Stronger regional biosecurity is essential to prevent hundreds of harmful biological invasions

Abstract

Biological invasions often transcend political boundaries, but the capacity of countries to prevent invasions varies. How this variation in biosecurity affects the invasion risks posed to the countries involved is unclear. We aimed to improve the understanding of how the biosecurity of a country influences that of its neighbours. We developed six scenarios that describe biological invasions in regions with contiguous countries. Using data from alien species databases, socio‐economic and biodiversity data and species distribution models, we determined where 86 of 100 of the world's worst invasive species are likely to invade and have a negative impact in the future. Information on the capacity of countries to prevent invasions was used to determine whether such invasions could be avoided. For the selected species, we predicted 2,523 discrete invasions, most of which would have significant negative impacts and are unlikely to be prevented. Of these invasions, approximately a third were predicted to spread from the country in which the species first establishes to neighbouring countries where they would cause significant negative impacts. Most of these invasions are unlikely to be prevented as the country of first establishment has a low capacity to prevent invasions or has little incentive to do so as there will be no impact in that country. Regional biosecurity is therefore essential to prevent future harmful biological invasions. In consequence, we propose that the need for increased regional co‐operation to combat biological invasions be incorporated in global biodiversity targets.

Appropriate uses of EICAT protocol, data and classifications

“…Standardising and globalising the process of impact assessment within a framework such as EICAT, can aid countries with less financial or technical capacity to develop policies and priorities for tackling biological invasions, as it provides a resource on impacts of invasions to tap into. It also highlights priorities for regional biosecurity (Faulkner et al 2020). Second, it is a versatile protocol which allows for the regular updating of information.…”

Global guidelines for the sustainable use of non-native trees to prevent tree invasions and mitigate their negative impacts

“…Each new NNT species or provenance planned to be introduced for the first time in a given country or to be planted over large scales which has not yet been evaluated, should be subject to a comprehensive risk analysis to consider opportunities, risks, and management options, with uncertainties explicitly recognised. Moreover, regions or countries should consider not planting NNTs if these taxa are restricted in neighbouring jurisdictions, as NNTs can easily spread across national borders making biosecurity a regional issue (Faulkner et al 2020). For example, the list of the Israel's "least wanted alien ornamental plant species" includes numerous NNTs which may be relevant for various countries around the Mediterranean, experiencing Mediterranean, semiarid, and arid climates (Dufour-Dror et al 2013).…”

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)’s Post-2020 target on invasive alien species – what should it include and how should it be monitored?

“…There is also a need to apply and adapt existing methods to monitor and control pathways after the initial introduction (secondary spread) (e.g. USDA APHIS, https:// www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/home/) in countries that do not yet have such systems in place (Zengeya and Wilson 2020), and between countries when intra-continental spread is important (Faulkner et al 2020b). This secondary spread of IAS causes significant challenges as, in contrast to inter-continental movements of IAS which often rely on a few specific vectors, movements within a land mass can happen in many different ways, including by natural dispersal.…”