The "birds" may have the right but the cat has the claws

The tale of Stephens Island wrens, driven to extinction by a single cat owned by the local lighthouse keeper, has become a very popular legend among conservationists. The true facts behind this legend are not very different, as this unique nocturnal, flightless bird which lived nowhere else on the planet, was apparently exterminated by feral cats, although more than a single one. In fact, in Stephens Island cats became established in 1894, and after increasing in numbers dramatically affected several species. Stephens Island provides the classic example of the effect that predation by feral cats can have on an island land bird fauna. But this is a problem of global concern. In New Zealand, like in several other countries worldwide, islands experienced a rapid demise of the native land bird fauna due to cat predation. With just a little more care, and a thorough knowledge and understanding of the problem, many islands may have remained a safe haven for many species now disappeared. In this context, a new book published by Wiley "Free-ranging cats. Behavior, ecology, management" (by Stephen Spotte) provides a comprehensive and objective insight on the key topics related to the management of feral cats, addressing some fundamental issues for a correct analysis of the problem, including a review of the available information on the species' behavioral, biological and ecological features. The message is clear: we should stop further irreversible biodiversity losses due to cat predation, and we have the proper knowledge to deal with it. The book represents an optimal guidance tool for all those who are interested in a sound understanding of the issue, whether the focus be on cats or the wide range of little animals they prey upon, or both.

Cats are generalist predators that once introduced to the wild (or simply allowed to roam outdoor), can prey on a variety of native species, which may suffer severe population declines and even face extinction. On this regard, it makes no difference whether the cats are owned (in which case their impact might be even more subtle, because often unnoticed), stray or feral: as stated by George F. Will (American journalist, and author) The phrase "domestic cat" is an oxymoron. The result is that at the global level, cats are considered responsible for at least 14% of bird, mammal and reptile extinctions and are the principal threat to almost 8% of critically endangered birds, mammals and reptiles. The figures are impressive. In continental Australia and its offshore islands there are some 15-23 million feral cats which are estimated to eat about 75 million native mammals, reptiles, birds and even insects a night, more than 20 billion every year (see here for details). These astonishing figures are very similar to the results of a study made in the US. Also in Britain, estimates derived from scaling up local studies to the national level show that cats kill 25–29 million birds per year. It is easy to imagine how detrimental this species can be, considering that cats have been introduced to about 179,000 islands worldwide. According to another recent study, the impacts of feral cats is known from at least 120 different islands on at least 175 different species of vertebrates (25 reptiles, 123 birds, and 27 mammals), many of which are listed on the IUCN Red List. For example, in the Canary Islands, four species (one endemic bird — the Fuerteventura stonechat — and three endemic giant lizards) out of a total of 68 species (including invertebrates) identified as preys are considered threatened (for a review on the impact of cats and other invasive alien species, see the EEA technical report No 16/2012 discussed here). 

Stray cat in Rome © Photo: Riccardo Scalera

Cats are predators and are not to be blamed for this, but people and particularly cat owners could do more to prevent all this to happen. Prevention would be the most effective and easy option to ensure a reduced predation of cats on small mammals and birds (not to consider reptiles and amphibians, and a number of invertebrates) and raising awareness  should be a fundamental step in any nature conservation campaign. Otherwise, there is no doubt that the more effective way to prevent exacting such a heavy toll on native wildlife would be the implementation of policies to prevent the establishment of feral cats and their colonies in (semi)natural environments (see for example the Australian 2008 threat abatement plan predation by feral cats). This could save millions, if not billions, of birds and other animals, yet for many people might inevitably sound inconceivable. For those pet lovers who consider cats as family members, it may be difficult to believe that their companion pets may turn into such harmful threat to biodiversity. In fact, cat owners should make a special effort to acknowledge the problem and ensure keeping their pets indoors. Whenever this is not feasible, an alternative partial solution would be to fit cats with quick-release collars equipped with a bell or other deterrents (like bibs), which may significantly reduce predation rates on small mammals and birds (although cats can learn to silently stalk their prey anyway). 

The implementation of effective control measures on feral cats can be a challenging task. First of all, to maintain the necessary political/public support and funding, it is pivotal to consider humane, socially acceptable options, including ways to avoid or minimize methods that cause animal suffering or affect domestic cats, particularly for the inherent problems associated with the opposition of citizens and animal welfare groups. Disregarding the importance of these aspects might lead to the failure of the operations. In addition, some drawbacks have been reported in situations where cats have been removed without taking into proper account the presence of other introduced species (such as rabbits, rats or mice). The risk is that some problems linked to hyperpredation and predator release effect may create trophic cascades leading to rapid, landscape-wide ecosystem changes. It was the case of the removal of cats on the sub-Antarctic Macquarie Island, which resulted in a significant increase in rabbit abundance (formerly reduced by cat predation), which in turn led to substantial local- and landscape-scale changes in vegetation. Although this trophic cascade was predictable given the history of rabbit impacts via grazing on both this and other islands and was not entirely unexpected, its extent was not fully anticipated. This episode (see here for details) shows the importance of carefully assessing the risks of management interventions and planning for their indirect effects.

