In December 2013, the European Union (EU) enacted the reformed Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for 2014–2020, allocating almost 40% of the EU's budget and influencing management of half of its terrestrial area. Many EU politicians are announcing the new CAP as “greener,” but the new environmental prescriptions are so diluted that they are unlikely to benefit biodiversity. Individual Member States (MSs), however, can still use flexibility granted by the new CAP to design national plans to protect farmland habitats and species and to ensure long-term provision of ecosystem services

No abstract

No abstract

Risk assessment tools for listing invasive alien species need to incorporate all available evidence and expertise. Beyond the wealth of protocols developed to date, we argue that the current way of performing risk analysis has several shortcomings. In particular, lack of data on ecological impacts, transparency and repeatability of assessments as well as the incorporation of uncertainty should all be explicitly considered. We recommend improved quality control of risk assessments through formalized peer review with clear feedback between assessors and reviewers.Alternatively, a consensus building process can be applied to better capture opinions of different experts, thereby maximizing the evidential basis. Elaborating on manageability of invasive species is further needed to fully answer all risk analysis requirements. Tackling the issue of invasive species urges better handling of the acquired information on risk and the exploration of improved methods for decision making on biodiversity management. This is crucial for efficient conservation resource allocation and uptake by stakeholders and the public.

The European Union's (EU) new legislation concerning Invasive Alien Species (IAS) is a ground-breaking and commendable attempt to set a common standard for combating IAS across political jurisdictions at a multinational scale. However, the regulation, underpinned by a list of IAS of Union concern, affords Member States a degree of operational flexibility and its successful implementation will be dictated by appropriate national enforcement and resource use. In evaluating this EU legislation, we provide pragmatic recommendations based upon a geo-political analysis of the pan-European capabilities to combat IAS and discuss measures to avoid the risk that the regulation will promote a piecemeal response by stakeholders instead of a truly collaborative effort. We highlight a major deficit in the funding mechanisms to support a comprehensive implementation of the legislation and stress the importance of consultation with the broader scientific community, including with key stakeholders, businesses and the general public. Our recommendations will create incentives for industries, raise awareness among citizens and stakeholders, and help establish a social norm for the EU and further afield. The legislation offers a collaborative Europe the chance to demonstrate its commitment to tackling the problems of IAS and to achieve a successful conservation breakthrough of international importance.