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

1. Is there any additional advice that needs to be considered to help address what is being requested in Target 6

Message posted on behalf of Bella Galil, Steinhardt Museum of Natural History, Tel Aviv University, Israel

The decision adopted by the conference of the parties to the CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY 15/27 on Invasive alien species included items concerning Advice on management-specific pathways - Inter-basin water transfer and navigational canals. The text call for "Regional cooperation among States should be enhanced on planning, monitoring and data exchange on invasive alien species specifically related to inter-basin water channels to establish early warning and rapid response systems as well as researching and employing methodologies to reduce new invasions through these channels."
Over 500 species, many of them invasive alien species, are considered to have been introduced through the Suez Canal - the world’s busiest manmade shipping lane - into the Mediterranean Sea. Canal-introduced biota form prominent communities and biological facies in most littoral habitats, some species have been documented to displace or reduce populations of native species, alter community structure and food webs, change ecosystem functioning and the consequent provision of goods and services. They spread throughout the Mediterranean Sea due to successive enlargements of the Canal, rise in mean seawater temperature, and the increasing prevalence, duration, and severity of recent marine heat waves . No management action has been proposed thus far.

It is to be hoped that the CBD attention to introductions through navigational canals, in particular the Suez Canal "invasion corridor", may serve as impetus for engineering management studies (e.g., feasibility assessment of re-salinization of the Bitter Lakes, locks…) and their impacts on reduction of propagule transit.

Great observation and certainly we need better means of managing the spread of IAS along these man made channels build on progress made on ship ballast water and biofouling. The declining establishment rate of IAS across the Great Lakes shows what is possible. Unfortunately all the scientific evidence indicates that once a marine IAS is established and reproductive no management has provided long-term effective impact mitigation. This is why Prevention and preparedness through effective surveillance and rapid eradication  response are so important. Agree annex needs great context coverage of IAS in marine and connected water ecosystems. Thx for your comment

My name is Mohamed Reda Fishar, and I’m a marine scientist and former president of National Institute of Oceanography and Fisheries, Egypt. Firstly, I agree that the introduction of NIS is undoubtedly a challenge faced by the Mediterranean Sea but i have few comments on this post.

My colleague followed the traditional narrative approach of NIS as having only negative effects in spite of the ecological impact of NIS on the native Mediterranean biota have not been scientifically studied in wide range, however, the exaggerated conclusions on the extent of the negative impacts of the NIS were oriented to investigate the most harmful species rather than give a realistic image on the holistic impacts of NIS species on the Mediterranean biodiversity. the studies fail to account for the positive contribution of species in ecosystems and fisheries.

It was evident that the worst effects of NIS are being caused by few species and management solutions are capable to mitigate the effects of their invasions. Many other species were perceived as highly beneficial by the fishers. she mentioned that 500 non-native species were recorded . Of these 500 species, only few species were reported by many authors as having negative impacts.

The  impact of climate change on the biodiversity of the Mediterranean Sea is very strong. The accelerated pace of climate change will result in the unsuitability of habitats for many native species and they will have to migrate to more suitable habitats whether replaced by NIS or not.

The author did not consider, the percentage of other vectors for NIS into the Mediterranean Sea other than Suez Canal. As far as can be deduced. Recently, the marine monitoring programme which carried out by National Institute of Oceanography and Fisheries revealed that Suez Canal is responsible for 30% of NIS and the shipping (Biofouling and Ballast Water) responsible for 50% while aquaculture is responsible for 3.5%. The rest percent is undefined pathways.  Also, the insistence that there is a relationship between the expansion of the canal and the increase in the rate of introduction of NIS to the Mediterranean is not based on documented study that directly links the two variables. Our studies revealed that  the canal biota has independent ecosystem separate from that in the Mediterranean and the Red Sea in terms of the composition, quality and stability of the organisms.

Finally, the colleague proposed solution to reduce future introductions by discharging the hypersaline brine effluent of the new desalination plants into the canal is rather shallow and idealistic to be considered. The new desalination plants will be constricted in coastal areas far away from the canal with hundreds of miles. How the brine effluent will be transferred to the canal and how much will it cost? The other proposed solution for the construction of locks is also not realistic or feasible because of the nature of canal and size of ships passed through it.

