Invasive Alien Species

Discussion will be open on 7 April 2025

Good morning, good afternoon, good evening.

We are pleased to welcome you to the open-ended Online Forum on invasive alien species. Paulina Stowhas Salinas, from Chile, and myself, Rachel Ariey-Jouglard, from Canada, will help moderate this online forum and seek views and information on the tools and mechanisms that Parties, other Governments, subnational and local governments, stakeholders and non-governmental organizations use to address the threat of invasive alien species, their experiences in implementing them, best practices based on those experiences, as well as and the challenges they may face.

We encourage you to actively participate in this forum, provide information on the work that you do, the challenges that you face or that you expect to face. Your input will be important in shaping the future work of the CBD with regard to IAS.

Under this particular topic (#1), we hope to focus on the “work carried out by Parties and stakeholders, including on tools and mechanisms used, challenges and best practices with regard to the prevention, management, control and eradication of invasive alien species, towards the implementation of Target 6 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, in particular to facilitate international and regional cooperation.”

To facilitate the discussion, my co-chair and I, in collaboration with the Secretariat have drafted some questions to help getting the discussion started. Please note that those questions are indicative and are meant to help support the discussion. Comments on the topic that do not specifically answer the questions are also welcome! We also invite you to ask questions and reply to others to enhance the discussion.

We would like to remind you to please provide your name and the name of your organization at the beginning of your interventions.

Thank you, and we look forward to this discussion.

FORUM can be accessed here: https://www.cbd.int/invasive/current/forum2025

Rachel and Paulina

Guiding questions for topic 1

General
- Is the topic of invasive alien species included in your NBSAP?
- Do you think your country has the necessary policies and tools to address Target 6?

Prevention (tools and mechanisms used, challenges and best practices)
- Which tools and mechanisms do you use or consider useful for preventing the introduction of IAS  (e.g., artificial intelligence, surveillance, etc.)?
- What are the challenges you are facing or foresee in preventing the introduction of IAS? (Policy, social, permits, geography, binational invasion, others)
- Do you collaborate with bordering countries to prevent IAS? If so, how?
- Do you think your country has the necessary policies to prevent the entry of IAS?

Management (tools and mechanisms used, challenges and best practices)
- Which tools and mechanisms do you use or consider useful for the management of IAS?
- What are the challenges you are facing or foresee regarding IAS management?
- Have you used cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness or multi-criteria methodologies for IAS management (e.g. those referred to in annex I of decision 16/18)?
- How have international databases been most helpful for IAS management in your country?

Control and eradication (tools and mechanisms used, challenges and best practices)
- Which tools and mechanisms do you use or consider useful for the control of IAS?
- What are the challenges you are facing regarding the control of IAS? (Policy, social, permits, geography, binational invasion, others)
- Do you think your country has the necessary policies and tools to control and eradicate IAS?

Needs to support the implementation of T6
- Share any gaps in information or tools that you consider could hinder the implementation of T6.
- What scientific, technical and technological advice would be most helpful for the CBD to explore to best support the implementation of T6?

1. The topic of Invasive alien species is included in the NBSAP.
2. Eswatini has the necessary Policies to address invasive species in the country.
3. Tools used in prevention of IAS is surveillance and mitigating same by cutting down all IAS, as well as policies guiding entry of certain species in the country. 
4. Lack of resources for the Government of Eswatini (GoE) due to fiscal challenges
5. The country is bordered by the Republic of South Africa and Mozambique. The cordon face in manned by Cordon guards employed by the GoE. These individuals man the border by patrolling and cutting down any IAS encroaching the country.
6. Eswatini's policies to prevent and manage invasive alien species (IAS) include the Flora Protection Bill, the Swaziland National Trust Commission (SNTC) Act, and the Swaziland Environment Authority (SEA) Act, along with the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP).
7. Tools used for the management of IAS- The country boast by the enactment of policies and legislation which guide prevention of IAS.
8. Challenges regarding IAS Management- Some Laws are extinct and some Bills are not yet passed into Laws.
9. The country has permanent and pensionable public service officers (Cordon Guards) on payroll which are on the ground managing IAS.
10. International databases, like the Global Invasive Species Database (GISD) and the Global Register of Introduced and Invasive Species (GRIIS), are crucial for preventing invasive alien species in Eswatini by providing comprehensive information on species, impacts, and pathways, which helps facilitate effective prevention and management activities.

- ¿El tema de las especies exóticas invasoras está incluido en su ENBPA?
Sí
- ¿Cree que su país tiene las políticas y herramientas necesarias para abordar la Meta 6? No, contamos con algunas pero considero que nos falta actualizarnos y ser más integrales en el abordaje de este tema.

Prevención (herramientas y mecanismos utilizados, desafíos y mejores prácticas)
- ¿Qué herramientas y mecanismos utiliza o considera útiles para prevenir la introducción de EEI (por ejemplo, inteligencia artificial, vigilancia, etc.)? Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre, Programas de manejo y control de especies invasoras, Acuerdo Ministerial,  (Nannopterum brasilianum, Columba livia, Eichhornia crassipes).
- ¿Cuáles son los desafíos que enfrenta o prevé para prevenir la introducción de EEI? (Políticas, sociales, permisos, geografía, invasión binacional, otros): Financiamiento, investigación científica, mayor interés por parte de las autoridades.
- ¿Colabora con los países limítrofes para prevenir las EEI? Si es así, ¿cómo? no
- ¿Cree que su país tiene las políticas necesarias para prevenir la entrada de EEI? no

Gestión (herramientas y mecanismos utilizados, desafíos y mejores prácticas)
- ¿Qué herramientas y mecanismos utiliza o considera útiles para la gestión de EEI? Programas de Manejo y Control
- ¿Cuáles son los desafíos que enfrenta o prevé con respecto a la gestión de EEI? Financiamiento
- ¿Ha utilizado metodologías de costo-beneficio, costo-efectividad o criterios múltiples para la gestión de EEI (por ejemplo, las mencionadas en el anexo I de la decisión 16/18)? no
- ¿Cómo han sido más útiles las bases de datos internacionales para la gestión de EEI en su país? a nivel de Consulta solamente

Control y erradicación (herramientas y mecanismos utilizados, desafíos y mejores prácticas)
- ¿Qué herramientas y mecanismos utiliza o considera útiles para el control de EEI? Programas de Manejo y Control,
- ¿Cuáles son los desafíos que enfrenta con respecto al control de EEI? (Políticas, sociales, permisos, geografía, invasión binacional, otros) Capacitación, investigación científica, interés por parte de las autoridades, financiamiento
- ¿Cree que su país cuenta con las políticas y herramientas necesarias para controlar y erradicar las EEI? no

Necesidades para apoyar la implementación de T6
- Comparta cualquier brecha en la información o herramientas que considere que podría obstaculizar la implementación de T6. Generación de nuevas capacidades, financiamiento, autosostenibilidad, poca formación en el tema.
- ¿Qué asesoramiento científico, técnico y tecnológico sería más útil que el CDB explorara para apoyar mejor la implementación del T6? Definitivamente

Thank you very much for your answers Mr. Nganono Magongo,

Could you elaborate on the type of tools that are being used for monitoring and management (e.g., in-person monitoring, community monitoring, use of technology, etc.)?
Do the Cordon guards address all types of IAS Eswatini manages?

Furthermore, if you have questions for other participants, please do not hesitate to share them.
Thank you again.

Muchas gracias por sus respuestas señor Luis Armando Pineda Peraza.

Could youd elaborate on the scientific, technical and technological advice from the CBD that would be most helpful to your country in advancing work on T6?

If there are questions you wish to ask other participants, please do not hesitate to share them on the forum.

Thank you again.

I am Marisa Sanchez, a professional technician at the Argentine Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and Fisheries, specifically the National Directorate of Livestock Production (including domestic and wild species). My technical work includes the biological and productive approach to wild boar, among other species. In our country, there is a regulatory framework for IAS through Resolution (No. 109/2021) of the Ministry of the Environment on the comprehensive management of invasive and potentially invasive alien species, in order to prevent their eventual introduction and interjurisdictional movement and promote appropriate containment, prevention, early detection, monitoring, mitigation, control, and eradication actions. Furthermore, the health authority in our country, SENASA, organizes its epidemiological surveillance system to detect pathogens in wildlife species, in collaboration with other public and private organizations, and other sectors. On the other hand, within SENASA, there is the National Commission for the Health and Welfare of Wildlife created from Resolution 542/2021 - SENASA, whose objective is: "to have a participatory environment to share and exchange relevant information on updating standards, procedures and measures for animal health and welfare, in order to strengthen governance." This commission has a Subcommittee specifically on WILD BOAR and experts from different intergovernmental, non-governmental, academic, research, and other sectors participate.

I am Diego Giberto, I work at the National Institute for Fisheries Research and Development (INIDEP) in Argentina. I am a researcher, and my main focus is on marine benthic communities associated with fisheries. In this context, I also work with invasive species (an invasive gastropod, Rapana venosa).
Some comments regarding the general guidelines:

- Is the topic of invasive alien species included in your NBSAP? Yes
- Do you think your country has the necessary policies and tools to address Target 6? We have the policies but we lack resources, at least when talking about marine invasive species.

Tools, management, prevention and erradication:

The National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan 2030 of Argentina includes goals to prevent the introduction and permanence of invasive exotic species. It also establishes actions to stop the extinction of species (https://www.argentina.gob.ar/ambiente/biodiversidad/exoticas-invasoras/estrategia). The strategies for invasive exotic species include:
1) Surveillance and risk analysis to prevent biological invasions,
2) Early warning to detect invasive exotic species, and
3) Control and eradication to manage or remove invasive exotic species.

An official list of exotic species in Argentina has been created to implement such policies: The official list of invasive and potentially invasive exotic species, approved by a collaborative effort among specialists and managers, is the first complete and official record of invasive exotic species (IES) and potentially invasive exotic species (PIES) present in the Argentine Republic. The species were classified into defined categories according to their current or potential impact and their eventual importance as economic resources. The list was constructed through various consultation mechanisms with a multitude of actors directly and indirectly involved with invasive exotic species.

What were the criteria for including a species on the list?
1. exotic species present in the national territory that have been detected in natural or semi-natural environments (invasive exotic species, IES),
2. exotic species introduced into the country that have not yet been observed in natural or semi-natural environments but have proven records of invasion in other countries (potentially invasive exotic species, PIES),
3. cryptogenic species (species whose native area of origin is not precisely known, but for which there is evidence suggesting they may have been introduced from other countries or regions),
4. native species of the national territory that have been displaced outside their native distribution areas and are found in natural or semi-natural environments in the introduction area.

The list classifies the species into two categories (https://www.argentina.gob.ar/ambiente/biodiversidad/exoticas-invasoras/lista):
Category 1: species of restricted use, that is, species with a high environmental and socioeconomic impact, and limited or no productive use.
Category 2: species of controlled use, that is, organisms important for production that, at the same time, have the ability to invade natural environments. The latter deserve management plans and productive practices that ensure a use that minimizes the proven effects of their spontaneous expansion on biodiversity and ecosystem services.

This strategy constituted a first step to organize consistent actions that prevent, correct, or mitigate this impact. The identification of the set of invasive alien species (IAS) and potentially invasive alien species (PIAS) present in the national territory was a very significant step, given that without a correct identification of the "problem" species, control, containment, or eradication actions could not be executed.

Evaluaciones de riesgo y priorización de especies

Uso de metodologías estandarizadas (como las del UICN Global Invasive Species Database) para identificar especies exóticas invasoras con mayor riesgo ecológico, social o económico.

Establecer listas negras, grises y blancas de especies según su riesgo.

Investigación sobre impacto ecológico y económico

Estudios de caso locales que evalúen el efecto de invasoras en ecosistemas, cultivos, salud humana y medios de vida.

Monitoreo ecológico comunitario

Integrar saberes locales y participación comunitaria en el monitoreo y reporte de nuevas introducciones o expansión de invasoras.

Recomendaciones técnicas útiles:
Sistemas de alerta temprana y respuesta rápida (EWRR)

Desarrollo de protocolos nacionales o regionales para actuar rápidamente ante nuevas introducciones.

Planes nacionales de manejo y erradicación

Implementación de planes específicos por especie o ecosistema, apoyados en guías técnicas del CDB y otros organismos (como FAO o UICN).

Capacitación técnica interinstitucional

Formación para técnicos de áreas protegidas, aduanas, puertos y agricultura sobre identificación y manejo de especies invasoras.

Uso de herramientas de modelación predictiva

Aplicar modelos como MaxEnt o CLIMEX para anticipar áreas de riesgo de invasión bajo escenarios de cambio climático.

Plataformas digitales para el reporte y manejo de datos

Uso de apps móviles para el monitoreo ciudadano (como iNaturalist o EDDMapS) que permitan mapear invasoras en tiempo real.

Biotecnología para control biológico

Evaluación y uso responsable de agentes de control biológico (bajo protocolos internacionales) para especies prioritarias.

Para países centroamericanos, estas recomendaciones se alinean con el enfoque del Corredor Biológico Mesoamericano, y pueden integrarse en estrategias regionales compartidas.

El fortalecimiento institucional, la financiación internacional (como del Fondo para el Medio Ambiente Mundial, FMAM) y la cooperación técnica entre países son claves para implementar estas acciones.

Lo lamento, no me había presentado aún, mi nombre es Luis Armando Pineda Peraza, soy biólogo, trabajo en el Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, Gerencia de Vida Silvestre, en El Salvador, soy coordinador de Programas Nacionales de Conservación de especies prioritarias (Felinos, Cetáceos, Tortugas Marinas y Aves), también fui el creador del Programa Nacional de Manejo y Control de Nannopterum brasilianum, he trabajado en jornadas de eliminación de lirio acuático, Eichhornia crassipes y fui Autoridad Científica CITES para fauna vertebrada terrestre, así como técnico asignado para el abordaje del control y erradicación de Columba livia.

Hi. I am Arne Witt, the Coordinator for Invasive Species Management in CABI. I have worked in over 20 LMIC around the world. Although countries have many good plans and strategies very few of them are ever actually implemented. For example, in my experience, despite having developed many NISSAP's few are ever implemented. In other words, we have great strategies, but they hardly ever see the light of day. To enhance effectiveness of IAS management we also need legislation, and that is also sorely lacking in many countries. If there are laws, they are often poorly enforced. Added to that there is a serious lack of awareness and capacity. The biggest impediment is the lack of resources. We cannot have prevention and EDRR mechanisms and undertake control interventions when we are totally dependent on donor funds. These need to be financed into perpetuity by Governments. Donor funds should be seen as a bonus. So, in my view there are many challenges which need to be addressed to enhance IAS management in LMIC.

Coincido con Arne...

Greetings everyone. My name is Pomerayi Mutete and I work for the Forestry Commiossion of Zimbabwe which is a parastatal under the Ministry of Environment, Climate and Wild Life whose mandate is the conservation of forest genetic resources. Regarding the topic #1, the status for Zimbabwe is as folloes:
Inclusion in NBSAP
Yes, Invasive Alien Species (IAS) are included in Zimbabwe’s NBSAP including the one currently under review, with actions focused on monitoring, control and awareness.
Policies and Tools for Target 6
Zimbabwe has some relevant policies (e.g., Environmental Management Act, Plant Pests and Diseases Act), but lacks a dedicated national IAS strategy and sufficient coordination.
Prevention
• Tools Used: Border phytosanitary controls, Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), public awareness, GIS mapping.
• Challenges: Limited enforcement, low public awareness, transboundary spread, and fragmented legal frameworks.
• Regional Cooperation: Informal collaboration through Transfrontier Conservation Areas and SADC processes.
• Policy Gaps: Current policies are insufficient for comprehensive IAS prevention.
Management
• Tools Used: Mechanical removal (e.g. Lantana camara, biocontrol (e.g., Selitrichodes neseri for Leptocybe invasa in Eucalyptus), community participation.
• Challenges: High costs, limited expertise, inconsistent community involvement, weak inter-agency coordination.
• Methodologies: Cost-benefit tools not yet widely used.
• Databases: Global Invasive Species Database (GISD) and CABI are useful but underutilized.
Control and Eradication
• Tools Used: Manual clearing, limited biocontrol, small-scale ecosystem restoration.
• Challenges: Lack of follow-up, re-invasion from neighbouring areas, low funding, limited political visibility.
• Policy Gaps: No unified tools or strategy for eradication.

Support Needed for T6
• Gaps: These include among others;
i. Absence of national strategy on IAS, weak integration in sectoral plans and poor sectoral coordination.
ii. Insufficient data on the spread, impacts, and socio-economic costs of IAS.
iii. Inadequate technical expertise on biological control of IAS and ecological restoration.
• Support Needed from CBD:
i. Guidance on cost-benefit tools and prioritization of IAS based on ecological and economic risks.
ii. Technical help on early warning systems and training in Artificial Intelligence (AI) -based detection and surveillance tools
iii. Establishment of regional data-sharing platforms on IAS
iv. Support for community-based control models that integrate IAS into livelihood strategies.

I am Agronomist Nouraldin Shtaya come from Palestine , i am working Currently at Biodiversity department -Environment Quality Authority  - State of Palestine
- Yes , the topic of invasive alien species included in Palestinian NBSAP .
- Palestine has the  policies and tools to address Target 6 ,Evidence of implementation of program on the ground expanding on existing
policies and procedure.
- Prevention (tools and mechanisms used, challenges and best practices)
Notes and explanations: Ensure implementation of the national strategy on invasive species
by relevant authorities including EQA, MOA (specifically in nurseries); IAS list should be adopted based on scientific data and updated regularly, the list should prioritize most dangerous species, each species should have specified combating methodologies; Setting strict laws regarding the entry of animals and plants into Palestine without the presence of studies supporting the entry process.
- there are many challenges facing or foresee in preventing the introduction of IAS ,local awareness and  economic cost ,
- There are three main strategies for controlling invasive alien species:
their introduction should be prevented in the first place. There should be a ban on intentionally keeping, breeding, cultivating, transporting, placing on the market, and importing invasive alien plants and animals.
When IAS are introduced unintentionally, the animals must be removed from the environment as quickly as possible. Plants must be destroyed.
If invasive alien populations are so large that they can no longer be caught or eradicated, measures must be taken to stop them from spreading further.
- Surely we have used Cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses ,
- Since databases are key to the prioritization and management of actions regarding invasive alien species, long-term funding is needed to support their proper operation and maintenance to ensure continued data availability in support of decision-making. In addition, access to and the
management of databases on invasive alien species require capacity building, improved technical and scientific cooperation and technology transfer. Similarly, permanent efforts are needed from the international community to maintain and update existing data systems , In addition raise awareness among people working in the fields of animal and public health, making them aware of the need to consider IAS as a health threat. Awareness and action will be influenced by and must consider the wider public perspective, not just researchers and institutions. Initiatives that aim to sensitize citizens about the health threats associated with IAS are needed to promote responsible behavior when crossing borders and to improve the general public attitude toward IAS-control and eradication programs.
Needs to support the implementation of T6
- improving regional cooperation to support the achievement of Target 6 of the Framework, through regular coordination and communication, the identification of common priorities and the alignment of efforts. This could be supported through the International Plant Protection Convention by using the model of regional plant protection organizations to foster cooperation on invasive alien species

Dear Nganono
Thank you for the information on the policy and work being done in your country. Its great to hear that you are using the GRIIS country checklist. What are you using the checklist for, and how is it helping? Can you use it look if there is any increase in the number of invasive alien species in Eswatini?

Hi Diego
Congratulations on the national invasive alien species list! Are you using this list to build an indicators that tracks changes in the number of invasive alien species in the country?

Hello everyone, I'm Zhou Xin, a Ph.D. candidate at Nanjing Agricultural University (China), specializing in the distribution and invasion mechanisms of alien invasive plants.

1、Is the topic of invasive alien species included in your NBSAP?
Yes, the issue of invasive alien species is indeed addressed in China's National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP). As a contracting party to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), China has actively responded to the Convention's requirements by incorporating the prevention and control of invasive alien species into its strategic framework for biodiversity conservation.

2、What are the challenges you are facing or foresee regarding IAS research management?

From a purely scientific research perspective, I think the current challenges mainly include the following aspects:

First, there remains a significant gap between theoretical studies and practical applications in invasion biology. Researchers must bridge this disconnect by translating their findings into actionable strategies for precise invasive species control.

Second, understanding the mechanisms behind niche shifts and rapid adaptive evolution of invasive species in non-native ranges is critical for curbing their spread. However, such research faces substantial hurdles due to the scarcity of native-range biological materials. This underscores the necessity for international collaboration, particularly between source and invaded regions/countries.

Finally, while numerous global invasive species databases exist, their impacts exhibit high regional specificity. Locally tailored invasion databases are therefore invaluable. China has established a national invasive species database, but invasive species monitoring requires long-term, dynamic observation. Wider participation from both professionals and citizen scientists is essential to enrich these datasets. Only through such collaborative efforts can we obtain the foundational data needed to analyze invasion patterns, expansion mechanisms, and distribution dynamics.

Hi Pomerayi
Thanks for the overview of policy and activity in Zimbabwe. Are you using the GRIIS checklist for Zimbabwe to help with your work? Available at: https://www.gbif.org/dataset/a943a869-9a79-4350-98f6-33cb77439aac

Hi Pomerayi - one way of getting some information on which species are a priority is if the species is listed as 'invasive' in the GRIIS country checklists. In the GRIIS checklists those species that have evidence of a negative impact on biodiversity are flagged as 'isInvasive' - this negative impact can be evidence from the country in question, or evidence from neighbouring countries or trading partners for example. There is solid scientific evidence to show that if a species has a negative impact in one country there is a good chance it will have a negative impact in other countries. So knowing if it 'isInvasive' in any country in GRIIS (and also in how many countries and if those countries are neighbours or not for example) is one way that species risk can be prioritised.

Hi Arne Witt, I fully agree with your perspective. In my opinion, the standardization of invasive species management still has a long way to go. There remain significant gaps in both policy frameworks and practical implementation, and our understanding of invasive species requires further strengthening.

Greetings everyone. My name is Melodie McGeoch. I am an ecologist and invasion biologist based at Monash University.  I work with GBIF, GEO BON and IPBES to help make data and information on invasive alien species readily and easily available to decision-makers. I work with a group of research collaborators to develop and build indicators to be used to monitor the status and trends in biological invasions at a country scale. I'll post a few resources during the online forum that may be useful for countries to use in NBSAP's or in building their own indicators.

Thank you for the resource and your interest. While the GRIIS checklist for Zimbabwe is valuable for understanding invasive species in the region, I don't rely much on it extensively in my work. This is mainly because it includes species that, while technically invasive, have naturalized and now play roles in local livelihoods—like Psidium guajava L., which provides food, or Eucalyptus spp., which provides alternative energy solutions.
Instead, I focus on species identified as problematic in Zimbabwe's Environmental Management Act. These receive priority attention, though emerging threats, such as Opuntia spp., are also being actively addressed due to their immediate ecological risks. That said, I appreciate the importance of tools like GRIIS for broader context and reference.

Hello,
My name is Dr. PAGNY Franck Placide Junior, a Lecturer-Researcher at Jean Lorougnon Guédé University in Daloa, Côte d’Ivoire. In my country, several initiatives have been implemented to combat invasive alien plant species. Chemical control measures have notably been undertaken, such as the use of sodium chloride to manage Salvinia molesta Mitchell and Pistia stratiotes L. In addition, a list of plant species resilient to Lantana camara invasion has been established in the coconut plantations of southeastern Côte d’Ivoire. In Azagny National Park, another study identified indicator plant species of ecosystems invaded by Chromolaena odorata (L.) King & Robinson. Finally, mechanical control has been applied against Hopea odorata Roxb. (Dipterocarpaceae), an invasive alien species found in Banco National Park. At the institutional level, a Sub-Directorate for the Management of Polluted Sites and the Control of Invasive Aquatic Plants has been established. Regarding the regulation of the movement of invasive alien species, a border control system is in place. As part of the Access and Benefit-Sharing (ABS) framework, prior authorization is required for the movement of such species. Moreover, Côte d’Ivoire has established lists of species prohibited from importation as well as quarantine lists. However, despite the existence of these regulatory frameworks, their effective implementation remains uncertain.

Arne Witt, CABI. I find it interesting and concerning that countries are not willing to list conflict species, that is species that are known to be invasive but have some uses. It should be noted that most of our invasive plants were intentionally introduced as ornamentals or agro-forestry species. In other words, some sectors of society find them useful, even make money from them, but at the same time they may have negative impacts on water resources or other ecosystem services. Would we not classify lantana as invasive because its gets used by many people as a living hedge or as a pretty plant in gardens. Would we not say that parthenium is invasive because a few people use it for medicinal purposes. Would we not say Acacia mearnsii or prosopis is invasive because some people use these species for fuelwood. Feral guavas not only displace native plant species but increase and sustain fruitfly populations which then impact on farmers. This means that farmers have to use more pesticides, which has negative impacts on agro-diversity and human health. It is critical that all species that have negative impacts, even if they also have some positive attributes be listed as invasive. Otherwise we will run into a classification conundrum.

About the Topic#1 Discussions on tools and mechanisms used, challenges and best practices about the prevention, management, control and eradication of invasive alien species, towards the implementation of Target 6 of the Framework, in particular to facilitate international and regional cooperation:

The topic of invasive alien species included in NBSAP. We have the regulatory framework at the national level, institutions, and their human resources with expertise to carry it out. But the lack of resources could be one of the bottlenecks for undertaking long-term projects. This will vary depending on the species we wish to control, geographic area, impact level, potential sustainable use, etc.
Estrategia Nacional sobre Especies Exóticas Invasoras | Argentina.gob.ar

The regulatory framework allows for species to be organized, listed, classified, and categorized. Domestic and wild livestock species used commercially are included in the controlled use category. The production chain's capacity control and health surveillance are carried out. Regarding the “wild boar” species, which has the greatest impact, each province is sovereign and decides which tools to use depending on the species' impact. Hunting activity is typically used for control, and the various methods are used. This varies greatly from province to province and does not mean that the population increase nationwide is under control. The need for resources is proportional to the impact this species generates across our vast and diverse territory; likewise, this species is currently on the agenda. The experiences of other countries with control tools are considered relevant input; they are taken as a reference, and the potential for success in our country is previously evaluated.

Arne Witt - CABI. - sources of information on IAS
I have now compiled 10 regional and country-based IAS field guides all of which are available online at no cost. These are mainly based on roadside surveys and supported by published and unpublished sources. Every database that I have used, and I have used many has its challenges and shortcomings. Most databases are a serious underestimate of the number of IAS present in a country. Many contardict each other. Many list species that are not present or are native but again the origin of many sources is often disputed. All I can suggest is that you never only rely on one database when developing inventories. Use them all, interrogate them all, and dig deeper when there are contradictions.

You raise an important point there, Arne. If you check my earlier post, I highlighted that the reason why I don't use the GRIIS checklist is because some of the species contained in that list have naturalised and are actually offering benefits to communities, and I have also given some examples. This is one area I find difficult to deal with, especially where nations are to collaborate beyond borders. There is a danger that while one nation considers a particular species invasive, in a bordering country it could be beneficial, posing challenges in terms of managing the species.

Arne Witt - CABI
Dear Pomerayi - We need to try to apply the definition of IAS when developing our lists/inventories. These conflict species, like guava, have benefits but also significant costs. The definition does not say that if a plant is used for medicine, or whatever, it is no longer an IAS. It is important that this be recognized. In-country you may want to undertake a cost-benefit analysis to see if action against a species is warranted. In terms of controlling cross-border IAS. Think we need to cross that bridge when we get there. Sadly, there are few initiatives at controlling cross-border IAS, especially plants. Happy to discuss further a.witt@cabi.org

There is a need to define the characteristics of an alien invasive species that will be accepted universally otherwise all these introduced species were introduced by and for people who maybe picked them for some aesthetic value and when they got to the new places, they multiplied more rapid than the natural species could cope. The issue of psidium guajava is a typical example as much as it provides food, it invades every acre it has dispersed its seed. In Eswatini, these are a breeding site for fruitfly which threatens the fruit industry.

Dear Professor Melodie McGeoch, I look forward to the updated database link you will share.

Thank you for your participation in this forum.

Xin Zhou - Could you please elaborate on what you mean by the "standardization of invasive species management"? Do you mean sharing knowledge (e.g., through the sharing of risk assessments or putting information in local and international databases for example) to facilitate research on IAS and the development of management measures that would be adapted at the local level or do you have more than that in mind?

Thank you again for your participation.

Thank you for your participation in the online forum Nouraldin Shtaya.

With regards to lists of IAS that need to be updated - are those lists legislated in your State? Processes to update lists of IAS in Canada, for example, can sometime take a few years to complete. The process is thus long, but also necessary to help address IAS and prevent the entry of IAS that have not yet entered Canada.
Some countries, or group of countries, like the European Union, seem to have a clear system in place to update legislated or regulated lists of species, and learning from those experience with regards to how those processes was set up would be very interesting.

With regards to the guidance on cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis, could you provide more information on how the CBD guidance was useful for that and what criteria are being used? Have these analysis helped prioritize specific management actions or specific IAS in your State?

Thank you again.

Thank you for your participation in the Forum Ms. Marisa Elisabet Sanchez.

Efforts to address IAS are also shared between the federal government and provinces and territories in Canada. How does Argentina work with provinces to help support an integrated governance on IAS, as recommended by the IPBES Thematic Assessment of IAS and their Control?

In addition, with regards to wild boar, is the role of the federal government in Argentina to provide the scientific information needed in order for the provinces to be able to better manage IAS and wild boar in this instance?

Thank you again.

Thank you for your participation in the forum Pomerayi Mutete.

With regards to GIS mapping - is this a tool that is being used a lot in Zimbabwe? What kind of IAS has GIS mapping been more effective for?

You raise an interesting point about the use of IAS as a control method. This question is not one that has been explored too much in Canada for fear that it could eventually lead to a greater spread of IAS and resistance from those benefitting from controlling the IAS. This topic is likely one that  will come up again given the trends on IAS.

Thank you again.

Merci de votre participation au forum en ligne Dr. Pagny.

The Jean Lorougnon Guédé University has a very interesting mandate that can really support science and technical knowledge to help address IAS. Does your institution work closely with government officials to help share results of your research and help influence IAS and IAS efforts prioritization?

Merci encore.

An updated list of exotic plant species, along with a classification of invasive alien species based on their environmental impacts, has been established for Côte d’Ivoire. This work is grounded in a comprehensive review of previous botanical studies, data from the invasive species database of the Herbarium of the National Centre for Floristics, and field observations conducted by Professor Aké-Assi. Additionally, several international online databases were consulted, including the World Invasive Species Database, the CABI Invasive Species Compendium, the Global Register of Introduced and Invasive Species (GRIIS), the Global Naturalized Alien Flora (GloNAF) initiative, the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), and the list of invasive plants in West Africa.

The Ivorian flora comprises a total of 851 introduced or exotic plant species, distributed across 524 genera and 137 families, including 127 cultivated species and 724 naturalized species. Among the naturalized taxa, 28 are classified as confirmed invasive species, 34 as potentially invasive, 283 as species requiring monitoring, and 379 as species without an established status. The classification of the 28 confirmed invasive species indicates that 4 are associated with massive environmental impacts (MA), 10 with major impacts (MR), 6 with moderate impacts (MO), and 8 with minor impacts (MI).

In Côte d'Ivoire, the issue of invasive alien species (IAS) still receives limited attention, and the results of research conducted are unfortunately not sufficiently valorized. However, the biodiversity focal point plays a crucial role in raising awareness among government authorities about the threats these species pose to local biodiversity. To date, no financial resources have been specifically allocated to research on invasive species. The results obtained so far have been funded through external partnerships, notably with the International Foundation for Science (IFS). Our current objective is to secure funding from international organizations to conduct large-scale research on IAS in Côte d'Ivoire. These species pose a serious threat to our National Parks and Reserves, and it is crucial that management actions, based on reliable scientific data, be implemented to mitigate their impacts.

Indeed, GIS is used quite extensively in the management of IAS in Zimbabwe.  It is primarily used for mapping the occurrence and geographical spread of IAS. To that effect, distribution maps of the priority IAS have been produced and are used to allocate resources for the management of IAS as well as inform policy. In my view, the use of GIS mapping has been very effective for terrestrial IAS, especially for floristic IAS.

