Silvicultural strategies for introduced tree species in Northern Italy

The bio-deterioration of the historical heritage by fast growing and vigorous introduced tree species, and the reduction of native diversity, mostly in riparian, forest, wetland, and coastal habitats are considered amongst particularly relevant impacts for Italy. According to a recent survey of EU Life+ projects, the introduced tree species most often targeted for eradication by conservation projects across Europe are black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia L.), tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima (Mill.) Swingle), red oak (Quercus rubra L.), and black cherry (Prunus serotina Ehrh.). In this chapter, we report on the few field experiences and success stories of silvicultural control of these introduced tree species in urban and natural habitats in northern Italy

Les forêts anciennes en Wallonie. 2ème partie : Cartographie

Un premier article a démontré que l’identification des forêts anciennes est une étape préalable pour pouvoir leur appliquer un mode de gestion spécifique et protéger le patrimoine qu’elles représentent. Cette deuxième partie énumère les sources historiques disponibles en Wallonie, donne un aperçu de l’état d’avancement du travail de numérisation de ces documents mené par le Service Public de Wallonie et en tire quelques informations très surprenantes sur l’évolution spatiale et temporelle des massifs forestiers de Wallonie depuis deux siècles et demi

A science-based approach to tackle invasive alien species in Belgium – the role of the ISEIA protocol and the Harmonia information system as decision support tools

A coherent response to biological invasions involves science-based, up-to-date prioritization tools alongside information transfer to relevant authorities and stakeholders. Here, we describe how the collaboration between scientists and policy makers in Belgium has allowed the development of decision support tools regarding invasive alien species. We present the environmental impact assessment protocol ISEIA and comment on its applications. Furthermore, we describe and provide metadata for the information system Harmonia which was developed to disseminate this information to a diverse audience. Using several examples of initiatives addressing the threat of invasive alien species in Belgium, we show how these tools have been instrumental in strengthening capacity of the scientific community, authorities and stakeholders in Belgium on addressing the invasive alien species issue

Towards a machine-independent transput section

If the transput section of an ALGOL-68 compiler is to be portable, it must be described in such a way that it is clear which aspects are machine-dependent, and which are not. There should be a clear set of primitives underlying the transput. In this report, a description is proposed which can really be used as an implementation model: the transput is described in pseudo-ALGOL 68, except for the underlying primitives, whose semantics are given in some kind of formalized English. The state of this model is by no means definitive, but may serve as a start for further discussion

Beyond protocols:improving the reliability of expert-based risk analysis underpinning invasive species policies

Risk assessment tools for listing invasive alien species need to incorporate all available evidence and expertise. Beyond the wealth of protocols developed to date, we argue that the current way of performing risk analysis has several shortcomings. In particular, lack of data on ecological impacts, transparency and repeatability of assessments as well as the incorporation of uncertainty should all be explicitly considered. We recommend improved quality control of risk assessments through formalized peer review with clear feedback between assessors and reviewers. Alternatively, a consensus building process can be applied to better capture opinions of different experts, thereby maximizing the evidential basis. Elaborating on manageability of invasive species is further needed to fully answer all risk analysis requirements. Tackling the issue of invasive species urges better handling of the acquired information on risk and the exploration of improved methods for decision making on biodiversity management. This is crucial for efficient conservation resource allocation and uptake by stakeholders and the public

Invasive alien species – framework for the identification of invasive alien species of EU concern

