Invasive Alien Species

Participants are invited to consider the guiding questions provided below, and to use this space to share general considerations that are applicable to all annexes. For specific comments on a particular annex, please use the corresponding discussion for that annex.

1. Please share key points and examples on how the focal areas of the annexes could be aligned with target 6 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity framework.

2. Do the annexes adequately capture key stakeholders?

3. Where are there linkages and overlaps between the annexes that may have been missed?

4. Target 6 touches on “prevention” (i.e identifying and managing pathways of the introduction of alien species, preventing the introduction and establishment of priority invasive alien species, reducing the rates of introduction and establishment of other known or potential invasive alien species by at least 50 per cent by 2030) how can the issue of prevention be better addressed in the annexes? Are the annexes balanced across prevention, response strategies and control?

Dear Delegates,

I wish to encouraged you to participate in this form, and share in your views how the Annexes can be strengthen to respond to the Target 6 (Invasive species).

I am look forward to your views

Regards,
Ntakadzeni Tshidada (Moderator)

Kia ora colleagues

My name is Dan Tompkins, and I’m the Science Director at Predator Free 2050 Limited in Aotearoa New Zealand, helping to drive the national mission to eradicate key predatory species impacting native biodiversity from the country by 2050 (http://www.pf2050.co.nz).

I wish to share an overarching consideration on the Annexes with regards to aligning them to target 6 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity framework.

And that is, while the target for 2030 is for the realisation of improved management, over 80% of annex content focusses on increased assessment and planning, and improvement of assessment and planning methods and processes. Given that 2030 is only 7 years away, and implementing or improving IAS management is not a rapid process (let along the time it then takes to realise outcomes), I strongly argue that this emphasis is incomplete if we are to achieve our target.

While assessment and planning, and their improvement, are important, there is a trade off to consider between such activities and getting on with implementation. In most cases knowledge is already sufficient to make a start on new or improved management. Although such management may not be perfect at the beginning, the benefit of implementing earlier and continuously adapting to improve as you go will lead to greater achievement in the time available, than spending the earlier years on planning and assessment alone. It may even be the case that some of the best improvements that can be made only become apparent once management is incepted and its performance can be monitored.

My proposal is thus when the Annexes are communicated, they be placed in the context of needing to ensure that conducting and improving assessment and planning does not detract from the timing of moving to implementation that will best deliver results by 2030.

Ngā mihi, Dan.

Hello, everyone! My name is Xin Zhou and I come from China. My organization is Global Youth Online Union. The following are my views on the Annex that “PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS FROM THE PEER REVIEW OF ANNEXES I TO VI OF DECISION 15/27.”
I do agree wiht the part of “Emphasis on prevention”. Many invasive species are just in their invasion bottleneck period. Although the invasion is not serious at present, it won’t be controlled any more once it passes the bottleneck period. The plant, which I am currently researching, called Ageratum conyzoides L. is a very typical example. Ten years ago, A. conyzoides was only distributed in southern China. But now it has invaded into high latitude regions even Beijing. If we had done a good job of risk assessment and prevention as early as possible when we first found it’s invasion , such terrible consequences wouldn't occur. And it will greatly help us to reduce a lot of effort in the control of this species.
In addition, I think “The role of new technologies” is important too. I'm currently in charge of an invasive species survey in a region and it's a very heavy job when we conduct it by conventional methods. The journal BMC Ecology and Evolution published a paper online by Mark D. Johnson et al., Texas Tech University, USA, which entitled “Airborne environmental DNA metabarcoding detects more diversity,with less sampling efort, than a traditional plant community survey”. Given the importance and interest of the paper, the journal Science published a review called ”Airborne DNA from plants could reveal invasive species, impact of climate change” and the paper argued that collecting DNA from dust and pollen was a "game-changer" for investigating plants. I believe that if the method can be applied to the detection of alien invasive species, it will greatly improve the efficiency of our investigation.
These are all my views, welcome to leave comments.

I am Khaled Abulaila, director of biodiversity at the National Agricultural Research Center (NARC) of Jordan.
As per the focus on analytical approaches stated I really see taking an action is a must with the readily available data, especially the case of many developing countries do not the up to date early warning systems to get valid data of all species invading. Also in many areas in the developing countries such as Jordan the invasion is caused by couple of species so the control is possible but of the very severe invading case of species such as Prosopis juliflora that is designated as top invasive species of Jordan.
There are also a need to emphasis on the coordination between the regional countries as well as to up grade the check points on the borders to more more control of invasive alien species. There is also a strong need to building capacity and raising awareness on different levels .

Good morning/evening to everyone. My name is Pablo Innecken, officer on Biodiversity and Foundations at the FAO Indigenous Peoples Unit (PSUI) in Rome.

Thank you for this space to discuss on the annexes and documents related with Invasive Alien Species. Because of their special connection environment, Indigenous Peoples' knowledge involve several tools to manage and prevent the negative impact of invasive alien species.

The role of Indigenous Peoples' food and knowledge systems are rich in territorial management practices which are also biodiversity-friendly and adapted to manage and prevent negative impacts from IAS.

1. Please share key points and examples on how the focal areas of the annexes could be aligned with target 6 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity framework.

Target 6 calls to eliminate, minimize, reduce and or mitigate the impacts of invasive alien species on biodiversity, reducing the rates of introduction and establishment of other known or potentially invasive alien species by at least 50 per cent by 2030.

Indigenous Peoples are game changers in biodiversity conservation, including management of IAS. The involvement of Indigenous Peoples must respect their free, prior and informed consent, including in contexts of knowledge-sharing and data-collection processes.

It is fundamental to link target 6 with different elements of the annexes such as the detection and early incursion or spread of invasive alien species, across Indigenous Peoples' lands and waters, and territories. The support of Indigenous Peoples in monitoring is valuable and also to consider the several impact of IAS not only for the environment but for their livelihoods.