Thank you everyone for another great day of discussion.

We look forward to hearing about you again and for all participants to take part in this discussion.

I wish to share with you that the 83rd session of the International Maritime Organization (IMO)'s Marine Environment Protection Committee adopted, today, a proposal linked to the Development of a legally binding framework for the control and management of ships' biofouling to minimize the transfer of invasive aquatic species. This means that the IMO will soon be starting work to lead to the creation of a legally binding framework with regards to biofouling.

Theofanis Karayannis, Head of Marine Biosafety at the IMO, had mentioned this proposal to those who attended the CBD Webinar on IAS, which took place on March 26, 2025. His presentation was one of the few presentations that were provided by members of the Inter-Agency Liaison group on IAS.

Thank you, and we hope that the discussion on the issue of IAS continues tomorrow and in the coming days.
Rachel

Hello Colleagues,

I am Hui Wei, a researcher from China Biodiversity Conservation and Green Development Foundation. I work on the ecology and risk analysis of non-native species. I will share my knowledge about the tools/methods for the prevention and eradication of non-native fish that we used in the past few years.

For the prevention:
The identification of potentially invasive non-native is an effective strategy to reduce threats to native biodiversity (Simberloff, 2014) and represents the first of the four-phase risk analysis process (i.e. risk identification, risk assessment, risk management, and communication). In this regard, a decision-supporting tool, AQUATIC SPECIES INVASIVENESS SCREENING KIT (AS-ISK; Copp et al., 2016a; Copp et al., 2021), which originated from WRA, has been widely used to identify the invasiveness of non-native aquatic species. The screening protocol consists of 55 questions, 49 of which represent the basic risk assessment (BRA) and six of which represent the climate change assessment (CCA).

The BRA questions encompass two sections with eight categories. Section A of ‘Biogeography/Invasion history’ includes the categories ‘Domestication/Cultivation’ (C1), ‘Climate, distribution and introduction risk’ (C2), and ‘Invasive elsewhere’ (C3). Section B of ‘Biology/Ecology’ includes the categories ‘Undesirable (or persistence) traits’ (C4), ‘Resource exploitation’ (C5), ‘Reproduction’ (C6), ‘Dispersal mechanisms’ (C7), and ‘Tolerance attributes’ (C8).

The CCA questions (Section C) require the assessor to predict how future predicted climatic conditions are likely to affect the BRA with respect to risks of introduction, establishment, dispersal, and impact.

To implement the assessment, a risk assessment area should be provided. At least three assessors conducted the assessment to reduce the subjective interference. The assessors use horizon scan to answer the questions in the protocol, i.e. the justification should be provided for each response. The main challenge for this tool is whether we have enough information on the non-native species, which will affect the confidence level of the outcomes.

There are a few principles should be followed when applying the outcomes to policy-making. 1. Support decision makers to make decisions, but not make decisions. 2. The results of the assessment are applicable only to the specific risk assessment area. 3. Assessors assess only detrimental effects, and decision makers weigh the cost and benefit. 4. Based on currently available information and climate. 5. Precautions are usually not taken and left to decision makers. 6. Assessments are dynamic and need to be reassessed when new information is available.

In the future, a combination of expert’s knowledge and large language model can be developed to increase the objectivity of the outcomes.

For the eradication:
The eradication of invasive aquatic species is challenging due to the invisibility of these species. In the practice, a good plan can determine the success of the eradication. Firstly, the background information on the target ecosystem should be collected including topography, water physicochemical property, biocoenosis, food web structure, etc. The methods or tools could be selected based on the information. I will talk about an eradication activity on sailfin catfish (Pterygoplichthys pardalis) in a reservoir last year. Firstly, we conducted a survey on the ecological aspects, i.e. fish assemblage, topography etc., as well as the social aspect, i.e. how indigene people (e.g. fishman and fisheries agency) deal with the issues on sailfin catfish. With combination of the knowledge on the habits and spread of this species, we used attracting bait, shrimp cage and gill net to catch the catfish. Additionally, we also encouraged local fishmen collecting the catfish and give to us for harmless disposal. Although this activity was not effective enough, it takes the first step to take action against the invasion of this species. More efforts are doing on the optimization of eradication tools, i.e. specific piscicide, attracting baits, autonomous underwater vehicle etc.

We are also looking forward to the collaboration on the prevention and eradication of invasive aquatic species.

All the best,
Hui

Kia Orana, my name is Elizabeth Munro, I work with the National Environment Service in the Cook Islands. I have worked extensively with control and eradication of invasive species in the Cook Islands.

TO Ms. Rachel Ariey-Jouglard, Canada on 2025-04-08 15:46.

Thank you very much for your question. I'd like to take this opportunity to tell you that I lived in Guelph, Ontario, for a year, and my best and most memorable experience was in your country!

I answer after each question: Efforts to address IAS are also shared between the federal government and the provinces and territories of Canada. How does Argentina collaborate with the provinces to support integrated governance of IAS, as recommended by the IPBES Thematic Assessment on IAS and its Control? Here, the provinces are sovereign. They decide on their natural resources. Regarding wildlife, the provincial enforcement authority is the Provincial Wildlife Directorate: they are the ones who decide, control, oversee, etc., both native and exotic fauna. Therefore, in the case of wild boar, and depending on the level of impact this species generates in their jurisdiction, they determine whether or not to carry out hunting activities, the method, type of extraction, requirements for hunters, producers (when it is carried out within a productive property), etc. If there is an area protected by National Parks in that province, the jurisdiction over that territory within the province falls to the National Parks; they are independent. Therefore, the National Environment Ministry, which provided the national regulatory framework for IAS, as I mentioned in my previous communication, has implemented various support strategies. One example is pilot projects on the red-bellied squirrel. We (SAGyP), the Environment Ministry, and Senasa (the national animal health ministry) are currently working on the possibility of conducting a pilot project on wild boar control, specifically in three provinces that correspond to the NEA region of the country. This is in its infancy. The idea is to support provincial livestock authorities and provincial wildlife directorates in this project, including the provincial health authority, etc., etc., since there is significant demand from livestock producers and farmers, and we also have native fauna in part of that territory that is endangered by wild boar, I am referring to the pampas deer (Ozotoceros bezoarticus). The National Environment Agency is the one that would contribute strategic financial resources. I hope you understood.

Additionally, with regard to wild boar, is the role of the federal government in Argentina to provide the scientific information needed for the provinces to be able to better manage IAS and wild boar in this instance? In our country, there is the INTA (National Institute of Agricultural Technology), a decentralized agency that reports to SAGyP (National Institute of Agricultural Technology), and its level of research is one of the highest in the country. Universities also collaborate in generating relevant information. There is the National Council for Scientific and Technical Research (CONICET), an autonomous body that also collaborates with research. And within the national health agency (SENASA), there are committees for each topic made up of national experts, whether academics, researchers, professional technicians, etc. There is a wildlife commission (I participate in it), and within this commission is the wild boar commission. The National Park Administration, dependent on the Vice Chief of Staff of the Interior, manages the country's most important protected areas as spaces for the conservation of natural and cultural heritage, research, sustainable tourism, and local development.

SAGyP: https://www.argentina.gob.ar/ganaderia
AMBIENTE: https://www.argentina.gob.ar/ambiente/biodiversidad/exoticas-invasoras
SENASA: https://www.argentina.gob.ar/senasa
INTA: https://www.argentina.gob.ar/inta
NATIONAL PARKS: https://www.argentina.gob.ar/interior/parquesnacionales
CONICET: https://www.conicet.gov.ar/

My email is mesanch@magyp.com.ar.
We can exchange information or send you the information about other EEI that you need. we keep in touch.

Dear Ms. Rachel Ariey-Jouglard,By "standardization of invasive species management," I refer to the systematic development of end-to-end protocols aimed at successful invasive species control. This encompasses international and national legislation, followed by implementation and participation across all levels, from government agencies to individuals.

Taking China as an example, I believe research and management of invasive species here is still in its early stages, albeit growing rapidly. In 2021, China enacted the Biosecurity Law of the People's Republic of China to strengthen biosecurity governance and mitigate biological risks. Article 60 explicitly mandates enhanced prevention and response to invasive species to protect biodiversity.

In 2022, China promulgated the Measures for the Management of Invasive Alien Species (Joint Order No. 4 by the Ministries of Agriculture, Natural Resources, Ecology & Environment, and Customs), followed by nationwide surveys at provincial, municipal, and county levels. While the government prioritizes invasive species management, critical gaps remain:

Species Identification Challenges:

Taxonomically more complex than native species due to limited reference materials.

Many field investigators lack specialized training, and some invasives are morphologically similar to native species.

Dynamic Monitoring Needs:

Classification criteria should adapt to new data, requiring sustained funding and manpower for real-time updates.

Although China’s Invasive Alien Species Database is publicly accessible, it lacks real-time distribution tracking.

Implementation Barriers:

Public awareness remains inadequate. For instance, horticultural introductions often bypass rigorous invasion risk assessments.

Species bred for hardiness (a gardener’s preference) often exhibit high invasiveness due to phenotypic plasticity.

Illegal trade of prohibited species persists among collectors.

China’s growing science communication efforts aim to mainstream invasive species awareness. Through persistent outreach, we hope to embed prevention principles in public consciousness while advancing research on invasion mechanisms—a key focus for the field.

Dear Ms. Marisa Elisabet Sanchez,
Your insights were truly enlightening. This also highlights a gap in China's invasive species management—while all our current standards are formulated at the national level, the country's diverse climatic conditions result in significant regional variations in invasive species composition and severity across provinces. We should learn from your country's approach to establish more comprehensive, region-specific invasive species lists and tailored prevention measures at the earliest opportunity.

To by Ms. Xin Zhou, Global Youth Online Union on 2025-04-09 10:59.

Thank you for your comment. In any case, we all have many bottlenecks to work on, resolve, and learn from. Each country has its own strengths and weaknesses. Best regards. Marisa

Dear international experts and colleagues,
I would like to share some background on my current research subject, Ageratum conyzoides (tropical American origin, primarily Mexico and adjacent regions), and seek your assistance. In China, this species is progressively expanding into higher-latitude, colder regions. My Ph.D. project aims to unravel its adaptive evolutionary mechanisms enabling this latitudinal expansion.

While I have characterized phenotypic, physiological, and partial molecular differentiation across its invasive populations in China, the lack of access to native-range specimens prevents comparative trait analysis. Could you kindly advise:

Which databases or platforms might provide native-range growth parameters (e.g., plant height, biomass, flowering time) for A. conyzoides?

If such data are unavailable, might any collaborators from tropical America assist with field observations?

I warmly welcome opportunities for collaborative research on this species. Please feel free to contact me at: 2018216005@njau.edu.cn.

Arne Witt - CABI
South Africa, like other countries have grouped IAPS in different categories. The IAPS lists are also based on provinces, so you may have an IAPS that is classed as a Category 1a weed in one province but may not be listed as a declared weed in another. The difficulty here is enforcement because IAPS do not adhere to political boundaries. For example, a river may be a provincial boundary, so it may have to be controlled on the one side of the river but not the other. That does not make sense. So how will countries address this issue since IAS distribution is not determined by politicians.

Greetings everyone. My name is Nathan Sangombe. I am a Researcher specialising in biological control of Invasive Alien Plants at Plant Protection Research Institute (PPRI) under Research Services Department, Agricultural Research Innovation and Specialist Services Directorate in the Ministry of Lands, Agriculture, Fisheries, Water and Rural Development (Zimbabwe). Plant Protection Research Institute is mandated to do research on pests and diseases management technologies including Invasive Alien Species. Biocontrol programmes at PPRI dates back to the 1960s. Zimbabwe has recorded some notable successes in biocontrol of aquatic invasive alien species such as Pontederia crassipes, Salvinia molesta, Pistia stratiotes and Azolla filliculloide. On terrestrial IAS, only lacebug, Teleonemia scrupulosa Stål (Hemiptera: Tingidae) was introduced on Lantana camara, however, 11 insect species that are regarded as successful biocontrol agents in South Africa have been identified in Zimbabwe. These may have spread naturally  from the neighbouring country. Interventions such as mechanical and chemical control methods have also been implemented achieving short term results, very costly and posed health challenges on non-target species. PPRI is strengthening biocontrol research in Zimbabwe so as to manage IAS sustainably. Currently PPRI is collaborating with Environmental Management Agency, a parastatal under the Ministry of Environment, Climate and Wildlife and Centre for Biological Control (Rhodes University of South Africa) on spearheading research on biocontrol of IAS. The Institute is looking forward to have more partnerships and collaborations on Biocontrol of Invasive Alien Plants and Insect pests.
In regards with Topic 1:

i.  Is the topic of invasive alien species included in your NBSAP?
-Yes, Invasive Alien Species (IAS) are included in Zimbabwe’s NBSAP

ii.  Ppolicies and tools to address Target 6?
Yes, the country has necessary policies and tools to address target 6 i.e Environmental Management Act Chapter 20.27, Plant Pests and Diseases Act (Chapter 19.08), Noxious Weeds Act (CAP 19:07), Parks and Wild Life Act Chapter 20:14, Forest Act Chapter 19:05,

Prevention (tools and mechanisms used, challenges and best practices)
iii. Tools and mechanisms used or considered useful for preventing the introduction of IAS in Zimbabwe are:
-Implementing quarantine measures to prevent entry and spread of IAS, Pest risk analysis, Early warning systems on IAS, awareness campaigns.

iv. Challenges
-Limited enforcement, low public awareness, growth in international trade increasing the risk of introduction of IAS, and fragmented legal frameworks.

v. Do you collaborate with bordering countries to prevent IAS? If so, how?
Yes, we do collabotions on research and management of IAS with Center for Biological Control (Rhodes University), COMESA, CABI, FAO
vi. Do you think your country has the necessary policies to prevent the entry of IAS?
- Yes but they are insufficient for comprehensive IAS prevention, and they need to be reviewed regularly

Management
i. Which tools and mechanisms do you use or consider useful for the management of IAS?
Mechanical control on both terrestrial and aquatic invasive plants (e.g Australian Acacia spp. (Acacia mearnsi and Acacia dealbata), Pontederia crassipes  and Salvinia molesta), Chemical control on Pontederia crassipes and Salvinia molesta), Biological control- Niphograpta albiguttalis, Neochetina eichhorniae and N. bruchi, Ecritotarsus spp. and Megamellus scutellaris on Pontederia crassipes, Cyrtobagous salviniae  and Paulinia acuminata on Salvinia molesta, Neohydronomus affinis on Pistia stratiotes, Stenopelmus rufinasus on Azolla filliculloide)
Aceria lantanae Cook on Lantana camara, Dactilopius opuntiae on Opuntia spp. and an Integrated IAS management approach

-ii. Challenges
-High costs of mechanical and chemical control measures, health threats to non-target species (Chemical control), limited expertise, limited awareness programmes on IAS, lack of collaborative approach amongst IAS management agencies, lack of technical working groups on management of IAS, mobility, lack of state of the art rearing facilities, Lack of resources to decentralize rearing facilities to provinces

iii.  Cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness or multi-criteria methodologies for IAS management.
- they are not fully utilised
iv. Databases: GBIF, iNaturalist, Flora of Zimbabwe, Global Invasive Species Database (GISD) have been very useful in management of IAS

Control and eradication
i.  Tools and mechanisms
Physical (Mechanical and manual removal), biological control of terrestrial and aquatic alien invasive plants and insect pests, Implementation of an integrated management approach
ii.  What are the challenges you are facing regarding the control of IAS? (Policy, social, permits, geography, binational invasion, others)
Inadequate funding, unsustainable raw effluent management and agricultural practices, re-invasion and succession by other invasive plants after successful management, lack of awarenes programmes,  conflicting interests e.g Venanonthura polyanthes (Bee bush) which is considered to be excellent in attracting pollinators in honey industry and have some medicinal uses despite being invasive.
-iii. Do you think your country has the necessary policies and tools to control and eradicate IAS?
Yes, but some of them lacks adequate enforcement

Needs to support the implementation of T6
i. Gaps in information or tools that could hinder the implementation of T6

-There is need to update the list of IAS in the country, some of the invasive plants are not yet included on the list of IAS
-Limited collaborative work amongst stakeholders and lack of technical working groups on IAS
-Lack of information on the distribution and socio-economic impacts as well as sustainable management interventions of IAS.-. What scientific, technical and technological advice would be most helpful for the CBD to explore to best support the implementation of T6?
- Strengthening Collaborative work and formation of technical working groups on different IAS
-Financial support to carry out surveillance programmes
- Establishment of regional data-sharing platforms on IAS
- Resource mobilisation
- Capacity building on IAS

-

Is the topic of invasive alien species included in Uruguay's NBSAP (National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan)?

Yes, the topic of invasive alien species (IAS) is included in Uruguay's NBSAP. It addresses the prevention, management, and control of IAS as a priority for preserving biodiversity and achieving sustainable development goals.

Do you think Uruguay has the necessary policies and tools to address Target 6?
While Uruguay has foundational policies and tools for addressing IAS, such as frameworks and national strategies, there is a recognized need to further enhance and modernize these policies for more comprehensive and effective implementation of Target 6.

Which tools and mechanisms do you use or consider useful for preventing the introduction of IAS?
Tools include environmental surveillance systems, databases like the Global Register of Introduced and Invasive Species (GRIIS), and customs regulations. Additionally, public awareness campaigns play a role in prevention efforts. In Uruguay there is a database created by the Faculty of Sciences of the University of the Republic (inBUy), which is extremely useful for the work against invasive species.

What are the challenges you are facing or foresee in preventing the introduction of IAS? Key challenges include limited funding, gaps in scientific research, insufficient training for personnel, and the complexity of geographical borders. The risk of binational invasions also poses significant difficulties in coordination and management.

Do you collaborate with bordering countries to prevent IAS? If so, how? Uruguay engages in some level of regional collaboration, particularly with neighboring countries like Argentina and Brazil, but there is room to strengthen these cooperative efforts through shared protocols and joint monitoring.

Do you think Uruguay has the necessary policies to prevent the entry of IAS?
Current policies are a good starting point but require further refinement and adaptation to emerging threats, particularly concerning stronger enforcement mechanisms and international cooperation.

Which tools and mechanisms do you use or consider useful for the management of IAS? Programs for species-specific management, international databases for prioritizing actions, and community-based monitoring initiatives have proven effective tools.

What are the challenges you are facing or foresee regarding IAS management? Funding constraints, limited technical capacity, and insufficient legislative support are among the main barriers to successful IAS management in Uruguay.

Have you used cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, or multi-criteria methodologies for IAS management? While such methodologies are recognized as valuable, their application in Uruguay is still limited due to resource and knowledge gaps.

How have international databases been most helpful for IAS management in Uruguay? International databases like GISD and GRIIS are instrumental in identifying high-risk species, prioritizing interventions, and facilitating research collaborations.

Which tools and mechanisms do you use or consider useful for the control of IAS? Control efforts often involve species-specific eradication programs, biological control under international guidelines, and targeted monitoring systems.

What are the challenges you are facing regarding the control of IAS?
The challenges include the lack of constant funding, the lack of trained personnel in public institutions, limited public awareness, and logistical difficulties due to the geography of the spread of invasive species.

Do you think Uruguay has the necessary policies and tools to control and eradicate IAS? Existing policies provide a foundation, but significant improvements in enforcement, resource allocation, and public-private partnerships are needed to achieve effective control and eradication.

Share any gaps in information or tools that you feel could hinder the implementation of T6. Uruguay needs to generate new capacities, improve the self-sustainability of projects and strengthen regional cooperation.

What scientific, technical and technological advice would be most useful for the CBD to explore to better support the implementation of T6? Standardized protocols, early warning systems, and predictive modeling tools would be very useful.

Kia orana, my name is Julianna Marsters. I work for the Palmerston Island Administration as the Agriculture and Biosecurity officer in the Cook Islands. I participated in an eradication of invasive species in Palmerston.

I am Jemilat Aliyu Ibrahim, a Research Fellow at the National Institute for Pharmaceutical Research and Development, Abuja, Nigeria. I head the department of Medicinal Plant Research and Traditional medicine. It is a department saddled with responsibility of development of Phytomedicines from the country’s indigenous species base on traditional knowledge. I am plant taxonomist with experience on the country plant biodiversity, their distribution and uses.
My responses are:
General
• IAS is included the country’s NBSAP
• As far as I know, the country does not have a strong or necessary policy/polices to tackle AIS.
Prevention (tools and mechanisms used, challenges and best practices)
• Prevention tools and mechanism: – surveillance, updating the baseline data on AIS in the country, awareness creation on danger of exotic species, capacity building of expertise on AIS,
• So many challenges will be face in preventing introduction of AIS- lack of necessary policy to guide operation, lack of baseline data on IAS in country, lack of synergy among agencies and Stakeholders involved with AIS, border control, the geographical location of the country with many border countries.  
• There is no tangible collaboration with border countries on prevention of AIS for now. But this is item included in the reviewed NBSAP.
• The country does not have the necessary policy/policies for prevention of AIS
Management (tools and mechanisms used, challenges and best practices)
• Which tools and mechanisms do you use or consider useful for the management of IAS? :- awareness creation on the implication of AIS in the country, prevent spread as much as possible, find alternate use for the AIS, Eradication,
• What are the challenges you are facing or foresee regarding IAS management? :- Lack of baseline data on AIS in the country, lack of data on the agencies and stakeholders involved with AIS, Lack of synergy and collaboration among stakeholders and agencies, lack of necessary policy/policies, lack of funding for survey and research, lack of knowledge on the dangers of introduction of exotic species, etc
• Have you used cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness or multi-criteria methodologies for IAS management (e.g. those referred to in annex I of decision 16/18)? :- None that I am aware of.
• How have international databases been most helpful for IAS management in your country?
Control and eradication (tools and mechanisms used, challenges and best practices)
• Which tools and mechanisms do you use or consider useful for the control of IAS?: - total removal,
• What are the challenges you are facing regarding the control of IAS? (Policy, social, permits, geography, binational invasion, others)?:- Lack of baseline data on AIS in the country, lack of data on the agencies and stakeholders involved with AIS, Lack of synergy and collaboration among stakeholders and agencies, lack of necessary policy/policies to be enforced, funding for survey and research, lack of knowledge on the dangers of introduction of exotic species, etc
• Do you think your country has the necessary policies and tools to control and eradicate IAS?: - No
Needs to support the implementation of T6
• Share any gaps in information or tools that you consider could hinder the implementation of T6. – lack of updated database of AIS already in the country and possible AIS that could invade the country, the unavailability of the necessary policies and framework, lack of fund for survey and research, lack of synergy among responsible stakeholders and agencies, lack necessary expertise on AIS,
• What scientific, technical and technological advice would be most helpful for the CBD to explore to best support the implementation of T6?: awareness creation, updating the baseline date on AIS in Nigeria, strengthening research on impact of AIS, strengthening the capacity of quarantine officers, capacity building of experts on AIS, strengthening border control, early warning signal mechanism, etc.

Very true. summary of my experience too.

Thank you for this information. I will be waiting for the resources as we have it in our reviewed NBSAP to update the baseline data of AIS in the country. the material will be of immerse value.

Hi everybody
My name is Marina Landeiro. I work at the Biodiversity Conservation Department of the Brazilian Ministry of the Environment.
I completely agree with Arne. We have had the National Strategy for Invasive Species established since 2018, but we are only now starting to implement it by publishing a list of invasive species that occur in protected areas (https://www.gov.br/icmbio/pt-br/assuntos/biodiversidade/manejo-de-especies-exoticas-invasoras/listas-de-eei-em-ucs).
The next steps for this year are implementing an Early Detection System and publishing another list for the entire Brazilian territory, including protected areas.
One of the great challenges for Brazil is the negotiation with the fishing and aquaculture sectors.

saludos,
Soy Mario Sagastizado, soy biologo de profesion, laboro en la empresa de generacion hidroelectrica Comision Ejecutiva Hidroelectrica del Río Lempa (CEL), de El Salvador, en la oficina de Recursos Naturales de la Unidad Ambiental.  Desde esta Comisión se ha vinculado con evaluaciones y acciones de control de especies invasoras en apoyo al Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (MARN) en embalses hidroelectricos. Con respecto al topico 1, comparto algunos comentarios:

-¿El tema de las especies exóticas invasoras está incluido en su ENBPA?
El país si tiene incluido el tema de las especies invasoras (ENB 2013)

- ¿Cree que su país tiene las políticas y herramientas necesarias para abordar la Meta 6? El país cuenta con algunas iniciativas para abordar la meta 6 en el sentido de controlar algunas especies, y ha ejecutado acciones puntuales en ecosistemas particulares. Se han desarrollado algunas evaluaciones del impacto de dichas especies y apoyado acciones de control preventivo. Por ejemplo la autoridad ambiental (MARN) desarrolló una guía para atender el control de E.Crassipes (2019) en humedales.

Prevención (herramientas y mecanismos utilizados, desafíos y mejores prácticas)
- ¿Qué herramientas y mecanismos utiliza o considera útiles para prevenir la introducción de EEI (por ejemplo, inteligencia artificial, vigilancia, etc.)?
Reglamentación Ambiental (Ley de Medio Ambiente, vida silvestre, áreas naturales protegidas, zonificación ambiental, Marco de la Convención Ramsar.

- ¿Cuáles son los desafíos que enfrenta o prevé para prevenir la introducción de EEI? (Políticas, sociales, permisos, geografía, invasión binacional, otros):
Mayor divulgación sobre las especies invasivas y sus efectos locales.
Fortalecimiento de programas de monitoreo periódico de las especies invasoras identificadas en los ecosistemas relevantes (humedales, ecosistemas terrestre, zona costero-marina), cuerpos de aguas compartidos (binacionales y trinacionales).
Seguimiento de la evaluación de factores climáticos, calidad de agua y otros elementos biofísicos que incidan en el desarrollo y persistencia de especies invasivas.
- ¿Colabora con los países limítrofes para prevenir las EEI? Si es así, ¿cómo?
El país comparte recursos hídricos con Guatemala y Honduras en la cuenca del Río Lempa. Además de zonas costero marinas (Golfo de Fonseca)
- ¿Cree que su país tiene las políticas necesarias para prevenir la entrada de EEI?
desconozco si existen alguna política especifica.

Gestión (herramientas y mecanismos utilizados, desafíos y mejores prácticas)

- ¿Qué herramientas y mecanismos utiliza o considera útiles para la gestión de EEI?
Contar con programas de identificación, caracterización y control preventivo de especies invasoras
Programas de evaluación periódica de las condiciones de degradación de ecosistemas, ejemplo humedales, sitios Ramsar, embalses, otros.

- ¿Cuáles son los desafíos que enfrenta o prevé con respecto a la gestión de EEI?
Mayor divulgación sobre las especies invasivas y sus efectos locales.
Definir prioridades de control de las especies invasivas,
Mayor colaboración de las instituciones relacionadas con la gestión de recursos naturales, fortalecimiento de capacidades institucionales para evaluar el estado de impacto de las especies invasivas en los ecosistemas críticos.

- ¿Ha utilizado metodologías de costo-beneficio, costo-efectividad o criterios múltiples para la gestión de EEI (por ejemplo, las mencionadas en el anexo I de la decisión 16/18)? No.

- ¿Cómo han sido más útiles las bases de datos internacionales para la gestión de EEI en su país?
No consultadas.

Control y erradicación (herramientas y mecanismos utilizados, desafíos y mejores prácticas)

- ¿Qué herramientas y mecanismos utiliza o considera útiles para el control de EEI?
Programas específicos de caracterización, manejo y Control de especies relevantes , por ejemplo, cormorán, plantas acuáticas, otros.
Mayor colaboración de las instituciones relacionadas con la gestión de recursos naturales, fortalecimiento de capacidades institucionales para evaluar el estado de impacto de las especies invasivas en los ecosistemas críticos. .
- ¿Cuáles son los desafíos que enfrenta con respecto al control de EEI? (Políticas, sociales, permisos, geografía, invasión binacional, otros)
Mayor investigación científica sobre la dinámica, ciclos de persistencia de las especies,
Establecer un sistema de alerta sobre el aparecimiento, ubicación, expansión, control de especies invasivas

- ¿Cree que su país cuenta con las políticas y herramientas necesarias para controlar y erradicar las EEI? Se avanza en la actualizacion de una estrategia de biodiversidad

Necesidades para apoyar la implementación de T6

- Comparta cualquier brecha en la información o herramientas que considere que podría obstaculizar la implementación de T6.

- ¿Qué asesoramiento científico, técnico y tecnológico sería más útil que el CDB explorara para apoyar mejor la implementación del T6?
Divulgación de estado de conocimiento de especies invasivas en la region de mesoamerica, análisis biológico, ecología, tendencias.
Factores de cambio climático en distribución de especies invasivas y afectación a biodiversidad local

John Wilson—South African National Biodiversity Institute
Following from Arne's comment, South Africa's national regulatory lists are available here https://zenodo.org/records/15082537 with a discussion  on how the lists were developed here https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2024/17002. There are some taxa for which the listing differs for different provinces, but equally there is provision for regulation at the provincial level and for local ordinances.  As people note it is difficult to integrate governance when the threat and benefits vary. Guava is an important crop in the Western Cape Province, invasions are more in the wetter, hotter areas like KwaZulu-Natal Province; similar issues of course occur across national boundaries. If people are interested we have joint special issues on lists of alien taxa in the Global South open at the moment (though the deadline is end of April, https://docs.google.com/document/d/17qA7TwWXShz8pRJR3sNVJbCmeajbF7hmG2l5s6sInqs)

Hello all and many thanks Rachel for bringing attention to the outcome of our MEPC 83 session regarding the initiation of the development of a legally binding framework for the control and management of ships' biofouling to minimize the transfer of invasive aquatic species. Apologies for not responding earlier due to workload as this session is ongoing.

The development of mandatory requirements will shift biofouling management from the current voluntary guidelines to enforceable international regulations and provide greater legal certainty in managing biofouling risks.

This will complement the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments (BWM Convention), IMO's legally binding treaty that regulates the other major shipping-related vector for IAS transfer, ballast water, and is in force since 2017. As I also mentioned at the recent IAS Webinar, there are momentous developments on this front too, as the BWM Convention is currently undergoing a major overhaul that would further strengthen its effectiveness, with the amended provisions aimed to enter into force in 2028.

Through IMO's work on the management of ballast water and biofouling, shipping, which is a dominant pathway for the transfer of invasive species in the marine and coastal realm, is also the most comprehensively managed one. This is very important given that the eradication of IAS in marine/coastal environments is virtually impossible so effective prevention is vital. The BWM Convention and Biofouling Guidelines, with their various associated guidelines, are valuable regulatory/policy tools for Member States and their effective implementation is key in preventing introductions of invasive aquatic species.

This may be especially pertinent noting that, as can be seen in all related deliberations (including this very forum) and has been previously highlighted by IMO and others, the focus on IAS discussions always seems to be very heavily geared towards the terrestrial realm with very little attention (at least seemingly) on marine/coastal.

Many thanks again and best wishes,
Teo

Good morning, afternoon, or evening,

My name is Lien Reyserhove, and I am affiliated with the Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO) in Belgium. I am part of the Open Science Lab for Biodiversity (https://oscibio.inbo.be), where our team is actively engaged in promoting open science practices. We are currently involved in several projects related to Invasive Alien Species (IAS), for which we have developed a number of tools and workflows to support monitoring and data dissemination efforts.

1. Early Alert System for IAS in Belgium
This tool focuses primarily on aquatic and riparian plants, as well as crayfish species. It provides timely and location-specific notifications regarding the occurrence of IAS across Belgium. The system operates as follows:

- Source datasets are published to GBIF in a reproducible manner (https://www.gbif.org/dataset/search?project_id=LIFE%20RIPARIAS), with updates provided—wherever feasible—on a daily basis.

- The published data are aggregated and exported from GBIF.

- These exports feed into a user-friendly website designed to visualize the information. (https://alert.riparias.be)

- Users may configure taxonomic and geographic filters to receive real-time email notifications of newly observed IAS in Belgium.

The complete workflow is openly accessible on GitHub. Over the coming year, we plan to scale up this system to support a European-wide alert mechanism.

