REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the review of the application of Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species
Date: 2021-10-13
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: biodiversity, border control, ecosystem, environmental risk prevention, import restriction, invasive species, protection of animal life, protection of plant life, traceability

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 13.10.2021  COM(2021) 628 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the review of the application of Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species  
 
 
Contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 2 

2. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE IAS REGULATION ................................................ 3 

2.1.  Article 4. The list of IAS of Union concern ...................................................... 3 

2.2.  Restrictions and derogations (Articles 7, 8, 9, 31 and 32) .............................. 10 

2.3.  Article 11. IAS of regional concern and species native to the Union ............. 10 

2.4.  Article 12. IAS of Member State concern ....................................................... 11 

2.5.  Article 13. Action plans on the pathways of IAS ............................................ 11 

2.6.  Article 14. Surveillance system ....................................................................... 13 

2.7.  Article 15. Official controls ............................................................................. 14 

2.8.  Articles 16 and 17. Early-detection notifications and rapid eradication 

at an early stage of invasion ............................................................................ 14 

2.9.  Article 19. Management measures .................................................................. 15 

2.10.  Article 25. Information support system ........................................................... 16 

2.11.  Awareness raising ............................................................................................ 16 

2.12.  Implementation costs, benefits and funding .................................................... 17 

2.13.  Implementation challenges .............................................................................. 18 

3.  CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................... 19 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Invasive  alien  species  (IAS)  are  animals  and  plants  that,  as  a  result  of  human 
intervention, are introduced accidentally or deliberately into a natural environment where 
they  are  not  normally  found,  with  serious  negative  consequences  for  their  new 
environment. 

IAS are one of the five major causes of biodiversity loss in Europe and worldwide1. They 
can also cause significant adverse impacts on human health and the economy. Regulation 
(EU) No 1143/2014 on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of 
invasive alien species (the IAS Regulation) entered into force on 1 January 2015. It aims 
to:  (i)  prevent,  minimise  and  mitigate  the  adverse  impacts  of  IAS  on  biodiversity  and 
ecosystem services; and (ii) limit social and economic damage.  

The  adoption  of  the  IAS  Regulation  was  a  major  step  forward  in  developing  the  EU’s 
biodiversity policy. Adopting the IAS Regulation fulfilled both: (i) Action 16 of Target 5 
of the EU biodiversity strategy to 20202; and (ii) Aichi Target 9 of the strategic plan for 
biodiversity 2011-2020 under the Convention on Biological Diversity3. 

The  present  report  reviews  the  application  of  the  IAS  Regulation  as  required  under  its 
Article 24(3). This report is primarily based on reports submitted by the Member States4 
that cover the period 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2018. This report goes beyond this 
period  in  any  areas  for  which  more  recent  information  is  available.  Information  in  this 
report was also drawn from an open public consultation carried out in 2021.  

The analysis presented in this report is limited by the short period of application of the 
Regulation. Although the IAS Regulation entered into force in January 2015, most of its 
provisions only became effective in August 2016, when the first Union list entered into 
force.  

Moreover, key obligations for the Member States (e.g. setting up a surveillance system 
and  putting  in  place  management  measures  for  widely  spread  IAS  of  Union  concern) 
only  became  applicable  in  January  2018  (i.e.  18  months  after  the  adoption  of  the  first 
Union list). Furthermore, the obligation for the Member States to draw up and implement 
action plans to address the priority pathways of unintentional introduction and spread of 
IAS of Union concern applied only from July 2019 (i.e. 36 months after the adoption of 
the first Union list).  

Therefore, full implementation of the IAS Regulation only started in July 2019. For this 
reason, the Commission is  not  supplementing this report with  a legislative proposal  for 
amending the Regulation. 

1 Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2020), Global Biodiversity Outlook 5. 
2 Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 (COM(2011) 244). 
3 https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=12268 
4  All  Member  States  (referring  to  the  EU-28  before  the  withdrawal  of  the  United  Kingdom)  except  one  submitted  a  report  with 
information covering the period 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2018. The reported information is available at ias.eea.europa.eu.  

2 

 
 
                                           
2. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE IAS REGULATION 

2.1. 

Article 4. The list of IAS of Union concern 

The list of IAS of Union concern (‘the Union list’) is at the core of the IAS Regulation. It 
contains  a  list  of  IAS  whose  adverse  impact  has  been  deemed  sufficiently  severe  to 
require concerted action at Union level. Listed species are subject to the restrictions and 
measures set out in the Regulation. 

To be included on the Union list, species must meet all the criteria in Article 4(3), with 
due consideration to: (i) the implementation cost for Member States to take action against 
the  IAS;  (ii)  the  cost  of  inaction;  (iii)  the  cost-effectiveness  of  action;  and  (iv)  the 
socioeconomic  aspects  (Article  4(6)).  Risk  assessments  underpin  this  process,  and  the 
quality of these risk assessments is verified by the Scientific Forum5. The Union list and 
its  updates  are  adopted  by  implementing  acts,  subject  to  the  positive  opinion  of  the 
Committee on Invasive Alien Species6.  