Annex 2 on the methods, includes collecting best practices from Indigenous Peoples on monitoring, controlling and mitigation of the impacts of invasive alien species caused by climate change. Nevertheless, the right language call to "collaborate with Indigenous Peoples'' on the collection of best practices, under the free, prior and informed consent.

2. Do the annexes adequately capture key stakeholders?
It is important to mention that according to UNDRIP, Indigenous Peoples are rights holders more than stakeholders. As rights subjects, this is a very important consideration.

The UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Peoples issues also called to separate Indigenous Peoples from Local Communities.

The approach with Indigenous Peoples should include identify the risks of IAS for them and their lands, territories and resources, as well as their contributions on management and prevention of IAS.


3. Where are there linkages and overlaps between the annexes that may have been missed?

Maybe the most important challenge is to measure the 50%, and it will depend of the advances on the negotiations of the Monitoring Framework.

4. Target 6 touches on “prevention” (i.e identifying and managing pathways of the introduction of alien species, preventing the introduction and establishment of priority invasive alien species, reducing the rates of introduction and establishment of other known or potential invasive alien species by at least 50 per cent by 2030) how can the issue of prevention be better addressed in the annexes? Are the annexes balanced across prevention, response strategies and control?

In this case, the annexes can strengthen the role of partnerships with states and International Organizations. For example, the International Plan Protection Convention or the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture are excellent knowledge platforms in this regard.

Namaste, from Nepal Indigenous Nationalities Preservation Association NINPA
Invasive alien species pose a significant threat to Nepal's ecosystems and biodiversity. Here are some examples of invasive alien species found in Nepal:
Mikania (Mikania micrantha): Commonly known as "mile-a-minute weed" or "American rope," Mikania is a fast-growing vine that can smother and outcompete native vegetation. It affects agricultural lands, forests, and other natural habitats, reducing biodiversity and economic productivity.
Lantana (Lantana camara): Lantana is a highly invasive shrub that grows rapidly and forms dense thickets. It has toxic properties, making it unsuitable for grazing animals, and it outcompetes native plant species, leading to a decline in biodiversity.
Chromolaena (Chromolaena odorata): Also known as "triffid weed" or "Siam weed," Chromolaena is a highly invasive shrub that rapidly colonizes disturbed areas, agricultural fields, and forests. It negatively impacts native flora, alters soil composition, and reduces crop yields.
Himalayan Balsam (Impatiens glandulifera): Introduced as an ornamental plant, Himalayan Balsam has invaded riverbanks, streams, and wetlands. It grows rapidly, displacing native plants and contributing to soil erosion. Its seeds are easily dispersed, leading to further colonization.
Lumpy skin disease (LSD) is a re-emerging disease caused by a strain of capripoxvirus that affects cattle and buffalo. It leads to economic losses through reduced milk production, infertility, abortion, and mortality. LSDV is transmitted through insect vectors, contaminated needles, and vehicles. The disease is characterized by fever, skin nodules, intestinal lesions, edema, lymphadenitis, and excessive salivation. LSD has spread to various regions, including Africa, the Middle East, Europe, Central Asia, and India. In 2020, an outbreak occurred in Nepal, with varying morbidity and mortality rates. Control measures are essential to mitigate the impact of LSD on the livestock industry.
Fall armyworms, originating from America, have reached Nepal, posing a threat to maize farmers in the country. These invasive pests can cause significant damage to maize crops, affecting yields and economic stability for farmers. Effective pest management strategies and early detection are crucial to mitigate the impact of fall armyworm infestations and protect maize production in Nepal. Farmers should be vigilant and seek appropriate measures to control and prevent the spread of this destructive pest.
Efforts are underway in Nepal to combat the spread and impact of invasive alien species. The government, along with various organizations and communities, is engaged in awareness campaigns, research, and on-ground management strategies. These initiatives aim to raise awareness about the issue, establish early warning systems, and promote the restoration of native habitats affected by invasive species.
Addressing the challenge of invasive alien species requires sustained collaboration among stakeholders, including government bodies, research institutions, local communities, and indigenous organizations. By working together, it is possible to mitigate the adverse effects of invasive species and protect Nepal's unique biodiversity for future generations.
Thank you very much

Himalayan Balsam (Impatiens glandulifera)is native to Nepal and Himalayas and one of the problematic invasive alien species in Europe

Dear Pablo,
Namaste !!!
From an Indigenous perspective in Nepal, the following key points can be highlighted regarding invasive alien species:
Indigenous Peoples' knowledge and practices: Indigenous Peoples in Nepal possess valuable traditional knowledge and territorial management practices that contribute to biodiversity conservation and the prevention of negative impacts from invasive alien species. Their food and knowledge systems are often aligned with biodiversity-friendly approaches.
Free, prior, and informed consent: Any involvement of Indigenous Peoples in the management of invasive alien species should be based on their free, prior, and informed consent. Respecting their rights and decision-making processes is crucial, including in knowledge-sharing and data-collection efforts.
Impacts on livelihoods: Invasive alien species not only affect the environment but also have significant impacts on Indigenous Peoples' livelihoods. Recognizing and addressing these impacts is essential for the sustainable management of invasive species and the well-being of Indigenous communities.
Partnerships and collaboration: The annexes can benefit from strengthening partnerships between states, international organizations, and Indigenous Peoples. Platforms such as the International Plant Protection Convention or the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture can provide valuable knowledge-sharing opportunities.
Finally, incorporating Indigenous perspectives in the annexes would involve recognizing Indigenous Peoples as rights holders, understanding the specific risks posed by invasive alien species to their lands, territories, and resources, and acknowledging their contributions to the management and prevention of invasive species.
Please note that this response is a general perspective based on the information available. The specific Indigenous perspectives in Nepal may vary among different Indigenous communities within the country.
Thank you very much..