2. Reproducible workflow for national GRIIS checklists
We have developed a (semi-)automated, reproducible workflow for the publication and regular updating of national GRIIS checklists. The approach empowers taxonomic experts to curate and manage their respective lists. Our team provides guidance and training for these experts to publish their data to GBIF, which subsequently serves as a data aggregator. These aggregated datasets are then used to compile the GRIIS checklist for Belgium. The workflow is documented and publicly available on GitHub. In the near future, we intend to apply the same approach to update the GRIIS checklists for Romania, Cyprus, and Portugal.

3. Publication of GRIIS Europe
We are in the process of compiling a European-wide checklist of IAS using the same reproducible workflow as described in point 2 above.

4. Mapping existing tools for IAS management registration in Belgium. We conducted a comprehensive business analysis to assess the current landscape of tools used for recording IAS management actions in Belgium (https://zenodo.org/records/6807428). This analysis identified which stakeholders are using which tools to document their management efforts. Based on these findings, we were able to pinpoint organizations and partners lacking appropriate registration tools. In response, we developed a solution to address these gaps and support consistent and effective data capture across all relevant actors.

5. Development of an international standard for the exchange of IAS management information.

At present, no internationally recognized standard exists for the exchange of information related to IAS management actions among stakeholders. While the Darwin Core standard is widely used for the exchange of biodiversity data, it does not adequately encompass the complexities associated with IAS reporting, management activities, and data sharing. The variation in management goals and practices across different taxonomic groups further complicates efforts toward standardization.
Our objective is to enhance and extend the Darwin Core standard to better accommodate the requirements of scientists, field practitioners, and policymakers. By doing so, we aim to improve the findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability (FAIR) of IAS management and reporting data on an international scale.

An essential initial step in this process involves identifying the various databases and data vocabularies currently in use. To support this effort, we have developed a multilingual survey. We kindly invite all stakeholders participating in this forum to complete the survey, which is available in English, Portuguese, Spanish, German, and Chinese. Your input will be invaluable in guiding the development of a standardized approach to IAS management data exchange.
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/GZMC5FX

Good morning Marina,
I'm Marisa from the Argentine Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and Fisheries. Thank you very much for sharing the link, Marina. It's very interesting that you've achieved this. Regarding the wild boar, as you know, both countries share the same problem. I exchanged experiences with you at an international workshop in La Rioja a couple of years ago. I'd appreciate it if you could send me your email address if I have any questions or concerns. My second language is Portuguese, so there won't be any communication problems. Best regards, Marisa

Good day, everyone. I am Riccardo Scalera, senior expert of the IUCN/SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group based in Rome, Italy, mostly working at the science-policy interface, providing technical advice to several international organizations and institutions on tools and strategies to manage biological invasions.

I would like to thank you all for your insights in this forum, and would also like to highlight the extensive resources developed by the European Commission following ten years of implementation of the EU Regulation on invasive alien species No 1143/2014 to support Member States to take action in a coordinated and effective way. These are over 200 documents and tools, developed with the support of IUCN along with many other scientific institutions and experts from Europe and beyond, that offer valuable guidance for implementing Target 6 of the Framework globally. Resources include: risk assessments, along with notes on measures and costs for management of nearly 100 species, a manual for the management of vertebrates (including welfare issues) and a compilation of case studies, brochures on EU-listed species and identification guides for field and customs (along with posters and cards, including of look-alike species), reports on nomenclature and taxonomical issues, manuals for surveillance systems including case studies, guidance for the interpretation of CBD pathway categories, pathway management analyses with a focus on e.g., ants, wasps, flatworms, as well as specific reports o soil, topsoil, use of chemicals, the role of alien species in the spread of zoonosis, etc... While many of these documents focus on EU-listed species (the list of IAS of Union concern, which represents the core of this legislation), others have broader relevance. You can explore this amazing amount of resources on the EU's dedicated webpage: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/nature-and-biodiversity/invasive-alien-species_en and the CIRCABC repository: https://circabc.europa.eu/faces/jsp/extension/wai/navigation/container.jsp and the EASIN website https://easin.jrc.ec.europa.eu/easin . For easier access to species-specific management notes, you may visit the IUCN webpage: https://iucn.org/our-work/topic/invasive-alien-species/invasive-alien-species-external-resources. Information on numerous alien species projects funded by the European Commission through the LIFE programme can be found by searching the online database here: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/life/publicWebsite/search.

Also the Bern Convention (a treaty established under the umbrella of the Council of Europe including parties from Europe, Africa and Asia) has developed important documents on IAS, including several codes of conduct for pathways, guidance for drafting pathways action plans, a report on biological invasions and One Health, as well as for protected areas, communication and e-commerce. You may access all these resources from the CoE webpage of the Group of Experts on Invasive Alien Species here: https://www.coe.int/en/web/bern-convention/on-invasive-alien-species

The above list, while not exhaustive, offers an idea of the substantial body of online resources dedicated to invasive alien species, and the amazing commitment of institutions like the European Commission and the Bern Convention to coordinating, developing and disseminating vital knowledge, tools, and guidance for tackling biological invasions globally. Having had the privilege of contributing to the design and development of some of these documents, I would be delighted to share further thoughts and ideas on them or future needs.

Thank you for your participation Ms. Marina Landeiro,

Being able to establish lists of species for a territory as large as Brazil is great. This is something that we still struggle with in Canada, mostly because the federal government and provincial and territorial governments do not always share the same list of species. We know what federally-regulated species are found at the national level, but may not always be aware of what provincially- and territorially-regulated species have been found. While there is collaboration, data sharing can take time, especially when the criteria are not exactly the same by jurisdiction.

With regards to the fishing and aquaculture sector, could you expand on the challenges you face? Are there national or local non-governmental organizations that may have more established relationships with those sectors that could help support the mandate of the Brazilian government?

Thank you again.

Thank  you for your participation in the forum Lien Reyserhove.

The information provided is quite comprehensive and useful.

Does the LIFE RIPARIAS early alert system show changes in IAS when some have been eradicated? I assume so but would want to make sure that I am not making wrong assumptions. Is this system used to be able to measure against the TArget 6 Headline Indicator or complementary indicators?

The system you are using seems very well developed and automated. Do you use other tools that may rely on AI to support early detection and reporting on those detections? Finally, do you think an automated system would be more difficult to use for non-aquatic or riparian species?

I hope participants to the forum will be taking part in the survey that you are putting together. Sharing the results of the survey and the research, I am sure, would certainly be of interest to many participants.

Thank you again for your participation.

Thank you Hui Wei for your participation to the forum.

The sources and steps for identifying potential IAS are very useful.
Is this a tool that is being used by local non-governmental organizations as well as government? Has it been proven to be easier to use for some species (e.g., terrestrial, riparian, marine) than others?

How are the analysis coming from those sources communicated to those who manage IAS or those who may be impacted (e.g., local communities, economic sectors)?

Again, thank you very much.

Thank you Dr. Ibrahim for yoru participation in the forum.

Lack of baseline information is an issue that many countries face when trying to address IAS. Information can be lacking or can be spread between different ministries, making it tougher to get a national picture of the situation.

Has Nigeria been using some data standards to try to develop lists of IAS? Is this something that you believe would be useful to help get better baseline data? The work under the updated CBD Toolkit for Target 6 looks at some data standards that can help a country provide input to international database or use those standards to help put together a database at various levels. The Darwin Core is the least complex, although a lot of information on management or impacts are missing. It can be a good first step however, and is interesting as it can be used by different databases (GRIIS, CABI, etc.)
https://www.cbd.int/invasive/toolkit/doc/data-standard-training-en.pdf
CBD page with the toolkit: https://www.cbd.int/invasive/cbdtoolkit

Is there more that you think the CBD could do under SBSTTA to help support the implementation of T6 (for example, as it relates to research on impacts of AIS, early warning signal mechanism or the other topic you mentioned).

Thank you again.

Thank you for your participation to the forum Elizabeth Munro.

In the document attached to your intervention, you mention that, thanks to community engagement, you were able to successful eradicate rattus rattus on a habited island.
Could you please provide more information on how community engagement was undertaken, so that other participants can learn from your experience? Was the issue one that people on that island were well aware of, and thus easier to engage on, or was a lot of work required to seek their involvement?
In addition, could you expand on the tools used, and how they were effective to eradicate rattus rattus while also not having negative impacts on native species?
Finally, what does the Cook Islands have in place to avoid future biological invasions from this specie?

Thank you very much again for your participation.

Good afternoon everyone, my name is Ana Cristina Cardoso (European Commission Joint Research Centre, EC JRC).

I would like to provide additional information on resources developed by the EC JRC to support EU Member States (MS) in the technical and scientific implementation of policies related to alien species and foster collaboration. These are made available through the European Alien Species Information Network (EASIN: https://easin.jrc.ec.europa.eu/easin). In specific, these include:

1. Data management Platforms: EASIN maintains a catalogue of over 14,000 alien species recorded in Europe, including information about, for example, their distribution, ecology, and impacts, providing essential information for monitoring and reporting on Invasive Alien Species (IAS) (EASIN Catalogue; EASIN Geodatabase).
2. Capacity-Building Resources: EASIN offers tools such as species search and mapping, to explore harmonised and integrated data and information and RESTful web services for querying and retrieving species information, enabling stakeholders to analyse, visualize IAS, and reuse data effectively as well as facilitating access to key data sources such as GRIIS,  GBIF, and EU MS official data and resources, to enhance the robustness of national reporting.
3. Stakeholder Engagement Platforms: Through initiatives like the "Invasive Alien Species in Europe" web and smartphone apps, EASIN engages citizens in monitoring IAS, fostering inclusive participation in biodiversity conservation efforts.
4. Policy and Legal Support: EASIN supports the implementation of EU policies on IAS, including Regulation 1143/2014, by providing scientific information and facilitating notifications about new IAS observations and management measures. In this context, the JRC will support the EC in the Target 6 GBF indicator.
6. Technical Guidance & Methodology Alignment: Support in aligning national methodologies, e.g. EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive.

I would be happy to provide any additional information on these resources.

Indigenous Ethos for Biodiversity Conservation and Invasive alien Species Posted on behalf of Kamal Kumar Rai, Nepal IPLC

Indigenous conservation ethos is the dinamism of the foot prints of ancestoral knowledge and wisdom systems in ancestoral circular solution approach, nature of vibration indigenous knowledge, values, behaviors and practices of Indigenous peoples that guide the reciprocol relationship with and stewardship of the environment, ecosystems and planetory crisess, emphasizing sustainability, interconnectedness, and respect for Nature. Indigenous practices, innovation, philosophies in complex, socio-environmental relationships in which all things are situated (Keali‘ikanakaoleohaililani et al., 2018; Kimmerer, 2020; Marsden & Henare, 1992; Milgin et al., 2020), customary sustainable agriculture and community-driven conservation efforts to effects biodiversity, indigenous cultural actions, for control, management, eradication of the invasive behaviour of species to protect the resources that they need their survival or to maintain culture are the contribute to the biocultural relationships (Gavin et al., 2015), while maintaining cultural values and relations to sacred groves that act as biodiversity hotspots, safeguarding unique species of flora and fauna, check in particular invasive alien species on farm, wetlands, small patches of forests preserved by indigenous communities for spiritual significanceIndigenous that Indigenous peoples have with the world. Indigenous Peoples’s reciprocal relationships, fulfill cultural responsibilities to maintain the ancestoral kinship, and space for one's extended family of human relations to thrive (Whyte, 2011; Whyte, 2013). Indigenous circular socio-environmental practices, protecting a wide range of disciplines including in multispecies ethnography in anthropology to refer to relationships between humans culture and other species in relationships (Ogden et al., 2013). Symbiotic relationship between cultural heritage and biodiversity protection,. ecological importance and their role in traditional knowledge systems, which foster sustainable resource management. Indigenous socio-environmental commitments link pioneering legal protections for rivers and other natural entities (Charpleix, 2018), community-based environmental comanagement approaches (e.g. Timoti et al., 2017; Winter et al., 2021) and Indigenous socio-environmental values (Milgin et al., 2020). Inclusive of biological, cultural and linguistic diversity, this starting point recognises the rich and varied pathways that connect people to each other, to sea and land, and all that is contained within them (Black, 2014; Wehi, Whaanga, et al., 2021). an integrated perspective of relationships and highlights the significance of Indigenous communities and perspectives for conservation and justice (e.g. Milgin et al., 2020; Watene & Merino, 2018).

Indigenous principles, knowledge systems, values and dinamic of species, ecosystems and biodiversity link with bioculture and ethics that models of alien species Indigenous management frameworks that are relational need to recognise and respect in NBSAP.

Traditional knowledge, innovation, practices, relationship of Indigenous Peoples and local communities on IAS, capacity building, communication and public awareness in NBSAP

As IPLC technical committee member in NBSAP, I have been actively engaging on the national process on IAS KM GBF Target 6, Indicators related on IPLC, traditional occupation, traditional livelihoods, CBMIS for mapping, etc, operationlise, and reports.

Ensuring Full and effective participation of IPLCS, women and youth, acknowledging Indigenous Science, technology with tacking into account Free, Prior and Informed Consent, Article8(j), 10c, Customary systems, laws and socio- cultural footprints of IPLCs, women and elders are deeply rooted with Nature, lands, territories, waters, and resources, genetic diversity on IAS

communication, education and public awareness on indicators, implement and monitoring as non- state actors events, workshops, case studies, seminars webinar.

IPLC values and systems play a vital role on traditional livelihoods and socio-economic development and protect and the transfer of the systems to the youth to continue the customary practices of harmony with Nature

Indigenous Sciences and knowledge systems, IPLCs have knowledge that are essence of life for interaction, relationships, behavior and expression of species and environment in community and population in Nature

The indigeneity kinship recognizes and respect with harmony with Mother Earth and Nature

Mechanism for safe guard on the impacts of science and technology on species to Mother Nature, lands, territories waters, ecosystems, resources, traditional occupations, livelihoods, socio-economic, culture and ethical consideration management with implement the voluntary guidelines on IAS.

Lack of access, capacity building, education and knowledge transfer are key issues to consider for IPLCs, women and youth, Rights to self-determination of Indigenous Peoples, Free, Prior and Informed Consent, full and effective participation of IPLCS, women and youth at all level with Indigenous Sciences on IAS, Inclusion of IPLCs, values, systems knowledge and Program of work

We indigenous peoples, local communities, women and youth continue lobby and advocacy on biocultural diversity, values and importance indicators KM-GBF -NBSAP with national targets 2030 and 2050 vision harmony with Nature, communicating biodiversity, on communication, education and public awareness on the road maps and spirits of the convention and its provisions, networking allies with other IPLCs and their organization for IAS

Hello Marina, my name is Gabriela Llaya, from Uruguay, I am also working in the Ministry of Environment in the National Directorate of Biodiversity and a short time ago I began to be part of the line of work for the control of exotics; Thank you very much for sharing the link, it is very interesting. In Uruguay, an early warning system is also being developed, and we have a database of invasive species, the inBUy, I leave you a copy of the URL of it.
It would be interesting to keep in touch to exchange strategies and information.
Thanks a lot
Best regards

http://inbuy.fcien.edu.uy/

Hi Melodie! Regarding your question about whether we are using the species list in Argentina to monitor invasive species at the country level, I would say not actively, at least I haven't heard of such use (maybe it is being done, I don´t know). A great effort was made at the time to work with specialists from all areas, but the implementation was always subject to limited funding for its implementation and continuity. At least that's a general summary ( I suppose "lack of funding" is the usual response in many countries with economic problems). Anyway, I'm interested in what you mentioned about using indices to track invasive species at country level. Thanks!

Dear colleagues, thank you very much for the opportunity to participate in this Forum and to share our experiences with everyone. It has been a great joy for me to see Palestinian colleagues participating despite the difficult situation in their beloved homeland. A huge hug from Cuba.
My name is Marvis Suárez Romero. I am a specialist in Regulation, Control, and Safety, and I work for the Office of Environmental Regulation and Safety, the Regulatory Authority for Exotic Species, among other areas. Our office belongs to the Cuban Ministry of Science, Technology, and Environment (CITMA).
Regarding Topic 1, we have a National Program on Biological Diversity, Cuba - Biological Diversity with a View to 2030, which constitutes the main platform for implementing the strategic objectives defined in the national environmental policy to address the loss of biological diversity.
In relation to Target 6 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, we have established a set of aspects to be implemented, such as:
• Implement strategies for the control and management of exotic and invasive species in protected areas (for at least 5 of the most significant species in each area).
• Design and implement strategies for the control of recently introduced invasive exotic species in the country (e.g., Unomia stolonifera, those emerging during the period).
• Implement an early warning mechanism for the introduction of exotic and invasive species.
• Reduce the introduction rates of other known or potential invasive exotic species by at least 50% by 2030.
• Adapt and strengthen regulatory and control mechanisms, with emphasis on new economic actors.

Good morning/afternoon/evening everyone. My name is Sergio Benavides. I work for the Ministry of the Environment, Chile.

Chile has included the topic of invasive alien species (IAS) in its National Biodiversity Strategy and has developed several policies and instruments for the prevention, control and management of these species. Recently, progress has been made in the creation of a new biodiversity office that brings together mandates for both the prevention and management of IAS, which represents an important opportunity to strengthen the implementation of Target 6 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Tools such as risk analysis, monitoring at ports and airports, ecological niche modelling and species prioritization have also been promoted, often in collaboration with academic institutions and NGOs. In partnership with academia, a virtual platform is being developed to automate the risk assessment of marine species introductions and support the implementation of a port inspection system. This platform considers factors such as port of origin, environmental similarity and high-risk invasive species, among others.

At the operational level, successful cooperation experiences have been developed, particularly in protected areas and oceanic islands, where control and eradication plans have been implemented together with international NGOs and local stakeholders. There have also been international cooperation efforts in species management, particularly with regard to invasive species affecting Chilean-Argentinean Patagonia.

However, one of the main obstacles to effectively advancing the implementation of management plans and control and eradication measures is the lack of sufficient and sustained financial resources, as well as logistical constraints due to the country's diverse topography and geographical isolation. Challenges also remain in inter-institutional coordination and, in some cases, social resistance to lethal control of invasive animals. There is a recognized need to strengthen the current environmental institutional framework, systematize the use of risk analysis and species prioritization tools for management, and improve regional and international coordination - all of which will be key to meeting the commitments of Target 6.

Hola mi nombre es Claudia Rodriguez, actualmente trabajo para el Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales de El Salvador, como técnico de un enlace de un sitio Ramsar.
El Salvador enfrenta múltiples amenazas a su biodiversidad, como la sobreexplotación de recursos, cambio de uso del suelo, propagación de especies invasoras, contaminación y cambio climático, afectando los ecosistemas naturales y al bienestar humano.
En cuanto a la propagación de especies invasoras en algunas zonas del país éstas están afectando ecosistemas claves y actividades locales que sustentan los medios de vida de los habitantes. Por ejemplo, en la Laguna El Jocotal la proliferación del “jacinto de agua” (Pontederia crassipes) afecta las actividades de pesca y movilidad acuática, y en el Embalse Cerrón Grande el “pato chancho”; (Nannopterum brasilianum) perjudica las faenas y actividades náuticas. En ambos casos, la biodiversidad y la agricultura se ven afectadas seriamente. Ante esto, el gobierno salvadoreño, a través del Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales MARN, ha reconocido la problemática de éstas y otras especies invasoras y ha implementado estrategias para su control y erradicación, incluyendo la remoción mecánica del jacinto de agua en embalses, a fin de mejorar los niveles de oxígeno en el agua y evitar la obstrucción de canales de riego y navegación.
El tema de las especies exóticas invasoras está incluido en la ENBPA en la Meta nacional 4: recuperación de las poblaciones de las especies clave y amenazadas, y la reducción gradual de las principales amenazas a la biodiversidad.

Arne Witt - CABI - lack of coordination
Dear All - Working in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean we have also found that the lack of coordination/collaboration/cooperation in addressing IAS is one of the biggest challenges. IAS have cross-cutting impacts, ranging from biodiversity and agriculture to human and animal health, and even water resources. Unless Government Ministries/Departments take hands, pool resources and expertise, we will struggle to address the issue. We need to stop perpetuating the notion that IAS are only a biodiversity issue. The lack of support for IAS management in many LMIC is because of this false perception - IAS have a significant impact on livelihoods. We also need increased regional cooperation, so the development of regional IAS strategies and implementation thereof is critical. We cannot manage IAS in isolation, we need to all take hands and manage this scourge together.

Arne Witt - CABI
Think we all know that IAPS are one of the biggest drivers of landscape degradation. Yet, they are not included in the UNCCD which was established to address desertification and land degradation. The question is why are IAPS not included in our assessment of degraded landscapes!! Should the UNCCD include IAPS in their assessments or not. What are your thoughts on this? If that is not possible, should we establish a stand-alone Convention to deal with IAS considering it is one of the biggest threats to biodiversity and humanity. What do you think?

Hello all, it's great to hear so many voices on this forum.  I am Aileen Mill, a Professor at Newcastle University in the UK and member of the IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group.

My research is focussed on evidence to support decision making and I have been working on IAS related topics for about 15 years. I have been involved in collating species lists and implementing scoring mechanisms to assess species impacts and management feasibility  to inform prioritisation and action planning at regional and national levels. 

I am an advocate for workshop based approaches to sharing and evaluating information ( to include a diverse range of stakeholders) and promote established databases, tools and frameworks, such as checklists (e.g. GRIIS) for Horizon scanning,  EICAT for impact scoring and metrics such as acceptability, cost, practicality, impact for management feasibility. However, I do think that species lists can be created and evaluated with very limited information, so long as we acknowledge and document known gaps. Species lists and baseline data that are not comprehensive can still be informative. Its great to learn of your approaches to this, and challenges faced.

I am interested to hear how decision making is being supported by evidence and how resources allocated to IAS management are split between prevention, rapid response and long term management. I would be happy to discuss the processes I have been involved in for horizon scanning, impact assessment and management feasibility in GB and for the UK overseas territories ( e.g. Anguilla, St Helena).

Thank you everyone for a great first week of IAS online forum!

Here is a summary of some of the points that were noted during this first week's discussion:
- The importance of NBSAPs and NISSAPS, legislations/regulations, as well as the means to implement them on the ground were highlighted.
- Surveillance protocols, biosecurity and border control, legislation, public outreach and awareness, environmental impact assessments, risk assessments, remote sensing and many others have been mentioned as important tools.
- Some of the challenges mentioned were lack of resources, no long term dedicated funding, gaps in knowledge, lack of awareness by authorities (decision makers), fragmented or insufficient legal frameworks and policies, limited enforcement of measures or legislation, difficulties towards trans-boundary collaboration, among other.
- The importance of information and databases was noted.

We are very pleased with the exchange and virtual discussion that has been taking place, and hope that even more organizations and Parties will take part in it next week. Please continue to share information, ask questions to one another so we can continue to learn from each other and see where international collaboration could be most helpful.

Thank you!
Rachel and Paulina

I have heard that there is methodology in place to assess the invasiveneess of plants. Would it be possible to share the sources for this? In addition, are there methodologies to address the invasiveness of terrestrial fauna or aquatic species?

Thank you!

Dear Ms. Rachel Ariey-Jouglard,

There is a series of the tools for screening the invasiveness of terrestrial, aquatic speceis (e.g. animal and plant), which originate from Weed Risk Analysis (WRA), but user friendly than WRA. See https://siren.fort.usgs.gov/static-page/invasiveness-screening-kit-decision-support-tools-for-the-identification-and-management-of-invasive-non-native-species

I hope this would help.

Hui

Dear Ms. Rachel Ariey-Jouglard,

This tool can auto-generate scores after completing the questions. The reference of answer must be provided, otherwise can not jump to the next question. These processes make the tool easy to be used and ensure the confidence of outcomes. Additional, this tool meet the 14 minimum standards of the risk assessment of alien species for quality assurance  (see  Roy et al. 2018; DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.13025).

As far as I know, the goverment or stakeholds have the requests for risk assessment of introduced alien species to comply with the policy and law regarding to invasive species. They prefer asking researchers who familar with the risk assessment protocols to conduct the assessment.  In the past, stakeholders always avoided to mention “invasive species” to reduce economic loss due to Government supervision, which might make the management of non-native species difficult. Thus, academia, the Government and stakeholders should work together to develop more acceptable and practical management strategies to mitigate the risk posed by alien species.

All the best,
Hui

Hi I am Anna Pauline de Guia from the Philippines, I am a Professor at the University of the Philippines Los Baños teaching a graduate course, Invasion Zoology. My graduate students and I have prepared a manuscript, “Review of Philippine Invasive Alien Animal Species (IAAS)” using the ffg online databases (1) Global Invasive Species Database (GISD) https://www.iucngisd.org/gisd/contacts.php ;  (2) Global Biodiversity Information Facility  (GBIF); (3) FishBase; (4) Wild Bird Club of the Philippines (WBCP); (5) CABI- Invasive Species Compendium (ISC), and; (6) Amphibian Species of the World: an Online Reference by the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH). Also included in this review is a list of potential invasives for the prevention or control of introduction into the Philippines.

As a wildlife biologist, I am especially interested on the impacts of invasive alien animal species on our native/endemic wildlife species. I have done some research on invasive rodents and on free-roaming/feral cats and have an upcoming research project on Finlayson’s squirrel (Callioscirus finlaysoni). Cats and squirrels are challenging as they are charismatic animals. Our forthcoming research includes assessment of the knowledge, attitude and perception of stakeholder/communities, Citizen Science, Camera traps, Species Distribution Model (SDM) as well as assessment for potential human health impacts.

In the Philippines we have the National Invasive Species Strategy and Action Plan 2020 – 2030, part of my contribution is on basic research on the biology and ecology of invasive alien animal species and potential risks which are essential in supporting IAS POLICY DEVELOPMENT and management decisions and actions. Eradication is almost impossible in our country so managing populations is the more realistic approach.

Hello everyone! A lot of interesting and useful information has been posted so far and I'm taking notes.

My name is Gandhi Ponce Juárez and I work for the National Council for Protected Areas (CONAP) in Guatemala, specifically in what we informally call the "biodiversity" office/department.

- Is the topic of invasive alien species included in your NBSAP?

Yes, the early detection and management of IAS is included in both the valid NBSAP and the updated version that should be published later this year. It includes the elaboration of a black, gray and white list of species according to their level of risk, and a specific regulation on the management, handling, transport, and commercialization of IAS.

- Do you think your country has the necessary policies and tools to address Target 6?

We do have specific regulations in place outlining the handling of IAS, but we lack the monitoring tools, institutional and interinstitutional coordination, regulatory updating, and resources (human, financial, technological) to implement them properly.

- Which tools and mechanisms do you use or consider useful for preventing the introduction of IAS  (e.g., artificial intelligence, surveillance, etc.)?

Besides the IAS regulations, we think that predictive ecological models and monitoring tools are needed to effectively prevent the introduction of IAS. We believe that awareness and education campaigns can have a positive impact, along with engagement with local communities, various industries, and strategic partners. And given our geography, more focused efforts on all ports of entry could prevent the intentional or unintentional entry of IAS. This last action entails capacity-building for border agents as well.

- What are the challenges you are facing or foresee in preventing the introduction of IAS? (Policy, social, permits, geography, binational invasion, others)

Limited funding and technical capacities, lack of early warning and rapid response systems, effective regulations and controls on maritime and land trade and borders, mismanagement of ballast water by international ships, possible invasions from all four neighboring nations (Belize, El Salvador, Honduras, and Mexico) in both the Pacific and Atlantic coasts, lack of institutional and interinstitutional coordination.

- Do you collaborate with bordering countries to prevent IAS? If so, how?

I am not aware of any formal binational or multinational cooperation mechanisms on IAS specifically with neighboring countries. I will get back to you if I find any information on that.

- Do you think your country has the necessary policies to prevent the entry of IAS?

There are partial instruments, but there is no comprehensive and updated approach to prevent the entry of IAS. Implementation of the regulations is limited and there is a need to strengthen customs control and environmental monitoring.

- Which tools and mechanisms do you use or consider useful for the management of IAS?

Aside from our IAS regulations, we rely on GBIF data to map and track specific cases, but we lack active or automated monitoring efforts and tools to effectively address the issue. As with the introduction of IAS, awareness and education campaigns, and engagement and collaboration with local communities, various industries, and strategic partners are key to their management. Additionally, ongoing research and data collection are essential for enhancing our management of IAS. We could also benefit from the evaluation and update of our current legal framework.

- What are the challenges you are facing or foresee regarding IAS management?

The application, creation, and/or strengthening of the current legal framework regarding IAS, financial and capacity restraints, social, long-term monitoring, and economic and cultural factors. For example, some invasive fish species are being utilized for food and commercialization.

- Have you used cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness or multi-criteria methodologies for IAS management (e.g. those referred to in annex I of decision 16/18)?

Not yet systematically implemented, though the guidance is acknowledged. Guatemala would benefit from technical assistance in adapting Annex I methodologies from this decision.

- How have international databases been most helpful for IAS management in your country?

They are very valuable for identifying new species with invasive potential, examining their biological characteristics, routes of introduction, and management experiences in other countries. The main usefulness has been to obtain early warnings on species that could enter the country and map their presence throughout the region, as well as to track their distribution range through time.

- Which tools and mechanisms do you use or consider useful for the control of IAS?

Pilot eradication plans, awareness raising and community participation to reduce invasion or reinvasion, and predictive modeling could all be useful.

- What are the challenges you are facing regarding the control of IAS? (Policy, social, permits, geography, binational invasion, others)

There is no specific task force dedicated to this problem, and the lack of up-to-date information (or its aggregation and systematization) along with our limited resources prevent us from having a clear picture of the status of IAS in our country. There could be strong pushback with the control of species that provide food and economic resources for some communities.

- Do you think your country has the necessary policies and tools to control and eradicate IAS?

Despite having some technical and legal instruments, these have not been fully applied, therefore, there is not sufficient capacity for the control and sustained eradication of IAS.

- Share any gaps in information or tools that you consider could hinder the implementation of T6.

Weak legal frameworks, limited automated detection systems, lack of dedicated funding mechanisms for long-term monitoring, lack of institutional and inter-institutional coordination, lack of socioeconomical data to support actions and decision-making in specific cultural contexts, lack of training and experience in the methods and technologies applicable to the management of IAS, lack of knowledge of tools and databases relating to IAS, lack of joint intergovernmental efforts, lack of leadership in leading these initiatives.

- What scientific, technical and technological advice would be most helpful for the CBD to explore to best support the implementation of T6?

Technical assistance for the implementation of early warning systems, specific guides and best practices manuals targeting particular species, ecosystems, or cultural regions, IAS management support for local training and cooperation through the Subregional TSC Support Centres (the CCAD in our case).

Hello everyone,
Good day to all.
Interesting discussions and sharing. Apologise for the late posting, need time to discuss with my other fellow. My name is Haslawati Baharuddin, I am a senior research officer affiliated with the Fisheries Research Institute (Department of Fisheries Malaysia). I have been involved in the Invasive Alien Species issues and discussions, for at least the past 15 years. I am also actively involved in the development of National Action Plan on the Invasive Alien Species (NAP) as one of the Technical Committee Member, representing aquatic section. We have published our NAP 2021-2025, and working hard to fulfill/take necessary actions in the plan (attached).

https://www.doa.gov.my/doa/resources/aktiviti_sumber/sumber_awam/penerbitan/buku/national_action_plan_on_invasive_alien_species_2021-2025.pdf

Here are some answers for Topic #1:

Is the topic of invasive alien species included in your NBSAP?
Invasive Alien Species (IAS) are explicitly addressed under Target 13 of Malaysia’s National Policy on Biological Diversity (NPBD) 2022-2030: By 2030, measures are in place for the prevention, eradication, containment, and control of invasive alien species. This target is applied to cross sectors – crops and forestry, fisheries/aquatic, and veterinary/animal health.
Do you think your country has the necessary policies and tools to address Target 6?
Yes, we do. Malaysia implements the National Action Plan on Invasive Alien Species 2021–2025 (NAP IAS), which provides a multi-sectoral policy framework that encompasses plant, animal, and aquatic health. It includes goals for risk assessment, early detection, rapid response, and inter-agency collaboration across all sectors.

