. basic legislative instrument with the addition of action C2)

Besides banning the release of IAS of EU concern, this alternative would require permits for releasing IAS of Member State concern, aiming to prevent the release of IAS that may cause considerable damage in the future. The idea of a stricter approach to release into the environment was favoured by Member States representatives and also by a number of stakeholders within the Working Groups on IAS. The idea of permitting requirements was supported by almost 34% of respondents to the 2012 online consultation, compared to compared to 36% in favour of introducing a list of species approved for release and 12% in favour of simply focusing on the list of EU concern (basic legislative instrument) (Annex II).

This additional requirement would only apply to IAS not in the list of IAS of EU concern, but for which Member States consider that the damage deriving from their release, while not fully ascertained, could be significant. Member States would have the freedom and responsibility to identify such species relevant for their territories (see Figure 8) for which they have reasons to believe they may become invasive, for example because they have shown invasive behaviour in similar ecological conditions. Based on current practice, Member States may identify a few dozen species each[77]. For these species of Member State concern, the Member State would be required to introduce a system of permits to allow their release into the environment, which may be linked to conditions set by the Member State[78]. A permitting approach is already in place for certain species in several Member States (e.g. France, Germany and UK) and a similar system has been successfully introduced with Regulation 708/2007 on the use of alien species in aquaculture. The added value of EU-action would be that this system would be recognised EU-wide, Member States would cooperate on the selection of IAS, and their selection would become an important reference when considering new candidates for listing as IAS of EU concern. Figure 8 provides a schematic representation of the rough proportions of the problem addressed by the basic legislative instrument with the addition of action C2.

Figure 8: Schematic representation of the rough proportion of the problem to be addressed by the basic legislative instrument (i.e. the IAS of EU concern) adding action C2 (i.e. list of IAS of MS concern).

5.3.3. Option 2.3: introducing a strict ban on the release of any alien species, unless included on an EU list of IAS approved for release (i.e. basic legislative instrument with the addition of action C3)

In addition to the basic legislative instrument, action C3 introduces a very ambitious precautionary approach to deal with the release of species into the environment: no alien species would be allowed to be released unless proven to be harmless by risk assessment[79]. The additional action will be based on a common EU list of alien species allowed for release in the whole EU, besides the list of IAS of EU concern, which would still be valid for obligations other than those linked to release. Unlike the approach based on the IAS of Member State concern under action C2, this common EU list would be established, managed and applied at EU level. The idea of such stringent approach to address release into the environment was proposed by a significant number of stakeholders within the Working Groups on IAS, although it found less support from Member States representatives. The idea of introducing an EU list of species approved for release was supported by almost 36% of respondents to the 2012 online consultation (see Annex II).

5.3.4. Option 2.4: introducing an obligation for rapid eradication of newly establishing IAS of EU concern, with the possibility for derogations (i.e. basic legislative instrument with alternative action D3)

While the basic legislative instrument leaves the choice between eradication, control and containment to the Member States, with this alternative they will be obliged to rapidly eradicate newly establishing IAS of EU concern. Member States will be able to apply for a derogation and they will need to prove that eradication is technically unfeasible, a thorough cost benefit analysis shows that costs are exceptionally high and disproportionate or eradication methods are not available or those existing have very serious negative impacts on human health or the environment. The Standing Committee would decide upon it, within a limited time. Pending the Committee's decision the Member State would be required to take measures to contain the IAS and prevent its spread. The eradication obligation entails a high level of EU intervention and was discussed during the Working Groups on IAS: representatives from Member States were cautious about this approach, recognising the need to have EU intervention, but worried about an obligation to eradicate at all costs. Nature conservation organisations tended to favour an approach with stricter obligations. Eradication of IAS was supported by almost 39% of respondents to the online consultation, but the majority (slightly over 62%) advocated an approach based on cost/benefit analysis. The approach proposed, with the possibility for derogations, seeks to address these views.

Table 9 below summarises the role of different actors in providing for the variable actions and variants of the legislative instrument.

Table 9: Responsibilities for the Commission and the Member States for establishing the measures foreseen in the proposed options.

