Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

*|*

# 52013SC0323

**COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Accompanying the document Proposal for a Council and European Parliament Regulation on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species /\* SWD/2013/0323 final \*/**

  

Implementation Plan[1]

1. Title of the document
for the proposed act:

"Implementation Plan for a
Regulation on preventing and managing the introduction and spread of Invasive Alien
Species"

2. Contact point:

ENV-BIODIVERSITY@ec.europa.eu

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/invasivealien/index\_en.htm

3. Deliverables and implementation challenges

The implementation of the Invasive
Alien Species (IAS) Regulation will rely on the timely implementation of all
the measures proposed. Given the fact that different species affect Member
States with various degrees of seriousness, the legislative proposal has been
designed to ensure a balance between obligations and measures to ensure
coordinated action, whilst ensuring sufficient flexibility for the Member
States to tackle IAS in a way which is tailored to their own specific
circumstances and needs.

The legislation has therefore been
designed to ensure that IAS are addressed in an effective and cost-efficient
way, while avoiding any loopholes in the implementation process as well as any
unnecessary administrative burden. Nevertheless, the measures proposed will
require efforts in Member States and the Commission is committed to provide
support and guidance where needed in order to facilitate the effective and
cost-efficient implementation of the Regulation.

The main objectives of this
legislation will be to achieve: 1) prioritisation, so as to focus on the worst
species; 2) a shift towards a more preventive approach, with emphasis on border
checks and the management of pathways of introductions; and 3) increase the
level of awareness of the problems linked to IAS and the measures needed to
tackle them at all levels. This may pose some implementation challenges.

3.1 Shift from a
fragmented approach to joint action on priority species

In order to achieve this shift,
Member States will have to refocus some of their efforts. Most Member States
have already developed initiatives to tackle IAS, however on different species,
resulting in a patchwork of actions, which hampered effectiveness. Prioritisation
will be achieved by focusing action on a common set of species, the worst ones that
are considered of concern for the EU. Joint action on the worst IAS is expected
to increase effectiveness.

Prioritisation will trigger a number of
obligations for Member States. However, it will not always be straightforward for
Member States to shift their efforts to other species: this may imply a reorganisation
of the national efforts, or at least a review of the national priorities and of
the resources attached to these efforts. The priority species will be
identified by Committee of Member States representatives on the basis of a qualified
majority, which implies that some Member States may on occasions find
themselves subject to obligations on species which are not their priority
concern. This can have policy consequences and financial consequences. Member
States might be reluctant to revise their national management plans and shift
the policy focus away from species that are of immediate concern for them.
Secondly, Member States may face difficulties in redistributing funding to
cover new expenses brought about by the new measures, since current funding may
already be earmarked and partly invested in tackling existing priorities. The
proposed measures take this issue into account and the measures are designed to
ensure efficiency gains are reaped by acting at EU level, but in the shorter
term significant reorganisation may be needed.

Risk assessments (RAs) will be the basis of
prioritisation. Member States will be proposing candidates IAS for inclusion in
the list of invasive alien species of Union concern, on the basis of risk
assessment. The legislation proposes to develop a harmonised methodology to
develop risk assessments in cooperation with all Member States, so as to ensure
acceptance of one Member State's RA by the other Member States as sufficiently
robust to justify listing. The Commission will screen the RAs received to
ensure they comply with the minimum information requirements set by the
harmonised guidelines before submitting them to the attention of the Committee
of Member States' representatives. On the basis of experience with other EU
legislation, this process should not present particular implementation
challenges. Examples of similar work can be found with the implementation of
the Plant Health Regime and the Wildlife Trade Regulation. Developing risk
assessment will entail costs for Member States (roughly €42,000 per species as
calculated in the Impact Assessment). However, the RAs will be developed for
use at EU level and would thus avoid duplications of efforts with different Member
States developing RAs for the same species: it has been estimated that the
efficiency gains thus obtained could amount to €1.6 million saved a year in
total for the EU-27.