Prevention (Tools And Mechanisms Used, Challenges And Best Practices)
Which tools and mechanisms do you use or consider useful for preventing the introduction of IAS (e.g., artificial intelligence, surveillance, etc.)?
Malaysia utilizes a comprehensive toolbox for IAS prevention (refer to NAP IAS 2021-2025), including:
• Cross-sector risk assessments (crops, livestock, fisheries)
• Monitoring and surveillance activity (crops, livestock, fisheries)
• Regulated import permit systems
• Border surveillance and inspection by Malaysian Quarantine & Inspection Services (MAQIS), Department of Fisheries (DOF), Department of Veterinary Services (DVS), and Department of Agriculture (DOA)
• Monitoring of ballast water (for marine IAS)
• Public awareness program (see attachment, abstract & poster (Haslawati et al., 2024)
• Mobile apps and databases (MyBIS – IAS module), MyBIS is a database on Malaysian Biodiversity, http://www.mybis.gov.my, has won many awards internationally.
• Emerging technologies such as eDNA tools (still new and under studied)
From my part, for aquatic species, we do surveillance, studying waterbodies reported to have bio-invasion (aquatic fauna, in particular, fish) for the past 10 years, but being an agency that represents food security the challenge is to balance the the conflict between economic and biodiversity.

Refer to articles in FRI Newsletter (2021) attached https://fri.dof.gov.my/en/publications-fri-newsletter/

• What are the challenges you are facing or foresee in preventing the introduction of IAS? (Policy, social, permits, geography, binational invasion, others)

- Malaysia, a country with extensive coastlines, and porous borders with neighbouring countries like Thailand, Indonesia, and the Philippines make  vulnerable to both intentional and accidental introductions of IAS.

- Policy and Institutional Gaps:
o Lack of a unified national framework: Malaysia lacks a centralised and cohesive national IAS management strategy. Different agencies handle different sectors (e.g., agriculture, fisheries, forestry), often without coordination (Faridah-Hanum & Latiff, 2021).
o Weak enforcement of quarantine laws: Customs and biosecurity enforcement at ports often lack the personnel and infrastructure to detect or manage IAS.
o Lack of policy and enforcement on IAS:
In agriculture sector, conflict between industry and consumer (commercial) production and exotic animals/plants for income; food, social and livelihood. Like other countries, in aquaculture, most of the cultured species are non-native, some of them have invasive potential. The critical issue faced by aquarium industry, where most of the species are non-natives and posed harm to biodiversity if released to the natural waters. Therefore, we revised the Fisheries Act 1985 to include comprehensive list of species to be prohibited to enter the country, however, there is no proper jurisdiction on the species already inside.

- Social and Public Awareness Gap
o Low public awareness: The general population often lacks understanding about IAS impacts, which results in unintentional introductions through the pet trade, ornamental plants, or improper disposal (Ahmad et al., 2021).
o Cultural practices/local economy source: Some IAS such as the golden apple snail were introduced for food or aquaculture, reflecting the negative consequences due to lack of risk communication (Nghiem et al., 2013).
o To address this issue, studies must be done to create more awareness to the public. An initial study by Azyyati et al. (2018) which found only 14.7% of respondents knew the term IAS. While a recent study in a small sub-urban community in Kuala Lumpur on the awareness of aquatic invasion, better understanding (64.5%) on the impact of non-native fish species, 78.4% agree that IAS is one of the main threat to native species (Haslawati et al. 2024; 2025). More studies and action are planned to increase public awareness.
o Some of the studies and progress are attached.

- Others
o Diverse ecosystems (coastal, rainforest, highlands) increase vulnerability to different IAS types (e.g., aquatic, terrestrial).
o Data gaps in species distribution and risk mapping reduce the effectiveness of preventive action.
o Whenever possible, studies on the distribution are done, but not well documented, and lack of collaborative efforts and coordination, showing weak implementation of the National Action Plan
o New technology is being implemented, such as environmental DNA (eDNA) surveillance or centralised geographic information systems (GIS) for real-time monitoring
o Funding and Resource Constraints: Limited research grants and most control efforts are reactive rather than preventive due to constrained budgets

• Do you collaborate with bordering countries to prevent IAS? If so, how?
o Through regional platform (ASEAN), Malaysia and its neighbouring countries (other ASEAN Member States (AMSs)) has come out with ASEAN Action Plan of Invasive Alien Species Management (refer to the attached document) to facilitate collaboration among its member states, share knowledge and best practices, and coordinate efforts to address the invasive species threat.

o At the same time, Malaysia is actively engaging in dialogue for harmonizing surveillance, data sharing, and emergency response systems with its neighbouring countries through international platforms (CBD, IPPC, WOAH).



• Do you think your country has the necessary policies to prevent the entry of IAS?

Yes. Existing policies – The National Agrofood Policy (2021-2030) and NAP IAS (2021–2025) includes sector-specific policy actions covering:
o Surveillance and monitoring of pest and diseases
o Import risk analysis
o Quarantine inspection protocols
o Updated lists of high-risk IAS by sector (plants, animals, aquatic species)
o Enhanced enforcement at 112 entry points nationwide
o Department of Fisheries Malaysia has amended the Fisheries Act 1985 to include more species prohibited to enter Malaysia (Fisheries (Prohibition of Import, etc., of Fish) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
We have done risk assessment using our own developed criteria, which used for all the categories (7 criteria – page 31, NAP)
o Listed in Invasive Species Database
o Species distributions
o Interaction with native species
o Economic impacts
o Potential of introduction, establishment and spread
o Detectability and availability of control measures, and
o Survival temperature range and climate tolerance

As for aquatic species, we have done another assessment categories/exercises as showed in attachments. Some of the progress also attached and were presented (Haslawati et al., 2024)

Hello everyone,
Good day to all.
Interesting discussions and sharing. Apologise for the late posting, need time to discuss with my other fellow. My name is Haslawati Baharuddin, I am a senior research officer affiliated with the Fisheries Research Institute (Department of Fisheries Malaysia). I have been involved in the Invasive Alien Species issues and discussions, for at least the past 15 years. I am also actively involved in the development of National Action Plan on the Invasive Alien Species (NAP) as one of the Technical Committee Member, representing aquatic section. We have published our NAP 2021-2025, and working hard to fulfill/take necessary actions in the plan (attached).
https://www.doa.gov.my/doa/resources/aktiviti_sumber/sumber_awam/penerbitan/buku/national_action_plan_on_invasive_alien_species_2021-2025.pdf
Here are some answers for Topic #1:
Is the topic of invasive alien species included in your NBSAP?
Invasive Alien Species (IAS) are explicitly addressed under Target 13 of Malaysia’s National Policy on Biological Diversity (NPBD) 2022-2030: By 2030, measures are in place for the prevention, eradication, containment, and control of invasive alien species. This target is applied to cross sectors – crops and forestry, fisheries/aquatic, and veterinary/animal health.
Do you think your country has the necessary policies and tools to address Target 6?
Yes, we do. Malaysia implements the National Action Plan on Invasive Alien Species 2021–2025 (NAP IAS), which provides a multi-sectoral policy framework that encompasses plant, animal, and aquatic health. It includes goals for risk assessment, early detection, rapid response, and inter-agency collaboration across all sectors.
Prevention (Tools And Mechanisms Used, Challenges And Best Practices)
Which tools and mechanisms do you use or consider useful for preventing the introduction of IAS (e.g., artificial intelligence, surveillance, etc.)?
Malaysia utilizes a comprehensive toolbox for IAS prevention (refer to NAP IAS 2021-2025), including:
• Cross-sector risk assessments (crops, livestock, fisheries)
• Monitoring and surveillance activity (crops, livestock, fisheries)
• Regulated import permit systems
• Border surveillance and inspection by Malaysian Quarantine & Inspection Services (MAQIS), Department of Fisheries (DOF), Department of Veterinary Services (DVS), and Department of Agriculture (DOA)
• Monitoring of ballast water (for marine IAS)
• Public awareness program (see attachment, abstract & poster (Haslawati et al., 2024)
• Mobile apps and databases (MyBIS – IAS module), MyBIS is a database on Malaysian Biodiversity, http://www.mybis.gov.my, has won many awards internationally.
• Emerging technologies such as eDNA tools (still new and under studied)
From my part, for aquatic species, we do surveillance, studying waterbodies reported to have bio-invasion (aquatic fauna, in particular, fish) for the past 10 years, but being an agency that represents food security the challenge is to balance the the conflict between economic and biodiversity. Refer to articles in FRI Newsletter (2021) attached https://fri.dof.gov.my/en/publications-fri-newsletter/

• What are the challenges you are facing or foresee in preventing the introduction of IAS? (Policy, social, permits, geography, binational invasion, others)

- Malaysia, a country with extensive coastlines, and porous borders with neighbouring countries like Thailand, Indonesia, and the Philippines make  vulnerable to both intentional and accidental introductions of IAS.

- Policy and Institutional Gaps:
o Lack of a unified national framework: Malaysia lacks a centralised and cohesive national IAS management strategy. Different agencies handle different sectors (e.g., agriculture, fisheries, forestry), often without coordination (Faridah-Hanum & Latiff, 2021).
o Weak enforcement of quarantine laws: Customs and biosecurity enforcement at ports often lack the personnel and infrastructure to detect or manage IAS.
o Lack of policy and enforcement on IAS:
In agriculture sector, conflict between industry and consumer (commercial) production and exotic animals/plants for income; food, social and livelihood. Like other countries, in aquaculture, most of the cultured species are non-native, some of them have invasive potential. The critical issue faced by aquarium industry, where most of the species are non-natives and posed harm to biodiversity if released to the natural waters. Therefore, we revised the Fisheries Act 1985 to include comprehensive list of species to be prohibited to enter the country, however, there is no proper jurisdiction on the species already inside.

- Social and Public Awareness Gap
o Low public awareness: The general population often lacks understanding about IAS impacts, which results in unintentional introductions through the pet trade, ornamental plants, or improper disposal (Ahmad et al., 2021).
o Cultural practices/local economy source: Some IAS such as the golden apple snail were introduced for food or aquaculture, reflecting the negative consequences due to lack of risk communication (Nghiem et al., 2013).
o To address this issue, studies must be done to create more awareness to the public. An initial study by Azyyati et al. (2018) which found only 14.7% of respondents knew the term IAS. While a recent study in a small sub-urban community in Kuala Lumpur on the awareness of aquatic invasion, better understanding (64.5%) on the impact of non-native fish species, 78.4% agree that IAS is one of the main threat to native species (Haslawati et al. 2024; 2025). More studies and action are planned to increase public awareness.
o Some of the studies and progress are attached.

- Others
o Diverse ecosystems (coastal, rainforest, highlands) increase vulnerability to different IAS types (e.g., aquatic, terrestrial).
o Data gaps in species distribution and risk mapping reduce the effectiveness of preventive action.
o Whenever possible, studies on the distribution are done, but not well documented, and lack of collaborative efforts and coordination, showing weak implementation of the National Action Plan
o New technology is being implemented, such as environmental DNA (eDNA) surveillance or centralised geographic information systems (GIS) for real-time monitoring
o Funding and Resource Constraints: Limited research grants and most control efforts are reactive rather than preventive due to constrained budgets

• Do you collaborate with bordering countries to prevent IAS? If so, how?
o Through regional platform (ASEAN), Malaysia and its neighbouring countries (other ASEAN Member States (AMSs)) has come out with ASEAN Action Plan of Invasive Alien Species Management (refer to the attached document) to facilitate collaboration among its member states, share knowledge and best practices, and coordinate efforts to address the invasive species threat.

o At the same time, Malaysia is actively engaging in dialogue for harmonizing surveillance, data sharing, and emergency response systems with its neighbouring countries through international platforms (CBD, IPPC, WOAH).



• Do you think your country has the necessary policies to prevent the entry of IAS?

Yes. Existing policies – The National Agrofood Policy (2021-2030) and NAP IAS (2021–2025) includes sector-specific policy actions covering:
o Surveillance and monitoring of pest and diseases
o Import risk analysis
o Quarantine inspection protocols
o Updated lists of high-risk IAS by sector (plants, animals, aquatic species)
o Enhanced enforcement at 112 entry points nationwide
o Department of Fisheries Malaysia has amended the Fisheries Act 1985 to include more species prohibited to enter Malaysia (Fisheries (Prohibition of Import, etc., of Fish) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
We have done risk assessment using our own developed criteria, which used for all the categories (7 criteria – page 31, NAP)
o Listed in Invasive Species Database
o Species distributions
o Interaction with native species
o Economic impacts
o Potential of introduction, establishment and spread
o Detectability and availability of control measures, and
o Survival temperature range and climate tolerance

As for aquatic species, we have done another assessment and improved the criteria as showed in attachments. Some of the progress in the implementation of NAP for aquatic sector were presented in Asian Society of Ichthyologists Conference 2024 (Haslawati et al., 2024)

Hello everyone,
Good day to all.
Interesting discussions and sharing. Apologise for the late posting, need time to discuss with my other fellow. My name is Haslawati Baharuddin, I am a senior research officer affiliated with the Fisheries Research Institute (Department of Fisheries Malaysia). I have been involved in the Invasive Alien Species issues and discussions, for at least the past 15 years. I am also actively involved in the development of National Action Plan on the Invasive Alien Species (NAP) as one of the Technical Committee Member, representing aquatic section. We have published our NAP 2021-2025, and working hard to fulfill/take necessary actions in the plan (attached).
https://www.doa.gov.my/doa/resources/aktiviti_sumber/sumber_awam/penerbitan/buku/national_action_plan_on_invasive_alien_species_2021-2025.pdf
Here are some answers for Topic #1:
Is the topic of invasive alien species included in your NBSAP?
Invasive Alien Species (IAS) are explicitly addressed under Target 13 of Malaysia’s National Policy on Biological Diversity (NPBD) 2022-2030: By 2030, measures are in place for the prevention, eradication, containment, and control of invasive alien species. This target is applied to cross sectors – crops and forestry, fisheries/aquatic, and veterinary/animal health.
Do you think your country has the necessary policies and tools to address Target 6?
Yes, we do. Malaysia implements the National Action Plan on Invasive Alien Species 2021–2025 (NAP IAS), which provides a multi-sectoral policy framework that encompasses plant, animal, and aquatic health. It includes goals for risk assessment, early detection, rapid response, and inter-agency collaboration across all sectors.
Prevention (Tools And Mechanisms Used, Challenges And Best Practices)
Which tools and mechanisms do you use or consider useful for preventing the introduction of IAS (e.g., artificial intelligence, surveillance, etc.)?
Malaysia utilizes a comprehensive toolbox for IAS prevention (refer to NAP IAS 2021-2025), including:
• Cross-sector risk assessments (crops, livestock, fisheries)
• Monitoring and surveillance activity (crops, livestock, fisheries)
• Regulated import permit systems
• Border surveillance and inspection by Malaysian Quarantine & Inspection Services (MAQIS), Department of Fisheries (DOF), Department of Veterinary Services (DVS), and Department of Agriculture (DOA)
• Monitoring of ballast water (for marine IAS)
• Public awareness program (see attachment, abstract & poster (Haslawati et al., 2024)
• Mobile apps and databases (MyBIS – IAS module), MyBIS is a database on Malaysian Biodiversity, http://www.mybis.gov.my, has won many awards internationally.
• Emerging technologies such as eDNA tools (still new and under studied)
From my part, for aquatic species, we do surveillance, studying waterbodies reported to have bio-invasion (aquatic fauna, in particular, fish) for the past 10 years, but being an agency that represents food security the challenge is to balance the the conflict between economic and biodiversity. Refer to articles in FRI Newsletter (2021) attached https://fri.dof.gov.my/en/publications-fri-newsletter/

• What are the challenges you are facing or foresee in preventing the introduction of IAS? (Policy, social, permits, geography, binational invasion, others)

- Malaysia, a country with extensive coastlines, and porous borders with neighbouring countries like Thailand, Indonesia, and the Philippines make  vulnerable to both intentional and accidental introductions of IAS.

- Policy and Institutional Gaps:
o Lack of a unified national framework: Malaysia lacks a centralised and cohesive national IAS management strategy. Different agencies handle different sectors (e.g., agriculture, fisheries, forestry), often without coordination (Faridah-Hanum & Latiff, 2021).
o Weak enforcement of quarantine laws: Customs and biosecurity enforcement at ports often lack the personnel and infrastructure to detect or manage IAS.
o Lack of policy and enforcement on IAS:
In agriculture sector, conflict between industry and consumer (commercial) production and exotic animals/plants for income; food, social and livelihood. Like other countries, in aquaculture, most of the cultured species are non-native, some of them have invasive potential. The critical issue faced by aquarium industry, where most of the species are non-natives and posed harm to biodiversity if released to the natural waters. Therefore, we revised the Fisheries Act 1985 to include comprehensive list of species to be prohibited to enter the country, however, there is no proper jurisdiction on the species already inside.

- Social and Public Awareness Gap
o Low public awareness: The general population often lacks understanding about IAS impacts, which results in unintentional introductions through the pet trade, ornamental plants, or improper disposal (Ahmad et al., 2021).
o Cultural practices/local economy source: Some IAS such as the golden apple snail were introduced for food or aquaculture, reflecting the negative consequences due to lack of risk communication (Nghiem et al., 2013).
o To address this issue, studies must be done to create more awareness to the public. An initial study by Azyyati et al. (2018) which found only 14.7% of respondents knew the term IAS. While a recent study in a small sub-urban community in Kuala Lumpur on the awareness of aquatic invasion, better understanding (64.5%) on the impact of non-native fish species, 78.4% agree that IAS is one of the main threat to native species (Haslawati et al. 2024; 2025). More studies and action are planned to increase public awareness.
o Some of the studies and progress are attached.

- Others
o Diverse ecosystems (coastal, rainforest, highlands) increase vulnerability to different IAS types (e.g., aquatic, terrestrial).
o Data gaps in species distribution and risk mapping reduce the effectiveness of preventive action.
o Whenever possible, studies on the distribution are done, but not well documented, and lack of collaborative efforts and coordination, showing weak implementation of the National Action Plan
o New technology is being implemented, such as environmental DNA (eDNA) surveillance or centralised geographic information systems (GIS) for real-time monitoring
o Funding and Resource Constraints: Limited research grants and most control efforts are reactive rather than preventive due to constrained budgets

• Do you collaborate with bordering countries to prevent IAS? If so, how?
o Through regional platform (ASEAN), Malaysia and its neighbouring countries (other ASEAN Member States (AMSs)) has come out with ASEAN Action Plan of Invasive Alien Species Management (refer to the attached document) to facilitate collaboration among its member states, share knowledge and best practices, and coordinate efforts to address the invasive species threat.

o At the same time, Malaysia is actively engaging in dialogue for harmonizing surveillance, data sharing, and emergency response systems with its neighbouring countries through international platforms (CBD, IPPC, WOAH).



• Do you think your country has the necessary policies to prevent the entry of IAS?

Yes. Existing policies – The National Agrofood Policy (2021-2030) and NAP IAS (2021–2025) includes sector-specific policy actions covering:
o Surveillance and monitoring of pest and diseases
o Import risk analysis
o Quarantine inspection protocols
o Updated lists of high-risk IAS by sector (plants, animals, aquatic species)
o Enhanced enforcement at 112 entry points nationwide
o Department of Fisheries Malaysia has amended the Fisheries Act 1985 to include more species prohibited to enter Malaysia (Fisheries (Prohibition of Import, etc., of Fish) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
We have done risk assessment using our own developed criteria, which used for all the categories (7 criteria – page 31, NAP)
o Listed in Invasive Species Database
o Species distributions
o Interaction with native species
o Economic impacts
o Potential of introduction, establishment and spread
o Detectability and availability of control measures, and
o Survival temperature range and climate tolerance

As for aquatic species, we have done another assessment and improved the criteria as showed in attachments. Some of the progress in the implementation of NAP for aquatic sector were presented in Asian Society of Ichthyologists Conference 2024 (Haslawati et al., 2024)

Greetings. I`m Adroit Chakandinakira, a Fisheries Ecologist based at Lake Kariba Fisheries Research Institute under the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority. We have the Australian redclaw crayfish (Cherax quadricarinatus), an invasive species in Lake Kariba therefore my contribution is in this context.

The prevention, management, control, and eradication of invasive alien species (IAS) like the Australian redclaw crayfish in Lake Kariba and other water bodies in Zimbabwe involve a range of tools, mechanisms, challenges, and best practices. These efforts align with Target 6 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which aims to mitigate the impacts of IAS on biodiversity and ecosystem services.

Tools and Mechanisms
1. Prevention
o Risk Assessments: Conducting risk assessments to identify potential IAS and their pathways of introduction.
o Public Awareness Campaigns: Educating the public about the risks associated with IAS and promoting responsible behaviours to prevent their spread and/or accidental unauthorised introductions.
2. Early Detection and Rapid Response (EDRR)
o Monitoring Programs: Establishing regular monitoring programs using citizen science and professional surveys to detect IAS early. Citizen science involves public engagement in scientific research, which has proven effective in ecological monitoring.
o Reporting Systems: Creating platforms for the public and stakeholders to report sightings of IAS and species new to the system, facilitating rapid response for further investigation.
3. Control and Management
o Biological Control: Natural predators that prey on crayfish (Tiger fish, Bottlenose fish etc) can be attributed to the keeping their numbers in check.
o Mechanical Control: Physical removal of IAS through their harvest for commercial purposes.

Challenges
1. Inadequate Funding
o Limited budgets hinder the implementation of comprehensive prevention, monitoring, and control measures.
2. Weak Enforcement
o Even when laws exist, enforcement mechanisms are often lacking, reducing the effectiveness of IAS management.
3. Public Awareness
o Low public awareness and engagement can impede efforts to prevent and control IAS.
4. Technological Limitations
o The lack of advanced tools and technologies for monitoring and controlling IAS can be a significant barrier particularly for aquatic ecosystems which are complex, and control efforts can easily have unintended consequences.

Best Practices
1. Community Engagement
o Involving local communities in monitoring and reporting IAS through citizen science initiatives, as demonstrated in research that has been conducted on this.
2. International Cooperation
o Collaborating with international organizations and neighbouring countries to share knowledge, resources, and strategies for IAS management.
3. Adaptive Management
o Implementing flexible management strategies that can be adjusted based on new information and changing conditions e.g. promotion of IAS harvesting.
4. Capacity Building
o Training stakeholders and building local capacity to effectively manage IAS.

Facilitating International and Regional Cooperation
1. Regional Agreements
o Establishing regional agreements and partnerships to address transboundary IAS issues and facilitate coordinated responses. This applies not only for Lake Kariba but for the whole Zambezi basin.
2. Information Sharing
o Creating platforms for sharing information, best practices, and research findings among countries and regions. Technical Consultation forums on the management of the fisheries of Lake Kariba (Zambia and Zimbabwe), Lake Cahora Bassa and Lake Malawi are held biennially to share information and make resolutions accordingly at technical levels and for possible adoption at management/policy level.

By leveraging these tools, mechanisms, and best practices, and addressing the challenges, effective management of IAS can be achieved, contributing to the implementation of Target 6 and enhancing international and regional cooperation.

Hi All

Great to see and understand the diversity of approaches and the challenges of prevention and management of IAS under T6 of the GBF.

I just want to bring to front of mind the extensive review of IAS management (https://zenodo.org/records/11437851) and governance and policy options (https://zenodo.org/records/10677227) undertaken as part of the "IPBES thematic assessment report on Invasive Alien Species and their Control" contributed to by >100 of our colleagues published in 2023.

This was implicitly written to support T6 and includes plenty of available consideration of decision support tools, scalable control strategies, database resources, management options and effectiveness, challenges for addressing conflict species (with contrasting values), gaps and impediments, and supporting approaches to improve effective management.  

Management was also considered separately for a) Terrestrial & closed water systems and b) Marine & connected water systems

It is great to see plenty of exciting new information being shared through this forum that adds to the global brains trust on IAS management and how management policy and approaches vary across CBD Parties.

Hi All

I am a research scientist based in CSIRO, Australia's national science agency with a long career focussed on IAS management and development and support of national biosecurity systems.

While Australia's approaches to its national biosecurity (Federal government responsibility) and IAS management (largely State and Territory government responsibility) are well documented in the IPBES Thematic Assessment and resources available at https://www.agriculture.gov.au/biosecurity-trade/policy/environmental and associated State and Territory webpages (e.g. https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/topics/animals-and-plants/pest-animals-and-weeds), I thought I would share some recent initiatives that are helping to combat IAS before finishing on Australia's foci re T6.

PREVENTION:
a) Biosecurity Alerts: The Atlas of Living Australia (ALA - Australia's GBIF) has set up an automated alert system with iNaturalist and similar platforms such that when citizens load a new record of an exotic species (supported by GRIIS and National priority pest lists and databases) onto one of these platforms, national and state biosecurity regulators are notified so such detections can be confirmed and responded to for ERR in near real time through existing intra-national agreements and processes. The software capacity to do this is open source as are all of the ALA's systems and algorithms.

PREVENTION to CONTROL: 
b) Indigenous IAS engagement. The Federal and State governments are increasing to invest in supporting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ranger programs to undertake regional biosecurity surveillance and to undertake IAS management "On Country" across Indigenous Protected Areas (Australia's largest land custodians) to well over 100 ranger groups. These include an increasing number of groups set up as business SMEs funded through the provisions of multiple services in addition to IAS prevention and management (e.g. fire, threatened species and ghost net management). Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property (ICIP) are explicitly considered providing these businesses with access to technological solutions they need to improve outcomes (e.g. drones, ID apps and eDNA capability)
c)  "Biosecurity tracker" platform. Adaptation of the COVID-19 tracker approach to apply next generation sequencing to understand how IAS are moving and evolving around the world, predicting the genotypes of greatest biogeographic threat and understanding post-border pathway spread should they arrive to support real-time management decisions. High path avian influenza (H5N1) combined with risk analysis of flyways and species is the best current example.

NEEDS TO SUPPORT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TARGET 6:
1. While Australia has strong intelligence gathering and risk analyses processes, with new approaches under development, to effectively manage pathways of introduction, emphasis is through:
i) leadership in IPPC (hitchhiker species, and system-based pest manage along supply chains),
ii) support in IMO (ballast water and biofouling),
iii) digital surveillance of illegal wildlife trade (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110040), and
iv) genomic based natural pathway monitoring (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-27501-x),
Nonetheless species continue on arrive and establish on natural and anthropogenic pathways, albeit at very low levels compared to international trends.

2. "Reducing the rates of introduction and establishment of other known or potential invasive alien species by at least 50%" depends on the baseline which is still being debated in Australia as a way of measuring target achievement

3. "Eradicating or controlling invasive alien species especially in priority sites, such as islands" remains the biggest challenge, and while investments are being made to tackle key IAS like Red Imported Fire Ants and priority sites such as high biodiversity Islands (with some success) and critical habitat for listed threatened species and ecosystems, the challenge far out ways national capacity based on traditional tools and technologies. To address this Australian government is investing heavily in novel genetic approaches for key species such as rodents, European rabbits and carp, cane toads and eventually feral cats.

Hello everyone, I am Janet Ncube, working at the Plant Quarantine Services Institute under the Agricultural Research, Innovation, and Specialist Services Directorate in Zimbabwe. As part of the Research Services Division, our institute plays a pivotal role in safeguarding the country's plant health and promoting sustainable agriculture. At the Plant Quarantine Services Institute, we are committed to detect and monitor emerging pests and diseases that threaten plant resources including the IAS.  We work tirelessly to safeguard Zimbabwe's agriculture and environment from the devastating impacts of pests and diseases

Is the topic of invasive alien species included in your NBSAP?
Yes, the topic of invasive alien species (IAS) is included in Zimbabwe's National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP).

Do you think your country has the necessary policies and tools to address Target 6?
Zimbabwe has made progress in addressing invasive alien species (IAS), but there is still room for improvement. The country has:
The Plant Pests and Diseases Act [Chapter 19:08], which aims to control and prevent the spread of plant pests and diseases.
The Environmental Management Act (Chapter 20:27) promotes sustainable environmental management and protection.

Prevention (Tools And Mechanisms Used, Challenges And Best Practices)
Tools Used
1. Border phytosanitary controls: regulating the importation of plants and plant products to prevent IAS introduction.
2. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): assessing the potential environmental impacts of projects and activities.
3. Mechanical removal -  physically removing invasive species, such as Lantana camara.
4. Using biological control agents, such as Megamelus sculletaris for P crassipes and Cytobagus for Salvinnia molesta
Challenges
1.  Insufficient resources and capacity to enforce existing policies and regulations.
2. Limited understanding and engagement among the public on IAS issues.
3.  IAS can spread across national borders, requiring regional cooperation.
4.  Existing policies and laws are not  coordinated.

Policy and Institutional Gaps
Lack of enforcement: - weak enforcement mechanisms can render policies ineffective.
Lack of coordination: - poor coordination among government agencies, stakeholders, and sectors can hinder environmental management.
Inadequate capacity: - insufficient resources, funding, or expertise can limit the effectiveness of environmental institutions.

Social and Public Awareness Gap
Insufficient environmental education and awareness programs
Limited access to environmental information and data.
prioritize economic development over environmental conservation

Do you collaborate with bordering countries to prevent IAS? If so, how?
Zimbabwe is partnering with Rhodes University in South Africa to tackle invasive species issues through classical biological control methods. This collaboration aims to conduct research on biological control agents and to promote sustainable management:

Do you think your country has the necessary policies to prevent the entry of IAS?
Zimbabwe has policies and regulations in place to prevent the entry of Invasive Alien Species (IAS), including:
1. Environmental Management Act: .
2. Plant Pests and Diseases Act:

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, including the IAS legislation development and implementation in Finland, and I would be happy to share our views on challenges and best practices about the prevention, management, control and eradication of invasive alien species, towards the implementation of Target 6 of the Framework.

1. General:
The topic of invasive alien species has been included in Finland´s NBSAP since 2012, including clear targets and actions. The updated NBSAP until the year 2035 is still waiting for the official Governmental decision process, but will also include clear targets and actions for the topic of IAS.

Finland, as a member state of the European Union EU, has an EU-wide IAS legislation since 2015 to implement, covering important policies and tools to address Target 6. The EU legislation includes the EU IAS list to prioritize the actions to the most harmful IAS species. The EU IAS legislation covers strict restrictions on intentional activities; IAS that are listed are NOT to be imported into the EU, kept, bred, grown, sold, transported or released into the environment.

Besides the EU IAS legislation, Finland has also our national IAS legislation to implement: the purpose of the Finland´s national Act on Managing the Risk Caused by Alien Species is to combat IAS, including by preventing the import, rearing or release of invasive alien species. The Act entered into force in the beginning of 2016. It lays down provisions on the responsibility of landowners and professional operators for combating invasive alien species that may cause harm especially in the Finnish conditions. Provisions on such species, which are also included in the list of species of national concern, and on banning their import and other operations related to them, have been laid down by the Government Decree.

Besides the legislation, Finland has also developed five national management action plans to help the implementation of the IAS legislation and to manage IAS with cost-effective and prioritized targeted actions.

2. Prevention (tools and mechanisms used, challenges and best practices):
In general 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. In Finland, clear IAS legislation with the EU and national IAS lists for prioritized species have been the key tool to prevent new IAS to arrive the country as well as to mitigate the harmful effects of the IAS; prevention of new introductions or further spread, including strict restrictions on intentional activities such as IAS importation, cultivation, sales and other possession or release into the environment, have been laid down by the IAS legislation. The border control and surveillance by the Finnish Customs is also one cornerstone to prevent the introductions of new IAS. The EU-level early detection, including early warning system - notification system for Member States to inform European Commission and other Member States on new observations of IAS of Union concern, and on rapid eradication measures of new IAS populations - including surveillance and official controls, are part of the essential tools and mechanisms used to prevent introductions.

The prevention of invasive alien species is the most effective when it takes place in cooperation between different authorities, operators and private people. The Finnish Advisory Board for Invasive Alien Species has served as the national expert body since 2013. It is tasked with promoting, monitoring and developing the implementation of the EU and national legislation on invasive alien species and diverse communication that reaches the different target groups on matters related to invasive alien species.

Some challenges we might face when preventing the introduction of new IAS may include challenges to identify some species (e.g. seeds), as well as control the species that arrive via e-commerce.

