Invasive Alien Species

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

1. How can multi-criteria methods be used to assess benefits?

2. Please provide examples of cost-benefit analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis and multicriteria tools and methods, relating to IAS that could be included.

Dear all participants Namaste,
Nepal indigenous nationalities Preservation Associations NINPA.

Indigenous perspectives on the provided questions regarding annex I discussions on invasive alien species (IAS) are as follows:
How can multi-criteria methods be used to assess benefits?
Indigenous communities emphasize the need to incorporate a holistic approach that respects and includes their traditional knowledge and values. Multi-criteria methods can be used to assess benefits by considering a range of factors beyond economic valuation. Indigenous knowledge systems consider social, cultural, and ecological dimensions, which can contribute to a more comprehensive assessment of the benefits of IAS management.

Examples of cost-benefit analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, and multi-criteria tools and methods relating to IAS that could be included:
Incorporating Indigenous knowledge and perspectives, examples of analysis and tools that could be considered for annex I discussions include:

Cost-benefit analysis: Assessing the economic costs and benefits of IAS management, including impacts on traditional livelihoods, cultural practices, and ecosystem services valued by Indigenous communities.

Cost-effectiveness analysis: Evaluating the relative costs of different control strategies for IAS from an Indigenous perspective, considering their effectiveness in preserving biodiversity, protecting sacred sites, and maintaining cultural practices.

Multi-criteria analysis: Integrating Indigenous criteria such as traditional ecological knowledge, cultural significance, and community well-being into the assessment of IAS management benefits. This recognizes the broader impacts beyond monetary measures and respects the values and priorities of Indigenous communities.

Indigenous perspectives stress the importance of engaging Indigenous peoples in the development and application of these tools and methods, ensuring their free, prior, and informed consent, and recognizing the exceptional knowledge and perspectives they bring to IAS management.

It is crucial to create a space where Indigenous voices are heard and respected, as their insights can enrich the discussions on annex I and contribute to more effective and culturally sensitive approaches to IAS management.

Thank very much

Good morning/Good afternoon, 

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

I would first like to thank the CBD Secretariat for their work on the Annex, as well as the Parties and observers who had provided comments on them prior to this Online Forum. I would also like to thank Ms. Tshidada and Mr. Sheppard for their role of co-moderator and those who have participated so far. 

With regards to Annex I, we would like to provide the following comments. 

We would like to suggest that Annex I clearly include, at its beginning, the definition of invasive alien species (e.g., link to the CBD definition). This definition should be differentiated from geographic range changes to species that are not directly driven by human agency. In the latter case it needs to be clarified if geographic range changes of species that are driven indirectly by human agency (e.g. anthropogenic changes to climate, land use) are in or out of scope. Furthermore, providing some statements on the impact of invasive alien species would be needed. This would help scope the Annex better (e.g., IAS that impact biodiversity, or also human health, or other). 

With regards to Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), more information on the criteria for MCDA would be useful to better understand what is needed to use MCDA as a method, and thus make the annex more useful on a practical level. It is also unclearl whether MCDA is an end produc of the risk assessment process, which would make it less agile than suggested in the Annex. Furthermore, Paragraph 7 seems to suggested that a 2-staged approach using MCDA, followed by more rigorous methods, be used. This seems to contradict Section A, and would benefit from being clarified. Finally, references to quantitative model-based risk assessment and qualitative approaches could also be included in this Annex. 

It may also be worth adding, within this annex, greater reference to acting in a timely manner whenever an invader is detected. Sadly, too often, a species can no longer be eradicated locally as delays in initiating actions allow sufficient time for the species to encroach on the new habitat invaded (establish, achieve larger biomass/population size, adapt, etc.). Also, the longer the time taken to initiate action, the more severe the impacts are on the ecosystems and biodiversity. Early Detection and Rapid Response is not really included in this annex, yet it is one of the most efficient way to help ensure eradication of a detected/introduced IAS, and limit its spread (noting that prevention remains key).  

Canada also highly supports, here and in other annexes, references to the “free, prior, and informed consent” of Indigenous peoples, and would seek to include references to Traditional Knowledge, and how Traditional Knowledge, which may take the form of institutional memory, should be considered in risk assessments and how they can be complementary to Western science in multi-criteria approaches. 

Thank you very much.

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.

With regard to Annex I, the content is fairly generic with very broad descriptions of cost-benefit analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, and multi-criteria methods and their potential benefits. At the same time, the annex states that multi-criteria methods need to be developed to support prioritization, risk management, and decision-making. More specific examples would be useful to understand what methods are currently available vs. areas where further effort is needed. This could be done in the context of the IAS Toolkit.

With regard to the specific assessment of IAS benefits, we are aware of some efforts in this area, but they are often limited and pale in comparison to the negative impacts of IAS. It needs to be understood that promotion of the benefits of IAS has the potential to undermine broader management efforts and potentially the rationale for Target 6. Such efforts therefore require careful consideration and communication (see for example, Sheergojri et al. 2022 Invasive species services-disservices conundrum: A case study from Kashmir Himalaya. doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114674).