Extensive literature is available on the diversity and magnitude of impacts that alien species cause on recipient systems. Alien species may decrease or increase attributes of ecosystems (e.g. total biomass or species diversity), thus causing negative and positive environmental impacts. Alien species may also negatively or positively impact attributes linked to local human communities (e.g. the number of people involved in a given activity). Ethical and societal values contribute to define these environmental and socio-economic impacts as deleterious or beneficial. Whilst most of the literature focuses on the deleterious effects of alien taxa, some recognise their beneficial impacts on ecosystems and human activities. Impact assessment frameworks show a similar tendency to evaluate mainly deleterious impacts: only relatively few, and not widely applied, frameworks incorporate the beneficial impacts of alien species. Here, we provide a summary of the frameworks assessing beneficial impacts and briefly discuss why they might have been less frequently cited and applied than frameworks assessing exclusively deleterious impacts. Then, we review arguments that invoke a greater consideration of positive and beneficial impacts caused by alien species across the invasion science literature. We collate and describe arguments from a set of 47 papers, grouping them in two categories (value-free and value-laden), which span from a theoretical, basic science perspective to an applied science perspective. We also provide example cases associated with each argument. We advocate that the development of transparent and evidence-based frameworks assessing positive and beneficial impacts might advance our scientific understanding of impact dynamics and better inform management and prioritisation decisions. We also advise that this development should be achieved by recognising the underlying ethical and societal values of the frameworks and their intrinsic limitations. The evaluation of positive and beneficial impacts through impact assessment frameworks should not be seen as an attempt to outweigh or to discount deleterious impacts of alien taxa but rather as an opportunity to provide additional information for scientists, managers and policymakers.

For an efficient allocation of the limited resources to alien species management, the most damaging species should be prioritised. Comparing alien species based on their impacts is not straightforward, as the same species can cause different types and magnitudes of impacts when introduced to different contexts, making it difficult to summarise its overall impact. The Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT) systematically summarises and compares detrimental impacts caused by alien populations to native biota and has been adopted by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. For each alien species, all reported impacts to native populations within the introduced range are classified into five levels of severity, from negligible impact to irreversible local extinction. Currently, EICAT only compares alien species based on their highest impact, thereby ignoring variation in impact magnitudes. Here, we used information on the variation in impact magnitudes of alien species to estimate their risks to cause high impacts if introduced to a novel environment. We demonstrate the usefulness of this approach by classifying the global impacts of alien ungulates. We found impact reports for 27 of the 66 alien ungulate species established worldwide, highlighting substantial knowledge gaps in invasion science. We classified a total of 441 impacts to native fauna and flora caused by these 27 species. Twenty‐six of the species were found to cause harmful impacts (native population declines or local extinctions). Mouflon (Ovis orientalis, Gmelin, 1774) and dromedary (Camelus dromedarius, Linnaeus, 1758) had a higher risk of causing local extinctions if introduced to a novel environment than sika deer (Cervus nippon, Temminck, 1838) and goats (Capra hircus, Linnaeus, 1758). Including risk of high impacts allows to discriminate among species with the same EICAT classification and improves alien species prioritisation for management.

The Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT) classifies the impacts caused by alien species in their introduced range in standardised terms across taxa and recipient environments. Impacts are classified into one of five levels of severity, from Minimal Concern to Massive, via one of 12 impact mechanisms. Here, we explain revisions based on an IUCN-wide consultation process to the previously-published EICAT framework and guidelines, to clarify why these changes were necessary. These changes mainly concern: the distinction between the two highest levels of impact severity (Major and Massive impacts), the scenarios of the five levels of severity for the hybridisation and disease transmission mechanisms, the broadening of existing impact mechanisms to capture overlooked mechanisms, the Current (Maximum) Impact, and the way uncertainty of individual impact assessments is evaluated. Our aim in explaining this revision process is to ensure consistency of EICAT assessments, by improving the understanding of the framework.

The Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT) and the Socio-Economic Impact Classification of Alien Taxa (SEICAT) have been proposed to provide unified methods for classifying alien species according to their magnitude of impacts. EICAT and SEICAT (herein “ICAT” when refered together) were designed to facilitate the comparison between taxa and invasion contexts by using a standardised, semi-quantitative scoring scheme. The ICAT scores are assigned after conducting a literature review to evaluate all impact observations against the protocols’ criteria. EICAT classifies impacts on the native biota of the recipient environments, whereas SEICAT classifies impacts on human activities. A key component of the process is to assign a level of confidence (high, medium or low) to account for uncertainty. Assessors assign confidence scores to each impact record depending on how confident they are that the assigned impact magnitude reflects the true situation. All possible sources of epistemic uncertainty are expected to be captured by one overall confidence score, neglecting linguistic uncertainties that assessors should be aware of. The current way of handling uncertainty is prone to subjectivity and therefore might lead to inconsistencies amongst assessors. This paper identifies the major sources of uncertainty for impacts classified under the ICAT frameworks, where they emerge in the assessment process and how they are likely to be contributing to biases and inconsistency in assessments. In addition, as the current procedures only capture uncertainty at the individual impact report, interspecific comparisons may be limited by various factors, including data availability. Therefore, ranking species, based on impact magnitude under the present systems, does not account for such uncertainty. We identify three types of biases occurring beyond the individual impact report level (and not captured by the confidence score): biases in the existing data, data collection and data assessment. These biases should be recognised when comparing alien species based on their impacts. Clarifying uncertainty concepts relevant to the ICAT frameworks will lead to more consistent impact assessments and more robust intra- and inter-specific comparisons of impact magnitudes.

Species introduced through human-related activities beyond their native range, termed alien species, have various impacts worldwide. The IUCN Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa (EICAT) is a global standard to assess negative impacts of alien species on native biodiversity. Alien species can also positively affect biodiversity (for instance, through food and habitat provisioning or dispersal facilitation) but there is currently no standardized and evidence-based system to classify positive impacts. We fill this gap by proposing EICAT+, which uses 5 semiquantitative scenarios to categorize the magnitude of positive impacts, and describes underlying mechanisms. EICAT+ can be applied to all alien taxa at different spatial and organizational scales. The application of EICAT+ expands our understanding of the consequences of biological invasions and can inform conservation decisions.