The first Union list7 entered into force on 3 August 2016. It contained 37 species. A first8 
and  a  second  update9  of  the  list  entered  into  force  on  2 August 2017  and  on 
15 August 2019,  respectively.  These  updates  added  1210  and  17  species  respectively.  A 
third update of the Union list is expected by the end of 2021. The total number of IAS of 
Union concern is currently 66, of which: 

  30 are animal species and 36 are plant species; 
  41  are  primarily  terrestrial  species,  23  are  primarily  freshwater  species,  1  is  a 

brackish-water species and 1 is a marine species. 

Species may be taken off the list if they no longer meet one or more criteria, but this has 
not  yet  happened.  According  to  Article  4(2),  the  Union  list  must  be  comprehensively 
reviewed by August 2022, 6 years after the entry into force of the initial list. 

The  Regulation  has  made  it  possible  to  select  the  species  to  list  in  an  objective  and 
scientifically  robust  way.  However,  the  solid  scientific  assessment  that  underpins  the 
listing comes at the price of speed: completing a risk assessment takes at least 2 years. It 
then  takes  at  least  another  year  until  a  decision  is  taken  on  whether  to  list  the  species. 
Nevertheless, if Member States perceive a new IAS as an imminent threat, they can take 
emergency measures under Article 10, a provision that has not yet been used. 

Recent  research11  indicates  that  the  increase  in  numbers  of  newly  introduced  alien 
species does  not  show any sign of saturation and most taxa even show increases in  the 
rate of first records over time. Sooner or later, many of these alien species are likely to 
become invasive. It is therefore quite likely that more species will have to be included on 
the Union list in the future. Some publications have suggested the need to list gradually a 

5 Expert group provided by Article 28 of the IAS Regulation. 
6 Committee provided by Article 27 of the IAS Regulation. 
7 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1141 (OJ L 189, 14.7.2016, p. 4). 
8 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1263 (OJ L 182, 13.7.2017, p. 37). 
9 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1262 (OJ L 199, 26.7.2019, p. 1). 
10 The inclusion of the raccoon dog Nyctereutes procyonoides applied as of 2 February 2019. Therefore, in 2019, the Member States 

reported on 48 species.  

11 See e.g. Seebens H. et al. (2017), ‘No saturation in the accumulation of alien species worldwide’, Nature Communications 8:14435. 

doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14435.  

3 

 
 
                                           
few  hundred  species  in  order  to  achieve  the  objectives  of  the  IAS  Regulation12.  Some 
stakeholders (for instance those trading in alien species) disagree, arguing that the Union 
list already includes too many species and that the implementation burden is too heavy.  

In any case, the Union list cannot include all possible IAS. This is because the criteria to 
be  met  to  be  included  on  the  list  are  quite  demanding.  On  the  other  hand,  the  IAS 
Regulation provides quite broad prioritisation criteria. For example, Article 4(6) requires 
two  types  of  IAS  to  be  prioritised:  (i)  those  that  are  not  yet  present,  or  are  at  an  early 
stage of invasion and are most likely to have a significant adverse impact; and (ii) those 
that are already established and have the most significant adverse impact.  

Of  the  66  listed  IAS,  12  are  not  yet  present  in  the  Union’s  territory,  while  many  are 
already widely spread and unlikely to be eradicated. Listing species not yet present in the 
EU has a strong preventive effect, since they cannot be brought into the territory of the 
Union.  However,  experience  has  shown  that  the  evidence  necessary  to  complete  a  risk 
assessment for such species is often lacking. When combined with uncertainty about both 
the dynamics of biological communities and the effects of climate change, this makes it 
very challenging to predict the potential impacts of a species if it was introduced. As a 
result, the listing of species not yet present in the EU has proven difficult. However, the 
Union list  still has  a preventive effect. All  listed species that  are  already established in 
the  EU,  (including  species  already  present  in  most  of  the  Member  States  like  the  pond 
slider  Trachemys  scripta  and  the  giant  hogweed  Heracleum  mantegazzianum),  have 
potential  to  spread  significantly  further  (see  Figures  1  –  4)13.  Preventing  this  further 
spread has been one of the main arguments for including them on the Union list. 

12 See Carboneras C. et al. (2017) ‘A prioritised list of invasive alien species to assist the effective implementation of EU legislation’, 
Journal of Applied Ecology 2017, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12997; and Nentwig W. et al. (2018) ‘More than “100 
worst” alien species in Europe’, Biological Invasions (2018) 20:1611-1621. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-017-1651-6. However, 
several of the species suggested for inclusion on the Union list are out of the scope of the IAS Regulation, and in most cases are 
dealt with under other instruments, mainly EU legislation on plant health. 

13 This is also demonstrated by the underpinning risk assessments.  

4 

 
 
 
                                           
Figure 1: Number of IAS of Union concern out of the 48 covered by the 2019 reports that were reported as 
present by each of the Member States. Portugal did not submit a report. 

5 

 
 
 
Figure 2: Status of presence per Member State of the 48 IAS of Union concern covered by the 2019 
reports. Portugal did not submit a report. 
The symbols 
 indicate respectively that: (i) the species is present in a given Member State; (ii) it 
is  unknown  whether  it  is  present  in  a  given  Member  State;  and  (iii)  it  is  considered  as  not  present  in  a 
given Member State. 

6 

 
 
 
Figure 3: Distribution of Trachemys scripta (10 x 10 km grids) as reported by the Member States in 2019. 
The species is also present in Greece, Portugal and Romania, but these Member States did not provide the 
distribution at grid level. 