Invasive alien species (IAS) are considered to be one of the greatest threats to biodiversity, particularly through their interactions with other drivers of change (MEA 2005, GBO 2011). In recent years the European Commission (EC) has intensified their commitment to provide a comprehensive, problem-oriented, well-balanced and manageable solution to IAS in Europe. The text of a European Union (EU) Regulation is expected to be adopted soon. A core component of the Regulation is a list of “IAS of EU concern” that will be drawn up together with European Member States (MS), based on scientifically robust risk assessments as laid down in the Regulation. Risk assessment is the technical and objective process of evaluating biological or other scientific and economic evidence to identify potentially invasive alien species and determine the level of invasion risk associated with a species or pathway and specifically whether an alien species will become invasive. An effective and robust risk assessment method is seen as an essential component of IAS management (Shine, Kettunen et al. 2010) and a fundamental element of an early warning and information system in Europe (Genovesi, Scalera et al. 2010). The purpose of this project was to provide a review of available IAS risk analysis protocols and use this, coupled with expert opinion, to inform the development of minimum standards necessary to ensure effective risk assessment methods for the EU. Additionally we considered gaps in knowledge and scope of existing risk analysis methods. Thus, we provide recommendations for developing existing risk analysis methods within a framework of minimum standards. Methods compliant with the minimum standards will be of value for supporting the development of a draft list of “IAS of EU concern”. Such a list should include species that are already established within the EU but also be extended to a scoping study to consider species that are not yet established but that may present a significant threat to Europe in the near future. Task 1: Literature review and critical assessment of existing risk assessment methodologies on IAS The purpose of the review was to critically assess the scope, robustness and effectiveness of current risk assessment methods and to provide information for their further development in the context of the study particularly underpinning the derivation of minimum standards. More than 100 relevant publications were derived through a literature search. Only 70 publications provided original risk assessment protocols and their applications and of these 29 were selected through filtering to eliminate those which simply described the implementation of an existing protocol to a given geographic region or specific taxonomic groups without modification of the assessment protocol. These 29 protocols were examined further to derive key attributes of the risk assessment method to inform the development of minimum standards. Basic information for all 29 risk assessment methods was provided. Case studies for 14 of these protocols were included to provide further context for subsequent tasks. The 14 protocols included as case studies were selected on the basis of a number of criteria: relevance of the protocol to Europe, taxonomic breadth and/or geographic breadth, likely compliance with minimum standards and availability of experts with key involvement in the protocol to provide the case study. At both the international and regional-level as well as among countries, there is huge variation in how the risks posed by alien species are assessed. Indeed risk assessment protocols vary widely in approach, objective, implementation and taxa covered, the majority are based on qualitative methods, even though the need to develop quantitative risk assessments has been recognised. Major hurdles preventing the use of quantitative risk assessment methods are the lack of data and challenges in interpretation and communication. Two critical gaps were identified through this task: consideration of ecosystem services and evaluation of user-friendliness and consistency of outcomes. Very few risk assessment protocols reviewed specifically considered impacts on ecosystem services. Consistency in risk analysis has been recently discussed and assessed for pest risk analyses in the EU-funded project PRATIQUE and methods to improve consistency have been developed. PRATIQUE only considered the EPPO decision support scheme (EPPO DSS), however this work will be extended through consideration of additional risk assessments within the current EU-funded COST Action Alien Challenge. Task 2: Develop minimum standards for risk assessment methodologies The review of characteristics of risk assessments through task 1 resulted in a long-list of attributes. The derived attributes ranged from broad consideration of general characteristics including description of the species through to criteria relevant to the invasion process including likelihood of arrival, establishment and spread. Impacts were classified broadly and included biodiversity and socio-economic impacts alongside perspectives influencing impacts such as climate change. Additional consideration was given to implementation of the protocol including quality assurance and alignment with agreed international standards and policies such as the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and relevant EU Directives including the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) and EU Water Framework Directive (WFD). From the long-list the core project team developed and selected a draft short-list of attributes that were considered to be relevant for performing risk assessments of IAS. The short-list of minimum standards was agreed by the project team and preliminarily reviewed through a pre-workshop survey in Task 3. Task 3: Risk assessment workshop The overarching aim of the risk assessment workshop (27-28th March 2014) was to peer-review the derived short-list of minimum standards. The derived minimum standards are required to underpin evaluation of existing risk assessments and ensure they are fit for the purpose of supporting the development of a list of “IAS of EU concern”. We aimed to distil the critical components of a risk assessment that, through expert opinion and consensus, are agreed necessary to achieve overarching, robust and rigorous assessment of the risk of an IAS, regardless of the specific approach taken. Additionally consideration was given to recognized international guidelines and recommendations with relevance to the development of minimum standards for risk assessments. The workshop included participants from the project team (23 experts from nine organisations) and 12 additional invited experts. The invited experts and those from within the team represented a breadth of expertise