Greetings all,
My apologies, I seem to have posted this twice...addition to this in the Annex V thread.

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 lead 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 effectivly managed to prevent the introduction of alien and potentially invasive species.

Key to this is the harmonisation 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 harmonise taxa across national datasets resulting in 'cleaner' data. We are happy to note that this practise 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 terminlogy 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.

Good afternoon!
My name is (Mr) Esten Ødegaard, and I work as a coordinator of the efforts of The Norwegian Environment Agency to prevent and combat invasive alien species, and I am also project leader of a cross sectoral action plan against IAS in Norway.

One of the major efforts to combat alien species in Norway is the still  ongoing campaign against the introduced salmonid ectoparasite Gyrodactylus salaris, that has been considered one of the biggest threats to Norwegian Atlantic salmon stocks. G. Salaris was introduced through the import of live fish over 50 years ago, and has been detected in more than 50 Norwegian rivers and also in 39 fish farms. The mortality of Atlantic salmon parr has been very high. As salmon is an important species for Norway, and Norwegian rivers are important for the future of wild salmon, the authorities have so far chosen to spend more than NOK 1 billion( > US $ 90 000 000) on research, monitoring and combating G. salaris. As a result of the efforts, the parasite has been eradicated from 43 rivers and all fish farms, and hopefully, in a few years G. salaris can be removed from the list of threats to Norwegian salmon.

One of the lessons learnt from the battle against G. salaris, is that in some instances eradication is possible if the necessary funds are available. However, first of all the enormous costs of the eradication of an already established IAS such as G.salaris, emphasize the impotance of control of pathways to prevent introduction. Guiding question 4 for the general discussion asks for suggestions on how the annexes can adress prevention in a better way. One way to achhieve this might be to add some paragraphs in the introduction to the annexes where both the importance of prevention and early intervention, and the focus on prevention/pathway management  in target 6 is elaborated. As stated by others, it is also important that the contribution to the achivement of target 6 (which focuses on prevention) is highlighted throughout the text of the annexes.

Finally, I would like to support the suggestion by Johanna Niemivuo-Lahti and others to consider the informaton in the coming IPBES Thematic Assessment of IAS before finalizing the review of the  Annexes.

Thank you for your time, and a nice weekend to all!
Esten Ødegaard

Hi I am Srijana Joshi working as ecosystem specialist at International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD). •
One of the targets in global biodiversity framework is identifying and managing pathways for the introduction of alien species. Implementing a global biodiversity framework to address invasive alien species within a relatively short timeframe of 7 years would require focused efforts, collaboration among multiple stakeholders, and effective strategies.  Not all country is well-placed to have strong biosecurity systems to defend against invasion. Some countries may face challenges in achieving effective biosecurity systems to prevent invasions. The presence of open borders with neighbouring countries can increase the susceptibility to invasive species, making international collaboration crucial in addressing the issue. In the context of Nepal and India, as well as Bhutan and India, where there are open borders, there is a higher risk of invasive species entering these countries. Therefore, it becomes essential for these countries to work together and implement collaborative measures to strengthen their biosecurity systems and prevent the introduction of Invasive alien species. It is important for country to develop targeted monitoring strategies to identify potential invasive species and address them promptly which is currently lacking. Evidence showed that invasive alien plant species are spreading rapidly into higher mountains. Early Detection and Rapid Response (EDRR) is one of the most effective approaches to manage biological invasions. Countries must prioritize and do careful vigilance and rapid response in areas where invasive plants are likely to occur. Invasive species management will be an expensive and challenging task once the species spread into a topographically complex mountain ecosystem. It is expected that there will be an increased risk of invasion and greater management challenges soon in mountains.  Therefore, to avoid further spread of invasive alien species in mountain regions, frequent and long-term monitoring and better management strategies need to be developed.

Dear Participants,

Thank you so much for your input thus far and further wish to encourage Parties and those who have not to do so to share their views before the forum closes.

Regards,
Ntakadzeni Tshidada (Moderator)

Buena mañana, tarde o noche
Soy Rosana Gutierrez,  ing. forestal y especialista en ing. ambiental, trabajo para el Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA)-Argentina,  en extensión con productores, organizaciones y en áreas protegidas.
En el Anexo I, consejos para la acción, en el punto 17: sugiero que se agregue ..estos riegos que pueden afectar la biodiversidad, la economía y la cultura de las regiones/pueblos indígenas y las comunidades locales, así como la salud pública.
En el Anexo II, en el punto 19, item d, preparar una guía para ayudar a las agencias fronterizas nacionales a responder al incumplimiento.... tener en cuenta la posibilidad de que la misma contenga referencias de teléfono o correos de email para consultar a nivel regional/ nacional frente a diversos problemas que no pueden resolver y requieren comunicarse para la toma de decisiones. Asimismo, y encadenado al punto e, que habla de las vinculaciones, es de suma importancia el intercambio de experiencias y la generación de redes internas a cada país con referentes que puedan ayudar a las agencias fronterizas entre países y entre diferentes  juridicciones de un mismo país.
Anexo III, en planificación y prevención, en el punto 10  del item g, sensibilizar al público sobre las cambiantes amenazas de las especies exóticas invasoras derivadas del cambio climático e incluir la participación del público y de todos los sectores pertinentes en la planificación de la respuesta; sugiero tener en cuenta con énfasis en el sector educativo local. De acuerdo a mi experiencia, al comunicar y sensibilizar de la problemática  , los impactos y las estrategias de intervención en el ámbito educativo se  generan resultados positivos y cambios de miradas hacia los indefensos
( plantas u otros organismos invasores) y pueden ser grandes aliados que contribuyan para este fin.
Agradezco que tengan en cuenta mis sugerencias, saludos

Dear all,

My name is Maki IKEGAMI from Japan. I work as a senior researcher at the National Institute for Environmental Studies, where I focus on ecological risk analysis of invasive alien species (IAS) using biogeographical approaches.

