Commission staff working document - Annex to the 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 - Impact assessment {COM(2008) 789 final} {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 
SEC(2008) 2887 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Annex to the 

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 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

{COM(2008) 789 final} 
{SEC(2008) 2886} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT .......................................................................................................... 4 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

1.3. 

1.4. 

1.5. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties .............................................. 4 

Policy context............................................................................................................... 4 

Legal context................................................................................................................ 4 

Stakeholder Consultation and expert input .................................................................. 6 

Internal Consultation.................................................................................................... 6 

Impact Assessment Board ............................................................................................ 7 

Problem Definition....................................................................................................... 7 

IS definition and pathways........................................................................................... 7 

IS in Europe, their environmental and economic impact and related costs ................. 8 

2.2.1.  General......................................................................................................................... 8 

2.2.2.  Environmental impact .................................................................................................. 9 

2.2.3.  Economic impact........................................................................................................ 10 

2.2.4.  Costs occurred ........................................................................................................... 13 

2.3. 

The International Dimension of IS............................................................................. 16 

2.4.  Why Action at EU level? ........................................................................................... 16 

3. 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

Objectives................................................................................................................... 18 

Policy options............................................................................................................. 19 

Option A: "Business as Usual" .................................................................................. 19 

Option B: "Maximise the use of existing approaches" .............................................. 21 

4.2.1.  Prevention .................................................................................................................. 21 

4.2.2.  Early warning and information.................................................................................. 22 

4.2.3.  Eradication and control measures ............................................................................. 24 

4.3. 

4.4. 

4.5. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

Suboption B+: Adapting existing legislation ............................................................. 25 

Option C: Comprehensive, dedicated EU legal instrument ....................................... 25 

Horizontal issues ........................................................................................................ 26 

Comparing the options ............................................................................................... 29 

Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 35 

Monitoring and evaluation ......................................................................................... 37 

EN 

2 

   EN 

List of Annexes, Support Documents and References............................................................. 38 

ANNEX A - Figures and Tables .............................................................................................. 40 

ANNEX B - Relevant EU research projects ............................................................................ 59 

ANNEX C - Examples of costs and benefits of IAS policy measures..................................... 62 

EN 

3 

   EN 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

1. 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

1.1. 

Policy context  

Invasive Species (IS) present a serious threat to biodiversity which needs to be addressed if 
the  EU  is  to  attain  its  target  "to  halt  the  decline  of  biodiversity  by  2010"1.  The 
Sixth Environmental  Action  Programme  (6th  EAP)  has  identified  IS  as  a  priority  area  for 
action. The Communication on Halting the Loss of Biodiversity by 2010 and Beyond2 and its 
associated Action Plan highlight action on IS as a priority objective and identify the need for 
the Community to develop a comprehensive strategy to address the IS threat.  

In relevant conclusions, the Environment Council "calls upon the Commission to assess gaps 
in the current legal, policy and economic framework for the prevention of introduction and for 
the control and eradication of invasive alien species; invites the Commission, in cooperation 
with  the  Member  States,  to  prepare  an  EU  strategy  and  an  effective  early  warning  system, 
taking into account biogeographical regions, on the basis of the CBD Guiding Principles on 
Invasive  Alien  Species,  taking  into  account  the  Bern  Convention  European  Strategy  on 
Invasive  Alien  Species  and  recognising  the  efforts  made  by  relevant  Conventions  and 
Organisations  such  as  the  IPPC  and  the  EPPO"3.  The  European  Parliament  “urges  the 
development  of  a  comprehensive  Community  response  to  the  problem  of  IS,  including  an 
early  warning  system,  and  filling  gaps  in  the  legislative  framework,  including  the 
development  of  an  EU  Strategy  on  IS”4.  The  Committee  of  the  Regions5  and  the  European 
Economic and Social Committee6 have also expressed support for the Communication and its 
priorities, including those on IS. 

Furthermore the Environment Council conclusions of 3 March 2008 note the increasing threat 
to biodiversity from IS and supports action at EU level.  

1.2. 

Legal context 

The  existing  EU  legislation7  (e.g.  Council  Regulation  338/97  (Wildlife  Trade  Regulation), 
Directive  2000/29/EC  (Plant  Health  Directive),  Veterinary  Legislation,  Council  Regulation 
708/2007  (concerning  use  of  alien  and  locally  absent  species  in  aquaculture)  covering 

1 
2 
3 
4 

5 

6 

7 

Presidency Conclusions, Goteborg European Council, 15-16 June 2001 
COM(2006) 216 
Council conclusions on Halting the Loss of Biodiversity (COM(2006) 216), 18 December 2006 
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 
For  detailed 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/invasivealien/docs/2006_06_IS_scope_options.pdf 

for  EU  Action  on 

"Scope  options 

information 

report 

IS" 

see 

see 

EN 

4 

   EN 

                                                 
partially some different aspects of IS makes coordinated implementation difficult. The table 
below gives an overview of these four instruments and their applicability to the IS issue. 

Council 
Regulation 
338/97 

Directive 
2000/29/EC  

Veterinary 
Legislation  

Council 
Regulation 
708/2007 

Legal basis 

Article 130 S 

Article 37 

Article 37 

Article 37 

Ecological impact 

///////////////////8  

Economic impact 

Health (plant) 

Health (animal) 

Health (human) 

Special species group 

Legal trade 

Illegal trade 

Hitchhikers 

X 

X 

////////////////////// 

X 

X 

X 

Border control 
measures in place 

X 

Assessment 
procedure established 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

The dark zones represent the gaps which are not covered by current legislation. The /// zones 
show  areas  of  partial  coverage.  A  wider  definition  of  harmful  in  the  context  of  the  Plant 
Health  Directive  might  extend  its  coverage  to  ecological,  economical  and  human  health 
aspects. It should be noted that Council Decision 90/424/EEC on expenditure in the veterinary 
field  provides  for  economic  support  to  control  certain  animal  diseases,  and  the  veterinary 
legislation  dealing  with  food  safety  and  zoonoses  covers  certain  human  health  risks.  In  the 
framework  of  the  Community  Animal  Health  Policy  (CAHP)  the  animal  health  legislation 
may  be  broadened  to  cover  certain  animal  diseases  potentially  transmitted  by  animals  that 
could  be  identified  as  invasive  species  after  a sound risk assessment and  in full compliance 
with OIE/SPS rules and that are not already covered by veterinary legislation. 

In addition, the Nature Directives (Directives 92/43/EEC and 79/409/EEC, Habitats and Birds 
Directives) explicitly tackle IS issues, as they affect the natural environment. Article 22 of the 
Habitats Directive provides that Member States shall ensure that deliberate introduction into 
the wild of any species which is not native to their territory is regulated so as not to prejudice 
the local fauna and flora and, if they consider it necessary, prohibit their introduction. Article 

8 

Annex B of Regulation 338/97 currently lists 4 invasive alien species 

EN 

5 

   EN 

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
                                                 
11  of  the  Birds  Directive  provides  that  Member  States  shall  see  that  any  introduction  of 
species of bird which do not occur naturally in the wild state in the European territory of the 
Member  States  does  not  prejudice  the  local  flora  and  fauna.  Article  6  of  the  Habitats 
Directive  sets  out  Member  State  obligations  in  relation  to  Special  Areas  of  Conservation 
(SACs) that make up the Natura 2000 protected sites network established under the Directive. 
These  obligations  include  avoiding  deterioration  of  natural  habitats  and  disturbance  of 
species, both of which could be driven by IS in specific circumstances. 

1.3. 

Stakeholder Consultation and expert input 

In preparing this Communication, the Commission sought the views of stakeholders and the 
general public. Four consultation meetings were held with representatives of Member States 
and with stakeholder organisations. To facilitate dialogue and exchanges, a discussion paper 
"Developing an EU Framework for Invasive Alien Species"9 was prepared and posted on the 
DG Environment website, as a background document for the online consultation (see below).  

From 3 March until 5 May 2008 the Commission carried out a web-based consultation. This 
public  consultation  attracted  880  replies  which  came  from  24  EU  Member  States,  overseas 
territories  and  international  contributions.  About  a  quarter  of  the  replies  came  from 
organisations and three quarters from individuals. The results of the consultation indicate that 
the  public  is  in  favour  of  action  at  EU  level,  i.e.  an  EU  Strategy  on  IS.  Furthermore,  the 
results  suggest  that  the  public  supports  strongly  the  establishment  of  an  Early  Warning  and 
Information  System.  In  addition,  the  public  has  expressed  a  need  for  monitoring  and 
assessment and a need to increase efforts for building up awareness. According to the replies 
the costs and administrative burden are not perceived as an obstacle, and it is considered that 
there  are  alternatives  to  replace  those  IS  that  are  currently  trade  commodities.  The  need  to 
develop  good  collaboration  with  industry  is  also  seen  as  an  important  factor.  Regulation  of 
trade  is  considered  necessary  and  acceptable  in  order  to  prevent  new  introductions  of  IS.  A 
full report on the responses to the questionnaire, detailing the replies received, can be found at 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/invasivealien/index_en.htm . 

The results of the public consultation, plus the discussion with the Member States' experts and 
stakeholders,  have  been  taken  into  account  when  identifying  the  available  options  for 
developing  the  Commission's  response  to  the  problem  of  IS.  Furthermore,  expert  input  has 
been  used.  Expertise  has  been  provided  through  specialised  EU  research  projects  (DAISIE 
and  ALARM,  see  Annex  B),  through  the  European  Conference  on  Invasive  Alien  Species 
held in Madrid in January 2008, and through DG ENV service contracts for scoping options 
for EU action on Invasive Alien Species (terminated in June 2006) and for technical support 
to an EU strategy on IS (running from January 2008 until June 2009). 

1.4. 

Internal Consultation 

A  Commission  Inter-service  Group  (ISG)  has  been  established.  The  group  meets  before  the 
stakeholder  and  Member  State  meetings  and  the  members  are  invited  to  attend  all  the 
consultation meetings. The group will continue its work during the second phase to pave the 
way for the EU Strategy on IS. 

9 

See http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/invasivealien/index_en.htm 

EN 

6 

   EN 

                                                 
1.5. 

Impact Assessment Board 

A draft Impact Assessment was discussed at the Impact Assessment Board meeting of 9 July 
2008.  Following  the  opinion  of  the  Board,  the  draft  version  has  been  updated  to  take  into 
account the recommendations of the Board, thus the current version of the Impact Assessment 
contains the improvements sought. More specifically, the policy options have been reworked 
in such a way as to clarify the difference between the identified options compared to the status 
quo and business as usual option, but also to take into account the different responses needed 
depending  on  how  IS  enter  and  spread  throughout  the  EU.  The  Impact  Assessment  report 
shows clearly who needs to bear  new responsibilities and costs under each of the examined 
options, while it indicates the extent to which the options depend on future financing.  

The international dimension of IS has been stressed further in the current Impact Assessment. 
The report looks at possible approaches to tackling issues of extra-EU trade and movement of 
IS,  while  the  issue  of international cooperation has  been  signalled  and  addressed.  However, 
more explicit analysis of these points will be done in a subsequent phase. 

As indicated, this Impact Assessment report supports the Communication exploring ways to 
deal with the issue of Invasive Species in the EU including Outermost Regions and Overseas 
Countries  and  Territories.  A  defined  policy  proposal  will  be  developed  during  the  coming 
year(s),  providing  a  comprehensive  response  to  the  IS  problems  identified.  Further  work  in 
the  following  period  has  been  planned  already,  aiming  to  identify  the  elements  that  will  be 
part  of  the  comprehensive  EU  strategy.  The  work  will  examine  thoroughly  the  costs  to  be 
borne  by  the  various  economic  and  social  groups,  and  it  will  also  help  to  define  the  best 
possible and most cost-efficient way to respond to the IS challenges, while administrative and 
implementation  costs  for  public  administrations  and  private  parties/sectors  will  also  be 
explored. These analyses will form part of the forthcoming Impact Assessment report that will 
accompany  the  future  proposal.  As  financing  will  be  needed  for  implementing  actions  to 
tackle IS, the report will also address thoroughly the financial needs for putting in place and 
implementing the actions that will be advocated by the Commission proposal. 

2. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

2.1. 

IS definition and pathways 

"Alien  species"  are  species  which  are  introduced  outside  their  natural  past  or  present 
distribution  area  and  succeed  in  surviving  and  subsequently  reproducing.  "Invasive  (Alien) 
Species"  are  species  whose  introduction  and/or  spread  threatens  biological  diversity10. 
Invasive  species  (IS)  may  arrive  and  enter  a  new  region  through  three  broad  mechanisms: 
importation as a commodity, introduction via a transport vector, and/or natural spread from a 
neighbouring  region  where  the  species  is  itself  alien.  These  three  mechanisms  result  in  six 
principal pathways: release, escape, contaminant, stowaway, corridor and unaided.  

Figure  3  in  Annex  A  identifies  five  pathways  associated  with  human  activity  either  as 
commodities  (release  and  escape),  contaminants  of  commodities,  stowaways  on  modes  of 
transport and opportunists exploiting corridors resulting from transport infrastructures, while a 
sixth  pathway  highlights  invasive  species  that  may  arrive  unaided  in  a  region  as  a  result  of 

10 

CBD Guiding Principles (CBD Decision COP VI/23) 

EN 

7 

   EN 

                                                 
natural  spread  following  a  primary  human-mediated  introduction  in  a  neighbouring  region. 
The  different  regulatory  approaches  for  each  pathway  are  also  illustrated.  Invasive  species 
transported as commodities may be introduced as a deliberate release or following an escape 
from  captivity  or  containment.  However,  many  invasive  species  are  not  intentionally 
transported  but  arrive  as  a  contaminant  of  a  commodity,  for  example  pathogens  and  pests. 
Stowaways  (or  hitchhikers)  are  directly  associated  with  human  transport  but  arrive 
independently  of  a  specific  commodity,  for  example  organisms  transported  in  ballast  water, 
cargo  and  airfreight.  The  corridor  pathway  (e.g.  highways,  railways,  canals)  highlights  the 
role  transport  infrastructures  play  in  the  introduction  of  invasive  species.  The  unaided 
pathway describes situations where natural spread results in an invasive species coming into a 
new region from a donor region where it is also alien.  

The marine environment is well suited to dispersal. This is especially true for those species 
living in the water column itself, but bottom dwellers may also release propagating units into 
the  water,  which  then  disperse  widely  with  the  water  currents.  The  marine  environment  is 
relatively poorly monitored, hence the probability of discovering an alien species before it has 
established  a  permanent  population  is  small  (Ruiz  and  Carlton,  2003).  While  only  a  small 
fraction  of  the  marine  species  introduced  outside  their  native  range  are  able  to  thrive  and 
invade  new  habitats  (Mack  et  al,  2000),  their  impact  can  be  dramatic  (Molnar  et  al,  2008). 
Figures 4 and 5 in Annex A demonstrate that while there is already a considerable stock of 
invasive  species  present  in  Europe,  the  problem  will  grow  exponentially  due  to  increased 
entry via expanding trade activities. 

Furthermore,  on  the  one  hand  side  the  major  economic  sectors  act  as  sources  of  invasive 
species  in  Europe  and  on  the  other  hand  invasive  species  cause  significant  problems  within 
these sectors (see table 4 in Annex A). The proportions of different taxonomic groups listed in 
four trade categories are shown in Figures 9-12 in Annex A while Table 6 in the same Annex 
presents a list of pathways of IS introductions in Europe with descriptions for assessment of 
pathways.  

2.2. 

IS in Europe, their environmental and economic impact and related costs 

2.2.1.  General 

Biological  invasions  are  recognised  as  a  key  component  of  global  environmental  change, 
often resulting in significant damage to the economic value, biological diversity and function 
of  invaded  ecosystems  (Wittenberg  and  Cock  2001).  Numerous  alien  species,  many 
introduced only in the last 200 years or so, have become successfully established over large 
areas  of  Europe  (Hulme  2007).  Future  global  biodiversity  scenarios  highlight  potentially 
dramatic  increases  in  biological  invasions  in  European  ecosystems  (Sala  et  al.  2000). 
Interacting  effects  through  rising  atmospheric  CO2  concentrations,  warmer  temperatures, 
greater  nitrogen  deposition,  altered  disturbance  regimes  and  increased  habitat  fragmentation 
may facilitate further invasions (Vilà et al. 2006). 

Overall, the numbers of alien species invading Europe that are known to have an ecological or 
economic  impact  are,  respectively,  1 089  (11%)  and  1 374  (13%).  Many  species  produce 
multiple impacts; this is a consequence of “cascading” effects at different levels of ecological 
complexity. Vertebrates are the group with the highest proportion of species having a known 

EN 

8 

   EN 

impact,  with  the  greatest  regional  spread,  and  one  of  the  taxonomic  groups  causing  more 
types of impact (see Annex 2 for information about DAISIE11). The main identified costs in 
Europe can be grouped into eradication and control; agricultural and forestry damage; loss of 
commercial fisheries, damage to infrastructure and, finally, damage to human health.  

2.2.2.  Environmental impact 

Invasive species may have profound environmental consequences, exacting a significant toll 
on  ecosystems  (European  Commission,  2004)  (Box  1).  These  range  from  wholesale 
ecosystem  changes,  e.g.  colonisation  of  sand  dunes  by  Acacia  spp.  and  extinction  of  native 
species  or  threats  to  endemic  coastal  plants  following  expansion  of  iceplant  (Carpobrotus 
edulis),  to  more  subtle  ecological  changes  and  increased  biological  homogeneity.  For 
example,  rhododendron  (Rhododendron  ponticum)  reduces  the  biodiversity  of  Atlantic 
oakwoods and the American mink (Mustela vison) is held partially responsible for the decline 
in  water  vole  (Arvicola  terrestris)  populations  in  the  UK.  The  freshwater  Asiatic  clam 
(Corbicula fluminea) is a phytoplankton feeder, its dense populations may affect the structure 
of  planktonic  communities,  competing  with  native  clams,  reducing  fish  stocks,  and  shifting 
primary production to benthic communities. A subtler but potentially more serious impact of 
invasive  species  is  the  possibility  of  hybridisation  with  native  species.  Hybridisation  has 
occurred between alien sika (Cervus nippon) and native red (C. elaphus) deer, the alien ruddy 
(Oxyura  jamaicensis)  and  native  white-headed  (O.  leucephala)  ducks  as  well  as  between 
native and alien oaks (Quercus spp). Hybridisation may introduce maladaptive genes to wild 
populations or result in a vigorous and invasive hybrid. 

Box 1. List of IS main negative ecological impacts  

•  Competing with other organisms: plants like Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica) or 
Giant hogweed (Hercleum mantegazzianum) compete with native plants, causing changes 
to habitat structure 

•  Predating on native organisms: Predation by American mink (Mustela vision) has caused 

significant population declines of ground nesting birds and small mammals 

•  Hybridising with a related species or variety, such as the North American grass Spartina 
alterniflora which hybridised with the European Spartina maritima and produced the very 
invasive hybrid Spartina anglica, which has radically changed coastal mudflat habitats in 
Great Britain, Denmark and Germany 

•  Causing extinction of native species: crayfish plague (Aphanomyces astaci) is known to 

threaten local populations of native crayfish with extinction 

•  Being  toxic:  toxic  algae  blooms  are  caused  by  alien  phytoplankton  such  as  Chattonella 

verruculosa 

•  Being a reservoir for parasites or a vector for pathogens: rainbow trout is a host for the 

salmon parasite Gyrodactylus salaris  

11 

DAISIE, Delivering Alien Species Inventory for Europe see http://www.europe-aliens.org/index.jsp 

EN 

9 

   EN 

                                                 
•  Disrupting  pollination :  Impatiens  glandulifera  competes  for  pollinators  such  as 
bumblebees with the native riverbank species, and so reduces seed set in these other plants  

•  Altering  energy  and  nutrient  flows:  alien  plants,  such  as  Robinia  pseudacacia,  alter 

nutrient availability via nitrogen-fixing 

•  Altering  the  local  food  web:  when  appearing  in  large  densities  the  Asian  date  mussel 
(Musculista  senhousia)  can  shift  the  community  from  suspension-feeding  to  primarily 
deposit-feeding 

•  Altering the composition and functioning of habitats and ecosystems: Water hyacinth 
(Eichhornia crassipes) changes water flow by overgrowing and blocking water bodies.  

