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

1. Does the annex consider all the aspects of e-commerce? What other elements should be included or emphasized?

2. Are all the steps of an e-commerce process (and the measures of prevention and management) being addressed?

Taeyeon Kim(the World Customs Organization)

Hello, the WCO would like to suggest to edit action (g) as follows:

Explore the possibility to expand the concept of “authorized economic operators” (AEO) to cross-border e-commerce , including postal operators, express carriers and e-platforms, which would result in a lower frequency of inspections.

The possibility to include invasive alien species risks in AEO criteria and requirements depends on the SAFE review proposals. Currently our members are discussing a proposal related to the compliance with Wood Packaging Materials (WPM) regulations for visible pest prevention measures.

Thank you.

Good morning/afternoon/evening.

I am Pablo Innecken from the FAO Indigenous Peoples Unit. About the risk associated with cross border.

We would like to suggest on paragraph 7, when there is a mention on across traditional lands and waters, to include Indigenous Peoples lands and territories, which is the proper language, according to the UN Declaration on Indigenous Peoples' Rights. The involvement of Indigenous Peoples' food and knowledge systems is relevant in terms of detection and spread of IAS.

In the paragraph 19 on the engagement for cross-jurisdictional collaboration, it is important to include the role of subnational authorities, to include Indigenous Peoples' self governance- systems

Good morning/Good afternoon, 

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

While Canada provided written comments on the Annexes, we would like to raise some points within the context of this Open-Ended Online Forum, to help support discussion. 

E-commerce may or may not be considered a new pathway of IAS, it certainly has an impact on IAS introductions and spread, thus making it an important topic to focus on. It is however important to make sure that the voluntary guidance not create additional issues. This is why we would like to suggest the removal of Paragraph 5. States can already control what species can be imported and create such lists. These lists could be difficult to establish since any specie could become an IAS under the right conditions. Furthermore, this paragraph may constitute a trade risk. Indeed, these types of list could be over-precautionary and lead to diminish sustainable use of wildlife trade.  In addition, although theoretically a valid option, the reliance on a “White List” (a.k.a. species allowed) is practically almost impossible to implement and enforce (e.g., number of species, changes in nomenclature, or the important issue of misidentification or mislabelling). In this context, it is only possible for border agents and enforcement officers to recognize and target undesirable species while managing a list containing a limited number of species (a.k.a a “Black List”). The financial and human effort required by implementing a strategy involving a white list may not justify the benefit of using such a workforce toward more rewarding actions aimed at managing invasive species. 

If lists are to be developed, they should be developed to include species whose import should be restricted or prohibited based on a specified set of characteristics that would make them high risk of IAS within that specific country. Guidance/criteria on what characteristics make a species high risk in a specified environment should be developed. Lists may also be better for specific states at very high-risk of invasive alien species, such as small island states.

In conjunction with this, we would like to emphasize on the challenge of proper labelling, which may need to be addressed before other actions can be performed successfully. Indeed, without proper labelling, knowing what needs to be inspected will be rendered more difficult. A warning system would also be useful as an additional tool to prevent IAS introductions. 

Elements that could be added or maybe revised within the context of this annex include the risk of IAS as hitchhikers, encouraging the private sector to develop internal policies referring to IAS (there are examples of some linked to species at risk), or the role of courrier (they may not be in a position to enforce certains regulations, but can certainly be educated about them - the role may fall on other instances instead). In addition, examples of risk-based labelling that would apply to IAS whether aquatic or terrestrial, or how to ensure that those system "speak" to each other, would be useful.

Finally, within Annex II, we would like to suggest that references to “potential and established IAS” could be added in relevant places, as to better align with Target 6.

Dear colleagues,
I am Johanna Niemivuo-Lahti, Senior Ministerial Adviser, representing the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in Finland. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is responsible for the overall coordination of invasive alien species matters in Finland, and I would be happy to share some of our views on the Annex II concerning the cross-border E-commerce.

The prevention is one of the key issues of the implementation of the Target 6 of the Kunming-Montreal GBF. Prevention of IAS is the cheapest, the easiest and most cost-effective, sometimes even the only way (especially when considering the IAS in the marine and other aquatic environments) to minimize the adverse impacts of IAS. Information included in the Annex II has clear focal areas and a clear linkage to the Target 6 on how to improve prevention actions.

The international cross-border aspect preventing and minimizing the IAS transfer in the first place, especially e.g., via trade and e-commerce, is the key. E-commerce is a growing pathway of IAS with growing risks of introductions and establishments of IAS. The Annex II includes important guidance and examples how to minimize the risk. Raising awareness as well as sharing data on the IAS risks and the risks transferring IAS cross-border by e-commerce, are the cornerstones of this Annex (especially paras 17, 19 a, b, d). From our point of view, one of the most concrete action to minimize risks by e-commerce is covered in para 20 b, and this action could be strongly supported and promoted.

Sincerely,
Johanna Niemivuo-Lahti

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.

Addressing the movement of IAS through e-commerce presents a new host of challenges for national governments to address. Elements of the recommendation seem to view e-commerce like regular trade with bulk shipments delivered by a limited number of brokers, yet e-commerce is upending those norms. For example, importers could be any number of individuals located throughout the importing country. Similarly, exporters could be any number of individuals located throughout the exporting country. Additionally, exporters and importers may be new entrants into international trade who are not fully aware of the regulatory requirements for IAS.

