COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species
Date: 2013-09-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: border control, ecosystem, import restriction, living plant, pet shop, protection of animal life, protection of plant life, traceability













EUR-Lex - 52013SC0322 - EN











|



52013SC0322

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species /* SWD/2013/0322 final */









COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Accompanying the document
Proposal for a regulation of the
European Parliament and of the Council
on the prevention and management
of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species
Executive
summary 
1.           Problem definition 
There are two facets to the problem of IAS
in Europe: 1) the ecological problem created by their entry, establishment and
spread, 2) the policy failure caused by the fragmented and incoherent policy
set up at EU and national levels that is allowing the ecological problem to
grow.
An ecological problem - Alien species are species that are transported as a result of
human action outside of their natural range across ecological barriers. Scientific
evidence shows that out of these alien species 10-15 % has a significant
negative impact on biodiversity as well as serious economic and social
consequences: these are the Invasive Alien Species (IAS). There are two main causes: 1) certain alien species are desirable
and brought, e.g. through trade, into the EU (e.g. commercial interests,
ornamental purposes, companion animals, biological control); 2) some alien
species are unintentionally introduced as contaminants of goods (trade in other
commodities) or can be hitchhikers or stowaways in transport vectors. IAS are estimated to have cost the EU at least €12 bio/yr over the
past 20 years. They affect businesses, including small and microenterprises
(e.g. coypu impacting agricultural production), citizens (e.g. ragweed causing
allergies), public authorities (e.g. muskrat damaging infrastructure) and
biodiversity (e.g. ruddy duck threatening the native white headed duck). As
volumes of trade and transport are growing, also the number of introduced IAS
is increasing. Moreover, as introduced IAS establish and spread, the damage
caused per IAS is growing, leading to increasing growth in damage. If no
appropriate action is taken, the cost to the EU is expected to increase
accordingly. 
A policy failure - Very few Member States have a comprehensive legal framework to address
the problem and most rely on species-specific, ad-hoc action, leading to
a piecemeal approach and uncoordinated action to tackle a problem that is
transboundary in nature. Currently, EU legislation only addresses pests and
disease agents that affect plants and animals and alien species introduced for
aquaculture (regulated respectively through the plant health regime, the animal
health regime and the regulation on the use of alien species in aquaculture),
leaving a substantial share of the problem unaddressed. Furthermore, current
action on IAS in the EU Member States is predominantly reactive, seeking to
minimise the damage already being caused. 
All Member States are affected by IAS,
albeit at different times and by different species, as some IAS affect most of
the EU, while others are only a problem in certain regions, or under certain
ecological or climatic conditions. It can be assumed that countries with higher
trade volumes and numerous entry points are likely to suffer more introductions
of IAS. It is not possible to ascertain the magnitude or concentration of
intra-EU movements as there are no internal checks for commodities or
monitoring of aliens species moving in the wild across the borders. As IAS
impacts are relevant to the whole of the EU, coordinated action to tackle IAS
would benefit all EU Member States, while clearly requiring efforts from all
Member States.
2.           Is
EU action justified on ground of subsidiarity?
The fact that the number of IAS is increasing
despite the current policies/initiatives, indicates that the present approach is not effective. Since species do not respect borders, EU action will be justified. Coordinated
EU action will be needed to ensure that, where IAS first enter the Union,
Member States take prompt measures to the benefit of other Member States not
yet affected. It will also ensure legal clarity and a level playing field for
those sectors using or trading alien species while avoiding a fragmentation of
the internal market due to different restrictions of commercialisation of IAS
between Member States. Some species are invasive and very damaging in some
countries while harmless or even profitable in others. Acting at EU level
according to the solidarity principle will protect the interest of Member
States that are likely to suffer the most negative consequences. Finally, Member States which
already have legislation on IAS will benefit from a common approach,
guaranteeing that neighbouring Member States take actions for the same species.
3.           Objectives
General objectives:
to minimise the negative impact of IAS on
biodiversity and the environment and to contribute to the EU 2020
biodiversity target, by fulfilling its Target 5: "by 2020, IAS and
their pathways are identified and prioritised, priority species are controlled
or eradicated, and pathways are managed to prevent the introduction and
establishment of new IAS;
to minimise the negative economic and
social impact of IAS for the EU economy and the EU citizens and protect their
wellbeing and health, thus contributing to the Europe
2020 Strategy.
Specific objectives: 
shifting the current reactive to a more
preventive approach towards IAS;
prioritising action towards IAS where the
highest net benefits are to be obtained;
fostering a coherent approach on IAS across
the EU.
Operational objectives:
prevent intentional introduction of IAS of
EU concern into the EU;
prevent unintentional introduction of IAS
into the EU and unintentional release into the environment;
prevent intentional release of IAS into the
environment;
early warning and rapid response to prevent
reproduction and spread of IAS of EU concern;
eliminate, minimise or mitigate damage by
managing IAS of EU concern established in the environment.
4.           Policy
options
Five options have been identified, all of
them addressing the five operational objectives, but with a different level of
ambition. The options were constructed using a dual approach, which included at
the same time an analysis of the measures needed to tackle the operational
objectives (the content), as well as the type of policy instrument (the form).
Option 0 - The
baseline option represents the status quo without further action, thus
only addressing pests and disease agents that affect plants and animals and
alien species introduced for aquaculture. Further, import bans could be imposed
through the Wildlife Trade Regulation and ballast water would be addressed when
the Ballast Water Convention comes into force. Member
States would continue to act on an ad hoc basis driven by damage costs on a
species basis.
Option 1 - Fostering voluntary action and enhancing cooperation would
include the development of guidelines, sectoral codes of conduct and other
awareness and educational campaigns. This would be in addition to what is
already done with option 0.
Option 2.1 -
A basic legislative instrument would be
underpinned by a single list of IAS of EU concern. These would be alien species
proven to be invasive by risk assessment, and deemed a threat of EU relevance
by a standing committee including representatives from Member States. This list
would trigger a series of obligations for the Member States: on one hand, to
take action to prevent the entry of listed species into the EU (prevention)
and, on the other hand, to manage the listed species that have already entered
