Header for this thread...

Hi

I'd like to highlight the need to separate the socio-economic impacts posed by a species, from those considerations arising from its management. Both need to be considered in a risk analysis if we are to rapidly prioritise species for management.  This issue and associated classifications was discussed in the earlier forum thread on 'How can we classify the costs and benefits associated with IAS management'

In terms of the social impacts of species presence, Bacher et al (2017)conclude that attempts to quantify socio-economic impacts in monetary terms are unlikely to provide a useful basis for evaluating and comparing impacts of invasive alien taxa because they are notoriously difficult to measure, they are often context-dependent, and important aspects of human well-being are ignored.  They identify
different constituents of human well-being may be affected: security; material and immaterial assets; health; and social, spiritual and cultural relationships.  They go on to propose the SEICAT process,which provides a mechanism to assess each of these in turn.  

Bacher, S., Blackburn, T. M., Essl, F., Genovesi, P., Heikkilä, J., Jeschke, J. M., Jones, G., Keller, R., Kenis, M., Kueffer, C., Martinou, A.F., Nentwig, W., Pergl, J., Pyšek, P., Rabitsch, W., Richardson, D.M., Roy, H.E., Saul, W-C.,Scalera, R., Vilà, M., Wilson, J.R.U., Kumschick, S. (2017). Socio-economic impact classification of alien taxa (SEICAT). Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 1–10. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/2041-210X.12844


A different approach is needed to assess the sociological impacts of management.  In this case, Booy et al (2017) propose a method to assess the overall feasibility of management, with separate sub-categories covering effectiveness, practicality, social acceptability, wider environmental impact, and cost.

Booy, O., Mill, A.C., Roy, H.E., Hiley, A., Moore, N., Robertson, P., Baker, S., Brazier, M., Bue, M., Bullock, R. and Campbell, S., 2017. Risk management to prioritise the eradication of new and emerging invasive non-native species. Biological Invasions, 19(8), pp.2401-2417.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10530-017-1451-z

This combination of methods, assessing the social implications of a species as part of wider risk assessment, and the social acceptability of management as part of risk management, can be combined in a process of risk analysis.  This combined approach allows the prioritisation of species and their management based on a rapid assessment in non-monetary terms.  While more detailed economic cost-benefit analyses can be used to assess individual cases, we need rapid methods to prioritise action given the large number of species and invasions that we are currently experiencing

Thanks Peter

A really good posting covering both prioritizing IAS based on socio-economic impact criteria and using risk management assessment to define likely most effective management options.

The first reference also illustrates that we are often lacking information on the socio-economic, cultural and community wellbeing impacts of IAS to be able to evaluate these effectively so there needs to be better documented cases to avoid only anecdotal evidence being available. These types of impacts from cane toads for example are poorly understood really, with the exception of loss of pet dogs being the only widely documented impact on social wellbeing.

What we still seem to be lacking are well documented socio-economic, cultural and community wellbeing semi-quantative criteria on which to not only to evaluate impact but also to evaluate effectiveness of applied risk management options.

If say a weed invades and suppresses an culturally important indigenous food plant or iconic species how does this reduce the capacity of that community to be self sustaining or lead to loss of community cultural values. Also what are the target invader or site based management thresholds needed to be achieved to adequately suppress that threat. Again in Australia where we have lost many native animals valued and used by indigenous communities, indigenous led re-introductions into IAS predator-free enclosures are going a long way to address the cultural value loss if not the loss of a bush food source.  

Would be good to know of such assessment approaches or is this still a key gap?

Andy

Risk analysis in the context of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), is focussed on a specific group of invasive alien species – plant pests. A number of International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs) that provide guidance on pest risk analysis (PRA) have been adopted under the IPPC. Pest risk analysis is a process that is available and widely used to determine if pests are quarantine pests and to identify appropriate risk mitigation measures.

The WTO recognizes the IPPC as the relevant international standard-setting body for plant health. The WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) states that phytosanitary measures shall be science-based and not used for trade protection. It requires that phytosanitary measures be based on an assessment of the risk to plant health, taking into account risk analysis techniques developed by the IPPC, and that the measures be technically justified.

International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs): https://www.ippc.int/en/core-activities/standards-setting/ispms/#publications

ISPM 2: Framework for pest risk analysis
This standard provides a framework that describes the PRA process within the scope of the IPPC and introduces the three stages of pest risk analysis – initiation, pest risk assessment and pest risk management.

