Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Towards an EU strategy on invasive species [SEC(2008) 2887 et SEC(2008) 2886]
Date: 2008-12-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: biodiversity, ecology, ecosystem, harmful plant, parasitology, plant propagation, toxic substance

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 3.12.2008 
COM(2008) 789 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

TOWARDS AN EU STRATEGY ON INVASIVE SPECIES 

[SEC(2008) 2887 et 
SEC(2008) 2886] 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
 
1. 

WHAT ARE INVASIVE SPECIES? 

Earth's  flora  and  fauna  have  evolved  over  billions  of  years,  and  its  oceans,  seas,  mountain 
ranges,  deserts  and  even  large  rivers  have  created  physical  barriers  to  the  movement  of 
species, thus contributing significantly to the planet's wide biodiversity and the development 
of animal and plant communities which we regard as typical of particular regions or localities. 
However,  through  the  influence  of  man,  the  physical  barriers  that  gave  rise  to  the 
development  of  regionally  distinct  flora  and  fauna  have  been  circumvented  and  species  are 
arriving, either by accident or by design,  in localities hundreds and  thousands of kilometres 
away from their normal habitat. In many cases these non-native species adapt poorly to their 
new surroundings and they rapidly die out. However, in other cases they survive, reproduce 
and become established. In some instances these new arrivals are so successful that they are 
no  longer  a  biological  curiosity  but  a  real  threat,  causing  serious  damage  not  only  to 
ecosystems but also to crops and livestock, disrupting the local ecology, impacting on human 
health and producing serious economic effects. Non-native species that have such a negative 
impact are known as Invasive Species or IS1. 

2. 

NEED FOR AN URGENT RESPONSE AT EU LEVEL 

The  main  drivers  directly  affecting  biodiversity  are  habitat  change,  climate  change, 
overexploitation, pollution and IS2. While EU instruments exist to deal with four out of those 
five factors, there is, in contrast to several other OECD countries, currently no comprehensive 
instrument at EU level to tackle IS. This shortcoming needs to be addressed if the EU is to 
attain  its  goal  "to  halt  the  decline  of  biodiversity  by  2010"3  In  addition,  IS  represent  also  a 
major  economic  threat  to  the  EU.  The  damage  caused  by  IS  and  the  necessary  control 
measures  are  estimated  as  costing  at  least  EUR  12  000  million  annually,  according  to 
available documented information.  

The  need  for  coordinated  action  to  tackle  the  IS  issue  has  been  expressed  at  the  highest 
political levels. The Environment Council4, the European Parliament5, the Committee of the 
Regions6 and the European Economic and Social Committee7 have all stressed the need for an 
EU  strategy  on  IS  and  an  effective  early  warning  system  and  for  effective  response 
the 
mechanisms  at  EU 
Sixth Environmental Action Programme (6th EAP), the Communication from the Commission 
on  Halting  the  Loss  of  Biodiversity  by  2010  and  Beyond8  and  its  associated  Action  Plan, 

level.  Similar  commitments  have  been 

included 

in 

1 

2 
3 
4 
5 

6 

7 

8 

The  term  ‘Invasive  Species’  used  throughout  this  document  encompasses  the  terms  ‘Invasive  Alien  Species’  as 
found  in  the  Convention  on  Biological  Diversity  and  'Invasive  non-native  species'.  Invasive  Species  are  broadly 
defined  as  species  whose  introduction  and/or  spread  may  threaten  biological  diversity  or  have  other  unforeseen 
consequences. 
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. 
Presidency Conclusions, Goteborg European Council, 15-16 June 2001. 
Council Conclusions (Environment), 3 March 2008, paragraph 13. 
Report on Halting the Loss of Biodiversity by 2010, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food 
Safety, European Parliament, 28.3.2007. 
Opinion  of  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  of  6  December  2006  on  the  Communication  from  the  Commission: 
Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 – and beyond (COM(2006) 216 final), CdR 159/2006 fin. 
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 15 February 2007 on the Communication from the 
Commission on Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 - and beyond (COM(2006) 216 final), NAT/334 - CESE 
205/2007 fin DE/Ho/hn. 
COM(2006) 216 final. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

                                                 
where  it  was  recognized  that  "a  comprehensive  EU  strategy  should  be  developed"  to 
substantially reduce the impact on EU Biodiversity of invasive alien species. 