Source: Braat L. & P. ten Brink et al. 2008. Cost of Policy Inaction (COPI): The case of not meeting the 2010 
biodiversity target, a study for the European Commission (Annex III by ten Brink, Kettunen & Peralta Bezerra 
on IS) 

2.2.3.  Economic impact 

There are plenty of examples where IS have caused significant damage to economic activity 
and  where  their  control  or  eradication  has  entailed  significant  costs  (see  examples  in  box  2 
and in table 2 in Annex A). In general, the recorded economic impact occurs when ecosystem 
services, i.e. ecosystems' capacity to maintain material flows and processes that are beneficial 
to human wellbeing, are disrupted by IS. The table below indicates the main IS taxa impacting 
on different ecosystem services. 

Table 1: Main IS taxa impacting on different ecosystem services in Europe 

Type of ecosystem service (ES) affected by IS 

Main IS taxa causing impact 

Provisioning Services 

Food and fibre  

Fresh water 

Regulating services 

Invertebrates (terrestrial & marine); plants (terrestrial); 
vertebrates (terrestrial); fungi 

Invertebrates (marine & freshwater); plants (marine & 
freshwater) 

Water regulation (e.g. flood prevention, timing and 
magnitude of runoff, aquifer recharge) 

Invertebrates (marine & freshwater); plants (marine & 
freshwater); vertebrates (terrestrial) 

Erosion control 

Vertebrates (terrestrial), plants (terrestrial), 
invertebrates (freshwater) 

Water purification / quality maintenance and waste 
management 

Invertebrates (marine & freshwater), plants (marine & 
freshwater) 

Regulation of human diseases (i.e. IS as a vector for 
disease) 

Invertebrates & vertebrates (terrestrial) 

EN 

10 

   EN 

  
  
Fire resistance (change of vegetation cover leading to 
increased fire susceptibility) 

Terrestrial plants 

Other: human health other than diseases (e.g. 
allergies and injuries) 

Invertebrates (terrestrial & marine); plants (terrestrial) 

Other: destruction of infrastructure 

Invertebrates (marine & freshwater) 

Cultural services 

Cultural / natural heritage values, aesthetic / cultural 
value, recreation and ecotourism 

Plants (terrestrial, freshwater, marine); invertebrates 
(terrestrial, freshwater, marine); vertebrates (terrestrial, 
freshwater, marine); fungi 

Supporting services 

Primary production 

Nutrient cycling 

Plants (terrestrial, freshwater, marine); invertebrates 
(marine & freshwater) 

Plants (terrestrial, freshwater, marine); invertebrates 
(marine & freshwater) 

Soil / sediment formation 

Invertebrates (marine & freshwater) 

Other: changes in species dynamics and/or 
ecosystem's food web 

Invertebrates (marine & freshwater) 

Source: Kettunen M. et al 2008. Technical Support to EU Strategy on IS; Report "Assessment of the impacts of IS in Europe 
and the EU". 

The recent analysis by Kettunen et al. (2008) of cases where there is evidence of significant 
environmental, social and economic impact in Europe from 125 IS, including the 100 worst IS 
identified  in  DAISIE,  revealed  a  total  of  57  IS  species  that  are  known  to  negatively  affect 
ecosystems’  provisioning  services,  i.e.  the  ability  of  ecosystems  to  provide  different  goods 
and products (e.g. food, fibre and water) that benefit human wellbeing. The vast majority of 
these impacts (impact of 54 species) are caused by IS having adverse effects on provisioning 
of food, for example IS causing decline in fish catch, aquaculture, crop and wood production 
or IS with negative effects on livestock (e.g. livestock health). In addition, in some cases (3 
species), decline in provisioning of water due to blocking waterways has been recorded (i.e. 
some  aquatic  exotic  plants,  such  as  water  hyacinth  (E.  crassipes)  and  New  Zealand 
pigmyweed (C. halmsii)).  

The above analysis of IS' impact on ecosystem services also shows that IS are known to have 
a  negative  impact  on  regulating  services  such  as  erosion  control,  water  quality  and 
resistance of ecosystems to wild fires. For example, invasive mammals can cause erosion by 
burrowing  in  river  banks  whilst  invasive  plants  may  overtake  completely  native  plants  that 
play an important role in binding soil with their roots (borrowing: e.g. Louisiana crayfish (P. 
clarkii)  and  European 
(I. 
glandulifera)). Finally, IS can also damage infrastructure due to burrowing (invertebrates & 
vertebrates) or via their root systems (plants). 

(O.  cuniculus);  competition:  Himalayan  balsam 

rabbit 

According  to  the  same  report,  most  of  the  identified  instances  where  IS  have  a  negative 
impact on cultural services, i.e. different cultural, social, recreational and educational values 
of ecosystems, relate to the reduction of recreational use and/or tourism due to invasion of 
non-native species (40 species). This can happen for a number of reasons, including decreased 

EN 

11 

   EN 

  
  
aesthetic value caused by IS invasion, nuisance to humans and/or recreational activities, and 
impact of IS on human health (see section 4.2.2 above). For example, a number of non-native 
aquatic  plants  are  known  to  reduce  recreational  use  of  water  bodies  by  blocking  access  to 
open  water  (e.g.  Azola  sp.  and  water  hyacinth,  E.  crassipes).  Thick  vegetative  growth  of 
aquatic  IS  can  also  hinder  fishing  and  angling  activities.  In  general,  the  assessment  of  IS' 
impact on cultural services, such as the aesthetic value of landscape, is highly subjective. This 
means  that  any  view  about  the  impact  of  non-native  species  on  these  services  can  be  either 
positive or negative, depending on the perspective of the person or organisation concerned.  

On  the  other  hand  a  high  number  of  much-appreciated  pets,  game  species  and  ornamental 
plants  and  animals  in  Europe  are  non-native.  These  include,  for  example,  common  cat  (F. 
cattus), rhododendron (R. ponticum), Japanese deer (C. nippon), and ornamental fish used in 
private and public aquaria (Kettunen et al., 2008).  

Box 2: Examples of recorded economic impact resulting from IS and cost of controlling 
them 

Instances  of  recorded  direct  economic  impact  include  the  damage  caused  by  Japanese 
knotweed  (Fallopia  japonica)  to  masonry,  pavements,  walls,  drainage  works  and  native 
riparian  communities,  increased  flood  risk  and  increased  cost  of  land  clearance  for 
development (where the plant occurs on a development site it can cost tens of thousands of 
pounds  to  adequately  control).  In  Germany,  estimated  costs  are  €5.9-6.6  million/year  (plant 
control), €12.3-21.2 million/year (stabilisation of river banks), €2-7.7 million/year (clearance 
of  railways)  and  €3.5-10.5  million/year  (repair of  foundations).  The  Czech  Republic  spends 
€0.2 million/year on control/containment. In the UK, a 2003 estimate put the cost of removal 
from Britain at £1.56 billion. Specific control costs cover attempted eradication (over €1 078 
million/year)  and  research  on  biocontrol  (€0.11  million/year).  In  Wales  (UK),  the  estimated 
annual control costs for one county council were £300 000 (in 1994). 

Another  example  is  the impact  of  bark  stripping  by  grey  squirrels  (Sciurus  carolinensis)  on 
forestry  production.  The  western  corn  rootworm  (Diabrotica  virgifera),  which  was 
accidentally introduced into Serbia in the 1990s, is a major pest of maize that leads to yield 
losses.  Preliminary  studies  on  the  potential  for  establishment  of  the  western  corn  rootworm 
show  that  this  pest  is  likely  to  survive  and  develop  wherever  maize  is  grown  in  Europe. 
Leaving  aside  introduced  pests  and  diseases  affecting  agriculture,  alien  parasites  such  as 
Gyrodactylus  salaris  (an  ectoparasite  of  Atlantic  salmon)  and  Anguillicola  crassus 
(swimbladder nematode of eels) have led to dramatic decreases in fisheries sector incomes in 
several Nordic countries. The American oyster drill (Urosalpinx cinerea) is a major gastropod 
pest  of  the  cultured  oyster  industry  as  it  feeds  preferably  on  oyster  spat  and  is  recorded  as 
consuming  more  than  half  the  oyster  spat  in  certain  European  estuaries  (Cole  1942).  The 
muskrat  (Ondatra  zibethicus)  and  coypu  (Myocastor  coypus),  both  introduced  by  the 
European fur industry, damage river banks through digging and have increased the risk and 
severity of floods in many central and southern European countries. In Italy (1995-2000), the 
removal of over 220 000 coypus cost €2.614 million whilst riverbank damage exceeded €10 
million and agricultural damage was almost €1 million. Current control costs available for EU 
Member  States  total  €5.02  million/year  (Netherlands:  prevention/control  €0.8  million;  East 
Anglia (UK): eradication €0.45 million; Italy: combined damage/control costs, €3.77 million).  

Notorious invasive alien weeds cause major economic harm, e.g. Mexican tea (Chenopodium 
ambrosioides), knotgrass (Paspalum paspaloides), Canadian horseweed (Conyza canadensis), 
Bermuda  buttercup  (Oxalis  pes-caprae),  while  other  alien  plants  act  as  hosts  of  plant 

EN 

12 

   EN 

rust. 

stem 

Invasive  alien 

pathogens  e.g.  rescuegrass  (Bromus  catharticus)  as  host  for  barley  yellow  dwarf  virus  and 
species  can  also  affect  human  health,  e.g. 
wheat 
phytophotodermatitis  through  contact  with  giant  hogweed  (Heracleum  mantegazzianum), 
asthma  and  hay-fever  arising  from  the  pollen  of  annual  ragweed  (Ambrosia  artemisiifolia), 
poisoning  of  humans  through  consumption  of  toxic  fruit,  e.g.  American  pokeweed 
(Phytolacca  americana),  silverleaf  nightshade  (Solanum  eleagnifolium)  or  leptospirosis 
spread by the brown rat (Rattus norvegicus). 

Sources: Kettunen et al. (2008); DAISIE. 

2.2.4.  Costs occurred 

The  analysis  by  Kettunen  et  al.  (2008)  reveals  that,  in  general,  the  existing  evidence  on  IS' 
economic impact in Europe can be divided into two main categories, i.e. costs of damage and 
costs of control measures. Information on the cost of damage is the most common cost item 
for  the  negative  impact  on  the  agricultural,  forestry  and  fisheries  sectors  resulting  from 
invasions  of  non-native  pests,  such  as  plant  diseases  (fungi),  insects  and  fouling  organisms 
(marine, freshwater and terrestrial invertebrates). In addition, there are some estimates on the 
damage  caused  by  IS  to  human  health,  e.g.  treatment  costs  for  asthma.  Information  on  the 
monetary  resources  needed  to  control  IS  is  available  across  different  IS  taxa  and  invaded 
ecosystems.  

Based  on  the  information  on  documented  (real  &  estimated)  costs,  the  total  known 
monetary impact of IS in Europe amounts to €9.6 billion/year  (Kettunen et al. 2008, see 
Table  2  below).  Costs  related  to  the  damage  caused  or  control  of  terrestrial  IS  (e.g. 
vertebrates,  plants  and  invertebrates)  form  a  major  part  of  this  estimate.  This  includes,  for 
example, damage caused by pests to agriculture and forestry.  

Given the limited availability  of documented  costs, Kettunen et al. 2008  also carried out an 
extrapolation of costs to provide a more comprehensive picture of the real magnitude of the 
potential  economic  impact  of  IS  in  Europe12.  The  extrapolation  has  been  carried  out  on  the 
basis of information on the area affected by IS and the known range of IS in Europe. The cost 
estimates from identified study areas have been transferred to cover the full current range of 
IS in Europe. As a result the costs of IS can be estimated as €12.7 billion/year.  This should 
still be seen as an underestimate for it only covers a limited number of IS (e.g. extrapolation 
of costs was possible only for 25 of 125 IS considered in the analysis). Also, the extrapolation 
is only based on a subset of real IS costs, i.e. it does not cover the loss of biodiversity-related 
existence, bequest and option value due to IS invasion. 

12 

I.e. where information is available on the costs of an IS for a given area (the study area) and where the 
full  European  range  of  this  given  IS  is  known  (from  the  DAISIE  database),  costs  numbers  can  be 
created for the full range. This is done by applying the costs insights from known case study areas (i.e. 
costs per unit area of the study area) to the wider area impacts by the IS. These costs numbers assume 
that the level of impact/costs is similar throughout the known European range of a given IS. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

                                                 
Table  2  Overview  of  the  recorded  economic  costs  (real  costs  &  estimates)  due  to  different  IS  taxa  in 
Europe13.  

Taxa / biome of IS 

SUM of 
known costs in 
EU (million 
EUR / year) 

No of 
cases 

SUM of 
known costs 
in non-EU14 
(million EUR 
/ year) 

No of 
cases 

SUM of 
known costs 
in Europe 
(million EUR 
/ year) 

No of 
cases 

TOTAL 
(million / 
EUR) 

Fungus  (freshwater  / 
terrestrial) 

1505.00 

Freshwater 
invertebrate 

Freshwater 
vertebrate 

99.38 

- 

Freshwater plant 

3.89 

Marine invertebrate  

Marine vertebrate 

Marine plant 

Terrestrial 
invertebrate 

1 

- 

- 

786.16 

Terrestrial vertebrate 

4290.13 

Terrestrial plant 

2302.67 

Known costs 

8988.23 

3 

3 

2 

1 

10 

29 

23 

71 

0.16 

20 

1 

1 

- 

1505.16 

0.99 

3 

120.37 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

36.68 

- 

18.56 

500.00 

- 

- 

3 

2 

1 

3.89 

37.68 

18.56 

1286.16 

4290.13 

2302.67 

20.16 

2 

556.23 

9 

9564.62 

Source: Kettunen M. et al 2008. Technical Support to EU Strategy on IS; Report "Assessment of the impacts of IS in Europe 
and the EU". 

Note:  This  synthesis  is  based  on  the available  information  on  documented costs  of  IS  (i.e.  without  extrapolation  of  costs). 
(Kettunen et al, 2008 Annex II) 

Table 3 Overview of the recorded economic costs (real costs & estimates) of different IS taxa on different 
economic sectors in Europe.15 

Economic sector & pest taxa 

Agriculture* 

Terrestrial plants (weeds) 

Terrestrial invertebrates (pests) 

Freshwater invertebrates 

Costs  of  damage  (million  EUR 
/ year) 

Costs  of  control  (million 
EUR / year) 

1050.00 

735.48 

2.21 

no info 

526.72 

0.1 

13 
14 

15 

see Kettunen et al. 2008 Annexes VI and VII. 
Non  EU  states  included  are  Andorra,  Iceland,  Liechtenstein,  Moldova,  Monaco,  Norway,  Russia, 
Switzerland, Ukraine, former Yugoslavian states in the Balkans 
See Kettunen et al. 2008 Annexes VI and VII for data origin and references. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
                                                 
Terrestrial vertebrates 

Fungi 

Pests non-specified for taxa 

Total 

Fisheries / aquaculture 

Freshwater invertebrates 

Marine invertebrates 

Marine plants 

Fungi 

Total 

Forestry 

901.28 

1500.00 

118.06 

25.53 

18.56 

0.16 

4913.79 

162.31 

no info 

no info 

198 

no info 

no info 

no info 

no info 

Terrestrial plants (weeds) 

no info 

22.7 

Health* 

Terrestrial invertebrates  

Terrestrial plants 

Total 

Known costs (million EUR / year) 

22.50 

33.15 

1.46 

2.34 

59.45 

5135.55 

* The table does not include costs of epidemic animal and human diseases 

Source: Kettunen M. et al 2008. Technical Support to EU Strategy on IS; report "Assessment of the impacts of IS in Europe 
and the EU" 

Note: This table synthesises the information on documented costs of species (i.e. without extrapolation) as relevant to specific 
sectors (Kettunen et al. 2008, Annex 2) 

Kettunen et al. analysed the documented IS economic impact by sector (i.e. a specific "subset" 
of  the  above  €9.6  billon),  divided  into  two  main  categories:  (a)  cost  of  damage;  (b)  cost  of 
management  and  control  measures.  According  to  these  calculations,  the  known  documented 
costs  for  the  agricultural,  fisheries,  forestry  and  health  sectors  amount  to  €5.1 
billion/year (excluding the costs of epidemic animal and human diseases). Again this figure 
is based on the documented data and with no attempt at extrapolation of other gap filling. Like 
the other aggregate cost estimates above, this figure is likely to be an underestimate of the real 
situation  as  the  forestry-related  costs  seem  clearly  to  be  underrepresented  and  no  monetary 
values  exist  for  costs  attributable  to  IS  in  the  tourism  sector.  The  key  elements  of  the 
breakdown of these costs are given below (for more detail, see the Task 1 report):  

EN 

15 

   EN 

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
–  Based  on  available  information,  IS  costs  (documented  costs)  are  highest  for  the 
agricultural sector (€4.9 billion/year, of which €4.19 billion/year relates to damage costs 
and €725 million/year to control costs); 

–  Documented  information  is  very  limited  for  fisheries  and  aquaculture  (estimate  of 

€162 million/year in damage costs: no information is available on control costs); 

–  The information available is clearly underrepresented for forestry (no estimate of overall 

damage costs: control measures estimated at €22.7 million/year); 

–  The IS cost to the health sector (excluding cost of epidemic animal and human diseases) 
was  estimated  at  €59.45  million/year   (€55.65  million/year  in  damage  costs  and  €3.8 
million/year in control costs).  

These  analyses  are  limited  to  a  number  of  key  sectors  where  information  is  available. 
Although  it  does  not  provide  a  complete  picture,  it  demonstrates  that  economic  damage  by 
invasive species implies significant costs. 

2.3. 

The International Dimension of IS 

The EU will need to boost support for the prevention, detection, control and eradication of IS 
in  third  countries.  The  Convention  on  Biological  Diversity  has  inter  alia  urged  donors  to 
provide, as a high priority, funding for the development and implementation, at national and 
regional levels, of the invasive alien species strategies and action plans and for the application 
of the CBD Guiding Principles16. The Environment for Europe Conference agreed to promote 
the implementation of the pan-European Strategy on Invasive Alien Species developed under 
the Bern Convention17. 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  Policy  Instrument.  Member  States  can  provide  additional 
support through their own development cooperation instruments. 

2.4.  Why Action at EU level? 

Several biological invasions now threatening Europe might have been prevented by a higher 
level  of  awareness  of  invasive  species  issues  and  a  stronger  commitment  to  addressing  the 
matter,  e.g.  the  spread  of  the  killer  alga  (Caulerpa  taxifolia).  Current  inaction  by  many, 
though  not  all  countries,  is  becoming  increasingly  disastrous  for  the  region’s  biodiversity, 
health  and  economy  (Hulme  2007).  European  states  should  recognise  the  risk that activities 
within their jurisdiction or control may pose to other states as a potential source of invasions 
and  take  appropriate  individual  and  cooperative  actions  to  minimise  that  risk.  This  is 
particularly important within Europe as species introduced into the territory of one state can 
easily  spread  to  neighbouring  states,  especially  with  a  shared  coastline,  transboundary 
mountain  ranges  and  international  watercourses.  It  is  also  critical  with  regard  to  Europe’s 
trading partners. 

16 

17 

See  inter  alia  CBD  COP  decisions  VI/23  including  the  Guiding  principles  for  the  prevention, 
introduction  and  mitigation  of  impacts  of  alien  invasive  species  that  threaten  ecosystems,  habitats  or 
species, VIII/27 and IX/4. 
Kyiv Resolution on Biodiversity adopted at the 5th Ministerial Environment for Europe Conference. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

                                                 
The heterogeneity in the degree to which different European nations are exposed to biological 
invasions may limit recognition of the risk that activities within their jurisdiction may pose to 
other  nations.  Species  prioritised  for  management  differ  across  Europe,  which  means  that 
concerted  action  should  be  planned  at  sub-regional  levels.  Finally,  a  species  that  is  alien  in 
one European nation may be native in another. This makes for considerable complexity with 
regard  to  the  development  of  regulations  regarding  trade  within  Europe.  Therefore  in  the 
current work at EU level the focus is on the invasiveness of the species.  