and established in the EU (reaction), with a view to avoid their further spread
across the EU and minimise their damage. The choice of the measures to be taken
(eradication, containment or control) would be left to Member States.
Option 2.2 –
This option broadens the scope of option 2.1 beyond the
list of IAS of EU concern in what concerns the rules on release into the
environment. This would be achieved by introducing a system where, for IAS of
Member State concern a permit for release would be required by the
Member States. 
Option 2.3 –
This option broadens even more the scope of option 2.1
beyond the list of IAS of EU concern in what concerns the rules on release into
the environment. This would be achieved by setting up a system where new alien
species can only be released into the environment if explicitly approved, and
placed on an EU list of alien species approved for release, after
ascertaining that the release would not entail any risk. 
Option 2.4 –
This option strengthens the provisions for rapid
response compared to option 2.2. This would be achieved by introducing the obligation
for Member States to eradicate newly establishing IAS included in the list
of IAS of EU concern, rather than controlling or containing them, unless
derogation was granted by the Commission.
5.           Assessment of impacts
One difficulty in analysing the impacts of different
options was the fact that it is impossible to know in advance how many and what
invasions will need to be tackled and what and how many species will be
included in the list of IAS of EU concern. Moreover, until recently large-scale
and comprehensive economic studies on IAS in general have been rare. 
Another important consideration to be made
is that the sectors likely to be affected by the legislative instrument are thought
to include several SMEs, including microenterprises. The Commission is
concerned about the impact of legislation on small and microenterprises and has
a policy of minimising the burden on these businesses; however, they would be
expected to fall under the scope of the legislation. IAS can have serious
negative impacts on SMEs in sectors such as forestry, agriculture, tourism and
recreational activities. These sectors would thus benefit from the introduction
of coordinated measures to tackle IAS. On the other hand, other SMEs, such as
pet traders and the horticultural sector, benefit from trading alien species
and could be impacted by the introduction of legislation to tackle IAS, which
may pose some restrictions on the use of alien species, although it is
generally recognised that for most purposes there is a choice of substitute
species. 
The analysis found the following main impacts:
Option 0
- While already costing € 1.4 bio/yr in cost of
action, maintaining the status-quo would fail to
prevent the growth in economic, social and environmental damage by IAS and thus
be ineffective in reaching the objectives of this proposal. 
Option 1 –
This option would only involve a minor additional cost of action compared to option 0, but it would also be
ineffective in preventing the growth in damage.
Option 2.1 –
This option is not expected to add major costs of action (additional €26-40 mio/yr)
compared to option 0 and could moreover lead to a decrease in costs over time
(€ 1 bio/yr). The measures proposed under option 2.1 would involve a
reorganisation of the current expenditure - focusing more on prevention and
less on reaction (in line the plant and animal health regimes) - and to a more
efficient use of resources – through a coherent prioritisation. The additional
costs would also be kept to a minimum by making maximum use of existing
provisions. Option 2.1 could negatively impact on international trade (but only
in case commonly traded high value IAS were banned) and on those small and
microenterprises cultivating IAS or trading pets and ornamental species (but
only in so far as suitable alternatives could not be found). Potential negative
economic impacts would however be taken into account, when considering species
for listing. On the other hand, citizens, public authorities, and other
economic operators, including many small and microenterprises, such as farmers
and foresters, would be the main beneficiaries from the avoided damage
increase. All economic operators would also benefit from the improved legal
certainty and a more coordinated approach. Finally, the basic legislative
instrument would entail substantial social, environmental and economic benefits
that would outweigh the costs. Indeed, the package could avoid job losses (e.g.
after collapse of fisheries), would be beneficial for public health as well as
for properties and recreational facilities. Environmental impacts would also be
positive because of the avoided damage to biodiversity and ecosystem services.
Every prevented IAS is estimated to lead in average to an avoidance of €130
mio/yr of damage/control costs on the longer term. This is a rough estimate,
but it illustrates the potential benefits in a simplified manner. Moreover, even
if newly establishing IAS could not be prevented, they would still be listed
and managed in a coherent way, thus avoiding even more damage costs. 
Option 2.2
- This option would
cater for a more preventive approach, without being too burdensome. It would
add some administrative costs for those Member States that do not yet have a
permitting system and for those economic operators that have an interest in
releasing alien species of Member State concern. However, this system would
avoid the introduction into the environment of IAS, which, although not listed
as IAS of EU concern, may cause considerable economic,
social and environmental damage.
Option 2.3 – This option would follow the most precautionary approach from the
economic, social and environmental point of view. However, it would represent a considerable shift
compared to the current approach and cause a substantial administrative burden
on economic sectors that depend on introducing alien species into the
environment (e.g. horticultural and forestry sector).
Option 2.4 – This option would ensure that new
invasions are immediately dealt with thoroughly. Every rapidly eradicated
invasion would avoid long term negative economic,
social and environmental impacts. This would entail a
higher upfront investment on eradication, mainly for Member States, but substantial savings in the longer run, for the society as a whole. 
Finally, it has to be considered that
Member States will be affected in different ways depending on the structure of
their businesses, besides their geographic and climatic conditions. For
example, some Member States have a stronger forestry sector than others (e.g.
Nordic countries, Germany), while others have a thriving horticultural sector
(e.g. Netherlands). However, it was not possible to identify particularly
strong imbalances between Member States.
6.           Comparing
the options
Based on the
analysis of impacts, it was possible to reach the following conclusion: 
While Option 0 and Option 1 include
several pieces of EU and national legislation, they leave the large
majority of species and pathways unaddressed. They are estimated to cause already €1.4 bio/yr cost of action, mainly for the Member
States, but have been found to be ineffective in meeting the objectives of this
exercise and lacking coherence with overarching EU objectives. 
Option 2.1
could significantly reduce the negative impacts of IAS and be effective in
meeting the objectives. It would only cause additional costs of action of €26 to 40 mio/yr. Moreover in time the cost of action could decrease
to €1 bio/yr. It would positively impact the efficiency of spending by Member
States public authorities and be coherent with overarching EU objectives.
Option 2.2 would
be more efficient, effective and coherent than option 2.1 with moderate
additional costs, as the Member States would often build upon existing systems.