LIFE confirms financial support to alien species policy in Europe

On 18 June 2014 a new LIFE call has been launched, and invasive alien species (IAS) continue to be a priority issue for funding within the European Union (see previous post on the 2013 call here). The new LIFE Regulation, which establishes the EU financial Programme for the Environment and Climate Action, with a total budget set at 3.4 billion euro for the funding period 2014–2020, has been throughly revised. For example, the programme is now subdivided in the two sub-programmes Environment and Climate Action. Besides, to ensures both the necessary flexibility to achieve the LIFE Programme targets and objectives and the necessary stability for potential applicants to plan, prepare and submit proposals, a Multiannual Work Programme for 2014-17 has been adopted. 

LIFE aims at contributing to the achievement of the objectives and targets of the Europe 2020 Strategy, the 7th Union Environmental Action Programme and other relevant EU environment and climate strategies and plans. In this context, and as reported more in detail below, IAS are explicitly mentioned in the list of project topics implementing the environmental policy priorities under the three priority areas covered within the new "Environment" strand: environment and resource efficiency; nature and biodiversity; and environmental governance and information.  It is also worth remarking that now the newly revised programme – which is open to the participation of third countries and activities outside the EU - consists of a number of new categories of projects, including preparatory projects, integrated projects, technical assistance projects, capacity building projects. The project topics set in the multi-annual work programme refer to "traditional" projects in the Environment sub-programme. "Traditional" projects are indeed very similar to the old LIFE+ Nature, Biodiversity, Environment and Information projects, e.g. focusing on best practice, demonstration, pilot, and information projects. 

More in detail, within the  priority area “Nature and Biodiversity” the project topics which are given priority to contribute to Target 1 of the Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 to fully implement the Birds and Habitats Directives, thus under the Thematic priorities for Nature, include:

Projects targeting invasive alien species, where these are likely to deteriorate the conservation status of species (including birds) or habitat types of Community Interest in support of the Natura 2000 network 

Priority is also given to project topics focus on the implementation of Targets 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, thus under the Thematic priorities for Biodiversity, such as:

Projects implementing actions targeting Invasive Alien Species (under Target 5 of the Biodiversity Strategy or in view of contributing to reaching the level of protection set out in descriptor 2 — Non-indigenous species of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (1)) through actions testing and applying approaches aimed at:(a) preventing the introduction of invasive alien species, in particular by tackling pathways of unintentional introduction,(b) establishing an early warning and rapid response system, and(c) eradicating or controlling established invasive alien species on an appropriate spatial scale.

These projects shall address with their actions the three steps (prevention; early warning and rapid response; eradication/control) in a comprehensive framework, or, where one of the steps has already been addressed, their actions shall at least be clearly situated in a broader framework that links all three steps. They should be set up to improve existing — or introduce new — technical, administrative or legal frameworks on the relevant level; they should aim at preventing the broader establishment of IAS within the EU.

Finally, the project topics listed under the priority area "Environmental Governance and Information", include:

National and transnational awareness raising campaigns on invasive alien species (IAS) targeting the general public and key stakeholders including policy makers, businesses, and local, regional or national authorities.

LIFE projects focusing on IAS across the years (source: EEA report no.15/2012)

The experience of the last 20 years has shown that LIFE has been crucial to ensure the successful implementation of several activities focusing on IAS management and prevention, including new ways to address the wider IAS challenge (see "LIFE and alien species" report here). In fact, as shown in a recent report on biodiversity indicators (EEA report no.15/2012), both the number of LIFE projects funded and the relevant cost estimates have been markedly positive across the years. The relevant data have been used for the development of a set of response indicators, whose role should be primarily to track the measures being implemented to mitigate pressures and improve the state of biodiversity.  This trend has been interpreted as reflecting an increasing awareness of the IAS problem among EU institutions, wildlife managers, scientific institutions, and citizens, but could also indicate that within the EU, the problem with IAS is increasing.  

Thus, in the light of the recent developments regarding the EU regulation on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of IAS, the new call and the overall novelties introduced within the new LIFE Regulation, are very welcome. In fact the new EU regulation on IAS seeks to address the problem in a comprehensive manner so as to protect native biodiversity and ecosystem services, as well as to minimize and mitigate the human health or economic impacts that these species can have. The IAS legislation now needs only to be formally approved by the Council of Ministers (see details here), and there is a clear need of dedicated financial resources for the implementation of the foreseen types of provision focusing on prevention, early warning and rapid response, and management.

