Invasive Alien Species

Forum opens on April 7th

We are pleased to welcome you to the open-ended Online Forum on invasive alien species. Rachel Ariey-Jouglard, from Canada and myself Paulina Stowhas Salinas, from Chile, will help moderate this online forum.

Under topic #2, we hope to get information from you on how we can work together to facilitate collaborative responses to biological invasions and to the threats and impacts of invasive alien species.

Furthermore, we seek your views and experiences with regards to how those collaborative approaches could be integrated with the One Health approach.

The Conference of the Parties recognized the interlinkages between biodiversity and health and the value of the One Health approach to implement the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and its targets (Decision COP15/4).  The One Health Approach is defined, in Decision COP15/29, as: “an integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals and ecosystems. It recognizes the health of humans, domestic and wild animals, plants, and the wider environment (including ecosystems) are closely linked and inter-dependent. The approach mobilizes multiple sectors, disciplines and communities at varying levels of society to work together to foster well-being and tackle threats to health and ecosystems, while addressing the collective need for clean water, energy and air, safe and nutritious food, taking action on climate change, and contributing to sustainable development.”

With this in mind, below are some questions to help stimulate the discussion. Please note that those questions are indicative and are meant to help support the discussion. Views and experiences 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.

Guiding questions for topic 2

- How does your country or organization work to collaboratively respond to biological invasions and to the impacts of invasive alien species?

- Do you have proposals on how we can better use collaborative integrated approaches to address biological invasions and IAS?

- Do you have proposals or examples on how integrated approaches could be used for addressing biological invasions and invasive alien species? Are there collaborative responses in place in your country or region for addressing IAS? (e.g., incident command systems, MOUs between institutions, coordinating bodies, etc.)

- Are all IAS aspects covered by the different institutions (e.g., through integrated governance)? Has it been challenging to address IAS with sectors that do not have a clear attribution to address IAS (e.g., health, customs, transport, education etc.)?

- How does your Country collaborate with others to prevent or to respond to biological invasions?

- Do governmental or other agencies responsible for implementing the One Health Approach take into account IAS from a public health, animal and plant health perspective?

- Is there work on One Health and IAS, including collaborative approaches to address IAS that could benefit from guidance or other work to be developed under the CBD?

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.

Paulina and Rachel

NGANONO MAGONGO- MINISTRY OF PUBLIC SERVICE
1. How does your country or organization work to collaboratively respond to biological invasions and to the impacts of invasive alien species?-
Eswatini has put in place environmental Laws and policies that address the prevention, control, and management of IAS. These frameworks are aligned with international agreements, including the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which Eswatini is a party to.

2. Do you have proposals on how we can better use collaborative integrated approaches to address biological invasions and IAS-

Eswatini can form a multi-sectoral taskforce bringing together representatives from the Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Tourism and Environmental Affairs, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Natural Resources- Water Affairs department, Academia, NGOs, and the private sector. This bodies would coordinate efforts, standardize approaches, and streamline communication between all actors. The country can also Intensify partnerships with Mozambique, South Africa, and regional institutions (like SADC).

3. Do you have proposals or examples on how integrated approaches could be used for addressing biological invasions and invasive alien species? Are there collaborative responses in place in your country or region for addressing IAS? (e.g., incident command systems, MOUs between institutions, coordinating bodies, etc.)

Yes, here’s are examples and proposals of how integrated approaches can be used to address biological invasions and invasive alien species (IAS), including collaborative frameworks and potential models:

i. Eswatini participates in SADC’s regional biosecurity efforts, particularly through:
 SADC Plant Protection Subcommittee and Livestock Technical Committee
 Shared surveillance information and quarantine protocols for pest outbreaks and plant diseases
 Cross-border initiatives under transfrontier conservation areas like the Lubombo TFCA with Mozambique and South Africa.
ii. The Eswatini Environment Authority (EEA plays a central role in:
 Environmental permitting and regulation of species introduction
 Environmental impact assessments (EIAs) that include IAS risks
 Collaborating with the Department of Forestry, Ministry of Agriculture, Water Affairs and Ministry of Public service.

4. Are all IAS aspects covered by the different institutions (e.g., through integrated governance)? Has it been challenging to address IAS with sectors that do not have a clear attribution to address IAS (e.g., health, customs, transport, education etc.)?
Yes it is, Forestry Department under the Ministry of Tourism and Environmental Affairs (MoTEA) manages invasive plant species in protected and degraded areas. The Ministry of Agriculture addresses invasive pests (e.g. Armyworm) and animal diseases with cross-border potential.

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. Here is the answer about "How does your country or organization work to collaboratively respond to biological invasions and to the impacts of invasive alien species?"
In China, the prevention and management of invasive alien plants involve multiple government agencies. According to the latest Measures on the Management of Invasive Alien Species and related regulations, the primary responsibilities are allocated as follows:

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs: Oversees invasive species management in agricultural systems, including maintaining agricultural invasive species lists, conducting risk assessments, monitoring, early warning, and control measures.

Forestry and Grassland Authorities: Manages invasive species in forest and grassland ecosystems, with responsibilities covering list formulation, risk assessment, monitoring, and implementation of control strategies.

Natural Resources Authorities: Participates in invasive species control related to land resource management.

Ecological Environment Authorities: Supervises invasive species in protected natural areas and ecologically sensitive regions, while contributing to nationwide control efforts.

Additionally, an inter-ministerial coordination mechanism has been established among these agencies to address major challenges and ensure effective collaboration. Customs authorities also play a critical role by enforcing port controls to prevent new invasions.

Collectively, these efforts form a comprehensive management framework, spanning from prevention at entry points to monitoring, early warning, and ecological restoration, creating a multi-layered defense system against invasive plants.

Hello, I’m Halley Rose Meslin, I work at the nature conservation charity Fauna & Flora as a Business & Nature Technical Officer and am based in Cambridge, UK. Fauna & Flora, in partnership with IUCN, are launching the Invasive Species Collaborative Initiative that aims to raise business awareness about invasives species, accelerate the adoption of best practices for invasive species management, and facilitate the collaboration of businesses with local communities and other stakeholders across landscapes. We aim to engage businesses, governments, and IPLCs through a series of sector roundtables in 2025 (with a focus on food & agriculture, extractives, tourism, transport, and finance), with insights from the roundtables helping to develop a business call to action report including a compelling business case, sector insights and opportunities, guidance and case studies. Following the roundtables, we will be identifying and supporting demonstration projects in landscapes and across value chains which will test new solutions and collaborations and provide data for further innovation. This will be supported through the development of the Invasive Alien Species Collaboration Fund to direct investment into impactful, scalable projects. Very interested to hear from others about examples of how they are working with businesses in their countries. To learn more or express interest in participating in this initiative, please contact: businessandnature@fauna-flora.org

Hello everyone , I am Nouraldin Shtaya , working Currently at Biodiversity department -Environment Quality Authority  (EQA ) - State of Palestine
- In Palestine works through cooperation among the relevant institutions, such as the Environment Quality Authority and  Ministry of Agriculture, in collaboration with the Customs Police, to primarily control the borders in areas under Palestinian authority ,this aims to prevent the smuggling of birds and animals that are either prohibited for trade or considered invasive alien species.
Efforts also include preventing cross-border transportation, as well as holding numerous training sessions and both in-person and online workshops to raise awareness about invasive alien species and their threat to biodiversity.
Additionally, civil society organizations also play an important role.

-The plan of Environment Quality Authority to Control pathways for the introduction of invasive alien species, preventing, or reducing their rate of introduction and establishment and control or eradicate IAS to eliminate or reduce their impacts, focusing on priority and potential IAS’s and priority sites
Adopting the national strategy on mitigating and combating invasive alien species and its action plans
Targets for Action: 2030: Adopt the plan and implement it resulting in halt of spread of most invasive animal and plant species; 2030: Reverse the trend of presence and spread of any IAS
Indicators: Reports by relevant authorities with documentation for meeting relevant outputs in the national plan
Responsibility: EQA, MOA,
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..

-Yes, most of the institutions mentioned previously , whether governmental or non-governmental, have studied or addressed the issue of invasive alien species.There is cooperation among these institutions in spreading knowledge and raising awareness.
However, there is a challenge or obstacle related to the cost of control efforts. For example, Palestine and the surrounding region are facing several cases of dangerous invasive alien species.
Acridotheres tristis: The common myna or Indian myna , Cochineal Scale Insect Dactylopius spp  attached specially prickly pear Opuntia ficus indica  , (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) and (Solanum elaeagnifolium)..... etc

- Palestine collaborates with regional and international partners to prevent and respond to biological invasions through several key mechanisms.
First, we actively participate in international conventions and agreements such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which provides a framework for cooperation on the management of invasive alien species.
Additionally, our national institutions—such as the Environmental Quality Authority and the Ministry of Agriculture—work closely with counterparts in neighboring countries and relevant international organizations to share data, best practices, and early warning systems regarding invasive species.

