Discussion forum on development of IAS management tools and guidance

Return to the list of discussions...

Discussion forum on development of IAS management tools and guidance

Clarification of terminology under the CBD article 8(h) and related COP decisions [#1367]
Hello all,
To harmonize the forum discussion and to facilitate AHTEG following the forum, this thread is newly created to post on the issues related to terminology surrounding alien species. All participants are welcome to post questions and suggestions.

The Secretariats of FAO, IMO, IPPC and CBD are partaking of this forum and these organizations and relevant experts are invited to clarify the terminology used under the different international processes.

See also Article 8(h) of the CBD which is accessible at https://www.cbd.int/convention/articles/default.shtml?a=cbd-08

Junko@SCBD
(edited on 2019-05-10 15:40 UTC by Junko Shimura)
posted on 2019-05-10 15:33 UTC by Junko Shimura, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity
You must be signed in to post messages in this forum. Depending on the forum you may also need the appropriate credentials in order to post messages.
RE: Clarification of terminology under the CBD article 8(h) and related COP decisions [#1368]
Posting on behalf of Prof. Gordon Copp, Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science [#1365]

The title of this “Discussion forum on development of IAS management tools and guidance” is biased towards 'invasive' alien species.

However, some alien species undergo a lag phase before becoming invasive (e.g. Chinese mitten crab in the UK, the pumpkinseed sunfish in Europe), and some alien species have no history of being invasive until they are introduced into a novel environment under circumstances that favour the species becoming invasive.

So, if 'Prevention' is the most effective and cost-efficient means of managing alien (non-native) species, then why does the title of this discussion limit the discussion to 'invasive' species and thereby exclude 'non-invasive' specie, which could become invasive in the future and therefore warrant risk analysis and management?

posted today at 08:32 UTC by Prof. Gordon Copp, Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science
(edited on 2019-05-10 15:41 UTC by Junko Shimura)
posted on 2019-05-10 15:38 UTC by Junko Shimura, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity
You must be signed in to post messages in this forum. Depending on the forum you may also need the appropriate credentials in order to post messages.
RE: Clarification of terminology under the CBD article 8(h) and related COP decisions [#1369]
Hi Junko, Gordon and all,

The term used at the IMO in all related contexts is "invasive aquatic species" abbreviated as IAS. Obviously in light of our mandate we only look at aquatic species and not terrestrial.

We are aware that there are numerous terms and acronyms around and, recognizing that this is a CBD-led activity with a broader scope, we have no issue with any terminology used in this forum.

With regard to Gordon's comment: he raises a valid point, however from our viewpoint, as we are exactly focusing entirely on prevention, it makes no difference whether a species is or would or could become invasive, we just aim to prevent the transfer of all of them! So we will leave that part of the discussion to others.

Best regards and a good weekend to all,
Teo
posted on 2019-05-10 17:37 UTC by Dr Theofanis Karayannis, International Maritime Organization
You must be signed in to post messages in this forum. Depending on the forum you may also need the appropriate credentials in order to post messages.
RE: Clarification of terminology under the CBD article 8(h) and related COP decisions [#1370]
Also, in some formal texts we have the term "harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens" (HAOP) - but even we don't use this term in our regular work!
posted on 2019-05-10 17:40 UTC by Dr Theofanis Karayannis, International Maritime Organization
You must be signed in to post messages in this forum. Depending on the forum you may also need the appropriate credentials in order to post messages.
RE: Clarification of terminology under the CBD article 8(h) and related COP decisions [#1372]
Posted on behalf of Bella Galil

Dear Teo, Gordon, colleagues,

“Reactive management is far costlier than proactive planning” (The growing peril of biological invasions, Meyerson et al. 2019).

HOW TRUE!

