Participants are invited to consider the guiding question provided below, and to use this space to share comments on annex V only.

1. Do the different IAS-related data portals cover all the information required to implement target 6 of the GBF? How could their usefulness be maximized?

Greetings all,

My name is Shyama Pagad and I am the Deputy Chair for Information at the IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group. The mission of our group is to facilitate the exchange of alien and invasive species knowledge and information across the globe. We have been active in this field for over two decades, and have developed, manage and maintain some of the key data resources used by IAS stakeholders - The Global Invasive Species Database (GISD) and the Global Register of Introduced and Invasive Species (GRIIS). Our expert members have led the development of IAS indicators, and the IPBES Thematic assessment of IAS and their control. ISSG members have developed and published the protocols of the Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT) and the Socio‐economic impact classification of alien taxa (SEICAT) as well as a hierarchical framework of pathways of the introduction of alien and invasive species.

Annex V discusses the use of existing IAS databases to support risk communication; additionally, there is a common thread linking all annexures related to making available reliable and real time data to stakeholders, so alerts are in place and pathways effectively managed to prevent the introduction of alien and potentially invasive species.

Key to this is the harmonization and seamless flow of real-time data and information across national, regional and global repositories. To enable this across languages, taxon groups and scales is the need to have common, well-defined and accepted terminology.

We have made a start on this in the development of GRIIS that deals with reported taxa across all countries. One example is the use of scientific names, the issues with synonymy and taxonomy. IN GRIIS all reported names go through a species matching exercise through a taxonomic editor so taxonomic ranks and status, and higher taxonomy is recorded as well as accepted names. What this does is identify synonyms and harmonize taxa across national datasets resulting in 'cleaner' data. We are happy to note that this practice is now frequently used by those compiling checklists and datasets

The use of the CBD hierarchical framework of pathways of the introduction of alien and invasive species is another example of a schema that can be used to map existing pathway terminology in respective databases so there is a common understanding of pathways and vectors.

We would welcome any feedback on the integration of data and what steps need to be taken, and how we could support and assist.

Dear all,

I have also posted the same content in the general discussion, but I would like to elaborate on it further in this individual forum.

In the annex, there is recognition of the importance of data and knowledge sharing, as well as capacity building. However, it is crucial to address the specific information needs of practitioners who are actively involved in preventing and eradicating invasive alien species (IAS). These practitioners, I believe, need access to comprehensive and integrated databases that provide valuable information on locating IAS, species identification keys, and effective eradication methods.

For example, it is essential to provide information on potential sites where IAS are likely to occur and how to identify early signs of their establishment, even if they do not exhibit typical characteristics. Moreover, non-experts may encounter difficulties in identifying species, especially when dealing with entirely new ones. Therefore, a database containing clear images and user-friendly identification keys, and perhaps even employing AI assistance, would be immensely helpful. Additionally, providing information on advanced technologies such as image recognition, DNA markers, and chemical analysis for species identification would greatly benefit practitioners in their eradication efforts.

Furthermore, it is vital to emphasize that the removal of IAS should be accompanied by appropriate methods to prevent unintentional further spread. Therefore, practitioners need concise instructions on recommended actions to take and what practices to avoid. Although the current target of the annex primarily focuses on monitoring the incursion and establishment of IAS, it is equally important to share effective eradication methods, especially during the early stages of establishment.

To facilitate the dissemination of those information, the establishment of an international database is necessary. This database should be accessible in multiple languages and standardized with a fixed format, making it easy to translate and ensuring convenient access and regular updates from parties.

Thank you for your attention and consideration.

Sincerely,

Maki. IKEGAMI

Good morning/Good afternoon, 

My name is Rachel Ariey-Jouglard, representing the Government of Canada (Environment and Climate Change Canada).

Canada is supportive of the push for coordinated data streams and international database or repository of this kind of information. There are still many challenges to address to have a clear national picture of IAS and their impacts. Contributing to global database, as suggested in this annex, may be difficult in the short-term; however, the ground work and common use of taxons, etc. should facilitate this undertaking. It should also be noted that, with regards to aquatic invasive species, some Canadian departments use the Ocean Biodiversity Information System (OBIS). Both OBIS and GBIF work to provide marine data.  

Canada also supports establishing international standards. Work around establishing international data standards would lead to common terminology, and establishing minimum international data standards will be instrumental to interoperability of various systems and feeding to GBIF, and using the data from GBIF for our purposes. Furthermore, we strongly agree with the use of open data platforms. 