After reviewing the annex and considering its alignment with target 6 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity framework, I have noticed some areas that require attention to effectively prevent and eradicate IAS.

Firstly, I would like to stress the importance of comprehensive and integrated databases that cater to the needs of practitioners involved in IAS prevention and eradication. These databases should provide valuable information on where to locate IAS, species identification keys, and the most effective methods for eradicating them, especially at the early stage of its establishment. I recommend establishing an international database that can be accessed in multiple languages and follows a standardized format for easy translation and global access.

Secondly, it is crucial to address overlooked pathways through which IAS are introduced. In Japan, for example, we have encountered instances where large colonies of invasive species were found inside containers or container yards, bypassing traditional quarantine processes. To effectively detect and prevent the spread of IAS through these pathways, it is important to identify those pathways. For this part, I am happy to see "Sea containers and cargos" are mentioned in the annex.

Lastly, I want to draw attention to emerging threats and newly introduced invasive species, which may not receive enough focus in the current document. Given the continuous emergence of new species and pathways due to globalization and climate change, it is vital to incorporate ongoing monitoring, research, and adaptive management strategies. This includes developing new tools, analytical approaches, and information sharing mechanisms that specifically address newly emerging IAS, along with poorly understood organisms like marine species, invertebrates, microorganisms, and fungi, that are already described in the annex. By integrating these efforts into the annex and the broader framework, we can significantly enhance our ability to prevent and manage the impacts of IAS globally.

Thank you for your attention and consideration. I will provide more detailed information on these topics in their respective dedicated forums if needed.

Sincerely,
Makihiko IKEGAMI (Maki.)

Hello, this is Teo Karayannis from the International Maritime Organization (IMO). Yesterday I posted in the thread for Annex VI so I will not repeat here any details about myself and IMO, nor my points about the importance of prevention especially for the aquatic/marine realm and IMO's already existing instruments covering the shipping pathway in terms of preventing the transfer of aquatic IAS.

Here I take the opportunity to provide just a brief comment in connection with the point by Maki from Japan regarding containers. In this regard, I would like to note the existence of the IMO/ILO/UNECE Code of Practice for Packing of Cargo Transport Units (CTU Code).
(https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Safety/Pages/CTU-Code.aspx)

While this is a safety-related instrument, providing guidance on the loading and securing of cargo in containers and other intermodal transport to those responsible for packing and securing cargo but also to those who receive and unpack such units, it does also contain provisions relating to the cleaning and pest control, which were developed in cooperation with IPPC.

I believe this is relevant in this context and should be taken into account.

Soy Marisa Sanchez, especialista en ciencia animal. Trabajo como técnica profesional en la Secretaria de Agricultura, Ganadería y Pesca de la Nación, Argentina. El enfoque de mi trabajo, sobre los recusos zoogeneticos, es biologico y productivo. Uno de los objetivos es trabajar en la coexistencia entre la ganaderia y la fauna silvestre, impacto por depredadores y espeices exoticas invasoras. Respecto a la EEI de relavancia para el sector, esta dado por el jabali europeo (Sus scrofa), y chancho salvaje, desde hace años, afectar valores ambientales, de salud, económicos y sociales. Es por ello que sugiero en el Annex 1 / B Advice for actions / 17: que se refiere a recomendar, comunicar sobre los riesgos de las EEI, se incluya el sector agropecuario.

Por otro lado y refiriendome ahora al Annex III / B Planning and prevention / (G): sobre sensibilizar al público en general, espero se considere incluir/ampliar, información especifica sobre las especies exoticas invasoras, independientemente de que el cambio climático puede haber profundizado el impacto. La sociedad esta desinformada y/o maneja o interpreta información equivoca básica, la misma se hace popular con mucha rapides por las redes sociales, quitando valor y credibilidad a la ciencia toda. Esta situación no suman a algunas acciones y/o estrategias, que los especialistas (en diferentes áreas de expertis), proponen, para disminuir los riesgos, situaciones poco faciles de revertir en tiempo y forma. Las redes sociales justamente pueden ser un aliado a la hora de informar con calidad, alcanzando todos los niveles educacionales posibles.

Busque ser muy concreta con mis comentarios.
Desde ya agradezco la posibilidad de participar.
Saludos cordiales a todos!

Dear participants,

We have noted your valuable input so far and wish to summaries some of  the key points from the discussion as follows:

1. There is a need to refer to IPLCS in a consistent manner and with the appropriate used language;
2. Noting that we only have 7 years to 2030 and that most of the Parties will make use of the first few years on planning, it is therefore important to consider efforts towards both prevention and management. It was also mentioned that the current annexes are focusing mainly on assessments, and little is mentioned on the management; 
3. It should be considered that sometimes action should be taken with the data that is at hand, as not all Countries have the same access to up-to-date early warning systems to get valid data of all invasive species;
4. On aspect of databases and management, the importance of harmonization and flow of real-time data and information across, national, regional, and global repositories was noted;
5. Likewise, the importance of comprehensive and integrated databases that cater for the needs of practitioners involved in IAS prevention and eradication was highlighted, emphasizing that these databases should provide valuable information on where to locate IAS, species identification keys, and the most effective methods for eradicating them, especially at the early stage of its establishment;
6. Attention was brought to the fact that emerging threats from newly introduced invasive species may not receive enough focus in the document. In this respect, it has been mentioned that given the continuous emergence of new species and pathways due to globalization and climate change, it is vital to incorporate ongoing monitoring, research, and adaptive management strategies.
7. The importance of prevention, including in the aquatic/marine realm was also noted.
8. Cooperation and capacity development was identified as one of the gaps on Biosecurity intervention.