7 

 
 
 
 
Figure 4: Distribution of Heracleum mantegazzianum (10 x 10 km grids) as reported by the Member States 
in 2019. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
An additional challenge arises when a species is added to the Union list. If the IAS added 
to the Union list is a popularly traded species, it is often replaced on the market by other 
alien species, which are potentially also invasive. These newly introduced species must 
in turn be risk assessed and considered for inclusion on the Union list. This problem is 
mostly seen in the pet trade (e.g. replacement of pond sliders Trachemys scripta by other 
alien  turtles)  and  the  horticultural  trade  (e.g.  replacement  of  the  water  hyacinth 
Eichhornia crassipes by the water lettuce Pistia stratiotes). To address this issue, some 
stakeholders  have  suggested  drawing  up  lists  of  permitted  species  instead  of  a  list  of 
restricted species. The current legal framework does not provide for this approach at EU 
level, but some Member States have adopted it in their national legislation, mainly for the 
pet trade.  

The  consideration  of  costs  and  socioeconomic  aspects,  as  required  by  Article  4(6),  has 
influenced  the  listing  process.  The  most  characteristic  example  is  the  American  mink 
(Neovison vison), an IAS with significant adverse impacts on biodiversity. The American 
mink is bred for fur farming in thousands of mink farms in the EU. This species has not 
been listed14.  Including it on the Union list would make its  breeding for fur production 
subject  to  the  authorisation  procedure  under  Article  9  of  the  IAS  Regulation.  Several 
Member States considered the costs of implementing this procedure disproportionate and 
opposed listing this species. It is important to note that the IAS Regulation provides for 
alternative  solutions  to  adding  a  species  to  the  Union  list.  Firstly,  concerned  Member 
States may address such species through national measures. Secondly, the species may be 
dealt with through greater regional cooperation (see Sections 2.3 and 2.4 below).  

Listing marine IAS poses particular challenges15. As seen above, only one of the 66 IAS 
on the Union list, Plotosus lineatus, the striped eel catfish, is a marine species. However, 
several  marine  species  were  considered  for  the  first  Union  list.  The  main  obstacle  to 
including marine species has been the concern that the high environmental connectivity 
and dispersion capacity of species in the marine environment make it more difficult and 
costly to survey and control biological invasions. This is especially relevant for species 
that  enter  the  Mediterranean  Sea  via  the  Suez  Canal.  Yet  despite  those  challenges, 
surveillance, early detection and rapid eradication of marine species in targeted areas can 
mitigate their adverse impacts16. For pathways of introduction and spread, the spread and 
impacts of IAS in the marine environment could be significantly reduced by: (i) the full 
implementation  of  the  International  Maritime  Organization  (IMO)17  Ballast  Water 
Management  Convention18;  and  (ii)  enhanced  implementation  of  the  IMO  Biofouling 
Guidelines. Several  risk  assessments for marine  IAS have, therefore, been prepared for 
consideration for the next update of the Union list.  

14 This has been criticised by several stakeholders. See, for example, the public feedback on the proposal for the second update of the 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/2124-Update-of-the-list-of-Invasive-Alien-

list: 

Union 
Species-of-Union-concern. 

15  See  Kleitou  P.  et  al.  (2021)  ‘The  Case  of  Lionfish  (Pterois  miles)  in  the  Mediterranean  Sea  Demonstrates  Limitations  in  EU 
Journal  of  Marine  Sci.  Engineering  2021,  9,  325. 

to  Address  Marine  Biological 

Invasions’, 

Legislation 
https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse9030325.  

16 See Giakoumi S. et al. (2019) ‘Management priorities for marine invasive species’, Science of the Total Environment, 688 (2019) 

976-982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.282. 

17 IMO: the International Maritime Organization, the United Nations’ specialised agency with responsibility for the safety and security 

of shipping and the prevention of marine and atmospheric pollution by ships. 

18 The Convention entered into force on 8 September 2017, while the deadline for all vessels to comply is 8 September 2024. 

9 

 
 
 
                                           
2.2. 

Restrictions and derogations (Articles 7, 8, 9, 31 and 32) 

The  most  direct  impact  of  the  IAS  Regulation  is  that  listed  species  are  subject  to 
restrictions, including a trade ban (Article 7). Exceptions to most restrictions are possible 
in exceptional cases: either (i) under a system of permits managed by the Member States 
(allowing for research or ex-situ conservation activities under Article 8) or (ii) authorised 
by the Commission (in exceptional cases for reasons of compelling public interest under 
Article 9). Other transitional derogations are possible for owners of companion animals 
(Article 31) and for commercial stocks (Article 32).  

Twelve Member States reported having issued 100 permits in total between the entry into 
force of the first Union list in August 2016 and December 2018. These permits concerned 
32  IAS  of  Union  concern.  Of  the  permits,  87  were  for  research  and  13  for  ex-situ 
conservation.  The  ex-situ  permits  were  given  to  establishments  hosting  unwanted 
specimens as part of management measures, an activity that actually does not require a 
permit. 

To date, the Commission has adopted two authorisation decisions under Article 9. These 
two  decisions  authorised  two  Member  States  to  pursue  the  farming  of  raccoon  dogs 
(Nyctereutes procyonoides) for fur production.  

2.3. 