Joint training programs, workshops, and regional forums are also held to build capacity and raise awareness among experts and stakeholders.
Moreover, cooperation at the border level helps in monitoring and controlling the movement of potentially invasive species, often in coordination with international customs and quarantine protocols.
Despite these efforts, the financial and technical challenges remain significant, and more support is needed to enhance cross-border coordination and implement effective long-term control strategies.

Hi Nganono! Thank you very much for this interesting response. The multi-sector task force with the represented ministries is very interesting. Regarding OneHealth, do you have an example you'd like to share with us (or we can review on a website or other) of how the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of the Environment have integrated the One Health approach into the multi-sector task force?

Hello Nouraldin,

Thank you very much for your response. Do you have any examples of the Ministry of Health's involvement in issues related to IAS? This could be with terrestrial IAS (agriculture and food safety, for example), aquatic IAS (water quality for drinking or irrigation), or marine IAS (fishing or safety).

Thank you!

Hello everyone.

From a Canadian perspective, enhancing collaboration amongst federal ministries, as well as with provinces and territories is important in addressing IAS. Canada also recognizes the importance of non-governmental actors in helping address this issue. To develop Canada’s 2030 Nature Strategy (i.e., our NBSAP, which mirrors all KMGBF 23 target), we worked with over 20 federal departments, all provinces and territories. More than 7,500 Canadian individuals and organizations provided answers to a survey or provided written submissions to support the development of Canada’s 2030 Nature Strategy.

At the federal structure, a committee focused on the development and implementation of the KMGBF and Canada’s NBSAP was struck. As such, all ministries involved in the implementation of the KMGBF are aware of each other’s work, including with regards to specific targets. This can help ensure that the approach to and the importance of implementing the KMGBF stays coherent.

With regards to IAS specifically, responsibilities for IAS management in Canada in shared with provinces and territories, underscoring why a whole-of-government approach to addressing T6 is important. For terrestrial species, provinces and territories are the main managers of IAS in Canada. For aquatic species, management is a shared responsibility with provincial and territorial partners. Provinces with fisheries management responsibilities are responsible for the implementation of the Aquatic Invasive Species Regulations within their jurisdiction. Conservation officers from all provinces and territories are cross-designated to enforce the AIS Regulations. Most provinces and territories operate aquatic invasive species programs (and in some cases watercraft inspection programs) within their jurisdictions and collaborate with each other or other federal partners.

Implementation of Target 6 is supported by the federal committee and also relies on structures that existed prior to the KMGBF. For example, there are a few federal-provincial-territorial committees on different topics (e.g., IAS in general, aquatic invasive species, forest pests, use of pesticides). In some cases, for example with regards to legislation on addressing aquatic invasive species, the regulatory listing of species is developed in collaboration with provinces and territories. There can also be collaboration between enforcement agencies on various species. The Canada Border Service Agency, for example, enforces many legislations administered by different departments. Overall, there is no one department that leads on all aspects of IAS managemenr or on all species. Collaboration is key however to learn from best practices. On aquatic invasive species, while there is no Incident Command per se, quick and effective collaboration with the US, federal enforcement agencies and with provinces and territories were set up when threats of biological invasions of zebra mussels were found.

There is also collaboration at the regional level with US and Mexico (e.g. Trilateral agreement, International Joint Commission, and knowledge-sharing opportunities like the North American Invasive Species Forum, which will be taking place virtually from May 13 to May 16 2025). Canada helps advance biological invasion prevention by collaborating on different international forum (e.g., CBD, International Plan Protection Convention, including the International Forest Quarantine Research Group, the International Maritime Organization, including the Ballast Water Convention).
The Government of Japan was and continues to be a leader with regards to IAS, having brought this issue within the G7. Thanks to their efforts, there is now greater collaboration, including through sharing of information and through work relationship, on the issue of IAS. Such work can be an example on how Target 6 implementation provides the opportunity to enhance relationships between countries.

With regards to One Health more specifically, Canada’s approach has been to look at the issue more specifically under Target 5. For example, the federal government and provinces and territories, as well as a non-governmental organization, the Canadian Wildlife Health Cooperative, worked collaboratively to develop the Pan-Canadian Approach to Wildlife Health. The challenge at the moment to implementation this approach is lack of funding.  However, there are a lot of synergies between both Targets as preventing biological invasions, including of pathogens, would support wildlife health. In fact, the Global Action Plan on Biodiversity and Health, adopted in Decision COP16/19 on Biodiversity and Health provides a list of « Actions to ensure biodiversity and health co-benefits, to be implemented taking the One Health and other holistic approaches into consideration”. These can be helpful when trying to frame IAS actions within the One Health approach. Future work from Parties and organizations on the linkages between IAS and One Health could be guided by the questions identified in this Global Action Plan on Biodiversity and Health.

Thanks to the new NBSAP that was developed following the adoption of the KMGBF, there is greater collaboration with the Public Health Agency of Canada, under Health Canada. The Agency’s mandate is to promote health, prevent and control chronic diseases and injuries, prevent and control infectious diseases, and prepare for and respond to public health emergencies. As such, they have promoted the development, uptake, and distribution of education and awareness tools and resources on emerging vector-borne diseases for target audiences, including children and caregivers, outdoor workers, people living in at-risk areas, and Indigenous communities to support early identification and prevention. To support the knowledge to help prevent future biological invasions impacting health, they also administer the Infectious Diseases and Climate Change Fund and have funded studies looking at the health impact of invasive mosquitoes for example.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), which mandate includes food safety, animal health, plant health and international market access and is the lead in Canada under the International Plant Protection Convention, also applies a One Health Approach. In general, collaboration is a key component of the CFIA’s delivery of its mandates. Collaboration occurs on many aspects and with different parties at the domestic or international levels. This includes collaboration with, for example, border services agency, provincial partners, stakeholders, industry, academia and industry. Although aspects related the practical implementation to plant health remains to be developed, the CFIA is applying a One Health approach to many issues encompassed by its mandate in collaboration with its partners in Canada and abroad.

Link to the Canadian Approach to Wildlife Health add https://www.cwhc-rcsf.ca/docs/technical_reports/EN_PanCanadian%20Approach%20to%20Wildlife%20Health%20Final.pdf

Link to COP16/19 decision on Biodiversity and Health https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-16/cop-16-dec-19-en.pdf

Link to all CBD COP decisions on biodiversity and health: https://www.cbd.int/health/decisions.shtml

Link to Infectious Diseases and Climate Change Fund webpage:  https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/funding-opportunities/infectious-diseases-climate-change-fund.html

Andy Sheppard CSIRO AUSTRALIA

In Australia the federal government has responsibility for the borders and the States and Territories for post-border management in a highly collaborative context driven through a cross-jurisdictional National Biosecurity Committee. Industry is supported by two public-private NGOs Plant Health Australia and Animal Health Australia with the environment largely publicly supported by Wildlife Health Australia and the Centre for Invasive Species Solutions.  IAS management is supported by two national strategies (Australian Weeds Strategy and the Vertebrate Pest Strategy) and a number of target specific National Action/Control plans.

The overarching approach to IAS prevention and preparedness, be it in the context of agricultural production, trade and the environment is through four collective national planning agreements a) ANIMALPLAN (https://www.agriculture.gov.au/agriculture-land/animal/health/animal-plan);  b) PLANTPLAN (https://www.planthealthaustralia.com.au/response-arrangements/plantplan/), c) AQUAPLAN (https://www.agriculture.gov.au/agriculture-land/animal/aquatic/aquaplan) and d) NEBRA (https://www.agriculture.gov.au/biosecurity-trade/policy/emergency/nebra)..  These agreements include “response agreements” that lay out both the ongoing priorities under each sector and response planning to ensure “who leads?” and “who pays?" does not delay EDRR. Individual biological threats are pre-categorised on likely level of impact geographically and on and by industry to pre-define who pays. Generally. EDRR is led by the affected State or Territory via an incident command system approach with collaboration across states, relevant industries and community. By signing up to these agreement industries are entitled to compensation for losses resulting from the response. 

International collaboration in the Oceania region is strong with strategies, agreements and collaborations with most neighbouring countries (e.g. Pacific biosecurity strategy https://www.agriculture.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/pacific-biosecurity-strategy.pdf)

In Australia, as in most countries, One Health remains more a coordinating principle that a national investment strategy. One Health application here is largely restricted to zoonotic disease threat management.  Agriculture policy is focussed on One Health from an animal trade perspective given Australia exports most Ag production to ensure Australia remains disease free to access high value markets. Health policy only started to focus on a One Health approach post COVID-19, with the instigation of an Australian Centre for Disease Control (https://www.cdc.gov.au/), but this is very much in the early stages. H5N1 high path avian influenza national response is really the first example of Agriculture, Environment and Health Departments working together in One Health threat management and has led to the first generalised but probably short-lived national investment in wildlife health. Generally, IAS management here remains peripheral if complementary to One Health as the case for broader investment lacks political necessity.

Hello,

I wish to add a bit more details pertaining to two specific federal ministries under the Government of Canada, namely Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), which provide scientific expertise on forest pests, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) which deals with aquatic invasive species.