Option 2.3
would be even more effective and coherent than option 2.2 but would at the same
time impose a significant burden on certain economic operators, in particular
those involved in primary production, which would thus affect its efficiency..
Option 2.4 would
be more efficient, effective and coherent that option 2.2, with moderate
additional costs. 
In summary, option 2.3 is expected to
generate the best result in terms of effectiveness and coherence. However, its
trade-off towards the economic domain is deemed too substantial and therefore
its cost/benefit ratio less favourable than for option 2.2. On the other hand,
the additional benefits of option 2.4 have been estimated to be substantial and
to outweigh the additional costs in comparison to option 2.2 and 2.1. Moreover,
option 2.4 would very efficiently build upon the existing provisions in Member
States. Therefore, option 2.4 was selected as the preferred option,
yielding the highest benefit in relation to costs, although it is not the
option yielding the highest biodiversity benefits. 
Choosing option 2.4, it is to be expected
that 1) the yearly cost of action would remain stable or would even decrease
over time, 2) the magnitude of the benefits (i.e. damage and management cost
avoidance) would continue to increase over the years, as increasing numbers of
invasions are avoided, 3) the overall costs of the problem would not increase
as much as it would without EU action. 
7.           Monitoring
and evaluation
Monitoring and evaluation of the outcome of
the proposed instrument will be addressed via the reporting and notification
obligations embedded in the legal text. On this basis the Commission and other
bodies will be able to report on indicators and follow progress towards the
objectives. 
Reporting obligations would build upon
existing reporting mechanisms such as those carried out under the Birds and Habitats Directives, Water Framework Directive
and Marine Strategy Framework Directive as well as the Animal and Plant Health
and Aquaculture regimes. Such obligations would be
limited to the strictly minimum required to ensure enforcement of the legal
text and other international commitments, so as to avoid unnecessary
administrative burden. 
The legal text would include a review
clause that would allow updating the approach according to scientific and
technical progress and would allow a gradual further development in light of
issues arising during the implementation.