I will make efforts to summarize discussion frequently.

Kind Regards,
Ms Ntakadzeni Tshidada (moderator)

Dear colleagues,
I am Johanna Niemivuo-Lahti, Senior Ministerial Adviser, representing the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in Finland. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in Finland is responsible for the overall coordination of invasive alien species matters, including the IAS legislation development and implementation, and I would be happy to share our general views on the Annexes, as well as on the main focal areas, from our point of view, that could be aligned with the Kunming-Montreal GBF Target 6.

As a general view, and as supported by many others, all Annexes would need a reference and a clear linkage to the GBF Target 6 (IAS). All these Annexes, for their part, support and facilitate the implementation of the GBF Target 6, and there is a need to crosscheck all Annexes with this reference. Also, as many others have reminded, we have a relative short timeframe, around 7 years, to reach the Target 6, and that´s why we need clear focused efforts.

Prevention is one of the key issues of the implementation of the Target 6 and clearly one of the actions, where focused effort is needed. Prevention is an action where adverse and negative impacts of IAS are mitigated and sometimes even fully inhibited beforehand. 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.

From our point of view, awareness rising, including education and guidance, as well as data sharing between Parties, organizations as well as stakeholders and all operators, are the cornerstones for the prevention actions and where efforts needed to be focused. All Annexes provide very useful information to promote prevention actions, but from our point of view especially the Annex II (e-commerce) (eg. especially paras 17, 19 a, b, d, 20 b)  and Annex V (use of databases) (eg. paras 9 and 12) provide relevant guidance to improve prevention actions and provide a clear alignment with the Target 6 .

Available up-to-date databases (Annex V) are needed for (Target 6) “identifying and managing pathways of the introduction of alien species”, as well as identifying, assessing and outlining the priority invasive alien species for (Target 6) “preventing the introduction and establishment of priority invasive alien species”, but as well as to (Target 6) “reducing the rates of introduction and establishment of other known or potential invasive alien species by at least 50 per cent by 2030”. Besides these, relevant up-to-date information is needed, for each Party and/or region, to establish a monitoring system for collecting information and data to monitor the success of the actions. Here the available databases provide useful and important baseline data for the monitoring system.

The IPBES Thematic Assessment of IAS, to be published in August-September 2023 with the most up-to-date information on IAS, should be thoroughly considered when updating the Annexes as well as adding guidance to the implementation of the Target 6.

Sincerely,
Johanna Niemivuo-Lahti

Good morning/afternoon,
My name is Sven Bacher and I am a representative of Switzerland, but would like to argue here in my capacity as scientist.
I strongly support the suggestion of Rachel Ariey-Jouglard from Canada to clearly define generally “invasive alien species”, e.g. in the Annex I, and discriminate them from just “alien species” and also from species expanding their ranges due to human-made environmental changes (so-called “neonatives”). It is also critical to clearly define the scope and whether or not (and to which extent) this in- or excludes the two latter groups. Even if the scope is restricted to “invasive alien species” sensu stricto, we often do not really know which alien species will become invasive (i.e. causing negative impacts) in the future. Thus, it is often necessary e.g. for prevention to target all alien species, or information is often only available for alien species, without knowing which of them are invasive alien species. Restricting the scope too much to “invasive alien species”, i.e. those with demonstrated impacts, might be problematic in justifying actions that include “alien species”. This was an issue in the upcoming IPBES report on invasive alien species, and this is why I bring this up.
Thanks for your consideration and kind regards.

Dear forum participants,
My name is Carolina Torres Trueba, and I represent Island Conservation as the International Legal and Administrative Manager and have been participating in CBD negotiations since 2015.

Island Conservation (IC) is an international NGO, and for nearly 30 years our mission has been to prevent extinctions by the removal of invasive species on islands contributing to the restoration of island-ocean ecosystems. While implementing invasive alien species (IAS) interventions, elevating biosecurity, and innovating new tools and methodologies, our learning about the subject only continues  and we want to share our perspectives and comments on the forum.

Islands are special places with unique environments and people including a disproportionate amount of biodiversity, with 20% of all bird, reptile, and plant species. Moreover, they are home to about 11% of our world’s population where invaluable cultural diversity and history resides. Unfortunately islands are also epicenters of species loss, with 80% of recorded extinctions. Their unique ecosystems offer opportunities to effectively and sustainably manage IAS through high level control and eradication, which is often unavailable at the continental scale. To aid in slowing biodiversity loss and supporting the resiliency of local communities, IAS management on islands must be part of future efforts.
Furthermore, IAS impacts underpin several main issues, including local economies (e.g., fisheries, agricultural yields), public health, cultural values, quality of life, and climate resilience, particularly for island nations at the forefront of the biodiversity and climate crisis.
Prioritization methods for IAS management on islands should therefore be differentiated to incorporate island-specific cost-benefit analysis adequate to the level of risk and magnitude of potential benefits to biodiversity and local communities.

We would like to encourage the inclusion of differentiated language for prioritization tools on islands in the text to account for their uniqueness both in vulnerability to IAS and the opportunity they offer for effective management of IAS. We strongly support and distinguish the text of target 6 as a major win, which effectively recognizes islands as a priority site, where IAS should be controlled and eradicated. Therefore, Annexes should be aligned with the mandate of the target, and focus efforts on priority sites, such as islands.