Question: How does your country or organization work to collaboratively respond to biological invasions and to the impacts of invasive alien species?
- NRCan strives for research excellence and provides national leadership to advance risk-based forest pest management policies and practices (including forest IAS) through various forums and advisory roles. For example:
o The Canadian Council of Forest Ministers’ Forest Pest Working Group provides a national forum that advanced the development of a national risk analysis framework for pest management, and several invasive species risk analyses that have been guiding pest risk management decisions across jurisdictions.
+ NRCan hosts the Forest Pest Management Forum, an annual event that brings together pest managers, foresters, and researchers from across Canada to discuss current pest issues and the latest scientific findings, and to advance partnerships, collaboration, and synergies.
+ NRCan is also one of the creators of the Invasive Species Centre, co-located at the Great lakes Forestry Centre in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. The Centre is a leader in invasive species science support, education, and action in Ontario and beyond.
+ It is also worth mentioning that NRCan participates in other important national forums such as the Canadian Plant Health Council and Invasive Alien Species National Committee to advance collaboration and best practices in invasive species risk management and priorities outlines in the Plant and Animal Health Strategy for Canada.

+ The scientific advice provided by NRCan experts is instrumental to forest management and regulatory agencies, landowners and foresters across Canada. Scientific knowledge and tools are transfers to end users through a multitude of panels and channels
+ Pest-specific science committees such as the Asian Longhorn Beetle Science committee that informed the eradication programs for this pest in Ontario.
+ NRCan also works with partners and stakeholders to promote the development of international plant health standards of importance to forestry and support their acceptance and implementation globally. Adherence to these standards by our partners reduces the likelihood of introducing invasive species.
+ NRCan experts also participate in emergency response exercises that facilitate capacity building for invasive species emergency management. Their scientific perspective help assess the effectiveness of emergency response plans and protocols.

Question: Do you have proposals on how we can better use collaborative integrated approaches to address biological invasions and IAS?
- Internationally coordinated approaches and legislations are needed to prevent the intentional or unintentional trade of high-risk aquatic invasive species globally (e.g., the trade of known high-risk species could be banned by convention, similar to the banning of persistent organic pollutants under the Stockholm Convention)


Question: Do you have proposals or examples on how integrated approaches could be used for addressing biological invasions and invasive alien species? Are there collaborative responses in place in your country or region for addressing IAS? (e.g., incident command systems, MOUs between institutions, coordinating bodies, etc.

- NRCan participates in three Critical Plant Pest Management Committees, established through MOUs with key federal and provincial government departments and agencies involved in plant health protection, in order to create a governance structure and process for joint information exchange, decision-making and action in the event of the introduction of a ‘Critical Plant Pest’ in the jurisdiction (i.e., Province) in question.
+ An example is the British Columbia Plant Protection Advisory Council (BCPPAC), which consists of federal, provincial, industrial, academic, and regional partners, as required. BCPPAC addresses plant health and plant quarantine issues and coordinates activities, including communication, should a pest be deemed critical. Working with technical advisory committees, they guide the Critical Plant Pest Management Committee, which develops response plans specific to the pest of concern, e.g., spongy moth. They have also developed a Plant Health Emergency Manual to supplement existing procedures for prompt and effective action.

- The National Aquatic Invasive Species Committee (NAISC), co-chaired by DFO, provides a forum for federal-provincial-territorial coordination on AIS, and for reporting to the Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers (CCFAM).
- DFO has used the Incident Command System to respond to invasions of aquatic invasive species. For example, in 2021, ICS was used to coordinate a national response between DFO, provinces, and other federal agencies to respond to the invasion of Zebra Mussel infested moss balls.
- Response plans are developed jointly between DFO and other organizations (for example, provinces, invasive species councils, etc.).

Links:
Forest Pest Working Group: https://www.ccfm.org/healthy-forests/natural-disturbances/
British Columbia Plant Protection Advisory Council: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/agriculture-seafood/animals-and-crops/plant-health/invasive-pests-and-biosecurity/bcppac
Forest Pest Management Forum: https://natural-resources.canada.ca/forest-forestry/insects-disturbances/national-forest-pest-management-forum
Invasive Species Centre:
Canadian Plant Health Council: https://www.canada.ca/en/food-inspection-agency/news/2018/10/canadian-plant-health-council-launched.html
Plant and Animal Strategy for Canada: https://inspection.canada.ca/en/about-cfia/partnerships/plant-and-animal-health-strategy

Good afternoon, everyone from Cuba. I wanted to share some of the experiences and solutions we've found regarding invasive alien species that have arrived in our country, whether intentionally or unintentionally, for example:

- The arrival of lionfish on Cuban coasts, competing with our lobsters' habitat. In this regard, an intensive outreach campaign was carried out to ensure safe fishing due to the species' characteristics and reduce its population in the marine environment. This also constitutes a food source for coastal communities. Today, the species' populations remain under control.
- Following the unintentional introduction of the Perna viridis species into one of Cuba's bays, an awareness campaign was also carried out to promote fishing and the use of its shell to create highly useful and beautiful handcrafted products. In this case, the survey studies conducted confirmed that the species has served as a substrate for other marine species. The only negative finding was that the mussel had entered the cooling channels of a thermoelectric plant, resulting in high costs for its control and elimination.
- The introduction in Cuba more than a century ago of the species Dichrostachys cinérea (Marabú) resulted in the dissemination of the plant in large extensions of arable lands with serious difficulties for its elimination. For several years, the plant has been used to produce charcoal, which is exported to Europe, generating economic benefits and providing employment for the workers involved in the process.
- Creation of a multidisciplinary group comprised of authorities from the Ministries of Public Health, Agriculture, and Science, Technology, and Environment to control an avian influenza outbreak caused by the presence of migratory birds (exotic species) that nest in Cuba for a short period of time.
- Since September 2022, intensive work has been carried out to control and eliminate the invasive marine species Unomia stolonifera, due to the danger it poses to the health and conservation of the biodiversity of our coral reefs, taking into account our island nature. Thanks to the collaboration between Cuban and Venezuelan specialists, it was possible to identify the species and the most appropriate measures for its eradication, an activity that is very difficult to carry out due to the conditions of the marine environment and the highly expensive resources required to access its habitat.

Greetings and thanks to everyone for sharing their experiences as well.

Dear all,
My name is Kevin Smith Head of Programme Invasive Species and Wildlife Health for IUCN. While we 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 in collaboration with members of the Inter-Agency Liaison Group 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 in wildlife health surveillance programmes and identified as being alien as responses will differ when compared to native species.

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

Dear Halley,
Thank you for your comment. I was wondering if you have reviewed the Annex I Voluntary Guidelines for Preventing the Unintentional Introduction of Invasive Alien Species Associated with Trade in Living Organisms, related to Target 6.
This guide may be helpful.
Cheers
Paulina

Hi everyone. My name is Sergio Benavides, from the Ministry of the Environment, Chile.

In Chile, the collaborative response to biological invasions has been strengthened through the Operational Committee for the Prevention, Control and Eradication of Invasive Alien Species (COCEI), an inter-institutional body that brings together various public agencies with competencies in animal and plant health, biodiversity, enforcement, education and environmental management. This committee has enabled coordination between sectors that traditionally have not worked together, facilitating the development of protocols, action plans and response mechanisms to combat IAS. Through this integrated governance framework, the National Strategy for the Prevention, Control and Eradication of Invasive Alien Species has been developed, and collaborative management initiatives have been implemented in protected areas and ecologically valuable zones, involving NGOs, academia and local communities. However, challenges remain related to the overlapping and dispersed mandates of agencies, as well as the integration of other sectors with indirect links to the issue.

This experience provides a concrete example of how it is possible to move towards a more integrated governance approach, in line with the principles of the One Health framework. Although this approach is not yet institutionalised in the management of IAS in Chile, there are clear opportunities for its adoption - particularly given the risks that IAS pose to human, animal and plant health. Coordination with the health and public health sectors could be strengthened through more explicit cooperation frameworks, including common indicators and protocols for surveillance and response. Strengthening technical capacity and developing guidance under the CBD could be key to accelerating this integration and enabling more effective and sustainable collaborative responses.

A tangible example of this collaboration is that, during the pandemic, a collaborative exercise led by the Ministry of the Environment and the University of O'Higgins coordinated the Agricultural and Livestock Service (Public Service) and academics to study samples of native and invasive exotic species to assess the presence of COVID. The study can be viewed here: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01652176.2023.2164909#abstract

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 information and experiences on approaches that can be taken to facilitate a collaborative response to biological invasions and the threats and impacts of invasive alien species, and how those individual approaches could be integrated into the One Health approach.

As already described under the Topic 1, Finland, as the Member State of the European Union EU, has an EU-wide IAS legislation since 2015 to implement, including the EU IAS list to prioritize the actions to the most harmful IAS. 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.

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.