Effective  control  of  invasive  species  has  been  hampered  in  Europe  by  the  lack  of:  (a) 
monitoring for alien species at frequent enough intervals in regions of concern; (b) a means to 
report,  verify  the  identifications,  and  warn  of  new  sightings;  and  (c)  risk  assessments  that 
predict the likelihood of a particular species becoming invasive.  

There are several reasons why dealing successfully with IS requires action at EU level: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

18 

19 

20 

IS do not respect borders. An IS outbreak, which is ignored in one Member State, may 
represent a risk for neighbouring countries. Equally, action by one Member State can 
be annulled by inaction across the border. 

IS  remain  a  rapidly  increasing  threat  to  European  biodiversity.  Inaction  hinders 
achievement of the EU target of halting biodiversity loss. 

The  increasing  volume  of  trade  contributes  to  the  spread  of  IS.  Free  trade  rules  are 
perceived  by  many  Member  States  as  a  constraint  on  regulating  introductions  of 
potential  IS  at  the  national  level.  Trade  in  goods  is  the  exclusive  competence  of  the 
EC. 

The  EU  dimension  is  already  recognised  in  the  context  of  existing  measures  to  deal 
with problems in the field of plant and animal health. In cases where invasive species 
represent a threat to plant and animal health, there are already overlaps18. 

The  EU  dimension  is  clearly  demonstrated  in  Council  Regulation  708/2007 
concerning the use of alien and locally absent species in aquaculture, adopted in June 
2007.  

Experts encourage the Commission to implement a cooperative legal framework at EU 
level to address IS (e.g. Resolution of the NEOBIOTA conference held in September 
2006  and  attended  by  some  350  European  scientists19).  The  conclusions  of  the 
European  Conference  on  Invasive  Alien  Species20  and  the  outcome  of  the  online 
consultation of the public and stakeholders have also given strong leverage for action 
at EU level.  

To  avoid  possible  overlaps  between  the  veterinary  legislation  and  the  future  framework  on  IS,  it  is 
necessary to coordinate the development of the CAPH and the EU Strategy on IS. Therefore, expertise 
on IS would be needed to implement measures within the CAPH to tackle those IS considered as high 
risk  after  a  careful  risk  assessment  and  following  the  international  framework  on  animal  health  (i.e. 
OIE/SPS rules). 
Part  of  the  conference  resolution:  “to  complement  existing  European  activities  to  close  gaps  in 
pathways, habitats and taxonomic groups in order to build a cooperative legal framework and to address 
IS at the appropriate level”. 
Final 
biodiversidad.info/eei/pdf/PUBLICACION%20FINAL/Version%20Ingles/Versioningles.pdf 

http://www.fundacion-

Conference, 

Publication 

see 

the 

of 

EN 

17 

   EN 

                                                 
(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

A consistent and coherent policy on IS in the EU will bring additional benefits to the 
fight  against  IS.  As  described  under  section  1.2,  at  the  moment  there  exists  a 
patchwork  of  Community  instruments  which  can  partially  address  the  IS  issue.  In 
many  cases  import  of  proven  IS  continues  (e.g.  Hydrocotyle  ranunculoides  (floating 
pennywort),  a  water  ornamental  plant,  is  covering  water  bodies  and  thus  destroying 
water  ecosystems  and  causing  problems  for  the  shipping  industry).  Important 
pathways,  e.g.  ships'  ballast  water,  are  not  controlled  and  are  allowing  invasion  of 
further species. 

Certain categories of IS are not covered at all under the current legislative framework, 
nor can this be done easily simply by modifying the existing legislation. For organisms 
outside the specified categories (mammals, certain birds (subject to legislation in force 
to  control  avian  diseases)  aquaculture  species,  vectors  of  diseases  affecting  wild 
animals, some plants, some insects, etc.) there are no Community-backed controls on 
import and export and no restrictions on intra-Community trade and movement. 

The  environmental  impact  of  invasive  species  tends  to  be  much  greater  in  EU 
Overseas  Countries  and  Territories  (OCTs)  and  Outermost  Regions  (OR)  than  in 
continental Europe. Island biodiversity is exceptionally vulnerable to invasion because 
of the long evolutionary isolation of island ecosystems. IS in OCTs and ORs thus have 
a  disproportionately  high  impact  on  wider  European  biodiversity.  Socio-economic 
consequences  are  also  greater  in  remote  territories  where  livelihoods,  culture  and 
economic opportunities often depend on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Climate 
change,  in  association  with  other  environmental  pressures,  is  predicted  to  aggravate 
the situation by disrupting ecosystem function and altering species’ distribution. 

3. 

OBJECTIVES 

The Communication "Towards an EU Strategy on IS" is the first stage of a two-step process 
to develop an EU Strategy on IS. The overall objectives of the policy proposal are: 

•  to substantially reduce the impact of invasive species on EU biodiversity, 

•  to contribute towards the target of halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and beyond and 
in particular to tackle the adverse effects of IS in relation to native European biodiversity, 

•  to  minimise  the  economic  impact  felt  by  different  sectors  as  a  result  of  IS  and  thus  to 

contribute to the Lisbon Strategy, 

•  to  tackle  the  negative  economic  and  social  effects  and  costs  that  IS  may  engender  for 

Europeans and in particular their wellbeing and health. 

It has been demonstrated above that there are certain gaps in the existing EU legislation, and 
consequently  not  all  IS-related  issues  can  be  tackled  efficiently  by  the  current  legal 
frameworks  in  place.  The  development  of  new  legislation  takes  time  and  considering  the 
results  of  scientific  research that  has  demonstrated  an  exponentially  increasing  threat  by  IS, 
the first step focuses on options and measures that could be implemented immediately while 
carrying out the work needed for the second step, i.e. developing the EU Strategy on IS. The 
purpose of the Communication "Towards an EU Strategy on invasive species" and the present 
accompanying impact assessment is to describe the IS problem and the associated costs and to 

EN 

18 

   EN 

set out the types of response that could be envisaged as part of an EU strategy. To the extent 
possible  the  costs  as  well  as  the  benefits  of  the  potential  responses  are  described  mainly  in 
qualitative terms. 

4. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

With a view to taking action to counteract the negative impact of IS on the economy, society 
and the European environment and biodiversity, the following options have been identified:  

Option  A:  Business  as  usual:  continuation  with  the  ongoing  implementation  of 
existing instruments. 

Option  B:  Maximise  use  of  existing  approaches:  best  use  of  existing  legislation, 
development and implementation of voluntary codes of conduct, development of an 
early warning and information system, maintenance of the European inventory of IS, 
increasing  awareness,  exchange  of  best  practice,  implementation  of eradication  and 
control measures at national level. 

Option  B+:  Amend  existing  legislation:  (e.g.  phytosanitary  and  wildlife  trade 
legislation) to widen the scope to formally take IS issues into account.  

Option C: Comprehensive, dedicated EU legal instrument: this option includes the 
rapid  introduction  of  new  legislation,  entailing  a  comprehensive  approach  towards 
tackling IS, coupled with maximal use of the basic tools described in option B. 

The  options  A,  B  and  C  outlined  below  are  cumulative  options  of  increasing  intensity  and 
effectiveness,  while  options  B+  and  C  are  mutually  exclusive.  Increased  intensity  requires 
increased  resources,  and  therefore  depends  on  the  willingness  to  invest.  The  measures 
identified  in  option  B  are  not  stand-alone  measures.  They  should  be  seen  as  cumulative 
measures  which  are  part  of  the  approach  seeking  to  tackle  IS  problems  in  an  integrated 
manner  and  maximise  the  use  of  existing  instruments  and  legislation.  It  is  feasible  and 
desirable  to  implement  certain  of  these  measures  immediately,  while  developing  further 
the  comprehensive  EU  Strategy  on  IS.  The  suggested  measures  include  actions  for  the 
prevention  of  intentional  and  unintentional  introduction,  early  warning  and  information, 
eradication, containment and control of established IS species. Horizontal measures including 
financing  mechanisms,  research,  functioning  surveillance,  risk  assessment  and  monitoring 
systems  and  raising  awareness  of  the  public,  authorities  and  concerned  industry  sectors  are 
also  addressed.  These  measures  would  become  an  integral  part  of  the  future  comprehensive 
EU Strategy on IS. 

4.1. 

Option A: "Business as Usual" 

Under  this  option  the  existing  legal  frameworks  that  tackle  in  a  very  fragmented  and  non-
comprehensive way the issues of IS identified in the problem definition would continue to be 
implemented.  

For organisms harmful to plants or plant products and for animal and fish diseases European 
states  have  a  comprehensive  framework  of  laws  and  procedures  that  are  harmonised  with 
international  phytosanitary,  zoosanitary  and  trade  rules.  Coverage  is  mainly  focused  on 
agricultural  pests  and  diseases  affecting  crops,  livestock  and  farmed  fish.  The  framework 

EN 

19 

   EN 

provides for biosecurity controls in the form of certification, quarantine procedures and post-
entry  surveillance  as  necessary,  as  well  as  measures  to  control  spread.  The  effectiveness  of 
these instruments is facilitated through clearly identifiable host and pest targets as well as the 
direct  economic  benefits  of  regulation.  Because  these  contaminant  pests  have  an  economic 
impact,  strict  regulations  on  imports  are  in  place.  For  example,  the  Plant  Health  Directive 
(2000/29/EC)  provides  lists  of  pest  species  that  must  be  banned  from  being  introduced  into 
particular Member States. Existing legislation in the field of plant health is mainly based on 
the  European  and  Mediterranean  Plant  Protection  Organization  (EPPO)  recommendations. 
EPPO maintains lists of invasive alien species that are recommended for regulation to its 50 
member  countries.  There  are  currently  five  invasive  alien  plants  that  are  recommended  for 
regulation. 

Regarding Biological Control Agents, European countries differ in their national regulations 
and capacity for assessing the environmental risks of these agents. EPPO has compiled a list 
of widely used Biological Agents which are considered to be environmentally safe. This list is 
currently being updated. Identification of target species facilitates the control and eradication 
of pests, pathogens and parasites of economic significance.  

Council  Regulation  708/2007  establishes  a  framework  governing  aquaculture  practices  in 
relation  to  alien  species  to  assess  and  minimise  the  possible  impact  of  these  and  any 
associated  non-target  species  on  aquatic  habitats.  It  establishes  a  framework  to  asses  and 
minimise  possible  impacts  on  species,  habitats  and  ecosystem  functions  which  may  be 
expected to arise from the introduction or translocation of aquatic organisms and non-target 
species in aquaculture and from the spreading of these into the wild. Species that may threaten 
wild  fauna  and  flora  are  marginally  covered  by  the  Wildlife  Trade  Regulation  (Council 
Regulation  338/97),  where  four  invasive  animal  species21  are  currently  listed  and  cannot  be 
imported into EU territory. However, the spread of these species within the EU's territory is 
not currently regulated. 

With regard to controls on the introduction of alien organisms to the natural environment, the 
Habitats and Birds Directives contain restrictions on deliberate introductions of alien species 
into  the  wild.  In  relation  to  control  and  eradication  of  IS,  the  Habitats,  Birds,  and  Water 
Framework  Directives  may  impose  some  obligations  through  requirements  to  maintain  the 
ecological status of certain sites. 

Species  of  birds  that  are  not  native  to  the  European  territory  of  the  Member  States  are  not 
protected  by  the  Birds  Directive  unless  specifically  mentioned  in  the  Directive's  Annexes22. 
The  Canada  goose  (Branta  canadensis)  and  Wild  turkey  (Meleagris  gallopavo)  have  been 
introduced into Europe and are listed as huntable species under the Birds Directive. However, 
Canada Geese also naturally occur as  migrants  in  very  small  numbers  and  the  Wild  Turkey 
does not show invasive patterns. There would not appear to be similar listings of non-native 
species  in  the  species  annexes  of  the  Habitats  Directive.  However,  there  is  at  present  a 
reference  to  an  invasive  species,  Azolla,  as  a  typical  species  associated  with  the  natural 
habitats type (Code 3150) "Natural eutrophic lakes with Magnopotamion or Hydrocharition - 
type vegetation". 

21 

22 

Species  listed  are  the  red-eared  slider  (Trachemys  scripta  elegans);  the  American  bullfrog  (Rana 
catesbeiana); the painted turtle (Chrysemys picta); and the American ruddy duck (Oxyura jamaicensis). 
A  listing  of  non-native  bird  species  is  available  on  the  web  site  of  the  Commission  at 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/wildbirds/eu_species/introd_species_en.htm 

EN 

20 

   EN 

                                                 
However,  as  demonstrated  above  this  option  does  not  provide  for  a  comprehensive  way  to 
deal with all aspects of IS (see also in 2.3 the identified reasons for taking action at EU level). 
In the wake of the expected dramatic increase of IS it can be expected that the costs in relation 
to damage caused by IS will increase accordingly under this scenario.  

Although this option implies some measures to prevent the introduction of certain IS, it will 
not be sufficient to counteract the increasing threat. With regard to early warning and rapid 
eradication,  the  BAU  option  is  not  functional.  Sporadic  eradication  measures  in  some 
countries cannot solve the problem. The situation is the same in relation to control and long-
term containment. 

4.2. 

Option B: "Maximise the use of existing approaches"  

This option involves making the best use of existing EU legislation, combined with voluntary 
codes of conduct, the establishment of an early warning and information system, maintenance 
of  the  European  Invasive  Species  inventory,  awareness-raising  activities,  exchange  of  best 
practice, and eradication and control measures at national level. 

The measures under this option should be implemented immediately while developing the EU 
Strategy on IS, which will be subject to follow-up of the present Communication. 

In the following section the measures are grouped according to the "three-stage hierarchical 
approach"23:  1)  prevention,  2)  early  detection  and  eradication,  3)  control  and  long-term 
containment.  This  approach  addresses  new  introductions  (via  prevention)  as  well  as 
established species (via steps 2 and 3). 

4.2.1.  Prevention 

Prevention is seen as the most cost-efficient way to tackle the risks posed by IS. This involves 
giving priority to measures taken to prevent such species being introduced into EU territory in 
the first place or spreading to new areas within EU territory. To identify relevant species for 
attention, to channel resources effectively and to assess and mitigate their risks, risk analysis 
procedures  are  necessary  to  justify  which  species  should  be  prohibited  or  controlled.  The 
existing system for Pest Risk Analysis used for assessing and mitigating plant pest risks can 
be used as an example. Work is in hand within the EU to develop more generic assessment 
tools. 

23 

The three-stage hierarchical approach entails: 
1)  Prevention  –  Prevention  is  generally  far  more  cost-effective  and  environmentally  desirable  than 
measures taken following introduction and establishment of IS. Priority should be given to preventing 
the introduction of IS into the EU and spread between MS. 
2)  Early  detection  and  rapid  eradication  –  If  an  IS  has  been  introduced,  early  detection  and  rapid 
eradication is the most cost-effective way of preventing its establishment and wider spread. 
3)  Long-term  control  and  containment  –  If  eradication  is  not  feasible,  IS  population  should  be 
controlled in order to prevent further spread. Control measures should be implemented. 

EN 

21 

   EN 

                                                 
 
 
 
Best use of existing legislation  

As  identified  in  the  problem  definition  several  Community  legislative  instruments  in  place 
provide  a  basis  for  addressing  aspects  of  IS  prevention.  However,  gaps  remain  in  particular 
with  regard  to  the  regulation  of  trade  in  order  to  avoid  new  introductions  of  IS.  There  are 
obstacles  to  the  use  of  the  Wildlife  Trade  Regulation  as  well  as  the  veterinary  and 
phytosanitary  legislation.  Neither  of  them  is  optimal  to  fully  tackle  the  IS  issues. 
Nevertheless, the most efficient interim approach may be to identify those IS with the worst 
impact  and  seek  to  have  them  covered  by  the  instrument  that  can  best  accommodate  them. 
This may mean that some highly invasive species in trade known as worst invaders could be 
listed  as  "ecological  threat  species"  under  the  Wildlife  Trade  Regulation  while  invasive 
animal  and  plant  species  that  can  be  considered  as  pests  of  plants  could  be  covered  by  the 
phytosanitary legislation.  

Voluntary codes of conduct 

Voluntary  codes  of  conduct  or  good  practices  agreed  and  implemented  by  concerned 
industries including horticulture and the pet and ornamental fish trade can be a very efficient 
tool  to  prevent  the  introduction  of  IS.  Cooperation  with  concerned  industries  is  essential.  A 
Code of conduct on horticulture and invasive alien plants24 is currently being developed under 
the  Bern  Convention  on  the  Conservation  of  European  Wildlife  and  Natural  Habitats  and 
EPPO. A few Member States are developing species- or sector-specific codes of conduct, e.g. 
the German and Austrian botanic gardens have recently drawn up a voluntary code of conduct 
for the cultivation and trade of IS25. 

4.2.2.  Early warning and information 

Currently, early detection occurs on an ad hoc basis in most MS and the possibility of a more 
systematic  approach  should  be  considered.  Early  warning  and  prevention  of  the  harmful 
impact of invasive alien species on ecosystems is a fundamental requirement of the European 
Biodiversity  Strategy and the EU  Action  Plan  to  2010  and  Beyond (European Commission, 
2006) yet, in the absence of reliable regional analyses, the European states have been unable 
to tackle this issue strategically (Miller et al. 2006; Hulme et al. 2007).  

Early detection and eradication imply an early warning and information system based on an 
up-to-date inventory of all alien species known to inhabit Europe. DAISIE, a pan-European 
inventory  of  alien  species26,  a  three-year  (February  2005-March  2008)  research  project 
supported  by  the  Sixth  RTD  Framework  Programme  with  €2.4  million  in  funding,  has 
delivered a pan-European inventory of invasive alien species mobilising existing expertise for 
species  records.  This  inventory  also  includes  and  describes  alien  species  that  have  a  high 
likelihood  of  introduction  or  spontaneous  spread  from  neighbouring  countries,  identifies 
priority species and provides a platform for European reporting on biodiversity indicators, and 
highlights areas where Europe will need to direct resources to manage biological invasions. 

24 
25 

26 

Available at http://www.cbd.int/doc/?mtg=sbstta-13 (go to “others”) 
Kiehn  M,  Lauerer  M,  Lobin  W  &  Schepker  H  (2008):  Grundsätze  im  Umgang  mit  invasiven  und 
potenziell invasiven Pflanzenarten in Botanischen Gärten. Unpubl. Report, 3 pp. 
See http://www.europe-aliens.org/index.jsp 

EN 

22 

   EN 

                                                 
It  is  hoped  that  the  DAISIE  database  will  encourage  the  exchange  of  data  among  different 
geographical  regions  and  thereby  serve  as  a  node  in  the  Global  Information  System  for 
Invasive  Species.  Documenting  current  invasions,  predicting  new  invasion  sites,  and 
preventing invasions are vital to the protection of biological diversity in Europe. Prediction of, 
and  rapid response  to, invasive species requires ready access to invasive species knowledge 
bases  in  many  countries.  It  follows  that  internet-accessible  knowledge  bases  are  a  valuable 
tool  which  can  provide  crucial  information  for  the  early  detection,  eradication,  and 
containment  of  invasive  species—which  is  most  feasible  for  species  that  have  just  arrived. 
With  direct  access  to  national  knowledge  bases  throughout  Europe,  managers  and  policy-
makers addressing the invasive species challenge should easily obtain data on which species 
are  invasive  or  potentially  invasive  in  particular  habitats,  and  use  this  information  in  their 
planning efforts. Agencies responsible for pest control can quickly determine if a species of 
interest has been invasive elsewhere in Europe. Importers of new alien species (e.g. nurseries, 
botanical  gardens,  pet  trade)  can  access  data  to  make  responsible  business  choices.  Land 
managers can learn about control methods that have been useful in other areas, reducing the 
need  to  commit  resources  for  experimentation  and  increasing  the  speed  at  which  control 
efforts  can  begin.  The  information  available  in  the  database  also  presents  an  outstanding 
resource  to  synthesise  current  knowledge  and  trends  in  relation  to  biological  invasions  in 
Europe. The data will help identify the scale and spatial pattern of invasive species in Europe, 
shedding light on the environmental, social, economic and other factors involved in invasions, 
and can be used as a framework for considering indicators for early warning purposes.  