Finally, the study of non-native species requires a joint international effort and not to exchange accusations about the Suez Canal, given that everyone knows the importance of the canal for global trade and that it was established by international agreement. We need to study the pathways of species in details and not based on speculation. We need to carry risk assessment programs for these species, We need to conduct environmental management studies of non-native species that have a negative impact and develop plans to reduce their impact.
Thank you for you contribution

Hello, this is Teo Karayannis, Head of Marine Biosafety at the International Maritime Organization (IMO), which is the UN specialized agency regulating international shipping; as such I am the officer in charge of IMO's work covering the two IAS vectors under the shipping pathway, namely ballast water and biofouling.

In this regard, I echo the point that prevention is key especially in the aquatic/marine environment, where eradication after establishment is essentially impossible. Therefore, prevention should be not so much about surveillance and rapid eradication but primarily about preventing or minimizing the transfer of IAS in the first place. As Dr Sheppard noted, such preventive ballast water management for example has had tangible effects in the Great Lakes, which has been a pioneering region on this.

In this connection, IMO's regulatory work is directly relevant:
1. The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments (BWM Convention) is a legally binding treaty adopted in 2004 and in force since 2017. (https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/Pages/BallastWaterManagement.aspx)
2, The Guidelines for the control and management of ships' biofouling to minimize the transfer of invasive aquatic species (Biofouling Guidelines) were adopted in 2011 and just revised (to be adopted in early July). As biofouling emerged later as a topic we only have voluntary guidelines (as was the case with ballast water since the 1990s and before the adoption of the BWM Convention) but there appears to be momentum for the development of a mandatory instrument on biofouling as well (subject to any such formal proposals by Member States of course).
(https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/Pages/Biofouling.aspx)

We appreciate the fact that these two instruments have been highlighted in the Kunming-Montreal GBF, and they could be useful as examples or reference (as may be appropriate) for other pathways/sectors.

In the broader sense, in light of the points discussed above, I believe that work around Target 6, at least with regard to the aquatic/marine realm, should focus primarily on preventive pathway management, as has already been in place for the shipping pathway but, as far as I know, not so much so for other pathways/sectors. Also, as IMO (and others) have been highlighting during earlier stages of the process, the aquatic/marine realm needs to receive equal attention to the terrestrial, whereas in most relevant discussions the focus has always seemed to be disproportionately skewed towards the latter.

Good morning/Good afternoon, 

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

The annex does contain a lot of really good information and suggestions that we agree with. Partnerships and collaboration are key to address IAS, including those that are hitchikers to plants or other shipments that are traded legally. 

Furthermore, and somewhat linked to the comment provided by the IUCN ISSD, revision of standards or agreement on nomenclature and on what to include to help ensure that data can be shared more easily.

In the same vein, the he inclusion of the pathway categorization from CBD UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/18/9/Add.1 may be helpful for all to have a common understanding and naming of pathway categorization. Adoption by Parties of this categorization would be helpful for addressing the first component of TArget 6.

Finally, a definition of “classical biological control” would be useful here. It is unclear whether this is looking at pesticides or mechanical removal. This lack of clarity raises questions with regards to the focus on biological control as there are many other control/management methods available to address IAS and sharing knowledge about these would be beneficial. Biocontrol is one tool in the toolbox and is not necessarily effective at early stages of IAS infestations.

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 points.

Disease is a critical consideration related to IAS introductions. Invasive alien species could play significant roles in disease ecology for emerging infectious diseases and other considerations affecting plant, animal, and human health. This relationship can evolve considerably depending on many factors related to host, pathogen, and the ecosystem.  Documenting the health status of IAS, including pathogens and parasites they carry, is an important component of understanding IAS life history and potential impacts to newly occupied regions.  These considerations should be included in any risk assessments related to IAS introductions and impacts.