1: How does your country or organization work to collaboratively respond to biological invasions and to the impacts of invasive alien species? – 2: Do you have proposals or examples on how integrated approaches could be used for addressing biological invasions and invasive alien species? Are there collaborative responses in place in your country or region for addressing IAS? (e.g., incident command systems, MOUs between institutions, coordinating bodies, etc.) – 3: Are all IAS aspects covered by the different institutions (e.g., through integrated governance)? Has it been challenging to address IAS with sectors that do not have a clear attribution to address IAS (e.g., health, customs, transport, education etc.)? – 4: How does your Country collaborate with others to prevent or to respond to biological invasions?

The prevention of invasive alien species is the most effective when it takes place in cooperation between different authorities, operators and private people.
In Finland our IAS legislation is implemented by several actors, in collaboration to respond to biological invasions and to the impacts of invasive alien species: our national IAS legislation in Finland lays down all those responsible actors and their tasks to implement IAS legislation in Finland; Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is responsible for coordinating IAS issues in Finland at the Governmental level, but also steers and monitors the enforcement of the Act in cooperation with the Ministry of Transport and Communications and Ministry of the Environment. Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment is responsible for controlling the compliance with the EU IAS Regulation and the national Act, and decides on the application of rapid eradication measures. Customs controls the importation in the Finnish borders. Regional State Administrative Agency for Southern Finland acts as the permit authority and is responsible for the control of the specified permits. Natural Resources Institute Finland takes care of the monitoring of alien species and provides information for the control of IAS, coordinates data collection from other data producers and produces data content for the IAS monitoring system, addresses warnings from the monitoring system about early detection of IAS and assesses whether eradication of the species would be necessary. The Finnish Environment Institute produces the necessary expert services for the enforcement of the IAS Act, especially ensures the identification of alien species on the EU list with the assistance of Customs. Finnish Wildlife Agency produces the necessary expert services for the enforcement of the IAS Act, especially manages the public administration duties under the Hunting Act related to IAS Act.

National IAS Act includes also other shared responsibilities regulated: Responsibilities to landowners includes the obligation to manage IAS present on their premises: reasonable measures should be taken to eradicate or contain an invasive alien species included in the EU list or of national concern present in the property, if the presence or spreading of the invasive alien species may cause significant damage to biodiversity or danger to health or safety. The provisions do not apply to birds or mammals. According to the IAS Act the responsibilities also to operators include the obligation to prevent unintentional spreading of IAS.

One example of the coordinating bodies in Finland is the Finnish Advisory Board for Invasive Alien Species serving as our national expert body – including about 30 different national actors, authorities and stakeholders - since 2013. The Finnish Advisory Board for Invasive Alien Species, appointed by the Council of State, is Finland’s national expert body in all different matters concerning invasive alien species. Its key tasks include following the implementation of the invasive alien species legislation and awareness raising of the impacts and management measures concerning invasive alien species: 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.

Awareness rising is the key cornerstone for the collaborative actions to combat IAS. Information on invasive alien species in Finland - to be used by private people but also by all governmental actors, authorities and stakeholders - has been compiled on the vieraslajit.fi 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 purpose of the national management plans is to target the prevention of harmful invasive alien species to certain priority areas where effective means are used to prevent the species. All plans include prevention measures for specific species and designate all the different parties, actors, authorities and stakeholders needed for the collaboration and cooperation on these. Management plans have been drawn up for all species included in the lists of species of national and Union concern.

The IAS website also includes compiled suggested useful measures to support the prevention and control of invasive alien species in Finnish municipalities. The purpose of the toolbox is to help municipalities and cities launch or develop regional IAS activities, either independently or in collaboration with local citizens, associations, companies or neighbour municipalities.


5: Do governmental or other agencies responsible for implementing the One Health Approach take into account IAS from a public health, animal and plant health perspective? – 6: Is there work on One Health and IAS, including collaborative approaches to address IAS that could benefit from guidance or other work to be developed under the CBD?

For the One Health Approach the Finnish national IAS website Vieraslajit.fi includes widely also information on IAS as plant pests, including national authorities contact information. The regulated plants pests include quarantine plant pests and quality plant pests: Quarantine plant pests must not occur in plant production, plants for sale or import, green areas or forests, and as quality plant pest must not occur in plants for sale, there are requirements also during production. Plant growers and sellers are mainly responsible for controlling quality plant pests, and the public authorities will order elimination measures for quarantine plant pests. Observations of the quarantine pests and diseases should be reported to the Finnish Food Authority according to eg. protective measures against pests of plants.

The zoonotic approach is more widely informed in the Zoonosis Centre (consisting of experts from the Finnish Food Authority and the National Institute for Health and Welfare) which is to ensure the effective and continuous collaboration between surveillance and research activities in monitoring and preventing infectious diseases that spread between animals and people. The Centre coordinates the monitoring of zoonoses, foodborne outbreaks, and antimicrobial resistance as well as compiles the results. In case of the zoonoses, the research includes both the wild species as well as several IAS.

Thank you, Paulina. This is very helpful, indeed.

Dear all,

My name is Hariet Hinz and I’m the Global Director Invasive at CABI and a colleague of Arne Witt, who has already posted quite a few comments including information about CABI’s resources in relation to IAS.

Sorry I’m coming late in the discussion, but I was on leave, and now read with great interest all the different postings and wanted to pick up on a couple that were uploaded last week. 

There were a couple of posts around utilization and I just wanted to mention that experience shows that utilization alone will not be able to control the spread or density of IAS. We have a very convincing dataset from Prosopis, an invasive alien tree, in Kenya to this effect. In case you are interested I can share the data. Also, the economic viability of utilization – sold as a win-win situation – is often questionable. Nevertheless, utilization can play a role in an integrated approach strategy, and may produce benefits for local stakeholders. But as a management practice per se it is very unlikely viable.

Connected to above, there was also a discussion around ‘conflict-of-interest’ species that are considered invasive and highly detrimental by some stakeholders, and beneficial by others. Again, prosopis is a good example here since pastoralists suffer due to a decrease in available grazing land and negative impacts on animal health, while others use prosopis for firewood and charcoal production, contributing to their livelihoods. In cases like that an integrated landscape management (ILM) approach as proven very helpful, by creating multi stakeholder forums including representatives of all concerned stakeholder groups including government officials to try and consolidate these diverging interests. This has for instance been done in the framework of our Woody Weeds and Woody Weeds Plus projects and led to the development of landscape level management plans for prosopis, leaving heavily invaded areas untouched and still available for charcoal production, but protecting high-asset areas, and preventing further invasion through surveillance and EDRR (see https://woodyweeds.org/ for more information).

Arne and others also raised the issue of implementation of NISSAPs, NBSAPs etc., especially when it comes to prevention and EDRR. In this respect it was good to read about the example from Cuba where they were able to eradicate a recent marine invasive before it was able to spread further. Another example – again featuring Prosopis - I would like to share is in a recently completed Darwin funded project in the Lake Natron region in Tanzania. Field visits were organised for people from the project area, where Prosopis impacts are currently not widespread, to an area with dense invasion. People from the site where invasion is only starting saw and heard first hand from the people in the dense invasion area about the negative impacts of the invasion on livelihoods, animal health etc. This proved to be very influential for the thinking of participants (“seeing is believing”) and motivated them to take early action against a new, unknown threat. I’m wondering whether others have similar examples to share.

Finally, I was very happy to read that Zimbabwe has also embraced biological control as a management method for IAS. We believe that for already widespread species (at least plants and insects), it is the only method that has a chance to achieve sustainable results. Moreover it is much more environmentally benign than chemical or even some mechanical control methods plus poses no risk to human or animal health.

Dear all,

Thank you, Rachel and Paulina, for facilitating this forum on Topic #2.
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 modelling to assess biodiversity risks at national and global scales.

With support from the Ministry of the Environment of Japan, I will share general directions of Japan’s integrated approach to IAS management. To begin, I would like to respond to the guiding questions for Topic 2 based on Japan’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan 2023–2030 (NBSAP) and the Invasive Alien Species Damage Prevention Action Plan.



Answers
- How does your country or organization work to collaboratively respond to biological invasions and to the impacts of invasive alien species?

Japan's action plan promotes an all-of-society approach by clarifying the respective responsibilities of national agencies (MOE, MAFF, MLIT), prefectural and municipal governments, businesses, researchers, NGOs, and the public. The 2023 legal revision introduced “provisions on responsibilities”, which legally defines expected actions for each actor. The plan also promotes multi-actor collaboration through planning at regional levels, cooperative monitoring, and improved information-sharing mechanisms.

- Do you have proposals on how we can better use collaborative integrated approaches to address biological invasions and IAS?

The plan recommends building regional frameworks for prevention, early detection, rapid response, and adaptive control. It places emphasis on developing localized eradication plans, encouraging cooperation across sectors (including private companies and education providers), and increasing public engagement. These strategies address previously identified gaps, such as limited coordination and insufficient technical and public awareness and capacity.

- Do you have proposals or examples on how integrated approaches could be used for addressing biological invasions and invasive alien species? Are there collaborative responses in place in your country or region for addressing IAS? (e.g., incident command systems, MOUs between institutions, coordinating bodies, etc.)