The main pathways for IS introduction are associated directly or indirectly with trade. Rapidly 
growing  trade  and  transport  activities  expand  the  opportunities  for  IS  introduction,  and 
environmental  pressures  such  as  rising  CO2  concentrations,  warmer  temperatures,  greater 
nitrogen deposition, altered disturbance regimes and increased habitat degradation are likely 
to facilitate further invasions. Trade is an exclusive Community competence and once goods 
are  placed  on  the  Community  market  they  are  able  to  circulate  freely.  Addressing  trade-
related issues can only be done effectively at the EC's external frontier. The existence of the 
single market means that once an IS is brought into the territory of one Member State, either 
as  a  traded  commodity  or  carried  on  a  traded  commodity,  it  can  be  dispersed  rapidly 
throughout the EU. Given the way that these species become established and spread, measures 
taken by one Member State can be totally negated if neighbouring countries fail to take action 
or respond in an uncoordinated manner.  

Existing  EU  legislation  and  policies  already  provide  part  of  the  solution  to  the  IS  problem. 
However,  at  present  there  are  no  mechanisms  to  support  harmonisation  or  consistency  of 
approaches between neighbouring countries or countries in the same sub-region. There is no 
systematic formal requirement for risk analysis in connection with intentional introduction of 
non-native  species  that  may  affect  biodiversity,  and  accidental  or  negligent  introductions 
remain  largely  unregulated  at  both  Member  State  and  Community  level.  No  unified  system 
exists to monitor and control IS and their effects on European biodiversity. The fragmented 
measures in place are unlikely to make a substantial contribution to lowering the risks which 
IS pose to European ecosystems. 

3. 

IS IN EUROPE AND THEIR IMPACT 

3.1. 

IS in Europe 

The  DAISIE9  project  supported  under  the  Sixth  EU  Research  Framework  Programme  has 
identified  10 822  non-native  species  present  in  Europe,  10-15 %  of  which  are  expected  to 
have  a  negative  economic  or  ecological  impact.  Isolated  islands  with  high  biodiversity, 
including most of the EU’s overseas entities, are exceptionally vulnerable to invasion, which 
can  also  have  a  disproportionate  impact  on  local  livelihoods,  culture  and  economic 
opportunities. 

3.2. 

Pathways 

As  regards  introduction  pathways,  most  invasive  plants  originally  escape  from  gardens  or 
aquaria, while invasive freshwater fauna reach the wild via aquaculture escapes or deliberate 
stocking  by  anglers.  In  contrast,  most  invasive  species  in  the  marine  environment  are 
unintentionally  introduced  as  "hitchhikers"  or  contaminants  (e.g.  via  ballast  water).  With 
increasing  volumes  of  plant  and  animal  materials  from  more  and  more  locations  being 
transported across the globe, the potential for introduction of IS is also rising. 

9 

DAISIE (Delivering Alien Invasive Species Inventories for Europe), www.europe-aliens.org 

EN 

3 

   EN 

                                                 
3.3. 

Impact of IS on Ecology 

IS are considered one of the major threats to biodiversity10. Ways in which they impact on the 
local ecology include:  

•  competition  with  native  organisms  for  food  and  habitat,  for  example  the  American  grey 
squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) displaces the native red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris) in many 
areas of Europe, or the American signal crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus) displaces the 
native  European  crayfish  (Astacus  spp.),  or  the  several  species  of  paraqueets  which  now 
occupy many European cities compete with native bird species;  

•  changing  ecosystem  structures,  for  example  the  seaweed  Caulerpa  taxifolia  has  changed 

extensive areas of the Mediterranean coast into Caulerpa monocultures;  

•  hybridisation with native species, for example ruddy duck (Oxyura jamaicensis) and Sika 
deer (Cervus nippon) can threaten native species with local extinction due to inter-breeding 
and the production of hybrids;  

•  direct toxicity;  

•  being a reservoir for parasites or a vector for pathogens;  

•  disruption of pollination services due to competition with local bee species. 

3.4. 

