Europe’s 766 MEPs faced a vital environmental decision this week when they confronted one of the four horsemen of the ecological apocalypse (here). As I have written previously (here), across the world, invasive non-native species are wreaking havoc with native species, driving extinction and severely damaging economic interests. In Europe, we had a chance to take action to avoid some of this harm. After 10 years of spadework, MEPs have voted in favour for an EU Regulation on Invasive Alien Species. The RSPB, in common with many other conservation organisations, believed it was vital that the MEPs voted in favour. My colleagues with a special understanding of the issues posed by non-native species have been working to get the best agreement.
The negotiated text is the result of a three-way compromise between the European Parliament, the EU member states and the Commission. Sadly, it is not all positive, but our lobbying has yielded significant improvements to previous proposals, including: the removal of a 50-species cap on the list of species of Union concern; provisions for species which are native to some parts of the EU, but invasive elsewhere; and the creation of a scientific advisory body. Pressures from certain industries, such as mink farming, for lifting the regulation for economic interests were resolved, and controlled licensing for certain activities using invasive species will be overseen by the Commission. However, some glaring gaps remain, such as the removal - under pressure from shipping interests - of any obligation to manage the dumping of many invasive non-native species (such as Carpet sea-squirt or American comb jelly) in the marine environment have used this pathway to become established. The new legislation is in line with decisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) on invasive species, and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets: our global commitment to halt biodiversity loss by 2020. Effective implementation will be key to its success, and this will be the focus of RSPB work on invasive species in the coming months. Our main tasks will be influencing the list of species to which the Regulation will apply, and making sure that the scientific body has the role and capacity to provide sound scientific input to the rapidly changing field of biological invasions.The issue of ballast water has been readily identified by the Environmental Audit Committee as an area where Government could do better. In the results of its inquiry on invasive species, published also this week, the Environmental Audit Committee welcomes the new EU legislation on invasive species, and recommends the UK ratify the 2004 International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments as a measure to reduce the chances of inadvertently bringing in marine invaders, including the eggs and larvae of larger organisms. We can only applaud this clear message from the committee, which might have a remarkable effect on a global scale – the Ballast Water Convention has been ratified by a sufficient number of countries (38), but for it to enter into force it is necessary that they cover 35 per cent of the world’s merchant fleet, it’s currently just over 30 per cent. Possibly, the addition of the nation’s important merchant fleet (16th largest in the world) could make that difference, as well as a significant contribution to the conservation of global biodiversity.
Enjoy your break over Easter (I am heading north) - we can pick up the fight to deal with the other horsemen of the ecological apocalypse next week.
Thank you. I wonder where they will feature in the EU's INNS list and what action plan to mitigate their adverse effects will emerge from the EU and UK governmental workstreams that follow. Their removal from Ascension Island and elsewhere has been spectacularly successful.
I look forward to seeing similar removal schemes in UK (including on RSPB reserves), on our Overseas Territories and in the Scottish Highlands in particular. This would especially benefit threatened songbirds, seabirds waders and native wildcats.
If only we could find the resolve to also deal with them in the farmed and urban landscapes too! The toll taken of songbirds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians by both feral and free-roaming domestic cats is atrocious.
Non-native.
Not quite sure about !! So to rephrase, how does the RSPB view feral cats, non-native species or otherwise?
!!
.....that's good to know. And the feral, domestic cat?