Article 11. IAS  of regional  concern and species  native to the 
Union 

Article  11  allows  Member  States  to  identify,  from  their  lists  of  IAS  of  Member  State 
concern (see Section 2.4), species native or non-native to the Union that require enhanced 
regional cooperation. Such cooperation may lead to applying to those species – and only 
in  the  Member  States  concerned  –  most  of  the  restrictions  that  apply  to  the  species 
included on the Union list. Regional cooperation must be triggered by a Member State, 
which has not happened yet.  

For  IAS  native  to  the  Union,  the  Scientific  Forum  and  other  consulted  experts  have 
confirmed  that  enhanced  regional  cooperation  would  have  added  value  for  addressing 
several  such  species.  However,  the  Scientific  Forum  identified  an  obstacle:  the 
uncertainty  over  the  exact  limits  between  the  native  and  alien  range  of  such  species. 
These limits often fall within the territory of the Member States concerned: species may 
be  native  in  parts  of  a  Member  State  but  alien  and  invasive  in  other  parts  of  the  same 
country. Furthermore, knowledge about these limits often evolves in the light of the most 
recent research. Such situations also make it particularly difficult to explain to the wider 
public the need to take measures to manage such species. 

Some stakeholders have suggested using Article 11 to regulate at a regional level species 
that are highly unlikely to establish themselves in large parts of the Union19, instead of 
including  such  species  on  the  Union  list.  This  approach  would  be  especially  useful  for 
species of important commercial interest. For instance, ornamental plants that can have a 
severe impact in the Mediterranean biogeographic region would only be regulated there, 
while  their  trade  would  continue  in  northern  Europe,  where  it  is  unlikely  to  have 
significant  impacts.  Relevant  discussions  at  the  Committee  on  Invasive  Alien  Species 
indicate that the Member States have not opted for such a solution for the following three 
reasons:  

19 See, for example, the public feedback on the proposal for the second update of the Union list: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-

regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/2124-Update-of-the-list-of-Invasive-Alien-Species-of-Union-concern.  

10 

 
 
                                           
 

 

 

the  IAS  Regulation  clearly  allows  the  inclusion  of  such  species  on  the  Union 
list20; 
inclusion on the Union list is considered as a more effective measure, especially 
given the resulting trade ban across the Union; 
it is difficult to enforce trade restrictions only in some parts of the EU. 

2.4. 

Article 12. IAS of Member State concern 

Article  12  allows  Member  States  to  draw  up  a  national  list  of  IAS  of  Member  State 
concern. By 31 March 2021, 10 Member States had adopted such lists21. The number of 
taxa  in  each  of  these  lists  ranges  from  13  to  over  200.  Some  include  entire  taxonomic 
groups  (genera  and  families).  The  listed  species  and  taxonomic  groups  are  subject,  at 
national level, to similar restrictions to those applying at EU level to the IAS of Union 
concern.  Some  species  have  been  listed  by  several  countries.  These  species  indicate 
priorities common to those countries. However, with some exceptions, this has not led to 
coordinated action.  

2.5. 

Article 13. Action plans on the pathways of IAS 

Article  13  requires  Member  States  to  identify  and  prioritise  pathways  (i.e.  routes  and 
mechanisms) of unintentional introduction and spread of IAS of Union concern within 18 
months  of  the  adoption  or  update  of  the  Union  list.  Article  13  also  requires  Member 
States to  implement  action plans to  address  the  priority pathways within 3  years of the 
adoption or update of the Union list.  

Most Member States have identified the priority pathways relevant to them. As required 
by  the  IAS  Regulation,  prioritisation  was  based  on  estimates  of  the  volume  of  species 
entering through a pathway and the potential impact of those species. However, Member 
States followed different methodologies, ranging from quite simple to complex formulas.  

The priority pathways identified vary substantially between the Member States, with 36 
different  pathways having been prioritised. Two  pathways were nevertheless  prioritised 
by  most  Member  States:  ‘Escape  from  confinement:  escape  of  pet,  aquarium  and 
terrarium species’ and ‘Escape from confinement: horticulture’ (see Table 1).  

Some  Member  States  included  in  their  analysis  additional  IAS  which  are  not  on  the 
Union  list  so  as  to  draw  up  more  comprehensive  action  plans.  This  indicates  that  the 
current  Union  list  is  perceived  as  too  limited  to  prioritise  pathways  within  it.  Certain 
pathways  cannot  be addressed under Article 13 unless relevant  species  are included on 
the  Union  list.  For  example,  unless  species  introduced  and  spread  by  ballast  water  are 
included on the Union list, action to address this pathway cannot be instigated under the 
IAS Regulation.  

Despite  progress  in  the  prioritisation  of  pathways,  implementation  of  Article  13  is 
lagging in most Member States. By 31 March 2021, only 1022 Member States had drawn 
up and communicated to the Commission their pathway action plan(s). In June 2021, the 

20 Article 4(3)(b) and Recital (10) of the IAS Regulation. 
21  The  risk  assessment  area  is  the  Union’s  territory,  excluding  the  outermost  regions.  Article  6  of  the  IAS  Regulation  lays  down 
specific  provisions  for  the  outermost  regions,  requiring  Member  States  with  outermost  regions  to  adopt  a  list  of  invasive  alien 
species of concern for each of them.  

22 Including the United Kingdom before its withdrawal from the EU. 

11 

 
 
                                           
Commission initiated procedures against 18 Member States for not having drawn up the 
action plan(s).  