While Japan does not employ a formal incident command system, the action plan promotes regional planning mechanisms led by municipalities in collaboration with ministries, businesses, and civil society. Examples of multi-actor coordination-such as red imported fire ant surveillance and the eradication of small Indian mongoose-illustrate how roles can be shared across sectors. (For details, please refer to my post in Topic 1.)

- Are all IAS aspects covered by the different institutions (e.g., through integrated governance)? Has it been challenging to address IAS with sectors that do not have a clear attribution to address IAS (e.g., health, customs, transport, education etc.)?

The action plan recognizes past challenges in engaging sectors beyond environmental authorities. To address this, it outlines new actions to improve collaboration with actors in health, education, and transportation-related industries. Local governments are also now expected to take the lead in developing regionally relevant IAS plans, under clearer mandates and with technical guidance.

- How does your Country collaborate with others to prevent or to respond to biological invasions?

While the action plan focuses on domestic coordination, it encourages international cooperation and knowledge sharing, especially through CBD, IPBES, and trade-related dialogues. It also encourages Japan to contribute to global frameworks and to share experience from successful regional eradication and prevention cases. Japan also contributes to regional efforts, including collaboration with China and Korea under the Tripartite Environment Ministers Meeting (please refer to my post in Topic 1).

- Do governmental or other agencies responsible for implementing the One Health Approach take into account IAS from a public health, animal and plant health perspective?

Yes, the plan includes Action 6, which explicitly addresses IAS as carriers of parasites and pathogens and calls for cooperation between environmental and health sectors. While Japan has not institutionalized a full One Health strategy for IAS, the plan adopts a functional approach where cross-sectoral collaboration supports ecosystem, animal, and public health objectives.

- Is there work on One Health and IAS, including collaborative approaches to address IAS that could benefit from guidance or other work to be developed under the CBD?

Japan would benefit from global guidance on formalizing One Health frameworks that integrate IAS, particularly with regard to zoonotic risk, shared pathogen monitoring, and climate-linked invasion risks. The current plan includes partial alignment, but a more unified strategic framework would enhance national and international coordination.

Yours sincerely,
maki.

Dear all,

As promised, here are the general directions of Japan’s integrated approach to IAS management.


Japan has recently updated Action Plan for Prevention of Damage from Alien Species, aiming to comprehensively and effectively promote measures against invasive alien species (IAS) to achieve a nature-positive society by 2030. The plan emphasizes the importance of all stakeholders-national and local governments, citizens, private sectors, and research institutions-actively participating in IAS countermeasures
The plan was developed through collaboration among the Ministry of the Environment (MOE), Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF), and Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT), based on a national review that identified key implementation gaps, such as a lack of strategic IAS countermeasures in local communities and of awareness of IAS issues among people.  To address these challenges, the plan outlines six strategic actions:
1. Formulation of control plans based on priority measures: Developing control strategies for IAS management.
2. Implementation of IAS countermeasures: Executing effective control and eradication efforts.
3. Public awareness and human resource development on IAS countermeasures: Enhancing education and training to foster proactive involvement. Development and utilization of specialized human resources.
4. Information sharing and promotion of research and technology development: Facilitating data exchange and innovation in IAS management.
5. International cooperation and contribution: Engaging in global efforts to combat IAS.
6. Countermeasures against parasites and infectious diseases through IAS management: Addressing health risks associated with IAS, such as zoonotic diseases.

Action 6 specifically introduces the One Health approach, promoting collaboration among environmental, health, veterinary, and agricultural sectors to manage health risks posed by IAS. This includes raising risk awareness, sharing data, and implementing co-management strategies for species like raccoons (carriers of SFTS virus) and feral cats (vectors of toxoplasmosis). These two species are not specifically mentioned in the action plan, but several studies in Japan demonstrate the usefulness of the One Health approach (I will share these examples in separate posts).
Beyond Action 6, the plan embodies One Health principles by:
•Clarifying the roles and responsibilities of various stakeholders, including ministries, local governments, academia, and the private sector.
•Integrating IAS considerations into agriculture, infrastructure, and education planning, including responsible alien species use, public education, and habitat management.
•Supporting frameworks like the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) to align biodiversity risks with corporate governance.

The structure of the action plan provides a practical model for holistic IAS management, aligning with the goals of the KMGBF Target 6. It demonstrates how environmental, agricultural, and health sectors can collaborate in a systems-based approach. While the One Health concept is explicitly mentioned in Action 6-focusing on zoonotic and parasitic risks from IAS-this is a relatively limited application. Many other components of the plan, such as educational outreach, infrastructure management, agricultural coordination, and engagement with the private sector (e.g., through TNFD), represent individual approaches that could, in combination, support a broader One Health strategy.

However, at present, Japan's IAS management remains parallel or adjacent to the One Health agenda, rather than fully integrated with it. These approaches are not framed under One Health, and currently there is no strong political or institutional push in Japan to integrate IAS management into a broader One Health strategy, as in other countries such as Australia. Nonetheless, the Japanese case may offer a useful example of how collaborative approaches to IAS management can be structured and implemented across sectors.

An official leaflet for this action plan is available at the following link:
https://www.env.go.jp/nature/intro/4document/files/plan2en.pdf

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

Yours sincerely,
Maki.

Invasive alien species (IAS) are managed in Japan primarily to protect biodiversity, ecosystems, agriculture, and infrastructure. However, some IAS also influence human and animal health indirectly by altering ecological conditions or contributing to pathogen dynamics. Although Japan does not yet apply a formal One Health framework to IAS management, several current initiatives show how existing efforts could contribute to such an approach. Two cases-focused on the management of raccoons and feral cats-demonstrate how responses to IAS can intersect with zoonotic risk, conservation priorities, and public health, and how these elements could be better coordinated.

Case 1: Management of Raccoons and SFTS-Related Risk
Raccoons (Procyon lotor) and Masked palm civets (Paguma larvata), both non-native mammals in Japan, are subject to local removal and monitoring programs due to their ecological impact. In several regions, these species have also been implicated in sustaining high densities of ticks and potentially amplifying circulation of the tick-borne SFTS virus. Management efforts include invasive mammal removal by local authorities and hunters, wildlife surveys by ecologists, and disease surveillance by veterinary and medical researchers. These efforts are supported by national research funding but remain sectorally implemented. While disease risk is not the central aim of IAS control, this example illustrates how ecological and public health interests can converge through shared surveillance, coordinated data use, and joint policy frameworks.

Case 2: Feral Cat Control and Toxoplasmosis on Tokunoshima
On Tokunoshima Island, free-ranging and feral cats are managed for their impact on native wildlife, including endangered rodent species. At the same time, these cats are recognized as definitive hosts for Toxoplasma gondii, contaminating the environment with oocysts and creating health risks for humans and livestock. Although toxoplasmosis prevention is not the main goal of cat control, current activities-such as promoting indoor-only pet ownership, restricting cats in livestock areas, and conducting infection monitoring-reflect overlapping health, conservation, and animal welfare concerns. This case shows how IAS management in isolated island systems can align with broader environmental health objectives.

Relevance and Integration Potential
These examples illustrate how current IAS control efforts in Japan already touch on themes central to the One Health approach, even in the absence of formal coordination. In both cases, invasive species management addresses ecological disruption while also contributing to public health risk reduction and wildlife conservation.

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

- How does your country or organization work to collaboratively respond
to biological invasions and to the impacts of invasive alien species?
In the comments on Topic 1 I’ve highlighted the existence of significant
legislative gaps and a lack of tools to combat invasive species. At the
same time, collaboration with the scientific community in the field of
IAS research remains ongoing.
Over the past decade, the Institute of Botany after A. Takhtajyan of the
National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia (NAS RA) has
conducted comprehensive studies on alien plant species in Armenia. Among
the several hundred recorded alien species, approximately 40 have been
identified as invasive or potentially invasive.
1.      Numerous invasive alien species, including new populations and
localities, have been discovered through various past and ongoing
projects. Particularly significant are those species that were
previously known from only a single locality over the past 20–30 years
or had not yet been recorded in natural ecosystems.
2.      A comprehensive database of introduced plant species in Armenia has
been published and made accessible through the Global Biodiversity
Information Facility (GBIF): GBIF Dataset.
3.      For the purpose of invasiveness risk assessment, a range of
internationally recognized methodologies have been selected and adapted.
The most recent methodology, noted for its practical applicability, has
already been tested on 110 alien species and is suitable for use by
policymakers and decision-makers.
4.      Assessments have been conducted to evaluate the potential impact of
invasive species on both agriculture and the environment. To assess
environmental impact, the IUCN Environmental Impact Classification for
Alien Taxa (EICAT) methodology was applied and tested on 50 species.
5.      Detailed analyses of the distribution and spread mechanisms of
invasive plant species have been carried out within various forestry
enterprises across Armenia, with particular attention given to tree
species that could contribute to the transformation of forest
ecosystems.
6.      Over the past two years, monitoring of invasive species within
Armenia's Specially Protected Nature Areas (SNPAs) has been underway as
part of the broader ongoing project on plant diversity monitoring in
SNPAs, funded by the Caucasus Nature Fund (CNF).
- Do you have proposals on how we can better use collaborative
integrated approaches to address biological invasions and IAS?
On this matter, I would like to share some reflections with colleagues.
Certain common features between invasive alien species and GMOs—such as
allien origin, unpredictability of behavior, and transboundary
nature—provide a basis for assuming that cooperation mechanisms in the
area of invasive alien species management, including some technical
solutions, could be adapted or drawn from the regulatory approaches
applied to GMOs. This approach may have already been discussed or even
applied in practice. We would greatly appreciate it if any of our
esteemed colleagues could share their experience in this regard.