The future of the inventory may increasingly see a move away from a single database to the 
integration  of  national  databases  across  the  same  infrastructure.  In  addition  to  regular 
scientific  update,  it  is  also  important  that  the  inventory  be  institutionally  recognised  as  the 
basis  of  a  possible  future  Early  Warning  and  Information  System  for  IS.  It  is  suggested  to 
have  it  permanently  hosted  by  the  EEA,  which  would  be  provided  with  the  appropriate 
resources  to  keep  it  up  and  running.  A  feasibility  study  for  an  IS  early  warning  and 
information system is currently commissioned by the EEA. The amount necessary to keep the 
inventory  up  to  date  as  the  basis  for  an  Early  Warning  and  Information  System  has  been 
estimated at about  €500 000 annually, while the  amount invested for its initial development 
was  €2.4  million.  Meanwhile  Aquatic  Invasions  (AI),  an  electronic  open-access  journal 
focusing  on  biological  invasions  in  European  inland  and  coastal  waters  and  potential  donor 
areas  of  aquatic  invasive  species  for  Europe27,  is  also  serving  several  online  databases  on 
invasive  species,  including  the  DAISIE  information  system  described  above,  through 
publication of national checklists of aquatic alien species, which represent a core component 
of  this  project  database  (Gollasch  and  Nehring  2006,  Alexandrov  et  al.  2007,  Galil  2007, 
Kerckhof et al. 2007, Minchin 2007). The timely publication of verified checklists and new IS 
findings  may  help  to  keep  the  DAISIE  information  system  up  to  date.  Figure  6  (in  Annex) 
demonstrates  the  role  of  AI  in  a  European  Early  Warning  System.  Aquatic  Invasions 
facilitates the flow of essential information needed for the decision-making processes. Work 
is underway to develop an online risk assessment toolkit with early warning functions, which 
may  serve  as  an  interactive  transmitter  of  primary  information  on  IS  from  data  providers 
upwards to the level of decision-making. Aquatic Invasions will play an important role as an 
essential component of this new electronic information framework for invasive alien species 
(Panov et al.2008). The online journal BIORISK28 could fulfil the same function for terrestrial 
IS. 

27 
28 

See http://www.aquaticinvasions.ru/ 
See http://www.pensoft.net/Brochure-BIORISK.pdf 

EN 

23 

   EN 

                                                 
The  North  European  and  Baltic  Network  on  Invasive  Alien  Species  (NOBANIS)29  has 
developed a network of common databases on alien and invasive species of the region. The 
geographic scope of NOBANIS has recently increased and now also covers Central Europe. 
The  common  portal  facilitates  access  to  IS-related  data,  information  and  knowledge  in  the 
region and its website hosts detailed fact sheets of the worst invasive species. Information is 
kept  up  to  date  via  a  network  of  national  contact  points.  NOBANIS  is  thus  a  vital 
complementary IS information hub to DAISIE.  

A system for early warning and eradication should also contain methods and expertise for risk 
assessment of invasive species so as to rapidly evaluate risks and identify what measures are 
necessary to manage the risks, tools for sharing information with partners within the system, 
monitoring schemes to identify new invasive species and alien species already present in the 
area  that  have  begun  to  exhibit  invasive  characteristics,  and  response  plans  to  enable  and 
ensure a rapid response and eradication where necessary. 

Criteria-based  risk  assessment  of  IS  is  one  of  the  key  principles  in  implementing  the 
precautionary approach in IS management (Genovesi & Shine 2003). Hence, several national 
risk assessment methodologies and blacklists of IS have been recently developed in Europe: 
e.g. Switzerland30, Belgium31, UK32 and Germany and Austria33. These methodologies and the 
experience  gained  in  their  national  implementation  deliver  important  information  for 
developing a European risk assessment system. 

Early  warning  and  information  systems  already  exist  in  the  Plant  Health  framework. 
EUROPHYT  allows  the  notification  of  interceptions  of  pests  between  countries.  EPPO 
publishes  a  monthly  Reporting  Service  on  invasive  alien  species  freely  available  at 
http://www.eppo.org/PUBLICATIONS/reporting/reporting_service.htm.  

4.2.3.  Eradication and control measures  

Detected  IS  should  be  eradicated  within  a  limited  period  of  time  before  the  population  is 
established,  i.e.  as  soon  as  possible.  Early  action  has  been  proven  to  be  much  more 
economically and environmentally effective. Rapid intervention should be preferred to a long 
approval  process  for  plans,  so 
that  eradication  remains  feasible.  Ensuring  public 
understanding  is  crucial  to  avoiding  public  protests  reflecting,  for  instance,  concerns  of 
animal  right  groups.  At  the  moment  eradication  programmes  for  invasive  alien  species  that 
threaten the ecological status of Natura 2000 sites can be supported under LIFE+. Currently 
there are a number of projects that include actions for eradicating IS, for example €1 827 130 
will be provided to Spain and the UK for eradication of the ruddy duck Oxyura jamaicensis, 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

participating  countries  in  NOBANIS:  Austria,  Belgium,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Finland,  Faroe  Islands, 
Germany, Greenland, Iceland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, European 
part of Russia, Slowakia, Sweden. http://www.nobanis.org/default.asp 
Weber,  E.,  Köhler,  B.,  Gelpke,  G.,  Perrenoud,  A.  &  Gigon,  A.  (2005):  Schlüssel  zur  Einteilung  von 
Neophyten in der Schweiz in die Schwarze Liste oder die Watch-Liste. Bot. Helv. 115: 169-194. 
Branquart,  E.  (2007):  Guidelines  for  environmental  impact  assessment  and  list  classification  of  non-
native organisms in Belgium, Version 2.5. http://www.IS.biodiversity.be 
Copp,  G.H.,  Garthwaite,  R.  &  Gozlan,  R.E.  (2005):  Risk  identification  and  asseement  of  non-native 
freshwater fishes: concepts and perspectives for the UK. CEFAS, science series technical report 129, 32 
pp. 
Essl F, Klingenstein F, Nehring S, Otto C, Rabitsch W & Stöhr O (2008): Schwarze Listen invasiver 
Arten – ein wichtiges Instrument für den Naturschutz! Natur und Landschaft, in press. 

EN 

24 

   EN 

                                                 
through a programme running from 2005 to 2010. The Council of Europe has recommended 
that  its  countries  eradicate  specific  invasive  alien  plants.  EPPO  has  long  experience  of 
providing  recommendations  for  eradication  and  containment  of  species  (e.g.  about  to  be 
published, recommendation on  Ambrosia artemisiifolia, Heracleum  mantegazzianum, Sicyos 
angulatus,  etc.).  Public-private  partnerships  will  be  encouraged,  which  ought  to  be  mutual 
beneficial and prevent or at least lower ecological, economic and social damage. 

4.3. 

Suboption B+: Adapting existing legislation 

This  option  involves  amending  existing  legislation  to  widen  the  scope  to  formally  take  IS 
issues into account. This includes adjustment of existing legislation on plant/animal health to 
cover  a  broader  range  of  potentially  invasive  organisms  and  expansion  of  the  list  of 
“ecological threat“ species for which import and internal movement are prohibited under the 
Wildlife  Trade  Regulation  to  prevent  trade  in  a  larger  number  of  IS.  Additional  resources 
would need to be dedicated to IS in the assessment process and in the border control activities 
performed  by  Member  States.  Member  States  should  receive  clarification  on  the  scope  of 
national IS measures consistent with the EC Treaty. 

With regard to preventing the introduction of certain IS, this option would strengthen option 
B, as the legal framework would prohibit intentional introduction. However, it is unlikely to 
be  sufficient  to  counteract  the  increasing  threat,  as  none  of  the  current  legislation  is  really 
tailored  to  dealing  with  IS.  With  regard  to  early  warning  this  option  could  be  a  major 
breakthrough,  but  eradication  measures  remain  subject  to  the  goodwill  of  the  countries 
concerned; this option will bring some improvement, but it will not solve the problem. The 
situation is the same in relation to control and long-term containment. 

Option B+ and option C are mutually exclusive. 

4.4. 

Option C: Comprehensive, dedicated EU legal instrument  

Building on the measures outlined under option 2 an EU Strategy on IS could be developed to 
combat  the  threat  posed  by  biological  invasions,  through  coordinated  action  taking  into 
account  international  policy  instruments,  guiding  principles  and  procedures  addressing 
invasive  species  strategies  relevant  to  Europe.  The  EU  Strategy  on  IS  shall  be  subject  to 
follow-up to the Communication addressed in this impact assessment. Therefore the following 
outline  only  gives  a  brief  overview  on  the  vision,  objectives  and  underlying  principles  of  a 
future comprehensive EU strategy on IS. 

Box 3: EU Strategy on IS 

Vision: Europe where biodiversity, native species, incl. the genetic variations, and ecosystem 
services are not declining or being lost due to IS. 

Global objective: To substantially reduce the impact of invasive species on EU biodiversity, 
to  contribute  to  halting  biodiversity  loss  by  2010  and  beyond,  to  minimise  economic  and 
social costs caused by IS and thus contribute to the Lisbon Strategy. 

EN 

25 

   EN 

Specific objectives:  

(1)  Measures to address intentional and unintentional introduction are in place. 

(2)  Measures  to  address  "escapees"  and  established  IS  species  are  in  place  (eradication, 

containment, control). 

(3) 

A  well-functioning  early  warning  and  information  system  is  in  place  supported  by 
functioning surveillance and monitoring systems. 

(4) 

Financing mechanisms to eradicate/control IS are in place. 

(5)  MS implement national strategies and cooperate at EU level. 

(6) 

The  public  understands  and  accepts  necessary  measures  and  contributes  to  the 
objective. 

Source: IS discussion paper 

In discussions with representatives of the Member States and other stakeholders, some general 
principles  for  the  development  of  a  strategy  have  been  identified  as  building  blocks.  These 
are: 

–  Precautionary principle 

–  Subsidiarity principle 

–  Cooperation 

–  Solidarity principle 

–  Public involvement 

In addition, the strategy should incorporate the relevant existing international principles and 
strategies like the CBD Guiding Principles as well as the European Strategy on IAS (adopted 
by the Bern Convention under the Council of Europe). The strategy should make use of the 
best examples from various other institutions and initiatives and EU Member States' national 
IS strategies where available. 

4.5. 

Horizontal issues 

The following horizontal issues are relevant for all options. 

Communication, education and public awareness 

It  is  essential  to  have  an  informed  and  engaged  public  in  order  to  address  the  IS  issue 
successfully. Administrative / legal instruments alone cannot cover all aspects of IS. The aim 
of  communication,  education  and  awareness-raising  activities  should  be  to  build  a  sense  of 
responsibility  amongst  European  citizens  with  regard  to  import,  export  and  unintentional 
introduction  of  potential  IS  to  and  from  third  countries  and  their  movement  in  the  intra-
Community trade zone, and also in relation to detection/reporting, eradication and/or control 

EN 

26 

   EN 

programmes where public support can be crucial to achieving a successful outcome. A better 
informed public would probably bring fewer invasive species into their gardens and ponds.  

An important segment of these activities would be directed towards policy makers as well as 
to sectors engaged in activities that lead to unintentional introduction. These include the retail 
sector  where  emphasis  should  be  put  on  preventing  potential  escapes  of  species.  Voluntary 
instruments could be used to involve retailers. 

The other major objective of public awareness would be to foster acceptance by the public of 
the  need  for  measures  to  address  IS.  The  public  is  more  sensitive  to  eradication  of  some 
species,  especially  mammals  and  birds  e.g.  grey  squirrels,  and  consequently  more 
communication would be needed here.  

Communication  and  awareness-raising  activities  should  address  all  relevant  levels:  EU, 
national, regional and local. 

Exchange best practice and support action at Member State level 

Coordination should be improved and strong partnerships built. Action to address the IS issue 
should  be  strengthened  at  Member  State  level.  There  is  a  strong  need  for  development  and 
implementation of national strategies on IS, as is already being done in a number of Member 
States. Due to the different economic sectors and groups that are affected by the very nature 
of  IS,  Member  States  should  be  encouraged  to  include  all  involved  sectors  and  to  develop 
wide consultation processes. It is important to link national and regional strategies. There is a 
need to provide and disseminate to the Member States relevant information available. Existing 
web-based instruments could be used for this purpose, like the EC CHM34 hosted in the EEA. 

Knowledge base 

Serious challenges posed by massive human-mediated introductions of invasive species have 
resulted  in  the  strengthening  of  international  cooperation  in  research,  information  exchange 
and  management  of  aquatic  invasions  within  the  framework  of  different  international  group 
activities related to aquatic invasions in Europe and adjacent areas. 

However,  further  development  and  expansion  of  research  to  include  terrestrial  organisms 
should  be  supported  in  a  streamlined  way  that  builds  on  existing  European  frameworks.  It 
would  be  important  to  analyse  research  gaps  and  needs  and  to  ensure  that  there  is  a  good 
balance  between  research  on  assessing  the  risks  and  extent  or  severity  of  the  problem,  e.g. 
prediction of invasion for new species, and research into developing cost-effective control and 
management  methods,  e.g.  bio-control.  Research  into  better  prediction  of  invasions  should 
address:  increasing  knowledge  about  vectors,  the  inherent  factors  that  may  prevent  IS  and 
those that facilitate them. There is also still a lot to learn about the magnitude and pathways of 
invasive  species,  how  they  impact  on  ecosystems,  and  how  climate  change  will  affect 
biological  invasions.  The  integrated  approach  initiated  in  the  ALARM  project  should  be 
pursued further. 

34 

EC Clearing House Mechanism, http://biodiversity-chm.eea.europa.eu/ 

EN 

27 

   EN 

                                                 
Monitoring  and  reporting,  and  the  development  of  appropriate  indicators,  should  also  be 
supported in order to obtain feedback on policy effectiveness. Duplication with other existing 
monitoring and reporting requirements should be avoided so as not to squander resources, and 
synergies should therefore  be  explored with similar work  taking place  in  the  field of nature 
and biodiversity, but also in the various sectors identified (i.e. agriculture, forestry, fisheries). 
The results of research and monitoring should feed into information systems and should also 
support the exchange of information on good and bad practices. 

Financing 

Adequate financing for dealing with IS should be ensured and sought. Over the last 15 years 
the EC has helped to finance almost 300 projects addressing invasive alien species, for a total 
budget exceeding €132 million. This was shown in an analysis of the LIFE Programme and 
the Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development (RTD), being the 
two major EU funding sources for management actions and research on IS (Scalera R. 2008). 

Currently  it  is  mainly  the  LIFE+  programme  that  supports  action  on  IS  through  specific 
projects.  However,  outside  this  specific  nature  conservation  project-oriented  regime  and 
project-based financing, other sources are needed to support a number of further actions and 
to develop more flexible mechanisms, particularly given the far-reaching impact generated by 
IS  across  all  sectors  and  the  critical  importance  of  rapid  response  to  maximise  chances  of 
eradication. 

If new measures are required from Member States, the issue of financing will be important. 
The  option  of  dedicated  EU  funding  for  IS,  similar  to  the  solidarity  fund  under  plant 
protection  policy,  will  be  examined  in  greater  detail  during  the  follow-up  to  this 
Communication. An assessment of the exact financial needs of the Member States with regard 
to the financing of appropriate measures to prevent, eradicate and control IS in their territory 
will be carried out. Possibilities of using other EU funding mechanisms could be sought post-
2013. Apart from the analysis of the financial needs, a scoping analysis is planned with a view 
to 
to 
awareness/communication, control and eradication activities. In addition, opportunities should 
be explored for involving the private sector through the use of insurance and other economic 
and  financial  instruments.  Guaranteeing  sufficient  resources  and  establishing  financial  self-
sufficiency is important for long-term control and containment measures. Efforts to maximise 
the available resources and their sustainability can be sought by promoting full participation 
of  local  communities  and  key  stakeholders  in  project  development,  management  and 
implementation to ensure a long-term local commitment. 

various  EU  Funds 

identifying 

financially 

contribute 

how 

can 

the 

EN 

28 

   EN 

5. 

COMPARING THE OPTIONS 

The dramatic increase  in IS linked to  extended trade activities and human  mobility leads  to 
environmental and economic damage and will get even worse in the future. Option 1 would 
be likely to lead to hasty and costly "end of pipe" reactions in the future, which may well go 
beyond the costs generated by options 2 and 3. Table 4 below compares the options: 

Table 4: Comparison of the four options examined 

A) Business as Usual 

B) Maximising 
existing approaches 

B+ Amending existing 
legislation 

C) Comprehensive EU 
Strategy  

Level of 
intensity with 
regard to 
resources 
needed 

No 
additional 
resources  are  to  be 
used. 

Likely 
economic 
effects-impact 

Expected  increase  of 
IS will lead to further 
increases in economic 
(estimated 
losses 
in 
current 
costs 
Europe: 
12.7 
billion/year-  note  that 
this  amount  is  likely 
to 
an 
be 
underestimate, as it is 
based  on  available 
on 
information 
documented 
costs, 
which  does  not  cover 
all  IS  impacts),  while 
the  same  will  happen 
outside the EU. 

The 
suggested 
measures  require  an 
additional 
(medium) 
input  in  the  form  of 
for 
more 
resources, 
e.g. 
proper 
maintenance  of  the  IS 
inventory,  which 
is 
the  basis  for  an  early 
and 
warning 
information 
system 
that would need about 
€500 000 annually. 

Expected  increase  of 
IS  will  lead  to  further 
increases  in  economic 
losses, while the same 
will  be  experienced 
outside  the  EU.  Some 
marginal  decrease  in 
the  impact  may  occur 
due 
increased 
awareness  of  IS  and 
local  and 
action  at 
level. 
national 
However, 
this 
decrease is likely to be 
counterbalanced 
by 
the  overall  increase  in 
IS. 

to 

The suggested measures 
require  a  medium  to 
high input to amend the 
relevant 
existing 
legislation. 

The 
and 
development 
implementation  of  an  EU 
Strategy  on 
IS  needs 
commitment  of  significant 
resources.  The  analysis  of 
necessary 
is 
subject to the second step. 

resources 

Implementation  of  an  EU 
Strategy on IS will help to 
the  rate  of 
slow  down 
increase  of  the  problem  in 
particular  by  decreasing 
the  occurrence  of  new 
thus 
introductions, 
significantly 
reducing 
economic losses. 

once 

As  option  B,  with  a 
slight  decrease  of  IS 
and 
introduction 
consequent  decrease  of 
effects-
economic 
impact 
the 
relevant  legislation  will 
have been amended and 
implemented. However, 
the effectiveness will be 
because 
hampered, 
legal 
patchiness  and 
uncertainties 
will 
remain. 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
A) Business as Usual 

B) Maximising 
existing approaches 

B+ Amending existing 
legislation 

C) Comprehensive EU 
Strategy  

Likely 
environmental 
effects-impact 

Likely social 
effect - impact 

The expected increase 
of  IS  will  lead  to 
further  pressure  on 
biodiversity 
and 
hamper  the  efforts  to 
halt  biodiversity  loss. 
It  will 
the 
of 
resilience 
ecosystems  and  their 
capacity  to  adapt  to 
climate  change, 
the 
same  will  happen 
outside the EU. 

lower 

The expected increase 
IS  will  have 
of 
increased 
negative 
implications, 
health 
turn 
in 
which  will 
heighten 
public 
awareness,  increasing 
public  pressure 
for 
action,  the  same  as  is 
happening  already  in 
places outside the EU 
e.g.  New  Zealand, 
Australia, USA… 

increased 
The 
and 
awareness 
of 
application 
voluntary  codes  of 
the 
conducts 
and 
implementation 
of 
national  IS  strategies 
where  available,  may 
lead  to  local  success, 
however in absence of 
a 
co-ordinated 
approach  the  gaps  in 
tackling  the  issue  of 
IS will remain. 

once 

As  option  B,  with  a 
slight  decrease  of  IS 
and 
introduction 
consequent  decrease  of 
environmental  effects-
impact 
the 
relevant  legislation  will 
have been amended and 
implemented. However, 
the effectiveness will be 
because 
hampered, 
legal 
patchiness  and 
uncertainties 
will 
remain.  

to 

alleviate 

The  implementation  of  an 
EU  Strategy  on  IS  will 
the 
help 
problem  in  particular  by 
decreasing  the  threat  of 
new 
introductions.  Co-
ordinated  eradication  and 
control  measures  will 
stabilise  and  eventually 
improve  the  situation  and 
contribute 
halting 
to 
biodiversity loss. 