For the 2014 call 132,8 million euro out of a total budget of 404,6 million euro are for nature and biodiversity only, including related governance and information. The deadline for submitting proposals is 16 October 2014. You can find further information, application forms and all official guidance documents here.

Changing soundscapes. The spread of parakeets in Europe

This is going to be another “noisy spring”. The melodious notes of native black birds, wrens and robins are being progressively replaced in many European towns by the frequent loud screeching calls of monk parakeets and rose ringed parakeets. The genuine “soundscape” of European towns is indeed rapidly changing, replaced by the exotic calls of parakeets, which are becoming a familiar sound in many European cities, particularly in urban areas and parklands. Roosting sites are sometimes spectacular, as they may often contain several hundred birds attracted from a wide area to just a few trees. Nevertheless the screeching calls of parakeets in Europe, rather than being considered a mere novel fascinating thing, should remind us of the actual and potential threats they represent. In the old continent parakeets are not native species, as they have created breeding colonies only recently, further to intentional releases or accidental escapes of animals traded at least since the 60's as cage birds. Like many other invasive alien species, their presence can be detrimental to the environment and human welfare.

Monk parakeet (Myiopsitta monachus) in a cage
© Photo: Riccardo Scalera

Take for example the rose-ringed parakeets. This native to the African continent south of the Sahara and to south Asia, is now the most widely introduced parrot in the world (including at least 12 countries in Europe). In Europe, besides being a clear noise nuisance as already considered in some residential areas, can have a major impact on biodiversity, agriculture and even health. In fact rose-ringed parakeets may have detrimental effects on native birds with which they may compete, particularly in those habitats where the number of cavities as breeding sites is a limiting factor regulating population densities of cavity-nesters (e.g. for species like Eurasian nuthatch,  kestrel, stock dove, western jackdaw and common starling). 

In Europe most rose-ringed parakeet populations were initially introduced in urban environments, thus the impact on agriculture has been historically limited. However, they are now extending their range into rural environments, thus increasing the potential to become agricultural pests. Although the reports of parakeet damage to agriculture are still few, there is clear evidence of significant damage to crops as well. For example, in the United Kingdom rose-ringed parakeets damage buds and blossoms of various trees and shrubs. For this reason conflicts are known with fruit growers that experienced damage to apple, pear, cherries and plums. In addition, this parakeet has been reported to have damaged vineyards by reducing the expected wine production. Also in Australia, where the species is not native, rose-ringed parakeets are known to cause severe damage to plantations by stripping the bark from young stems and killing the affected trees, thus locally changing the arboreal composition. On the other hand, in at least part of its native range this species is considered one of the most destructive bird pests for agriculture. In India and Pakistan, for example, there are extensive reports of crop damage. 

Rose-ringed parakeet eating plums in Versailles
(Psittacula krameri)  © Photo: Riccardo Scalera

Rose-ringed parakeets are also possible vectors for diseases, like Newcastle's disease and cryptosporidium, which could be harmful to poultry and might also have an impact on that industry. Moreover, they could affect humans in the case of psittacosis. In any case, the potential for the parakeets to become serious pests in the future has been highlighted, in fact there is concern that farming practices that adapt to global climate change and a warmer Europe will facilitate the continued expansion of parakeet populations. As a consequence, given the detrimental impacts of parakeets occurring outside their natural range, it would be useful to monitor existing wild and captive populations, and to improve legislation to prevent deliberate introductions and escapes. Moreover, depending on the risks posed, population control or eradication may be considered necessary to limit the spread of the species and the potential for further damage. But this might be not very popular. The experience with the monk parakeet control in London (described here) is a good example of the challenges and opportunities of this option in Europe, with a special focus on the social dimension of the problem represented by this South American parakeet.

A dedicated EU project – ParrotNet - is just being launched with the aim to create a European network focusing on the impacts, drivers and monitoring of invasive parrots in Europe, and promoting the understanding of relevant invasion dynamics and risks to agriculture and society. ParrotNet is a COST Action, led by the University of Kent, UK, and will provide funding for a 4-year research network (for further information see here). The project, comprising currently 14 European countries, will help to (i) better understand why some species such as parakeets are highly successful invaders, (ii) harmonise methodologies to predict agricultural, economic, societal and ecological impacts across Europe, and the means to mitigate them, (iii) create a virtual European Monitoring Centre for all invasive parrot species, and (iv) transfer results to policy and society.  This is a key attempt to prevent that Carson's prophesy of a “silent spring” will be replaced in the near future by a more and more insidious “noisy spring”.

