1 / 31

Questionnaire

Questionnaire. Workshop Ispra , 17-18 June 2009. February – 27 March 2009 4 sections, 14 questions A. MS’s definition of alien species - WFD B. Alien species lists and their maintenance C. Alien species in ESA and classification - WFD D. Comments and personal/institutional views

janney
Télécharger la présentation

Questionnaire

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Questionnaire Workshop Ispra, 17-18 June 2009 • February – 27 March 2009 • 4 sections, 14 questions • A. MS’s definition of alien species - WFD • B. Alien species lists and their maintenance • C. Alien species in ESA and classification - WFD • D. Comments and personal/institutional views • 89 ECOSTAT contacts: 1 return per MS • 30 returns, 24 countries

  2. A. Definition 1. How are alien species defined by the MS? Workshop Ispra, 17-18 June 2009 A species, subspecies or lower taxon, introduced outside its natural past or present distribution; includes any part, gametes, seeds, eggs, or propagules of such species that might survive and subsequently reproduce (CBD) No single definition is applicable in the MS • Invasive, impact • Established • Humanmediated • Population • Strains

  3. A. Definition Workshop Ispra, 17-18 June 2009 2. Are translocatednative species considered as alien species? E.g. Greece: Common carp (Cyprinus carpio) (Evro river basin.  Western Greece. • Translocatednative species • = alien species • = native species • = nativeoralien • (e.g. UK, barbel: “pest” or “valuableaccelerationof range expansion”) Translocatednative species: A native species that displays the characteristics of an alien species when deliberately moved to a different region, catchment or sub-catchment of the same country.

  4. A. Definition Workshop Ispra, 17-18 June 2009 3. Are casualalien species considered as alien species? E.g. Flanders, Denmark: Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) • ifthey have an impact Casualalien species: Alien species that may flourish and even reproduce occasionally in an area, but which do not form selfreplacing populations and which rely on repeated introductions for their persistence.

  5. A. Definition Workshop Ispra, 17-18 June 2009 4. Are species that are present as a result of climatechangeconsidered as alien species? E.g. Hungary: Diadesmis (Navicula) confervacea • Humanmediatedintroduction vs. natural range expansion • How to separate … (presence in neigbouringcountries, tropicalspp.?) • Alsoclimatechange is humanmediated … • Climatechange vs. otherhumanactions (e.g. channel Rhine-Danube) • Temporaryphenomenon?

  6. A. Definition Workshop Ispra, 17-18 June 2009 5. Are all introduced species considered as alien species, regardless of the date of introduction? • A date candetermineif a species is to becontrolled/removedorprotected • (e.g. roman snail, white clawedcrayfish) AT BE-MAR DE-LAK DE-RIV LU IT IE EE (plants) EL EE (\plants) BE-WAL BE-FLA (\plants) NO-MAR

  7. A. Definition Workshop Ispra, 17-18 June 2009 6. Is ituseful to apply a historical date as one of the criteria to determinenon-nativeness of a species? • YES, if: • ecologically relevant • verifiable (cf. ES, fish: mar vs. fw) • Region and group/BQE specific • NO • practical reasons (lack of data) • fundamentalreasons (onlyhumanmediationcounts) LT: Dates mayvaryaccrossEurope, but date setting criteria shouldbestandardized BE-MAR AT (\fish) DE-LAK DE-RIV AT (fish) CY, EL BE-WAL

  8. Thanks to … Workshop Ispra, 17-18 June 2009 Gisela Ofenböck, Wendy Bonne, Wim Gabriels, Pierre Gerard, Marina Argyrou, Libuse Opatrilova, Jochen Schaumburg, Franz Schöll, Hans Erik Svart, Merike Linnamägi, Maria Antonieta Pancucci-Papadopoulou, Borja Heredia, Javier Pantoja, Javier Ruza, Beatriz Rodríguez Labajos, Marta Manzanera-Bosch, Angel Borja, P. Garcia, Araceli Puenta Trueba, Concha Duran, Angel Nieva, Beatriz Rodríguez Labajos, Marta Manzanera-Bosch, Maiju Lehtiniemi, Alain Dutartre, Nicolas Poulet, Michel Perret, Zagyva Andrea, John Lucey, Deirdre Tierney, Franco Andaloro, Ernesto Azzurro, Francesca Gherardi, Marino Giovanna, Darius Daunys, Nora Welschbillig, Indrikis Barkans, Suzanne Stuijfzand, Heidi Hansen, Anders Jelmert, Wojciech Solarz, Mihail Otilia, Håkan Marklund, Gorazd Urbanič, Phil Boon... Discussion • Alien species = CBD??? (WFD: only invasive alien species?) • Incl. casual ‘aliens’? • Incl. translocated ‘native species’? • Incl. climate change meditated range expansion? • Historical date: • useful? • scale? Organism group? Pathway? • - …