In terms of resource requirements
for the Commission, the management of the Committee of Member States
Representatives and the administration of the list of priority species would be
in line with established Commission practices, often relying on the support of
a standing Committee. On the basis of the resources used for the management of
implementation of the Wildlife Trade Regulation, it was possible to estimate
that running the Committee would cost the European Commission roughly €80,000 a
year, on the basis of three yearly meetings. In terms of staff requirements, an
assessment made on the basis of number of staff managing existing policy
instruments (namely the Plant Health Regime and the Wildlife Trade Regulation),
adjusted on the basis of work needs deriving from those systems, it was
calculated that implementation of the proposed measures would not, at least in
an initial phase, require additional staff. Furthermore, the system is designed
to pool resources and expertise from different services of the Commission,
which will allow to run the system with limited dedicated staff resources: in
particular, the IAS policy will benefit from the contribution of JRC staff
involved in the EASIN project[2], which
will be an important element underpinning the implementation of the measures; and
from the contributions of other Commission services, in particular from DG
TAXUD, DG SANCO and DG MARE, each contributing with their expertise in areas of
relevance to IAS policy.

3.2 Shift
from reaction to prevention

Action in Member States initiatives
has generally been triggered by the damage invasions are causing. Reaction to
damage by widely spread IAS can be extremely resource consuming. Much greater
benefits are to be expected from preventing IAS from entering or spreading. However,
such shift is expected to create a need for Member States to refocus their
efforts and reformulate national initiatives, or to initiate additional
initiatives, with a need to earmark new resources. This may not be
straightforward in some cases: while nearly all Member States have experience
with control measures, the experience with prevention is more limited. In
addition reactive measures can require large funding and it may not be
straightforward to free funds currently spent on reactive measures to allocate
them to preventive measures instead.

Nevertheless, the proposed measures
have been designed to ensure that with moderate extra-investment, large
benefits could be derived, thanks to the efficiency gains that will mobilise
resources to gradually fund the shift towards prevention. Member States are currently
spending an estimated €1.4 billion per year to tackle IAS, of which €1.3
billion is spent on the management of established IAS. Joint prioritisation on
the worst IAS is expected to keep the worst damage under control more
effectively and reduce this management expenditure. Moreover, acting at the
EU-level will have considerable benefits of scale: information sharing, a
coordinated approach to risk assessment and to the development of management
actions can lead to considerable efficiency gains. These savings can be invested
to gradually tighten the prevention, as to avoid the additional costs of newly
invading IAS. Overall, therefore, there will mainly be a reorganisation of
current expenditures towards a more focused and more preventive approach and
the expected additional cost will be very minor in comparison with the
tremendous benefit of avoiding an explosive cost increase.

Surveillance, border controls and
pathway management will become important new elements in the IAS policy. Surveillance
will be particularly important to detect IAS that are newly establishing in
a Member State and it will help detect also those IAS that are introduced in
the EU unintentionally. Setting up a surveillance system could pose technical
challenges, due to the fact that IAS of Union concern could appear for the
first time at any time and anywhere in one country. A surveillance system
should be comprehensive enough to enable the detection of a species anywhere in
a Member State, thus including sufficient "surveillance points", both
in terms of timing and in terms of geographical location.

An important part of the prevention
efforts will be carried out through border controls, which will mainly
address the 25% of the IAS brought in intentionally. The Union has in place a
well-developed system of border controls. Specific border inspection posts
exist to comply with veterinary and phytosanitary rules. Experience in border
control has been gained through the Wildlife Trade Regulation and customs
authorities in the Union deal with imports into the Union on a daily basis.
Rules on IAS would add to the duties that these authorities perform. The measures
proposed seek to make use of the sanitary inspections posts to check whether
live animals or plants brought in belong to species listed as IAS of Union concern.
Such checks would be simple "yes" or "no" checks, requiring
no particular equipment or test. Checks at other entry points (e.g. airports,
or harbours) would need to be carried out by customs authorities, the same way
as other checks are performed to detect unlawful introductions of other goods.
This would be the responsibility of customs authorities. The challenge in this
instance would be the need to ensure that appropriate trainings are organised
to enable customs officers and sanitary personnel at the Border Inspection
Posts are given the tools and the information necessary to carry out their
duties. On the basis of DG TAXUD experience, it has been estimated that a small
project to develop guidelines on IAS for customs could cost around €20,000-30,000.

Another important aspect of
prevention will be the focus on pathway management. A majority of IAS,
as discussed in the Impact Assessment accompanying this proposal, come into the
EU unintentionally (roughly 75%), through a variety of pathways, i.e. vectors
and mechanisms that enable the entry of an IAS into the EU. Contrary to animal
pathogens and plant pests, which are generally spread with their hosts, IAS may
be spread through a multitude of pathways: as contaminants of commodities or as
hitchhikers or stowaways in transport vectors. Addressing such pathways is a
relatively new area of work and it may present some implementation challenges.
Only few Member States have started addressing this problem and so there is a
lack of experience in effective pathway management. Some measures may require
important resources (e.g. ballast water treatment €109 million a year in the EU
as a whole, when the Ballast Water Convention comes into force), however many
low cost effective measures are also possible (e.g. the "Check clean dry"
campaign in the UK, costing roughly €50,000 a year over a 2-year period). In a
stepwise approach, Member States will be required to analyse the pathways
relevant for their territory and identify the priority ones. They will then
have to develop an action plan describing how they intend to tackle the
priority pathways. Given the scarce experience in this area, Member States
could benefit from support and from information and best practice sharing.