A silent invasion threatening European cities

The story of a rabbit population deep burrowing in a graveyard area, loosening the roots of trees, making tombstones fall, and horrifying people, may look like the plot of an old B horror movie. Yet, this is what the experts reported about the situation in Helsinki, where in 1985 rabbits established a feral population descended from pets dumped in the wild. Outside their natural range (the rabbit is native to the southern Iberian Peninsula), this species is considered as a key driver of ecosystem change, as it can cause extensive erosion of soils by overgrazing and burrowing which in turn can cause significant impact on the composition and local abundance of native wildlife. The impacts caused by this species can be very severe, also causing terms of economic losses. For example, until now the estimated economic impact of rabbit in Helsinki exceeds € 2 million. 

Feral rabbit © Photo: Riccardo Scalera

The rabbit is only one of the many alien species introduced in urban environments and whose impact is discussed in the new IUCN report “Invasive alien species: the urban dimension”. The IUCN report includes 26 case studies aimed at providing insights on problems, challenges, actions, approaches, human and financial resources, and lessons learnt, for a selection of species and countries. In fact the report was produced and released as a key output of the conference “Invasive alien species: the urban dimension” which will take place on 5 September at IUCN Headquarters, Switzerland. The objective of the conference is to emphasize the role of municipalities in the management of invasive alien species in urban environments, and more importantly, to highlight the importance of their contribution to the implementation of the new EU legislation for invasive alien species, which should finally be released in early September 2013. For more details and updated information on the conference and the upcoming EU legislation see here.

As shown by the many contributions published in the new IUCN report, urban environments – often characterised by high levels of disturbance, high intensity of transport, and high environmental heterogeneity - have usually played a crucial role in biological invasions. This is also due to the fact that within urban environments a number of potential entry points and pathways concentrate, such as botanical gardens and zoos, along with nurseries and private gardens. Besides, urban areas are privileged centres for some of the most prominent pathways and vectors, including trade of pets, ornamental plants, etc. which can increase the propagule pressure that facilitates the invasion processes. Not surprisingly, many studies have demonstrated that cities are hotspots of invasions, particularly for plants. Human settlements are often the point of origin of many invasive species, that from these areas then spread into adjacent landscapes along transport corridors such as railways, waterways and roads, in many cases eventually arriving to invade natural areas.

Drawing © Riccardo Scalera

It is clear that urban environments can play a much wider and important role in addressing the risks of biological invasions, e.g. for making citizens aware of the importance of biodiversity, and promoting the implementation of dedicated actions among the competent administrations. For example, many institutions usually based in towns, such as botanical gardens, zoos, aquaria, university departments, natural history museums, conservation agencies and institutions, can be key players in global conservation programmes, by and attracting and leveraging hundreds of millions citizens, thus contributing to public outreach and raising awareness. Many such institutions might offer unique opportunities for dedicated environmental education programmes, thus could contribute significantly to raising awareness to prevent the introduction of new invasive alien species (e.g. through specific information activities targeting the general public or specific stakeholders). Finally, as shown by the reported case study, local administrations can be players of fundamental importance for the successful implementation of conservation related activities, i.e. from research projects to eradication/control initiatives. 

Alarm for invasive hornet rapidly expanding European range

It was easy to predict the arrive of the Asian hornet in Italy. This invasive alien species native to South-East Asia, was recorded in Europe for the first time in France in 2004, where it was probably introduced accidentally through the horticultural trade. It spread very rapidly across south-western France (at around 100 km per year), and soon reached Spain, Portugal and Belgium. At the time the EEA report on invasive alien species impact was published (December 2012) it was considered likely to arrive soon also in Italy and Great Britain. In fact the news of the arrive of this hornet in Italy was circulated in May 2013, although the new record of the species originates from monitoring activities carried out already in November 2012 (see press release of the University of Turin). This shows that an effective early warning and rapid response system for alien species in Europe is urgently needed, so as to prevent further impacts related to biological invasions.

The Asian hornet © Photo courtesy of Quentin Rome

Invasion risk modelling already suggested that the Asian hornet - Vespa velutina or yellow-legged hornet to be more precise - could spread over a large part of Europe (see article published on Aliens no.31). And there are good reasons to be concerned about the spread of this “giant wasp”. With a body length of 2-3 cm Vespa velutina is in fact a social wasp slightly smaller than the native European hornet Vespa crabro. The head is black with an orange-yellow face. The body is dark brown or black velvety, bordered with a fine yellow band and a single abdominal segment almost entirely yellowy-orange, which makes it difficult to confuse with any other species.