from a variety of perspectives including taxonomic (all taxa, including pathogens), environmental (freshwater, marine and terrestrial), impacts (environmental, socio-economic and health) and disciplines (ecologists, economist, conservation practitioners, scientists, policy-makers, risk assessors). Many of the experts had been actively involved in the development, testing and implementation of risk assessment protocols for IAS. The experts were invited to review and refine the list of attributes derived through Tasks 1 and 2 for inclusion as potential minimum standards. The long list of attributes of risk assessments derived through Task 1 and 2 were circulated in the form of a pre-workshop survey (using Survey Monkey) in which the experts were asked to rank the importance of each as a potential minimum standard on a scale of 1 (low importance) to 5 (high importance). Experts were also asked to provide additional attributes that were not apparent from the long-list. The pre-workshop survey revealed a high level of consensus between all experts for most of the attributes. However one-third of the experts stated that a totally new EU-wide risk assessment system tailored for the new IAS Regulation should be developed. Attributes aligning with socio-economic aspects also appeared to cause division in responses by the experts. Furthermore, questions relating to cost-benefit led to a high degree of uncertainty with more than a third of participants responding “unsure”. The disagreement or uncertainty expressed by respondents on these specific themes highlighted the need to ensure that socio-economic considerations were included as a substantial component of the workshop programme. Clarity is an overarching requirement of risk assessment protocols to ensure consistency. It is of utmost importance that a protocol asks questions that are sufficiently clear and understandable for assessors. This is essential to ensure that responses (accompanied by an indication of level of uncertainty) deliver similar assessments for the same species in the same area, irrespective of the identity of the assessors – as long as these have the necessary expertise or are provided with the necessary information. Fourteen criteria were agreed, through consensus methods, to represent the minimum standards. The minimum standards are: 1. Description (Taxonomy, invasion history, distribution range (native and introduced), geographic scope, socio-economic benefits) 2. Includes the likelihood of entry, establishment, spread and magnitude of impact 3. Includes description of the actual and potential distribution, spread and magnitude of impact 4. Has the capacity to assess multiple pathways of entry and spread in the assessment, both intentional and unintentional 5. Can broadly assess environmental impact with respect to biodiversity and ecosystem patterns and processes 6. Can broadly assess environmental impact with respect to ecosystem services 7. Broadly assesses adverse socio-economic impact 8. Includes status (threatened or protected) of species or habitat under threat 9. Includes possible effects of climate change in the foreseeable future 10. Can be completed even when there is a lack of data or associated information 11. Documents information sources 12. Provides a summary of the different components of the assessment in a consistent and interpretable form and an overall summary 13. Includes uncertainty 14. Includes quality assurance Task 4: Screening of existing risk assessment methodologies None of the analysed risk assessment protocols were fully compliant with the minimum standards. However, there were a number of protocols that appeared to be compliant with a sufficient number of the minimum standards or with the potential to be modified in accordance with the minimum standards to be included within Task 4. The GB NNRA, EPPO DSS, Harmonia+ and ENSARS were the risk assessment protocols that most closely met the minimum standards, they are further referred to as "substantially compliant risk assessments". The risk assessments undertaken with the GB NNRA and EPPO DSS were accessible and included a range of species. Harmonia+ has potential as a risk assessment protocol with broad taxonomic and geographic applicability. It is a comprehensive risk assessment protocol, however it has only recently been published and currently no species have been formally assessed using this method. ENSARS includes assessments for a number of species but these are not yet formally published. GB NNRA and Harmonia+ both currently lack inclusion of description of socio-economic benefits. However, experts representing these methods acknowledge a willingness to include this aspect as a priority in the future. The EPPO DSS and ENSARS already consider such benefits. Consideration of possible effects on climate change in the foreseeable future was lacking in most protocols. However, the GB NNRA does include climate change considerations. ENSARS, Harmonia+ and EPPO fail to include climate change considerations within their protocols but could easily include this aspect as a priority for updates in the future. Consideration of the effects of IAS on ecosystem services was almost consistently lacking in the risk assessment protocols. This was identified through the literature review (Tasks 1 and 2) but was confirmed through Task 4. IAS impacts on biodiversity, ecosystem patterns and processes, ecosystem services and related socio-economic implications are clearly interlinked. Therefore, there are foreseen to be overlaps in how these different impacts are determined in practice: the identification of impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem characteristics clearly forms the basis for impacts on ecosystem services whereas identifying the impacts on ecosystem services form a key conceptual basis for assessing the foreseen socio-economic impacts of IAS invasion. These overlaps – or synergies - should be taken into consideration when developing these three minimum standards further in the future. It is foreseen that a dedicated guidance on how to assess the impact on ecosystem services, in the context of EU risk assessments for IAS, would need to be developed. Task 5: Screening of potential “IAS of EU Concern” and proposal of a list Prioritisation of potential “IAS of EU concern” is essential to both target IAS interventions at the species constituting the highest risks and for allocating the limited resources available for invasion management based on feasibility of outcomes. The establishment of a risk analysis framework, in consultation with the EC, would ensure a coherent and coordinated response to risks of EU relevance which could be termed “IAS of EU concern”. The main objective of the study was to analyse a set of species that have been risk assessed using