The  implementation  of  an 
EU  Strategy  on  IS  will 
significantly  alleviate  the 
problem 
increase 
and 
awareness  of  the  public 
and  the  sectors  concerned, 
and 
more 
stimulate 
responsible behaviour. 

As  option  B,  with  a 
slight  decrease  of  IS 
introduction 
and 
consequent  decrease  of 
effects-impact 
social 
once 
relevant 
the 
legislation  will  have 
been 
and 
amended 
implemented. However, 
the effectiveness will be 
because 
hampered, 
legal 
patchiness  and 
uncertainties 
will 
remain. 

lead 

The  expected  increase 
to 
of  IS  will 
of 
aggravation 
negative 
health 
effects,  which  will  in 
turn  heighten  public 
awareness,  increasing 
public  pressure 
for 
action, and the same is 
to  happen 
expected 
outside 
EU. 
the 
Communication 
actions will encourage 
responsible  behaviour 
by  the  public  and  the 
sectors 
in 
trading  IS  (pet  trade, 
horticulture, 
energy 
...) 

involved 

Uncertainty to 
reach the 
policy 
objectives 

It  is  certain  that  with 
the BAU option only, 
the  EU  will  fail  to 
successfully deal with 
the 
and 
threat 
subsequent  impact  of 
IS. 

The  implementation  of  an 
EU  Strategy  on  IS  would 
be more likely to reach the 
European policy objectives 
set. 

The 
of 
amending 
existing  legislation  will 
some 
bring 
improvement,  but 
it 
does  not  provide  for 
and 
comprehensive 
instruments 
strategic 
necessary 
cope 
to 
successfully with IS. 

The 
suggested 
measures are elements 
towards  dealing  with 
a  more 
IS 
in 
and 
comprehensive 
strategic 
manner. 
However,  as  stand-
alone  measures  they 
deemed 
are 
insufficient 
to  reach 
the  European  policy 
objectives set. 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
A) Business as Usual 

B) Maximising 
existing approaches 

B+ Amending existing 
legislation 

C) Comprehensive EU 
Strategy  

Development 
of impact over 
time 

As option B 

The currently existing 
problems 
will 
continue  to  increase 
and  accelerate  and 
will  most  likely  be 
the 
aggravated  by 
impact  of 
climate 
change. 

The  already  existing 
problems 
will 
continue  to  increase, 
maybe  at  a  slightly 
lower  level,  and  will 
be 
most 
likely 
the 
aggravated  by 
climate 
impact 
change. 

of 

The  implementation  of  an 
EU  Strategy  on  IS  will 
and 
to 
help 
eventually 
the 
situation.  

stabilise 
improve 

Affected 
groups 

All  groups  of  society 
and  certain  economic 
(e.g. 
sectors 
forestry, 
agriculture, 
fishery, 
tourism, 
health, energy) 

All  groups  of  society 
and  certain  economic 
(e.g. 
sectors 
forestry, 
agriculture, 
fishery, 
tourism, 
health, energy) 

All groups of society, in 
sectors 
particular 
involved  in  trade  with 
IS  including  pet  trade, 
horticulture, 
energy, 
etc. 

All  groups  of  society,  in 
particular  sectors  involved 
in  trade  with  IS  including 
pet 
horticulture, 
trade, 
energy, etc. 

Obstacles to 
compliance 

n/a 

Amending 
existing 
legislation  is  a  tedious 
undertaking, 
where 
effort  and  benefit  have 
to be properly balanced. 
The  willingness  and 
the 
preparedness  of 
parties 
are 
involved 
limited,  as  the  measure 
is  largely  perceived  as 
an  additional  burden 
beyond their remit. 

Institutional 
inertia 
due  to  the  overloaded 
agendas 
and 
insufficient 
commitment 
of 
resources  prevent  the 
and 
maximisation 
of 
prioritisation 
resources 
existing 
the 
including 
establishment  of  an 
Early  Warning  and 
System 
Information 
including 
the 
maintenance  of  the  IS 
inventory  

deployment 
prevent 

Insufficient 
and 
resources 
development 
implementation 
comprehensive 
Strategy on IS. 

commitment 
of 
the 
and 
a 
EU 

of 

The following table outlines a range of generic IS policy options and measures, their scope of 
application, and some of the costs they may entail. These measures will be further analysed in 
the second phase of this work, with a view to identifying those measures that will be part of 
the EU Strategy on IS.  

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
Table 5: Generic IS policy measures and actions, scope and indicative types of costs 

Type of measures / actions 

Scope 
application 

of 

Possible  types  of  costs  associated 
with the measures /actions 

Possible actors  

Prevention 

Pre-import  controls  (process  and 
product standards that exporters must 
meet  in  order  to  gain  access  to 
markets).  

Country of export. 

Offshore 
inspection  and  quarantine 
(personnel, equipment, procedures such 
as  fumigation,  certification).  Pathway 
controls  e.g.  offshore  ballast  water 
exchange pre-entry. 

Border controls, 

Custom services 

to  mitigate  IS 
Specific  controls 
threats  to  the  natural  environment 
should  be  coordinated  with  import 
regulations and procedures to ensure 
plant, animal and food health 

Borders  

Customs services; maintenance of entry 
points;  border  inspections;  quarantine 
procedures  and  equipment 
(X-rays, 
laboratories,  sniffer  dogs,  fumigation); 
post-entry quarantine where necessary. 

Border controls, 

Custom services 

Import risk analysis procedures.  

Listing  of  species/commodities  that  are 
authorised /restricted. 

Training and capacity-building 

Controls on intentional introductions. 

Point of import or in-
country. 

Risk assessment procedures. 

Competent 
Authorities 

Listing of authorised/restricted species.  

Permit/licensing systems.  

Measures  to  minimise  escape  risk  (e.g. 
from contained facilities). 

Follow-up monitoring and reporting. 

Compliance (including voluntary). 

Research Institutions 

Border controls, 

Custom services 

Variable.  

Pathway/vector 
to 
assess  means  of  entry/dispersal  of  IAS 
that could affect biodiversity. 

risk  assessment 

Competent 
Authorities 

Pathway 
(commodities, 
activities etc.). 

management 

measures 
transportation,  sectoral 

Technical  measures 
identified risks. Follow-up monitoring. 

address 

to 

Research Institutions 

Border controls, 

Deterrents/incentives  to  support  best 
practices 

Custom services, 

Civil Society 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Type of measures / actions 

Scope 
application 

of 

Possible  types  of  costs  associated 
with the measures /actions 

Possible actors  

Regulatory/voluntary  controls  on  in-
country  movement,  trade,  other  uses 
spread: 
(aim 
measures 
long-term 
containment) 

is  prevention  of 
support 

Countrywide 
or 
targeted  at  specific 
(non-invaded 
areas 
vulnerable 
areas; 
ecosystems 
like 
wetlands;  protected 
areas; islands etc.)  

Permit/licensing  systems  e.g.  for  retail 
and other containment facilities.  

Competent 
Authorities 

Legal prohibitions (e.g. on release). 

Research Institutions 

Monitoring  and  reporting.  Compliance 
and enforcement. 

Retailers 

Construction sector 

Physical barriers and deterrents for IAS 
exclusion  (from  crops,  protected  areas, 
gardens, 
lakes)  or  containment  (in 
already invaded areas).  

Modification  to  physical  infrastructure 
e.g. alteration to dams. 

Targeted  communication  campaigns 
and conflict reduction measures 

Countrywide 
issue-specific 

or 

media 
Information 
campaigns,  participatory  consultations 
for controversial species/issues.  

materials, 

Civil Society 

Government 

Monitoring 
systems.  

and 

early  warning 

Information exchange  

Early detection and rapid response 

Around  major  entry 
points/disturbed areas 
where  easier  for  IAS 
to  establish/protected 
areas/ 
vulnerable 
ecosystems.  

European,  national, 
transboundary, 
regional, global. 

Monitoring protocols. 

Government 

Personnel and equipment. Coordination 
of volunteer contributors. 

Research Institutions  

Well-structured reporting systems. 

Civil Society 

Operational coordination. 

Government 

Data 
infrastructure. 

protocols. 

Electronic 

Research Institutions  

Civil Society 

Industry 
ornamental) 

(e.g.  pets, 

Rapid response procedures. 

needed 
Where 
(aquatic  as  well  as 
terrestrial 
ecosystems). 

Authority  under  relevant 
(private as well as public property). 

legislation 

Government 

Capacity  (trained  teams).  Contingency 
planning and equipment. 

Funding for rapid response. 

Research Institutions  

Civil Society 

Industry 
ornamental) 

(e.g.  pets, 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
 
Type of measures / actions 

Scope 
application 

of 

Possible  types  of  costs  associated 
with the measures /actions 

Possible actors  

Long-term control and containment 

General  measures  for  eradication, 
control or containment. 

National. 

New/revised  legislation  as  necessary 
Strategic planning. 

Government 

Management plans based on ecosystem 
approach or for individual IAS. 

Research Institutions  

Civil Society 

Research, 
risk  and 
supported  by 
environmental  impact  assessment  for 
control techniques. 

Industry 
ornamental) 

(e.g.  pets, 

Public consultation procedures. 

Transboundary 
necessary; 
training. 

consultation  where 
equipment, 

Personnel, 

Mechanical (plants) 

Where needed. 

Mechanical (animals) 

Where needed. 

Chemical 

Where needed. 

By-laws (local regulations). 

Monitoring of results. 

Compliance (including voluntary). 

thinning/removal  of 

e.g. 
trees  and 
shrubs;  grazing  and  mowing  regimes; 
mechanical removal of algae. 

idem 

idem 

idem 

e.g. shooting, trapping, snares; drainage 
of  ponds;  cleaning  of  catchment 
installations  and  clogged  gear;  de-
fouling of fishing gear and boats. 

Herbicides  and  pesticides  (constraints 
include resistance of target species, Ban 
on  use  of  certain  chemicals,  lack  of 
target specificity, contamination). 

Poison  (e.g.  bait):  risk  assessment  to 
avoid  impact  on  non-target  species. 
Contraceptive techniques. 

Biological control 

Where needed. 

Research  to  ensure  introduced  agent  is 
host-specific. 

idem 

Appropriate 
Notification/consultation  directed 
other potentially affected countries. 

legislation. 
to 

Monitoring. 

Restoration 

Where needed. 

Replanting,  structural  repair,  ongoing 
maintenance. Incentive measures. 

idem 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
Type of measures / actions 

Scope 
application 

of 

Possible  types  of  costs  associated 
with the measures /actions 

Possible actors  

Legal and institutional framework 

Strengthened  IAS  policies  and  legal 
framework. 

European, 
National, local. 

Review of existing measures. 

Government 

Development  of  coordinated  national 
strategy/action  plan.  Development  or 
amendment 
and 
regulations. 

legislation 

of 

Civil Society 

Industry 
ornamental) 

(e.g.  pets, 

Creation  of/mandate  for  a  high-level 
mechanism to coordinate IAS policy 
and planning, including in the natural 
environment.  

European, 
National. 

European  IAS  database  (stand-alone 
or  integrated  into  other  biodiversity 
information mechanisms)  

European 
and 
National  (scope  to 
pool resources with 
neighbouring 
countries). 

Development  of  voluntary  protocols, 
incentives,  financing  and  cost-recovery 
mechanisms. 

Operating costs of national coordination 
mechanism  and/or  technical  advisory 
committees.  

Government 

Researcher 
establish baseline information. 

time  and  equipment 

to 

Government 

(links 

infrastructure 

to 
Technical 
national  and 
international  clearing-
house  mechanisms).  Maintenance  and 
regular  updating  of  database  and  broad 
links. 

Research Institutions 

Civil Society 

Training and capacity-building. 

National, local. 

Awareness-building 
governmental and technical level. 

at 

Government 

Public access. 

Taxonomy  cost  of  diagnosis.  All 
areas of operation, as needed. 

Research Institutions  

Universities, 
Secondary schools 

Civil Society 

6. 

CONCLUSIONS 

Scientific research and experience with projects targeting the control or eradication of IS have 
demonstrated  the  magnitude  of  the  IS  problems  for  various  economic  sectors  and  made  it 
clear that the problem will exponentially increase unless appropriate action is taken urgently. 
A  coordinated  approach  at  EU  level  is  indispensable,  as  the  impacts  are  transboundary. 
Therefore the development of an EU Strategy on tackling IS is the most appropriate way to 
address the problem and meet the policy objectives set.  

It has been demonstrated that developing this strategy will take some time, to allow actions 
and  the  legislative  framework  to  be  studied  in  detail  and  appropriately  prepared. 
Subsequently, the measures outlined under option B need to be taken up as soon as possible 
and  with  immediate  effect.  These  include  the  establishment  of  an  EU  Early  Warning  and 
Information System and the maintenance of the European inventory of alien species that has 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
been  delivered  by  the  DAISIE  project.  These  two  distinct  actions,  together  with  improved 
communication, raising awareness of the public and the economic sectors affected, education 
and  establishment  of  voluntary  codes  of  conduct  will  make  for  greater  EU  efficiency  in 
dealing with IS problems. 

The collected literature and reports on costs indicate that the eradication, control or long-term 
containment measures that need to be implemented when and where prevention efforts fail or 
are  not  implemented  in  the  first  place  could  be  extremely  costly.  There  are  also  many 
documented  examples  of  the  serious  technical  constraints  involved  in  finding  successful 
control techniques for individual  IS, thus  further research and experimentation is  needed  on 
these aspects.  

The  internationally-accepted  position  implies  that  prevention  is  better  than  cure  when  it 
comes  to  IS  and  should  be  prioritised  in  policy  development  (see  the  CBD  Guiding 
Principles). Prevention is likely to be the most cost-effective option, given the sheer scale of 
negative economic, social and environmental effects of IS. Therefore investment in robust and 
coordinated prevention and early warning and information systems to minimise any negative 
impact on biodiversity can deliver positive results for multiple sectors and interests, including: 

•  more effective conservation of threatened species and their habitats; 

•  more systematic management of IS threats to vulnerable ecosystems such as wetlands; 

•  reinforced  protection  of  biodiversity  hotspots,  including  Natura  2000  sites  and  islands  in 

EU overseas entities; 

•  maintenance or restoration of ecosystem function and services; 

•  maintenance  or  recovery  of  yields  and  quality  of  biological  production  systems 

(agriculture, fisheries, forestry); 

•  avoidance of trade-related problems (e.g. loss of markets due to infested goods);  

•  reduced constraints on water supply, transportation, energy production, flood and fire risk 

management; 

•  preservation or restoration of landscape, recreational and tourism amenity;  

•  reduced health expenditure for allergy management and disease control.  

It  is  recognised  that  individual  options  have  associated  costs  and  economic  implications  for 
different  categories  of  stakeholders.  The  aim  should  be  to  select  and  combine  those  policy 
options  and  within  these  the  measures  that  efficiently  minimise  IS  risk,  keep  the  costs  of 
supply  for  a  service/activity  low,  minimise  the  cost  of  compliance  and  administration  and 
ensure  fairness  between  different  categories  of  stakeholders.  A  common  and  cooperative 
approach  to  the  problem  of  invasive  species  is  essential  if  we  are  to  find  cost-efficient  and 
effective  ways  to  prevent  the  introduction  of  invasive  species  and  establish  eradication  or 
control programmes. 

EN 

36 

   EN 

7. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

The  core  indicator  of  progress  towards  meeting  the  objectives  would  be  the  existence  of  a 
functioning  pan-European  Early  Warning  and  Information  System  (EWIS)  on  Invasive 
Species based on a regularly updated inventory by 2009. EWIS would involve cooperation of 
researchers, civil society, concerned industry sectors, government institutions and the EEA.  

The  EU  Strategy  on  IS  is  one  of  the  actions  identified  in  the  EU  Biodiversity  Action  Plan 
(BAP). Reporting on progress made with regard to tackling the threat of IS is an integral part 
of the BAP reporting. 

"Trends in invasive species" is one of the European Headline Indicators for Biodiversity35 to 
assess  progress  towards  the  2010  target  of  Halting  Biodiversity  Loss.  The  key  policy 
questions  concern  control  of  the  main  pathways  for  invasive  species  establishing  in  Europe 
and  management  actions  for  invasive  species  prioritising  the  species  that  create  the  largest 
negative impact on biodiversity and are directly relevant for the monitoring and evaluation of 
the measures dealt with in this impact assessment report. 

35 

EN 

For  more 
http://biodiversity-chm.eea.europa.eu/information/indicator/F1090245995 

(Streamlining  European  Biodiversity 

information 

see  SEBI 

Indicators)  2010 

37 

   EN 

                                                 
LIST OF ANNEXES, SUPPORT DOCUMENTS AND REFERENCES 

Annexes 

Annex A: Figures and tables 

Annex B: Description of relevant EU research projects 

Annex C: Examples of costs and benefits of IS policy measures 

Support documents and key references 

Bella  S.,  Nehring  S.,  Panov  V.,  Waterways  as  Invasion  Highways  –  Impact  of  Climate  Change 
and Globalisation, chapter 5 of "Biological Invasions" Ecological Studies Vol. 193, Springer-Verlag 
Berlin Heidelberg 2007. 

Capdevila L. and Ziletti B. A perspective on climate change and invasive species. Discussion paper 
prepared for the Convention on the Conservation and European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, March 
2008 

European Commission, DG Environment. Developing a EU Framework for Invasive Alien Species, 
Discussion Paper by the IS consultation group of Member State representatives and other stakeholders 
see http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/invasivealien/index_en.htm  

Genovesi P, Scalera R, Towards a Black List of Invasive Alien Species Entering Europe through 
Trade  and  Proposed  Responses.  Document  prepared  the  Convention  on  the  Conservation  and 
European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, November 2007. 

Heywood V. and Brunel S., Code of Conduct on horticulture and invasive alien plants, document 
prepared the Convention on the Conservation and European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, December 
2007 (second draft) 

Hulme  P.,  Bacher  S.,  Kenis  M.,  Klotz  S.,  Kühn  I.,  Minchin  D.,  Nentwig  W.,  Olenin  S.,  Panov  V., 
Pergl  J.,  Pysek  P.,  Roques  A.,  Sol  D.,  Solarz  W.,  Vilà  M.,  Grasping  the  routes  of  biological 
invasions: a framework for integrating pathways into policy, Journal of Applied Ecology, 2008 

Hulme P. Biological Invasions in Europe: Drivers, Pressures, States, Impacts and Responses. The 
Royal Society of Chemistry, 2007. 

Hulme P. et al 2008, "A pan European inventory of alien species: rationale, implementation and 
implications or managing biological invasions"; chapter in DAISIE (eds) The Handbook of Alien 
Species in Europe, (in press) Springer, Berlin. 

Kenis  M.,  Auger-Rozenberg  M-A.,  Lopez-Vaamonde  C.,  Timms  L.,  Péré  C.,  Cock  M.,  Settele  J.  , 
Augustin S., Roques A., Ecological impact of invasive alien insects - a world review (in press). 

Kettunen,  M.,  Genovesi,  P.,  Gollasch,  S.,  Pagad,  S.,  Starfinger,  U.  ten  Brink,  P.  &  Shine,  C.  2008. 
Technical  support  to  EU  strategy  on  invasive  species  (IS)  -  Assessment  of  the  impacts  of  IS  in 
Europe  and  the  EU  (Final  module  report  for  the  European  Commission).  Institute  for  European 
Environmental Policy (IEEP), Brussels, Belgium. 40 pp. + Annexes., May 2008 (DG ENV contract). 