Although a lot of work has been done, we need to recognize the limitations of current tools for the detection, control of pathways and management and eradication of IAS. In that sense, Annexes should encourage the research and use of new tools and technologies to effectively address one of the main drivers of extensions, IAS. At the same time, Annexes should encourage Parties to invest in the research of such tools and technologies and also encourage eradication when feasible. The use of new tools and techniques can vary according to each case and should be adequate to the level of risk and magnitude of potential benefits to biodiversity. Further investment in IAS eradication from islands and key priority sites will expand biodiversity conservation while strengthening biodiversity resilience to climate change and creating co-benefits for human societies and human health.
As efforts of removing IAS from Islands have been successful, we have been learning and are still learning about the benefits of taking such action in different places of the world. As such, we have witnessed the recovery of the surrounding ocean marine ecosystem. We have also learned that islands with no IAS presence are more resilient to climate change. Hence, Annexes should recognize the need to evaluate and analyze the linkages of the control and removal of IAS with the recovery of biodiversity, climate change, carbon sequestration, ecological recovery, support for the island nation's economy, etc.

Lastly, we would like to highlight some literature that support the aforementioned statements:
Castaño, P.A., Hanson, C.C., Campbell, K.J., Carrión, V., Fisher, P., Ruell, E., Will, D., Siers, S. (2022). Invasive rodent eradication on islands: assessment and mitigation of human exposure to rodenticides. Biological Invasions, Volume 25, Pages 653–671. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10530-022-02940-1

Sandin, S.A. et al. (2022). Harnessing island–ocean connections to maximize marine benefits of island conservation. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 119, No. 51. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2122354119
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. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362595633_The_global_contribution_of_invasive_vertebrate_eradication_as_a_key_island_restoration_tool#:~:text=Invasive%20species%20are%20the%20primary%20driver%20of%20native,best-practices%20and%20enabling%20innovations%20to%20maximize%20biodiversity%20outcomes.
De Wit L.A., Zilliacus K.M., Quadri P., Will D., Grima N., Spatz, D., Holmes N., Tershy B., Howald G.R., Croll D.A. (2020) Invasive vertebrate eradications on islands as a tool for implementing global Sustainable Development Goals. Environmental Conservation. 47: 139–148. doi: 10.1017/S0376892920000211 https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/83A3B7A41A14D69E01335E054D3690C3/S0376892920000211a.pdf/invasive_vertebrate_eradications_on_islands_as_a_tool_for_implementing_global_sustainable_development_goals.pdf

Campbell, K. J., J. Beek, C. T. Eason, A. S. Glen, J. Godwin, F. Gould, N. D. Holmes, G. R. Howald, F. M. Madden, J. B. Ponder, D. W. Threadgill, A. S. Wegmann, and G. S. Baxter. 2015. The next generation of rodent eradications: Innovative technologies and tools to improve species specificity and increase their feasibility on islands. Biological Conservation 185:47-58. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320714003978

Kappes, P., Benkwitt, C., Spatz, D., Wolf, C., Will, D., Holmes, N. 2021. Do Invasive Mammal Eradications from Islands Support Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation? https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/9/12/172/htm

We are responsible for protecting our planet and ecosystems and supporting earth to become more resilient to fight climate change. The removal of IAS is a crucial tool that Parties must recognize as one of the most effective to protect mother earth.
Sincerely,

Carolina Torres Trueba.

Hello,
I am SooIn Lee, working on IAS Team at National Institute of Ecology in the Republic of Korea. I am in charge of monitoring invasive alien plant species and their introduction and establishment in Korea.

First of all, thank you for discuss on the annexes and documents related with Invasive Alien Species.

(2nd line of ANNEX II.1.1)
It seems necessary to specify the type of '~and their parts'(i.e. what is included) or to clarify with the modifier '~and their parts that could cause ecological disturbances if spread''.
Such as 'alive parts of plant organ; root, rhizome, seed, bud, bulb, tuber' and ‘plant specimen containing seeds’.

(2nd line of ANNEX VI. A. Para. 6)
‘Aichi Biodiversity Target 9’ needs to be changed to ‘Kunming-Montreal GBF Target 6’.

Although the risk analysis method of invasive alien species, prevention of introduction of invasive alien species through cross-border e-commerce, management of alien species due to climate change, and database utilization are well contained, the information on detailed guidelines to achieve the Kunming-Montreal GBF Target 6’s goal(about Invasive alien species) will be needed.

Thank you

Dear colleagues,

My name is Kevin Smith, working on invasive alien species for the International Union for Conservation of Nature – IUCN.

For target 6 to be successfully met many, if not all national and sub-national authorities and other stakeholders will required increased capacity and access to knowledge and up-to-date robust data, and for coordinated action to be taken at a regional and global level especially in relation to preventing future introductions and establishments. In addition, many parts of the Annexes refer to the need for capacity building in order for their guidance to be implemented.

Therefore, we would like to see a stronger reference in the Annexes for improved international cooperation focused on capacity building, data mobilisation and knowledge transfer, as well as on exchange of data to allow effective prevention and responses. This would require significant resource mobilisation, and engagement across public, private, civil society and indigenous and local community entities underpinned by international and regional coordination.

Many thanks

Dear all,
Thank you very much for all the previous comments and contributions.
I´m Santiago Gracia Campillo, biologist at the Biodiversity Unit within the Spanish Ministry for the Ecological Transition and the Demographic Challenge. I´m SBSTTA National Focal Point and I have been following the discussions on this item during SBSTTA-24 as well as at COP-15. In the same way I have been participating in the long discussions on the Global Biodiversity Framework, with special focus on Target 6 on IAS, among other targets.
We agree that is especially important to align the annexes with the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework to transform them in useful tools in order to support implementation of Target 6.
We agree and highlight the importance of applying a precautionary approach to prevent any introduction of alien species that can become invasive with enough time and favorable circumstances. That is the best investment to avoid environmental, economic and social damage due to a possible further invasion. In this regard, Spain approved a Royal Decree that regulates importation of alien species into the Spanish territory. To be able to introduce a species from the list of 3500 taxons published with this regulation (Real Decreto 570/2020, de 16 de junio), the importer should prepare a risk assessement that is received in advance and evaluated. Only if the risk aassesment is positive, the importer receives an autorization to present it at the border.  Just two months ago, Spain approved a Law that establish the necesity to create a positive list for pets (Ley 7/2023, de 28 de marzo, de protección de los derechos y el bienestar de los animales). Taking into consideration several criteria based not only in an invasion risk but also in animal welfare, a work on a model methodology for establishing a list of suitable species is on the way. We tackle this complex problem relying on scientific information that avoid the risk of invasion and adecuacy for a life in captivity. In the meantime we hope that this new form of addressing the problem of IAS will finally decrease the demand of rare species and the ilegal wildlife trade. 