protocols meeting the minimum standards to develop the list of “IAS of EU concern”. As a result of the analysis in Task 4, it was apparent that none of the existing protocols screened, tested and discussed within Task 3 meet the full set of minimum standards. We proceeded with the analysis of the list of 80 species provided by the Commission against those protocols for risk assessment that were considered as “substantially compliant”. Due to the lack of risk assessment protocols compliant with the minimum standards, it was not possible to obtain a fully compliant list of proposed “IAS of EU concern” as initially foreseen. However, four risk assessment protocols, namely the EPPO DSS, ENSARS, GB NNRA and Harmonia+, were selected as they meet “most” minimum standards and included a breadth of species in existing assessments. The lists generated from the four selected protocols were thus cross-tabulated against the list of 80 species provided by the EC. It is important to note that some of the existing assessments (most notably within GB NNRA, ENSARS and Harmonia+) apply to a restricted area within Europe and so caution in extrapolating outcomes to a European-scale is required. In total 50 species are included within the draft list of proposed “IAS of EU concern” and these were identified through the “substantially compliant” risk assessments as posing a medium to high risk on biodiversity and/or human health and the economy. Of these 37 are from GB NNRA, 18 from EPPO and one from ENSARS. Seven of the species were assessed within more than one protocol. The list includes 14 species in addition to those within the original list provided by the EC. The draft list of proposed “IAS of EU concern” includes 25 plants, 12 vertebrates, 13 invertebrates of which most are found in the terrestrial and freshwater environments (24 and 20 respectively whereas only six marine species are included). The draft list is constrained by inclusion of only the IAS for which a “substantially compliant” risk assessment is available. Furthermore, there are inherent limitations of a list of proposed “IAS of EU concern” compiled on the basis of risk assessment protocols which do not fully comply with the agreed minimum standards. This is reflected in a number of shortcomings or inconsistencies resulting from the outcomes of the four protocols which were used to draft the list of proposed “IAS of EU concern”. Concluding remarks and key recommendations Available risk assessment protocols that meet the minimum standards are an important step in developing a list of “IAS of EU concern”. Refinements to existing risk assessment protocols are required to ensure they include consideration of ecosystem services, climate change and adverse impacts on socio-economic benefits. As these criteria are encompassed it will be necessary to critically test and evaluate the performance of these modified protocols as it is necessary to improve consistency of outcomes. Support should be given to enable developments to modify risk assessment protocols within their mandate to comply with the new EU Regulation. This should include the development of appropriate guidance on the interpretation and use of minimum standards where required. Additionally the importance of national impact assessment protocols should be recognised with consideration given to modifications of methods to provide a scientific basis for EU assessments. These assessments should serve as source to identify potential additional ‘IAS of EU concern’ and evaluation of the list. Impact assessments are not compliant with the minimum standards because of lack of consideration of mechanisms of introduction and establishment. However, impact assessments provide a detailed basis upon which to quantify the impacts of IAS and include aspects that could be considered for inclusion within full risk assessments. The risk assessment methods based on the protocol devised by EPPO DSS, namely GB NNRA and ENSARS, provide a basis on which to begin developing a list of ‘IAS of EU concern’. However, the breadth of species considered relevant is influenced by the original purposes of both protocols. Harmonia+ is a new and promising risk assessment method. It will be essential to consider the relevance of this protocol as one of the key players going forward. A critical issue exists in the simplification of extrapolating national or regional assessments to the total area of the EU. The EU is rich in biodiversity and is a highly heterogeneous and large territory and so risk assessments of IAS may differ substantially when different regions are considered. Consideration of European biogeographic regions as contex for existing national risk assessments protocols would be appropriate. It is essential to ensure that risk assessments undertaken for restricted regions within Europe (such as the GB NNRA, ENSARS and Harmonia+) have relevance to the EU as outlined above. Review of the applicability of such assessments for EU relevance is unlikely to be trivial for many IAS. Re-assessment of risks identified through national risk assessment protocols at the EU level (with consideration of biogeographic regions) through scientific experts should be prioritised. Further development of the list of proposed “IAS of EU concern” is necessary and should involve scientific experts based on the framework provided by the new EU Regulation. It will be essential to develop a process for consolidating the draft list of proposed “IAS of EU concern” through involvement of scientific experts. The list of proposed “IAS of EU concern” will need to be reviewed on a regular basis to ensure it remains current as the number of new arrivals escalates. Equally the knowledge underpinning our understanding of invasions and environmental change will improve and additional relevant concepts will emerge. Therefore, periodically it will be necessary not only to review the list of proposed “IAS of EU concern” but also the framework of minimum standards upon which it is based as, for example, understanding increases and evidence suggests the need to modify minimum standards or indeed include additional minimum standards. Consideration of the establishment of a formal procedure for evaluating the list of proposed “IAS of EU concern” after 2016 should be prioritised. It will be essential to provide support for cooperation between scientific experts (responsible for the risk assessments) and the Member State and stakeholder experts (responsible for the risk management and communication). Indeed before the final list of “IAS of EU concern” is determined risk management factors should be taken into account, such as how widespread the species is within the EU, what benefits are associated with the species and the cost-benefit of adding the species to the list of “IAS of EU concern"