Miller C., Kettunen M., Scope options for EU Action on invasive alien species (IS), June 2006. At: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/invasivealien/docs/2006_06_IS_scope_options.pdf 

EN 

38 

   EN 

Olenin S., Analyses of naturalisation rates for different taxa, biomes and Member States, DAISIE 
deliverable 11, February 2007. 

Panov  V.  et  al,  "New  electronic  journal  "Aquatic  Invasions":  an  important  part  of  the 
developing European early warning system on aquatic invasive species", ALARM deliverable D 
5.1.7 Feb 2008. 

Panov V.et al, Interim protocols for risk assessment of aquatic invasive species introductions via 
European inland waterways, ALARM deliverable D. 4.1.3.10, February 2008-06-04 

Pysek  P.,  Bacher  S.,  Chytry  S.,  Hulme  P.,  Kenis  M.,  Minchin  D.,  Nentwig  W.,  Olenin  S.,  Sol  D., 
Solarz W., Vilà M, Predictive models of the susceptibility of representative European ecosystems 
to invasions, ALARM deliverable 1.3.2. March 2006 

Scalera  R.  EU  funding  for  management  and  research  of  invasive  alien  species  in  Europe,  April 
2008 
http://biodiversity-
chm.eea.europa.eu/information/F1059808330/report-eu-spending-invasive-species-2008 

N-3603/B2007.EEA.53070). 

available 

contract 

(EEA 

at 

Sherley  G.,  Timmins  S.  and  Lowe  S.  Invasive  species  in  the  Pacific:  a  regional  strategy.  South 
Pacific  Regional  Environment  Programme  (SPREP),  Approved  by  SPREP  member  countries  in 
September 2000. 

Shine  C.,  Williams  N.,  Gündling  L.  A  guide  to  designing  legal  and  institutional  frameworks  on 
Alien Invasive Species, Environmental Policy and Law Paper No 40, 2000. 

Van der Weijden W., Leewis R., Bol P. Biological Globalisation, Bio-invasions and their impacts 
on nature, the economy and public health, KNNV Publishing 2007. 

Vilá M. and Basnou C., State of the art review of the environmental and economic risks posed by 
invasive alien species in Europe, DAISIE deliverable 14, February 2008. 

EN 

39 

   EN 

ANNEX A - Figures and Tables 

Figure 1 demonstrates the main direct drivers on biodiversity 

Main Direct Drivers 

The cell color indicates the impact to date of each driver on biodiversity in each biome over the past 50–100 years. The arrows 
indicate  the  trend  in  the  impact  of  the  driver  on  biodiversity.  Horizontal  arrows  indicate  a  continuation  of  the  current  level  of 
impact; diagonal and vertical arrows indicate progressively increasing trends in impact. This Figure is based on expert opinion 
consistent with and based on the analysis of drivers of change in various chapters of the assessment report of the Condition and 
Trends Working Group. This Figure presents global impacts and trends that may be different from those in specific regions. 

Source:  Millennium  Ecosystem  Assessment,  2005.  Ecosystems  and  Human  Well-being: 
Biodiversity Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
Figure  2  demonstrates  the  relative  contribution  of  pathways  of  introduction  shown  for 
naturalised aliens to Europe, i.e. species with the area of origin outside Europe. Pathways of 
intentional introductions are underlined, unintentional not. Based on 2024 naturalised aliens, 
data from Lambdon et al. (2008) 

Source:  Hulme  P.  et  al  2008,  "A  pan  European  inventory  of  alien  species:  rationale, 
implementation  and  implications  or  managing  biological  invasions";  chapter  in  DAISIE 
(eds) The Handbook of Alien Species in Europe, (in press) Springer, Berlin 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
Figure 3 represents a simplified framework to categorise pathways of initial introduction of 
alien  species  into  a  new  region.  Alien  species  may,  as  a  direct  or  indirect  result  of  human 
activity, arrive and enter into a new region through three broad mechanisms: the importation 
of a commodity,  the arrival of a transport vector  and/or  natural spread from a neighbouring 
region  where  the  species  is  itself  alien.  Five  pathways  are  associated  with  human  activity 
either  as  commodities  (release  and  escape),  contaminants  of  commodities,  stowaways  on 
modes  of 
transport 
transport  and  opportunists  exploiting  corridors  resulting  from 
infrastructures. The sixth category highlights alien species that may arrive unaided in a region 
as  a  result  of  natural  spread  (rather  than  human  transport)  following  a  primary  human-
mediated  introduction  in  a  neighbouring  region.  For  each  pathway  a  brief  description  is 
presented  with  examples.  The  different  regulatory  approaches  for  each  pathway  are  also 
illustrated.  While  a  case  is  often  made  regarding  differences  between  intentional  vs. 
unintentional introductions, the scheme highlights a gradient of human intention that reflects 
the difficulty in distinguishing between ignorant and premeditated action. 

Source: Hulme P., Bacher S., Kenis M., Klotz S., Kühn I., Minchin D., Nentwig W., Olenin S., 
Panov V., Pergl J., Pysek P., Roques A., Sol D., Solarz W., Vilà M., Grasping the routes of 
biological invasions: a framework for integrating pathways into policy, Journal of Applied 
Ecology,  

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
Figure 4 shows the increasing invasion trends 

Alien to Europe
Alien in Europe
Aliens of European origin 

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

i

s
e
c
e
p
s
f
o

.

o
N

0
1500

1600

1700

1800

1900

2000

Date of introduction

Source: DAISIE project 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
 
 
Figure 5 shows the temporal trends in the mode of introduction of (a) terrestrial plants and (b) 
marine species in Nordic countries 

Sources:  Data  from  the  North  European  and  Baltic  Network  on  Invasive  Alien  Species 
http://www.nobanis.org/, accessed on 10/01/2007). 

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
Figure  6  demonstrates  the  role  of  e-journal  Aquatic  Invasions  in  the  developing  European 
early warning system on invasive alien species (IAS). 

Role of e-journal Aquatic Invasions in the developing European early warning system on invasive alien species (IAS), modified from Panov 
and  Gollasch  (2006).  GISD  –  Global  Invasive  Species  Database  (http://www.issg.org/database/  ),  DAISIE  -  EC  FP6  Strategic  Targeted 
Research  Project  “Delivering  Alien  Invasive  Species  Inventories  for  Europe”  information  resources  (http://www.europe-aliens.org), 
ERNAIS  –  European  Research  Network  on  Aquatic  Invasive  Species  (http://www.zin.ru/rbic/projects/ernais/),  RBIC  –  Regional 
Biological  Invasions  Centre  information  system  (http://www.zin.ru/rbic/),  EurOBIS  -  The  European  Ocean  Biogeographic  Information 
System  (http://www.marbef.org/data/eurobis.php),  ICES  –  International  Council  for  the  Exploration  of  the  Sea  (http://www.ices.dk), 
NOBANIS – North European and Baltic Network on Invasive Alien Species (http://www.nobanis.org/ ); AES CIESM – Atlas of Exotic 
Species of the International Commission for the Scientific Exploration of the Mediterranean Sea (http://www.ciesm.org/online/atlas/), EC – 
European  Commission  (http://ec.europa.eu/  ),  EEA  –  European  Environment  Agency  (http://www.eea.europa.eu/  ),  OSPAR  -  OSPAR 
Commission for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (http://www.ospar.org/), HELCOM – Baltic Marine 
Environment  Protection  Commission  (http://www.helcom.fi/),  Risk  Assessment  Toolkit  –  online  risk  assessment  instrument  with  early 
warning functions currently under development in frameworks of EC FP6 Integrated Project ALARM (Panov et al. 2008) 

Source: Panov V. et al, "New electronic journal "Aquatic Invasions": an important part of 
the  developing  European  early  warning  system  on  aquatic  invasive  species",  ALARM 
deliverable D 5.1.7 Feb 2008 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
Figure 7 and Figure 8 show selected new geo-referenced records of invasive alien species in 
European inland waters in 2006-2007, published in the second volume of Aquatic Invasions 

Figure 7 

Selected new geo-referenced records of invasive alien species in European inland waters in 2006-2007, published in the second volume of 
Aquatic  Invasions:  1  –  the  spiny-cheek  crayfish,  Orconectes  limosus  in  UK  (Holdich  and  Black  2007),  2  –  the  Ponto-Caspian  amphipod 
Dikerogammarus villosus (“killer shrimp”) in Lac du Bourget, France (Grabowski et al. 2007), 3 – the Quagga mussels Dreissena bugensis 
in the Main River, Germany (van der Velde and Platvoet 2007), 4 – the Quagga mussels Dreissena bugensis in Ukraine (Son 2007), 5 – the 
tubenose  goby  Proterorhinus  marmoratus  from  the  River  Pripyat,  Belarus  (Rizevsky  et  al.  2007),  6  –  the  tubenose  goby  Proterorhinus 
marmoratus  from  the  Neva  River  estuary,  Russia  (Antsulevich  2007),  7  -  the  Ponto-Caspian  amphipod  Dikerogammarus  villosus  in  the 
Dnieper  River,  Belarus  (Mastitsky  and  Makarevich  2007),  8  –  the  North  American  freshwater  limpet  Ferrissia  fragilis  in  Ukraine  (Son 
2007), 9 – the parasite trematode Rossicotrema donicum from Lake Lukomskoe, Belarus (Mastitsky 2007), 10 – the Ponto-Caspian mysid 
Limnomysis benedeni from the River Pripyat, Belarus (Semenchenko et al. 2007), 11 – the Chinese mitten crab, Eriocheir sinensis from the 
Volga River, Russia (Shakirova et al. 2007), 12 – the Asian clams Corbicula fluminea and C. fluminalis in Serbia (Paunović et al. 2007), 13 
– the Asian clam Sinanodonta woodiana from Eastern Romania (Popa et al. 2007), 14 – the North American sunfish Lepomis gibbosus in 
Turkey (Özcan 2007) 

Source: Panov V. et al, "New electronic journal "Aquatic Invasions": an important part of 
the  developing  European  early  warning  system  on  aquatic  invasive  species",  ALARM 
deliverable D 5.1.7 Feb 2008 

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
Figure 8 

Selected new geo-referenced records of invasive alien species in European coastal waters in 2006-2007, published in the second volume of 
Aquatic  Invasions:  1  –  the  Asian  bivalve Theora  (Endopleura)  lubrica from  Mediterranean  coast  of  Israel  (Bogi  and  Galil  2007),  2  –  the 
Indo-Pacific  humpnose  big-eye  bream,  Monotaxis  grandoculis  in  the  Mediterranean  Sea  (Bilecenoglu  2007),  3  -  the  Red  Sea  mussel 
Brachidontes  pharaonis  from  the  Turkish  coasts  (Doğan  et  al.  2007),  4  -  the  red  alga  Asparagopsis  taxiformis  in  Greece  (Tsiamis  and 
Panayotidis 2007), 5 - the tropical scyphomedusa Phyllorhiza punctata in the Central Mediterranean Sea (Abed-Navandi and Kikinger 2007), 
6 - the oriental shrimp Palaemon macrodactylus in Gironde Estuary, France (Beguer et al. 2007), 7 – the Pacific alga Sargassum muticum on 
the west coast of Scotland (Harries et al. 2007), 8 – the Asian amphipod Caprella mutica in coastal waters of UK and Norway (Cook et al. 
2007), 9 - the American oyster drill, Urosalpinx cinerea in The Netherlands (Faasse and Ligthart 2007), 10 – the Asian tunicate Styela clava 
from the central German Bight (Krone et al. 2007), 11 – the North-American ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi in Danish waters (Tendal et al. 
2007), 12 – Mnemiopsis leidyi in the Oslofjorden, Norway (Oliveira 2007), 13 - Mnemiopsis leidyi in south-western Baltic Sea (Kube et al. 
2007), 14 - Mnemiopsis leidyi in the Gulf of Gdańsk, southern Baltic Sea ( Janas and Zgrundo 2007), 15 - Mnemiopsis leidyi in the north-
eastern Baltic Sea (Lehtiniemi et al. 2007) 

Source: Panov V. et al, "New electronic journal "Aquatic Invasions": an important part of 
the  developing  European  early  warning  system  on  aquatic  invasive  species",  ALARM 
deliverable D 5.1.7 Feb 2008 

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
Figures  9-12  proportion  of  different  taxonomic  groups  listed  according  to  4  different 
introduction categories (see also table 5) 

Figure 9: Proportion of different taxonomic groups listed as category A (species introduced 
intentionally as the commodity itself for being released into the environment, n = 77 species) 

Amphibians & 
Reptiles
1.3%

Birds
1.3%

Fish
16.9%

Plants
51.9%

Mammals
6.5%

Crustaceans 
10.4%

Molluscs
9.1%

Insect
1.3%

Macroalgae
1.3%

Figure 10: Proportion of different taxonomic groups listed as category B (species introduced 
intentionally  as  the  commodity  itself  for  being  kept  in  a  controlled  environment,  n  =  45 
species) 

Molluscs
11.1%

Plants
24.4%

Mammals
20.0%

Fish
6.7%

Crustaceans 
11.1%

Birds
13.3%

Macroalgae
2.2%

Comb jellies
4.4%

Amphibians & 
Reptiles
6.7%

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
 
Figure 11: Proportion of different taxonomic groups listed as category C (sp. Unintentionally 
introduced as a contaminant of a specific commodity: n = 205 species) 

Insect
65.4%

Flatworms
2.0%

Macroalgae
2.4%

Fungi
4.4%

Plants
15.1%

Annelids
0.5%

Protists
0.5%

Hydroids, Jellyfish, 
Sea Anemones & 
Corals
0.5%

Nematodes
6.3%

Molluscs
2.4%

Cestoda
0.5%

Figure 12: Proportion of different taxonomic groups listed as category D (sp. Unintentionally 
introduced with movements of people or of machinery; n = 131 species) 

Phytoplankton
7.6%

Nematodes
9.2%

Protozoa
1.6%

Molluscs
7.6%

Mammals
0.8%

Macroalgae
4.6%

Prokaryotes
0.8%

Plants
14.5%

Insect
24.4%

Fish
8.4%

Fungi
0.8%

Hydroids, Jellyfish, 
Sea Anemones & 
Corals
2.3%

Annelids
6.1%

Ascidians and 
Sessile Tunicates
0.8%

Bryozoans
1.6%

Comb Jellies
0.8%

Crustaceans
8.4%

Source  :  Genovesi  P,  Scalera  R, Towards  a  Black  List  of  Invasive  Alien  Species  Entering 
Europe Through Trade and Proposed Responses, document prepared the Convention on the 
Conservation and European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, November 2007 

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
 
Table  1:  Examples  of  pathogens  and  parasites  transmitted  to  native  hosts  following  the 
introduction of specific alien species into Europe 

Taxon 

Plants 

Alien host 

Native host 

Alien parasite/pathogen 

Rhododendron ponticum 

Quercus petraea 

Sudden oak death fungus 

Crustacea 

Pacifastacus leniusculus 

Austropotamobius pallipes 

Crayfish plague fungus 

Insects 

Apis cerana 

Apis mellifera 

Varroa mite 

Fish 

Fish 

Pseudorasbora parva 

Leucaspius delineatus 

Rosette agent parasite 

Anguilla japonica 

Anguilla anguilla 

Swim-bladder nematode 

Mammals 

Cervus nippon 

Cervus elaphus 

Asiatic blood nematode 

Mammals 

Mustela vison 

Mustela lutreola 

Aleutian disease virus 

Mammals 

Sciurus carolinensis 

Sciurus vulgaris 

Parapox virus 

Source: Hulme P. Biological Invasions in Europe: Drivers, Pressures, States, Impacts and 
Responses, The Royal Society of Chemistry, 2007 

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
Table 2: Monetary costs (million € per year) of alien species invading Europe 

References to Table 2 

Adrados LC and Briggs L (Eds). 2002. Study of application of EU Wildlife Trade regulations in relation to species which form an 
ecological  threat  to  the  EU  fauna  and  flora,  with  case  studies  of  American  bullfrog  (Rana  catesbeiana)  and  red-eared  slider 
(Trachemys scripta elegans). Study report to the European Commission. Amphi Consult, Denmark. 

Andreu J and Vilà M. 2007. Análisis de la gestión de las plantas invasoras en España. Ecosistemas 3: 1-16. 

Alonso C. 2006. La CHE ya cualifica los daños del mejillón cebra en 2 millones anuales. El Periodico September 19. 

Child  L,  Wade  M,  and  Hathaway  S.  2001.  Strategic  invasive  plant  management,  linking  policy  and  practice:  A  case  study  of 
Fallopia japonica in Swansea, South Wales (United Kingdom). In: Brundu G, Brock J, Camarda I, Child L, Wade M (Eds.). Plant 
invasions: Species ecology and ecosystem management. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands. 

Galil BS and Zenetos A. 2002. Invasive aquatic species of Europe: Distribution, Impacts and Management. In: Leppäkoski E, 
Gollasch S, Olenin S (Eds). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp 

Gebhart H. 1996. Ecological and economic consequences of introductions of exotic wildlife (birds and mammals) in Germany. 
Wildl Biol 2: 205-11. 

Gollasch S and Rosenthal H. 2006. The Kiev Canal. In: Gollasch S, Galil BS, Cohen A (Eds). Bridging divides-maritime canals 
as invasion corridors. Spirnger, Dordrecht, The Netherlands 

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
Gosling LM and Baker SJ. 1989. The eradication of muskrats and coypus from Britain. Biol J Linn Soc 38: 39-51. 

Gritten RH. 1995. Rhododendron ponticum and some other invasive plants in the Snowdonia National Park. In: Pyšek P, Prach 
K, Rejmánek M, Wade M (Eds). Plant invasions: General aspects and special problems. SPB Academic Publishing, Amsterdam. 

Hentschel W and Hentschelová H. 2003. Vejmutovka v Labských pískovcích. In: Nepůvodní dřeviny a invazní rostliny, sborník 
přednášek z celostátního semináře, Žlutice, září 2003, Česká lesnická společnost, Moldau Press Praha: 85-98 

Hopkins  2002.  In:  Leppäkoski  E,  Gollasch  S,  Olenin  S  (Eds.).  Invasive  aquatic  species  of  Europe:  Distribution,  Impacts  and 
Management. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp 

Křivánek M. 2006. Biologické invaze a možnosti jejich předpovědi (Predikční modely pro stanovení invazního potenciálu vyšších 
rostlin). Acta Pruhoniciana vol 84, VÚKOZ Průhonice, 83 pp 

Moore NP, Roy SS, and Helyar A. 2003. Mink (Mustela vison) eradication to protect ground-nesting birds in the Western Isles, 
Scotland, United Kingdom. N Z J Zool 30: 443 – 452. 

Nielsen et al 2005. 

Panov PI, Krylov and I. V. Telesh. 1999. In: Initial risk assessment of alien species in Nordic coastal waters 

Panzacchi M, Bertolino S, Cocchi R, et al. 2007. Population control of coypu Myocastor coypus in Italy compared to eradication 
in UK: a cost-benefit analysis. Wildl Biol 13: 159-171. 

Scalera  R  and  Zaghi  D.  2004.  Alien  species  and  nature  conservation  in  the  EU.  The  role  of  the  LIFE  program.  LIFE  Focus. 
European Commission, Bruxelles. 

Shaw RH. 2003. Biological control of invasive weeds in the UK: opportunities and challenges. In: Child LE, Brock JH, Brundu G, 
Prach  K,  Pyšek  P,  Wade  PM  and  Williamson  M  (Eds).  Plant  invasions:  Ecological  threaths  and  management  solutions. 
Backhuys Publishers, Leiden. 

Smallshire D, Davey JW. 1989. Feral Himalayan porcupines in Devon. Nature in Devon, J. Devon Wildl. Trust. 10: 62-69. 