Hi Maki
I have enjoyed reading your contributions on how Japan is starting to integrate IAS management and One Health. I'm leading a Team organising a session on this topic at the World Expo in Osaka during the "Future of Earth and Biodiversity" week at the Australian Pavillion on 18th Sept. We are seeking Japanese panel members. If you would be interested to be involved or have colleagues who might be able to help us include Japanese perspectives can you please contact me at andy.sheppard@csiro.au?
Thx Andy

Apologies, one important IUCN resource I forgot to add is in relation to undertaking Risk Analysis for wildlife health. In collaboration with the World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH), the IUCN SSC CPSG developed the IUCN Guidelines and Manual of Procedures for Wildlife Disease Risk Analysis. This five-step planning process offers a structured, multidisciplinary, One Health approach to assess wildlife health risks, enabling decision-makers and stakeholders to formulate comprehensive action plans. By utilizing an all-hazards approach that considers both disease and non-disease factors, the process prepares us to conduct science-based risk analyses while also fostering consensus-driven solutions. It is important to ensure that alien species are incorporated in to such RA.

IUCN Guidelines and Manual of Procedures for Wildlife Disease Risk Analysis https://www.cpsg.org/our-work/what-we-do/wildlife-disease-risk-analysis-0

Dear colleagues,

Thank you for everyones interesting input to the forum. From Sweden, we are two representatives from the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA, a governmental agency under the Ministry for Climate and Enterprise): Madeleine Larsson (senior scientific advisor) and Johan Linnander (senior scientific advisor). The SEPA is responsible for the national coordination of matters relating to terrestrial invasive alien species. SEPA is responsible for implementing legislation on IAS and providing guidance for regional and local actions. Sweden is a Member State of the European Union EU, and like Johanna Niemivuo-Lahti from Finland has mentioned already, there is a EU-wide IAS legislation since 2015 to implement, including the EU IAS list to prioritize the actions to the most harmful IAS. 

SEPA has developed guidance by providing a wide range of websites with different topics targeting different actors- private, landowners as well as regional and local authorities. Our ambition has been to provide easily accessible digital information, that is easy to keep up to date, and a wide range of illustrations, brochures and similar materials for raising awareness about IAS. This material is open to use for anyone, hopefully lowering the bar for different actors to communicate and effectively manage IAS. Unfortunately, most of this material is in Swedish. https://www.naturvardsverket.se/amnesomraden/invasiva-frammande-arter/informationsmaterial/. 

Besides this, there are digital platforms that we encourage actors to use, such as the reporting platform Species Observation System provided by SLU Swedish Species Information Centre where you can report and find observation data for IAS in Sweden: https://www.artportalen.se/Resource/ChangeCulture?culture=en-GB.   

1: How does your country or organization work to collaboratively respond to biological invasions and to the impacts of invasive alien species? 

The responsibilities related to IAS in Sweden are shared between several national governmental agencies, and 21 regional authorities (County administrative boards). There are about 15 different governmental agencies that are working with IAS in different fields, such as infrastructure, border control, forestry, agriculture, sea-/water management and those agencies owning or managing land. Us at the SEPA and our colleagues that focus on aquatic species in the agency at the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water management (SWAM) are the central coordinating authorities. 

The County administrative boards are our main regional collaborative parties. They are the closest to the public, private actors, municipalities and other local actors and they perform management actions financed by the government. Each County administrative board has at least one person coordinating and planning managemen actions against IAS.

The SEPA and SEAM have actively focused on communication and awareness raising since 2019, and public polls show that more people (from 50% to 88%) are aware of what IAS is now than compared to 2018. 

2: Do you have proposals or examples on how integrated approaches could be used for addressing biological invasions and invasive alien species? Are there collaborative responses in place in your country or region for addressing IAS? (e.g., incident command systems, MOUs between institutions, coordinating bodies, etc.)

Well-functioning (and well-funded) local authorities (County administrative boards in our case) are essential to effectively collaborate between official and private entities. Our experiences are that this has strengthened the possibility of effective management actions, both those that are financed by the state as well as those privately financed. 



3: Are all IAS aspects covered by the different institutions (e.g., through integrated governance)? Has it been challenging to address IAS with sectors that do not have a clear attribution to address IAS (e.g., health, customs, transport, education etc.)? 

Similarly to other EU-countries, most IAS aspects are covererd by EU-wide legislation. Some national governmental agencies, such as the ones responsible for infrastructure, have especially prioritized IAS, liklely due to awareness and experience of how IAS can directly affect infrastructural projects and exploitations. 

Stopping biological invasions early, as most of us know, is imperative for effective management. However, establishing effective border control that pinpoints imports of highest risk poses some challenges. The agencies that handle this in Sweden are under high pressure to prioritize between different interests, and as it is only necessary for only one, or a few, introductions of IAS for them to establish a permanent population, it is difficult for the border control to stop all potential entry points. This has been apparent as the recent introduction of the flatworm Obama nungara to sweden through horticultural trade. 

Effectively coordinating between actions against IAS and plant pests can also be challenging as they are covered by different legislation in Sweden. 

4: How does your Country collaborate with others to prevent or to respond to biological invasions?

Cross-border collaborations are frequent in Sweden either via the EU or as a part of the Nordic Council of ministers. For example, a Interreg Aurora project (https://www.ely-keskus.fi/sv/web/inspire) facilitates cross-border cooperation between Sweden and Finland on several topics, such as implementing management actions against IAS, raising awareness and testing new ways of finding local forms of cooperation against IAS. https://www.ely-keskus.fi/sv/web/inspire 

Sweden also has a long standing collaboration with Norway, Finland and Denmark focusing on terrestrial vertebrates, such as managing american mink and racoon dog populations. By jointly focusing actions and monitoring efforts, both Norway and Sweden are free from certain species at the moment that are still relatively common in neighboring countries. 

Johan Linnander & Madeleine Larsson

Hi Andy,

Thanks for reading my contributions here. I will email you soon about possible Japanese panel members for the Expo session. It sounds like an interesting opportunity. Talk to you soon.

Cheers,
Maki

Hello again everyone,

Once more, I wish to add more information coming from Environment and Climate Change Canada, more specifically information on wildlife health and how this work related to IAS.

- How does your country or organization work to collaboratively respond to biological invasions and to the impacts of invasive alien species?
Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) works collaboratively with international and domestic partners to respond to biological invasions and the impacts of invasive alien species using integrated, science-based approaches grounded in the One Health framework. ECCC supports early detection and rapid response through wildlife health surveillance, innovation in diagnostics, and capacity building, such as point-of-care testing for amphibian pathogens, national coordination of surveillance networks, and support for responsible amphibian and reptile trade. ECCC also contributed to broader strategies like Canada’s Invasive Wild Pig Strategy and leads coordinated efforts to detect and track high-consequence pathogens like avian influenza and SARS-CoV-2 in wildlife. ECCC also addresses threats such as White-nose Syndrome in bats, caused by the invasive fungus Pseudogymnoascus destructans, by coordinating disease monitoring, habitat protection, and enforcing preventative measures such as a ban on bat guano imports. These efforts help reduce ecological and economic risks, enhance preparedness, and align with international best practices.
(For more information on these programs, see question below ‘How does your Country collaborate with others to prevent or to respond to biological invasions?’)


- Do you have proposals on how we can better use collaborative integrated approaches to address biological invasions and IAS?
We emphasize standardized surveillance methods, centralized repositories, active modelling, and targeted collaboration on a regular basis.
Information prioritization exercises implemented using a One Health approach can effectively synthesize expert opinions across groups with non-overlapping mandates to address cross-sectoral problems like biological invasions, as demonstrated in Nalepa et al., 2024.

- Do you have proposals or examples on how integrated approaches could be used for addressing biological invasions and invasive alien species? Are there collaborative responses in place in your country or region for addressing IAS? (e.g., incident command systems, MOUs between institutions, coordinating bodies, etc.)
ECCC contributed to the One Health Approach to Risk Assessment (OHARA), which addresses cross-sectoral health threats through multi-agency collaboration. OHARA fills a historical gap by promoting shared leadership, clear roles, and stronger networks to address emerging threats. The OHARA framework links existing risk assessment activities, addresses gaps, and enables effective action to protect the health of people, animals, plants, and ecosystems.
    As part of an advisory committee with other federal agencies (Public Health Agency of Canada, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Health canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada) and provincial experts, ECCC ensured that wildlife and ecosystem health were integrated into risk assessments. An example is the assessment of public and wildlife health risks from importing bat guano conducted by the Public Health Agency of Canada, where ECCC helped frame the risk and determine its scope. ECCC’s expertise in ecosystem health and data sharing helps ensure risk assessments capture upstream drivers and emerging threats (such as biological invasions).