There are some close collaborations between EU bordering countries as well as some Scandinavian Nordic countries to prevent IAS: we meet each other, share our experiences and information as well as contact also informally if needed further discussions on special cases. Any new best practices or tools are always welcome to be added in the tool box of different practices to prevent the entry of IAS.

3. Management (tools and mechanisms used, challenges and best practices):
The management measures for IAS in Finland are selected based on the risk arising from the species and the costs and benefits of the prevention measures. The risk assessment is based on the typical qualities of the species, their harmful effects, their opportunities to spread and thrive in our climate, the current stage of their spreading, their current distribution and the prevention measures available. A management plan addresses the prevention of occurrences of alien species and describes the responsible parties and cooperation partners for the implementation of the measures, as well as presenting a schedule for the implementation. All IAS listed in the EU list or Finland´s national IAS list are included in the management plan, so all listed IAS are addressed to specific management actions.

Awareness rising of these specific IAS management tools and actions is the key for the management. In Finland our national IAS web portal site https://vieraslajit.fi/  includes all information available on management about each IAS: All Information on invasive alien species in Finland has been compiled on the this website. The website helps to identify and combat invasive alien species and collect sightings of these, including for monitoring the species and for research. The website contains information on the legislation related to the prevention of invasive alien species and on the management plans.

The international databases, like EU IAS databases but also GISD Global Invasive Species Database are important background information for management.

Possible main challenges we face or foresee regarding IAS management is usually the resources available.

4. Control and eradication (tools and mechanisms used, challenges and best practices):
The IAS legislation, including the management plans with concrete control and eradication tools and mechanisms, are key to control and eradicate IAS in Finland. As our management plans usually indicate many IAS are to be eradicated most urgently from areas of highest biodiversity value, like nature conservation areas or sites with threatened species and habitats.

As an example of best practices, a highly innovative and popular way to eradicate IAS in Finland has been since some years ago a mobile game which gathers the citizens together to find or fight against IAS in their neighborhoods and beyond. The eradication process of each sighting is repeated every few weeks, until new invasive plants no more appear in the area. This so called Crowdsorsa mobile game has found an approach extremely effective, including with full documentation as well; they produce accurate data about the IAS location, area size, density and the species of each repelled sighting. The clients also get access to the intuitive video service to view the before and after footage of any sighting marked on the map. Crowdsorsa is a mobile application that can be used to attack invasive alien species that threaten Finnish nature. In the game, you search for and eradicate invasive alien plants, and instead of points, the reward is real money. https://www.crowdsorsa.com/invasive-species/ – This has been a new way to mainstream IAS control and eradication also and especially to young people.

Information on control and eradication measures are collected and registered nationally in our IAS website since 2013; in the website you can follow in the maps how different IAS eradication processes are advanced in different parts of the country.

The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments (BWM Convention of the IMO, the International Maritime Organisation of the United Nations) and all the measures agreed in the Convention are essential for Finland; the measures reduce the spread of aquatic species in new areas and into Finland in the future.

Besides the strict IAS legislation, the most useful and cost-benefit tools also for control and eradication cover awareness rising from all sources. But also, any other additional new best practices would be appreciated by us to further control and eradicate IAS.

4. Needs to support the implementation of T6:
As highlighted already above, awareness rising is one of the cornerstones of the implementation of the IAS management but also of the T6. To raise awareness, including education and guidance, as well as data sharing between CBD Parties, organizations as well as stakeholders and all operators, are the key actions for the IAS prevention and where more further efforts needs to be focused. Already existing global IAS data sharing platforms, including best practices and tools could be even more advertised and extended. Relevant up-to-date information is needed, for each Party and/or region, if not yet available and functional, 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. To support the implementation of T6, the IPBES IAS report from the year 2023 provides highly up-to-date and high-quality scientific information which should be used and utilized to the full.

Sincerely,
Johanna Niemivuo-Lahti

Dear Ms. Rachel Ariey-Jouglard


I would like to react to post [#3328]. In your post, you mention the CBD Toolkit for target 6, that looks at data standards to help a country provide input to international databases. This is very valuable information for my work. I am convening a task group specifically focusing on the improvement of the Darwin Core standards to capture IAS data. You indicate that "the Darwin Core standard is the least complex, although a lot of information on management or impacts are missing".

My question here is: do you have any specific examples of what should be included in the standard? Are we able to calculate the headline, component and complementary indicators for target 6 with the data inlcuded in the Darwin Core standard and what should be added?

Thank you very much for your time
Best wishes,
Lien Reyserhove

Greetings from Kathmandu.
I am Bharat Babu Shrestha, Professor at the Central Department of Botany, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Nepal. I am thankful to Nepal Government (Ministry of Forest and Environment) and the CBD for this opportunity.
Below are responses to the guiding questions posted at the start of this online discussion

General
Question: Is the topic of invasive alien species included in your NBSAP?
Response: Yes, the topic of IAS has been included in the NBSAP of Nepal. Preparation of the new NBSAP for 2030 is underway and very close to finalization process. The topic of IAS has been included as National Target 10 in the Nepal’s new NBSAP. The IAS was also included in the previous NBSAP for 2014- 2020. 

Question: Do you think your country has the necessary policies and tools to address Target 6?
Response: Only partially. On March 30, 2025 the Ministry of Forest and Environment endorsed the National Invasive Species Strategy and Action Plan (NISSAP). With this policy development, it is anticipated that prevention and control of IAS will be mainstreamed across sectors such as biodiversity conservation, protected areas management, aquaculture and fishery, floriculture, infrastructure development, etc. While there is policy provision for pre-border risk assessment, it has been seldom implemented, leading to unregulated entry of potentially invasive species through trade and travel networks. Some sectoral strategies such as the protected area and Ramsar site management have included IAS management components. 

Question: Prevention (tools and mechanisms used, challenges and best practices)
- Which tools and mechanisms do you use or consider useful for preventing the introduction of IAS (e.g., artificial intelligence, surveillance, etc.)?
Response: Stringent pre-border (and also post-border, if potential IAS have been already introduced) risk assessment for the intentional introduction, strengthening border biosecurity (quarantine) for accidental/contaminated introductions, and surveillance of border entry points, ports and international airports along with high preparedness for rapid responses could effectively reduce introduction of IAS. However, none of these has been effectively implemented in Nepal.

Question: What are the challenges you are facing or foresee in preventing the introduction of IAS? (Policy, social, permits, geography, binational invasion, others)
Response: Major challenges for the prevention of IAS in Nepal include: ambiguity among policy documents and under-estimation of the IAS threat at national level; lack of political and bureaucratic commitments; poor infrastructure and human resources capacities of border quarantine offices; very poor knowledge base of the introduction pathways; absence of Early detection and rapid response (EDRR) strategies; and open border with India which is a regional hub/source of IAS.

Question: Do you collaborate with bordering countries to prevent IAS? If so, how?
Response: I am not aware of any formal agreement and communication channel specific to the IAS with bordering countries India and China.

Question: Do you think your country has the necessary policies to prevent the entry of IAS?
Response: Yes, but only partially. The National Invasive Species Strategy and Action Plan (NISSAP) has been recently endorsed by the Ministry of Forest and Environment, which has some provisions for the prevention of IAS. Plant Protection Act is intended to prevent the entry of plant pest and pathogen, including IAS.

Management (tools and mechanisms used, challenges and best practices)

Question: Have you used cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness or multi-criteria methodologies for IAS management (e.g. those referred to in annex I of decision 16/18)?
Response: I am not aware of the use of these approaches to guide management activities in Nepal

Question: How have international databases been most helpful for IAS management in your country?
Response: The international database such as GRIIS, GBIF, GISD are commonly used by researchers of IAS in Nepal.

Control and eradication (tools and mechanisms used, challenges and best practices)
Question: Which tools and mechanisms do you use or consider useful for the control of IAS?
Response: In Nepal, physical removal of plant biomass is the most commonly used method for the control of invasive weeds. A few biocontrol agents have arrived (e.g., leaf feeding beetle Zygogramma bicolorata for invasive weed Parthenium hysterophorus) from bordering countries but the biological control program has not been initiated formally by Nepal Government, despite being sustainable and environment friendly approach.
Pheromone traps have been commonly used to monitor and reduce populations of Tuta absoluta (tomato leaf miner). Efforts have been made to identify and release native insect parasitoids for the control of Fall army worm (Spodoptera frugiperda), with promising initial results.

Question: What are the challenges you are facing regarding the control of IAS? (Policy, social, permits, geography, binational invasion, others)
Response: Major challenges for the IAS management in Nepal are: 1) Lack of economic valuation of the IAS impacts and management, despite their massive impacts on agriculture production, natural habitat management (forest, wetland, grassland), livestock health, and livelihood of indigenous people and local communities; 2) Commonly implemented physical/mechanical removal measures are not informed by scientific knowledge of target species’ reproductive and ecological features; 3) lack of communication, collaboration and common understanding among government agencies for the prevention and control of IAS; 4) Control measures sporadic, activity-based, and unorganized rather than regular and result-oriented; 5) Lack of awareness and information flow among diverse stakeholders including policy makers, bureaucrats, resources managers and local communities.

Question: Do you think your country has the necessary policies and tools to control and eradicate IAS?
Response: Only partially. On March 30, 2025 the Ministry of Forest and Environment endorsed the National Invasive Species Strategy and Action Plan (NISSAP). With this policy development, it is anticipated that prevention, eradication and control of IAS will be mainstreamed across sectors such as biodiversity conservation, protected areas management, aquaculture and fishery, floriculture, infrastructure development, etc. Some sectoral strategies such as the protected area and Ramsar site management have included IAS control components. 

Needs to support the implementation of T6
Question: Share any gaps in information or tools that you consider could hinder the implementation of T6.
Response: There are three major issues:
1) Very poor knowledge and documentation of introduction pathways (e.g., no record of species intercepted during the border quarantine screening)
2) Lack of economic valuation of IAS in Nepal; unless the management and impacts are expressed in the monetary values, the politicians are not interested to manage IAS.
3) Diverse stakeholders have been perceiving IAS in contrasting ways, from economic opportunities (e.g., promotion of highly invasive fish for aquaculture by Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development) to threat to biodiversity and ecosystems. Lack of national consensus among major stakeholders for the IAS management can greatly hinder the effective implementation of NISSAP and the IAS relevant activities of the NBSAP.

Question: What scientific, technical and technological advice would be most helpful for the CBD to explore to best support the implementation of T6?
Response: Following three issues, among many others, can help to meet T6:
1) Developing standardized method/protocol for economic valuation of the management and impacts by nations
2) Mobilization of international funds for research and management in developing economies.
3) Establishment of global and regional forum/network for exchange of data/information, best practices, success and failure of IAS management, potential IAS alert, and collective efforts for prevent and control.

Good morning to you all from Scotland.

My name is Daisy Burnell and I work as a Senior Marine Ornithologist for the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), which is an arms length advisory body for the UK government. I must apologise for being so quiet up until now, but the discussions and information being shared have been great and I am taking as many notes as possible. My work area is a little more specialised than general IAS control/eradication etc, so I am not sure what knowledge or further experience I can impart. 
Part of role at the moment is chairing a cross organisation working group (NGOs and government bodies) which shares information, lessons learnt and upcoming issues/challenges and best practices for biosecurity related to invasive, non-native mammalian predators on important breeding seabird islands around the UK. The overall aim of the group is to have a UK-wide strategic approach to implementation of biosecurity measures and incursion responses. I guess this area fits in well with the topic question around prevention, management and control and I am happy to elaborate if people would like me to.
As for eradication, this is a little more tricky as we have populated islands with established populations of rats, mice and feral cats. The financial costs for completing eradications on these important sites are high. However, there is growing interest from offshore industries to fund eradications/restoration projects as part of compensatory measures. Again I can try and expand on this if people are interested but as I said earlier my knowledge in this field is quite taxa specific and unfortunately none-existent when it comes to plants.

I look forward to seeing more of your replies and discussion as this forum continues,

Daisy

Good evening, everyone. April 15th, 2025 marks the 10th National Security Education Day for All in China. I'm very glad to see that this year's theme includes "Preventing Alien Invasions and Protecting Biological Diversity." This reflects the emphasis placed by the Chinese government on popular science work regarding alien invasions.

Thank you for participating in the forum Daisy Burnell,

I would be most interested in hearing more about the cross-organizations group that you chair. Integrated governance is something that the IPBES Thematic Assessment of IAS and their Control noted, and expanding on this point would be very interesting.

In addition, the topic of dealing with invasive species as a way to compensate for work from industry is something that is starting to be raised in Canada as well. I would be grateful if you could expand on this and if this could be considered an conservation exchange or how it is dealt with (or starting to be discussed).

Thank you again for your participation in the forum. And, just like you mentioned, I have also learned a lot from this forum so far and hope to continue to do so.

Thank you for your participation in the forum Marvis Suárez Romero.

The work undertaken and the priorities set by Cuba seem very clear, which would certainly help with implementing Target 6 in the country.

Could you expand on the following two bullets that you mentioned in your intervention? How are those being set in place, do you have lessons learned and best practices to share with the rest of the participants to the online forum on how you implement those initiatives:
• Implement an early warning mechanism for the introduction of exotic and invasive species.
• Adapt and strengthen regulatory and control mechanisms, with emphasis on new economic actors.

Thank you again for your participation in the forum.

Thank you Riccardo Scalera for your participation in the forum.

The work undertaken by the European Commission is impressive, and the fact that it is available to all is very helpful for all involved in this work. The work under the Bern Convention also helps increase the reach of IAS work.
I have been impressed by the work that the European Commission undertakes with regards to IAS since I have become more familiar with it, and I expect that collaboration and agreement on species at the European scale must help achieve more significant results since they are applied so widely.

How have countries under the European Commission worked together to make the issue of IAS a priority and come to agree on Invasive Alien Species Regulation (Regulation (EU) 1143/2014)? Are methodologies for risk assessment agreed upon at the European level? Furthermore, are methodologies updated to include the impact of other direct drivers of global biodiversity loss on IAS?

I would also like to encourage you to share your thoughts and ideas on these documents, as well as on future needs with regards to knowledge on IAS.

Thank you again for your participation.

Thank you María Gabriela Llaya for your participation in the forum.

I was curious about the InBUy database of Invasive and Alien Species that you mentioned, and have several follow-up questions on it:

- Is this database joint work between the government and the Faculty of Sciences of the University of the Republic? If it is led entirely by the University of the Republic, does the Government of Uruguay use this list as a tool to identify IAS priorities?

- Does the list look at species already in Uruguay or also at potentially invasive species that could come, which means it can also be a tool to prevent biological invasions?

- I looked up an article I found on InBUy from 2010, and it noted that “Data showed that introductions of IAS into Uruguay are mainly intentional (67%), so efforts should be focused on policies and rules in order to control the entrance of exotic organisms and prevent new invasions.” How does the government or other organizations engage with stakeholders, including web marketplaces (sales platforms), e-payment service providers and postal and express courier services to prevent IAS introductions linked to e-commerce or to other intentional invasions? If the government has engaged on this issue, what have you found was most effective or most challenging?

Link to the article: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262505024_InBUy_database_of_Invasive_and_Alien_Species_IAS_in_Uruguay_a_useful_tool_to_confront_this_threat_to_biodiversity

Thank you again for your participation.

Dear Lien Reyserhove,

My knowledge with regards to databases is fairly limited, as I mostly work on policy development and coordination.

We do not have a full portrait of the situation of IAS in Canada and do not input into GRIIS at the federal level just yet. For example, provinces and territories have information on the IAS that they regulate, and federal ministries also have the same information. At the federal level, the indicator on IAS, “Known Newly Established IAS by year of detection, 2012-2023” reflects the number of new established IAS that federal ministries have been trying to address, but does not include provincial and territorial data.

I have been working with colleagues to seek how to help ensure that Canada provide more information into GRIIS, and was given advice by colleagues who work for Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, who are also the main GIBF point of contact for Canada. We were told the Darwin Core standard would be most appropriate and easiest to use given the type of information we would have to share (which is very basic at the moment, mostly the scientific name of a specie, and occurrence or establishment. It would exclude information on management). We also hope that, using the Darwin Core standard, we would be able to input information on alien species that can be found in the Wild Species Reports. The Reports, updated every five years, is a federal-provincial-territorial report which focuses on the conservation status of species in Canada and identifies exotic species to Canada (no information on status of those species – invasive or not – or on the invasiveness of those exotics species is provided however as the focus of the document is on conservation status). 

I would be happy to connect you to them if you wish. If that is the case, please do not hesitate to contact me at rachel.ariey-jouglard@ec.gc.ca.

Thank you.

Good morning, colleagues, once again, I greet you from Cuba. I wanted to let you know that our country has environmental legislation for the control and management of invasive and non-invasive exotic species. All activities involving these species require a prior environmental license, whether for importation, transportation within the country, breeding, or release into the environment. The holder of an environmental license may request deregulation of the license for the activity or species covered by the document, provided that 10 years have passed in the case of exotic species that have not presented adverse effects on the environment.

The main challenge in this area is the lack of funding for obtaining high-tech tools for detecting illegal entries (e.g., the Giant African Snail) or controlling species that arrive in our country unintentionally (e.g., Perna viridis and Unomia stolonífera). Furthermore, it is important to educate the public about the danger of introducing these species, train border personnel, and encourage community action to achieve effective species control through their use whenever possible.

kind regards

MSc. Marvis Suárez Romero

I fully agree with you, Dr. Theofanis Karayannis of the International Maritime Organization. Complying with international, regional, and national regulations for ship cleaning and ballasting and deballasting processes significantly minimizes the introduction of IAS into our countries, with all kinds of consequences, including economic ones. A few years ago, the green mussel, or Perna viridis, arrived in one of our bays, blocking the cooling channels of a thermal power plant, resulting in high costs for control and elimination. Given this situation, a series of measures were implemented with minimal impact on the surrounding environment.

Best regards
MSc. Marvis Suárez Romero

Thank you very much for your participation Mr. Andy Sheppard.

With regards to the biosecurity alerts, does the Government of Australia also work with iNaturalist and similar platforms to help verify the species that are being loaded onto these platforms? I am wondering if this is part of the intra-national agreements that you may have with those organizations. Furthermore, does the Government of Australia rely on these platforms to help enhance community science and alerts, or does your government also developed its own platform (e.g., for specific species).

With regards to Indigenous engagement on IAS, do Indigenous communities generally share the same view on IAS than the Government of Australia? In Canada, some Indigenous perspectives vary and not all communities wish to employ the same language or adopt the view that IAS should be eradicated.
Furthermore, is the work they do on IAS focused on this topic specifically, or is it part of larger conservation projects?

Finally, with regards to the biosecurity tracker. Is this tracker available to all? I would be interested in learning how it is being used and for what species more specifically (e.g., pathogens).

Thank  you again.

Hi Rachel thx for your questions...

The Atlas of Living Australia (ALA - part of CSIRO) does any necessary validation (also using AI algorithms) before the record is sent as an "Alert" to the State/Federal Biosecurity government end-user. Some Australian state governments also have bespoke recording platforms that are linked by ALA to this national alert system too (e.g. My Pest Guide (https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/pests-weeds-diseases/mypestguide)). Many alert spp. specific pest/disease factsheets are also available online supporting existing national prioritized plant pest lists (by sector) for biothreats not yet established.

With respect to Indigenous engagement, each community has its own values and do generally not categorise species the way the scientists do with respect IAS terminology, but more to do with benefits vs impact "On Country" (feral pigs and buffalo are the classic species valued differently by community). This is respected on the land for which they are custodians. Their work on IAS management is generally part of conservation work, but technology like drones are helping them measure the conservation benefits of IAS management to better understand the value of their management. There are ranger groups that do spend most of their time undertaking surveillance of non-widespread high impact endemic and new exotic IAS.

The Biosecurity Tracker is still under development, but as with the John Hopkins Uni COVID19 tracker, the plan is to make the machinery of it publicly available. It is however not going to be much use if you are not already undertaking extensive general surveillance to provide samples for genetic analysis.

Dear all,

My name is Kevin Smith Head of Programme Invasive Species and Wildlife Health for IUCN. While we obviously aren’t a party I think it may be useful to share some of the work IUCN has done to support collaboration on IAS into a One Health approach.

Firstly for COP 16, the IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG) and IUCN produced a report shared as an Information Document (https://www.cbd.int/conferences/2024/cop-16/documents) on how approaches for the prevention, control and management of invasive alien species may be usefully applied to biological invasions of pathogenic agents, in particular zoonotic pathogens. This report identified the important potential role that IAS play in zoonotic spill over events, and identified opportunities and priority actions to mitigate these risks through a collaborative one health approach. These included:
• the need for interdisciplinary research to help identify and manage risks related to IAS,
• the need for monitoring and surveillance and risk analysis that cover IAS and their health, and emerging infectious diseases,
• for biosecurity practices to consider risks to health of wildlife, agriculture and humans posed by IAS
• data mobilisation, guidance and tools to support the prioritisation of IAS based on risk of pathogen spillover
 
IUCN and its SSC Wildlife Health Specialist Group have also worked with the World Organisation of Animal Health (WOAH) to produce guidance for the surveillance of diseases, pathogens and toxic agents in free-ranging wildlife (https://www.woah.org/en/document/general-guidelines-for-surveillance-of-diseases-pathogens-and-toxic-agents-in-free-ranging-wildlife/ also attached to this message). These guidelines provide a framework for taking a one health collaborative approach to develop a wildlife health surveillance programme in order to inform conservation action but also to identify pathogen spillover risk to domestic animals and humans. While this guidance is not focused on IAS, it is important that IAS are included and identified as alien in wildlife health surveillance programmes as the responses will differ when compared to native wildlife.

Given that many IAS are also harvested and traded, it is also worth highlighting additional recent guidance from WOAH on addressing disease risks in wildlife trade (https://www.woah.org/app/uploads/2024/05/wildlife-trade-guidelines.pdf)

Many thanks
Kevin

Thank you Rachel for your question, which I will try to reply as concisely as possible.

How the EU Regulation on IAS originated:
- IAS become a priority in the European Union (EU) following a number of studies which highlighted the growing threat from this driver of biodiversity loss. A big contribution in this sense was certainly provided by the work done for the Bern Convention (of which the European Union and all its Member States are Parties) and particularly the European Strategy on Invasive Alien Species, see here https://rm.coe.int/1680746529
- This paved the way for further actions, but other studies also contributed, e.g. by showing that the EU had already been funding projects addressing the IAS threat without a defined strategy, e.g. the " Alien species and nature conservation in the EU. The role of the LIFE program" https://www.comunitambiente.it/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/DOC_Alien-species-and-nature-conservation.pdf
- Since then, several preparatory studies were made by the European Commission to analyze the situation and inform decision makers and Member States, including on options for addressing the IAS threat. For example the European Environment Agency (EEA) also produced the report "Towards an early warning and information system for invasive alien species (IAS) threatening biodiversity in Europe" https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/information-system-invasive-alien-species/file which contributed to raise awareness between decision makers, policymakers, stakeholders etc. and supported further discussion at the institutional level on options for a European IAS strategy.
- The history of the legislation is well summarized by Genovesi et al. 2014 in their paper "EU adopts innovative legislation on invasive species: a step towards a global response to biological invasions?" https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-014-0817-8 and by Tollington et al. in  "Making the EU Legislation on Invasive Species a Conservation Success"  https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12214
- A short note for the European Parliament on the process toward the adoption of the regulation is also available here https://op.europa.eu/publication-detail/-/publication/5b26710e-c5dd-4043-8148-0e7a8921605d
- Additional preparatory material is accessible following this link  https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/4cd6cb36-b0f1-4db4-915e-65cd29067f49/library/e55d2b6b-533d-4c8b-a6f2-29ada6f47850

Risk assessment methodology for IAS agreed in the EU:
- Regarding risk assessments for IAS, they are made in the EU based on provisions of the EC Regulation No. 1143/2014 "on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species", and related Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/968 "supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to risk assessments in relation to non-native species". Both regulations can be easily found online.
- A comprehensive template with guidance was made for the European Commission by a team led by Helen Roy (UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology) and Wolfgang Rabitsch (Umweltbundesamt GmbH / Environment Agency Austria) to ensure that risk assessments are compliant with the legislation. You can find an updated version of this template at page 41 of the report "Study on invasive alien species. Development of risk assessments to tackle priority species and enhance prevention : final report". The report, which also contains a number of risk assessments used to inform policy makers for updating the list of species of Union concern (and which may be used as example of the level of detail requested), is available here https://op.europa.eu/publication-detail/-/publication/258e41dd-7f4e-11ed-9887-01aa75ed71a1
- Worth to note that there is no need to follow the above template as long as the information provided is compliant to the provisions of the above mentioned legislation.
- Risk assessments are also based on a preliminary study for the European Commission led by Helen Roy, UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, on "Developing a framework of minimum standards for the risk assessment of alien species" see  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13025 and the report on "Invasive alien species –  framework for the identification of invasive alien species of EU concern" see https://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/509294/1/N509294CR.pdf
- Eventually, the European Commission has financed two Horizon Scanning exercises to prioritize species for risk assessment. The methodology of the first study is published in the paper by Roy et al. "Developing a list of invasive alien species likely to threaten biodiversity and ecosystems in the European Union"  available here https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14527 The other study is still in progress.
- Other reports were published across the years. You are encouraged to find these and many other alien species related resources published by the European Commission in the webpage of the Publications Office of the European Union here https://op.europa.eu/en/home

This is only part of the huge work done by the European Commission in what is a process started over 20 years ago. I think the amount of work done is a good example of a firm commitment by a fundamental institution acting at the regional level. We are experiencing some weaknesses in relation to the availability of robust scientific data to inform risk assessment and other studies. There are currently a pletora of databases etc. providing support, but there is also need of first hand data from field research.

I wish the information above can be useful to other countries and institutions,  and of course I am available to provide additional information and support that may be required on the topic.

Best wishes,

Riccardo

Hi Arne,

Kevin Smith, IUCN. I fully agree with you that the lack of resources to support implementation of strategies, development of legislation, and capacity for enforcement and awareness raisisng is a critical challenge. However, there are some funds available as both GEF and the new GBFF explicity cover IAS (incl. reguional collaboration) - i don't know how much of these funds are allocated towards IAS projects but i suspect not a huge amount? Maybe countries should be prioritising IAS projects more for GEF/GBFF - though i understand that this probably requires awareness raising within governments? Just to note that IUCN would be very keen to work with countries to develop and implement such projects (as i am sure would other international organisations such as CABI) – See the recent GBFF fund for Madagascar which includes scaling up actions on IAS https://www.thegef.org/newsroom/news/multimillion-dollar-gbff-project-target-conservation-madagascars-threatened-species

All the best

Kevin

Dear all,

My name is Kevin Smith Head of Programme Invasive Species and Wildlife Health for IUCN, and it is great to see all the great work that has been undertaken and discussions set out in this forum!

IUCN is a Union of over 1,400 members including governments, NGOs, and Indigenous Peoples Organisations and a network of over 17,000 voluntary experts across seven Commissions. Over the past few decades IUCN and its Species Survival Commission Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG) have provided guidance, analyses, and data to inform and support policy development and actions towards IAS targets agreed under the CBD and SDGs.

I would just like to set out what IUCN has done, and is planning to do to continue to support Parties and other groups on prevention, management and eradication of IAS towards the implementation of Target 6, in particular to facilitate international and regional collaboration. I will also like to highlight what we believe are the key challenges and priorities in order to scale up the provision, access and use of these data and tools.

- NBSAP
On NBSAPs, IUCN recently worked with the CBD secretariat and other members of the Inter-Agency Liaison Group on IAS to publish the CBD IAS Toolkit (https://www.cbd.int/invasive/cbdtoolkit), which sets out what actions can be taken to meet Target 6 and also sets out a framework for the development of a National Invasive Species Strategies and Action Plan (NISSAP). The use of the toolkit can complement the objectives set out in an NBSAP and provide more detailed information to guide national and/or regional actions towards mitigating the threats of IAS and reducing their pressure on nature and ecosystem services. IUCN are keen to support Parties in the application of the toolkit to develop and implement actions towards T6.

- Prevention
The IUCN ISSG maintain key datasets and standards that can be used to support the identification and prioritisation of IAS and pathways of introduction at a nation or regional level. This includes the IUCN Global Invasive Species Database (GISD) which has species accounts for over 1,000 IAS with information on their pathways of introduction, distribution and impacts. This also include assessments made using the IUCN Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT, https://www.iucngisd.org/gisd/) which classifies IAS based on the magnitude of their impacts to native species. The ISSG also run the Global Register of Introduced and Invasive Species (GRIIS, https://griis.org/) which provides validated national checklists of alien species for every country in the world. GRIIS is produced within the framework of the Global Invasive Alien Species Information Partnership (GIASIP). IUCN and its ISSG aim to EICAT assess all 3,500 IAS identified by the recent IPBES assessment, and continue to update and expand GRIIS providing sub-national checklists and collating information on pathways of introduction and impacts. Such information is critical for identifying which alien species are a priority now, which may be introduced and become invasive in the future and what pathways they are introduced by for the development of national and regional policies etc.  However, a key challenge we face (and other data providers) is that this data provision needs sustained resources in order to make sure that they are updated and expanded, interoperable and accessible to as many users as possible. Having globally robust datasets that are accessible and interoperable will also facilitate regional and international collaboration on IAS between countries and cross-sectors.
IUCN have also produced many guidance to support the identification and management of specific pathways of introduction (https://iucn.org/our-work/topic/invasive-alien-species/invasive-alien-species-external-resources), much of this has been done through the work we have done to support the European Commission with the implementation of the EU IAS Regulation, through the Bern Convention/Council of Europe, or through other partnerships such as with the International Maritime Organisation.

IUCN are also partnering with Fauna and Flora on a new collaborative initiative to increase business awareness on IAS and accelerate and scale up good practice on IAS management and prevention measures.

- Management, control and eradication of IAS
IUCN has produced over 100 individual IAS management best practices, focused on those IAS that are regulated under the EU IAS Regulation (https://iucn.org/our-work/topic/invasive-alien-species/invasive-alien-species-external-resources#19515). These guidance documents don’t just focus on their control but also cover measures for prevention, surveillance and early detection, and rapid eradication. We have also produce resources to support their identification in the field or by customs, and also how to undertake surveillance in the marine, terrestrial and freshwater environments (https://iucn.org/our-work/topic/invasive-alien-species/invasive-alien-species-external-resources#surveillanceID).

IUCN are also working with the University of Cambridge to explore the potential for an IAS management database that will collate and provide access to information on management measures, their costs and effectiveness.

IUCN will also soon be launching a rapid-response fund for the EU. This initiative, co-funded by the EU will be giving small grants of up to 50K to support eradication of early-stage invasions on IAS. We believe such a scheme is addressing a key priority in providing resources quickly for the prevention of establishments of IAS and therefore mitigating their impacts in the most cost-effective way. We believe that such a scheme is needed at a global level, or at least within other regions of the world.

IUCN ISSG also run the Aliens-L listserve that provides access to a global network of IAS practitioners and policy makers to facilitate knowledge exchange.  If anyone would like to be added to the AliensL please contact Shyama Pagad s.pagad@auckland.ac.nz.

- Needs to support the implementation of T6
We believe that the key needs to support the implementation of T6 include:
• resource allocation and capacity building to support the scaling up of actions – i.e. implementing NISSAPs/NBSAPs
• sustainable financing for the continued maintenance and expansion of key IAS datasets, and to improve their accessibility and interoperability
• improved access to existing resources and best practices on IAS and pathway management including national policies and legislation
• improving communication and collaboration both regionally and internationally, but also cross-sector within countries (i.e. ‘whole-of-society approach including the tole of Indigenous peoples and Local Communities). We believe it would be beneficial if there was a mechanism or dataset to allow countries to share risk assessments, lists of regulated species, and species identified through horizon scanning. Such information would be beneficial in supporting other countries take action, but also in developing regional priorities and actions.
• In terms of guidance that is needed, we think one area is on how to address IAS that have economic or other societal benefits, and when is harvesting an acceptable management option?

Many thanks
Kevin

Arne Witt - CABI
Many thanks to everyone for their insightful comments and contributions. As many of you may know CABI has been working on IAS management for well over 100 years. We were also part of the Global Invasive Species Programme (GISP) together with IUCN, SANBI, and TNC. Sadly, the Programme ended due to a lack of funding. We are looking at the possibility of developing something along these lines again - time will tell.