White  PCL  and  Harris  S.  2002.  Economic  and  environmental  costs  of  alien  vertebrate  species  in  Britain.  In:  Pimentel  D. 
Biological invasions: economic and environmental costs of alien plant. Animal and microbe species. CRC Press, Boca Raton. 

Williamson M. 2002. Alien plants in the British Isles. In D Pimentel Biological invasions: economic and environmental costs of 
alien plant. Animal and microbe species. CRC Press, Boca Raton. 

Source: Vilá M. and Basnou C., State of the art review of the environmental and economic 
risks posed by invasive alien species in Europe, DAISIE deliverable 14, February 2008 

EN 

52 

   EN 

Table 3: Estimated monetary costs (million € per year) of alien species invading Europe 

References to Table 3 

Collins  V.  2006.  £100.000  battle  against  alien  crayfish  ends  in  defeat.  Crayfish  News-International  Association  of  Astacology 
Newsletter 28: 219-226. 

Knowler D. 2005. Reassessing the cost of biological invasion: Mnemiopsis leidyi in the Black Sea. Ecol Econ 52: 187-199. 

Leppäkoski  E,  Olenin  S,  and  Gollasch  S.  2002.  The  Baltic  Sea  -  a  Field  Laboratory  for  Invasion  Biology.  In:  Leppäkoski  E, 
Gollasch  S,  Olenin  S  (Eds).  Invasive  aquatic  species  of  Europe:  Distribution,  Impacts  and  Management.  Kluwer  Academic 
Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. 

Pimentel  D,  McNair  S,  Janecka  J,  et  al.  2001.  Economic  and  environmental  threats  of  alien  plant,  animal,  and  microbe 
invasions. Agric Ecos Environ 84: 1-20. 

Prus J. 1997. New methods of risk assessment for the release of transgenic plants. PhD Thesis, Cranfield University. 

Reinhardt  F,  Herle  M,  Bastiansen  F  et  al.  2003.  Economic  impact  of  the  spread  of  alien  species  in  Germany.  Federal 
Environmental Agency (Umweltbundesamt), Berlin, Germany. 

Travis J. 1993. Invader threatens Black, Azov Seas. Science 262: 1366-1367. 

Williamson M. 2002. Alien plants in the British Isles. In D Pimentel Biological invasions: economic and environmental costs of 
alien plant. Animal and microbe species. CRC Press, Boca Raton. 

Source: Vilá M. and Basnou C., State of the art review of the environmental and economic 
risks posed by invasive alien species in Europe, DAISIE deliverable 14, February 2008 

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
Table 4: Examples of situations where major economic sectors act as sources of alien species 
in Europe and the problems that alien species (from all sources) causes within these particular 
sectors 

Sectors 

Sector as source of alien taxa 

Aliens as sector problems 

Agriculture 

Feral Crops: Linum usitatissimum 

 Agricultural Weeds: Oxalis pescaprae 

Nectar/Pollen Sources: Impatiens glandulifera 

Contaminated Seed: Amaranthus retroflexus 

Alien Pollinators: Bombus spp. 

Hive Parasites: Varroa destructor 

Fur Farms: Mustela vison 

Vertebrate Pests: Nyctereutes procyonoides 

Aquaculture 

Fish Stocking: Salvelinus alpinus 

Alien Pathogens: Spring viraemia 

Energy 

Health 

Biomass Crops: Miscanthus chinensis 

Cooling System Fouling: Dreissena polymorpha 

Medicinal Herbs: Tanacetum parthenium 

Allergenic Pollen: Ambrosia artemisifolia 

Toxic Sap: Heracleum mantegazzianum 

Disease Vectors: Rattus rattus 

Horticulture  Garden Plants: Mimulus guttatus 

Garden Weeds: Aegopodium podagraria 

Landscaping: Robinia pseudoacacia 

Urban Weeds: Ailanthus altissima 

Industry 

Imported Raw Materials: Senecio squalidus 

Development Constraint: Fallopia japonica 

Pet Industry: Trachemys scripta elegans 

Mariculture  Mariculture escapes: Crassostrea gigas 

Alien Parasites: Mytilicola orientalis 

Silviculture 

Plantation Exotics: Pinus contorta 

Forestry Weeds: Prunus serotina 

Plantation Pests: Anoplophora glabripennis 

Forestry Pests: Sciurus carolinensis 

Tourism 

Zoological Gardens: Muntiacus reevesi 

Hybridisation with Natives: Oxyura jamaicensis 

Botanical Gardens: Hedychium gardnerianum 

Biodiversity Loss: Rhododendron ponticum 

Sports Fishing: Oncorhynchus mykiss 

Fishing Tackle Foulant: Cercopagis pengoi 

Game Introductions: Sylvilagus floridensis 

Transport 

Ballast Water: Eriocheir sinensis 

Hull fouling: Caprella mutica 

Air Strikes: Branta canadensis 

Water 

Freshwater transference: Dreissena polymorpha  Alien macrofoulants: Corbicula fluminea 

Source: Hulme P. Biological Invasions in Europe: Drivers, Pressures, States, Impacts and 
Responses, The Royal Society of Chemistry, 2007 

EN 

54 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  5:  Number  of  species  classified  by  the  following  trade  categories:  A)  the  alien 
species  is  intentionally  introduced,  as  the  commodity  itself,  for  being  released  into  the 
environment (i.e. game species, freshwater fish, tree species of interest for forestry, biocontrol 
agents,  etc.)  B)  the  alien  species  is  intentionally  introduced  as  the  commodity  itself  (i.e. 
ornamental plants, agricultural plants, pets, crayfishes, etc.) in a containment facility or in a 
controlled  environment  (i.e.  botanic  gardens,  greenhouses,  agricultural  land,  zoos,  animal-
breeding establishments, fish farms, etc.). C) the alien species is unintentionally introduced as 
a  contaminant  of  a  specific  commodity  (i.e.  Anoplophora  chinensis  introduced  in  Italy 
through  import  of  bonsai;  parasites  of  specific  fish  species,  fruit  flies,  microcell  disease 
Bonamia ostreae transported with oyster shipments, etc) D) the alien species is unintentionally 
introduced  with  movements  of  people  or  of  machinery  (i.e.  pests  in  wood  packaging,  hull 
fouling, ballast waters, contaminants in containers, hitchhikers on planes, etc.). 

(See also figures 5-8) 

Source : Genovesi P, Scalera R, Towards a Black List of Invasive Alien Species Entering 
Europe Through Trade and Proposed Responses, document prepared the Convention on the 
Conservation and European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, November 2007  

EN 

55 

   EN 

 
Table 6: List of pathways of IAS introductions in Europe with descriptors for assessment of 
pathways (Minchin et al. 2007, modified) 

Pathway  

Vector  

Descriptor of operating pathway 

1. Ships, moveable structures 

•  Water and sediments carried within ballast 

•  Regular passage of ships or port within the 

floating 

dredgers, 

(barges, 
docks, 
navigation  buoys)  fishing,  leisure  vessels, 
floatplanes and small sports craft (jet skis, 
canoes, paddle craft) 

tanks 

assessment unit 

•  Rock and sedimentary ballast 

•  The hull including projections, intakes and 
cavities  of  the  hull  (sea  chests,  thruster 
ports  and  fans,  abstraction  piping  and 
small crevices) 

•  Boring  organisms  of  the  hull  and  other 

submerged structures 

•  Bilges and bilge pumping equipment 

•  Wells, tanks and with other cargo 

•  Anchor,  anchor  chains,  lockers,  fenders, 
portable moorings and recesses in the deck 
and holds 

•  Trailers  for  the  transportation  of  craft  and 

all adhering and snagged organisms 

•  Dredged  materials, 

coarse 

gravel 

extractions to disposed fine sediments 

2.  Canals  (including  irrigation  channels, 
drainage cuts, and cuts, ponds and marina 
basins) 

•  Water  flow,  tidal  exchanges,  flooding 
events,  storm  surges  or  varying  water 
levels 

•  Presence  of  the  canal  within  assessment 
unit  or  within  inland  waterway/invasion 
corridor AU belongs to. 

•  Transport  of  floating  timber,  pontoons, 

other equipment 

•  Associated with migrating aquatic species 

•  Leakage of water from aquaducts 

3. Wild fisheries 

•  Stock movements 

•  Population re-establishment 

•  Discharges from processing live, fresh and 

frozen foods 

•  Live  bait  releases  and  discharges  of  live 

packaging materials 

•  Movements 

fishing 
equipment,  discarded  or  lost  nets,  floats, 
traps etc. 

retrieved 

of 

•  Discards  of  target  and  non-target  species 

(bycatch) 

•  Releases  of  organisms  intended  as  living 

fish food supplements 

EN 

56 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Pathway  

Vector  

Descriptor of operating pathway 

4. Culture activities 

•  Intentional  releases  and  movement  of 

•  aquaculture 

is  practiced  within 

the 

stock and associated water 

catchment area 

•  Unintended  or  unauthorised 
(including from secure fur-farms) 

releases 

•  Stock  enhancement  known  to  take  place 

within assessment unit 

•  Movement  of  equipment  (nets,  cages, 

lines, pumping equipment, etc.) 

•  Discarded  contaminated  containers,  live 
packaging  materials  and/or  associated 
transport media 

•  Broadcasting feeds (live, fresh, frozen) 

•  Release of genetically modified species 

5. Ornamental and live food trade 

•  Intentional  releases  (in  particular  releases 

including  garden  centres  and  public 
aquaria) 

from aquaria and ponds) 

•  Tropical species known to be in cultivation 
and  released  to  thermal  effluents  where 
‘permanent’ populations may form 

•  Accidental 

releases 

from 
ornamental  breeding  and  of  incorrectly 
identified species) 

(including 

•  Movement  of  organisms  associated  with 
stones  (‘live  rocks’),  corals,  gravels  and 
sediments 

•  Untreated waste discharges 

•  Unauthorised  releases  of  imported  living 

foods 

6. Leisure activities 

•  Live  bait  movements  and  discharges  of 

•  marina  or  marinas  within  assessment  unit 

live packaging materials 

or leisure craft visit assessment unit 

•  Holding tanks for imported foods adjacent 

to assessment area 

•  Accidental, 

intentional 

transport 

and 

release of angling catch 

•  Water  sport  equipment  (diving  ,  fishing 

gear) 

•  Live souvenirs, fairground prizes 

•  high  human  activity  with  festivals  and 
sporting 
angling 
involving live bait releases) with provided 
access via public parks 

(including 

events 

7. Research and education (including pilot 

projects) 

•  Intentional 

in 
experiments, including translocations 

involved 

releases 

field 

•  releases  of  experimental  organisms  are 

known 

•  Accidental release 

•  Waste  water 
and  biological  waste 
flow-through 
discharges 
aquaria  systems,  discarded  demonstration 
materials) 

(including 

•  Living  food  releases  from  cultures  or 

movements 

•  Field  and  experimental  gear  movement 

(including diving gear) 

•  Caged  organisms  used  for  monitoring 

water quality 

EN 

57 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Pathway  

Vector  

Descriptor of operating pathway 

8. Biological control  

•  Releases  to  control  invasive  or  otherwise 

•  Biological control activities are known 

9. Alteration to natural water flow  

abundant organisms 

•  Releases to reduce impacts of diseases and 

parasites 

•  Movements  of  abstracted  water 

for 
municipal supply (from watering channels 
to piped and pumped supplies) 

•  Drainage to different river catchments 

•  Irrigation channels 

•  Development  of  reservoirs  with  overspill 

to different catchments 

•  Removal  of  natural  barriers  between 

catchments 

10. Other pathways  

•  Habitat  management  (soil  stabilisation/ 
reclaimation using rock barriers, sediments 
and  plantings;  use  of 
filterfeeding 
invertebrates for managing water quality) 

•  Sand  and  gravel  extraction  known  to  take 
place  in  assessment  unit.  Organic  waste 
known  to  be  released  to  assessment  unit 
(from food processing plants) 

•  Municipal  and  other  waste 

treatment 

discharges 

•  Discharged  live  packing  material  used  for 

non-living products 

•  Releases  of  transported  water  (drinking 
water  for  humans  and/  or  livestock  and 
associated equipment) 

Source:  Panov  V.et  al,  Interim  protocols  for  risk  assessment  of  aquatic  invasive  species 
introductions  via  European  inland  waterways,  ALARM  deliverable  D.  4.1.3.10,  February 
2008-06-04 

EN 

58 

   EN 

 
 
ANNEX B - Relevant EU research projects  

inventory  of  alien 

(see  http://www.europe-
DAISIE,  a  pan-European 
aliens.org/index.jsp) a 3 year (February 2005-March 2008) research project supported under 
the 6th RTD Framework programme with 2.4 million €, delivered a pan-European inventory 
of invasive alien species mobilising existing expertise for species records. This inventory also 
includes and describes alien species that have a high likelihood of introduction or spontaneous 
spread from neighbouring countries, and identifies priority species. 

species 

DAISIE focused on four major areas of information gathering and dissemination: 

1) European Alien Species Expertise Registry 

Current  expertise  in  biological  invasions  is  distributed  across  research  organisations 
throughout  Europe  and  is  funded  mainly  by  national  programmes.  The  European  Expertise 
Registry represents a fundamental step towards linking these organisations and individuals in 
ways that provide added value at European level and provide the critical mass of expertise in 
invasive alien species research to meet European-scale requirements. The European Expertise 
Registry  facilitates  the  clustering  and  information  sharing  among  different  national 
programmes targeting the same invasive  alien species, helps  establish teams of experts  who 
can, once a new alien incursion has been reported, assess the situation and prepare an action 
plant  for  the  invasive  alien  species  at  a  particular  site  and  enables  the  current  breadth  and 
scope  of  European  knowledge  on  alien  species  to  be  assessed.  The  registry  contains 
information on the field of expertise (distribution, conservation, ecology, economy, genetics, 
legislation,  management,  pathways,  physiology,  risk  assessment,  and  taxonomy)  and  on  the 
taxonomic  and  geographic  structure  of  the  expertise..  Within  12  months  of  its  launch,  the 
Registry  contained  information  on  1500  experts  from  nearly  90  countries  for  almost  3000 
higher taxa (family level or higher) and numbers have steadily increased since. 

2) European Alien Species Database 

An  up-to-date  inventory  of  all  alien  species  known  to  inhabit  Europe  represented  the  major 
activity in DAISIE and involved compiling and peer-reviewing national lists of hundreds of 
species  of  fungi,  plants,  invertebrates,  fish,  amphibians,  reptiles,  birds  and  mammals.  Data 
were collated for all 27 European Union member states, and where these states had significant 
island regions, data were collated separately for these as well. In addition, data were collated 
for  European  states  that  are  not  in  the  European  Union  such  as  Andorra,  Iceland, 
Liechtenstein,  Moldova,  Monaco,  Norway,  Russia,  Switzerland,  Ukraine  as  well  as  former 
Yugoslavian  states  in  the  Balkans.  Finally,  marine  lists  were  referenced  to  the  relevant 
maritime state and thus to have full coverage of the Mediterranean, marine data were included 
for North African and Near East countries. For each species, an attempt was made to gather 
information  on  native  range,  date  of  introduction,  habitat,  known  impacts  and  population 
status.  Considerable  effort  was  required  to  ensure  synonyms  were  accounted  for  accurately 
and all national lists were independently reviewed by  experts.  Records of over 10,000 alien 
species are included in the database (February 2008), the majority of records are for vascular 
plants with invertebrates also a significant component (see Olenin et al. 2008). 

EN 

59 

   EN 

3) European Invasive Alien Species Information System 

The  provision  of  selected  species  accounts  covering  high  profile  alien  species  not  only 
delivers  end  users  with  relevant  details  for  species  identification  and  management  but  also 
helps raise public awareness of the issue of invasions. Accounts for representative sample of 
100  invasive  alien  species  have  been  produced  and  each  includes  information  on  biology, 
ecology, distribution, management information, references, links and images. The aim was to 
generate brief fact sheets that might appeal to the general reader with links to more detailed 
information  for  specialists.  The  accounts  cover  3  fungi,  18  terrestrial  plants,  16  terrestrial 
invertebrates,  15  vertebrates,  16  inland  and  32  coastal  aquatic  species  invading  natural  and 
semi-natural  habitats.  Selection  was  based  on  ensuring  a  broad  spectrum  of  life  forms  and 
functional  types,  a  range  of  invaded  ecosystems  and  clear  examples  of  different  impacts  on 
European biodiversity, economy and health (see Vilà et al. 2008). A key requirement for the 
effective  management  of  invasive  alien  species  is  the  ability  to  identify,  map,  and  monitor 
invasions in order to assess their extent and dynamics (Hulme 2003). 

4) Species Distribution Maps and Spatial Analysis 

DAISIE  had  as  an  objective  to  establish  a  common  European  standard  for  the  graphical 
presentation of the invasive alien species data as distribution maps. The Common European 
Chorological  Grid  Reference  System  with  the  size  of  the  mapping  grid  ca  50  ×  50  km, 
depending  on  the  latitude/longitude  was  used  to  produce  distribution  maps.  This  scheme 
employs  a  reasonably  detailed  resolution  for  Europe  and  is  commonly  used  for  species 
mapping.  Data  sources  included  European-wide  and  national  atlases  as  well  as  regional 
checklists.  The  following  data  were  plotted  for  each  species:  (a)  known  presence  of  the 
species; (b) known absence. Where known, additional information on (c) species previously 
present  but  eradicated  and  (d)  native  distribution,  was  also  considered.  Where  precise 
information  on  distribution  was  missing  but  the  species  was  known  to  occur  in  a 
country/region/district, the distribution in these administrative units was recorded and mapped 
by using  hatching. A different format was adopted  for  mapping  invaders in aquatic habitats 
where  linear  distributions  or  maritime  areas  needed  to  be  recorded.  Distribution  maps  were 
generated for the 100 species for which accounts were produced and can be found in Vilà et 
al. (2008). 

Each  of  these  4  activities  has  been  integrated  together  as  a  single  internet  portal  for 
information  on  European  alien  species36.  The  inventory,  accounts,  and  distribution  maps 
today provide the first qualified reference system on invasive alien species for the European 
region. The information presents an outstanding resource to synthesise current knowledge and 
trends  in  biological  invasions  in  Europe.  The  data  will  help  identify  the  scale  and  spatial 
pattern  of  invasive  alien  species  in  Europe,  understand  the  environmental,  social,  economic 
and  other  factors  involved  in  invasions,  and  can  be  used  as  a  framework  for  considering 
indicators  for  early  warning.  In  addition,  the  data  will  assist  Member  States  develop  and 
manage  their  National  Biodiversity  Action  Plans  as  well  as  enable  the  European  Union  to 
monitor its performance towards the 2010 target.  

(see 
ALARM,  Assessing 
http://www.alarmproject.net  )  is  a  5  year  (February  2004-March  2009)  Integrated  Project 
supported under the 6th RTD Framework programme with 13 million €. ALARM integrated 5 

risks  on  biodiversity 

environmental 

large 

scale 

36 

See http://www.europe-aliens.org/index.jsp 

EN 

60 

   EN 

                                                 
modules  focussing  on  risks  consequent  on  climate  change,  biological 
invasions, 
environmental chemicals, rates and extent of pollinator loss and socio-economic aspects in the 
context of current and future European land use. ALARM also looked at combined risks. One 
of the major outputs will be a Risk Assessment Toolkit for biodiversity. 

ALARM currently support the e-journals Aquatic Invasion37 and Biorisk38. 

The  journal  "Aquatic  Invasions"  was  established  in  2006  as  an  initiative  of  the  European 
Research Network on Aquatic Invasive Species (ERNAIS), with start-up funding from the EC 
FP6  Integrated  Project  ALARM.  It  provides  the  opportunity  for  timely  publication  of  first 
records  of  biological  invaders  for  consideration  in  risk  assessments  and  early  warning 
systems.  Also,  the  journal  provides  the  opportunity  to  publish  technical  reports  on  new 
technologies  in  management  of  invasive  species  and  proceedings  of  relevant  international 
meetings.  In  2007,  four  issues  of  the  second  volume  of  Aquatic  Invasions  with  62  research 
articles and short communications were released and freely available at the journal website. 
These papers included 820 new geo-referenced records of invasive alien species in European 
inland and coastal waters, with 168 records from field surveys in 2007. 