  9. B. Alien species lists and their maintenance 7. Are theremonitoring programmes running in the MS that are specificallydesignedfor the detection of predefinedalien species or the expansion of their ranges? e.g. Norway • Mainlyregional, project basedorvoluntary • Very few national and long term programmes  scattered data • Environment < humanhealth, economy, domesticanimals

  10. B. Alien species lists and their maintenance 8. Would the routine monitoring programmes running in the MS detect the followingalien species: plants (13) invertebrates (11) fish (13) other (7) lakes (17) 20 16 16 4 rivers (12) 11 8 17 6 ctrans (7) 7 9 6 11 • traditional methods (fish nets, plant surveys and zoobenthos samples)

  11. B. Alien species lists and their maintenance 9. Are lists of alien species available in the MS? • coverage: # species, which habitat types, whichorganismgroups • ecologicalinformation: establishment + impact • contact person/institute + URL/reference • data sources

  12. National IAS lists - gaps • accessiblecomplete (aquatic) • AT: ca. 1700 spp. (Franz Essl, UBA) + smaller group specific lists 0 1 • BE: ca. 100 marine spp. (VLIZ) + 89 species (Etienne Brancourt, BPB) + other 1 1 • IT: X animal spp., 83 plants (F. Gherardi, Univ. Florence; F. Andaloro, ISPRA) 0 1 • CY: X marine spp., NA (Marina Argyrou, DFMR) 0 no freshwater? • CZ: 496 spp., book in Czech, 2006 (Mlikovsky & Stylo, Prague) + 1378 plants (Bot. Instit., Prague) (1) 1 • DE: ca. 100 marine spp. (???) 0 no freshwater? • DK: 2656 spp., NOBANIS (Hans Erik Svart, Danish Forestry and Nature Agency) 1 1 • EE: 924 spp. (740 plants + other lists) (envir,ee + emu.ee + tallinnlv.ee) 1 1 • EL: 268 spp. (M. Pancucci, HCMR) (1) 1 • FI: 241 spp., NOBANIS (various institutes) 1 1 • IE: 557 spp. (NIEA/NPWS) (1) 1 • LT: 721 spp., 96% Baltic Sea DB (Darius Daunys, Coastal Research and Planning Institute) 1 only 4% freshwater? • LU: 9 or 22 plant spp. (Ministry of Environment or NHM); 5 mammals (L. Schley, XXX) 1 no animals, few spp. • LV: 807 spp., NOBANIS (XXX) 1 1 • NO: 215 spp. (Biodiversity Information Centre) 1 1 • PL: 1060 spp. (Wojciech Solarz, Inc Pas) 1 1 • RO: X spp. (Gabriel Chirac, NIRDEP; Valeria Abaza, IMRD) 0 (1) • SE: 2065 spp., NOBANIS (XXX) 1 1 • UK: 94 spp., plants, invertebrates and fish (WFD-UKTAG) 1 no amphibians, mammals…? • Under construction: ES, FR, HU (plants OK), NL • No lists: SI? • No reply: PT, SK, MT, BG

  13. Lots of lists, but … • gaps: organismsgroups, countries/regions, habitat types, ecologicalinformation • limitedaccessibility (search strings, reports, books, papers, contact persons) • limitedcompatibilty • categorisationecologicalinformation (impact, level of establishment, distribution, abundance) • organismgroups (e.g. macroinvertebrates vs. zoobenthos vs. …) • maintenance (project based, books vs. Websites, projects vs. institutes) • Needforharmonisation? • Needforcentralisation?