Please be aware of the contributions that CABI and other agencies like IUCN are making with regard to IAS policy development, awareness creation, capacity building and development and implementation of best management practices. We have worked with many countries around the world including Asia, Africa and the Caribbean in addressing these issues.

For more information on what CABI does please visit https://www.cabi.org/what-we-do/invasive-species/. I am sure that most of you are also aware of the CABI Compendium. (https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/journal/cabicompendium). The Compendium brings together data and research across species, pests, and diseases into one comprehensive resource. CABI Compendium includes images, maps, and diagnostic and links to decision support tools such as The Horizon Scanning Tool, Pest Risk Analysis Tool, and a new addition - the Invasive Species Discovery Tool.

We've helpfully created eight Compendium channels to help you browse content more easily. They include the Animal Health and Production Compendium channel, the Aquaculture Compendium channel, the Crop Protection Compendium Channel, the Food Safety and Quality channel, the Forestry Compendium channel, the Horticulture Compendium channel, the Invasive Species Compendium channel and the Seedborne Pests channel.

Please also be aware that we have developed a large number of IAS Field Guides for countries/regions: SE Asia, Caribbean, Eastern Africa, Malawi/Zambia, Saudi Arabia, Socotra (Yemen) and Laikipia (Kenya). They include information on impacts and management. These e-books can be downloaded at no cost from the CABI website.

We are also working on the development and implementation of nature-based solutions, especially natural control of invasive alien plants and introduced crop pests.

We look forward to working with other agencies and countries in managing the scourge of IAS. We can only do this together. We will not succeed if we work in isolation.

Thanks
Arne

Dear Rachel, thank you for your questions.
Regarding the first question, I can comment that we designed an Early Warning and Rapid Response System as a result of an international project on invasive alien species in Cuba, funded by UNDP. The system is conceived as an intersectoral coordination mechanism that involves the participation of local communities and stakeholders from various central government agencies and civil society organizations, representing the scientific, academic, and productive sectors, as well as regulatory and management authorities involved in the prevention, control, and management of invasive alien species.
The main objective is to detect biological invasions in the national territory of the Republic of Cuba early, in order to work toward their eradication, where appropriate, or to reduce their impacts on ecosystems, habitats, and species by strengthening the country's capacity for early detection and rapid response to the introduction and spread of invasive alien and expanding native species. This includes both the prevention and post-entry stages.
The fundamental challenge is to ensure an efficient system, making the prevention stage essential, since once a species is introduced into the country, it is very difficult to eradicate and entails high economic costs as well as the potential loss of biodiversity. A good example has been the early warning by scientific institutions that study marine ecosystems about the arrival of the Unomia stolonifera species, in order to proceed with its elimination before it spreads throughout our entire coral reef.

Regarding the action of adapting and strengthening regulatory and control mechanisms, with an emphasis on new economic actors, it is worth noting that in Cuba today there are new small private companies that can import, and through the Ministry of Foreign Trade and our office as the regulatory authority, we are conducting training activities for this group of companies on the country's existing legislation for the regulation and control of invasive alien species and the dangers they may pose to our biodiversity. Today our Biosafety legislation applies to both individuals and legal entities.

Best regards

Marvis

Dear all, greetings from Riccardo Scalera IUCN/SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group

Since funding for actions targeting Invasive Alien Species (IAS) is such a key issue, I thought it might be interesting to know that the new work programme for the implementation of the financial LIFE Programme 2025–2027 was adopted by the European Commission just a couple of days ago: https://cinea.ec.europa.eu/news-events/news/eu-announces-new-eu86-million-investment-long-term-climate-and-environment-projects-2025-04-15_en

The launch of the new call is expected to be published within the next week: https://cinea.ec.europa.eu/life-calls-proposals-2025_en

For those less familiar with this tool,  consider that the LIFE Programme has financed hundreds of projects addressing invasive alien species—some entirely dedicated to IAS, and others that include only a selection of measures targeting this threat. The LIFE database is a great resource for exploring these projects, including detailed information and associated material (technical reports, manuals, videos, etc): https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/life/publicWebsite/search

You can also read a brief history of how the LIFE Programme has contributed to addressing IAS, along with links to relevant reports (including compilations of LIFE-funded IAS projects) and other useful resources, in my blog here: https://riccardoscalera.blogspot.com/search/label/LIFE

While funding is primarily directed at projects within EU Member States, there are Associated Countries, Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs) and Third Countries (Non-associated) which may also benefit from this support, thus extending the impact of the programme well beyond the European region. Please check the guidance for applicants for details on this regard.

In addition to LIFE, there are other EU funding programmes that may be relevant for projects focusing on IAS, for example the Horizon Europe and Biodiversa+ (which support research activities) or the COST actions (which supports networking activities), whose partnerships may definitely go well beyond the European region. Notable examples are the Horizon Europe projects OneStop https://onestop-project.eu/ and GuardIAS https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101181413 which have just started. Additionally, some COST Actions have played a significant role in maintaining an active community of invasion biologists over the past decade, including the recent Alien CSI https://www.cost.eu/long-read-alien-csi/ 

Based on my experience in monitoring and selecting projects funded by the European Commission—particularly through the LIFE Programme, but not exclusively—I have often advocated for the instrumental role these projects have played in paving the way for the EU Regulation on Invasive Alien Species (IAS), and subsequently in supporting its implementation, hence further contributing and adding to the massive amount of work that I described in a previous message.

I would be very interested to know more about similar financial tools in other regions and countries, and of course should you need any additional information in relation to the above programmes don't hesitate to contact me, Scalera.Riccardo@gmail.com

Hello everyone, due to my major in botany（Nanjing Agricultural University）, I can only share with you some databases related to Chinese plants and information on alien invasive plants. The websites for querying plant information in China include PPBC (https://ppbc.iplant.cn/), CVH (https://www.cvh.ac.cn/), CUBG (https://image.cubg.cn/). Currently, China has only one naturalized plant information system (https://www.iplant.cn/npc/splist) and lacks an online platform that updates information on alien invasive species in a timely manner. I have learned a lot from this forum. After graduating with my Ph.D., I will strive to continue researching in the field of alien invasions, with the collection of a database on alien invasive species in China as one of my goals. At the same time, I want to establish a citizen data upload platform to call on the public to pay attention to and discover alien invasive species around them, and promptly upload distribution information and pictures with specific locations. Although there is currently a lack of project and funding support.

My current work mainly involves: 1. Identification and authentication of native Chinese plants, having photographed approximately 3000-4000 species so far; 2. Identification and authentication of alien invasive plants, of which there are about 400 species in China, and I have personally photographed about 200 species; 3. Invasion dynamics of all alien invasive plants in China, through which I will collect distribution records of alien invasive plants via domestic and international platforms, sort out their invasion timelines, and ultimately analyze patterns of expansion dynamics; 4. Investigation into the mechanisms of transition from lag phase to rapid expansion phase of invasive species, using Ageratum conyzoides as my main research material to investigate its global and Chinese invasion routes, and clarify the process of transition from latent period to expansion period. I collected over 140 geographic populations of Ageratum conyzoides in China and found evidence of phenotypic plasticity and evolution during its expansion from low latitude to high latitude areas. In addition, I conducted in-depth research on its passive diffusion mechanism.

As my papers are still in the submission and writing stages, I cannot disclose more details at this moment. I hope to have the opportunity to learn and exchange ideas with you every year. Thank you very much. If anyone wants to study some invasive species of Chinese origin and needs my assistance or cooperation in research, I am willing to participate and welcome you to contact me anytime at 2018216005@njau.edu.cn.

Dear all,

Thank you, Rachel and Paulina, for facilitating this forum.
My name is Dr. IKEGAMI Makihiko (Maki.), and I am a researcher at the National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES), Japan. I specialize in plant ecology, biogeography, and the risk assessment of invasive alien species (IAS), with a focus on integrating long-term datasets and predictive modeling to assess biodiversity risks at national and global scales.

With support from the Ministry of the Environment of Japan, I will share four case studies that reflect our multi-level approaches to IAS prevention, control, management, and international collaboration. These will be posted separately, following the structure of this forum.

To begin, I would like to respond to the guiding questions for Topic 1 based on Japan’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan 2023–2030 (NBSAP).

General
- Is the topic of invasive alien species included in your NBSAP?
Yes. The NBSAP 2023–2030 places strong emphasis on preventing and reducing the impacts of invasive species. It explicitly aims to reduce the establishment rate of invasive alien species by 50% through legal, technical, and institutional measures (Action Target 1-3).

- Do you think your country has the necessary policies and tools to address Target 6?
Prevention (tools and mechanisms used, challenges and best practices)
Japan has established a comprehensive legal and institutional framework for IAS management, including the revised Invasive Alien Species Act (2023), national monitoring systems, a subsidy scheme for municipalities, and international partnerships (I will share those examples in a separate post later). However, challenges remain in enforcement at local levels and in securing long-term funding for eradication projects.

Prevention (tools and mechanisms used, challenges and best practices)
- Which tools and mechanisms do you use or consider useful for preventing the introduction of IAS (e.g., artificial intelligence, surveillance, etc.)?
In my research, I find Species Distribution Models (SDMs) and GIS tools useful for identifying species that may potentially be introduced and predicting suitable habitats for establishment, which can be used for risk analysis and management. Monitoring new entry points (e.g., ports, airports) is crucial for early detection and eradication. I will share our experiences with RIFA (Red Imported Fire Ant) management as an example. For some aquatic species, eDNA monitoring appears promising.

- What are the challenges you are facing or foresee in preventing the introduction of IAS? (Policy, social, permits, geography, binational invasion, others)
A significant number of alien species are introduced and established unnoticed, particularly small plants, insects, and microorganisms (note: they are not necessarily invasive). They are difficult to detect, and their introduction pathways are often unknown and difficult to control.

- Do you collaborate with bordering countries to prevent IAS? If so, how?
Japan collaborates with China and Korea through the Tripartite Environment Ministers Meeting (TEMM), exchanging control strategies and technical expertise (I will share this example later).

- Do you think your country has the necessary policies to prevent the entry of IAS?
Yes

Management (tools and mechanisms used, challenges and best practices)
- Which tools and mechanisms do you use or consider useful for the management of IAS?
Predictive models (such as SDMs at high resolution), cost analysis, early detection, and containment strategies are useful. 

- What are the challenges you are facing or foresee regarding IAS management?
Often, IAS are not detected until populations become too large for effective control. With sufficient funding and manpower, we could manage them, but frequently we lack these resources.

- Have you used cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness or multi-criteria methodologies for IAS management (e.g. those referred to in annex I of decision 16/18)?
Formal cost-benefit analyses are still limited but exist in some cases. Although it doesn’t match completely, I will share an example later that would be useful (e.g., the Amami mongoose project). Broader application of these methodologies would aid prioritization.

- How have international databases been most helpful for IAS management in your country?
Control and eradication (tools and mechanisms used, challenges and best practices)
I frequently use GRIIS or GBIF to analyze potential incursions and establishment of IAS. However, from a broader perspective, I am uncertain if my individual research or such databases significantly contribute to national IAS management.

Control and eradication (tools and mechanisms used, challenges and best practices)
- Which tools and mechanisms do you use or consider useful for the control of IAS?
Manual removal (trapping), monitoring, and chemical controls if applicable (I will share examples later).

- What are the challenges you are facing regarding the control of IAS? (Policy, social, permits, geography, binational invasion, others)
For some IAS, policy matters, as some are also used in industrial sectors and contribute to the local economy (IAS for fishing, for example), or there may be strong anti-control sentiments (social) leading difficulty to eradication or even drive some people to intentionally spread them to new areas. In most cases, however, limitations in resources (methods and funding) hinder the control of many IAS.

- Do you think your country has the necessary policies and tools to control and eradicate IAS?
Needs to support the implementation of T6
Largely, yes. For some species, we have both policies and tools, but implementation at a national scale faces financial and manpower limitations. For Argentine ants, for example, we successfully control local populations and eradicate them in some regions (prefectures), but substantial populations persist and are difficult to control in other regions, and we still allow new establishment in additional areas.

Needs to support the implementation of T6
- Share any gaps in information or tools that you consider could hinder the implementation of T6.
There are too many alien species, and often we do not notice them until they become widespread and start causing problems (though most alien species are not serious problems). It is challenging to foresee which species might become a significant threat, and developing necessary tools and measures for control (and evaluate their potential risks to native species) takes time and resources we often lack. We need an international database where we can share our experiences and methods employed, and even failures from which we can learn lessons.

- What scientific, technical and technological advice would be most helpful for the CBD to explore to best support the implementation of T6?
The CBD could assist by facilitating technical exchanges on container pathway management, establishing a database of control and eradication methodologies, and expanding regional early-warning systems with real-time, interactive platforms similar to the Emergency Prevention System for Animal Health (https://www.fao.org/animal-health/our-programmes/emergency-prevention-system-for-animal-health-(empres-ah)/en). Guidance on aligning TNFD and IAS indicators would also support policy coherence.

Link to Japan’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan 2023–2030 (NBSAP)
https://www.env.go.jp/en/nature/biodiv/nsj/

Thank you again.
Maki.

Dear all,

As promised in my previous post, I shared four examples that reflect our multi-level approach to IAS prevention, control, management, and international collaboration, with inputs from the Ministry of the Environment of Japan.

Case 1: National Response to the Red Imported Fire Ant (Solenopsis invicta)

Problem and Species Involved
Since 2017, Solenopsis invicta has been intercepted 135 times in Japan, mostly at major ports. These incursions, involving reproductive queens, are linked to containerized trade from East Asia. While no establishment has confirmed so far, the repeated invasions by colonies signal a high risk of spread.

Actions Taken
Prior to 2017, RIFA was listed as Designated Invasive Alien Species and RIFA is now classified as an Designated IAS requiring urgent actions under the revised IAS Act in 2023. National surveillance for RIFA covers 65 ports, of which 15 ports are monitored monthly from spring to autumn. Legal tools permit inspections, private land access, and mandatory compliance with guidelines by logistics operators. Inter-ministerial coordination is led by the Cabinet Secretariat, Ministry of the Environment, and Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism. Technical innovations include AITC(Wasabi)-based repellents, LAMP DNA kits, seeking effective pesticides, pilot use of detection dogs, and silicone resin for filling cracks in ports ground. Training manuals and visual “action cards” were informed to operators nationwide through seminars and other means.

Results and Progress
Establishment has been successfully prevented, though annual detections continue. A unified response system has been implemented across national, local, and private-sector levels. Detection and containment are now implemented in line with the standardized manuals and guidelines nationwide.

Relevance to Target 6
This case highlights how a combination of law, surveillance, industry regulation, and innovation can manage high-risk IAS at international entry points. Japan’s approach provides a replicable model for container-based biosecurity.

Case 2: Eradication of the Small Indian Mongoose from Amami-Oshima Island

Problem and Species Involved
Urva auropunctata was introduced in 1979 to control vipers and rats but devastated native wildlife. By the 2000s, some endemic species declined by over 80% in some areas.

Actions Taken
A full eradication project was launched in 2000, with a dedicated team formed in 2005 when the IAS Act was enforced. Over 30,000 traps and 300 cameras were deployed. Detection dogs were introduced in 2007 and proved especially effective during late-phase operations. Community engagement, adaptive management with PDCA and EBPM, and seasonal bycatch reduction protocols were applied.

Results and Progress
The last mongoose was captured in 2018. After years of no detections and statistical confirmation, eradication was declared in 2024. Ecological recovery and eco-tourism increased. The project contributed to conserve Amami-Oshima’s property as a national park and the island’s designation as World Heritage site.

Relevance to Target 6
This is the first successful mongoose eradication on a large inhabited island (712 km²). It shows how long-term funding, institutional continuity, and evidence-based techniques make eradication feasible at scale.

Case 3: Local Government Cooperation for IAS Control: Akashi–Kobe Joint Project

Problem and Species Involved
Trachemys scripta elegans (Red-eared Slider) and Alternanthera philoxeroides (alligator weed) affect riverine ecosystems shared by Akashi and Kobe Cities in Hyogo Prefecture, Japan. Reinvasion risk is high due to connected water systems.

Actions Taken
In 2023, the cities signed a formal cooperation agreement under Japan’s national subsidy program. The project combines turtle trapping, upstream plant removal, and conservation zones in key segments. Citizen participation and environmental education (770+ students) were central. Surveys were synchronized to address both plant and animal invaders in one operation.

Results and Progress
A joint inter-municipal model was established for aquatic IAS control, with shared planning and execution. The low-density management strategy proved ecologically and financially efficient.

Relevance to Target 6
This case illustrates how modest national funding can support local cross-border collaboration and practical action for IAS control, especially in peri-urban settings.

Case 4: Regional and Global Cooperation on IAS: Tripartite and G7 Leadership

Problem and Context
IAS are transboundary threats requiring regional coordination.

Actions Taken
After the first RIFA detection in Japan in 2017, Japan, China, and Korea launched the regional expert meeting under the Tripartite Environment Ministers Meeting (TEMM). Then in 2024, Japan hosted the 2nd Tripartite IAS Expert Meeting, with sharing high priority species, field visits, and control strategy exchanges. In 2023, Japan held the first G7 Workshop on IAS with G7 countries and relevant international institutions, producing a Joint Statement on collaboration, mainstreaming, data, and capacity building. At CBD COP16, Japan showcased domestic projects and tools for regional and global transfer.

Results and Progress
Japan is continuing interregional and international cooperation through technical meetings. Japan’s leadership helped elevate IAS on the global biodiversity agenda. These efforts are linked with Japan’s National Biodiversity Strategy (2023–2030) and recently updated IAS Action Plan.

Relevance to Target 6
This case demonstrates how diplomatic leadership, regional trust, and technical exchange platforms strengthen global implementation of IAS goals.


I hope these examples will be helpful.
Your sincerely,
Maki.

Everyone, I'm sorry. I'd like to add one piece of database information. It's the China Invasive Alien Species Information System: https://www.iplant.cn/ias/

Posted on behalf or Mr. Karen Khachatrian, Chief Specialist of Specially Protected Areas of Nature and Biodiversity Policy Department, Ministry of Environment, Armenia

- Is the topic of invasive alien species included in your NBSAP?
The topic of invasive alien species included in NBSAP as a National
Target ARM T07  “Establish a Regulatory Framework for the Prevention,
Management, and Control of Invasive Alien Species Manage and Regulate
Invasive Species”. To achieve this target, the action plan requires by
2030, establish a regulatory framework for the identification,
prevention, control, and management of invasive or potentially invasive
alien species, as well as the pathways of their introduction.
- Do you think your country has the necessary policies and tools to
address Target 6?
In recent years, increasing attention has been paid to the regulation of
invasive species. The Law on Fauna has been improved, and for the first
time, it introduced the concept of invasive species. The unauthorized
use of invasive alien animal species included in the list approved by
the competent authority is prohibited by the Law on Fauna. In 2024, a
list of 40 invasive animal species was released by the Ministry of
Environment, with the majority being invertebrates. The same regulations
are developed for plants and the adoption is scheduled for 2025.
At the same time, the current legislative framework lacks sufficient
detail, and the development and adoption of subordinate regulatory acts
is envisaged. Simultaneously, it is necessary to develop and implement a
number of technical measures that are currently either absent or not
integrated into efforts to protect biodiversity from invasive species.
So however Armenias Biodiversity policy does not overlook the threats
posed by invasive species but country still doesn’t have both
legislative framework and tools to address Target 6 comprehensively.
Prevention (tools and mechanisms used, challenges and best practices)

- What are the challenges you are facing or foresee in preventing the
introduction of IAS?
In recent years, certain invasive and expansive plant and animal species
have markedly increased their distribution ranges, likely due to the
unintentional introduction of non-native species by humans, shifting
climate conditions, and the expansion of disturbed habitats. The
population densities of these species have risen, leading to their
infiltration and establishment within natural ecosystems, which in turn
suppresses or even displaces native species. The gaps of legislative
framework and necessary tools are also regarded as a challenge, which is
planned to be addressed in order to achieve National Target ARM T07.
Significant efforts in the coming years will be directed not only toward
addressing existing gaps, but also toward the urgent implementation of
effective mechanisms for the regulation of invasive species.

Je m’appelle MANIRAKIZA Odette, je suis attaché au Service Recherche en Biodiversité de l’Office Burundais pour la protection de l’environnement, j’ai déjà mené une recherche sur l’espèce exotique envahissante ‘’Bactrocera dorsalis’’ qui est une mouche des fruits déjà identifié comme la principale cause de la destruction des mandarines au Burundi.
Concernant la première discussion sur les outils et mécanismes utilisés, les défis et les meilleures pratiques en matière de prévention, de gestion, de contrôle et d'éradication des espèces exotiques envahissantes, en vue de la mise en œuvre de l'objectif 6 du Cadre, en particulier pour faciliter la coopération internationale et régionale.
• Les outils et mécanismes utilisés en vue de mettre en œuvre de l'objectif 6 du Cadre : Le Burundi a déjà défini la cible 6 de la Stratégie Nationale sur la Biodiversité alignée à la cible 6 du cadre Mondial Biodiversité Kunming Montréal : ‘’D’ici à 2030, les espèces exotiques envahissantes, leurs étendues et leurs voies d’introduction sont identifiées, des mesures pratiques sont mises en place pour contrôler et éradiquer les espèces les plus dangereuses, afin d’éliminer, minimiser, réduire et/ou atténuer leurs impacts sur la biodiversité et les services écosystémiques’’.
Et les actions suivantes sont prévues:1° Evaluer les étendues et le degré d’infestation des plantes envahissantes les plus largement répandues, 2°Mettre en place et doter de moyens un mécanisme de surveillance, de contrôle et de mise en quarantaine des espèces (animales et végétales) potentiellement envahissantes importées, 3°Identifier et vulgariser les méthodes de lutte contre les espèces envahissantes 4°Former les agents des douanes et phytosanitaires sur le contrôle des mouvements des espèces exotiques potentiellement envahissantes; 5°Sensibiliser la population burundaise sur les dangers des espèces envahissantes et les impliquer dans leur lutte.
• les défis en matière de prévention, de gestion, de contrôle et d'éradication des espèces exotiques envahissantes sont identifiés dans une étude sur la situation des espèces envahissantes au Burundi (2017) https://bi.chm-cbd.net/sites/bi/files/2020-04/situation-esp-envahiss-bi.pdf : Ces espèces exotiques envahissantes peuvent nuire à la biodiversité ou aux services écosystémiques en entrant en concurrence et parfois en remplaçant les écosystèmes autochtones. Elles engendrent des modifications complexes dans la structure et la fonction du nouvel écosystème d’accueil. Les espèces envahissantes peuvent provoquer divers dommages à savoir :
- au niveau des processus écologiques, en altérant le fonctionnement des écosystèmes et les rela-tions entre les organismes vivants et leur milieu;
- au niveau des de la composition des écosystèmes, en causant la régression ou l’extinction des es-pèces indigènes;
- au niveau des activités économiques, en pénalisant les rendements agricoles, le renouvellement des stocks halieutiques ou la valeur touristiques des paysages;
- au niveau de la santé humaine, en causant des allergies ou en favorisant la transmission de virus et des bactéries.

• les meilleures pratiques en matière de prévention, de gestion, de contrôle et d'éradication des espèces exotiques envahissantes
Selon l’ étude sur la situation des espèces envahissantes au Burundi ci-haut-citée, trois interventions suivantes sont jugées importantes pour les lutter:
1°Prévenir l'introduction de nouvelles espèces exotiques envahissantes par la sensibilisation de tous les acteurs, la surveillance des voies de l'introduction possible des espèces envahissantes probables pour la prévention de nouvelles invasions et la mise en quarantaine des espèces probablement envahissantes ;
2°Lutter activement contre les espèces envahissantes existantes par la Mise en place d’un système d’alerte et l’éradication, le confinement et le contrôle
3°Sensibilisation, communication, éducation et formation.

Dear all, greetings again from Riccardo Scalera IUCN/SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group.

In relation to the EU Regulation on invasive alien species (IAS), just wanted to share with you a few lines on the management of IAS in marine environments poses particular challenges. This largely explains the fact that so far only two marine species, Okamura’s brown alga Rugulopteryx okamurae and the striped eel catfish Plotosus lineatus are included on the list of invasive alien species of Union concern (out of a total of 88 species, which clearly does not correspond to the level of marine biological invasions in the EU). Additional species that were risk assessed and qualified for listing were not considered for inclusion (notable examples are the blue crab Callinectes sapidus and the lionfish Pterois miles). You may find the risk assessments with the relevant management notes on the links in the EU webpage https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/nature-and-biodiversity/invasive-alien-species_en
To stimulate further discussion on this topic, and promote appropriate measures to be undertaken, the European Commission has developed the following guidance:
- Management options for marine IAS https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/4cd6cb36-b0f1-4db4-915e-65cd29067f49/library/1e85f0e4-9df0-4008-915b-39315a21dd37/details
- Surveillance guidelines for invasive alien species in the marine environment https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/4cd6cb36-b0f1-4db4-915e-65cd29067f49/library/cc1f98c4-6bac-43a6-a282-191549844510/details

Another major initiative is the Horizon Europe research project, GuardIAS - Guarding European Waters from IAS https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101181413 that the European Commission has financed with the purpose to increase knowledge on models and monitoring systems for marine environments.

Many other projects were also found on marine IAS, for example through the LIFE programme. An example the RELIONMED-LIFE Preventing a LIONfish invasion in the MEDiterranean through early response and targeted REmoval https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/life/publicWebsite/project/LIFE16-NAT-CY-000832/preventing-a-lionfish-invasion-in-the-mediterranean-through-early-response-and-targeted-removal

There are many other similar resources that may be found on the topic by exploring the EC websites shared above and in previous messages, and which I think could be of more general interest for many other countries. On the other hand, it would be very interesting to know more about any other concrete initiatives undertaken in other countries to remove invasive alien species in marine environments or prevent their introduction and spread.

Tlou Masehela from the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment, South Africa.

From a South African perspective, the respective responses to the questions in discussion are as follows:

- Is the topic of invasive alien species included in your NBSAP?
Yes, invasive alien species are a key focus within South Africa's National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP), which aims to address threats to biodiversity, including those posed by these species. South Africa is in the process of revising its NBSAP to align with the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, and this next generation of the NBSAP will unpack South Africa's commitments to Target 6.

- Do you think your country has the necessary policies and tools to address Target 6?
South Africa has a well-developed policy framework and has expressed high-level commitment to the protection of nature, potentially enabling it to address Target 6 of the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). The overarching legislations on invasive alien species stems from the Agricultural Pest Act, 1983 (Act 36 of 1983) (APA), Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act, 1983 (Act No. 43 of 1983) (CARA), now CARS; National Environmental Management Act (NEMA), 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998), and the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No. 10 of 2004) (NEMBA), and the associated Alien and Invasive Species Regulations – first published in 2014, revised (2020) and promulgated in 2021 and the Alien and Invasive Species Lists, 2021, that provide a list of all the AIS listed in South Africa and their listing, whether category 1a, 1b , 2 or 3. The Fertilizers, Farm Feeds, Stock Remedies and Agricultural Remedies Act (Act No. 36 of 1947) and associated amended Regulations relating to Agricultural Remedies (GG. No. R 5399) published on 11 October 2024, provides the processes and pesticides on how to deal with AIS and what to use to control AIS. This then links Target 6 to Target 7b of the GBF. In 2023, South Africa also developed the White Paper on Conservation and Sustainable Use of South Africa's Biodiversity. Currently there is the development of the NEM:BA Bill, which looks into the revision of certain sections of the NEM:BA Act. The development of the National Invasive Species and Action Plan is also underway. All these policy instruments seek to address Target 6. The links of Target 6 to Target 7b thus enable the links to the SDGs 14. 15 and 13.


Prevention (tools and mechanisms used, challenges and best practices)
- Which tools and mechanisms do you use or consider useful for preventing the introduction of IAS (e.g., artificial intelligence, surveillance, etc.)?
South Africa uses a multi-pronged approach to prevent the introduction of invasive alien species, including legislation, permitting systems, early detection and rapid response mechanisms, and integrated management strategies. In addition to permitting and monitoring, there is a compliance and enforcement component carried out by the Environmental Management Inspectors. Containment strategies are also used to prevent the spread of AIS from infected areas to uninfected areas and surveillance, using remote satellite imagery, is also used to map high risk areas for monitoring to prevent the introduction and spread of AIS.

- What are the challenges you are facing or foresee in preventing the introduction of IAS? (Policy, social, permits, geography, binational invasion, others)
Challenges to preventing the introduction of IAS in South Africa includes resource limitations, the scale of the problem, multiple pathways of introduction and the need for effective collaboration, integrated governance, public awareness, engagement with various sectors/stakeholders all while balancing socio-economic needs with environmental conservation, and monitoring and evaluation. The disjunct between policies in the SADC region regarding what species are AIS creates a problem and the lack of an integrated AIS mitigation strategy across the SADC region facilitates AIS introductions at the border posts. There are also challenges with informal traders, especially on the social networks and internet, as they often facilitate the trade and spread of invasive species. The traders are difficult to trace for compliance purposes.

- Do you collaborate with bordering countries to prevent IAS? If so, how?
This is a partial yes. South Africa does partly collaborate with bordering countries through the Regional Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (BSAP). The SADC BSAP provides a framework for collaboration and information sharing among member states, including South Africa, to address the issue of invasive species; although, the effective implementation of this needs better monitoring and implementation. South Africa also does joint operations with SARS, SAPS and other countries at the borders such as Beitbridge.

- Do you think your country has the necessary policies to prevent the entry of IAS?
Yes. The National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEMBA) 10 of 2004 - Alien and Invasive Species (AIS) Regulations, and the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act 43 of 1983 (CARA) are examples of policies to prevent entry of IAS into South Africa. However, much still needs to be done in this space. South Africa is also currently implementing an IAS project funded by the GEF-7, and has some outputs geared towards strengthening this area at three (3) ports of entry as a pilot phase. Some of the outputs to be realized is the strengthening of IAS detection and surveillance capacities at key national ports of entry, whereby new tools and methods are adopted for the surveillance and detection of high-risk IAS.

Management (tools and mechanisms used, challenges and best practices)
- Which tools and mechanisms do you use or consider useful for the management of IAS?
There are various mechanical and chemical control tools in place. The use of chemical control, especially the use of HHPs has to be reduced to comply with Target 7b of the GBF. Most of South Africa’s success has been through the use of Biological Control agents. The monitoring and reporting, supported by robust science is also carried out, which culminates in a national database of biocontrol release sites, established sites and will also house biocontrol reserve sites as registered under CARA Section 15D in the near future. The South African National Biodiversity Institute publishes a report every three (3) years on these aspects.

- What are the challenges you are facing or foresee regarding IAS management?
South Africa faces significant challenges in managing alien and invasive species, including the need for sustained funding, updated efficient control efforts, and addressing complex socio-political issues, along with the impact of climate change and urbanization. While control efforts have been directed at numerous species and areas, the effectiveness of control operations has  been monitored regularly at a national scale for certain control methods such as biocontrol, and monitoring programs often focus on inputs and outputs rather than long-term outcomes with the exception of biocontrol that can show trends dating back to the early 1990’s.
There is insufficient capacity to identify and reduce the HHPs used to control AIS and substitute with alternative methods and IPM, risking non-compliance to Target 7b of the GBF.

South Africa struggles with insufficient capacity to monitor and enforce compliance on private land as well as state-own land. Too little budget provided by DFFE.

Courts in South Africa do not  provide enough support in cases where people are non-compliant. 

- Have you used cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness or multi-criteria methodologies for IAS management (e.g. those referred to in annex I of decision 16/18)?
Yes, South Africa has used cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, and multi-criteria methodologies for managing invasive alien species, particularly through programmes in some of the Environmental Programmes initiatives. However, challenges in monitoring and evaluating outcomes persist. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) have been introduced through the Pesticide Policy, which is an IPM Strategy, integrating biocontrol biopesticides and chemical pesticides with indigenous knowledge and agroecology practices to manage AIS.