Impact of IS on Economic Activities 

IS  can  reduce  yields  from  agriculture,  forestry  and  fisheries.  The  Asian  long-horned  beetle 
(Anoplophora  glabripennis)  for  example  induces  heavy  damage  in  broadleaved  stands, 
including  poplar  plantations.  The  Comb  jelly  (Mnemiopsis  leidyi)  reduces  the  commercial 
anchovy catch in the Black Sea. IS are also known to decrease water availability and to cause 
land  degradation.  Invasive  plants  such  as  the  Himalayan  balsam  (Impatiens  glandulifera) 
outcompete native plants that play an important role in binding soil with their roots and may 
thereby contribute to increased soil erosion.  

IS can damage infrastructure due to burrowing or via their root systems. The root system of 
the Tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima) can damage pavements, archaeological remains and 
walls.  IS  may  also  obstruct  transportation  by  blocking  waterways.  The  Coypu  (Myocastor 
coypus) and the Musk Rat (Ondatra zibethicus), both brought to Europe from the Americas 
for  their  fur,  are  now  established  throughout  Europe  and  cause  significant  damage  to  dams, 
canals, irrigation and flood protection systems. One of the most notorious invasive species is 
the  Zebra  mussel  (Dreissena  polymorpha)  which,  in  addition  to  its  significant  ecological 
impact, causes massive problems for industry by fouling and blocking intake pipes for water 
extraction. 

Azolla waterfern (Azolla spp.) and Eastern White pine (Pinus strobus) have led to a decline in 
recreational  and  cultural  heritage  values  associated  with  different  landscapes  and  water 
bodies. 

10 

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

                                                 
3.5. 

Impact of IS on Human Health 

A number of human health problems, e.g. allergies and skin problems, are caused by IS such 
as  the  Giant  hogweed  (Heracleum  mantegazzianum)  and  the  Common  hogweed  (Ambrosia 
artemisiifolia). The Asian tiger mosquito (Aedes albopictus), which is increasingly present in 
Europe  and  is  a  vector  for  at  least  22  arboviruses  (including  dengue,  Chikungunya,  Ross 
River,  and  West  Nile),  was  introduced  via  trade in  used  tyres.  Climate  change  is  likely  to 
foster its spread further north.  

3.6. 

Costs due to IS  

The  main  identified  costs  in  Europe  comprise  eradication  and  control  costs  and  damage  to 
agriculture,  forestry,  commercial  fisheries,  infrastructure  and  human  health.  While  it  may 
appear  that  there  are  either  impact  costs  or  eradication  costs,  in  fact  partial  eradication  and 
control programmes are undertaken in parallel, on an ongoing basis in order to try and limit 
the impact. In 2008, an initial estimate assessed annual IS-related costs in Europe at between 
EUR  9  600  million  and  EUR  12  700  million  per year (Kettunen  et al.  2008). This figure is 
undoubtedly an underestimate, as it is based on current expenditure to eradicate and control IS 
plus  the  documented  cost  of the  economic  impact.  Given  that  many  countries  are  only  now 
starting  to  document  and  record  costs  and  effects,  the  real  figures  for  the  financial  costs 
involved will be considerably higher.  

4. 

FROM INTRODUCTION TO ESTABLISHMENT AND DISPERSAL 

To tackle IS successfully it is necessary to understand how and why the problems arise. 

Most  non-native  species  present  in  Europe  were  introduced  intentionally.  Their  use  in 
farming,  forestry,  aquaculture,  mariculture  and  ornamental//horticultural  or  for  recreational 
purposes has increased across Europe since the early 20th century. Non-native species may be 
imported  because  they  grow  faster  (e.g.  increased  economic  returns  on  forestry  trees,  soil 
erosion protection), satisfy demand for exotic products (fur trade), feed on and suppress other 
species (biological control agents), or simply because people like them (pets, garden plants).  

Many  species  introductions  are  directly  related  to  trade,  where  the  species  is  itself  the 
commodity  (wood,  fibres,  living  or  dead  plants  and  animals)  or  is  a  contaminant  of  a 
commodity (many pests – fungi, bacteria, viruses and insects – are introduced unintentionally 
attached to the main traded commodity). In addition, ‘hitchhiker’ species may be introduced 
through trade or transport pathways independently of a commodity. For example, ship hulls 
provide  well-known  vectors  for  hull-fouling  organisms  and  organisms  spread  with  ballast 
water. Such pathways may be international (e.g. oceanic shipping) or local (e.g. transport of 
pleasure boats from an infested river basin to an uncontaminated river or lake). 