  14. Need for a EU IAS database/network/centre? • Possible roles of network/centre/platform • facilitate information exchange: • - Top down: global/Europe (directives)  national/regional governments/stakeholders/research centra • Bottom-up: feeding of information from local/regional/national organisations to EU policies and global legislations/databases • researchers (monitoring programmes, impact assessments)  policy makers (legislation) • development and maintenance of alien species lists • - integration of existing databases (incl. harmonisation of data: distribution, impact, establishment, terms, coverage…) • - identification of gaps (habitat types, regions, organism groups) • development of standardized monitoring programmes • establishment and updating of alien species experts network • early warning for and rapid action upon arrival of aliens • centralizedfunding for: • expert group meetings • monitoring (early detection) + eradication/control • awareness campaigns…

  15. Existing IAS databases/networks in Europe • - DAISIE (Delivering Alien Invasive Species Inventories for Europe) • NOBANIS (Nordic-Baltic Network on Invasive Species) • CIESM(International Commission for Scientific Exploration of the Mediterranean Sea) • EPPO(European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization) • ERNAIS (European Research Network on Aquatic Invasive) • …

  16. NOBANISNorth European and Baltic Network on Invasive Alien Species - 13 of EU-27 + Norway, Iceland, Faroe Islands, Greenland, Eur. Russia - Terrestrial and aquatic - > 14000 species x country entries - Funding: ? (builds on 2 meetings organized by GISP and US; 2001-2002) - Form: distributed but integrated online database (18 national focal points) • Differences among nations (numbers of species + categories)

  17. NOBANIS

  18. DAISIEDelivering Alien Invasive Species Inventories for Europe + terrestrial and aquatic - no maintenance? (FP6) + EU27 (57 countries) - not compatible with GISIN + ca. 11000 introductions - gaps (regions x species, impact, establishment, incomplete for fungi, invertebrates, …)

  19. CIESMInternational Commission for Scientific Exploration of the Mediterranean Sea • Mission: delivering authoritative, independent advice to national and international agencies CIESM through expert workshops, collaborative programs and regular congresses • Headquarter: Monaco • Funding: Member States (?) • History: • 1908: Congress recommending the creation of a Commission for the Mediterranean (+Atlantic…) • 1919: CIESM conference with 8 countries • 2004: 23 countries (11 of EU-27) • CIESM Atlas (418 species) • - 99 fish • 69 crustaceans • 140 molluscs • 110 macrophytes • only marine/Mediterranean • limited number of organism groups

  20. EPPOEuropean and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization • An intergovernmental organization responsible for European cooperation in plant protection in the European and Mediterranean region. Under the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), EPPO is the regional plant protection organization (RPPO) for Europe. • Headquarters: Paris, France • History: • 1951: founding of EPPO, 15 countries • 2008: 50 countries (incl. EU-27)

  21. ERNAISEuropean Research Network on Aquatic Invasive Species • Virtual list of European experts that agreed to be responsible for certain invaders or invasion vectors. • Headquarter: Regional Biological Invasions Center (RBIC); Russia • History: • 2001: founding of ERNAIS • 2002: creation of searchable on-line alien species experts database • 2003: 101 experts, 27 countries • 2004: recognized by EC (“Alien species strategy”) • 2008: ???

  22. Global IAS databases • NISBASE (International Nonindigenous Species Database Network)- GISIN (Global Invasive Species Information Network) • GISD (Global Invasive Species Database) • …

  23. GISDGlobal Invasive Species Database • What: Global database on alien invasive species • Coordination: IUCN-ISSG • Funding: National Biological Information Infrastructure, Manaaki Whenua-Landcare Research, the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund, the University of Auckland and private donations. • Data providers: expert contributors from around the world • UK: ca. 55 species < UK WFD: 94 species (impact: 34 high, 20 low, 40 unknown) • Sweden: ca. 35 species < NOBANIS: 2037 species (invasiveness: 172 yes, 59 pot., 824 no, 1010 unknown)