Pathway category/subcategory according to the classification used in the 2019 
reports 

1.1 Biological control  
1.2 Erosion control/dune stabilization (windbreaks, hedges, …) 
1.3 Fishery in the wild (including game fishing)  
1.4 Hunting 
1.5 Landscape/flora/fauna ‘improvement’ in the wild 
1.6 Introduction for conservation purposes or wildlife management 
1.7 Release in nature for use (other than above, e.g. fur, transport, 
medical use) 
1.8 Other intentional release 
2.1 Agriculture (including biofuel feedstocks)  
2.2 Aquaculture/mariculture  
2.3 Botanical garden/zoo/aquaria (excluding domestic aquaria) 
2.4 Pet/aquarium/terrarium species (including live food for such 
species)  
2.5 Farmed animals (including animals left under limited control)  
2.6 Forestry (including afforestation or reforestation) 
2.7 Fur farms 
2.8 Horticulture 
2.9 Ornamental purpose other than horticulture 
2.10 Research and ex-situ breeding (in facilities)  
2.11 Live food and live bait 
2.12 Other escape from confinement 
3.1 Contaminant nursery material 
3.2 Contaminated bait 
3.3 Food contaminant (including of live food)  
3.4 Contaminant on animals (except parasites, species transported by 
host/vector)  
3.5 Parasites on animals (including species transported by host and 
vector)  
3.6 Contaminant on plants (except parasites, species transported by 
host/vector)  
3.7 Parasites on plants (including species transported by host and 
vector)  
3.8 Seed contaminant  
3.9 Timber trade 
3.10 Transportation of habitat material (soil, vegetation, etc.) 
4.1 Angling/fishing equipment  
4.2 Container/bulk  
4.3 Hitchhikers in or on airplane  
4.4 Hitchhikers on ship/boat (excluding ballast water and hull fouling) 
4.5 Machinery/equipment  
4.6 People and their luggage/equipment (in particular tourism) 
4.7 Organic packing material, in particular wood packaging 
4.8 Ship/boat ballast water  
4.9 Ship/boat hull fouling  
4.10 Vehicles (cars, train, …) 
4.11 Other means of transport 
5.1 Interconnected waterways/basins/seas  
5.2 Tunnels and land bridges 
5.3 Natural dispersal across borders of invasive alien species that have 
been introduced through pathways 1 to 5 

N

I
E
S
A
E
L
E
R

.
1

E
R
U
T
A
N

T
N
E
M
E
N
I
F
N
O
C

M
O
R
F
E
P
A
C
S
E

.
2

I

T
N
A
N
M
A
T
N
O
C
–
T
R
O
P
S
N
A
R
T

.
3

-
T
R
O
P
S
N
A
R
T

.
4

Y
A
W
A
W
O
T
S

5. 
CORRIDOR 
6. 
UNAIDED 

Number of 
Member States 
that have identified 
the pathway as a 
priority one 
- 
2 
6 
1 
4 
- 
2 

Number of IAS 
of Union 
concern 
corresponding 
to the pathway 
- 
3 
7 
1 
6 
- 
12 

4 
2 
6 
5 
13 

1 
2 
1 
11 
9 
- 
8 
2 
2 
- 
1 
3 

- 

3 

- 

1 
- 
8 
6 
2 
1 
3 
3 
1 
1 
5 
4 
4 
1 
6 
- 
8 

11 
2 
18 
39 
33 

2 
4 
3 
23 
26 
- 
9 
11 
16 
- 
2 
15 

- 

14 

- 

3 
- 
23 
20 
3 
1 
14 
17 
7 
1 
7 
8 
12 
1 
35 
- 
45 

Table 1: Categorisation of pathways used in the reporting, number of Member States that have identified 
each  pathway  as  a  priority  and  number  of  IAS  of  Union  concern  identified  relevant  to  each  of  the 
pathways. 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.6. 

Article 14. Surveillance system  

Article  14  requires  Member  States  to  set  up  a  surveillance  system  that  collects  and 
records data on the occurrence in the environment of IAS of Union concern. 

By  31 March 2021,  24  Member  States  had  set  up  such  a  system,  often  building  on 
existing systems, including systems deriving from other pieces of EU legislation. In very 
few cases, a new surveillance system was set up. The systems of several Member States 
are  linked  to  citizen  science,  and  a  few  systems  rely  almost  exclusively  on  citizen 
science.  Some  Member  States  also  incorporate  information  from  stakeholders  (farmers, 
foresters,  hunters,  fishermen,  nature  conservation  NGOs,  etc.).  In  June  2021,  the 
Commission  initiated  procedures  against  three  Member  States  for  not  having  set  up  a 
surveillance system. 

Some  gaps  and  inconsistencies  were  observed  in  the  reported  distribution  of  IAS  of 
Union concern. Reports showed marked differences in the number of species recorded in 
border regions by neighbouring Member States (see Figure 5). This indicates that: (i) the 
actual  distribution  of  some  IAS  of  Union  concern  is  still  not  fully  known;  and  (ii) 
surveillance  systems  were,  at  least  until  2018  when  these  records  were  collected,  not 
covering adequately all IAS of Union concern or all national territories.  

Figure 5: Number of IAS of Union concern out of the 48 covered by the 2019 reports per 10 x 10 km grid.  

13 

 
 
 
 
2.7. 