Gordon (#1368) argues that we are unable to predict which introduced species would become invasive, and the socio-economic and environmental outcomes of such invasions. To the notorious cases of Chinese mitten crab and pumpkinseed sunfish mentioned by Gordon, I add rabbitfish and the nomadic jellyfish – with far worse outcomes.
The alien rabbitfish, Siganus rivulatus and S. luridus were first recorded in the Mediterranean in 1924 and 1931 respectively, but in the 1980s their populations ‘exploded’, comprising now about one third of the fish biomass in shallow rocky habitats across the Levant. They impact the local macrophytes  and food web,  outcompete native sea urchins, denude rocky ledges from their algal cover and form extensive “barrens” (Sala et al. 2011). The jellyfish Rhopilema nomadica is notorious for the swarms it forms each summer since the early 1980s along the Levant coast affecting tourism, fisheries and coastal installations. The annual swarming results each year in envenomation victims suffering adverse effects that may last weeks and even months after the event. Coastal trawling and purse-seine fishing are disrupted due to net clogging and inability to sort yield. Jellyfish-blocked water intake pipes pose a threat to desalination plants and seawater cooling systems of coastal power plants (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14038729).

In both cases, and many more, the introduced species rose no alarm until their populations increased and spread – by which time management was all but impossible.


IMO and ICES focus on prevention through vector management is astute and laudable (ICES viewpoint: Biofouling on vessels – what is the risk, and what might be done about it? http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2019/2019/vp.2019.01.pd). This discussion too should take note and pivot to VECTOR-BASED RISK ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT.

Bella Galil

Steinhardt Museum of Natural History, Tel Aviv University
posted on 2019-05-11 11:15 UTC by Peter Robertson, Newcastle University
You must be signed in to post messages in this forum. Depending on the forum you may also need the appropriate credentials in order to post messages.
RE: Clarification of terminology under the CBD article 8(h) and related COP decisions [#1398]
Dear all,

In Brazil, we have been using the definitions for "invasive alien species" and "alien species" established by CBD COP Decision XII/23. The Ministry of the Environment had recently adopted this terminology for the National Strategy on Invasive Alien Species. Prevention is a key strategy for IAS management and it sounds obvious for me we have to deal with or monitor alien species. So, when we talk about prevent invasive species dealing with alien species is intrinsic.
Nevertheless, the use of the term "potential invasive species" is growing. Usually, the term "potential invasive species" is used for species with invasion history in other countries, but not (yet) in Brazil, or for species that have biological traits that can allow establishment also associate with other factors such as propagule pressure. The term is being adopted by the Southern Common Market (Mercosur), that includes Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay, in its normative on invasive alien species.
On the other hand, people sometimes don't understand (or don't want to understand) the difference between alien species and invasive alien species. For example, some people have argued that the government should not take action or restrictions on IAS because the agricultural production is based most on alien species (ex. soy beans in Brazil). So, we have to explain we are concerned about alien species that are invasive or can become invasive and not all the alien species.

Cheers,
Tatiani
posted on 2019-05-22 18:45 UTC by Tatiani Chapla, Ministry of the Environment of Brazil
You must be signed in to post messages in this forum. Depending on the forum you may also need the appropriate credentials in order to post messages.
RE: Clarification of terminology under the CBD article 8(h) and related COP decisions [#1416]
Good day,

In South Africa the National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act defines invasive species’ as any species whose establishment and spread outside of its natural distribution range:
a) threaten ecosystems, habitats or other species or have demonstrable potential to threaten ecosystems, habitats or other species; and
b) may result in economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.

in addition, the Agricultural pest Act linked to the implementation of the international plant protection convention in the country defines a "pest" as any species, strain or biotype of plant, animal or pathogenic agent injurious to plants or plant product. this definition also informs the process of conducting weed risk assessment in South Africa.

Regards,
Ntaka
posted on 2019-05-29 15:33 UTC by Ms. Ntakadzeni Tshidada, South Africa
You must be signed in to post messages in this forum. Depending on the forum you may also need the appropriate credentials in order to post messages.
RE: Clarification of terminology under the CBD article 8(h) and related COP decisions [#1401]
Dear all,

In the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) there is a standard on glossary definitions, the ISPM 5 (https://www.ippc.int/en/publications/622/). This international standard has an appendix 1 with terminology of the CBD in relation to the Glossary of phytosanitary terms of the IPPC.

The IPPC also has the ISPM 11 on pest risk analysis for quarantine pests (https://www.ippc.int/en/publications/639/), which also considers in its supplements pest risk analysis for LMOs and determining the potential for a LMO to be a pest (see also ISPM 2 on framework pest risk analysis available at: https://www.ippc.int/en/publications/592/).