  24. NISbaseAn International Nonindigenous Species Database Network • What: Distributed database providing information concerning nonindigenous species. Through this site, users can access information on taxonomy, life history, native and introduced ranges, photos, maps, and impacts of aquatic species introduced around the world. • Who: Smithsonian Environmental Research Center + collaborators • Funding: ? • Data providers • NAS Database (Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database) • Chesapeake Bay Exotic Marine and Estuarine Species Information System • Nonindigenous Species in the Gulf of Mexico Ecosystem • NIMPIS (National Introduced Marine Pest Information System) • Introduced Marine Species of Hawaii Guidebook • CIESM Atlas of Exotic Species in the Mediterranean Sea • Guide to the Exotic Species of San Francisco Bay • Marine Invader Tracking Information System • NOBANIS: North European and Baltic Network on Invasive Alien Species • NOAA National Benthic Inventory

  25. GISINGlobal Invasive Species Information Network • What: Online network of alien species databases, encouraging the continuation of individual data ownership, maintenance, and quality assurance. • Who: US National Institute for Invasive Species Science), IUCN ISSG, … • Funding: Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) • Data providers: • Global Organism Detection and Monitoring System • Fishbase • Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission • Non-indigenous Aquatic Species • I3N-Argentina • Smithsonian Environmental Research Centre • Links to 273 online databases (global, regional, national and subregional) • Perspectives: • Fully developed online data providers network by 2012, including a broad variety of invasive species online databases managed by governments, non-governmental organizations, academia, and the private sector. • Additional information types such as images and species profile data will be included. • Data providers and consumers will be listed in a GISIN registry, and data consumers will develop diverse portals for cross searching information and displaying it in maps, charts, species profiles, and other formats determined by user needs. • Information from other online systems (such as the Encyclopedia of Life, Species 2000, and the Global Biodiversity Information Facility) will be exchanged in an interactive manner. • The information from the GISIN system will also form an integral part of the Comprehensive Invasive Species Information System, which is a global project currently seeking funding from the World Bank.

  26. IAS lists - questions • Needed? Cf. BPI… • WFD or general? • Tagged in general alien species or biodiversity DBs? • National and/or river/sea basin lists? • Incl. translocated native species, casual species, ‘climate change species’? • Aquatic + terrestrial/riparian, marine vs. freshwater? • Organism groups? BQEs? • Categories? (distribution (scale), abundance (absolute/relative, log), impact level, establishment) • Form of list(s): internet database, PDF file, report, public? • Integration/harmonisation of existing lists? European or regional/basin? Credentials? • Maintenance? • Network of IAS experts needed? Organization? Funding? Structure? • Compatibility with MSFD/global DBs? • …

  27. C. AS in ESA and classification under WFD 10. Are alien species explicitly taken into account by the MS in ecological status assessment and classificationunder the WFD? • YES • included in similarity index (reference vs. actualcommunity) • element of index (e.g. densityorbiomass of alien species) • downscaling of ecological status • NO • practical reasons (lack of lists, info onimpact: 40%) • conceptualreasons (other tools alreadymeasurepressurebyaliens)

  28. C. AS in ESA and classification under WFD 11. In which water bodies are alien species absent whenapplying the MSs protocol forecological status?

  29. C. AS in ESA and classification under WFD 12. Underwhichoption does the currentMS’s WFD ecological status assessmentfall? Option 1: Classify water bodies using pressure-based classification tools, and then modify the classification based on alien species, with the final result being either high, good, or less than good status. (+ action, - AS> other pressures) Option 2: As for Option 1, but use quantitative data to link the abundance or percentage cover of alien species to the five WFD quality classes. Option 3: Assume that the pressure-based tools for classification have already detected any impacts caused by alien species. (+ no new tools needed; - (recent) aliens not accounted for?) Option 4: Classify water bodies without taking account explicitly of alien species (as for option 3), but carry out a separate risk assessment by applying various ‘biopollution’ indices for risk and impact of alien species. (+: AS vs. other pressures; - no action?)

  30. C. AS in ESA and classification under WFD 12. Underwhichoption does the currentMS’s WFD ecological status assessmentfall? 13. Whichoptionwouldbe the most appropriateconsideringbothfeasibility and usefulness in ecological status assessment and classificationunder the WFD?

  31. C. AS in ESA and classification under WFD 14. Which biopollution index is the most appropriate considering both feasibility and usefulness? Integrated Biopollution Risk Index Biopollution level index ??? spread HIGH • - Categorized abundance and distribution range • Categorized impact on community, habitat and ecosystem level GOOD <20% >20% <20% >20% MOD ??? spread POOR impact BAD impact

More Related