Muchas gracias,

Greetings, my name is Stas Burgiel and I serve as the Executive Director for the U.S. National Invasive Species Council (NISC).

We appreciate the opportunity to participate in the online forum and to review the comments and suggestions from other interested experts. Given the intrinsic nature of invasive alien species (IAS), effective information sharing and coordination at the international level is critical to support national level efforts. We hope that the outputs of this forum can contribute to those efforts.

Below I’m including some general points related to the annexes, and will also provide additional points in the discussions on the specific annexes.

Terminology: The annexes use specialized terminology which is often not defined or placed in context. It may be useful to include explanatory definitions or reference a glossary (e.g., IPPC ISPM5 APPENDIX 1: Terminology of the Convention on Biological Diversity in relation to the Glossary of phytosanitary terms https://assets.ippc.int/static/media/files/publication/en/2021/05/ISPM_05_2021_En_Glossary_2021-05-27_PostCPM-15_Fixed.pdf). For example, the terms risk analysis, risk assessment, risk management, and risk communication are used in numerous places. Clarification of their meanings and inter-relationships could provide helpful context for their use.

Practicable Guidance: Many of the annexes outline what Parties could do without specifically providing guidance or examples on how that should be done. More detail on practicable guidance for implementation could be useful either within the annexes or in association with the referenced IAS Toolkit (https://www.cbd.int/invasive/cbdtoolkit/). For example, the annex on cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis includes a fairly general discussion on multi-criteria methods without specific concrete examples or guidance on its use.

Identification of Required Resources: National decision-makers need to make policy and management decisions based on the availability of resources whether that be information, expertise, equipment/tools, or funding. In efforts to achieve Target 6, they will need to make assessments on how to most effectively use available resources for maximum benefit. Many of the suggested actions outlined in the annexes do not specify the range of information, time, or other resources necessary for implementation. Where possible, it could be useful to identify such known requirements for particular tools or examples either within the annexes or in the context of the IAS toolkit. For example, the annexes include numerous references to data collection and use for decision-making. Collating those disparate data needs and uses could be useful, including within the context of the annex on the use of existing  databases to support risk communication.

Finally, with regard to Target 6 itself. We recognize that it is ambitious and will require significant attention and investment to achieve.  While recognizing the urgent need to accelerate implementation,  baseline information from which progress can be assessed is vital. Attention should be dedicated to the collation and analysis of such data as well as the development of appropriate performance metrics.

Hi everyone,

Thanks for an interesting and useful discussion.  I am Olaf Booy, Deputy Chief Non-native Species Officer for the UK Government.  I provide the following comments in response to this thread and the questions from our moderator:

In general, the annexes provide useful guidance and actions to support states, organisations and stakeholders in their management of IAS. 
Horizon scanning is critical to target 6 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity framework because it is one of the main tools for identifying priority species to prevent from introduction and establishment.  The annexes could address this further by including actions to develop guidance for states, organisations or relevant stakeholders on how to carry out horizon scanning.  An action could also be included to encourage more international and regional cooperation for sharing good practice in horizon scanning and risk analysis, as well as sharing the results of these assessments. 

There is a strong link between annexes that deal with prioritisation (i.e. Annexes 1, 3 and 4) and target 6 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity framework, given the need to prioritise prevention, eradication and / or control at priority sites.  Annexes already discuss this issue at length but could provide clearer guidance on what criteria should be used to prioritise species and how to go about prioritisation.  Actions could be included in the annexes to develop guidance and link to existing tools and schemes that can be used to support prioritisation. 

Many thanks,

Olaf

Dear All,

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 agree with many comments regarding the Annexes’ balance towards prevention rather than implementation or active management. If we want to be effective in fulfilling target 6, we must do both prevention and management in combination. This approach has been implemented on many islands worldwide where while eradicating an invasive alien species—in many cases even before that (that is the ideal)—a comprehensive and participatory-built biosecurity protocol is developed and enforced.

Islands provide successful examples of comprehensive invasive alien species management and there are many lessons learned as well as successes and failures that can be shared amongst Parties, agencies, institutions, CSO’s and local communities to effectively manage invasive alien species in the mainland, particularly in island-like habitats such as Sky Island or Habitat Islands.

Target 6 now recognizes that islands are priority sites to implement the eradication of invasive alien species. However, Annexes do not embrace such distinction and there is little mention about islands. This is an area of opportunity, as I mentioned before, islands offer great opportunities for sharing information, expertise, knowledge, technical capacity, etc. to other islands but also to mainland habitats that behave as islands. Also, there is an added opportunity to upscale collectively and achieve greater and long-lasting impacts by cooperating more amongst Parties. Countries with more economic resources but also with greater capacity and experience should actively assist other countries in building capacity within so it can continue with the active management of invasive alien species. This is particularly true for countries that are world leaders in island restoration and eradication of invasive alien species such as: New Zealand, Australia, United Kingdom, United States, France, Mexico, The Seychelles, and Ecuador, according to a recent paper (Spatz et al. 2023; https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-14982-5).

Thank you.

Kind regards

Dear all,
My name is Thato Mogapi from the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment in South Africa. Our unit is responsible for development of policies and strategies for managing invasive alien species in South Africa.