Operational Objectives || European Commission || Member States

A - Prevent intentional introduction of IAS of EU concern into the EU || Option 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4: Management of list of IAS of EU concern || Option 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4: Development of risk assessments and proposing species for listing as IAS of EU concern Border control on IAS of EU concern

B - Prevent unintentional introduction of IAS into the EU and unintentional release into the environment || Option 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 || Option 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4: Pathway management

C - Prevent intentional release of IAS into the environment || Option 2.1: no further action Option 2.2, 2.4: no further action Option 2.3: management of list of alien species not yet present but approved for release || Option 2.1: prevent release into the environment of IAS of EU concern Option 2.2, 2.4 (additional to 2.1): management of permitting system based on national catalogue Option 2.3 (additional to 2.1): prevent release of alien species unless listed in the EU list of alien species approved for release

D - Early Warning and Rapid Response to prevent reproduction and spread of IAS of EU concern into the environment || Options 2.1, 2.2, 2.3: - management of notification and EU early warning system for IAS of EU concern Option 2.4 (additional to above): - management of applications for derogation || Options 2.1, 2.2, 2.3: - surveillance on IAS of EU concern - notification of new populations of IAS of EU concern - rapid response to new populations of IAS of EU concern Option 2.4 (additional to above): - rapid eradication of new populations of IAS of EU concern or application for derogation

E - Eliminate, minimise or mitigate damage by managing IAS of EU concern established in the environment || Option 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 || Option 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4: Management of IAS of EU concern

Horizontal measures || Option 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4: - Management of information system on IAS - Reviewing progress - Management of standing committee || Option 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4: - Participation in information system on IAS - Participation in standing committee

6. Analysis of the Options

The different options will be analysed in the following sections. Table 10 provides a summary of the provisions of the different options.

Table 10: Summary of the provisions of the different options per operational objective

Operational Objectives || Option 0 - Business as Usual (baseline option) || Option 1 – Non-legislative initiatives and voluntary action || Options 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4: – Dedicated legislative instrument

A - Prevent intentional introduction of IAS of EU concern into the EU || - Wildlife Trade Regulation (however unconnected to the other objectives) - Non-harmonised bans in MS disrupting the internal market || - Guidelines encouraging joint action among MS - Additional awareness raising || - Risk-based list of IAS of EU concern

B - Prevent unintentional introduction of IAS into the EU and unintentional release into the environment || - Ballast Water Convention (when into force) - Voluntary codes of conduct || - Additional codes of conduct - Additional awareness raising || - Efforts towards a harmonised approach across the EU, which could include awareness raising and voluntary actions and regulatory measures

C - Prevent intentional release of IAS into the environment || - Alien species in aquaculture - Micro-organisms as biocides || - Guidelines encouraging joint action among MS - Additional awareness raising || - Option 2.1: Harmonised approach across the EU on the release of IAS of EU concern - Option 2.2, 2.4: adding a permit requirement for IAS of MS concern - Option 2.3: in addition introducing a strict ban on any release of any alien species into the environment unless included in a common EU list of alien species approved for release

D - Early Warning and Rapid Response to prevent reproduction and spread of IAS of EU concern into the environment || - Voluntary initiatives || - Guidelines encouraging joint action among MS - Additional awareness raising || - EU-level early warning system - Option 2.1, 2.2, 2.3: Rapid response obligation (eradication, control or management) for newly establishing IAS of EU concern - Option 2.4: introducing the obligation to eradicate newly establishing IAS of EU concern with a possibility of derogation

E - Eliminate, minimise or mitigate damage by managing IAS of EU concern established in the environment || - Ad-hoc approach || - Guidelines encouraging joint action among MS - Additional awareness raising || - Obligation for MS to manage widely spread IAS of EU concern, though the choice of measures is left to them

One inherent difficulty faced in analysing the impacts of different options was the fact that it is impossible to know in advance how many and what sort of invasions will need to be tackled. Similarly, it is not yet known what and how many species will be included in the list of IAS of EU concern[80]. Finally, the assessment would have benefitted from the availability of more data, especially for certain sectors[81] and for certain species[82], but until recently large-scale and comprehensive economic studies on IAS in general have been rare[83].