- How does your Country collaborate with others to prevent or to respond to biological invasions?
ECCC collaborates with international and domestic partners to prevent and respond to biological invasions and/or the risks associated with invasive alien species through integrated, science-based approaches that align with the One Health approach. These initiatives below promote regional and global alignment in trade management, wildlife health surveillance, and IAS prevention strategies.
  Per the 2014 emergency listing of three myotis bat species under Canada’s Species at Risk Act due to the impacts of White-nose Syndrome (WNS), ECCC is actively coordinating disease monitoring by engaging partnerships through its grants and contributions and procurement programming. Partners like the Canadian Wildlife Health Cooperative (CWHC) are particularly effective at surveilling and reporting on emerging pathogens. ECCC regularly disseminates information to different regions across Canada through the federal bat conservation working group and by participating on the Monthly call on WNS for Government Partners led by United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Other work includes support for Indigenous-led bat projects, the North American Bat Monitoring Program (NABat), and active promotion and implementation of standardized surveillance methods, centralized repositories, systems modelling, and targeted collaboration through coordinated communication pathways. Partnerships and coordinated action on the ground eventually support ECCC in securing habitat protection and improving policy enforcement (e.g., banning bat guano imports due to associated pathogen risks).
   ECCC supports the Healthy Trade Institute (HTI), a nonprofit organization working to promote responsible and sustainable amphibian and reptile trade in North America. This work aims to reduce the risk of pathogen introduction through wildlife trade by engaging diverse stakeholders, mapping trade risks, developing policy recommendations aligned with international best practices, and public awareness strategies.
   ECCC works with international partners to establish reliable platforms for screening amphibians in trade at ports of entry (point-of-care) and in field settings. By developing new diagnostic methods through technological collaboration and innovation, Canada is strengthening its ability to respond quickly to disease outbreaks and prevent the spread of invasive pathogens through trade.
   ECCC supports the Canadian Wildlife Health Cooperative’s coordination of the Student Network for Amphibian Pathogen Surveillance (SNAPS) in Canada. The SNAPS program is comprised of an integrated network of diverse partners that coordinate and encourage sampling for the invasive fungal pathogen Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans (Bsal) to achieve a baseline level of surveillance across a wide geographic and taxonomic range. The objectives of this approach are to increase Bsal awareness, engage volunteer personnel and community scientists, and to utilize dispersed in-kind resources to increase the amount of Bsal sampling in Canada. Recently, the program has been expanded to include screening for additional amphibian pathogens of concern, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd) and ranavirus. The program’s objectives align with Canada’s commitments under the CBD and specifically Target 6 of the GBF.
   Note: avian influenza viruses may not be considered invasive pathogens or biological invasions by some jurisdictions. Canada’s Interagency Surveillance Program for Avian Influenza Viruses (AIV) in Wildlife is a large collaboration between multiple government and non-government partner organizations implemented to detect, characterize, and track the impact of circulating AIVs following incursion of Eurasian-origin highly pathogenic avian influenza viruses to Canada beginning in 2021. ECCC plans and implements surveillance for AIVs in live migratory birds, conducts impact assessments on populations of migratory birds where mass die-offs from infection occurred, and actively and consistently engages with surveillance partners to ensure a One Health approach is being applied. ECCC supports the Canadian Wildlife Health Cooperative with a multi-year contribution agreement that includes funding for diagnostic testing for avian influenza virus in wildlife submitted to the CWHC.
    ECCC was consulted in the writing of Canada’s Invasive Wild Pig Strategy 2022-2032, which provides Canada-wide leadership to facilitate eradication of invasive wild pigs by enhancing the understanding of the problem, educating on best management practices, coordinating efforts across regions, and systematically tracking progress toward the shared goals. Canada is heavily reliant on our export market for pigs. This plan will demonstrate to our international trading partners the actions being taken to minimize the risks invasive wild pigs pose to pigs raised for meat. This is a 10-year strategy with intent to review the document every five years. Other organizations consulted in the writing of the strategy included: Canadian Pork Council, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Animal Health Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Canadian Wildlife Health Cooperative, Canadian Council on Invasive Species, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Public Health Agency of Canada, Provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario, Canadian Cattle Association, and Canada’s African Swine Fever Executive Management Board. ECCC is no longer involved in this work but may be invited to participate in regular reviews.
    ECCC, along with other federal agencies, provincial and territorial governments, academic institutions, and additional partners, has been proactively engaged in research and surveillance to better understand SARS-CoV-2 at the interface of wildlife, domestic animals, and humans in Canada. The national SARS-CoV-2 wildlife surveillance program leveraged existing capacity, inter-agency networks, and wildlife disease surveillance and research programs across Canada. It also required the development of novel surveillance methods (including standardized sampling protocols), the establishment of technical capacity, and the development and validation of new techniques to identify and characterize SARS-CoV-2 in a range of species and sample types. This coordinated approach enabled Canada to detect and track multiple spillover events, document viral evolution within wildlife populations, and highlight the potential role of invasive pathogens in establishing wildlife reservoirs and crossing species barriers.

- Which tools and mechanisms do you use or consider useful for preventing the introduction of IAS  (e.g., artificial intelligence, surveillance, etc.)? (links to the 1st and 2nd discussion on this online forum)
Risk-based permitting systems, regulatory import controls, risk assessments, and pathogen screening for high-risk taxa. Some examples below:
  To prevent the introduction of IAS such as Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans (Bsal), Canada has implemented strong preventative policies under WAPPRIITA and WAPTR, including a permanent import restriction on all species of the order Caudata (e.g., salamanders, newts, mudpuppies), effective since May 2018. This regulation, supported by a risk-based permitting system, aims to protect native salamander populations from Bsal, a deadly fungal pathogen linked to global declines and suspected to spread via the pet trade. This proactive measure reflects Canada’s capacity to respond to IAS through clear policy tools, risk assessment, cross-border coordination, and targeted permitting, and it highlights existing challenges such as the need for continuous surveillance, inter-agency collaboration, and managing trade-related pathways.
   ECCC is addressing the impacts of invasive pathogens and parasites contributing to the decline of native bumble bee species, several of which are listed under the Species at Risk Act. Recognizing that many bee pathogens may be introduced or spread through biological invasions, ECCC supported research to understand how disease prevalence (potentially linked to IAS) disproportionately affects at-risk pollinator species. Efforts included exploring the role of native plants in reducing disease impacts by providing medicinal and nutritional benefits that enhance pollinator immunity. These actions represent an integrated approach to mitigating IAS-related threats to biodiversity and align with Canada’s commitments under the CBD.  What are the challenges you are facing or foresee in preventing the introduction of IAS? (Policy, social, permits, geography, binational invasion, others)

- Is there work on One Health and IAS, including collaborative approaches to address IAS that could benefit from guidance or other work to be developed under the CBD?
The Pan-Canadian Approach to Wildlife Health (PCAWH) provides a national framework that supports cross-sectoral, collaborative efforts aligned with the One Health approach to address complex wildlife health challenges, including those arising from IAS. By promoting integration across jurisdictions and sectors, the PCAWH fosters shared infrastructure, coordinated intelligence, and harmonized response capacity to prevent, detect, and manage health risks at the intersection of wildlife, human, and environmental health. This includes improving situational awareness and response to emerging pathogens (some of which may be introduced or spread via IAS pathways). The PCAWH is currently not fully funded, which limits its full implementation and long-term sustainability. Further guidance and support under the CBD could help advance this work by encouraging investment, strengthening global collaboration, standardizing early detection protocols, and promoting joint research on the links between biodiversity, ultimately enhancing Canada’s ability to mitigate IAS impacts through a One Health lens.

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#2 Discussions on information and experiences on approaches that can be taken to facilitate a collaborative response to biological invasions and the threats and impacts of invasive alien species, and how those individual approaches could be integrated into the One Health approach.


1) Realizations from ongoing IAS initiatives  points to several critical issues/gaps that  needs to be addressed such as: (i) the development of a national IAS baseline database; (ii) the effective integration of IAS management in land-use and fisheries planning; (iii) harmonization and resolution of overlapping mandates and conflicting stakeholder interests, such as with tilapia (Oreochromis spp.), which is often promoted for livelihood despite its invasive potential; and (iv) lack of sustainable funding mechanisms for IAS control and post-eradication monitoring.

Another challenge is the significant gap in capacity at the local level. Many local government units lack technical expertise and funding for IAS-related programs.  Although the NISSAP calls for a structured, science-based eradication plans and long-term monitoring, there is currently no dedicated national funding stream for IAS outbreaks or post-eradication recovery. To date, the country lacks a centralized IAS information system and adequate taxonomic capacity for effective identification and response. While a growing number of university theses and dissertations have addressed IAS topics, these are not systematically compiled or integrated into decision-making systems. The use of predictive models such as AquaMaps could support climate-informed forecasting of potential IAS spread under changing environmental conditions. More predictive models could be explored.