The Asian hornet and its nest © Photo courtesy of Quentin Rome

The Asian hornet is mainly a predator of social wasps and bees, and like the European hornet, it also consumes a wide variety of other insect preys. Honeybees are among the hornet’s main preys, so the Asian hornet is expected to have an economic impact on beekeeping activities. In fact, as a highly effective predator, the new hornet may represent an additional component to the decline of honey bee populations in Europe and its big colonies and diet spectrum suggest that it could have a noticeable impact on biodiversity, including many wild pollinators and other beneficial insects. Otherwise, this species is no more dangerous for humans than the European hornet as in general it is not aggressive. However, its large size, painful sting and noisy flight make it a very frightening insect (and stings may potentially cause life threatening allergic reactions). In general, they will not attack as long as the colonies remain undisturbed, so it is necessary to avoid getting close to their very large nests, which are from 50 to 80 cm in diameter, and might be found in tall trees in urban and rural areas, including garages, sheds, and sometime in holes in walls or in the ground.

The life-cycle of this social insect is very efficient: each colony, initiated by a single individual, can produce several thousands of workers, plus hundreds of males and new founders able to mate and subsequently produce new colonies. Nevertheless research to develop an effective control method for Asian hornets is still in progress. You can find additional information about the species and the relevant management options, as well as the contact details for expert assistance on this link.

Marine mammals on their way to new seas

White whales and grey seals have found a new home in the Black sea. In fact one of the largest organism introduced by humans  outside its natural range is the beluga. This beautiful marine mammal, not to be confused with the homonymous European sturgeon, is also known as white whale (the word beluga derives from white, in Russian). It should be remarked that the name is a bit misleading, as the beluga is a toothed cetacean and as such is rather a dolphin than a whale. Like other dolphins, belugas have been introduced in the Black Sea as a consequence of escapes and/or releases from coastal dolphinaria and oceanaria (where animals are kept in near-shore open-air pens which do not adequately prevent escapes of captive animals into the sea - see also a previous article here). The story of the beluga whale in the Black Sea started in the early 1990s, when one individual captured in Sakhalin Bay, Russia, was transferred to Crimea, Ukraine, where it was immediately released, or escaped, into the sea (actually, it was recaptured once, and then soon after released/escaped again). Another beluga was indeed released (or escaped) at the same time and place, and was also observed and reported in the wild several times. The two beluga whales were often observed in the wild near the Turkish, Romanian, Bulgarian and Ukrainian coasts, but their current status is unknown (more details on Birkun 2002; Reeves & Notarbartolo di Sciara 2006).

Interestingly the list of marine mammals spontaneously released in the Black Sea includes also other species, like the grey seal, the northern fur seal, the Steller sea lion, the harbour seal, the Caspian seal and, possibly, some other pinnipeds. Such cases of escape/release have been known in the Black Sea since the early 1980s, but occurred also in other regions. For example, the escape of a sea lion from an aquarium to the wild is also known in the Canary Islands. Otherwise three sea lions escaped from the Prague zoo after the severe flood of 2002, they were all recaptured within a few days, but one of them managed to roam for hundreds of kilometers along the Elbe river from Prague to Dresden, before being recaptured.

Harbour seals at Copenhagen zoo ©  Photo: Vibe Kjaedegaard

The number of animals escaped and/or released in the Black Sea is unknown (but is likely around a few tens), and also the actual fate and impact of the relevant species is uncertain. It is likely that the marine mammals escaped from dolphinaria and similar facilities did never lead to established populations, however it is known that species may have a very long lag phase before getting naturalised, or showing any impact. Of course this does not mean that in the meantime they do not affect the hosting ecosystem. This is especially true in the case of long-living organisms, in which case also a single animal can have a major impact on the ecosystem. For example there is some concern that they could be a source of infections circulating in dolphinaria. In any case such introductions show that the extent of the problem can be unexpectedly large, both in terms of size of animals moved from place to place, and in terms of size of ecosystem affected.

On the other hand, a recent paper by Gladilina & colleagues (2013) highlighted some positive aspect related to the introduction of an exotic grey seal in the Black Sea. The presence of this North Atlantic species has been regularly recorded in the north-east Black Sea since 2001. Its introduction is considered the consequence of an escape from captivity. Surprisingly, no major conflicts have been recorded with fisheries, as fishermen seem to tolerate the presence of this mammal despite the little damage to fishing gears. In any case, the seal seems perfectly adapted to the new environment. This led Gladilina and colleagues to assume that the long term survival of the grey seal in the Black Sea might indicate the possibility of successful re-colonization of the area by monk seals, the only extant aboriginal pinniped in the Black Sea, disappeared at the end of the 20th Century. Hopefully this will be compatible with the growing "novel" community of marine mammals.

Always look on the bright side of LIFE!