From FAO side, there is a FAO online term portal: http://www.fao.org/faoterm. In there you can see definitions and in which “scope” the terms are used (e.g. forestry, IPPC, etc).

For “Alien species” specifically, below there is extract from the IPPC international standard ISPM 5 that may help with the understanding and it how we use in our forums and context:

CBD definition:
A species, subspecies or lower taxon, introduced outside its natural past1 or present distribution; includes any part, gametes, seeds, eggs, or propagules of such species that might survive and subsequently reproduce

Explanation in IPPC context:
An alien2 species (CBD) is an individual3 or population, at any life stage, or a viable part of an organism that is non-indigenous to an area and that has entered4 by human agency5 into the area

Notes:
1 The qualification concerning “past and present” distribution is not relevant for IPPC purposes, since the IPPC is concerned only with existing situations. It does not matter that the species was present in the past if it is present now. The word “past” in the CBD definition presumably allows for the re-introduction of a species into an area where it has recently become extinct and thus a reintroduced species would presumably not be considered an alien species.

2 “Alien” refers only to the location and distribution of an organism compared with its natural range. It does not imply that the organism is harmful.

3 The CBD definition emphasizes the physical presence of individuals of a species at a certain time, whereas the IPPC concept of occurrence relates to the geographical distribution of the taxon in general.

4 For CBD purposes, an alien species is already present in the area that is not within its native distribution (see Introduction below). The IPPC is more concerned with organisms that are not yet present in the area of concern (i.e. quarantine pests). The term “alien” is not appropriate for them, and terms such as “exotic”, “non-indigenous” or “non-native” have been used in ISPMs. To avoid confusion, it would be preferable to use only one of these terms, in which case “non-indigenous” would be suitable, especially as it can accompany its opposite “indigenous”. “Exotic” is not suitable because it presents translation problems.

5 A species that is non-indigenous and has entered an area through natural means is not an alien species (CBD). It is simply extending its natural range. For IPPC purposes, such a species could still be considered as a potential quarantine pest.


Thanks and best regards to all,
Adriana G. Moreira (IPPC Secretariat, Standards Officer)

P.S.: ISPM 5 attached here for easier reference.
posted on 2019-05-23 18:08 UTC by Ms Adriana Moreira, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO/UN)
You must be signed in to post messages in this forum. Depending on the forum you may also need the appropriate credentials in order to post messages.
RE: Clarification of terminology under the CBD article 8(h) and related COP decisions [#1402]
And just continuing, also for “Invasive alien species”, in our ISPM 5 of the IPPC we have:

CBD definition:
An alien species whose introduction and/or spread threaten9 biological diversity.

Explanation in IPPC context:
An invasive alien species (CBD) is an alien species (CBD) that by its establishment or spread has become injurious to plants, or that by risk analysis (CBD)is shown to be potentially injurious to plants.

Thank you.
Adriana G. Moreira (IPPC Secretariat, Standards Officer)
posted on 2019-05-23 18:15 UTC by Ms Adriana Moreira, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO/UN)
You must be signed in to post messages in this forum. Depending on the forum you may also need the appropriate credentials in order to post messages.
RE: Clarification of terminology under the CBD article 8(h) and related COP decisions [#1407]
Thanks, Adriana for presenting the interpretation of invasive alien species under the IPPC.

here is a quote from another thread "Finally, what’s in a name? I think clear definition of IAS and weed is needed, as I have seen both used interchangeably in this forum. Textbook definition of weeds limits their impact to agricultural landscapes, while impact of IAS is broader" [# 1406]

Could you provide information on the treatment of the term "weed" under the IPPC?

Cheers,
Junko
posted on 2019-05-26 11:55 UTC by Junko Shimura, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity
You must be signed in to post messages in this forum. Depending on the forum you may also need the appropriate credentials in order to post messages.
RE: Clarification of terminology under the CBD article 8(h) and related COP decisions [#1530]
Dear Junko,

I'm afraid I overlooked your comment. Apologies.
For IPPC the definition of "pest" does cover weed:

Pest: Any species, strain or biotype of plant, animal or pathogenic agent injurious to plants or plant products. Note: In the IPPC, “plant pest” is sometimes used for the term “pest”.