E-commerce is very different than traditional trade and the solutions presented may be relying on an infrastructure that is inadequate or does not exist in a particular country. Many of the entities engaging in this type of trade are small and not engaged with normal trade channels. Additionally, it’s important to note that the government agencies with authorities for addressing the issue at national borders may be very different than those for addressing it internally (e.g., federal vs. state/provincial government agencies).

In Section A, subpart 2, paragraph 9, it may be difficult to hold postal and express courier service companies responsible for educating e-commerce consumers about IAS.  It may be more appropriate to focus on the role of the seller and the platform hosting the seller.

In Section A, subpart 2, paragraph 11, sellers and buyers should not only be informed about their legal responsibilities, but also be educated about the potential harm of IAS.

In Section A, subpart 2, paragraph 13, the consideration of a single window approach should ensure that small businesses have the resources to access such a system.

In Section C, subpart (g), the criteria associated with broadening “authorized economic operators” programs to include IAS must be carefully considered and developed. 

In Section D, subpart (b), the concept of an international IAS risk-based labeling system needs to be carefully considered. How would this intersect with labeling and risk considerations under the WTO (e.g., technical barriers to trade, sanitary and phytosanitary measures)? Who would assess potential risks and how? Would the system be voluntary? Who would enforce usage of the labels?

In terms of stakeholders, it may be useful to reference the horticulture industry, which also has linkages to e-commerce in terms of the movement of plants, seeds, and plant parts.

Dear all,

I am Katelyn Faulkner, a scientist working on biological invasions at the South African National Biodiversity Institute.

In paragraph 2, I suggest the removal of mention to specific pathways through which live organisms are introduced: “pets, aquariums and terrarium species, and as live bait and live food”. E-commerce does play a role in these pathways, but these are certainly not all the introduction pathways where e-commerce plays a role (e.g., trade in ornamental plants), and the goal should be to address the risks associated with the introduction of live alien organisms through e-commerce, no matter what the organisms are to be used for.

In paragraph 5, I suggest that the encouragement to develop white lists be removed. White lists are precautionary, but are often too short to be useful, are less likely to gain public support than black lists, and could unreasonably restrict trade. Black lists are lists of organisms that pose an unacceptable risk, and all organisms besides those on the black list are permitted entry. If a species on a black list is intercepted policy decisions and response protocols that have often already been developed are easily implemented. While black lists are not without their issues (e.g. they are often incomplete due to a lack of information and thus organisms that pose an unknown risk could be permitted entry, and have a negative impact), more countries use black lists than white lists. What is critical is to assess the invasion risk posed by alien organisms before they are permitted entry, but whether these analyses are then used to develop white or black lists should depend on the approach taken by the specific country.

Thank you for your consideration.

Hello everybody,

Thank you all, first for organizing this interesting debate and for participating with so many ideas and interesting points of view.

I am Mihaela Pirvu, I am a biologist and a part of the team dealing with IAS at the Biodiversity Unit within the Spanish Ministry for the Ecological Transition and the Demographic Challenge in Spain.

Many EU Member States have so far chosen to adopt negative lists i.e. those that identify prohibited rather than permitted species, usually for health and safety reasons or to underpin restrictions on international trade for conservation purposes. However, the trade in the majority of species, which do not appear on any negative lists, is conducted without restrictions until or unless a sufficient body of evidence is produced which causes additional controls being implemented and non-reversible consecuences. Negative lists may be exhaustively long and require regular revisions as new species are exploited for the pet trade

Our own legislation has been based for many years now on black lists, recently we added another “grey” list to try to regulate importation of alien species into the Spanish territory in will to prevent the negative impacts on our biodiversity. Nevertheless, we consider that with this approach it is impossible to cover all the species that could present a risk for native biodiversity, human or animal health or social-economics. So we look further to adopt, in addition, a white list soon.

The white lists (adapted for each territory) would include the species that can be imported based on scientific information that exclude invasive behavioral in certain territory. This is a more appropriate and defensible method to tackle the IAS problem in a legal way and provides many advantages from the ecological, health and economic point of view, by restricting the use of those taxa whose effects are unknown in those areas. A mechanism to amend the list is important and also the criteria to elaborate it as they should be base on positive risk assessements as well as animal welfare. Based of what we do know it would make things easier.

The introduction of a positive list approach would ensure that the ‘burden of proof’ rests with exotic pet traders to ensure that species sold do not pose a risk to the public, nor threaten the environment or the animals themselves.
Many countries have already their own white lists, some of them have both white and black lists and a proposal for a european white list it is on its way.

The advantages for a positive list:

• It respects the precautionary approach;
• It represents a more manageable, proportionate and effective regulatory process and a less bureaucratic burden on enforcement authorities;
• It is not necessary to actualize it as often as a black list;
• It is based on scientific information that exclude invasive behavioral;
• It is also much easier to update compared to a negative list, as all species not on the list are a priori forbidden to be kept;
• It offers significant cost savings and is an efficient use of resources aimed at combating illegal trade.

In conclusión, the adoption of the positive list system is urgently needed in the interests of public health, animal health and welfare, environment as well as species conservation and ecological protection, and economic prudence. It is also key to a modern, proportionate, sustainable and humane approach to wildlife trade within Europe and beyond.

For all that reasons we strongly recommend keeping the 5 parragraph in the Annex II.

For more information we recomend the next article:

Toland, E., Bando, M., Hamers, M., Cadenas, V., Laidlaw, R., Martínez-Silvestre, A., & van der Wielen, P. (2020). Turning negatives into positives for pet trading and keeping: A review of positive lists. Animals, 10(12), 2371.

Thank you very much. Have a nice week end. Kind regards,

Mihaela Pirvu