Climate  change  also  has  an  impact  on  species  distributions,  and  the  survival  and  spread  of 
some IS can be explained by the milder winters and warmer summers that Europe has been 
experiencing over the last decade.  

Problems  with  non-native  species  will  generally  only  start  to  arise  when  they  move  out  of 
controlled and physically restricted locations. Ornamental plants and animals as well as pets 
will not cause a problem if they remain in gardens, aquaria or homes. Pathogens or pests can 
be eliminated on arrival by sanitary control measures. Crustacea, molluscs and fish carried in 
ballast water can be eliminated if the ballast water is treated before being discharged.  

EN 

5 

   EN 

However, if plant and animal pests and diseases are not detected and eradicated at the border, 
or  if  ornamental  plants  and  pets  escape  or  are  released  into  local  ponds  and  streams,  or  if 
animals  from  fur  farms  such  as  Coypu  (Myocastor  coypus),  Musk  rat  (Ondatra  zibethicus), 
American mink (Mustela vison) and Raccoon (Procyon lotor) escape into the wild, then there 
is a risk that they will become invasive species.  

In some cases the climatic conditions may not be suitable or the local flora and fauna may be 
more  resilient  and  the  non-native  species  may  die  out.  In  other  situations,  if  the  climate  is 
suitable  and  competition  and  predation  from  the  indigenous  species  is  weak,  then  the  non-
native species may survive, grow and reproduce and succeed in establishing a local colony.  

If  the  local  colony  of  the  invading  species  is  not  detected  and  eradicated  quickly,  then  it 
establishes a sustainable population at the local level which will disperse into new territories. 
Obviously, if there are several local populations established from different original stock, then 
the  dispersal  process  will  be  speeded  up  and  the  species  will  be  less  vulnerable  to  local 
extinction. Eventually, after a period  of  years  or  decades,  a  species  can  become  widespread 
across several countries and virtually impossible to eliminate. 

5. 

STRATEGIES TO TACKLE IS 

5.1. 

The Three-stage Hierarchical Approach 

As  regards  the  policy  response  to  IS  threats,  an  internationally  agreed  "three-stage 
hierarchical approach"11 supports measures based on 1) prevention, 2) early detection and 
eradication,  and  3)  control  and  long-term  containment.  This  approach  covers  new 
introductions  and  management  of  established  IS.  It  reflects  scientific  and  policy  consensus 
that prevention is generally far more cost-effective and environmentally desirable than post-
introduction measures. However, where an IS has been introduced, early detection and rapid 
eradication  are  the  most  cost-effective  ways  to  prevent  establishment  and  further  spread, 
backed  by  early  warning  and  information  exchange.  If  eradication  is  not  feasible,  control 
and/or containment measures should be implemented.  

Prevention: There are six principal pathways for IS: release, escape, contaminant, hitchhiker, 
corridor and unaided. The majority of introductions occur directly or indirectly as a result of 
trade. To reduce or prevent further introductions by this route it would be necessary to step up 
controls  and  inspections  at  borders  in  conjunction  with  an  assessment  procedure  for 
determining  the  acceptability  or  otherwise  of  importations  of  new  commodities.  Such 
approaches would need to be informed by exchange of information between national, regional 
and  international  bodies  working  on  the  control  of  IS.  Prevention  in  relation  to  hitchhiker 
organisms brought in on the hulls or in the ballast water of ships would hugely benefit from 
the ratification and implementation of the Ballast Water Convention.  

Early Detection and Rapid Eradication of IS depend on effective monitoring programmes 
coupled  with  an  early  warning  mechanism  to  inform  other  potentially  affected  areas  as 
quickly as possible and to exchange information on potential eradication strategies. In cases 
where the IS has already become established and is spread across a wide geographical area, 

11 

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD): Guiding Principles for the prevention, introduction and mitigation of 
impacts  of  alien  invasive  species  that  threaten  ecosystems,  habitats  or  species  annexed  to  Decision  VI/23  (The 
Hague, April 2002). 