Within the U.S., the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in collaboration with the Smithsonian Institution, is using a global horizon scan and risk assessment to evaluate whether imported wildlife species (vertebrates, mollusks, and crustaceans) present a substantial risk to human health through the potential introduction of zoonotic pathogens or parasites.  As a part of that project, a comprehensive database of zoonotic pathogens and parasites, including information on the pathogens/parasites, animal hosts, and zoonoses-related impacts to humans, is being developed.

My name is Federico Alfonso Méndez Sánchez, and I am the Executive Director of the Mexican conservation organization Grupo de Ecología y Conservación de Islas (GECI; http://www.islas.org.mx).

I strongly support that the capacity-building program under the Convention includes specific capacity building in invasive species management (paragraph 29). I would suggest developing a chapter specific to the management of invasive alien species on islands that could be jointly developed by Parties and institutions with known expertise on the subject. We should encourage a comprehensive approach where managing the invasive alien species through its eradication is just the first step towards a larger, more impactful restoration. We need to leverage Target 6 and do active restoration with native flora and fauna to contribute to other targets such as 2, 3, 4 and 8.

Here I share some publications that exemplify this comprehensive long-term restoration:

Aguirre-Muñoz, A., Bedolla-Guzmán, Y., Hernández-Montoya, J., Latofski-Robles, M., Luna-Mendoza, L., Méndez-Sánchez, F., . . . Samaniego-Herrera, A. (2018). The Conservation and Restoration of the Mexican Islands, a Successful Comprehensive and Collaborative Approach Relevant for Global Biodiversity. In A. Ortega-Rubio (Ed.), Mexican Natural Resources Management and Biodiversity Conservation: Recent Case Studies (pp. 177-192). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90584-6_9

Bedolla-Guzmán, Y., Méndez-Sánchez, F., Aguirre-Muñoz, A., Félix-Lizárraga, M., Fabila-Blanco, A., Bravo-Hernández, E., . . . Cárdenas-Tapia, A. (2019). Recovery and current status of seabirds on the Baja California Pacific Islands, Mexico, following restoration actions. In C. R. Veitch, M. N. Clout, A. R. Martin, J. C. Russell, & C. J. West (Eds.), Island invasives: scaling up to meet the challenge (pp. 531-538). IUCN. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331939652_Recovery_and_current_status_of_seabirds_on_the_Baja_California_Pacific_Islands_Mexico_following_restoration_actions

Méndez Sánchez, F., Bedolla Guzmán, Y., Rojas Mayoral, E., Aguirre-Muñoz, A., Koleff, P., Aguilar Vargas, A., . . . Ortega-Rubio, A. (2022). Population trends of seabirds in Mexican Islands at the California Current System. PLoS ONE, 17(10), e0258632. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258632

Méndez Sánchez, F., Aguirre-Muñoz, A., Samaniego, A., Bedolla Guzmán, Y., Cárdenas Tapia, A., Rojas Mayoral, E., . . . Ortega-Rubio, A. (2021). Involvement of a Fishing Community in the Eradication of the Introduced Cactus Mouse (Peromyscus eremicus cedrosensis) from San Benito Oeste Island, Mexico. Diversity, 13(11), 588. https://doi.org/10.3390/d13110588

Koleff, P., Mendoza Alfaro, R., Golubov, J., González-Martínez, A. I., Barrios-Caballero, Y., De Jesús, S. D. J., . . . Marichal-González, A. E. (2021). Invasive Alien Species in Mexico. In Invasive Alien Species (pp. 77-92). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119607045.ch38

Latofski-Robles, M., Méndez-Sánchez, F., Aguirre-Muñoz, A., Jáuregui-García, C., Koleff-Osorio, P., González-Martínez, A. I., . . . Rendón-Hernández, E. (2019). Mexico’s island biosecurity programme: collaborative formulation and implementation. In C. R. Veitch, M. N. Clout, A. R. Martin, J. C. Russell, & C. J. West (Eds.), Island invasives: scaling up to meet the challenge (pp. 484-488). IUCN. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331939540_Mexico's_island_biosecurity_programme_collaborative_formulation_and_implementation