As indicated in Annex I, national invasive species strategies and action plans (NISSAPs) provide a coordinated approach to the management of biological invasions. Recalling previous COP decisions requesting parties to develop their NISSAPs, we see the adoption of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework as providing a great opportunity for parties that already have their NISSAPs to revise their strategies to align with target 6, taking into account the elements contained in the Annexes. Parties that do not yet have their NISSAPs in place can take into account the new target and the Annexes in the development of their NISSAPs as a means to national implementation of target 6. The focal areas of the annexes link with the elements of target 6. The Annexes contain useful information that can inform research (for example, the link between climate change and invasive alien species) to fill the knowledge gaps, to guide the management of invasive alien species and to strengthen existing programmes. The Annexes will need to be considered by parties through engagements with various stakeholders, taking into account national circumstances.

Dear all,

First of all, thank you for this forum to discuss on the annexes related with Invasive Alien Species Management.
On behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries (MAAHF) of Suriname, are participating Vanisha Doerbalie, Plant Quarantine Inspector from the National Plant Protection Organization of Suriname (NPPO) and Vishwapriya Matau, acting head of the division Entomology.

We want to share with you some of the actions being taken by NPPO Suriname to protect our land from invasive alien species and to detect and monitor the quarantine pest from EU for Suriname:
- NPPO in cooperation with the Entomology Department is conducting detection and monitoring surveys as one of the monitoring activities for making a pest list for Suriname. This is done by placing traps with lures for specific species in different areas to find out which species occur and/or do not occur in our country. We use ISPM 6 for the survey.
- From the EU we (Suriname) got a list with quarantine pest for some of the agriculture products we export. To continue with the export of our products we are doing detection and monitoring surveys to see which of the quarantine pest we have in our land/ region and products and if we really have those quarantine pest in our land. Most of our agriculture products are being exported to the EU and to safe our export we need to do these surveys.
- It is also challenging for us, to protect our country against invasive species. NPPO is also currently working on border control to get that in order, so that we do not get invasive alien species from our neighboring countries and from import agriculture products of other countries.
Because the presence of open borders with neighboring countries can increase susceptibility to invasive species, making international collaboration critical to address the problem. Therefore, it becomes essential to work together as countries and implement collaborative measures to strengthen their border control points and prevent the introduction of Invasive alien species.

As mentioned, before we also have the same thinking, that addressing the problem of invasive alien species requires sustained cooperation among stakeholders, including government agencies, research institutions, local communities and indigenous organizations. By working together, it is possible to reduce the negative impacts of invasive species on the environment and protect the biodiversity.

Kind regards.

Hola Colegas,
Soy Paulina Stowhas del Ministerio del Medio Ambiente de Chile, y quisiera compartir algunas consideraciones sobre los Anexos y su correlación con el objetivo 6 del marco de Biodiversidad Global de Kunming-Montreal.
Si bien la prevención y bioseguridad es la herramienta más costo efectiva para la gestión de especies exóticas invasoras, pareciera ser que los anexos, tanto en número como en contenidos, se encuentran enfocados casi solo a la prevención de nuevos ingresos y al mejoramiento de las barreras de bioseguridad, dejando en segundo plano la gestión directa y opciones de manejo de las invasiones ya instaladas o en proceso.
El Marco Global de Biodiversidad está planificado para cumplir con las metas al año 2030, lo cual deja muy pocos años para el desarrollo de nuevas tecnologías, y nuevos métodos para la gestión, control, mitigación y erradicación de especies exóticas invasoras, haciendo que el cumplimiento de la meta sea muy difícil de lograr.
Si bien se entiende el propósito de metas globales, es importante que, al momento de integrarlas en los países, están tengan en contexto las realidades locales, tanto de biodiversidad como sociales para lograr su cometido, y considerar la coordinación entre los países de una misma región para una gestión y prevención más exitosa. Es necesario también la priorización de sitios para dirigir los recursos disponibles, siendo la erradicación (y prevención o bioseguridad) principalmente dirigida y priorizada para ecosistemas y territorios insulares, mientras que la gestión de control, mitigación y reducción sea un enfoque continental para trabajar sobre las bioinvasiones.
Por ultimo en cuanto a la gestión de información y datos, es necesario establecer un estándar de reporte y datos, y solicitar una comunicación a tiempo de la información, principalmente a los servicios que tiene competencias o responsabilidades sobre especies exóticas invasoras y biodiversidad nativa que puede ser afectada.
Un cordial saludo
Paulina

---------------Message on behalf of Taniani Chapla-Brazil ------------

Dear colleagues,

My name is Tatiani Chapla, and I represent Brazil's Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change. I would like to express my gratitude for my colleagues’ valuable contributions.

The discussion surrounding the content of the annexes has been ongoing for a considerable period. At the time the discussions commenced, the framework for Goal 6 had not yet been established. I would say the annexes are presently incomplete in providing adequate guidance to the parties involved regarding the implementation of Goal 6. Thus, I propose the incorporation of the concerns raised by previous colleagues and recommend a dedicated discussion focused on recommendations for the implementation of Goal 6, which currently remain unaddressed by the annexes. I do not expect that within a 10-day forum, we will be able to assemble the requisite recommendations for such an undertaking. One possible approach would be the development of a comprehensive guide, supported by the secretariat and relevant institutions such as the IUCN.

One crucial aspect that must be addressed is the pressing need for capacity building and technical assistance. Developing countries often face resource limitations and require support in enhancing their capabilities to effectively address invasive alien species. Additionally, technology transfer plays a vital role in empowering these countries with the necessary tools and knowledge to tackle invasive species challenges. Encouraging partnerships and collaborations with relevant institutions and organizations can facilitate the transfer of appropriate technologies and best practices.

I hope this information proves to be helpful.

Kind regards,
Tatiani