EN 

6 

   EN 

                                                 
coordinated eradication programmes overseen and possibly financially supported by a central 
body would be desirable. 

Control and/or Containment: Where IS are both established and widespread, the emphasis 
must be placed on control and containment. Once again this will entail effective exchange of 
information and implementation of coordinated campaigns/actions to control/stop the spread 
of the species concerned. 

5.2. 

Existing Tools for tackling IS in Europe 

Having regard to the different elements of a strategy as described above, the Commission has 
assessed  the  current  legislation,  research  programmes,  action  plans  and  other  initiatives  to 
identify which aspects are already covered and where there are gaps. 

The  Plant  Health  Directive  (2000/29/EC)  is  primarily  concerned  with  preventing  the 
introduction and spread of harmful organisms which are injurious to plants or plant products. 
New species can be added to the EU list of harmful organisms recognised under the Directive 
based  on  a  pest  risk  assessment.  The  Member  States  have  well-developed  mechanisms  for 
transmitting  information,  cooperation,  inspection  and  control.  The  Directive  allows  flexible 
mechanisms to take emergency measures in case where harmful organisms are found on the 
territory  of  the  Member  States.  However,  IS  impacts  on  human  health  or  direct  economic 
consequences  resulting,  for  instance,  from  the  clogging  of  waterways  do  not  fall  within  the 
scope of the legislation.  

EU  legislation  on  animal  diseases  can  cover  IS  when  they  are  vectors  of  animal  disease. 
Control  and  inspection  procedures  are  in  place  in  the  Member  States  as  are  EU-wide 
assessment  procedures.  Under  the  Community  network  for  communicable  diseases, 
harmonised  rules  have  been  adopted  which  require  early  notification  of  public  health 
measures taken or intended to be taken by Member States in the event of for example a new 
epidemiological situation or health threats caused by the occurrence of IS. 

The  import  of  four  species12  which  constitute  an  ecological  threat  is  prohibited  under  the 
Wildlife Trade Regulation (Council Regulation 338/97) primarily designed to control trade 
in  endangered  species.  Member  States  have  established  inspection  and  control  procedures 
under the Regulation, but there are no assessment procedures.  

Council  Regulation  708/2007  on  the  use  of  alien  and  locally  absent  species  in 
aquaculture  provides  for  assessment  of  risks  associated  with  intentional  introductions  of 
aquaculture  organisms  and  associated  non-target  species.  The  Nature  Directives 
(79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC) proscribe introductions into the wild that may threaten native 
species. The Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) requires Member States to achieve 
good  ecological  status  in  relevant  waters.  The  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive 
(2008/56/EC) recognises the introduction of non-native species as a major threat to European 
biodiversity and specifically requires Member States to include IS in the description of "Good 
Environmental Status". 

The  LIFE  programme  finances  projects  dealing  with  IS  control  and  eradication:  between 
1992  and  2002,  over  100  projects  were  funded  (total  cost  EUR  27  million),  and  80  were 

12 

Red-eared  slider  (Trachemys  scripta  elegans);  American  bullfrog  (Rana  catesbeiana);  Painted  turtle  (Chrysemys 
picta); American ruddy duck (Oxyura jamaicensis). 

EN 

7 

   EN 

                                                 
financed  between  2003  and  2006  (total  cost  EUR  17  million).  The  Sixth  Research 
Framework  Programme  funded  2  IS-related  projects:  ALARM13  and  DAISIE14.  The 
DAISIE  project  delivered  the  first  pan-European  inventory  of  Invasive  Alien  Species.  The 
South  Atlantic  Invasive  Species  Project  (SAIS),  supported  by  the  Ninth  European 
Development Fund, aims to increase the regional capacity to reduce the impact of invasive 
species on the South Atlantic United Kingdom Overseas Territories. 

In  2003,  the  European  Strategy  on  Invasive  Alien  Species  was  adopted  under  the  Bern 
Convention.  The  European  and  Mediterranean  Plant  Protection  Organisation  (EPPO) 
operates  a  pest  reporting  system  and  maintains  lists  of  IAS  recommended  for  national 
regulation  to  prevent  further  introduction  and  spread,  including  invasive  alien  plants.  Four 
IAS  have  been  the  subject  of  assessments  undertaken  by  EPPO  and  considered  by  the 
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), but as yet none of the assessments are considered 
satisfactory by EFSA.  

6. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

There are a number of possible responses to tackling IS which could be envisaged in the EU. 
This  Communication  describes  four  options15  in  order  of  increasing  intensity.  However,  the 
options are not discrete or mutually exclusive and elements from the different options could 
be combined. For each option the benefits and drawbacks are described.  

A) Business as Usual  

The "business as usual" option provides a reference point against which other options can be 
assessed. But clearly, if no action is taken, IS will continue to become established in the EU 
with increased associated ecological, economic and social consequences and related costs. 

B) Maximising the use of existing legal instruments together with voluntary measures 

The formal legal requirements would remain as they are today but there would be a conscious 
decision  to  proactively  address  IS  problems  under  existing  legislation.  This  would  imply 
carrying out risk assessments using existing institutions and procedures such as the European 
Food Safety Authority. Member States would voluntarily make IS issues part of their border 
control  function.  A  Europe-wide  Early  Warning  and  Information  System  based  on  existing 
activities16  could  also  be  set  up17.  The  DAISIE  inventory  of  IS  could  be  maintained  and 
updated  regularly.  Species  eradication  plans  would  be  developed  and  supported  by  national 
funds.  Cross-sectoral  stakeholder  groups  could  be  set  up  at  appropriate  levels  to  foster 
exchange  of  best  practice,  to  develop  targeted  guidance  and  to  help  resolve  conflicts  of 
interest. Voluntary codes of  conduct could be drawn up to encourage responsible  behaviour 
by retailers, users and consumers.  

13 
14 
15 

16 

17 

ALARM (Assessing Large-scale Risks for Biodiversity with tested Methods), www.alarmproject.net 
DAISIE (Delivering Alien Invasive Species Inventories for Europe), www.europe-aliens.org 
The  choice for  one  option or  combined options will  depend  on  the  results  of  a prior  financial  impact 
analysis. 
The IAS Inventory for Europe delivered by DAISIE see http://www.europe-aliens.org/index.jsp; NOBANIS (North 
European and Baltic Network on IAS); scientific online journals including "Aquatic Invasions" and "Biorisk". 
A feasibility study is currently being carried out by the EEA. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

                                                 
The  main  advantage  of  this  option  is  that  it  would  not  require  new  legislation.  Assessment 
procedures  and  Member  States'  control  and  inspection  procedures  already  exist.  However, 
even  with  a  proactive  approach  the  coverage  would  not  be  complete,  considerable  legal 
uncertainty would remain, and the level of response to the threat of IS would be likely to vary 
considerably  between  Member  States.  Coordination  of 
the  assemblage  of  ad-hoc 
arrangements could prove challenging. A system which is built on voluntary undertakings by 
Member States and voluntary codes of conduct would only be as effective as the weakest link 
in a chain. 

B+) Adapted existing legislation 

This  option  is  similar  to  option  B  in  most  respects,  but  would  include  amendments  to  the 
existing  legislation  on  plant/animal  health  to  cover  a  broader  range  of  potentially  invasive 
organisms and extension of the list of ‘ecological threat species’ for which import and internal 
movement  are  prohibited  under  the  Wildlife  Trade  Regulation.  If  this  approach  were 
followed, additional resources would need to be dedicated to IS in the assessment process and 
in the border control activities carried out by Member States. 

The  advantage  of  this  approach  is  that  while  some  legal  uncertainties  and  gaps  would  be 
addressed,  no  new  piece  of  legislation  would  be  required.  However,  coverage  of  the  IS 
problem  would  still  not  be  comprehensive  or  complete  and  co-ordination  would  be  a 
significant challenge. 

C) Comprehensive, dedicated EU legal instrument 

This option would involve the setting up of a comprehensive, dedicated legal framework for 
tackling IS with independent procedures for assessment and intervention taking into account 
existing legislation. If it were considered desirable and cost effective, the technical aspects of 
the  implementation  could  be  centralized  by  a  dedicated  agency18.  Member  States  including 
the European Outermost Regions would be obliged to carry out controls at borders for IS and 
to exchange information on IS. Mandatory monitoring and reporting procedures and efficient 
rapid response mechanisms might also be established. While it is possible to envisage some 
EU funding being dedicated to support eradication and control actions, Member States could 
also fund these actions directly. 