With regards to the question posted above, having a sense of all the international platforms that exist and what their use is would be very helpful to be able to evaluate whether there is sufficient information to track progress on Target 6.

Thank you very much.

Dear all,
My name is David Will, and I´m the Head of Innovation at Island Conservation and have been responsible for maintaining databases that document the importance and impact of island restoration since 2012. Island Conservation strongly supports the aim of Parties, Governments, and other organizations in developing and maintaining efficient, timely, and up-to-date data and information for the management of invasive alien species. To achieve that goal, it is essential to acknowledge that there is a gap of information to be able to cover all the information required to implement target 6, and that this data is dynamic and will need to be updated regularly.

For example, Island Conservation and international partners have maintained a Database of Island Invasive Species Eradications (DIISE), a publicly available resource to help land managers and conservation practitioners learn more about invasive vertebrate eradications on islands around the world. The database provides detailed information on the outcomes of island eradication projects and offers opportunities to analyze global, regional, and national trends in eradication projects. In the last 100 years more than 1550 eradication attempts to remove invasive vertebrates have occurred on 998 islands, with an 88% success rate. There has been a significant growth in eradication activity since the 1980s, with a quarter of the world’s coastal countries and nearly half of all island nations now conducting invasive vertebrate eradications.

Island Conservation and partners have also maintained a global dataset of threated island species at risk from invasive vertebrates, the Threatened Island Biodiversity (TIB) database.  This database documents the presence of IUCN Red listed species and invasive vertebrates on islands to help with conservation priority setting.  Today, the database includes data compiled for 1,279 islands with 2,823 populations of 1,184 bird, reptile, mammal, and amphibian species listed as Critically Endangered or Endangered on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.  Using these data we identified that removing invasive species from just 169 islands could protect 10% of the Earth’s threatened species from threats that put them at risk of extinction.

As Annex V discusses the use of existing IAS databases, we see an opportunity to share and exchange information to feed the existing databases. We would welcome any support from other organizations to keep these databases up to date. At the same time, we strongly support the use of open data platforms.

Further information on these databases are available here:

The Database of Island Invasive Species Eradications: developed by Island Conservation, Coastal Conservation Action Laboratory UCSC, IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group, University of Auckland and Landcare Research New Zealand. http://diise.islandconservation.org.

The Threatened Island Biodiversity Database: developed by Island Conservation, University of California Santa Cruz Coastal Conservation Action Lab, BirdLife International and IUCN Invasive Species Specialist Group. http://tib.islandconservation.org

And lastly we share key published summaries that provide IAS-related information that can support the implementation of target 6:

Spatz, D.R., Holmes, N.D., Will, D.J., Hein, S., Carter, Z.T., Fewster, R.M., Keitt, B., Genovesi, P., Samaniego, A., Croll, D.A. Tershy, B.R. & Russell, J.C. (2022). The global contribution of invasive vertebrate eradication as a key island restoration tool. Scientific Reports 12(1):13391.

Holmes ND, Spatz DR, Oppel S, Tershy B, Croll DA, et al. (2019) Globally important islands where eradicating invasive mammals will benefit highly threatened vertebrates. PLOS ONE 14(3): e0212128.

My name is Dmitry Schigel, and this post is on behalf of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), where I work in the Secretariat as a scientific officer. Thank you very much for the rich and productive AHTEG meeting in Montreal and this discussion. The document and its annexes already stress the important of open biodiversity data and data systems. We hope that current consultation will preserve and further emphasize the critical role of well-maintained data infrastructures to support implementation and monitoring of progress towards Target 6 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). It is especially important that, in the context of IAS data, agile data systems are in place to reduce the time lag between detection and digital discoverability of IAS occurrences, and also the lags between scientific or legislative recognition of species as invasive, and public, open, and digital availability of this knowledge.

In this context, I would like to draw attention to the ongoing collaboration between GBIF and the Global Register of Introduced and Invasive Species (GRIIS), as described by Shyama Pagad in a separate post here. GRIIS serves as the most complete, comprehensive and up to date compendium of IAS status for world’s countries and territories. For a number of years, every country page at CBD.int has had a link out to GBIF’s representation of the latest GRIIS checklist (example: Zimbabwe country pages -> https://www.cbd.int/countries/?country=zw -> invasive and alien species link leading to https://www.gbif.org/dataset/4e506280-f1a3-44ed-b489-971f659e8c5d). Moreover, GBIF taxonomic backbone provides the names unification service for GRIIS, while preserving national and legislative name uses as verbatim. Details of the collaboration can be found at https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01514-z.