Weed can be the pest itself, or it can carry a pest.

Best,
Adriana G. Moreira
posted on 2019-08-15 12:39 UTC by Ms Adriana Moreira, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO/UN)
You must be signed in to post messages in this forum. Depending on the forum you may also need the appropriate credentials in order to post messages.
RE: Clarification of terminology under the CBD article 8(h) and related COP decisions [#1408]
To fill the gap of Veterinary Community in this forum I post the definition of invasive animal species under the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE).

http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Our_scientific_expertise/docs/pdf/OIEGuidelines_NonNativeAnimals_2012.pdf

=== begin quote ===
Animal: means any species, subspecies or lower taxon of the kingdom animalia with the exception of pathogens.

Non-native (or alien) animal: means an animal that is not a native to the country or ecosystem to which it could be intentionally or unintentionally introduced.

Invasive non-native (or invasive alien) animal: means an animal that has been introduced and subsequently become established and spread outside its native distribution area and caused harm to the environment, animal
or human health, or the economy.

Hazard: means a non-native animal.

Hazard identification: means the process of identifying whether an animal is native or not in the importing country or region.

Hitchhiker organism: means an organism that has an opportunistic association with a commodity or vehicle/vessel or container and which may be transported unintentionally to a new environment.

===end quote===

Hope this helps,
Junko
posted on 2019-05-26 12:05 UTC by Junko Shimura, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity
You must be signed in to post messages in this forum. Depending on the forum you may also need the appropriate credentials in order to post messages.
RE: Clarification of terminology under the CBD article 8(h) and related COP decisions [#1409]
For clarity on the definition on animals given by the OIE, please note that pathogens for animals are covered by the following OIE standards. Please, read the definitions in #1408 within the guidelines GUIDELINES FOR ASSESSING THE RISK OF NON-NATIVE ANIMALS BECOMING INVASIVE.

pathogens for terrestrial animals
http://www.oie.int/en/standard-setting/terrestrial-code/access-online/
http://www.oie.int/en/standard-setting/terrestrial-manual/access-online/

pathogens for aquatic animals
http://www.oie.int/en/standard-setting/aquatic-code/access-online/
http://www.oie.int/en/standard-setting/aquatic-manual/access-online/

What we need to recall here is :
If a pathogen threatens biodiversity, the pathogen is deemed to be the organism for Parties to prevent their introductions to the areas where the pathogen is alien, in accordance with article 8(h) of the CBD.
(edited on 2019-05-26 13:08 UTC by Junko Shimura)
posted on 2019-05-26 12:55 UTC by Junko Shimura, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity
You must be signed in to post messages in this forum. Depending on the forum you may also need the appropriate credentials in order to post messages.
RE: Clarification of terminology under the CBD article 8(h) and related COP decisions [#1413]
Dear All, sorry for be late in all interesting and impportant discussion but I was "out of service"

I would like only introduce some point of view.

In my concern, many have been published about terminology on invasive species. The wide ranges of this animals dificult the definition (bacterias, fungus, invertebrates, vertebrates,  plants, etc). However, I consider that the simplification, the tradition and the continue of the use in paper  around the world decanting to the term INVASIVE SPECIES (IS). In my opinion all people know when I said "Invasive Specie", without additional words like "alien" or "Exotic". To me with the terms "Introduced Species" that include all species moved deliberately or accidentally by human from the original distribution, and Invasive specie, that are those introduced species that establishe, spread, and reproduce in new enviromental is enough, and some time is known that this IS produced impacts. No always we know about effects or impacts, many reason cause the fact that we unknown about impacts but the principal is the lack of studies, some time very simples.