3.3 Raising awareness and
communication

Awareness and communication will
need to play an important role in the implementation of this legislation.
Awareness will be important for the public at large and for commercial players
or other operators working with invasive alien species or identified as the
players providing pathways of introduction of invasive alien species. A number
of the measures proposed will indeed rely on the individuals and operators
involved being aware of the problems and of the risks that certain species may
pose. It will not be possible to check every consignment of goods, any parcel
sent through the mail, or inspect every single home, therefore the success of
these measures will partly depend on the level of awareness of all stakeholders
involved. Similarly, certain management measures may be controversial,
especially when it comes to the eradication of mammals or of certain birds.
This will require investment in awareness and communication campaigns.

4.  Support Actions

Building upon existing,
effective practices accompanying the implementation of recently adopted
environmental legislation and the Common Implementation Framework developed
under the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, the Commission will ensure close
coordination with Member States on the three dimensions highlighted above.
Support action from the Commission may include in this regard the elements listed
below.

4.1. Commission
actions

Implementation challenge || Support action || Timing

Shift from fragmented approach to joint action on priority IAS

Shift towards action on priority IAS  || Promote best practice exchanges in terms of awareness raising, namely by building upon national awareness raising programmes. Facilitate access to information, namely by benefitting from the establishment of EASIN, a centralised platform to enable access to distributed data sources, from the EU and beyond. Build upon EASIN to promote the exchange of best-practice in terms of preventive action, namely through the use of the periodic meetings of data providers. Facilitate transboundary cooperation through information exchanges via EASIN and dissemination of information via the standing Committee meetings.   Promote and support the use of LIFE programme funds (from 1992-2006 €44 million was provided from the LIFE programme to support IAS related projects), as well as other EU funds, e.g. regional and rural development funding. || From adoption Work on EASIN ongoing. Further EASIN functionalities to be developed from adoption. From adoption. Currently several EU funded projects focus on IAS. More expected from adoption.

Risk assessments || Support the development of harmonised guidelines on RAs, through the Standing Committee. Commission a study performing an initial assessment of existing RAs both in the EU and beyond   Foster efficiency gains by facilitating exchange of best-practice amongst Member States and encouraging the creation of consortia or other informal groups of Member States to jointly pool resources to develop RAs and exchange information Fully mobilise expertise from existing networks of experts (e.g. NOBANIS[3], DAISIE[4]) from the EU and beyond and facilitate access to information to compile RAs through EASIN. || Work on harmonisation after adoption of the legislation Launch of the study tender imminent (Management Plan 2013) From adoption. Work and exchanges amongst expert networks ongoing, further mobilisation needed from adoption

Shift from reaction to prevention

Shifting towards more prevention || Support the development of preventive measures (surveillance and control, and pathway management), building upon existing practices and facilitating the dissemination and exchange of information through formal and informal channels, e.g. existing databases providing information on pathways of introduction, such as DAISIE, GISD[5]. || From adoption.

Strengthening surveillance and control || Encourage competent authorities to make full use of existing data on IAS collected through existing legislation (e.g. Marine Strategy Framework Directive and Water Framework Directive) and disseminate existing information through formal and informal channels. Stimulate the use of all available instruments that would enable notifications from the public or from specific groups of citizens (nature reserve managers, hunters, anglers, farmers, birdwatchers etc.) as tools supporting surveillance, e.g. citizens' science project, such as for example those of France, UK, Belgium and the Netherlands. Support authorities in charge of border control to ensure appropriate trainings occur and the development of guidelines. Notably benefit from TAXUD initiative to develop guidelines for non-fiscal border checks, which could be extended to cover IAS issues. || Work stemming from existing EU legislation is ongoing. From adoption. Work ongoing, focus on IAS needed from adoption.