Another important consideration to be made is that the sectors likely to be affected by the legislative instrument are thought to include several SMEs, including microenterprises. The Commission is concerned about the impact of legislation on small and microenterprises and has a policy of minimising the burden on these businesses; however, they would be expected to fall under the scope of the legislation. IAS can have serious negative impacts on SMEs in sectors such as forestry, agriculture, tourism and recreational activities, businesses currently suffering from the lack of coordinated action on IAS. These sectors would thus benefit from the introduction of coordinated measures to tackle IAS. On the other hand, other SMEs, such as pet traders and the horticultural sector, benefit from trading alien species and could be impacted by the introduction of legislation to tackle IAS, which may pose some restrictions on the use of alien species although it is generally recognised that for most purposes there is always a choice of substitute species that do not present invasive characteristics. Hence the SMEs may adapt their activities without severe losses. Nevertheless, trade in pets and horticultural species are recognised as important pathways of introduction of IAS. Therefore, SMEs and microenterprises will be expected to fully apply the provisions of proposed legislation that apply to them, as excluding these players would completely undermine the effectiveness of the instrument in achieving the proposed goals. Were the microenterprises to be excluded, action on IAS would mostly be taken by public authorities. Action on prevention would be largely undermined as the system would not cover some important sectors responsible for the introduction of IAS into the EU. This would also lead to increased costs for public authorities and other stakeholders in eradicating or otherwise managing IAS, brought in by other sectors leaving unaltered the current situation, where costs and benefits are unevenly distributed. SMEs and microenterprises would thus need to comply with the proposed legislation. It must be underlined, however, that the system envisaged caters for some flexibility to tackle these sectors, while keeping the impact on small and microenterprises to a minimum[84].

6.1. Economic impacts

6.1.1. Option 0: Baseline

The analysis of the baseline found that the total cost of this action amounts to €1.4 billion/yr (see Table 11 and Annex VII), mostly for predominantly reactive action (management of damage) (see rows D and E in Table 11).

Table 11: Estimated cost of action for option 0, based in so far as possible on current expenditure

Option 0 || Estimated cost || Expected trend in costs

A - Risk Assessments || Implementation cost of €3 mio/yr[85] for Member States || =

B - Pathway management || Implementation cost of ballast water treatment: € 109 mio/yr[86] and biofouling treatment: min. €13,700/vessel/event[87] for operators Some awareness campaigns in Member States || ↑↑ When Ballast Water Convention enters into force ↓↓ as the technologies for ballast water treatment evolve and become more efficient and cheaper

C - Release into the environment || Variety of systems in Member States, difficult to quantify || =

D – Surveillance || Implementation cost of €7 mio/yr[88] for Member States EEA: Nature Watch - pilot project on IAS[89] || =

D - Rapid eradication || Included in management of IAS || =

E - Management of IAS || Implementation cost of €1.309 bio/yr[90], for Member States, EU and citizens || ↑↑ or large damage increase (see 3.5)

Information system || Implementation cost of €3.4 mio/yr for Member States and EU, including information systems at Member State level (€3.3 mio/yr[91]), NOBANIS (€120,000-140,000/year[92]) and efforts by JRC into EASIN (€230,000/year[93]) || =

Policy management || Strategy development, policy development and coordination and policy support (studies): implementation cost of €2 mio/yr for Member States[94] || =

|| € 1.433 bio/yr || ↑↑ or large damage increase (see 3.5)

6.1.2. Option 1: Cooperation and voluntary action

The actions proposed under Option 1 include voluntary exercises to coordinate and communication and awareness raising campaigns.

The additional costs of option 1, compared to potion 0, are thought to be limited: they would be limited to organising campaigns and voluntary actions, generally cheaper than the actions needed to manage the damage of IAS. On the other hand, a number of effective campaigns could reduce the cost increase of damage management. It is nevertheless very difficult to assess the possible impacts of cooperation and voluntary action: thus it can be reasonably assumed that their impact on the massive damage management costs will remain limited. The cost of option 1 will thus be considered within the same magnitude as option 0, thus €1.4 billion/yr, although the cost increase in the future might be less pronounced.

6.1.3. Option 2.1: the basic legislative instrument

The basic legislative instrument would introduce mandatory provisions aiming (1) at preventing new species entering or establishing in the EU and (2) at coordinating the management of established species so as to eliminate, minimise or mitigate their damage.

The measures would lead to a reorganisation of the current expenditure - focusing more on prevention and less on reaction - and to a more efficient use of resources – through a coherent prioritisation. Additional costs compared to the baseline would be kept to a minimum – by making maximum use of existing provisions. Efficiency gains will accrue from: 1) more focus on prevention, which will result in an avoidance of damage costs growing by billions a year; 2) coordinated action focusing on the list of IAS of EU concern, resulting in streamlined measures, avoiding action in one Member State being undermined by lack of action in a neighbouring Member State; 3) sharing information, thus avoiding parallel investment and the duplication of efforts, e.g. investments in data collection and risk assessments; and 4) integrating actions into existing systems in so far as possible by (a) integrating IAS surveillance into the current surveillance of biodiversity, (b) building an IAS information system based on current information systems and (c) integrating the border control on intentional introductions of IAS into the current border control in support of the animal and plant health regimes, thus keeping additional costs to a minimum.

The costs of option 2.1 have been estimated on the basis of similar experiences in EU policy implementation and in Member States or with