ARES(2014)2425342 - 22/07/2014. Organisation and running of a scientific workshop to complete selected invasive alien species (IAS) risk assessments

The introduction and spread of invasive alien species (IAS) constitutes one of the most important drivers of global change in biodiversity and ecosystem services. Robust risk assessment methods are required for IAS to provide the foundation upon which to prioritise appropriate action. In a previous study (Roy, Schonrogge et al. 2014) minimum standards were developed to provide an assessment framework for risk assessments and ultimately for underpinning the development of a proposed list of “IAS of EU concern”, in accordance to the provisions of the 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. In practice, of the protocols assessed in detail, only four (GB NNRA, EPPO DSS, Harmonia+ and ENSARS) were sufficiently compliant with the minimum standards to be considered and of these only the GB NNRA and EPPO DSS have published IAS risk assessments. As a result, using the information from such “substantially compliant” protocols, a draft list of approximately 50 species was compiled. It is important to note that this list of species is based on availability of robust risk assessments already completed through methods which are almost compliant with the minimum standards, and it does not constitute the list of “IAS of EU concern”. In view of the application of the forthcoming EU Regulation on IAS (and building-on ENV.B.2/ETU/2013/0026) the Commission hosted a 2-day scientific workshop to examine the selected risk assessments and pool the existing knowledge existing in the EU to complete the missing information, on the basis of robust scientific evidence, in order to make them fully compliant with the minimum standards, wherever possible. The workshop was led by Helen Roy (CEH) and Riccardo Scalera (ISSG). An additional 16 experts from fifteen member states were selected based on their expertise in invasion biology and represented a breadth of expertise from a variety of perspectives including taxonomic (all taxa), environmental (freshwater, marine and terrestrial), impacts (environmental, socio-economic and health) and disciplines (ecologists, conservation practitioners, scientists, policy-makers, risk assessors). In view of the gaps across risk assessments for ecosystem services and climate change two experts were invited to guide the development of approaches for these specific themes. In total the risk assessments for 56 species were considered. The GB NNRA and EPPO DSS have published IAS risk assessments which, when considering species that score medium to high impact, together cover 51 species (noting that Fallopia japonica and F. sachalinensis are separate species). Two further risk assessments were suggested for consideration by the GB Non-Native Species Secretariat which follow the GB NNRA protocol: coati (Nasua nasua) and skunk (Mephitis mephitis), although scored as low impact. Finally an additional three species have been considered through new European–wide risk assessments, with the reported outcome of high impact, for this project which again follow the GB NNRA protocol: Pallas squirrel (Callosciurus erythraeus), grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) and coypu (Myocastor coypus). The main gaps across all risk assessments were in relation to climate change and ecosystem services but additional information was also required on benefits as mentioned with minimum standard “Description (Taxonomy, invasion history, distribution range (native and introduced), geographic scope, socio-economic benefits)” and in some cases information to support the minimum standard “Includes status (threatened or protected) of species or habitat under threat“ was missing. It was agreed that systematic consideration of a list of questions in relation to the minimum standards on ecosystem services and climate change would be useful guidance for experts. An outline of the approaches agreed through the workshop for the minimum standards “Includes possible effects of climate change in the foreseeable future“ and “Can broadly assess environmental impact with respect to ecosystem services” were developed as guidance for documenting information in relation to climate change and ecosystem services. Each species was considered separately with the experts providing an overview of the information available for addressing the identified gaps. After all species had been considered the workshop participants (excluding the EC, Helen Roy and Riccardo Scalera) adopted a consensus approach to confirm whether or not the risk assessment was compliant with the minimum standards and whether the overall score of the risk assessment remained applicable. No changes were made to the scores but any recommendations were noted. There were very few recommendations for change. The outcome for each risk assessment was agreed and summarised as “compliant” or “not compliant” with the minimum standards. Of the risk assessments for the 56 species considered through this project, 53 were agreed to be fully compliant with the minimum standards. However, Pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas, although compliant with the minimum standards should be excluded as it is not within the scope of the regulation (see art 2.e) because it is listed in annex IV of Council Regulation (EC) No 708/2007 of 11 June 2007 concerning use of alien and locally absent species in aquaculture. Four of the risk assessments were not considered to be compliant because of major information gaps: Elodea canadensis (Canadian pondweed), Heracleum mantegazzianum (giant hogweed), M. mephitis (skunk), N. nasua (coati)