Developing pathway management || Consider the idea of funding the development of an inventory of pathways relevant to the EU, building upon existing exercises, including DAISIE.   Encourage the exchange of information and best practice amongst Member States, inter alia by using EASIN as a tool for the exchange of information and know-how on pathways and on possible management techniques. Mobilise existing support schemes and other forms of assistance provided by EU agencies and other organisations. Build upon and publicise EMSA's Action Programme on Ballast Water, which includes training and workshops on pertinent issues, research, information exchange, the formation of co-ordinated positions at IMO, work on issues such as Sampling for Enforcement and the Use of Risk Assessment, reducing regulatory burden and ensuring that new EU regulations and guidance are harmonised with the IMO's Ballast Water Management Convention. || From adoption.   Build upon existing EASIN work, from adoption. Ongoing.

Raising awareness and communication

Awareness raising of stakeholders || Build upon existing sectoral codes of conducts and encourage their uptake, namely through publicity and dissemination through formal and informal Commission channels, e.g. Bern Convention codes of conducts for horticulture, for zoos and botanical gardens. Build upon existing national or private sector schemes to educate consumers, e.g. Plant Wise campaign in the UK, and provide support through dissemination of best practice. || Ongoing Engagement needed from adoption

4.2 Member States actions

Implementation challenge || Support action || Timing

Shift from fragmented approach to joint action on priority IAS

Shift towards action on priority IAS  || Enhance and strengthen the national information systems to facilitate timely and robust exchanges of information between Member States. Foster the development of innovative financing tools, or insurance tools, to fund actions to address priority IAS; exchange information and best-practice with other Member States in this sector. || From adoption although in many cases work in this respect is ongoing. From adoption.

Risk assessments || Cooperate with other Member States to upgrade existing RAs, based on ongoing processes in relevant fora, e.g. EPPO. Create consortia with neighbouring Member States, e.g. in the same biogeographic areas, to jointly develop RAs on species of common interest, thus pooling resources and sharing information. || From adoption. From adoption.

Shift from reaction to prevention

Shifting towards more prevention || Set up robust early notifications systems with central information point, to collect information from local and regional authorities as well as from citizens to feed into the early warning and rapid response system. Engage at EU level with other national competent authorities to share experience and best-practice, namely through active participation in existing cooperation processes, cross-border projects, or by ensuring the national information systems are upgraded and updated regularly.   || From adoption, although in many cases work is ongoing at national level. Ongoing to an extent in the framework of existing process, e.g. Bern Convention. From adoption

Strengthening surveillance and control || Organise cooperation with the public or specific groups of citizens (nature reserve managers, hunters, anglers, farmers, birdwatchers etc.) to mobilise expertise and deploy "eyes and ears" on the ground to facilitate detection of IAS. Organise training for customs officer e.g. through engagement at EU level with other customs authorities [further research on potential training or twinning schemes ongoing] || From adoption, although in many cases work is ongoing at national level. From adoption

Developing pathway management || Engage with stakeholders and mobilise sectoral expertise when developing plans to address priority pathways, so as to ease the work in terms of identification of priority pathways.   Engage with other Member States and join efforts in the identification of pathways, so as to facilitate the identification of cross-border pathways and action to address pathways at source. Build upon or replicate successful awareness raising campaigns addressed to individuals or commercial operators, e.g. "Check clean dry" campaign in the UK || From adoption From adoption From adoption

Raising awareness

Awareness raising of stakeholders || Organise awareness raising campaigns with commercial operators working with invasive alien species, also banking on their ability to outreach to their customers, e.g. pets shops, horticultural centres. Exchange best practice with other Member States and build upon existing experiences e.g. in terms of communication campaigns, awareness raising schemes. Explore and exchange best-practice with other Member States on innovative schemes to facilitate engagement of the public and to finance schemes to tackle IAS, e.g. innovative pet take-back schemes. || From adoption, although in many cases work is ongoing at national level From adoption From adoption

[1] This Implementation Plan is provided
for information purposes only. It does not legally bind the Commission on
whether the identified actions will be pursued or on the form in which they
will be pursued.

[2] The European Alien
Species Information Network (EASIN) aims at increasing access to data and
information on alien species in Europe. EASIN facilitates the exploration of
existing alien species information from distributed sources through a network of
interoperable web services, following internationally recognized standards and
protocols. The project was initiated in support of the implementation of the
Biodiversity Strategy and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and it is
available to the public since May 2012.

[3] European Network on Invasive Alien
Species

[4] Delivering Alien Invasive Species
Inventories for Europe

[5] Global Invasive Species Database

[Top](#document1)