Article 15. Official controls  

Article 15 required Member States to have in place by 2 January 2016 fully functioning 
structures  to  carry  out  the  official  controls  necessary  to  prevent  the  intentional 
introduction of IAS of Union concern. 

By  31 March 2021,  25  Member  States  had  such  structures  in  place.  These  structures 
involve  the  customs  and/or  phytosanitary/veterinary  services.  Member  States  reported 
only a few interceptions of IAS following official controls at borders. 

The  completeness  of  the  official  control  structures  varies  between  the  Member  States. 
Integrating  the  Union  list  in  TARIC23  and  TRACES24  has  facilitated  documentary 
checks. However, only a few Member States appear to carry out dedicated risk analyses 
and  physical  checks.  Many  Member  States  will  need  to  better  clarify  the  division  of 
responsibilities  between  the  various  authorities  involved,  including  in  cooperation, 
information exchange and training programmes. In June 2021, the Commission initiated 
procedures against two Member States for not having implemented Article 15. 

2.8. 

Articles  16  and  17.  Early-detection  notifications  and  rapid 
eradication at an early stage of invasion 

Under Article 16, Member States must notify the Commission of the appearance of IAS 
of  Union  concern  whose  presence  was  previously  unknown  or  of  the  re-appearance  of 
IAS  of  Union  concern  after  they  have  been  reported  as  eradicated.  Under  Article  17, 
these Member States must: (i) take rapid eradication measures; (ii) notify those measures 
to the Commission; and (iii) inform the other Member States.  

Since  the  adoption  of  the  first  Union  list  in  July  2016,  and  up  to  31 March 2021,  19 
Member States  (including the United Kingdom  until  it withdrew from  the EU) notified 
the Commission via the dedicated notification system25 of 135 cases of early detection, 
concerning 34 of the 66 IAS  of Union concern. For 57 of these cases, the notifications 
confirmed rapid eradication; for 42, the effort was ongoing; for 5, no measures had been 
decided yet; and for 1, the Member State decided to apply management measures in line 
with  Article  18  (derogations  from  the  obligation  of  rapid  eradication).  In  30  cases,  the 
Member States considered that rapid eradication was not achieved. The species for which 
most notifications of an early detection were submitted – 43 in total – is the Asian hornet 
(Vespa velutina nigrithorax). 

23 The integrated tariff of the European Union. 
24 Trade Control and Expert System. 
25 NOTSYS: https://easin.jrc.ec.europa.eu/notsys/.  

14 

 
 
                                           
 Figure 6: Early-detection notifications per IAS of Union concern over the period July 2016 - March 2021. 
Numbers include multiple notifications for the same species per Member State. 

2.9. 

Article 19. Management measures 

Article 19 requires Member States to  apply effective management measures for  IAS  of 
Union  concern  widely  spread  in  their  territory.  Such  measures  must  aim  at  the 
eradication, population control or containment of the IAS.  

23  Member  States  reported  having  applied  management  measures  for  IAS  of  Union 
concern present in their territory between July 2016 and December 2018. They reported 
634 distinct management measures, covering 41 of the 43 IAS included on the Union list 
over  that  period  and  present  in  the  Union.  Some  Member  States  drew  up  measures  for 
each specific population  of species across their territory, while  others took measures at 
the total population across their territory.  

According to the reports, 6% of the management measures resulted in eradication; 21% 
led  to  a  decrease  of  the  targeted  population;  14%  led  to  no  change  in  the  targeted 
population;  17%  saw  an  increase  in  the  targeted  population  despite  the  management 
measures;  and  42%  led  to  unclear  results.  Reports  also  indicate  significant  efforts  to 

15 

4399877644322222222222111111111111105101520253035404550Vespa velutina nigrithoraxMuntiacus reevesiProcambarus fallax f. virginalisOxyura jamaicensisMyocastor coypusThreskiornis aethiopicusProcyon lotorCabomba carolinianaNasua nasuaLudwigia peploidesAlopochen aegyptiacaAlternanthera philoxeroidesEichhornia crassipesLagarosiphon majorLudwigia grandifloraLysichiton americanusNyctereutes procyonoidesPersicaria perfoliataProcambarus clarkiiPueraria montana var. lobataSciurus carolinensisCorvus splendensEriocheir sinensisGunnera tinctoriaGymnocoronis spilanthoidesHeracleum sosnowskyiHumulus scandensHydrocotyle ranunculoidesLepomis gibbosusLithobates catesbeianusMyriophyllum aquaticumOrconectes limosusPacifastacus leniusculusTamias sibiricus 
 
 
 
understand  and  mitigate  the  impacts  of  the  management  measures  on  non-targeted 
species.  

2.10. 

Article 25. Information support system 

The information support system set up by the Commission to help in implementing the 
IAS Regulation comprises: 

 

 

the  European  Alien  Species  Information  Network26,  enabling  easy  access  to 
scientific information and spatial data on about 14 000 alien species occurring in 
Europe;  

the  European  Alien  Species  Notification  System27,  allowing  Member  States  to 
notify  the  Commission  and  inform  the  other  Member  States  of  the  early 
detections of IAS of Union concern and the rapid eradication measures taken for 
these. 

2.11. 