Up to € 278 million are available to EU Member States for projects under the seventh LIFE+ call for proposals recently published, and also this year invasive alien species (IAS) are explicitly mentioned within the “Indicative list of themes for LIFE+ Nature and Biodiversity projects”. This means that biological invasions are one of the themes for which the European Commission (EC) would welcome receiving proposals to be co-financed. In fact, two headings are particularly suitable for addressing the problems of IAS: Nature and Biodiversity (NAT) and Information and Communication (INF). For example, according to the NAT application brochure:

 Within the classic LIFE+ Nature projects most of the priorities listed in the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 may be effectively addressed: e.g. invasive alien species through control and eradication in and around Natura 2000 sites

The LIFE brochure on IAS

Under the NAT heading, two different strands exist, which are characterized by different requirements and approaches. Under the LIFE+ Nature strand, it is possible to submit projects for the control and eradication of IAS affecting either the Natura 2000 network or species covered by the Habitats and Birds Directives. Site-related conservation measures for combating IAS can be planned both inside Natura 2000 sites (insofar as they are not recurring actions and they directly benefit the species/habitats targeted by the project) and outside Natura 2000 sites. In the latter case, such measures should be carried out  on strategic spots near or adjacent to a Natura 2000 site to improve the conservation status of the species/habitats target, and to limit or prevent damage within the site. In case of species-related conservation actions for combating IAS (that are not site-related), they can be eligible insofar as they directly benefit the species of the Birds and/or Habitats Directives targeted by the project. Some special requirements must be considered in such a case. For example, applicants must provide guarantees and commitments that the investments made will be sustained in the long-term. The explanatory notes of pag.53 of the application brochure provide some additional indications on the requirements for the range of actions that can be envisaged, e.g. prevention of introductions through the prioritisation and management of pathways, establishment of early warning and rapid eradication system, and management of established IAS. The important is to show solid scientific evidence regarding the added value of the foreseen actions for the Natura 2000 sites/network, and to include an awareness raising component, particularly towards stakeholders involved in the introduction of IAS.

In case of projects aiming at tackling IAS not necessarily in respect to the Natura 2000 network, it is possible to consider submit proposals under the LIFE+ Biodiversity strand, in which case they must have a clear innovative/demonstrative character. For this particular strand, the application brochure welcomes 

projects addressing the threats posed by IAS (1) by preventing the introduction of invasive alien species, in particular by tackling pathways of unintentional introduction, (2) by establishing an early warning and rapid response system and (3) by eradicating or controlling established invasive alien species (in line with the dedicated legislative instrument which is currently under preparation, see here). 

Also in this case, the explanatory notes of pag.57 of the application brochure provide some useful clarification. In fact, also such proposals should include an awareness raising component, in particular towards stakeholders involved in the potential introduction of IAS, and should have measurable biodiversity benefits as one of their main outcomes. Besides, the foreseen actions should be targeted towards the achievement of the 2020 Biodiversity Strategy.

It is also possible to present projects dealing with the IAS issue within the INF heading. In relation to this Information and Communication strand, it is worth mentioning that the LIFE+ programme has developed a logical framework useful to design an effective communication campaign, likely to achieve some measurable impact on the environmental problem targeted (e.g. the impact of IAS) and on the level of awareness (about IAS and their threat), by addressing a specific target audience and gaining the support of specific stakeholders, and by monitoring such impact through specific indicators. More details are included in the LIFE+ INF 2013 Application Guide.

The invasion of the allergenic ragweed in Europe

The common ragweed is one of the most pollen-allergenic plants and as such represents a serious health risk for humans. Its pollen is a potent trigger of hay fever, rhinoconjunctivitis, and may often cause severe asthma-like symptoms. In Europe the incidence of ragweed allergy ranges widely from 2-50% of the allergic population (roughly ¼ of the European population shows general allergic rhinitis). The impact of common ragweed on human health – affecting mostly children and urban populations (but also horses, dogs and cats) - is not restricted to areas invaded by the plant. In fact, due to transport of ragweed pollen by air masses, allergy reactions are recorded in distances of 100s of km from the site where the plant is situated. Besides, the common ragweed also contains volatile oils that may cause skin irritation and hypersensitivity dermatitis. The associated economic costs are estimated to be around 4.5 billions of euro per year. In addition to this, the ragweed can also have an harmful impact on other sectors, such as agriculture (depending on infestation levels and success of control, yield losses of over 50% are reported). 

A synthetic and systematic review of all available information on the current extent of ragweed infestation in Europe has just been published by the EU within the new comprehensive report “Assessing and controlling the spread and the effects of common ragweed in Europe”.  The study, carried out by an international team of experts led by the Natural Environment Research Council (UK), includes an economic, social and environmental quantification of direct and indirect harmful effects in all sectors, as well as an assessment of measures to control ragweed spread and introduction (now and in future climates). 

Common ragweed (male flowers) ©  Photo: Daniela Bouvet

The common ragweed is actually a native to North America, which has colonised several countries around the world – e.g. Europe, as well as parts of Australia, China, Japan, South America and Taiwan – mostly as a contaminant of agricultural products (including the grain mixtures used as food for birds), machinery or construction materials. In Europe, where it was first introduced in France and Germany in the 1860s, started its spread in the entire region some 20-25 years ago. The result is that large populations of ragweed are now present in the old continent, particularly in Croatia, France, Hungary and Italy, but the distribution range is still expanding as a consequence of changing climate and perhaps adaptation to local climate. Moreover, changes in agricultural land use with large-scale set-aside and abandonment practices, along with an increase of the construction sites and wasteland, are expected to provide new suitable habitats for ragweed. 

