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

Essl, Franz; Latombe, Guillaume; Lenzner, Bernd; Pagad, Shyama; Seebens, Hanno; Smith, Kevin G.; Wilson, John R.; Genovesi, Piero

doi:10.3897/neobiota.62.53972

Cited by 65 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 77 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…and management on islands published by IUCN and the European Union Regulation on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species. More recently, EICAT has been adopted as an IUCN standard (IUCN 2020) and is anticipated to play an important role in future biodiversity targets and as part of an indicator to track impact (Essl et al 2020;GEO BON 2015;Latombe et al 2017). By contrast, we found little evidence that the Unified Framework (the most cited framework investigated here) has been used in policy and management.…”

Section: Influence On Policy and Managementmentioning

confidence: 60%

Is invasion science moving towards agreed standards? The influence of selected frameworks

Wilson¹,

Datta²,

Hirsch³

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The need to understand and manage biological invasions has driven the development of frameworks to circumscribe, classify, and elucidate aspects of the phenomenon. But how influential have these frameworks really been? To test this, we evaluated the impact of a pathway classification framework, a framework focussing on the introduction-naturalisation-invasion continuum, and two papers that outline an impact classification framework. We analysed how these framework papers are cited and by whom, conducted a survey to determine why people have cited the frameworks, and explored the degree to which the frameworks are implemented. The four papers outlining these frameworks are amongst the most-cited in their respective journals, are highly regarded in the field, and are already seen as citation classics (although citations are overwhelmingly within the field of invasion science). The number of citations to the frameworks has increased over time, and, while a significant proportion of these are self-citations (20–40%), this rate is decreasing. The frameworks were cited by studies conducted and authored by researchers from across the world. However, relative to a previous citation analysis of invasion science as a whole, the frameworks are particularly used in Europe and South Africa and less so in North America. There is an increasing number of examples of uptake into invasion policy and management (e.g., the pathway classification framework has been adapted and adopted into EU legislation and CBD targets, and the impact classification framework has been adopted by the IUCN). However, we found that few of the citing papers (6–8%) specifically implemented or interrogated the frameworks; roughly half of all citations might be viewed as frivolous (“citation fluff”); there were several clear cases of erroneous citation; and some survey respondents felt that they have not been rigorously tested yet. Although our analyses suggest that invasion science is moving towards a more systematic and standardised approach to recording invasions and their impacts, it appears that the proposed standards are still not applied consistently. For this to be achieved, we argue that frameworks in invasion science need to be revised or adapted to particular contexts in response to the needs and experiences of users (e.g., so they are relevant to pathologists, plant ecologists, and practitioners), the standards should be easier to apply in practice (e.g., through the development of guidelines for management), and there should be incentives for their usage (e.g., recognition for completing an EICAT assessment).

show abstract

Section: Influence On Policy and Managementmentioning

confidence: 60%

Is invasion science moving towards agreed standards? The influence of selected frameworks

Wilson¹,

Datta²,

Hirsch³

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An introduction pathway classification framework will likely be an important tool in efforts to track progress towards meeting the Convention on Biological Diversity's post-2020 target on invasive alien species (Essl et al 2020). However, the current CBD framework, or at least the framework's sub-categories, has few of the properties that such a framework should have (i.e.…”

Section: A Way Forwardmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Information on how and why alien species are introduced to new regions provides the foundation for pre-and at-border management strategies that aim to prevent the introduction of harmful species (Hulme et al 2008;Hulme 2015). However, alien species can be introduced through a vast number of introduction pathways and, as there are limited resources available to manage introductions, important pathways must be identified and prioritised (Hulme et al 2008;Essl et al 2015;Essl et al 2020). A number of frameworks have been developed to aggregate the immense number of introduction pathways into discrete categories (Essl et al 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Classifying the introduction pathways of alien species: are we moving in the right direction?

Faulkner¹,

Hulme²,

Pagad³

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Alien species are introduced to new regions in many different ways and for different purposes. A number of frameworks have been developed to group such pathways of introduction into discrete categories in order to improve our understanding of biological invasions, provide information for interventions that aim to prevent introductions, enable reporting to national and international organisations and facilitate the prediction of threats. The introduction pathway classification framework proposed by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) as a global standard is comprised of six main categories and 44 sub-categories. However, issues have arisen with its implementation. In this position paper, we outline five desirable properties of an introduction pathway classification framework – it should be compatible (i.e. the level of detail of the categories is similar to that of the available data), actionable (i.e. categories link to specific interventions), general (i.e. categories are applicable across the contexts that are of interest (e.g. taxa, habitats and regions)), equivalent (i.e. categories are equivalent in their level of detail) and distinct (i.e. categories are discrete and easily distinguished) – termed the CAGED properties. The six main categories of the CBD framework have all of the CAGED properties, but the detailed sub-categories have few. Therefore, while the framework has been proposed by the CBD as a global standard and efforts have been made to put it into practice, we argue that there is room for improvement. We conclude by presenting scenarios for how the issues identified could be addressed, noting that a hybrid model might be most appropriate.

show abstract

“…Economic feedbacks from the recipient region could also affect non-native species transport if the damage caused by an invader shifts investments towards funding prevention methods that reduce the quantity or diversity of propagules that enter, survive or exit transport vectors (Lodge et al 2009;Latombe et al 2020). This feedback loop hinges on the relative costs and benefits of investing in measures that prevent initial introduction compared to focusing on control of already established non-natives or even not managing the invasion process at all.…”

Section: Transport Negative Feedbacksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reciprocal human-natural system feedback loops within the invasion process

Sinclair¹,

Brown²,

Lockwood³

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biological invasions are inextricably linked to how people collect, move, interact with and perceive non-native species. However, invasion frameworks generally do not consider reciprocal interactions between non-native species and people. Non-native species can shape human actions via beneficial or detrimental ecological and socioeconomic effects and people, in turn, shape invasions through their movements, behaviour and how they respond to the collection, transport, introduction and spread of non-natives. The feedbacks that stem from this ‘coupled human and natural system’ (CHANS) could therefore play a key role in mitigating (i.e. negative feedback loops) or exacerbating (i.e. positive feedback loops) ongoing and future invasions. We posit that the invasion process could be subdivided into three CHANS that span from the source region from which non-natives originate to the recipient region in which they establish and spread. We also provide specific examples of feedback loops that occur within each CHANS that have either reduced or facilitated new introductions and spread of established non-native species. In so doing, we add to exisiting invasion frameworks to generate new hypotheses about human-based drivers of biological invasions and further efforts to determine how ecological outcomes feed back into human actions.

show abstract

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

Cited by 65 publications

References 77 publications

Is invasion science moving towards agreed standards? The influence of selected frameworks

Is invasion science moving towards agreed standards? The influence of selected frameworks

Classifying the introduction pathways of alien species: are we moving in the right direction?

Reciprocal human-natural system feedback loops within the invasion process

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About