ECOSTAT: Ad-hoc topic on alien species

1. ECOSTAT: Ad-hoc topic on alien species

2. ECOSTAT Work Programme Objective 3 of ECOSTAT mandate: “To compare approaches and promote exchange of experiences on development and application of monitoring and biological classification systems in the Member States” 2010-2012 Priority tasks on alien species: Determine how to use alien species (AS) data in classifying ecological status Evaluate the potential of existing alien species databases for compiling lists that can be used under the WFD Link to the Invasive Species Strategy and parallel activities (e.g. MSFD)

3. Determine how to use AS data in classifying ecological status

4. Evaluation AS capture efficiency of WFD methods Not tested = assumption Source: Project WISER questionnaire

5. Test assumption: data Ecological status ° EEA >70,000 WBs Occurrences of HI-IAS ° GBIF (n=28,482) List of HI-IAS ° SEBI (n=163) ° UK TAG (n=34)

6. Test assumption: results

8. Recent evidence - macrophytes • LEAFPACS – macrophyte classification tool in GB • Outputs – range of metrics to reflect species composition, richness, abundance • Combined to produce an EQR

9. LEAFPACS assessments and alien species – EA study • 7 high impact (HI) alien plant species listed by UK TAG (e.g. Crassula helmsii, Myrophyllum aquaticum)

10. LEAFPACS assessments and alien species – rivers • Only one species – Azolla filiculoides – can have direct effect on WFD classification • 45 sites with HI species used in classification (2009) • Little difference in classification in water bodies with and without HI species

11. LEAFPACS assessments and alien species – lakes • Azolla filiculoides, Crassula helmsii + Myriophyllum aquaticum all scoring species • Mixed results – HI species in lakes more likely to affect WFD class than for rivers

12. Recent evidence - invertebrates • Study by Cambridge University on invasion by Dikerogammarus villosus (killer shrimp) in GB • Potential effects on biomonitoring • Effects of D. villosus on invertebrate classifications using RICT • Preys on high-scoring species – e.g. mayflies, blackflies, gammarids • Leads to reduction in ASPT scores in high and good rivers, inflation in scores in lower quality rivers

13. Conclusion from Cambridge report • “The potential effectiveness of current WFD monitoring strategies could be improved to include a measurement of bio-contamination within biological communities. These methods are being developed and their implementation in ecological monitoring being discussed. Generally evidence of bio-contamination (the presence of non-native species) within invertebrate communities reduces the resultant overall ecological status of the water body under assessment. Incorporating these methods may provide a more accurate assessment of ecological status”

14. Evaluate the potential of existing alien species databases for compiling lists that can be used under the WFD

15. Existing information systems:43 online databases on aliens Report on gaps and complementarity of existing alien species databases (EUR 24752EN 2011) • Are they sufficient/efficient to support European policies? Global and regional information systems AVIBASE CABI-ISC EPPO PQR FishBase Baltic Sea CIESM EU-BIRDS GISD Caspian Sea DAISIE FAO-DIAS NOBANIS Country-level databases Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Ireland, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom

16. Assessment of the online databases • Various definitions of alien species (e.g. different cut-off dates) • Complementarity and gaps in existing online information systems • Different scope (geographical, taxonomic, etc.) • Lack of geo-referenced records • Variability in the quality of information (across countries, regions, environments) • Incompatibility among databases (e.g. nomenclature issues) • Not always regularly updated

17. Officially launched on • 12 September 2012 • Current functionalities: • Search using complex queries • GIS mapping – from occurrences only, to aggregated maps http://easin.jrc.ec.europa.eu

18. Data Providers EASIN Catalogue EASIN core catalogue Spatial data EASIN web services

19. COST Action Aims: • to increase harmonization of IAS data from distributed sources in support of the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy • to identify strategies for long-term maintenance of IAS data • to develop standard indicators for pathways and impacts, and standard protocols for risk assessments and data requirements (for pathways and impacts) • To collaborate with EASIN

20. Producing guidance

21. Previous proposals for what might be included in a guidance document Terms and definitions Creating WFD-specific lists of alien species How to monitor and record alien species Risk assessment Assigning levels of impact to individual species

22. Relevant recent developments • First round of WFD status classification • Preparations for European legislation (EC directive?) • Work in JRC on harmonising alien species data (EASIN) • Bid for European COST project • New survey and research on alien species distribution and control A need for guidance on alien species and the WFD

23. What do we need now? Terms and definitions (in the EC Directive?) Creating WFD-specific lists of alien species How to monitor and record alien species Risk assessment Assigning levels of impact to individual species An outlet for publication (e.g. CEN? Other options?)

24. Conclusions • EASIN and COST (if funded) will deal with the data harmonisation issues ►still need to ensure that data on relevant WFD species are readily available • WFD classification tools are not performing well enough to detect all the problems from alien species ►thismeans either improving those tools or having an extra step in classification, as in the UK – or both • Need guidance at a European level on some of the alien species issues specific to the WFD ►guidance on using data, and consistent rules for how to categorise the impact of alien species, are still needed to help with WFD assessments