Biosecurity frameworks for cross-border movement of invasive alien species

Black, Robert; Bartlett, Debbie

doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2019.12.011

Cited by 34 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, the EU Regulation (1143/2014) on non-native species has resulted in stakeholders focusing on biosecurity programs that limit the export of live animals and plants, but it neglects new introductions. Moreover, contemporary national biosecurity programs are generally designed to protect the interests of individual countries (Black and Bartlett 2020), with relatively little consideration given to the "greater good"-i.e., protecting all nations from invasions. The mission of most national plant protection organizations, for example, includes regulating imports that pose high risks of harmful introductions, while simultaneously promoting exports from their own countries; scant attention is given to minimizing risks associated with such exports (MacLeod et al 2010).…”

Section: Global Cooperation Among National Biosecurity Programsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Four priority areas to advance invasion science in the face of rapid environmental change

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Unprecedented rates of introduction and spread of non-native species pose burgeoning challenges to biodiversity, natural resource management, regional economies, and human health. Current biosecurity efforts are failing to keep pace with globalization, revealing critical gaps in our understanding and response to invasions. Here, we identify four priority areas to advance invasion science in the face of rapid global environmental change. First, invasion science should strive to develop a more comprehensive framework for predicting how the behavior, abundance, and interspecific interactions of non-native species vary in relation to conditions in receiving environments and how these factors govern the ecological impacts of invasion. A second priority is to understand the potential synergistic effects of multiple co-occurring stressors – particularly involving climate change – on the establishment and impact of non-native species. Climate adaptation and mitigation strategies will need to consider the possible consequences of promoting non-native species, and appropriate management responses to non-native species will need to be developed. The third priority is to address the taxonomic impediment. The ability to detect and evaluate invasion risks is compromised by a growing deficit in taxonomic expertise, which cannot be adequately compensated by new molecular technologies alone. Management of biosecurity risks will become increasingly challenging unless academia, industry, and governments train and employ new personnel in taxonomy and systematics. Fourth, we recommend that internationally cooperative biosecurity strategies consider the bridgehead effects of global dispersal networks, in which organisms tend to invade new regions from locations where they have already established. Cooperation among countries to eradicate or control species established in bridgehead regions should yield greater benefit than independent attempts by individual countries to exclude these species from arriving and establishing.

show abstract

Section: Global Cooperation Among National Biosecurity Programsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Four priority areas to advance invasion science in the face of rapid environmental change

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In Canada, invasive species terminology is inconsistent across legislation, and regulatory power is divided across agencies (Smith et al, 2014). The levels of proactivity also vary at national and international scales (Early et al, 2016); for example, Australia's federal policy is exceptionally proactive and prohibits non-native species until they can be proven low risk, but application of this approach is inconsistent at the subnational level (Black & Bartlett, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Plant regulatory lists in the United States are reactive and inconsistent

Beaury

Fusco

Allen

et al. 2021

Journal of Applied Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. Global invasive species introductions are rising, necessitating coordinated regulatory strategies within and across national borders. Although states and nations address their unique priorities using plant regulations, these regulations are most likely to reduce invasive plant introduction and spread if they are consistently enacted across political borders and proactively restrict spread early in the invasion process. Further, a unified regulatory landscape is particularly important given the imminent range infilling and large-scale climate-driven range shifts of invasive species.2. In the United States, federal and state regulations restrict the introduction and spread of several hundred invasive and noxious plant taxa in an effort to reduce their negative impacts. Using plant regulations for the lower 48 United States, we assessed consistency among regulated taxa based on similarities in adjacent states' regulatory lists. We assessed proactivity by comparing regulatory lists to plants' current and potential distributions given occurrence records and species distribution models under climate change.3. States regulate from 0 to 162 plant taxa, with an average of only 16.8% overlap of regulated taxa between adjacent states. Up to 137 plants may be present but unregulated in a state, and only 110 of 553 listed taxa were regulated in one or more states where they were not yet present. However, 36 states listed at least one taxon proactively (regulated but not present in the state). Of the 48 proactively listed taxa with species distribution models, we identified 41 cases (38 species in 21 states) where listing was 'climate proactive' (regulated, not present and where climate could be suitable for establishment by mid-century).4. Policy implications. US plant regulatory lists were inconsistent across borders and reactive to climate change. However, most states regulate at least one plant taxa prior to its introduction, suggesting that a more proactive approach is possible under existing regulations. Coordination across borders is imperative given gaps in regional defences against invasion and projected invasive plant range shifts under climate change. We suggest that subnational, national and international governing bodies evaluate their plant regulatory lists for consistency and proactivity, as it is paramount for preventing the next wave of plant invasions.

show abstract

“…The potential impacts and need of containing movement of such introduced exotic fish species have been seriously deliberated in recent years and initiatives have been taken up to regulate fish introductions (Ponniah and Sood, 2002;Lakra et al, 2006;Singh and Lakra, 2011;NFDB 2015;Mungi et al, 2019). International trade of aquatic species is also subjected to a number of specific international agreements and treaties (Keller and Perrings, 2011;Black and Bartlett, 2020). There are relevant items in treatise such as Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), Convention on International trade in Endangered Species of Wild fauna and flora (CITES), FAO Codes of Conducts for Responsible Movement of Fish, Fisheries and World Trade Organization's (WTO), Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Management of alien aquatic invasive species: Strategic guidelines and policy in India

Singh

2021

Aquatic Ecosystem Health &Amp; Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present article is aimed at understanding current policies and implementation strategies for the management of aquatic invasive species in India and identifying opportunities for improvement. Existing management approaches and policies have briefly been put into place concerning fish introductions and aquatic invasive species, but looking at their effectiveness, it is argued that mitigating the negative impacts caused by invasive species should be at the core for their successful management. International institutions have explicitly recognized the need to contain and eradicate biological invasions and have set of relevant guidelines and enforcements. In India, risk assessment, risk management, quarantine, biosecurity and regulatory mechanisms have been developed and implemented to filter fish introductions and consequently check aquatic invasions. Nevertheless, invasive species introduced into the inland waters are emerging as ‘chronic risks’ to the aquatic biodiversity and ecosystem services. It is imperative that these emerging issues are put on the National Agenda and Action Plan to regulate fish invasions and minimise their adverse impacts. A National Policy on prevention and control of aquatic invasive species is urgently needed to deal with nuisance and harmful impacts. Some future needs have also been suggested to tackle this issue.

show abstract

Biosecurity frameworks for cross-border movement of invasive alien species

Cited by 34 publications

References 10 publications

Four priority areas to advance invasion science in the face of rapid environmental change

Four priority areas to advance invasion science in the face of rapid environmental change

Plant regulatory lists in the United States are reactive and inconsistent

Management of alien aquatic invasive species: Strategic guidelines and policy in India

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About