Some institution include impact in the definition of IS, other exclude any connotation to the impact and it are those that consider a biological IS concept.
In resume, when "I can do" and editor permit, I use only two term Introduced sp and Invasive sp.
posted on 2019-05-29 14:34 UTC by Rafael Borroto-Paez, Cuban Zoological Society
You must be signed in to post messages in this forum. Depending on the forum you may also need the appropriate credentials in order to post messages.
RE: Clarification of terminology under the CBD article 8(h) and related COP decisions [#1414]
Other points are related to the definition of management of invasive Sp. I consider that it is not totally defined today.
As I saw in other parts of the forum, the prevention is not clearly included in the definitions. In my opinion "management" must include the first record or report of an invasive sp in a contry, island or zone too. It is the moment for the best management, when few animal are detected. Of course that prevention when we know a real risk must be include as part of the management of IS.

The variable TIME must be very clear in the definitions.  Any management will be better today than tomorrow.
posted on 2019-05-29 14:50 UTC by Rafael Borroto-Paez, Cuban Zoological Society
You must be signed in to post messages in this forum. Depending on the forum you may also need the appropriate credentials in order to post messages.
RE: Clarification of terminology under the CBD article 8(h) and related COP decisions [#1415]
Although difficult, the terminology must be clear that is not the same island than continent, developed contries than developing countries, today than tomorrow to do any action, etc. We mus be clear about the ranges of our actions.


Other point that must be alerted is about the tolerance that many countries and peoples have with the invasive species. The tolerance is present in biologist and especialist in any animal group (EX ornithologist herpetologist, etc), stakeholder, decisors, protected area managers,etc.

At least in the Caribbean islands we have many invasive species around our life in environmental areas and the proteted areas are full of IS without action of management.

Many countries include invasive species in the list of Country biodiversity without any distintion. the list of especies in protected areas include some invasive species and those invasive especies are "enjoying " of the conservation. I have many examples.


I will commnent only some few examples. In the Caribbean island some Invasive Sp are the more common and abundant species with the more high biomass in some of our contries Islands. No studies are done about that but the evidence are clear when only we walk around. Only the domestic sparrow (Passer domesticus), the Eurasian collared dove (Streptopelia decaocto), the cattle egret(Bubulcus ibis), the rats (Rattus rattus and R. norvegicus) , mouse (Mus musculus), cat, dog, pig, the hemidactylus geckos, and many plants too like Marabu (Dichrostachys sp), and a long etc, are present in urban and rural invironmental and in protected areas.

Really in the last years the situation begin to change but only in few cases and more actions and management are needed.

An environmental education against the passive tolerance will be important for the future of management of IS.
posted on 2019-05-29 15:30 UTC by Rafael Borroto-Paez, Cuban Zoological Society
You must be signed in to post messages in this forum. Depending on the forum you may also need the appropriate credentials in order to post messages.
RE: Clarification of terminology under the CBD article 8(h) and related COP decisions [#1417]
Finnally for now is to touch the point of the commencial use of invasive species.
An example is the marabu (Dichrostachys sp)in Cuba. It is a big problem in rural areas. it is a big pest occuping extensive areas of land around the country. Recent time, have begining the control and using the wood for the production of charcoal and now is a exportable resource. It is a source of future conflict of interests
posted on 2019-05-29 15:36 UTC by Rafael Borroto-Paez, Cuban Zoological Society
You must be signed in to post messages in this forum. Depending on the forum you may also need the appropriate credentials in order to post messages.
RE: Clarification of terminology under the CBD article 8(h) and related COP decisions [#1418]
Dear all
Apologies for this delay however as per the definition of invasive species it is still ambiguous! Raising the issue of invasive species is kind of new to Jordan as part of the arid or semi arid area of the world, where ecosystems are fragile and prone to any invasion. As plant wise, the really proven species identified to be invasive is Prosopis juliflora, which is also invasive in most of the Arabian peninsula, however, due to the dryness and scattered native vegetation, so far its spread is not felt as a problem as per the region, however, in Jordan it is becoming a problem as it occurs in Jordan valley where most of the national cultivation takes place. The term invasive species could easily be mixed with weedy species. In Jordan valley the habitat became just a botanic garden of weedy species because of intensive farming systems.
There is a need to set a caliper according to which the invasive species can be defined and not mixed with weedy ones
posted on 2019-05-30 03:46 UTC by Dr. Khaled Abulaila, Natuibak Agricultural Research Center
You must be signed in to post messages in this forum. Depending on the forum you may also need the appropriate credentials in order to post messages.
RE: Clarification of terminology under the CBD article 8(h) and related COP decisions [#1420]
Why do you see a need to distinguish "invasive" from "weedy" species?
posted on 2019-05-30 07:58 UTC by Melanie Josefsson, Sweden
You must be signed in to post messages in this forum. Depending on the forum you may also need the appropriate credentials in order to post messages.
RE: Clarification of terminology under the CBD article 8(h) and related COP decisions [#1421]
Dear Melanie,