One of the key benefits of these e-journals is the timely and readily available publication of 
essential primary scientific information39 also needed for decision making. The provision of a 
freely  accessible,  early  warning  system  for  potentially  invasive  alien  species  is  an  essential 
tool for decision-making to prioritise early eradication efforts, and also for relevant decision 
support  systems.  In  addition  online  journals  can  provide  a  publication  platform  for  other 
important  information  on  the  management  of  invasive  species  including  publication  of 
technical reports on new technologies in management of invasive species and proceedings of 
relevant  international  meetings.  Finally,  the  fast  but  comprehensive  reviewing  process  of 
submitted  manuscripts  is  serving  as  an  effective  quality  insurance  mechanism  for  IAS 
information that is freely available to interested stakeholders. 

37 
38 
39 

See http://www.aquaticinvasions.ru/ 
See http://www.pensoft.net/Brochure-BIORISK.pdf 
A  manuscript  publication,  including  a  comprehensive  review  process,  takes  on  average  less  than  one 
month, thereby reducing the publication time lag typical of many regular international journals. In this 
way  Aquatic  Invasions  can  facilitate  the  regional  and  Pan-European  early  warning  systems  on  alien 
species, previously lacking. 

EN 

61 

   EN 

                                                 
ANNEX C - Examples of costs and benefits of IAS policy measures 

Taking  a  policy  measure  for  IAS  entails  costs,  possibly  very  substantial,  which  need  to  be 
offset against the costs of inaction or delayed intervention to control IAS. There is a growing 
body  of  evidence  that  the  benefits  of  preventive  action  on  IAS  often  outweigh  the  costs  of 
inaction (even when these are only partially assessed e.g. the stated economic impact does not 
reflect all or any damage to ecological, recreational and cultural values).  

In  the  following  examples  of  costs  and  benefits  associated  with  the  IAS  policy  options  are 
listed. Because monetary cost information is lacking for Europe in many cases, some points of 
reference are provided from other jurisdictions where appropriate. 

The selected examples are loosely grouped for ease of reference but this should not be taken 
as a formal classification as many of the IAS mentioned could fall into more than one group.  

IAS threatening native species and communities 

Lithobates  catesbeianus  (American  Bullfrog).  UK  early  eradication  efforts  cost  32,000  €. 
Complete removal of all individuals (including tadpoles) may involve drainage of the water 
body  where  they  are  present  which  is  extremely  costly.  Current  control  costs  known  in  EU 
Member States are 0.4 million €/year (Germany, 0.39; UK eradication 0.01).  

Oxyura  jamaicensis  (Ruddy  duck).  The  UK  eradication  programme  (established  1992  to 
reduce the population to less than 175 birds, or 5 % of 1999 population) cost an estimated 4.4 
million € over a 4-6 year period. It combines a general authorisation for landowners to shoot 
specimens at any time of the year, subject to a reporting requirement to the relevant ministry, 
and subjects  purchase and sale  of specimens to a permit requirement (no permits  issued  for 
several  years).  By  2004,  at  least  15  countries  in  the  Western  Palearctic  were  implementing 
control measures and about 5,500 birds have been culled (UK 5,100; France, 246 since 1998; 
Spain, 217 since 1993). Control cost figures not available for these countries. 

Impatiens  glandiflora  (Himalayan  balsam)  is  invasive  in  almost  all  temperate  European 
countries  and  may  outcompete  native  plants  for  pollinators  (bees),  thereby  reducing  native 
plant seed production. Eradication is costly and time consuming because of the high ability of 
the species to regenerate and spread, including through river corridors. The UK Environment 
Agency estimates eradication costs for England and Wales at 210-240 million €. 

IAS  policies  may  support  higher  investment  in  control  where  eradication  is  technically 
feasible and high biodiversity values require protection (e.g. native birds on isolated islands at 
risk from introduced rats and other vertebrates). Over the last 15 years, rat eradications have 
been  successfully  completed  on  increasingly  larger  offshore  islands,  i.e.  Langara  Island 
(British Colombia, Canada, 3100 ha), Raoul Island (2938 ha) and Little Barrier Island (3083 
ha) (New Zealand). 

IAS affecting multiple sectors due to impacts on ecosystem function and services 

Myocastor coypus (coypu). In Italy (1995-2000), removal of over 220 thousand coypus cost 
2.614 million € whilst riverbank damage exceeded 10 million € and agricultural damage was 
almost 1 million €. Current control costs available for EU Member States total 5.02 million 
€/year  (Netherlands:  prevention/control  0.8  million;  East  Anglia  (UK):  eradication  0.45 
million; Italy: combined damage/control costs, 3.77 million).  

EN 

62 

   EN 

Ondatra  zibethicus  (muskrat).  In  Germany,  eradication  costs  are  estimated  at  3  million 
€/year whilst the estimated cost of damage to inland water systems is 12.4 million €/year (4.6 
million  for  sanitary  aspects;  2.3  million  for  waterway  maintenance,  1.9  million  in  losses  to 
hatcheries and fishfarms through damaged ponds and dams). 

Mustela vison (American mink). Damage costs in Germany estimated at 4.2 million €/year 
to  agriculture  (free-range  poultry),  hunting  (reared  game  birds),  fisheries  (salmon  farming) 
and  eco-tourism (predation  on ground nesting birds). Current  control  costs available for EU 
follows:  UK,  eradication  0.55  million  €/year40;  Estonia 
Member  States  are  as 
control/eradication,  0.12  million  €/year;  France:  control/eradication  0.29  million  €/year).  In 
Sweden,  an  intensive  mink  hunting  programme  under  the  National  Action  Plan  for 
conservation  of  the  Caspian  tern  Hydropogne  caspia  (2007-2011)  will  cost  the  Swedish 
Environmental Protection Agency 500,000 SEK (2007 prices) over that period for five areas 
totalling approximately 200 km2. 

Fallopia  japonica  (Japanese  knotweed).  Extremely  high  damage  and  control  costs  due  to 
breadth  of  impacts,  including  damage  to  masonry,  pavements,  walls,  drainage  works  and 
native  riparian  communities,  increased  flood  risk  and  increased  cost  of  land  clearance  for 
development (where the plant occurs on a development site it can cost tens of thousands of 
pounds to adequately control). In Germany, estimated costs are 5.9-6.6 million €/year (plant 
control), 12.3-21.2 million €/year (stabilisation of river banks), 2-7.7 million €/year (clearance 
of railways) and 3.5-10.5 million €/year (repair of foundations). The Czech Republic spends 
0.2  million  €/year  on  control/containment.  In  the  UK,  a  2003  estimate  put  cost  of  removal 
from  Britain  at  £1.56  billion.  Specific  control  costs  cover  attempted  eradication  (over  1078 
million €/year) and research on biocontrol (0.11 million €/year). In Wales (UK), the estimated 
annual control costs for one county council in 1994 was £300,000. 

Invasive aquatic plants affecting inland water systems 

Several  ornamental  aquatic  plants  that  have  proliferated  in  inland  water  systems  can  block 
waterways by forming dense vegetation mats on the surface, thus reducing oxygen and light 
penetration into the water column and negatively affecting fish life, plants and invertebrates. 
Depending on the species and recipient ecosystem, socio-economic impacts include reduced 
opportunities  for  angling,  interference  with  navigation,  increased  flood  risk  and  clogged 
intakes  of  irrigation,  hydropower  and  water  supply  systems.  Control  in  aquatic  ecosystems 
presents  technical  difficulties  e.g.  physical  removal  results  in  many  small  viable  fragments 
being left in the water, which may spread the plant downstream or elsewhere within lakes and 
reservoirs.  

Examples of known control costs: 

Nymphoides peltata (Yellow floating heart). Total potential costs of controlling the yellow 
floating  heart  in  Swedish  lakes  assessed  at  28-72.8  million  SEK/year,  assuming  800-1,300 
hectares treated at 35,000-56,000 SEK per hectare; 

Hydrocotyle ranunculoides (Floating pennywort): Netherlands, 3 million €/year; 

40 

In  1965-1970,  an  unsuccessful  eradication  (trapping)  campaign  by  the  Agriculture  Ministry  of  Agriculture  cost 
£105,000:  the  cost  at  1990  prices,  excluding  associated  research  costs,  was  estimated  at  £552,000  (see  annexed 
Table). 

EN 

63 

   EN 

                                                 
Crassula halmsii (New Zealand Pigmyweed): UK estimated costs 0.895 million €/year. 

Little  monetary  cost  information  is  available  for  Europe  on  Azolla  filiculoides  (Red  water 
fern),  a  native  of  South  America.  However,  the  plant  is  well-documented  in  South  Africa 
where  associated  damages  (coverage  of  dams,  resulting  damage  to  water  pumps;  deaths  of 
livestock;  substantial  clearing  costs)  are  estimated  at  580  million  Rand.  One  study  on  the 
economic  benefits  of  developing  biological  control  showed  that  bringing  Azolla  filiculoides 
under control yielded a return on investment of 25:1. Cost of damage was compared to cost of 
research  (510  000  Rand)  that  led  to  the  release  of  the  biocontrol  agent  which  brought  the 
problem completely under control within 2 years of release.41 

Invasive terrestrial plants that reduce available water resources  

Some  invasive  alien  plants  consume  a  higher  proportion  of  available  water  resources  than 
native  plants  in  the  same  ecosystem.  Reduced  runoff  from  watersheds  with  dense  stands  of 
invasive  trees  can  affect  biological  production  sectors,  human  wellbeing  and  native 
biodiversity.  In  such  cases,  costs  of  policy  intervention  can  be  assessed  at  least  partly  by 
reference to financial benefits that would result from improved water yield.  

Eucalyptus  spp  (Eucalyptus)  replaces  natural  vegetation  and  use  excessive  water  in  Spain, 
which currently spends 1.58 million €/year on control/eradication. Figures from South Africa 
assessed  the  costs  of  initial  clearing  of  2,264  ha  at  5.02  million  Rand  for  one  year  (2002-
2003) with herbicides costing 992 Rand per hectare. 

IAS affecting forest productivity and biodiversity  

Sciurus carolinensis (Grey squirrel). UK estimated costs of control and eradication are 0.46 
million  €/year  (mechanical  and  chemical  measures,  research  into  immunocontraceptive 
agents). Ongoing control costs are not available for Italy where a proposed rapid eradication 
programme was blocked by a legal challenge from animal rights movements. Damage costs 
are available for the UK. In 1999, lost timber revenue at the end of a rotation in state-owned 
forests in England and Wales was estimated at £2 million (Forestry Commission). In 2000, a 
Great Britain-wide study assessed total cost to the British timber industry of damage to beech, 
sycamore and oak as £10 million at the end of the current rotation.  

Prunus  serotina  (Black  cherry).  In  the  Netherlands,  control  costs  are  2  million  €/year.  In 
Germany, total damages and costs amount to 27.50 million €/year (increased labour costs for 
forest management e.g. thinning, 1.4; direct control of pest in forests 20.7; control measures in 
nature conservation areas, 3.4). 

Rhododendron  ponticum  (Rhododendron).  Current  UK  expenditures  total  68.37  million 
€/year (technical difficulties both with mechanical and chemical control, no biocontrol agent 
identified for Europe). Estimated costs of rhododendron removal from woodland in mainland 
Argyll and Bute £9.6 million; control costs to date in Snowdonia National Park £45 million.  

41 

National  Biodiversity  Strategy  and  Action  Plan  (NBSAP).  2004.  Towards  a  National  Strategy  for  Dealing  with 
Invasive  Alien  Species  in  South  Africa:  Stocktaking  Report.  [Accessed  23  April  2008]  Available  online  at: 
http://www.environment.gov.za/ProjProg/ProjProg/2004Jun10/stocktaking/IAS_DRAFT_report_2004.doc#_Toc93
118802 

EN 

64 

   EN 

                                                 
Pests affecting forests include the fungus Ophiostoma novo-ulmi (Dutch elm disease): control 
costs in Germany for removing dead trees, replanting and loss of wood assessed at an average 
of 5 million €/year.  

Figures from the United States give an indication of the potential magnitude of forest pests: 
for  Sirex  noctilio  (woodwasp)  and  the  associated  pathogenic  fungus,  Amylostereum 
areolatum,  the  USDA  Forest  Service  estimates  that  if  no  action  is  taken  to  contain  the 
woodwasp,  it  could  spread  across  the  entire  southern  pine  region  in  under  55  years  and 
generate damage of US$ 2-11 billion in impacts to softwood production.  

IAS affecting aquatic infrastructure and fisheries  

Several highly invasive aquatic organisms have reached Europe and/or spread within Europe 
through  common  pathways  (e.g.  shipping  and  aquaculture)  and  associated  vectors  (ballast 
water, fouling, imports of diseases and pathogens). Economic impacts may relate directly to 
fisheries  and  aquaculture  production  and  equipment  and/or  have  indirect  impacts  on  water-
related infrastructure e.g. on hydropower generation and pipe systems. 

Dreissena  polymorpha  (zebra  mussel).  Control  techniques  focus  on  ballast  water 
management  and  measures  for  prevention  of  spread.  Costs  for  control  and  damage  are  not 
available specifically for Europe. However, US figures assessed cumulative costs to US and 
European industrial plants (1989-2000) at US $750 million to US$ 1 billion (National Aquatic 
Nuisances  Clearinghouse,  2000).  In  the  Great  Lakes  region  (US/Canada),  damage  for  the 
period  2000-2010  has  been  assessed  at  US$  3.1  billion  (intake  pipes,  water  filtration 
equipment, power plants), US $100 million/year (lost power generation based on a one to two 
day  downtime  and  a  1%  reduction  in  plant  heat  rate)  and  $5  billion  (potential  economic 
impact).  

Mnemiopsis leidyi (Sea walnut, comb jelly). Control costs not known but estimated impacts 
on  Black  Sea  fishing  nations  of  24.53  million  €/year,  mainly  generated  by  loss  of  the 
commercial  anchovy  catch.  Biofouling  of  fishing  equipment  by  Cercopagis  pengoi  (Fish-
hook  waterflea) in the Primorsk (Koivisto) area led to economic losses at one fish farm of 
0.03 million €/year in 1996-1998.  

Some cost/benefit figures for IAS control in fisheries are available for the Great Lakes region 
(US/Canada).  Benefits  of  controlling  Petromyzon  marinus  (Sea  Lamprey),  which  preys  on 
commercially important fish, are assessed in the range of $2-4 billion/year. If ongoing control 
was  terminated,  lost  fishing  opportunities  and  indirect  are  estimated  at  $500  million/year. 
Cost  of  sterile  male  release  in  Lake  Huron  is  US$  300,000  and  cost  of  one  lampricide 
treatment in St Mary's River is $4.2 million. For Gymnocephalus cernuus (Ruffe), estimated 
total  cost  of  control  programme  over  11  years  is  US$12  million.  Estimated  losses  for  the 
native fishery were estimated at US$ 0.5 million/year in 2001 and for sport fisheries in Lake 
Erie, at US$ 60 million/year between 1985-1995. 

Balanus  improvisus  (Bay  barnacle,  Acorn  barnacle).  In  Sweden,  estimated  maintenance 
costs to defoul pleasure boats estimated to 123-334 million SEK/year. One shipping company, 
the  Broström  Group,  estimates  the  cost  for  anti-fouling  treatment  per  tanker  ship  of  11,000 
GRT  (Gross  Register  Tonnage)  to  be  around  400,000-500,000  SEK  every  30  months  (i.e. 
160,000-200,000 SEK/year. The Swedish Shipowners Association estimates the costs for very 
large vessels (>40,000) to be around 250,000-500,000 SEK/year. 

EN 

65 

   EN 

Where one pathway provides opportunities for multiple species introductions, prevention may 
involve construction of specific infrastructure to reduce known risk of unwanted introductions 
(e.g. a salinity barrier in the Suez Canal to prevent Lessepsian migration of non-native aquatic 
species  via  the  Suez  Canal  to  the  Mediterranean).  In  the  US,  the  cost  of  constructing  an 
enhanced  barrier  (electrical  fish  barrier)  to  keep  the  invasive  Asian  carp  out  of  the  Great 
Lakes is US$9.1 million. In 2002, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers constructed a temporary 
electronic dispersal barrier on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal at a cost of approximately 
$2.2 million. 

IAS that threaten animal and human health 

Growing  risks  are  associated  with  IAS  as  vectors  of  disease  that  affect  wild  and/or  farmed 
animals and in some cases, humans. IAS may also directly impact on human health where the 
organism or a part thereof is toxic or provokes allergic reactions.  

Cervus  nippon  (Sika  deer):  invasive  in  at  least  9  European  countries  and  a  documented 
vector  of  diseases  affecting  both  wild  and  farmed  animals.  UK  estimated  control  costs  0.82 
million €/year. 

Aedes albopictus (Asian tiger mosquito). In Italy (Emilia Romagna), costs related to health 
risk prevention, eradication and communication total 1.10 million €/year. 

Thaumetopoea  processionea  (Oak  processionary  moth).  In  the  UK,  measures  to  prevent 
human  health  impacts  estimated  0.36  million  €/year.  The  Royal  Botanic  Gardens  Kew 
estimates  it  will  spend  £20,000-30,000  in  2008  to  control  the  pest.  The  future  financial 
implications could be extremely high due to both health costs and oak damage. 

Invasive  plants  affecting  human  health  include common  ragweed  (Ambrosia  artemisifolia) 
(health  costs  in  Germany  estimated  32.10  million  €/year;  associated  hay  fever  costs  also 
known  to  be  high  in  seriously  infested  regions  like  the  Rhone  valley  (France),  Hungary, 
Croatia and northern Italy). For Heracleum mantegazzianum (Giant hogweed), control costs 
are available for at least four EU Member States:  

Czech Republic, control/containment costs 0.01 million €/year;  

Germany, total estimated control costs 12.30 million €/year (medical 1.05, roadside clearance 
measures 2.34, human health 7.70, nature conservation 1.20);  

Estonia, 5-year strategy for nationwide control of alien Heracleum species launched in 2005. 
Estimated control costs (2005) for 235 hectares are 1.4 million Estonian krooni/year (~90.000 
€) and in 2006, 3.36 million Estonian krooni (~240.000 €) for 300 hectares; 

in  Sweden,  the  Swedish  Road  Administration  controls  giant  hogweed  along  roads  in  three 
regions.  Cost  to  the  Mälardalen  roads  authority  of  weed  control  at  five  sites  is  28,000 
SEK/year  at  an  average  cost  of  100  SEK/m2.  Costs  to  the  Stockholm  road  authority  range 
between  100,000-200,000  SEK/year  (180,000  SEK  in  2006,  approximately  130,000  SEK  in 
2007). 

Institutional and operational costs of IAS prevention and control  

Operational  costs  of  policies  to  support  IAS  prevention  and  control  include  improved 
governance  and  coordination,  strengthened  capacities  for  border  control,  risk  analysis,  early 

EN 

66 

   EN 

warning  and  rapid  response,  and  improved  information  systems,  research  and  training  (see 
section 3 above). 

Some  Member  States  are  investing  in  development  of  national  IAS  strategies,  improved 
baseline  information  and  targeted  management  and  research.  Work  is  ongoing  under  the 
Technical  Support  contract  to  identify  indicative  costs  for  these  operations  as  they  relate  to 
the  natural  environment,  including  by  reference  to  non-EU  jurisdictions.  Figures  so  far 
identified for EU Member States are as follows: 

in Denmark, the 2008 state budget has earmarked a specific sum for IAS (2 million Danish 
kroner) for the first time; 

in the UK, the Environment Agency spends £1.5 million per annum on staff and project costs 
for controlling invasive non-native species42; 

in Germany, the Federal State of Schleswig Holstein put a ca. 3 million Euro tender out to co-
fund a programme to develop an efficient ballast water treatment system. 

42 

Defra  (2003)  in  Parliamentary  Office  of  Science  and  Technology  note  (April  2008,  Number  303) 
(http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload) 

EN 

67 

   EN