Awareness raising 

Most Member States have made efforts to inform the public about the impacts of IAS and 
the need to address them, mainly by creating or improving dedicated websites. Member 
States also carried out awareness campaigns for the general public or specific segments 
of  the  public  (stakeholders,  young  people,  schools,  etc.)  through  various  means 
(newspaper  and  magazine  articles,  press  releases,  newsletters,  radio  and  television 
programmes,  museum  exhibitions,  conferences,  public  surveys,  citizen-science  mobile-
phone applications, and the promotion of codes of conduct). In many Member States, the 
public was also informed by NGOs, the private sector, educational institutions, and other 
associations affected by – or working on – IAS.  

The  Commission  raises  awareness  on  IAS  through  a  dedicated  webpage28  (the  EASIN 
platform  including  science  dissemination,  online  education  and  social  media  contents) 
and  the  citizen-science  smartphone  application  Invasive  Alien  Species  in  Europe29. 
Ongoing projects aim to: (i) improve understanding and communication among the key 
sectors  and  competent  authorities  dealing  with  IAS30;  and  (ii)  promote  the  humane 
management  of  vertebrate  IAS31.  The  Commission  has  also  developed  material  to  help 
Member States implement the IAS Regulation (e.g. guides to support the identification of 
IAS  of  Union  concern  by  official  controls  or  surveillance  systems,  and  a  guide  to 
interpret the categories of pathways for the introduction of alien species as defined by the 
Convention on Biological Diversity).  

2.12. 

Implementation costs, benefits and funding 

19  Member  States  provided  some  estimate  of  the  cost  of  complying  with  the  IAS 
Regulation over 2015-2018. Those costs range from EUR 17 000 to EUR 40 million per 
Member  State.  The  total  estimated  costs  across  all  Member  States  amount  to  around 
EUR 75  million  over  the  four-year  period.  Most  estimates  cover  management  and 
awareness-raising measures, but some also include personnel and other costs. Since these 

26 EASIN: https://easin.jrc.ec.europa.eu/easin.  
27 NOTSYS : https://easin.jrc.ec.europa.eu/notsys. 
28 https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/invasivealien/index_en.htm  
29 https://easin.jrc.ec.europa.eu/easin/CitizenScience/BecomeACitizen 
30 https://www.adelphi.de/en/project/invasive-alien-species-improving-understanding-and-communication  
31 https://www.iucn.org/regions/europe/our-work/biodiversity-conservation/invasive-alien-species/humane-management-vertebrate-ias  

16 

 
 
                                           
estimates  do  not  cover  the  same  cost  categories  and  have  various  limitations, 
comparisons are not meaningful.  

Most Member States considered that reported costs are an underestimation of true costs. 
Member  States  were  mostly  unable  to  quantify  the  overall  costs,  since  implementation 
activities are carried out by public bodies as part of their existing work or capacity (e.g. 
for official controls and surveillance systems). In addition, some activities are undertaken 
by  many  different  players  at  national,  regional,  and  local  levels,  making  it  difficult  to 
collate all the costs. Management measures are often part of activities that go beyond the 
listed IAS and address IAS or nature restoration in general, making the identification of 
costs related to implementing the IAS Regulation alone very difficult.  

Costs are also borne by economic sectors that have to adapt their activities (e.g. pet and 
horticultural  traders  who  must  stop  trading  IAS  of  Union  concern,  and  zoos  that  must 
take measures to ensure that specimens do not escape and do not reproduce). 

Estimating benefits is difficult, at least in monetary terms. Benefits include the avoided 
adverse  impacts  on  biodiversity,  human  health  (e.g.  skin  burns  caused  by  the  giant 
hogweed Heracleum mantegazzianum) and the economy (e.g. damage to infrastructure), 
as a result of preventing new introductions and of managing existing populations of IAS 
of  Union  concern.  Recent  studies32  confirm  the  assumption  made  in  the  impact 
assessment for the IAS Regulation33 that the cost of addressing IAS as early as possible 
is clearly outweighed by the costs of inaction or action taken with significant delay. This 
is because damage costs and management costs tend to increase substantially over time.  

Although  some  success  has  been  reported  in  eradicating  or  containing  IAS  of  Union 
concern (see Sections 2.8 and 2.9 above), it is premature to evaluate the overall impact of 
the IAS Regulation in this regard. A baseline distribution for listed species corresponding 
to  the  time  of  adoption  of  the  Union  list  was  created  in  201334.  The  first  distribution 
reported by the Member States corresponds to the best available knowledge as close as 
possible to 31 December 2018. However, the management obligations only applied from 
February 2018 and February 2019 for the first Union list and its first update, respectively. 
Predictably,  a  comparison  between  the  baseline  and  the  reported  distributions  did  not 
reveal any significant change35. A more meaningful comparison can be carried out based 
on the second reported distribution, due in 2025. A further measure of success would be a 
noticeable  reduction  in  the  pressure  exerted  by  IAS  on  protected  species  and  habitats. 
Such  trends  are,  however,  very  slow  and  they  are  not  expected  to  be  measured  before 
2030.  

Member States reported that action taken was funded by both national/local sources and 
EU  funding,  mainly  the  LIFE  programme  and  the  EU  Cohesion  Fund.  Many  Member 
States,  especially  those  relying  most  on  EU  funding,  invoked  the  lack  of  sufficient 
resources as one of the main reasons for delays in implementing certain provisions. 

2.13. 

Implementation challenges 

This review has identified some challenges and areas for improvement, set out below. 