"weedy" is a terminology used to describe invasive plants and invasive species encompass all taxa.

Ntaka
posted on 2019-05-30 08:33 UTC by Ms. Ntakadzeni Tshidada, South Africa
You must be signed in to post messages in this forum. Depending on the forum you may also need the appropriate credentials in order to post messages.
RE: Clarification of terminology under the CBD article 8(h) and related COP decisions [#1419]
Dear All
From the ongoing discussion in this thread, it is apparently clear that there is still problems in defining various words used in the literature of biological invasions. In recent time, efforts have been also made to standardize the use of various terms (e.g. Pysek et al 2004, Essl et al 2018). Instead of continuing the debate on the choice of word, it would be better to harmonize the use of these 'standardized' terms in future communications. Use of various terms for the same meaning has already hampered the science of biological invasions.

Like in other parts of the world, some phrases have been incorrectly used in the literature of invasive species in Nepal. I just want to bring one paper in notice. For example, Bhattarai et al (2014) (paper attached) used the term 'Invasive Plant Species' (IPS) for the 'naturalized plant species'. It is now quite obvious that 'invasive' species are the subset of naturalized species. But Bhattarai et al used the term incorrectly and this has created confusion among early career researchers and policy makers. Earlier, Tiwari et al (2005) identified 21 species as 'invasive' and 166 species 'naturalized' (that also included invasive). Recent assessments have revealed that at least 26 naturalized plant species in Nepal are 'invasive'.
posted on 2019-05-30 04:51 UTC by Bharat Babu Shrestha, Tribhuvan University
You must be signed in to post messages in this forum. Depending on the forum you may also need the appropriate credentials in order to post messages.
RE: Clarification of terminology under the CBD article 8(h) and related COP decisions [#1425]
Hi Bharat,

I agree with you that terms 'invasive' and 'naturalized' are sometimes not used correctly and this is causing confusion and problems. I noticed this issue when I reviewed the species list for Global Register for Introduced and Invasive Species for Pakistan. The list included a large of naturalized species listed as invasive species based on incorrect terms used in some literature. Another problem in many developing countries is that a species is only get noticed or seen a problem when it directly impacts the economics i.e negatively effecting the agriculture, human and animal health etc. Most invasive species of natural ecosystems/environmental weeds hardly get noticed and prioritized for management.

Thanks
Asad
posted on 2019-06-01 03:17 UTC by Dr Asad Shabbir, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan
You must be signed in to post messages in this forum. Depending on the forum you may also need the appropriate credentials in order to post messages.
RE: Clarification of terminology under the CBD article 8(h) and related COP decisions [#1424]
Accurate definition of alien invasive species is the basis of designing management system. What terminology to use and how to explain its connotation will result in differences in management objects, scope, emphasis and measures. The terminology of invasive alien species needs to be differentiated and analyzed in terms of expression, space, time, impacts and hierarchy. We propose to adopt the "alien invasive species" and "alien species" used in the Convention on Biological Diversity, using the management boundary as the distinction between "local" and "alien". Due to different jurisdictions, Laws and regulations at the national or local level can adopt different boundaries, focusing on alien species invading China after 1840. Emphasis is placed on the prevention and control of alien invasive species which are difficult to be covered by existing laws and regulations, especially those that have great impact on natural ecosystems and ecological environment.
posted on 2019-05-31 15:50 UTC by Yaping Hu, Nanjing Institute of Environmental Science, Ministry of Ecology and Environment of China
You must be signed in to post messages in this forum. Depending on the forum you may also need the appropriate credentials in order to post messages.