This  option  would  be  the  most  effective  in  terms  of  control  of  IS.  It  would  provide  the 
greatest legal clarity whilst respecting the principle of proportionality. However, there would 
be administrative costs for the Member States and for the Commission as well as direct costs 
for economic operators. 

7. 

HORIZONTAL ISSUES 

It  is  important  to  have  an  informed  and  engaged  public  in  order  to  address  IS  issues 
effectively,  particularly  as  regards  unintentional  introductions  which  administrative/legal 
instruments cannot cover satisfactorily. Communication and education activities should build 

18 

The partial or full implementation of this option will also depend on the outcomes of the forthcoming 
discussion  of  the  Inter  institutional  working  group  on  agencies.  Extension  of  the  mandate  of  existing 
bodies could also be considered.  

EN 

9 

   EN 

                                                 
a sense of responsibility amongst European citizens, authorities and industries with regard to 
trade in and movement of potential IS, as well as eradication and/or control programmes. A 
better informed public would bring fewer non-native species into their gardens and ponds.  

Further  research  can  contribute  to  a  better  understanding  of  IS  and  the  pathways  of  their 
introduction as well as the risks and severity of IS occurrences, e.g. prediction of invasion by 
new  species  and  cost-effective  control  and  management  methods.  Research  and  monitoring 
results together with initiatives such as open-access online journals can all  contribute  to  the 
development  of  information  systems  on  IS.  The  Global  Monitoring  for  Environment  and 
Security (GMES) initiative19 could also be a valuable tool for the monitoring and control of 
the impact of IS on the environment.  

Any future EU strategy on tackling IS should also take account of the possibilities for using 
EU  funding  instruments  to  support  the  policy.  The  potential  to  involve  the  private  sector, 
including the insurance sector, should also be assessed.  

Third countries are the source of IS arriving in the EU. However, the EU may also represent a 
potential source of IS to these third countries. IS in third countries may lead to deterioration of 
livelihoods and hence enhanced migration and possible conflicts. While efforts will continue 
to be made in the context of international conventions such as the Convention on Biological 
Diversity and the Bern Convention, the European Community has a considerable potential for 
direct bi-lateral actions with third countries to reduce the pressure from IS in both directions. 
The European Community can support third countries and regional or international activities 
through its Development Cooperation Instrument (in particular the Environment and Natural 
Resources  Thematic  Programme),  the  European  Development  Fund  and  the  European 
Neighbourhood  and  Partnership  Instrument.  Member  States  can  provide  additional  support 
through their own development cooperation instruments.  

8. 

CONCLUSION 

Halting  the  loss  of  biodiversity  in  the  EU  will  not  be  possible  without  tackling  IS  in  a 
comprehensive  manner.  The  ecological,  economic  and  social  consequences  of  IS  in  the  EU 
are significant and require a coordinated response. At present the Community is unable to deal 
with  IS  efficiently  and  biodiversity-rich  areas,  e.g.  EU  overseas  entities,  do  not  receive 
appropriate  attention.  The  existing  EU  legislation  partially  covering  different  aspects  of  IS 
makes coordinated implementation difficult. Policy consistency between most Member States 
is  low  or  non-existent.  Scientific  scenarios  point  to  a  dramatic  increase  in  biological 
invasions. Therefore the situation is likely to get worse. 

This  Communication  describes  the  nature  of  the  threat  posed  by  IS  as  well  as  the  possible 
approaches for addressing the problem. The feedback received from the Council, the other EU 
institutions  and  stakeholders  will  be  taken  into  account  by  the  Commission  in  finalising  its 
proposal  for  an  EU  Strategy  which  it  intends  to  bring  forward  in  2010  with  the  aim  of 
substantially  reducing  the  impact  of  IS  on  European  biodiversity.  In  the  meantime,  the 
Commission  will  examine  the  possibility  of  setting  up  an  Early  Warning  and  Information 
System based on a regularly updated inventory combined with effective response mechanisms 
which it considers would be an important step forward. 

19 

COM(2008) 748 final. 

EN 

10 

   EN