32 See Cuthbert R.N. et al. ‘Global economics of aquatic invasive alien species’ Science of the Total Environment 775 (2021) 145238. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145238;  Ahmed  D.A.  et  al.  ‘Managing  biological  invasions:  the  cost  of  inaction’, 
Biological invasions (2021) In review. DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-300416/v1.  

33 SWD(2013) 321 final. 
34 https://easin.jrc.ec.europa.eu/easin/Documentation/Baseline.  
35 https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC123170.  

17 

 
 
                                           
  Full implementation of the IAS Regulation has still not been achieved, as most 
Member States have not yet implemented the action plans to address the priority 
pathways. Furthermore, there is scope to improve both the comprehensiveness of 
the coverage of surveillance systems and the official control structures in many 
Member States.  

  Uncertainty  about  potential  impacts  or  the  economic  significance  of  certain 
species may hinder their inclusion on the Union list, thus reducing the impact of 
the  IAS  Regulation.  Nevertheless,  the  IAS  Regulation  includes  provisions 
(emergency  measures  and  enhanced  regional  cooperation)  that  could  address 
species presenting imminent risks and species of economic relevance. However, 
the  Member  States  have  not  used  these  provisions,  while  the  IAS  Regulation 
does not give the Commission the right to initiate them. 

  There is scope for greater coordination between the Member States, since: (i) the 
lists of IAS of national concern contain some common species; (ii) priorities of 
management measures and effort differ between neighbouring countries; and (iii) 
the  Member  States  have  identified  very  diverse  priorities  in  the  pathways  to 
address. 

  The fact that the Union list is a priority list to which species can only be added 
once sufficient  evidence is  available means that  by its nature, it cannot  include 
all IAS.  

  Lack of sufficient funding to address IAS continues to be an obstacle for many 
Member  States.  Therefore,  EU  funding  remains  important  to  complement 
national  funding  under  various  sources  (e.g.  the  European  Maritime  Fisheries 
and  Aquaculture  Fund  for  IAS  in  the  marine  environment;  Horizon  Europe  for 
relevant  research;  the  common  agricultural  policy  for  the  management  of 
relevant IAS, etc.) to achieve full and effective implementation.  

  Lack  of  administrative  capacity,  especially  at  the  local  and  regional  levels,  is 
another  significant  challenge  in  several  Member  States.  This  ranges  from  the 
ability  to  run  sufficient  surveillance  systems  to  the  capacity  to  prioritise  and 
carry out interventions (including: (i) preparing and implementing action plans; 
(ii) managing the necessary public consultations and managing conflict where it 
arises  (e.g.  with  stakeholder  groups  opposing  the  listing  or  the  management 
measures)).  

  There are knowledge gaps, particularly in: (i) methods to document the costs and 
benefits  of  addressing  IAS;  (ii)  the  implications  of  climate  change  for  the 
establishment and spread of IAS; and (iii) novel methods for IAS management, 
in particular measures addressing a broad range of IAS taxa at pathway level. 

3. 

CONCLUSION 

Given that the deadlines for implementing the various obligations of the IAS Regulation 
applied gradually between the adoption of the first Union list in July 2016 and July 2019, 
it  is  premature  to  draw  conclusions  on  most  aspects  of  the  IAS  Regulation.  For  this 
reason,  the  Commission  did  not  supplement  this  report  with  a  legislative  proposal  for 
amending the IAS Regulation. Further information to decide on the necessity of such a 
proposal will be collected via the next reports from the Member States, due in 2025.  

Although  the  implementation  of  the  IAS  Regulation  is  proving  challenging  in  several 
respects, it is already starting to deliver on its objectives. This first review identifies some 
significant achievements, set out in the bullet points below. 

18 

 
 
  The IAS Regulation has created a coherent framework for addressing IAS at EU 
level.  It has led most of the Member States to set up a surveillance system and 
carry  out  official  controls  for  such  species.  Despite  the  very  short  period  of 
actual full implementation, there are indications that restrictions (e.g. removal of 
species from trade), early detection/rapid eradication and management of widely 
spread species deliver benefits. 

  The provisions on the list of IAS of Union concern have proven to be effective 
and have allowed for regular updates of the list. The number of early-detection 
notifications and of management measures taken indicate that the listed IAS are 
relevant to most of the Member States.  
Information on the IAS present in Europe is now centralised and more complete 
than ever before. New mechanisms are in place for reporting and warning of new 
sightings.  

 

  The  IAS  Regulation  has  led  to  increased  awareness  of  the  problem  of  invasive 

alien species, including among the general public. 

The IAS Regulation is a timely piece of legislation. The projected increase in global trade 
and  travel,  together  with  climate  change,  are  expected  to  increase  the  introduction  and 
establishment  of  IAS.  This  may  lead  to  increased  adverse  impacts  on  biodiversity  and 
ecosystems,  human  health  and  the  economy.  It  may  also  lead  to  an  increase  in  related 
costs36. The full implementation of the IAS Regulation, as well as that of other relevant 
legislation and international agreements, must be stepped up. This is a commitment made 
under the EU biodiversity strategy for 203037. 

36See  e.g.  Diagne  C.  et  al.  (2021),  ‘High  and  rising  economic  costs  of  biological 

invasions  worldwide’,  Nature. 

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03405-6.  

37 COM(2020)380. 

19