Going forward, it will be essential to maintain the dynamic data flows of, on the one hand, records of IAS occurrence from a wide variety of sources including field monitoring, citizen science and specimen collections as brought together by GBIF; and on the other, expert-derived checklists including up to date literature reviews as compiled by GRIIS. With innovations such as the delivery of data cubes on IAS occupancy through the EU Horizon Europe Building Blocks for Biodiversity (B-cubed) project (see https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101059592), Parties will be much better able to track progress towards the ambition of Target 6 to prevent introduction and establishment of priority IAS, and to reduce introduction and establishment of other IAS by at least 50 per cent by 2030.

Thanks to continuous support of our participating countries https://www.gbif.org/the-gbif-network, GBIF is a global resource serving as the data foundation for many GBF indicators and policy solutions. We look forward to continued partnership with the CBD Secretariat and the participation of many more Parties to support the data needs for addressing this major driver of biodiversity change.

Greetings, my name is Stas Burgiel and I serve as the Executive Director for the U.S. National Invasive Species Council (NISC). In addition to the previous comments, I’d like to add the following point.

The collation and sharing of data are critical for making informed decisions. The annex includes a major focus on the value and role of sharing data with international databases and potentially should include additional focus on the value and role of data for informing national decision-making. This could include the types of information that would be useful to collect at the national level, the types of decision-support tools that could make use of this data, and most particularly the baselines and metrics that could be used to inform progress on achieving Target 6.

Good morning. My name is Ana Cristina Cardoso, I am a scientific officer at European Commission Joint research Centre (JRC), and I am responsible for the European Alien Species Information Network (EASIN).
EASIN (https://easin.jrc.ec.europa.eu/) is the official information system of European Union (EU) Regulation on Invasive Alien Species (1143/2014; IAS Regulation), providing information to assists the EU Member States and the Commission in the implementation of the biodiversity policy, IAS Regulation, and other relevant policies.
The JRC has developed EASIN as a centralized source of scientific information and spatial data on all Alien Species (all taxonomic groups) occurring in Europe’s environments (terrestrial, freshwater and marine), covering 27 EU Member States, 5 Candidate countries to the EU, and 32 other neighbouring countries. It interconnects existing databases at national, European and global level (https://easin.jrc.ec.europa.eu/easin/Partners/Partners), and hosts updated information on 14,269 Alien Species (AS) and about 113.5 million georeferenced records. This entail aggregation, integration and harmonization of AS spatial data and information on species’ taxonomy and traits. It also provides flexible online search and mapping services for the retrieval of tailored information, aiding scientists and policy makers in obtaining quality information.
Moreover, EASIN provides a platform for connecting knowledge and scientific expertise, policy makers, national authorities and foster citizens engagement and citizen science data integration (https://easin.jrc.ec.europa.eu/easin/CitizenScience/BecomeACitizen). This includes a unique tool enabling the rapid exchange of information by EU MS national authorities across the EU, facilitating collaboration required to take concerted action to prevent the introduction and early eradication of IAS of Union concern (European early warning and rapid eradication notification system- NOTSYS: https://easin.jrc.ec.europa.eu/notsys).
Improved connection between the scientific knowledge (databases) and IAS management could contribute to maximizing their usefulness.

Dear colleagues, here Pablo Innecken from the FAO Indigenous Peoples Unit (PSUI), on Annex V, I also suggest to consider the importance of the Indigenous Peoples´ right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), as recognised in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

As per Annex IV, the FPIC is applicable to data collection from Indigenous Peoples, under their FPIC.

Warm regards,

Hello everyone, from the Subdirection of Information Management and Species Evaluation of the National Commission for the Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity (CONABIO), Mexico, we consider that data availability and effective communication is of vital importance to adequately manage invasive alien species. In addition, capacity building and understanding the specific information needs of stakeholders involved in the control and eradication of these species is crucial.

In CONABIO we are updating a project for the development of invasive species information sheets using the international standard Plinian Core as a tool that facilitates the use of a common terminology. This initiative not only considers taxonomic and biological data, but also covers aspects related to the invasiveness of the species. The main objective is to compile information on species of importance to Mexico; strengthening efforts in the management of these species and ensuring free access to updated information for all involved.

Regards