- How have international databases been most helpful for IAS management in your country?
International databases have been crucial for Invasive Alien Species (IAS) management in South Africa by providing standardized information, facilitating global pattern visualization, and guiding control and management strategies, particularly through resources like the Global Invasive Species Database (GISD) and CABI Invasive Species Compendium (ISC), CABI Bioprotection Portal where SADC’s biopesticides are housed, the SADC HHP database, the Global Framework on Chemicals and the Pesticide Action Network’s (PAN) HHP lists, 2023.

- Which tools and mechanisms do you use or consider useful for the control of IAS?
South Africa uses an integrated government for managing invasive alien species, biological control, and a national program called "Working for Water," which focuses on labour-intensive clearing and follow-up operations, alongside various partnerships and international collaboration.

- What are the challenges you are facing regarding the control of IAS? (Policy, social, permits, geography, binational invasion, others)
South Africa faces significant challenges in controlling invasive alien species, including fragmented policy and implementation in silos, social and economic complexities, permitting issues, geographical barriers, and the need for binational cooperation, impacting biodiversity, water security, and ecosystems, consistent monitoring and evaluation of implementation at national and regional levels.
NEMBA should enable the courts to have stronger measures on transgressions.

- Do you think your country has the necessary policies and tools to control and eradicate IAS?
Yes, it does. As mentioned above, South Africa has various policies and regulations for the control and management of IAS. The proper facilitation and intergovernmental cooperation is what is lacking.

- Share any gaps in information or tools that you consider could hinder the implementation of T6.
To implement GBF Target 6 effectively, South Africa faces gaps in data on IAS, tools for rapid and accurate identification and control, and capacity building for effective management, and effective monitoring particularly across various sectors and regions. Much of the gap in information is due to dwindling funding for research on invasive alien species. A suggestion would be to always ensure that a certain percentage of funding for IAS project is allocated to research that is aimed at addressing information gaps. The research and mass rearing of biocontrol agents is a real gap , if the research into new invasive species and possible biocontrol agents to control those species are not done and the associated mass rearing of said agents, then the implementation of the biocontrol projects will take longer to establish and the invasions will spread faster than the control methods can control them. South Africa is currently sitting with a 5% increase in AIS with the control methods reducing the AIS by 2% per year.

- What scientific, technical and technological advice would be most helpful for the CBD to explore to best support the implementation of T6?
To best support the implementation of Target 6 of the GBF in South Africa, the CBD should explore scientific, technical, and technological advice focused on IAS management, including early detection, rapid response, and updated effective control methods, along with spatial planning and monitoring using GIS and remote sensing technologies. The link between Target 6 and Target 7b should be explored and the link to climate change as pesticides contribute 6% of the 40% industrial contribution to GHG emissions impacting on the 1.5 degrees Celsius  Paris Agreement target.

Arne Witt - CABI - Proposed SADC Regional IAS Project
Dear All
Many have discussed the need for policies and their implementation; improved coordination at national and regional levels; increased awareness and capacity; and development and implementation of best management practices. To this end CABI has signed an MOU with the SADC Secretariat. We have developed a proposal, which now needs to be updated, which was previously endorsed/supported by the Secretariat to develop and implement a regional IAS Project to address many of these issues. Some of the planned outputs would be a Regional Invasive Species Strategy and Action Plan together with national plans/strategies, Regional IAS Communication Strategy, improved prevention and EDRR protocols at national and regional levels, etc. We will be working with IUCN to make this happen but will largely depend on country support and endorsement. If anyone from SADC member countries is interested in hearing more please email me at a.witt@cabi.org. Alone we can do so little, together, we can do so much.

Hello everyone,

Welcome to the final week of the online forum.

Last week, a number of interventions and exchanges took place. Here is a high-level summary of what was shared:
• Participants shared information on a set of new approaches and strategies to address the different aspects of biological invasions (i.e regional strategies, apps, eDNA, platforms and tools)
• The need for a tool or platform to be available for everyone, and ideally with information in different languages was highlighted, to allow sharing of information on species, pathways, prevention, management, control and eradication, awareness, collaboration etc,. 
• Cross border cooperation has been noted as an important impediment in some cases and can present challenges for the management of IAS

My co-chair and I wish to thank you for your taking part in the online forum and are excited to see the high-level of participation so far, which we hope will continue until the end of this week.

Thank you again, and I certainly look forward to going through all the submissions and keep learning from your experiences and acquired knowledge.

Hello again everyone,

As I recapped some of the points raised last week, I could not help but note how many tools exist in various countries or through organizations with an international reach. I have been exploring those tools, many of which I did not know.

I would be interested in hearing about the challenges that participants may face when trying to use those tools: Are there too many? Are they unknown because some might be used at a national or regional scale? Is capacity to use them insufficient or is the language a barrier?

I would be interested in hearing those views and how barriers to using these tools could be addressed.

Again, thank you for your active participation and all the information you have been sharing.

Good afternoon, my name is Andrey Borisovich Petrovskiy, a Research Associate at the Laboratory of Lower Vertebrate Behavior of the A.N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution. I represent the Russian Federation.

General
I. Is the topic of invasive alien species included in your NBSAP?

Ответ: Да.
В Национальной стратегии сохранения биоразнообразия России (2001) инвазии чужеродных видов (ИЧВ) обозначены в качестве одной из ключевых угроз биологическому разнообразию, а также включены в контекст научных исследований Российской академии наук, посвященных изучению современной динамики биоразнообразия.
В Национальной стратегии и плане действий по сохранению биоразнообразия России (2014) в соответствии с Задачей 9 Аичи была сформулирована национальная задача к 2020 г. и предусмотрены мероприятия в рамках плана действий, а также ряд национальных индикаторов.
После принятия Куньминско-Монреальской глобальной рамочной программы в области биоразнообразия были подготовлены национальные задачи в области сохранения и устойчивого использования биоразнообразия (опубликованы на сайте КБР 21 октября 2024 г.), которые отражают все 23 глобальные задачи. Отдельная национальная задача сформулирована для контроля и регулирования ИЧВ.
Текст новой Национальной стратегии и плана действий по сохранению и устойчивому использованию биоразнообразия России находится в процессе разработке в рамках деятельности межведомственной рабочей группы в соответствии с объявленными национальными задачами и будет включать задачу по ИЧВ.

II. Do you think your country has the necessary policies and tools to address Target 6?

Ответ: Частично.
В настоящее время есть необходимый набор политик и нормативно-правовых документов, регулирующих вопросы, связанные с ИЧВ. Однако для достижения Задачи 6 существующий инструментарий требует дальнейшего развития и совершенствования, в частности в части финансового, методологического обеспечения, технологических решений и координации межведомственного взаимодействия.

Prevention (tools and mechanisms used, challenges and best practices)

III. Which tools and mechanisms do you use or consider useful for preventing the introduction of IAS  (e.g., artificial intelligence, surveillance, etc.)?

Ответ: В Российской Федерации применяется комплексный подход к предотвращению проникновения инвазионных видов, сочетающий традиционные и инновационные методы.
К традиционным мерам относится строгий фитосанитарный контроль карантинных объектов, а также системный мониторинг природных территорий для раннего выявления и предотвращения ИЧВ.
Современные подходы включают:
• перечень опасных ИЧВ России, который опубликован в международной БД GRIIS (Global register of introduced and invasive species), а также на портале GBIF (Global Biodiversity Information Facility — http://www.gbif.org; https://www.gbif. org/dataset/089ede6e-6496-4638-915e-f28f016c2f89). Однако данный перечень не имеет правовой статус;
• моделирование потенциальных ареалов распространения ИЧВ с учетом глобальных климатических изменений;
• применение технологий искусственного интеллекта для анализа больших массивов данных;
• разработку прогностических моделей инвазионных процессов;
• выявление и прогнозирование регионов, в наибольшей степени подверженных ИЧВ.
Большая часть данных инструментов находится в ведении научных организаций и не закреплена на законодательном уровне.
На региональном уровне субъекты Российской Федерации принимают специализированные нормативно-правовые акты, направленные на:
• выявление ИЧВ, в том числе создание региональных «Черных книг флоры», перечней приоритетных ИЧВ;
• ограничение распространения ИЧВ;
• разработку мер по их контролю;
• координацию межведомственного взаимодействия;
• внедрение научно обоснованных подходов к управлению биоразнообразием.
Все зарегистрированные новые чужеродные виды (ЧВ) и ИЧВ регулярно публикуются в Российском журнале биологических инвазий на русском (https://invasjour.sev-in.ru/index.html) и английском языках (https://link.springer.com/journal/13168)

IV. What are the challenges you are facing or foresee in preventing the introduction of IAS? (Policy, social, permits, geography, binational invasion, others)

Ответ:
1. Нормативно-правовые пробелы в определениях
В законодательстве отсутствуют определения терминов "Чужеродный вид" и "Инвазионный чужеродный вид". Данный дефицит сохраняется и на региональном уровне - ни один субъект Федерации не имеет соответствующих нормативных дефиниций в своих правовых актах;
2. Применение устаревших нормативных положений;
3. Отсутствие системного подхода и межведомственной координации.
На федеральном и региональном уровнях отсутствует единая политика по контролю ИЧВ и регламенты их предотвращения, что ведет к фрагментарности принимаемых мер (например, точечные изменения в Земельный кодекс относительно борщевика Сосновского), отсутствии межведомственной координации и несогласованности региональных и федеральных инициатив.

V. Do you collaborate with bordering countries to prevent IAS? If so, how?

Ответ: Сотрудничество с сопредельными государствами осуществляется преимущественно в рамках фитосанитарного и ветеринарного контроля, направленного на предотвращение трансграничного ИЧВ, запрещенных к ввозу и обороту на территории Российской Федерации.
Основные формы взаимодействия включают:
1. Обмен оперативной информацией о выявленных карантинных объектах;
2. Согласование мер по досмотру грузов на пограничных пунктах пропуска;
3. Проведение совместных контрольных мероприятий;
4. Гармонизацию фитосанитарных требований.
Однако текущее сотрудничество имеет ограниченный характер и не охватывает все аспекты предотвращения биологических инвазий, в частности:
• отсутствует системный обмен данными мониторинга по некарантинным ИЧВ;
• не разработаны совместные программы раннего реагирования;
• недостаточно скоординированы научные исследования.
Особую сложность представляют различия в:
• нормативно-правовых подходах к определению ИЧВ;
• перечнях регулируемых видов;
• методиках оценки рисков.
Развивается научное сотрудничество с соседними странами (Белорусия, Азербайджан, Казахстан, Монголия, Китай) и другими странами (Армения, Вьетнам, Эфиопия, США, ЮАР).
С 2001 г. в России регулярно (уже организовано 6 симпозиумов) проходят международные симпозиумы "Invasion of Alien Species in Holarctic» с докладами и обсуждениями на английском языке при участии зарубежных ученых.

VI. Do you think your country has the necessary policies to prevent the entry of IAS?

Ответ: Частично.
Как указано в разделе IV в России созданы основы управления в области регулирования и контроля ввоза ИЧВ.
Существует ряд направлений, требующих дальнейшей разработки:
• создание единой комплексной системы регулирования ИЧВ, включая стратегию на федеральном уровне (в настоящий момент меры носят преимущественно локальный и точечный характер);
• координация подходов между разными субъектами РФ;
• унификация подходов между законодательством в области охраны окружающей среды, охотничьего хозяйства, водных биологических ресурсов и фитосанитарии;
• приданание правового статуса перечню ИЧВ России, которые опубликованы в международной БД GRIIS (Global register of introduced and invasive species), а также на портале GBIF (Global Biodiversity Information Facility — http://www.gbif.org; https://www.gbif. org/dataset/089ede6e-6496-4638-915e-f28f016c2f89);
• создание федеральной и региональных «Черных книг» (для ИЧВ всех типов организмов) с целью учета перечня ИЧВ и состояния популяций ИЧВ на федеральном и региональном уровнях.

Management (tools and mechanisms used, challenges and best practices)

VII. Which tools and mechanisms do you use or consider useful for the management of IAS?

Ответ: Для эффективного противодействия инвазиям необходимо создание централизованной системы управления, включающей следующие ключевые элементы:
1. Федеральный запрет на завоз и применение ИЧВ, расширяющих их возможности укоренения в экосистемах России:
• Введение законодательного запрета на применение ИЧВ в озеленении (включая городские территории, лесопарковые зоны и объекты инфраструктуры);
• Разработка и утверждение перечня запрещённых к использованию ИЧВ в хозяйственной деятельности с учётом региональных особенностей.
2. Программы по контролю существующих популяций:
• Создание системы мониторинга и картографирования очагов распространения;
• Разработка и финансирование целевых программ по ограничению численности (вплоть до полной ликвидации) ИЧВ;
• Применение научно обоснованных методов контроля (механических, химических, биологических).
3. Административная ответственность за распространение:
• Разработка механизмов возмещения ущерба экосистемам и аборигенным видам;
• Установление ответственности за несанкционированную интродукцию видов.
4. Координация и межведомственное взаимодействие:
• Создание федерального координационного органа по вопросам ИЧВ (на основе научного учреждения);
• Разработка единых методических рекомендаций для регионов;
• Включение вопросов ЧВ и ИЧВ в экологический мониторинг.
• Сотрудничество в области международных соглашений. Например, в области контроля в портах для предотвращения поступления ИЧВ с балластными водами, согласно Международной конвенции по балластным водам (2004). Россия присоединилась к конвенции в 2012 г.

VIII. What are the challenges you are facing or foresee regarding IAS management?

Ответ: Ключевые системные ограничения в борьбе с ИЧВ в Российской Федерации:
1. Сокращение научно-исследовательского потенциала
• Устойчивая тенденция к снижению финансирования прикладных исследований в области контроля ИЧВ;
• Отсутствие целевых программ поддержки разработки современных методов ограничения распространения и численности ИЧВ.
2. Институциональная неопределенность
• Нормативно не закреплён ответственный оператор по координации борьбы с биологическими инвазиями на федеральном уровне;
• Отсутствие чёткого распределения полномочий между ведомствами (Минприроды, Россельхознадзор, Росприроднадзор и др.).
Последствия данных проблем (подробнее см. раздел IV):
• Фрагментарность принимаемых мер;
• Неэффективное использование имеющихся ресурсов;
• Запаздывание с реагированием на новые инвазии;
• Отсутствие единой системы мониторинга и отчётности.
Необходимые первоочередные меры:
• Нормативное закрепление уполномоченного федерального оператора;
• Восстановление финансирования научно-прикладных разработок по изучению влияния (в том числе на экономику) и борьбе с ИЧВ;
• Создание межведомственной координационной группы;
• Разработка национального плана действий.

IX. Have you used cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness or multi-criteria methodologies for IAS management (e.g. those referred to in annex I of decision 16/18)?

Ответ: информация отсутствует.

X. How have international databases been most helpful for IAS management in your country?
Ответ: Работа с международными базами данных по ИЧВ ведётся системно. Научным сообществом, в частности Институтом проблем экологии и эволюции им. А.Н. Северцова РАН, на основе анализа этих ресурсов был разработан приоритетный перечень 100 наиболее опасных инвазионных видов, представляющих угрозу для экосистем страны, аборигенных видов, экономики и здоровью человека.
В 2024 году Global Invasive Species Database (GISD) ввела геоблокировку для всех российских пользователей. Это решение:
• Нарушило принципы открытого научного обмена;
• Создало барьеры для работы российских специалистов;
• Подорвало доверие к международным базам данных.
После того как данный вопрос был поднят на заседании КС-16 КБР доступ был восстановлен, однако до сих пор нет доступа к информационному порталу NOBANIS.
Подобные инциденты:
• Дискредитируют научные платформы как нейтральные и профессиональные источники информации;
• Затрудняют глобальный мониторинг ИЧВ;
• Снижают эффективность борьбы с биологическими угрозами;
• Препятствуют полному выполнению Конвенции о биоразнообразии.

Control and eradication (tools and mechanisms used, challenges and best practices)

XI. Which tools and mechanisms do you use or consider useful for the control of IAS?

Ответ: Решение проблем, описанных в пп. IV и VIII позволит повысить эффективность борьбы с биологическими инвазиями на территории Российской Федерации.

XII. What are the challenges you are facing regarding the control of IAS? (Policy, social, permits, geography, binational invasion, others)

Ответ: Расширенные ответы на вопрос даны в пп. IV и VIII.

XIII. Do you think your country has the necessary policies and tools to control and eradicate IAS?

Ответ: Частично. Расширенный ответ дан в п. IV

Needs to support the implementation of T6
XIV. Share any gaps in information or tools that you consider could hinder the implementation of T6.

Ответ: Расширенный ответ дан в п. IV

XV. What scientific, technical and technological advice would be most helpful for the CBD to explore to best support the implementation of T6?

Ответ: Необходимо расширение международного сотрудничества, с целью подготовки руководств по борьбе с инвазиями, общих методических рекомендаций по отслеживанию, борьбе с ИЧВ и расширения перечня совместных исследований о распространении ИЧВ.

General

-Is the topic of invasive alien species included in your NBSAP?

Hi all,
My name is Veira Talilotu Pulekera, Principal Conservation Officer at the Ministry of Environment Climate Change Disaster Management and Meteorology, Environment and Conservation Division, Solomon Islands.
IAS is included in the Solomon Islands NBSAP, this will be further updated as Solomon Islands Government is progressing its NBSAP review this year 2025.

-Do you think your country has the necessary policies and tools to address Target 6?
• IAS is a cross-cutting issue; IAS were managed according to relevant sectoral national agencies that have legal mandates and responsibilities. The Ministry of Agriculture through the Biosecurity Departments, Biosecurity Act 2013 and biosecurity regulations 2015; the Ministry of Forestry has Forestry Act and its relevant divisions through National herbarium and botanical gardens focus on research promotes in situ and ex situ conservation of vulnerable and endangered plant species.
The Ministry of Environment Climate Change Disaster Management and Meteorology under the Environment and Conservation Division, is the focal point for invasive species management programmes in Solomon Islands. It has three legal Acts; Environment Act 1998 and its regulation 2008; Wildlife Protection and Management Act 1998 and Protected Areas Act 2010, and Protected Areas regulations 2012. Other national agencies like the Solomon Islands Maritime Authority for international and domestic sea ports do have Solomon Islands Maritime Act 2018 and Shipping (Dangerous Goods and IMDG Code) Regulations 2011 manages dangerous substances including ballast waters management (fouling), etc. 
• Solomon Islands needs to strengthen its coordination mechanisms and management of its national programmes or priorities of IAS to address T6.

Prevention (tools and mechanisms used, challenges and best practices)
- Which tools and mechanisms do you use or consider useful for preventing the introduction of IAS (e.g., artificial intelligence, surveillance, etc.)?
• Surveillance and quarantine and biosecurity clearance port of entry (imports, export and compliance).

- What are the challenges you are facing or foresee in preventing the introduction of IAS? (Policy, social, permits, geography, binational invasion, others)

• One of the main challenges facing Solomon Islands is policy that binds relevant sectors to accommodate IAS and integrate these issues within their own mandates.
• IAS is lacking in its Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) processes under the Environment Act. Previously we have no existing framework for effective monitoring and compliance of development control of certain commercial developments such as logging, mining, and infrastructures developments, such as wharfs, roads, airports, etc) regarding IAS. Most of these developments occurring in other provincial capital or rural areas, and that complicates these efforts.
• Geography is also an existing challenge to Solomon Islands due to its geographic settings.

- Do you collaborate with bordering countries to prevent IAS? If so, how?
• There are regional organizations focusing on border security or cross border arrangements. For instance, the SPC has been active in its efforts in providing guidance and technical support to PIC in addressing IAS. The SPREP is also instrumental in promoting IAS management program through Pacific Invasive Species Learning Network (PILN) regional annual meetings. Countries therefore established their own invasive strategic plans and relevant laws to accommodate IAS. Neighboring countries are also providing national workshops in number of IAS related topics or issues. For example, Australia and New Zealand are collaborating with Solomon Islands government in supporting responsible departments and agencies in building capacity and providing resources for establishing common understanding and commitments to prevent IAS

- Do you think your country has the necessary policies to prevent the entry of IAS?
• Yes, but would need more improvements in updating existing policies and also developing new policies in preventing entry of IAS that needs full national attention and commitment. For example, there are biosecurity policies, plans and laws; Protected areas Act 2010 for protected areas and conservation of biodiversity, but there is limitation in specific policies that will involve all sectors as key stakeholders to prevent the entry of IAS.

Management (tools and mechanisms used, challenges and best practices)
- Which tools and mechanisms do you use or consider useful for the management of IAS?
• Having specific national policy and laws or regulations and developing ordinances at the provincial government (subnational level) for management of IAS. Alignment of these policies will provide national framework for the control and management of IAS, absorbed into national systems and mainstreamed into relevant agencies that will involve public authorities, private businesses or commercial developments, communities or CBOs, NGOs.

- What are the challenges you are facing or foresee regarding IAS management?
• Capacity in terms of technical expertise and skills set, and resources for mobilizations of activities and program for advancing IAS management.
• Geographical nature of Solomon Islands is also setback for decentralizations and maintenance of human resources in terms of surveillance, assessments and regular monitoring over boundary or border is challenging, this will affect sustainability of the IAS management.

- Have you used cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness or multi-criteria methodologies for IAS management (e.g. those referred to in annex I of decision 16/18)?
• No, Solomon Islands has been addressing IAS on sectoral level, therefore it does not have any centralized system where such analysis is carried out that will represent the country’s status. For instance, national agencies or sectors such as Biosecurity, customs departments and maritime authorities are implementing IAS management according to their strategic processes etc
- How have international databases been most helpful for IAS management in your country?
• Solomon Islands has ratified a number of conventions, and sectors access these databases for specific IAS management. Environment and Conservation Division is at its initial phase of addressing IAS, and therefore has to familiarize itself with available databases such as GBIF, IUCN, including the regional online databases available through SPREP and SPC websites to ensure relevant resources are meaningful in country situation or context.

Control and eradication (tools and mechanisms used, challenges and best practices)
- Which tools and mechanisms do you use or consider useful for the control of IAS?
• Solomon Islands does not have active tools and mechanism in place for control of IAS, at the national level, however, there are other options that could possibly be adopted and were developed by SPREP through its Pacific Invasive Species Management Support Service (PRISMSS) (https://www.sprep.org/invasive-species-management-in-the-pacific/prismss). Countries will then decide on which tools or programmes they will use that best reflect their context.
• Engagement and collaborations with national agencies and partners with the support of NGOs, regional and international agencies could be useful to realize the importance of controlling IAS.
• Piloting study sites of IAS is also vital to help develop practical outcomes that can be used for future engagements as reference.

- What are the challenges you are facing regarding the control of IAS? (Policy, social, permits, geography, binational invasion, others)
• Lack of national policy that specifically addresses IAS,
• Very limited public participation and realization of IAS threats and impacts on livelihood, health and food security, etc, because of very limited information and expertise or skills on IAS
• Geography underscores the already vulnerable communities and island groups, access and resource mobilizations (transportations, etc) and outreach programmes remain a challenge to outer islands and provinces.
• Inter Islands biosecurity control of IAS is also an existing challenge, movement of goods/ people between islands


- Do you think your country has the necessary policies and tools to control and eradicate IAS?
• Currently there is lack of specific policies and effective tools to control and eradicate IAS. Example Solomon Islands currently doesn’t have a NISSAP for IAS management. That means, no specific management plans or management programmes developed for identified IAS. No priority IAS listed for Solomon Islands. Very little focus on conservation efforts that address or control and eradicate IAS on biodiversity or Protected Areas. IAS management were done on sectoral level, as agencies carrying out their work isolated or independent from each other.

Needs to support the implementation of T6
- Share any gaps in information or tools that you consider could hinder the implementation of T6.
• Lack of national database of IAS, currently database resources were developed and facilitated by regional organizations.
• We do have responsibilities at the national level in implementing T6, but currently no full-time officer /resources to fully recognize authorities that could lead the support for national implementations of T6, as projects and IAS activities were done on ad hoc basis.
• No listing of priority IAS and relevant policies. Lack of Technical expertise or skills or knowledge of IAS management that needs further trainings and strengthening.

- What scientific, technical and technological advice would be most helpful for the CBD to explore to best support the implementation of T6?
• Developing training courses or modules that could enhance capacity of responsible officers or national implementing agencies specifically for T6.
• Provide relevant technologies or user-friendly methodologies of control measures of T6 and assessment tools for their effectiveness.
• Promote look and learn trainings and knowledge exchange between countries within the region or where on-site demonstrations is vital at the international level.

Thank you

Dear Colleagues,

Thanks for your comments in this forum, and thank you Rachel and Paulina for your work in animating these exchanges. Sorry for our late input but I was on leave these last days.

My name is Roseli Pellens, I work for the National Museum of the Natural History in Paris, and with my colleague Arnaud Albert, from the French Biodiversity Agency, we are representing France in this forum.

In France, the National Strategy relative to Invasive Alien Species is coordinated by the Ministry of Ecological Transition, Biodiversity, Forest, Sea and Fisheries, and the main Institutions in charge of the management of IAS at the national level are the French Biodiversity Agency (OFB) and the National Museum of the Natural History (MNHN). OFB is notably responsible for the police of the environment and co-manages a national resource center dedicated to IAS. MNHN is responsible of issues related to data and indicators for the National Strategy on Biodiversity. This last one, published in 2023, includes two measures about IAS.

As you know France is part of the European Union. So, in the same manner of all Member States of the EU, our legislation and our National Strategy relative to Invasive Alien Species are aligned with that of the EU. In addition to that, France also has a number of species regulated that are not in the regulation of the European Union.

In order to contribute to this exchange, we answer some of the guiding questions here bellow

General
- Is the topic of invasive alien species included in your NBSAP?
Yes it is – with the Measure 10 devoted to IAS – and we also have a National Action Plan on IAS
- Do you think your country has the necessary policies and tools to address Target 6?
Yes, most of it.

Prevention (tools and mechanisms used, challenges and best practices)
- Which tools and mechanisms do you use or consider useful for preventing the introduction of IAS  (e.g., artificial intelligence, surveillance, etc.)?

We try to work in close collaboration with professional sectors, such as the interprofessional organization of plants, which has a code of conduct with a voluntary self-regulation, and an official list of species not to use anymore, which contains both those already regulated but also others recognized as invasive for which professionals undertake to no longer use. We also try to raise awareness among the general public about the issue of IAS through the production and distribution of brochures, posters, exhibitions, videos, documentaries, etc. We continue otherwise to develop controls on commercial establishments that continue to sell prohibited species, and we are starting to carry out border checks at ports and airports for the prohibited species. We are also more and more interested in using novel technologies for the surveillance of IAS and mainly for early detection, such as camera traps, eDNA, automatic image-recognition with IA, remote sensing, etc.

- What are the challenges you are facing or foresee in preventing the introduction of IAS? (Policy, social, permits, geography, binational invasion, others)
The geography is a central point for France, because of the many Overseas Territories, mostly islands, distributed in different oceans and in almost all latitudes. This implies in adapting national plans to each local situation.

- Do you collaborate with bordering countries to prevent IAS? If so, how?
As we are in the European Union our regulations and actions are aligned to the EU regulation.

- Do you think your country has the necessary policies to prevent the entry of IAS?
We have a strong scientific community able to forecast possible invasions and to define the areas that will be suitable to any new invaders.
Nevertheless, control at borders needs to be ameliorated, particularly for including random sampling in flights coming from destinations with high probability of introducing an invasive species. Capacity building and strategies for enhancing identifications needs to be developed.


Management (tools and mechanisms used, challenges and best practices)
- Which tools and mechanisms do you use or consider useful for the management of IAS?
OFB and the French Committee of the IUCN co-pilot a national resource center dedicated to IAS: https://especes-exotiques-envahissantes.fr/. This provides management feedbacks, best practices guides, a species database, a pictures database, etc. The actions are based on a network of over 80 experts encompassing various aspects of IAS management, including managers, researchers, authorities, etc. The Center also provides training sessions and technical workshops.

- What are the challenges you are facing or foresee regarding IAS management?
Waste management – we have recycling centers but it needs to be expanded to accommodate huge amounts of IAS in cases of concentrated actions.
Animal control/eradication – Euthanasia, and dealing with the corpses of dead animals.

- Have you used cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness or multi-criteria methodologies for IAS management (e.g. those referred to in annex I of decision 16/18)?
- How have international databases been most helpful for IAS management in your country?
We strongly contribute to International Databases especially, GBIF and GRIIS, and most of the data that we use come from data that we produce ourselves and that are shared via The National Inventory Natural Heritage (INPN). But, occurrences in the International Databases are very important to us, as they allow to identify the spatial trajectories of invasive species potentially invasive in our territory.

Control and eradication (tools and mechanisms used, challenges and best practices)
- Which tools and mechanisms do you use or consider useful for the control of IAS?
Collaboration at local, regional and global levels. Sharing information on the invasions on each country and on the strategies used successfully/unsuccessfully must contribute to multiply the results.
Strengthen agreements to control IAS in commercial exchanges – Agreements between exporting and importing countries could reduce the number of IAS shared;
Coordinated efforts of control and eradication among countries is likely to lead to more effective results at large scale and in the long-term.

- What are the challenges you are facing regarding the control of IAS? (Policy, social, permits, geography, binational invasion, others)

- Do you think your country has the necessary policies and tools to control and eradicate IAS?
We have some, but they can be ameliorated to facilitate early reaction. In some cases, we are reacting when the species is already installed and eradication becomes improbable (as for example, the blue crab in the Mediterranean region, or the Japanese knotweed).
Need of more territorial coordination – avoid isolated strategies, stimulate strategies towards a same aim.
Need to change the approach, put the management of IAS as a means and not an aim, with an objective of protecting biodiversity and restoring ecosystems, and thus also important to prioritize habitats of concern.
We are currently considering using biological control against widespread species in mainland France.

Needs to support the implementation of T6
- Share any gaps in information or tools that you consider could hinder the implementation of T6.
The huge gap of information concerns species introduced as Contaminants and/or Stowaway. This includes a number of inconspicuous species that are spread in different stages of development (eggs, larvae, adults). More documentation is needed particularly to identify and mobilize actors involved in the imports that bring these alien species with them.

Dear Colleagues,

Thanks for your comments in this forum. I am Ricardo Gómez and together with my colleagues Santiago Gracia and Mihaela Pirvu we are in this forum representing Spain (Ministry for the Ecological Transition and the Demographic Challenge).

Spain is subject to European Union regulations and also has its own legal instruments. To contribute to this debate, answers to the questions posed are provided.

Guiding questions for topic 1

General
- Is the topic of invasive alien species included in your NBSAP?
Yes, invasive alien species (IAS) are identified in the diagnostic as one of the primary pressures and threats to biodiversity in Spain. This issue is addressed in several priority action lines of our National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP), notably in Action Line 3.4, which focuses on the reduction of threats to natural heritage and biodiversity. It is also addressed in other priority areas such as 3.1, which emphasizes knowledge about natural heritage and biodiversity, and 3.3, which targets the recovery and restoration of ecosystems.
For further details, please refer to the following documents:
•  Our NBSAP (State Strategic Plan for Natural Heritage and Biodiversity 2030), approved by Royal Decree in December 2022 (RD 1057/2022).
Link to NBSAP
•  Royal Decree 630/2013 of August 2, which regulates the Spanish Catalogue of Invasive Alien Species, lists approximately 200 taxa based on scientific and technical evidence regarding their risks to native species, habitats, ecosystems, agronomy, and natural resource economics.
Link to RD 630/2013
•  Royal Decree 570/2020, June 16, which regulates the administrative procedure for the prior authorization of the importation of alien species into Spanish territory to protect native biodiversity. This is reflected in the preventive measures of our NBSAP.
Link to RD 570/2020
•  Law 7/2023, March 28, on the protection of animal rights and welfare, establishing a Positive List for Pets, which is also part of the preventive measures in our NBSAP.
Link to Law 7/2023
•  Action Plan on Priority Pathways for the Introduction of Invasive Alien Species, in accordance with EU Regulation No. 1143/2014, which focuses on preventing and managing the introduction and spread of IAS. Full implementation of this action plan is part of the preventive measures in our NBSAP.
Link to Action Plan
•  Other Strategies and Plans for management, control and eradication of invasive alien species
https://www.miteco.gob.es/es/biodiversidad/temas/conservacion-de-especies/especies-exoticas-invasoras/ce-eei-estrategia-planes.html

- Do you think your country has the necessary policies and tools to address Target 6?
Yes, Spain has developed robust policies and tools, especially in the areas of border security, legislation, surveillance, and early detection and rapid response. These measures play a crucial role in preventing the introduction and establishment of invasive alien species, enabling Spain to effectively address Target 6 of the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF).

