Beyond protocols: improving the reliability of expert-based risk analysis underpinning invasive species policies

Abstract

Risk assessment tools for listing invasive alien species need to incorporate all available evidence and expertise. Beyond the wealth of protocols developed to date, we argue that the current way of performing risk analysis has several shortcomings. In particular, lack of data on ecological impacts, transparency and repeatability of assessments as well as the incorporation of uncertainty should all be explicitly considered. We recommend improved quality control of risk assessments through formalized peer review with clear feedback between assessors and reviewers.Alternatively, a consensus building process can be applied to better capture opinions of different experts, thereby maximizing the evidential basis. Elaborating on manageability of invasive species is further needed to fully answer all risk analysis requirements. Tackling the issue of invasive species urges better handling of the acquired information on risk and the exploration of improved methods for decision making on biodiversity management. This is crucial for efficient conservation resource allocation and uptake by stakeholders and the public.

Integrating climate and land‐use change scenarios in modelling the future spread of invasive squirrels in Italy

“…Strategies for the management of alien species require the screening of species through a process of risk assessment and prioritization as potentially invasive (Kumschick & Richardson, ; McGeoch et al, ; Roy et al, ; Vanderhoeven et al, ). Risk assessments are aimed at determining the likelihood that a species enters a recipient area establishing viable populations and the associated risk of spread and invasiveness (Andersen, Adams, Hope, & Powell, ).…”

Risk management to prioritise the eradication of new and emerging invasive non-native species

“…One way of prioritising INNS management is to use risk analysis, which traditionally includes hazard identification, risk assessment, risk management and risk communication (Vanderhoeven et al 2017). It is the balance between risk assessment and risk management that allows for prioritisation, with risk assessment used to assess the threat or hazard of a species and risk management used to evaluate and implement management options (FAO 1995).…”

“…Within this framework, high risk species for which management is cost effective are prioritised first and low risk species for which management is expensive and ineffective are prioritised last. Both risk assessment and risk management are essential for prioritisation; however, while numerous INNS risk assessment schemes have been developed (for reviews see Early et al 2016;Heikkilä 2011;Leung et al 2012;Roy et al 2014b;Verbrugge et al 2010) very few exist for risk management (Heikkilä 2011;Vanderhoeven et al 2017). Of the schemes that do include elements of risk management, many only include one or few questions (e.g.…”

“…Given the range of species that become invasive, such a scheme should be broadly applicable to any taxa (Nentwig et al 2010) and, given large numbers of species involved, should be efficient to apply (Andersen et al 2004;Hulme et al 2009). It should be possible to complete the scheme even where data are lacking, with uncertainty taken into account, documented and justified (Leung et al 2012;Vanderhoeven et al 2017).…”

To list or not to list: using time since invasion to refine impact assessment for an exotic plant proposed as noxious

“…However, the process for listing species can be subjective and is often not based on quantification of invader impacts (McGeoch et al 2012, Quinn et al 2013, Pearson et al 2016, Vanderhoeven et al 2017; but see Carboneras et al 2018). However, the process for listing species can be subjective and is often not based on quantification of invader impacts (McGeoch et al 2012, Quinn et al 2013, Pearson et al 2016, Vanderhoeven et al 2017; but see Carboneras et al 2018).…”