The prioritisation of a short list of alien plants for risk analysis within the framework of the Regulation (EU) No. 1143/2014

Thirty-seven alien plant species, pre-identified by horizon scanning exercises were prioritised for pest risk analysis (PRA) using a modified version of the EPPO Prioritisation Process designed to be compliant with the EU Regulation 1143/2014. In Stage 1, species were categorised into one of four lists – a Residual List, EU List of Minor Concern, EU Observation List and the EU List of Invasive Alien Plants. Only those species included in the latter proceeded to the risk management stage where their priority for PRA was assessed. Due to medium or high spread potential coupled with high impacts twenty-two species were included in the EU List of Invasive Alien Plants and proceeded to Stage 2. Four species (Ambrosia trifida, Egeria densa, Fallopia baldschuanica and Oxalis pes-caprae) were assigned to the EU Observation List due to moderate or low impacts. Albizia lebbeck, Clematis terniflora, Euonymus japonicus, Lonicera morrowii, Prunus campanulata and Rubus rosifolius were assigned to the residual list due to a current lack of information on impacts. Similarly, Cornus sericea and Hydrilla verticillata were assigned to the Residual List due to unclear taxonomy and uncertainty in native status, respectively. Chromolaena odorata, Cryptostegia grandiflora and Sphagneticola trilobata were assigned to the Residual List as it is unlikely they will establish in the Union under current climatic conditions. In the risk management stage, Euonymus fortunei, Ligustrum sinense and Lonicera maackii were considered a low priority for PRA as they do not exhibit invasive tendencies despite being widely cultivated in the EU over several decades. Nineteen species were identified as having a high priority for a PRA (Acacia dealbata, Ambrosia confertiflora, Andropogon virginicus, Cardiospermum grandiflorum, Celastrus orbiculatus, Cinnamomum camphora, Cortaderia jubata, Ehrharta calycina, Gymnocoronis spilanthoides, Hakea sericea, Humulus scandens, Hygrophila polysperma, Lespedeza cuneata, Lygodium japonicum, Pennisetum setaceum, Prosopis juliflora, Sapium sebiferum, Pistia stratiotes and Salvinia molesta)