Prevention (tools and mechanisms used, challenges and best practices)

- Which tools and mechanisms do you use or consider useful for preventing the introduction of IAS (e.g., artificial intelligence, surveillance, etc.)?
The most effective mechanisms for preventing the introduction of IAS are surveillance and strict border controls. Monitoring key entry points, such as ports and airports, is essential for early detection, rapid response, and, when necessary, eradication. These preventive actions are crucial in protecting biodiversity.

- What are the challenges you are facing or foresee in preventing the introduction of IAS? (Policy, social, permits, geography, binational invasion, others)
Detecting small alien species can be a significant challenge, as they are often introduced and established unnoticed. Additionally, both legal and illegal trade in exotic species, particularly online, and the intentional release of these species into nature, remain pervasive challenges globally.
- Do you collaborate with bordering countries to prevent IAS? If so, how?
Yes, Spain collaborates closely with neighboring countries by exchanging information on new legislation, early detection methods, and effective ways to identify exotic species. This international cooperation is critical for enhancing the management of IAS across borders.
 
- Do you think your country has the necessary policies to prevent the entry of IAS?
Yes, Spain has a comprehensive policy framework aimed at protecting biodiversity. With strong commitment at the national level, the country is well-equipped to address Target 6 of the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF).

Management (tools and mechanisms used, challenges and best practices)

- Which tools and mechanisms do you use or consider useful for the management of IAS?
The most important tools for managing IAS are early detection and rapid response systems. These mechanisms are key to preventing the spread and minimizing the impact of invasive species. Timely intervention is critical to managing IAS effectively.

- What are the challenges you are facing or foresee regarding IAS management?
The main challenge lies in the limited financial and human resources dedicated to IAS management. Often, actions are delayed, and when they are eventually implemented, they may not be as effective as needed to mitigate the impact of established species.

- Have you used cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness or multi-criteria methodologies for IAS management (e.g. those referred to in annex I of decision 16/18)?
We consistently encourage competent authorities to apply these methodologies, especially in cases where species have already become established and eradication is challenging. These approaches help in prioritizing resources and actions based on their effectiveness and economic feasibility.

- How have international databases been most helpful for IAS management in your country?
We frequently consult international databases and case studies on IAS management, particularly through platforms like Notsys, to learn from the experiences of other countries and apply best practices to our own efforts.

Control and eradication (tools and mechanisms used, challenges and best practices)

- Which tools and mechanisms do you use or consider useful for the control of IAS?
We recommend the use of physical and manual control methods, as these generally have minimal negative impact on other species. These one are often the most effective way to manage IAS at an early stage without further disrupting local ecosystems.

- What are the challenges you are facing regarding the control of IAS? (Policy, social, permits, geography, binational invasion, others)
Obtaining the necessary permits for exceptions to legislation and the complexity of managing cross-border invasions remain significant challenges. Furthermore, the absence of rapid response systems in certain regions can delay the implementation of control measures.

- Do you think your country has the necessary policies and tools to control and eradicate IAS?
For species that are already well-established, eradication is often difficult and, in some cases, policymakers may determine that the cost of eradication outweighs its potential benefits. Nevertheless, effective control measures are still in place for managing these species.

Needs to support the implementation of T6
- Share any gaps in information or tools that you consider could hinder the implementation of T6.
There is a need for a more comprehensive combination of legal enforcement, enhanced surveillance, industry regulation, and ecosystem restoration. This integrated approach is essential for not only preventing the introduction of IAS but also for limiting their spread and impact on native biodiversity.

Best regards

Dear Sir Ms. Rachel Ariey-Jouglard, I'm Marisa E. Sanchez from SAGyP (National Agricultural and Forestry Service) of Argentina. I'm going to respond by focusing specifically on the control and management of wild boar populations (Sus scrofa). This species, whether exotic or native, generates significant impacts in most countries where it is found. In my opinion, there's a lack of a common space for sharing experiences on the use of tools, limitations, etc. Because we're not talking about a single tool, the way to approach the control of this species is multifactorial, due to the type of impact the species generates, whether on/to ecosystems, soils, the native species with which it coexists, livestock farming, agriculture, serious health problems, etc. I believe that sharing specific experiences would help streamline and expand our know-how. On the other hand, the sustainable use of the species in commercial matters is confusing, whether originating from commercial hunting or hunting with exploitation or from farms, with respect to its meat, products or byproducts, where sanitary control is the key in this species, understanding that in the attempt to control it, taking advantage of adding another protein quality to food security in some sectors would be strategic. Kind regards.

Thank-you for your interest Ms. Rachel Ariey-Jouglard,

Apologies again for the slow response and lack of input (juggling a small child with a stomach bug and annual leave hasn't left much time for me to interact on here).

RE the cross-organisation group: The purpose of the Seabird Island Biosecurity Programme (SIBP) Working Group is to support broader scale coordination of biosecurity implementation at a UK level to enable alignment in methods, data synthesis and data sharing. Additionally, the WG provides a platform to share lessons learned, strategic conservation approaches, potential funding streams and other relevant issues to support and facilitate the continuity of biosecurity, as a conservation tool for our important seabird island colonies. The group was originally set-up as part of the legacy plan of an EU LIFE project, Biosecurity for LIFE. The coordination of the group since then, has been taken over by JNCC (as an arms length body with UK remit). Due to devolution, the on-the-ground implementation of biosecurity on seabird islands is the responsibility of each of the country governments Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland and landowners/custodians like the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, National Trust and National Trust for Scotland. So, the group isn't necessarily a governance structure but more a forum for thinking strategically and ensuring we are aligned in methods etc and where possible finds efficiency in doing projects at a UK scale rather than at a country scale. For example we are currently exploring the idea of building a UK seabird biosecurity monitoring database where those conducting surveillance can enter their checks into an online platform, report incursions and note steps taken in incursion responses etc. This will help with producing one of our marine strategy indicators and also help to build up an awareness of measures that work (or don't) and possible pathways.

RE compensation for industry: In the UK at the moment this is mainly focused around offshore wind (OW), as this is a known risk for seabird mortality. The idea around eradication and control of invasive mammalian predators as a possible compensation measure for OW (its still under discussion) is that it not only provides potential compensation for individuals potentially lost due to the OW project, but it could also provide net gain (help conserve and increase numbers of seabird species not directly impacted by the project). Its an area of work I am more on the fringes of but happy to explain further via email if you like? My contact email is daisy.burnell@jncc.gov.uk

Thank you

Daisy

Good day, I am Melody Anne Ocampo from the Philippines, I am an assistant professor at the University of the Philippines Manila. My research and dissertation is about marine invasive species in the Philippines and port ecology.

The topic of invasive alien species is part of my country’s NBSAP. Although there is much to be done about the policies and tools needed to address this concern.

In preventing the introduction of invasive alien species, surveillance is the most practical to my country, being an archipelago and having hundreds of ports. The challenges though, lie in the lack of specific guidelines and policies that focus on invasive alien species. There are collaborations though, with neighboring countries in terms of scientific studies and benchmarking of policies.

Managing invasive alien species (IAS) requires a multi-faceted approach. Effective tools and mechanisms include prevention, early detection, rapid response, and long-term management strategies. These strategies often involve a combination of biological, chemical, and mechanical methods, as well as ecosystem restoration and community engagement.

In my country, we have done baselining in the largest international ports (five of them) and some smaller ones (three of them) under a government funded project, the PORTEC Project, which I served as project leader of. This is the first baseline study in my country. We have generated a listing of indigenous, non-indigenous, potentially and invasive species in these areas. We have been actively participating in the crafting of policies with pertinent government institutions in the last few years. There is a need to continue this baselining in the many other ports in the Philippines, and do surveillance on the ones that we have studied. International databases have been very helpful in determining the native ranges of the organisms that we found and in invasion assessment of these species.

Good day, I am Melody Anne Ocampo from the Philippines, I am an assistant professor at the University of the Philippines Manila. My research and dissertation is about marine invasive species in the Philippines and port ecology.

The topic of invasive alien species is part of my country’s NBSAP. Although there is much to be done about the policies and tools needed to address this concern.

In preventing the introduction of invasive alien species, surveillance is the most practical to my country, being an archipelago and having hundreds of ports. The challenges though, lie in the lack of specific guidelines and policies that focus on invasive alien species. There are collaborations though, with neighboring countries in terms of scientific studies and benchmarking of policies.

Managing invasive alien species (IAS) requires a multi-faceted approach. Effective tools and mechanisms include prevention, early detection, rapid response, and long-term management strategies. These strategies often involve a combination of biological, chemical, and mechanical methods, as well as ecosystem restoration and community engagement.
In my country, we have done baselining in the largest international ports (five of them) and some smaller ones (three of them) under a government funded project, the PORTEC Project, which I served as project leader of. This is the first baselines study of ports in the Philippines. We have generated he listing of indigenous, non-indigenous, potentially and invasive species in these areas. We have been actively participating in the crafting of policies with pertinent government institutions in the last few years. There is a need to continue this baselining in the many other ports in the Philippines, and do surveillance on the ones that we have studied. International databases have been very helpful in determining the native ranges of the organisms that we found and in invasion assessment.

Hello everyone! I’m Aleisa Hannah Ayson from the Philippines. I work as a researcher on marine ecosystems at the Ecosystems Research and Development Bureau. However, during my bachelor’s and master’s studies, I focused on plant invasive alien species (IAS). Just a heads-up, most of my input here is based on my experience with plant IAS.

General
- Is the topic of invasive alien species included in your NBSAP?
Yes, Philippines has included the topic invasive alien species (IAS) in its National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (2015-2028) as one of the additional themes as part of the action plan scope.

- Do you think your country has the necessary policies and tools to address Target 6?
Yes, the Philippines has established legal and policy framework to reduce the introduction and impact of invasive alien species. The main strategic framework specifically targeted towards addressing IAS is the recently developed National Invasive Species Strategy and Action Plan (NISSAP), covering the period 2020-2030. Strategic Goals include: i) leadership and coordination, ii) prevention, iii) early detection and rapid response, iv) control and management, v) restoration, vi) research and information management, vii) education and public awareness, viii) international cooperation, and ix) training needs and capacity building. In addition, the Philippines is a signatory to the ASEAN Action plan for Invasive Alien Species Management. This regional plan emphasizes cross-border cooperation, capacity building, and shared responsibility among ASEAN member states. On the other hand, current national laws majorly focus on limiting the introduction of exotic species.

Prevention (tools and mechanisms used, challenges and best practices)
- Which tools and mechanisms do you use or consider useful for preventing the introduction of IAS  (e.g., artificial intelligence, surveillance, etc.)?
As a scientific researcher focusing on IAS, I have been extensively using Species Distribution Models (SDMs) to predict both the current and future distribution of IAS using BioClim, other environmental variables, and Land Use Land Cover Change. In my research, I have utilized several modeling tools. One of them is the Biodiversity and Climate Change Virtual Laboratory (BCCVL)—an Australian web-based platform that supports modeling of species distributions and ecological responses to climate change. I used this platform to study the distribution of invasive Acacia species originating from Australia. The BCCVL is now integrated into the EcoCommons platform (https://www.ecocommons.org.au/). I have also worked with Wallace, an open-source, R-based platform designed for reproducible ecological modeling of species niches and distributions (https://wallaceecomod.github.io). For further details, please refer to our recently published paper that explores the distribution of Chromolaena odorata in relation to climate change and LULCC: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42535-024-01001-3.

- What are the challenges you are facing or foresee in preventing the introduction of IAS? (Policy, social, permits, geography, binational invasion, others)
From the perspective of a scientific researcher, the challenges I have encountered are:

Data Limitations & Gaps
Sparse occurrence records: Many IAS, especially recent introductions, lack georeferenced presence data needed for robust SDMs.

Limited studies on plant IAS using SDMs: Most existing SDM studies in the Philippines focus on animal species, leaving a gap in predictive models for invasive plants.

Lack of ground-truthing: Few studies conduct on-site validation of SDM outputs, reducing confidence in their predictions.

Absence of a national IAS database: Unlike mangroves, corals, and seagrasses—which now benefit from citizen science-backed mapping—IAS data remain scattered and uncentralized. The same citizen science framework used in marine ecosystem mapping can be replicated for IAS monitoring to help fill data gaps and support early detection and response systems.

Environmental Data Constraints
Poor resolution of environmental layers: High-resolution climate or habitat data is limited, especially for small or fragmented island ecosystems.

Limited incorporation of human-driven variables: Most local SDM studies neglect human activity factors such as transportation, agriculture, and land-use/land-cover change (LULCC), which are key drivers of IAS spread.

Ecological and Biogeographical Challenges
Archipelagic Complexity: The Philippines’ geography—with over 7,600 islands—creates highly heterogeneous environments, requiring SDMs to account for island-specific conditions, limited connectivity, and localized species assemblages.

Hybridization and Genetic Plasticity: Some IAS hybridize with native species (e.g., tilapia, invasive plants), which may alter phenotypic traits and ecological behavior, making modeling more complex and less predictable.

- Do you collaborate with bordering countries to prevent IAS? If so, how?
As mentioned above, the Philippines is a signatory to the ASEAN Action plan for Invasive Alien Species Management.

- Do you think your country has the necessary policies to prevent the entry of IAS?
While the country has the NISSAP and other policies to prevent the entry of IAS, there is often a lack of financial and human resources to effectively implement them. Agencies may not have the capacity for routine inspections, monitoring, or rapid response to IAS threats.

Management (tools and mechanisms used, challenges and best practices)
Needs to support the implementation of T6
- Share any gaps in information or tools that you consider could hinder the implementation of T6.
Lack of a Centralized and Standardized IAS Database. Also, many countries lack trained personnel, laboratory facilities, biosecurity infrastructure, and long-term funding to implement IAS monitoring, control, and eradication programs effectively.

- What scientific, technical and technological advice would be most helpful for the CBD to explore to best support the implementation of T6?
CBD could facilitate the creation and interlinking of global and regional IAS databases, and promote adherence to common data standards (e.g., Darwin Core, GRIIS). Also, CBD to encourage integration of citizen science data, with quality control mechanisms.

Good morning.

Submitted by:

Christine Marie V. Casal, PhD
Adjunct Professor
School of Environmental Science and Management (SESAM)
University of the Philippines Los Baños
Los Baños, Laguna 4031
PHILIPPINES

and

Anson M. Tagtag
Chief, Wildlife Resources Division
DENR-BMB, Philippines


Topic#1 Discussions on tools and mechanisms used, challenges and best practices about the prevention, management, control and eradication of invasive alien species, towards the implementation of Target 6 of the Framework, in particular to facilitate international and regional cooperation

Invasive alien species (IAS) are recognized as one of the primary threats to biodiversity in the Philippines and are explicitly addressed in both the previous Philippine Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan 2015–2028 (PBSAP) and its current update for the period 2024–2040. Relative to this, the National Invasive Species Strategy and Action Plan (NISSAP) 2020–2030 (NISSAP), which is consistent with the goals of the PBSAP and aligned with Target 6 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, was developed in consultation with relevant government agencies and stakeholders. The NISSAP is a ten-year framework for a coordinated and multi-sectoral approach to prevent further introduction of IAS in the country, control or eradicate ongoing invasions, and restore ecosystems damaged by these species.

The following laws, which are specifically directed on the conservation and management of biodiversity and the protection of agriculture, provide legal bases and support to the country’s initiatives towards the effective management of invasive species:

• Republic Act 9147: Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act,
• Republic Act 11038: "Expanded National Integrated Protected Areas System Act”,
• Republic Act 8550: The Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998,
• Presidential Decree 1433: The Plant Quarantine Law, and
• Presidential Decree 1586: The Environmental Impact System Law.

Currently, live plant and animal importations are subject to permits and quarantine inspections issued by the Department of Agriculture through the Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI), the Bureau of Animal Industry (BAI), and the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources through the Biodiversity Management Bureau. Moreover, various risk assessment protocols have been adopted for assessing the invasiveness of exotic species applied for importation. Additionally, existing laws provide that introduction of exotic species shall only be allowed after the conduct of a comprehensive environmental impact study which shall focus on the bioecology, socioeconomic and related aspects of the area where the species will be introduced.  

A variety of tools are being used in support of IAS management. These include: Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in agriculture and aquaculture, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and remote sensing for mapping exotic and invasive plant species (e.g., Swietenia macrophylla in reforested areas), and Biodiversity-Friendly Enterprises for controlling IAS such as water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), which is processed into local handicrafts.

Programs directed towards the effective management of certain IAS species have also been implemented by the government, as follows:   


• Golden Apple Snail (Pomacea canaliculata)

Management of golden apple snail forms part of the government’s integrated pest management (IPM) approach for rice and a combination of cultural, chemical and biological control methods has been adopted, with due consideration given on the ecology of this species. Such methods are applied in appropriate stages of farm production and the snail’s life cycle.  Cultural methods include, handpicking, duck pasturing, screen tapping in canals for easy collection, staking and removing egg mass and dry land preparation. Specific agricultural practices such as periodic draining of rice fields, maintaining shallow water depth in the field, and transplanting older seedlings have also been practiced to limit snail movement and feeding during the vulnerable seedling stages. A study conducted in the Philippines (Joshi et al., 2006) provide evidence that P. canaliculata can even reduce rice weed populations and increase rice yield if rice seedlings are transplanted at a later stage.      

• Coconut Leaf Beetle (Brontispa longissima) 


The Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA) spearheaded the Brontispa Action Program to determine the extent of infestation and level of damage of Brontispa in the country. PCA initiated an aggressive and sustained information campaign; conducted emergency control activities using pesticides; and trained personnel and farmers on available control strategies.

A multi-year research project aimed at developing an integrated pest management against B. longissima was also undertaken by PCA. The project consisted of six component studies, namely: survey and mapping of B. longissima occurrence, its hosts and indigenous natural enemies; mass production of promising natural enemies; crop loss assessment due to infestation; field testing and integration of control strategies; information campaign and IPM promotion in Brontispa-infested areas; and effects of gamma irradiation on the sterility of B. longissima.

The IPM for Brontispa used biologically based IPM technologies that depends on indigenous biological control agents and are employed in combination with cultural, mechanical and chemical methods. Indigenous biological control agents include: a) Entomopathogens (White Muscardine Fungus, Beauveria bassiana and Green Muscardine Fungus, and  Metarhizium  anisopliae)  which infect the larva, pupae and adult of Brontispa;  b)  predators (Earwig, Chelisoches  morio);  and c) parasitoids  (egg parasitoids - Ooencyrtus sp. and Haeckeliana sp.; larval parasitoids- Asecodes sp; and pupa parasitoid - Tetrastichus  brontispae).

Cultural methods involved planting of cover crops, other leguminous crops and banana under coconuts to enhance population of parasitoids and predators (earwig) as they feed on nectars of these crops. While Mechanical Control involves pruning of infested leaves and destroying beetles especially in nursery seedlings and young plantings. Chemical spraying is done on a case to case basis and is feasible in seedling and young plants but not compulsory especially when the biological control agents are numerous enough to minimize pest population. For infested tall and mature palms, pesticides (neonicotenoids-thiametoxon thiametoxam, imidachloprid, and clothianidin) was applied through trunk injection as an emergency measure to control Brontispa.   While chemical control was used, it was recommended as a last resort and only for emergency cases in order to save heavily infested and tall trees. Moreover, cultural methods had been proven effective even without pesticide (BAR, 2012).

• Coconut Scale Insect (Aspidiotus rigidus)

First detected in 2009, major outbreaks of the coconut scale insect, Aspidiotus rigidus, locally knowns as ‘cocolisap’ occurred in the Philippines, between 2010 and 2016 in the Southern Tagalog region of Luzon Island, and from 2017 to 2020 in the Zamboanga Peninsula, Mindanao Island (Almarinez et al, 2020).

In response to the outbreaks, the government embarked on an emergency control program which cost Php 750 million (PCA, 2013) or roughly US$ 17.5 million.  Through the support of scientists and researchers, a technical advisory for the emergency, area-wide control of cocolisap with special attention given to high-risk areas or areas with high coconut planting density adjacent to infested areas and drought affected areas was developed. Moreover, an integrated pest management protocol was implemented for distribution to farmers, local government units, and NGOs.  Similar to coconut leaf beetle, the integrated pest management for coconut scale insect involved cultural methods, as well as chemical and biological control. Additionally, quarantine measures and monitoring programs were implemented to prevent further spread.

Cultural approaches involved pruning and burning of infected leaves and rehabilitation by replanting and fertilization. Cochin, an oil –based pesticide mixed with water and dishwashing liquid was used for chemical spraying of young plants and was found 95% effective. For tall and matured trees, systematic injection in trunks of coconut using neonicotinamide was employed. During the early stages of an outbreak, cutting and burning of affected plant parts also proved effective. Cleansing with soap and water was done on infested small trees and plants while chemical sprays were effective on the crawler stage of scales. Production and releases of indigenous biocontrol agents (i.e. Chilocorus nigrita, C. circumdata, Psedoscyminus anomalus and Telimia nr. Nitida) between 2011 and 2014 were done but did not make significant impacts to control A. rigidus as these preferred to prey upon the local scale insect A. destructor. 

A strong typhoon helped contain the coconut scale insect outbreak when it battered one of the major islands of the Philippines with strong rains and winds in 2014, resulting to a 41% decrease in the number of affected coconut trees. The combined effects of the integrated pest management protocol and that of the typhoon reduced the severity of the outbreak at manageable levels until it was finally controlled.  Nevertheless, the government enjoins farmers to be vigilant for possible recurrence, especially in light of the discovery that the cocolisap tends to spread faster during dry seasons.


• Clown Knifefish (Chitala ornata)

C. ornata is a popular aquarium fish that is believed to have accidentally escaped due to a flooding in 2009 and found its way to Laguna de Bay, the largest inland body of water in the Philippines and third largest freshwater lake in Southeast Asia. Reports surfaced in 2011 on their aggressive and highly predatory behavior on economically important cultured fish such as tilapia and milk fish. Studies have shown that knifefish consume 7 kg of fish per kilo of its body weight, translating to a loss of Php 1,030 (US$24.52/day) incurred by a fisherman for every kg of knifefish (BFAR 2014).  Estimated losses resulting from knifefish infestation in the Philippines is valued at US$ 245,200.00/day or US$89,498,000.00 annually (Borja, 2013). 

An inter-agency Technical Working Group (TWG) was created in 2013 to coordinate and harmonize efforts for projects and strategies to contain the clown knife fish and prevent its further spread into other inland waters. A robust site monitoring and reporting mechanism has been institutionalized by the TWG.  A cash for work program which entails the active harvest of knifefish by members of the local communities adjacent to the Lake in exchange for cash incentive is also being implemented. The potential value of this IAS as a food commodity both locally and abroad have also been explored.

Multi-stakeholder partnerships, including those with the academe, civil society organizations, and local governments, have been formed to effectively manage IAS, particularly the aforementioned examples. However, sustainable large-scale eradication efforts remain rare, and many IAS pathways—including ballast water and informal live trade—are inadequately regulated.

Dear Melody from the Philippines from Arne Witt (CABI)
Many thanks for your inputs. I am wondering if you are aware of the GEF IAS Project entitled "Removing Barriers to Invasive Species Management in Production and Protection Forests in SE Asia" which was initiated in Cambodia, Indonesia, Philippines and Vietnam in 2011 and ended in around 2016. In that project we tried to address many of your concerns developing a NISSAP and other policies, including an IAS Coordination Unit or Apex Body. We also developed prevention and EDRR mechanisms, an IAS Communication Strategy which resulted in the production and dissemination of awareness material. We also built capacity and even looked at introducing IAS issues into school and university curriculum.  We even produced a document on "cost recovery" which considered best practices in generating funds for IAS management. Alot was done but based on your message it would appear that many of these initiatives have not been sustained. Why do you think this is the case? What do we need to do to sustain these activities, to get policies and practices implemented and sustained? Feel free to send me an email at a.witt@cabi.org if you would like me to share some of the outputs with you. Thanks Arne

Dear all,

I´m Santiago Gracia, from Spanish Ministry of the Ecological Transition and the Demographic Challenge. In addittion to the message from my colleague Ricardo Gómez, we just want to add the active links to the documents referred previously:

•  Our NBSAP (State Strategic Plan for Natural Heritage and Biodiversity 2030), approved by Royal Decree in December 2022 (RD 1057/2022).
https://www.miteco.gob.es/es/biodiversidad/temas/conservacion-de-la-biodiversidad/valoracion-y-aspectos-economicos-de-la-biodiversidad/cb_vae_plan_estrategico_patrimonio_nat_bio.html

•  Royal Decree 630/2013 of August 2, which regulates the Spanish Catalogue of Invasive Alien Species, lists approximately 200 taxa based on scientific and technical evidence regarding their risks to native species, habitats, ecosystems, agronomy, and natural resource economics.
https://www.boe.es/eli/es/rd/2013/08/02/630/con


•  Royal Decree 570/2020, June 16, which regulates the administrative procedure for the prior authorization of the importation of alien species into Spanish territory to protect native biodiversity. This is reflected in the preventive measures of our NBSAP.
https://www.miteco.gob.es/es/biodiversidad/temas/conservacion-de-especies/especies-exoticas-invasoras/ce-eei-iea-procedimiento.html


•  Law 7/2023, March 28, on the protection of animal rights and welfare, establishing a Positive List for Pets, which is also part of the preventive measures in our NBSAP.
https://www.boe.es/eli/es/l/2023/03/28/7/con


•  Action Plan on Priority Pathways for the Introduction of Invasive Alien Species, in accordance with EU Regulation No. 1143/2014, which focuses on preventing and managing the introduction and spread of IAS. Full implementation of this action plan is part of the preventive measures in our NBSAP.
https://www.miteco.gob.es/content/dam/miteco/es/biodiversidad/temas/conservacion-de-especies/planviasdeentradadeeeilimpio12julio2021_tcm30-529319.pdf

• Strategy of management, control and possible eradication of invasive alien species present in continental freshwater ecosytems (the most recent strategy approved in July 2024)
https://www.miteco.gob.es/es/biodiversidad/publicaciones/pbl-fauna-flora-estrategias-eei-acuaticos.html

Thank you very much to all the contributors to the forum and to the moderators.

Best regards,

Prof Aileen Mill, Newcastle University. IUCN ISSG

I have noted there are many responses commenting that either legislation is not in place or where it is in place there are insufficient resources available for implementation or inspection.

Legislation is one of the ‘cross cutting’ or supporting issues highlighted in the CBD Toolkit and guidance on developing a NISSAP (Step5), along with the topics of Resources and Coordination and Collaboration.
https://www.cbd.int/invasive/toolkit/doc/IAS-Toolkit-en.pdf

I wanted to comment on a recent change in Great Britain that is proving successful.

In Great Britain Invasive Alien Species action is coordinated by a small team at the GB Non-Native Species Secretariat. You can read about the governance structure and their aims on their webpages. https://www.nonnativespecies.org/
There is a nonnative species strategy 2023-30 which can be read there too. https://www.nonnativespecies.org/about/gb-strategy

In 2019 the UK governments cross party Environmental Audit Committee discussed IAS, where the disparity in funding allocated to IAS compared to other biosecurity concerns was highlighted. The committee recommended that a dedicated inspectorate be formed to support implementation of legislation. Since 2021 the inspectorate team have been growing and initials analysis has shown a increase in compliance (as reported at the Neobiota conference in Lisbon 2024). The inspectors have targeted high risk pathways such as pet trade, horticulture and boating activities and their inspections have resulted in increased awareness of the legislation. Data collected can inform risk assessments, horizon scanning lists and evidence to support preventing priory species arriving and establishing (part of GBF T6). It’s early days but investment in these cross cutting actions can really make a difference.

Arne Witt - CABI
Dear All
Despite IAS being one of the 5 biggest threats to biodiversity there has been limited financial support from donors and Governments to address them. It's also not just biodiversity but IAS impact on crop and livestock production, human and animal health, water resources, they fuel fires, etc. Just like climate change IAS have cross-cutting impacts and cost the global economy trillions of USD every year.

In terms of support, or lack thereof, you just have to look at how few GEF IAS projects there actually are. The last time I looked less than 2% of GEF funds were allocated to IAS projects, and that's in the last 15 years or so.

So, why is this the case. I often think its because countries don't know what is present, the impacts these IAS are having, and how best to manage them. Possibly a lack of awareness and capacity. Another contributing factor may be that of conflict species, that is introduced species that are known to be useful but also have significant negative impacts. Many Development Agencies, and even Governments promote these species, in some cases they even introduce them, without undertaking Risk Assessments. These issues could also be resolved by undertaking Cost-Benefit Analyses. Again, maybe we don't have the in-country capacity to do this.

The question is this, what do we need to do to get donors and Governments to support IAS management? At a personal and institutional level I would love to know. Maybe some of you have the answers and would be willing to share them. Thanks in advance.

I am Helen Roy - an ecologist with the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (UKCEH) and the University of Exeter. I was one of the co-chairs of the IPBES thematic assessment on invasive alien species and their control.

I have been leading the collation of information on alien species in Britain for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) for more than 15 years - the information is shared through the GB Non-Native Species Information Portal (GBNNSIP) https://www.nonnativespecies.org/non-native-species/information-portal. There are a number of tasks within this project that support the management of invasive alien species (IAS) including an alert system for IAS designated as a priority within Britain and also horizon scanning to inform prevention and early warning. Currently the project team (including partners with UKCEH) are reviewing information within the GBNNSIP in support of activities to track progress towards the GBF Target 6.

Sustained funding has been critical to maintaining and developing the GBNNSIP. We have appreciated the ongoing commitment from Defra and the coordination through the Non-Native Species Secretariat. Indeed this has been critical to the delivery of the ongoing work programme to provide evidence to inform IAS policy and action.

Through the Defra-funded GBNNSIP we collaborate with bordering authorities including members of the British-Irish Council. It has also been incredibly productive to collaborate with partners across the EU through various EC funded initiatives. Partnerships and collaborations are critical to mitigating the threat of IAS - one such example is the team led by the IUCN to deliver the CBD toolkit https://www.cbd.int/invasive/cbdtoolkit in support of target 6. It was a privilege to be part of this team and to draw on knowledge from the GBNNSIP, IPBES, EC-funded research etc to inform the toolkit.

The need for information on IAS is recognised globally and the GRIIS lists provide an excellent resource. With Darwin-Plus funding we have been compiling information on alien species for the 14 UK Overseas Territories https://www.ceh.ac.uk/our-science/projects/enhancing-monitoring-and-prevention-invasive-non-native-species-across-ukots. Local knowledge has been critical to the development of the datasets for the UKOTs - the UKOT-based partners have been inspiring.

I am pleased to be part of the EU Horizon OneSTOP project https://www.onestop-project.eu/ (commenced in January 2025) in which we will be testing and implementing a range of tools and technologies including computer vision, eDNA, citizen science for monitoring and surveillance. We will also be exploring modelling approaches for prioritisation and impact assessments. Enhancing data flows is also an important aim of this project.

In summary, partnerships and collaborations alongside sharing of information and provision of open datasets are critical for the implementation of Target 6. Adequate and sustained funding are a necessity to achieve the aims of nations in mitigating the threat of IAS.     

Topic#1 Discussions on tools and mechanisms used, challenges and best practices about the prevention, management, control and eradication of invasive alien species, towards the implementation of Target 6 of the Framework, in particular to facilitate international and regional cooperation

Good morning, good afternoon, good evening.

On behalf of Paulina Stowhas Salinas, from Chile, and myself, Rachel Ariey-Jouglard, from Canada , we would like to thank all of the participants in this open-ended Online Forum on invasive alien species.

Your many contributions and comments provided a great perspective of the many challenges that still need to be addressed to implement Target 6, but also a refreshing insight into the progress and improvements that have already been achieved and reached. 

As mentioned in our welcome message, the output of this forum will be important in shaping the future work of the CBD with regard to IAS.

We would like to thank you all again for your participation and we hope that this forum helped increase your knowledge and create connections.

Rachel and Paulina