ISPM 11: Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests
This standard provides details for the conduct of pest risk analysis (PRA) to determine if pests are quarantine pests and describes the integrated processes to be used for risk assessment as well as the selection of risk management options. It also includes details regarding the analysis of risks of plant pests to the environment and biological diversity, including those risks affecting uncultivated/unmanaged plants, wild flora, habitats and ecosystems contained in the PRA area.

ISPM 5: Glossary of phytosanitary terms; Supplement 2: Guidelines on the understanding of “potential economic importance” and related terms including reference to environmental considerations.
These guidelines clarify that the IPPC:
- can account for environmental concerns in economic terms using monetary or non-monetary values
- asserts that market impacts are not the sole indicator of pest impact
- maintains the right of contracting parties to adopt phytosanitary measures with respect to pests for which the economic damage caused to plants, plant products or ecosystems within an area cannot be easily quantified.

Dear all,

These links may be useful. Apologies for potential double-posting.

Risk assessment tools of the GIASIPartnership
http://giasipartnership.myspecies.info/en/simpletaxonomy/term/14701

IUCN ISSG Risk Assessment Resources
http://www.issg.org/risk_assessment_resources.htm

Review article
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/8355943_Risk_Assessment_for_Invasive_Species

Best wishes,
Ulrike

Thanks Barbara and Ulrike for providing these links to existing risk analysis resources for invasive species.

There are also approaches for assessing many species at the same time in terms of understanding the threats they pose to new regions based on community similarity and probability of arrival e.g. based on level of trade:

Paini, D.R., Sheppard, A.W., Cook, D.C., De Barro, P.J., Worner, S.P. and Thomas, M.B., 2016. Global threat to agriculture from invasive species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(27), pp.7575-7579.

In addition to risk assessment there is also social impact assessment.

"Social impact assessment offers a structured process of identifying, evaluating and addressing social costs and benefits."

It has potential value for enabling meaningful public participation in planning and as a key component of integrated assessments of management options 

Crowley, S.L., Hinchliffe, S. and McDonald, R.A., 2017. Invasive species management will benefit from social impact assessment. Journal of Applied Ecology, 54(2), pp.351-357.

Dear all,

As in the general post for session 4 and outlined in a post by Ms Barbara Peterson, the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) – housed by FAO/UN, also a biodiversity-related Convention and recognized as plant health standard setting body for the WTO-SPS agreement, develops international standards for phytosanitary measures (ISPM), CPM recommendations, and also has a component to help with their implementation and capacity building activities of the 183 IPPC member countries (= contracting parties).

The scope of the Convention includes not only the protection of cultivated plants, but also extends to encompass natural flora and plant products. The increase of plant pests and other invasive species are caused by increase in the movement of plants and plant products, commodities and people. Climate change and its effect on the environment provide new habitats for alien species.

Currently, the IPPC has over 100 standards, among them phytosanitary treatments and diagnostic protocols for specific pests (https://www.ippc.int/en/core-activities/standards-setting/ispms).

As for specific examples on “What actual and potential risk analysis and other relevant methods are available or are being or could be developed that can be used for preventing/limiting the impacts of invasive alien species on socio-economic and cultural values and the well being of indigenous and local communities”, the IPPC 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/).

The IPPC also has a CPM recommendation (CPM = Commission on Phytosanitary Measures) on “Threats to biodiversity posed by alien species: actions within the framework of the IPPC” (https://www.ippc.int/en/publications/84229/) and another one on “Sea Containers” (https://www.ippc.int/en/publications/84233/).

Moreover, there are other ISPMs that can be used, for example ISPM 6 on pest surveillance and ISPM 8 on pest status.

As for capacity building and implementation activities, the IPPC has a series of manuals, guides and training materials (https://www.ippc.int/en/core-activities/capacity-development/guides-and-training-materials/). For example, the IPPC has a guide on:

- Preparing a National Phytosanitary Capacity Development Strategy
- Guide to Pest Risk Communication
- e-learning on Pest Risk Analysis (PRA)
- a series of projects related to fruit flies and surveillance management

Some awareness material on PRA are available at: https://www.ippc.int/en/core-activities/capacity-development/guides-and-training-materials/guides-and-training-materials/pest-risk-analysis/ . Attached to this post two material.


Best regards,

Adriana G. Moreira

Standard Setting Officer (Programme Specialist)
International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) Secretariat
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO/UN)
E-mail / Skype:  adriana.moreira@fao.org
Websites: http://www.fao.org | http://www.ippc.int