The key successful features of this annual herbaceous plant - which can reach a height of over 2 m - are its great adaptability to hostile habitats, its strong ability for re-growth after mowing, and the capability of seeds to remain viable for up to 35 years in soil seed banks. It is most frequently associated with agriculture and is found in cultivated fields (mainly maize, sunflower, leguminous plants) and along irrigation canals. This typical pioneer species is also associated with frequent and extensive disturbance regimes resulting from other human activities (e.g. riverbanks, roadsides, railways, gravel pits, construction sites, waste sites, urban areas, building yards, private gardens and parks).

Common ragweed (leaves) ©  Photo: Daniela Bouvet

The common ragweed is now so widespread in Europe that eradication at this stage of the invasion is no longer feasible. However, it is possible to keep the ragweed under control by every year eliminating emerging plants as far as possible, and preventing or reducing the spread of seeds from infested to non-infested sites. So far, no successful biological control methods have been developed, thus the most effective management measures to control the propagation of this plant are clipping/mowing, uprooting, ploughing, mulching and chemical treatment. Preventive measures include initiatives to limit unintentional spread of ragweed seeds by developing and implementing best practices. In this context, a well‐targeted intensive awareness raising campaign is a key to success of both prevention and control strategies (e.g. by reporting observations and making early detection possible). In fact, the EU study has shown some promising future scenario: while in 20 years time the overall impact is expected to slightly increase (about 3%), the implementation of sound management strategies could help reducing such impact by approximately 50%.

What's wrong with alien species in Europe?

Invasive alien species are known to have a high impact on European biodiversity, as well as on human activities and health, and their sound management offers one of the few concrete examples of effective measures able to reduce biodiversity loss. Nevertheless, due to a lack of information and awareness, the issue of IAS and their impact has been often underestimated and adequate prevention and mitigation measures are thus lacking. To overcome such problems, also in support of the new coming EU legislation on invasive alien species (IAS), the European Environment Agency (EEA) has published two reports focusing on IAS impact and relevant indicators:

• The impacts of invasive alien species in Europe
• Invasive alien species indicators in Europe - a review of Streamlining European Biodiversity (SEBI) Indicator 10

Both reports have been realised by a multinational team of experts in collaboration with the IUCN/SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG), in the context of the continued support provided to the European Commission in its efforts to develop an EU legislative instrument to deal with the problem of biological invasions.

The report on “The impacts of invasive alien species in Europe” includes a description of the multifaceted impact of 28 alien species selected among those known to cause significant harm to biological diversity, socioeconomic values and human health in Europe. In fact, in recent times the true extent of the pervasive threat posed by IAS in both terms of ecological and socio-economic impacts has become much better understood. Scientific researches focusing on the impact of IAS on the environment and human wellbeing have been recently published, including many detailed technical reports made ad hoc for the European Commission.

The report is organised on the basis of the different types of impact by IAS which are gathered together in 14 categories. Such categories include competition, predation and transmission of diseases between alien and native species, as well as the various ecosystem services affected. Indeed some IAS might have an impact on a specific ecosystem service, or may affect multiple ones. There are also IAS acting as vector of disease and affecting human health, as well as IAS making extensive damage to infrastructures, landscape, and agriculture. The species selected as example encompass a diverse range of groups that threaten European freshwater, brackish water, marine and terrestrial environments. Such species have been selected because of the significant harm they pose to biological diversity, but given the extent of the problem it is clear that the both lists of species and impacts are not intended to be comprehensive and exhaustive, but only representative of a very complex situation.

Rose-ringed parakeet in Versailles © Photo: Riccardo Scalera

Also the report “Invasive alien species indicators in Europe - a review of Streamlining European Biodiversity (SEBI) Indicator 10” by showing patterns and trends of biological invasions, aims at contributing to raising public awareness of the biological, ecological and socio-economic impacts of IAS. This report was commissioned by the EEA to support the “Streamlining European 2010 Biodiversity Indicators” (SEBI 2010) process, and particularly to revisit and further develop the indicator “Invasive alien species in Europe”. The aim was to critically review and improve this indicator, and propose an updated methodology. Further, options for methodologies of new indicators, which monitor IAS over time across Europe, are discussed. Particular attention is given to closely linking the proposed indicators to the recent biodiversity policy goals and developments. In fact  since indicators reflect trends in the state of the environment and monitor the progress made in achieving environmental policy targets, they have become indispensable to policy-makers. Moreover, indicators enable and promote information exchange regarding the issue, thus communication is their main function. 