2. To strengthen the Philippines’ implementation of Target 6, the following areas require
international support and collaboration:

i. Development of a centralized IAS information platform – an updated and accessible national database to facilitate data sharing and inter-agency coordination.
ii. Advanced surveillance and early detection tools – including mobile applications, environmental DNA (eDNA), artificial intelligence (AI), drone monitoring, and real-time alert systems.
iii. Guidance on biosecurity frameworks – tailored to archipelagic nations, incorporating climate resilience and ecological restoration strategies.
iv. Standardized prioritization tools – such as multi-criteria decision analysis frameworks for risk ranking, species prioritization, and resource allocation.
v. Capacity building – comprehensive training for quarantine officers, local authorities, and community partners in IAS identification, control, and restoration ecology.

3. Moreover, the following policy initiatives are opportunities for upscaling collaborative action for managing IAS:

i. Recently, the control and eradication of IAS in protected areas in the Philippines has been given renewed attention as part of ecological approach to ecosystem restoration and in maintaining integrity of natural ecosystems. Accordingly, protected areas shall be implementing their own IAS prevention and control/eradication program.  This provides an opportunity   to instigate collaborative action among the multisectoral protected area management body (local governments, academe, Dept. of Environment, Dept. of agriculture non-government organizations).  Each protected area across the country managing their own IAS can be a potential approach for national scale effort to prevent biological invasions and their impacts;

ii. There is a forthcoming national list of terrestrial IAS to be made available  by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.  This shall provide clarity on which exotic species are considered as IAS and should be eradicated or controlled. Such guideline shall be an opportunity to promote the development of   management program for specific IAS.

iii. The implementation of the new national program on urban biodiversity subscribed to the City Biodiversity Index (CBI) as the framework for enhanced ecosystem services and in promoting human health in urban areas.  The  program and the CBI framework which specifically mandates the use of  native species in urban greening initiatives, is a critical approach to reduce spread of IAS.

4. While the policy and institutional foundation for IAS management in the Philippines is in place, its effectiveness is undermined by systemic gaps in capacity, data, enforcement, and funding. Structured support from the CBD—particularly in technology transfer, capacity development, and knowledge exchange—will be critical in scaling up national efforts to manage and prevent IAS and ensure meaningful progress toward Target 6 of the GBF.

Greetings everyone. Tlou Masehela from the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE), South Africa. Here are some consolidated insights from South Africa on this 2nd topic.


- How does your country or organization work to collaboratively respond to biological invasions and to the impacts of invasive alien species?
South Africa addresses biological invasions and the impacts of invasive alien species through a multi-faceted approach that includes Research, Policy, Compliance and Enforcement, Implementation (clearing of Invasives), Advocacy and Awareness. There are other collaborative governance initiatives and targeted management strategies (early-detection, control and eradication of emerging species, adaptive management, and capacity building), with the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) playing a key role in reporting and monitoring.

- Do you have proposals on how we can better use collaborative integrated approaches to address biological invasions and IAS?
The South African government recognizes the importance of inter-departmental and multi-stakeholder collaborations in effectively managing IAS. Locally, our program of work on invasive species cuts across several government departments and our best is done to ensure that we all join forces. However, there is still need for improvement. Hence, we are in the process of finalizing the National Invasive Species Strategy and Action Plan (NISSAP), and one of its aims is to foster a coordinated, multi-sectoral approach to the management of biological invasions in the country. The South African government emphasizes the need for a holistic approach, considering various factors like effective laws, management capacity, research, monitoring, awareness raising, and equitable cost distribution. This includes focusing on early detection of emerging invasives and exploring biological control methods. The issue of distinct mandates across departments is also a challenge, and there needs to be a way to harmonize these for effective collaborative efforts. In some instances, mandates are given to departments without the resources to carry out these mandates – this is a huge hurdle and burden for smooth collaborative efforts and needs to be addressed. Then there is an issue of staff retention and continuity, that speaks the loss of skills set, knowledge and experience. South Africa would like to also propose a deliberate initiative through the Global Environmental Facility and the GBFF to facilitate regional approaches (e.g. at the level of the Southern African Development Community which is made up of 16 countries) as a way of enhancing the scale to address the problem of IAS. Such an approach will inter alia contribute towards addressing pathways of introduction between countries.

- Do you have proposals or examples on how integrated approaches could be used for addressing biological invasions and invasive alien species? Are there collaborative responses in place in your country or region for addressing IAS? (e.g., incident command systems, MOUs between institutions, coordinating bodies, etc.)
A good example here for South Africa is the current GEF 7 – AIS project that is being implemented. There are several partners, with the main ones being five (5). The Agricultural Research Council, Border Management Authority, Birdlife South Africa, South African National Biodiversity Institute and the Department of Water and Sanitation. In this collaboration, the MoA’s are in place and clear on what needs to be done/achieved. There is a Technical Working Group setup, and well and the Project Steering Committee. The Project Management Unit for the GEF 7 – IAS project oversees the day to day running of the project and management of the stakeholders. The Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) established a platform known as the DFFE IAS Forum and the purpose is to bring together all DFFE key stakeholders that work on IAS. In addition, the next step is to expand the platform by bringing other key national departments and research institutes to form a multidisciplinary platform.

- Are all IAS aspects covered by the different institutions (e.g., through integrated governance)? Has it been challenging to address IAS with sectors that do not have a clear attribution to address IAS (e.g., health, customs, transport, education etc.)?
Although, South Africa has made some progress in addressing IAS through various legislation and programs, challenges still persist in ensuring comprehensive analysis and addressing the involvement of sectors which has indirect IAS responsibilities. For example, in the tourism and health sectors. Integrated governance efforts are ongoing, but the effectiveness of inter-sectoral collaboration and engagement with non-traditional sectors remains a focus.

- How does your Country collaborate with others to prevent or to respond to biological invasions?
South Africa collaborates with other countries to prevent and respond to biological invasions through various avenues, including national strategies, international cooperation, and research collaborations. The South African government has implemented legislation, invests heavily in combating invasions, and utilizes organizations like SANBI to report on the status of invasions. Collaborations also extend to conservation agencies, research projects, and international databases.

- Do governmental or other agencies responsible for implementing the One Health Approach take into account IAS from a public health, animal and plant health perspective?
In South Africa, the DFFE, Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health consider Invasive Alien Species (IAS) from public health, animal health, and plant health perspectives. These departments are responsible for implementing policies and regulations of IAS management, relating to the commitment to the One Health approach including activities such as research, surveillance, control, and eradication of IAS to minimize their impact on human, animal, and plant health. However, this is one area that is also still developing in many other aspects.

- Is there work on One Health and IAS, including collaborative approaches to address IAS that could benefit from guidance or other work to be developed under the CBD?
South Africa's One Health framework, including its national strategy and pilot projects, emphasizes collaboration between human, animal, and environmental health sectors. The work on IAS in South Africa, guided by the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP), also benefits from collaborative efforts and could be further supported by guidance from the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Organizations like the University of Pretoria's Centre for Viral Zoonoses and Future Africa among others are actively engaged in One Health research and community engagement. The National Department of Health, the Department of Agriculture, and the DFFE also collaborate on One Health initiatives.

Helen Roy - UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology; University of Exeter

Collaborations and partnerships are important for mitigating the impacts of IAS. There are excellent frameworks available to support collaborative responses to biological invasions including approaches outlined in the CBD toolkit https://www.cbd.int/invasive/cbdtoolkit

There is a need to improve information sharing on IAS across borders. The GRIIS lists are a component of this information and are highly valued by researchers and practitioners.

There is a need for coordination to facilitate networking and information gathering and sharing. In Britain we are fortunate to have a coordinating body for IAS - the Non-Native Species Secretariat. Their work is critical in many different ways from raising awareness through biosecurity campaigns and Invasive Species Week to working in partnership with various organisations to deliver evidence to inform policy. The annual stakeholder forum provides opportunities for people from across sectors to come together and share information.

Biosecurity is an important component of One Health. Ensuring that there is cross-sectorial collaboration on biosecurity will underpin One Health. Coordination of networking and partnerships across sectors can support delivery of biosecurity.

Ongoing awareness raising about the major and growing threat of biological invasions, but also the actions that can be taken, amongst diverse stakeholder groups is critical to biosecurity. There are many excellent resources available, including Be Plant Wise, Check Clean Dry and others, but these need to be disseminated widely.

Volunteer codes of practice can support communication and provide information on tangible actions to mitigate the threat of IAS for specific
stakeholder groups. These have relevance for One Health approaches.

There are major information gaps on wildlife diseases within the context of One Health and the role of IAS in transmission. Incorporating and embedding environmental health more strongly within One Health would be advantageous and potentially provide further networking opportunities that lead to information sharing in support of One Health. Bringing together people across relevant health sectors, including the environment, would bring far-reaching benefits for biodiversity but also human, animal and plant health.

Good morning, good afternoon, good evening.

On behalf of Rachel Ariey-Jouglard, from Canada and myself Paulina Stowhas Salinas, from Chile, 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.