Thus, both reports should contribute to support raising awareness and communicating the impact of IAS to all stakeholders as well as the general public by reporting the best scientific knowledge on the issue. Besides, the biodiversity strategy needs to be aligned to the biodiversity knowledge base to underpin policy with up-to-date scientific data and information. The new EEA reports are thus aimed at raising awareness and informing on the environmental and socioeconomic impact of IAS, not only all stakeholders and the general public but also decision makers and policy makers. In this context the report is fully in line with the EEA's mandate “To help the Community and member countries make informed decisions about improving the environment”.

A new code for preventing animal escapes from zoos

Himalayan porcupines and Egyptian fruit bats do not belong to the European fauna, yet a few years ago they were well established in the wild, respectively in Devon (UK) and in the Canary islands. Wildlife managers decided to remove them to mitigate their impact on the new environment. Nevertheless, the problem could be easily prevented, because the introduction of the two species was probably a consequence of zoo escapes.

Specific and comprehensive analysis regarding invasive alien species (IAS) originated by escapes and/or releases from zoological gardens and aquaria in Europe are lacking, but there are evidences of some IAS populations still thriving and clearly originating from such pathways (even though in terms of relative risk, zoos and aquaria have a limited responsibility compared to other pathways i.e. pet trade, hunting, horticulture, etc.). A famous case is the one of the ruddy duck, a species of North American origin, which represents a major threat to the European white-headed duck, and is now being targeted by costly management programs. Another famous “escape” is the one of the tropical alga Caulerpa taxifolia unintentionally introduced from a public aquarium into the Mediterranean Sea. There is also an episode regarding the transmission of disease, like in the case of the deadly amphibian fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd) accidentally introduced within the endangered population of the Mallorcan midwife toad (although before Bd was identified as a pathogen, and relevant screening methods were established). Surprisingly, there are also several records of marine mammals (including even beluga whales and sea lions) introduced from coastal dolphinaria and oceanaria, particularly in the Black Sea.

In Poland the Canada goose was unintentionally introduced also through escapes from a local zoo. Photo © Vibe Kjaedegaard

The identification of pathways and the implementation of best practices and voluntary measures to prevent the threats posed by IAS are currently recognised as critical issues in relation to the European policy on IAS. On the other hand, modern zoos are privileged allies of conservationists for the fundamental role they play on biodiversity conservation programs and related awareness raising activities (it is estimated that over 140 million people visit European zoos every year). For this reason, the Bern Convention and the Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG) of the IUCN, in collaboration with the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA) have developed the European Code of Conduct for Zoological Gardens and Aquaria on Invasive Alien Species.

The publication in English (link updated on 27/11/2016)

The objective of this document is to provide guidance to zoological gardens and aquaria to strengthen their role for biodiversity conservation in Europe, by contributing to mitigate the problems related to the spread of IAS. This should be done through the following measures:

• Prevent the introduction and spread of IAS and related pathogens and diseases;
• Promote the need to raise awareness on biological invasions;
• Support IAS related research projects and other relevant conservation initiatives.

In line with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) targets for 2020, as well as the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020, the code includes five main recommendations:

1. Adopt effective preventative measures to avoid unintentional introduction and spread of IAS;
2. Take into account the risks of IAS introductions in all wildlife and habitat management projects;
3. Proactively engage in awareness raising and outreach activities focusing on IAS and their impacts;
4. Adopt best practices for supporting early warning and rapid response system for IAS;
5. Be aware of all relevant regulations concerning zoological gardens and aquaria and IAS

The code - which includes a description of measure to implement the five recommendations above - has been formally approved at the last Standing Committee meeting of the Bern Convention on 30 November 2012. At the same meeting, with the aim of ensuring responsible and proactive policies and applying these in a coherent manner across Europe, the Standing Committee praised the innovative approach of such voluntary instrument, and adopted the Recommendation No.161 (2012). The aim is to invite all Bern Convention parties to implement the code, by drawing up their own national codes of conduct based on the European version, and by collaborating with zoological gardens and aquaria in implementing good practices aimed at preventing the spread of invasive alien species.

Another major achievement of the new code has been the formal acknowledgement received by the recent 11th Conference of the Parties of the CBD held at Hyderabad (India, 8-19 October 2012) which in its Decision XI/28. Invasive alien species:

“welcomes the development of voluntary codes of conduct on these separate pathways, such as the “Code of conduct on zoological gardens and aquaria and invasive species” developed by the Bern Convention, the IUCN Invasive Species Specialist Group and the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria, and requests the Executive Secretary to compile information and to work with experts to avoid and/or minimize the risks particular to these separate pathways”

Shutting the stable door before the horse bolts.
Drawing © Riccardo Scalera