Risk management to prioritise the eradication of new and emerging invasive non-native species

Olaf Booy,John Mumford,Camilla Morrison-Bell,Jo Long,Jim Foster,Robin Payne,Pete Robertson,Kevin J Walker,Craig R Macadam ,Mark A Spencer ,J R Newman ,Stan Whittaker,Niall Moore,Dominic Eyre,M Brazier ,Aileen C Mill,M Hatton‐Ellis ,Steve Campbell,Dave Parrott ,Richard Bullock,Alice Hiley,Trevor Renals,Alastair I Ward ,Eoina Rodgers,Mathilde Bué ,Helen E Roy,Mike Sutton-Croft,Paul Stebbing,Simon Baker,Gabe Wyn

doi:10.1007/s10530-017-1451-z

Abstract

Robust tools are needed to prioritise the management of invasive non-native species (INNS). Risk assessment is commonly used to prioritise INNS, but fails to take into account the feasibility of management. Risk management provides a structured evaluation of management options, but has received little attention to date. We present a risk management scheme to assess the feasibility of eradicating INNS that can be used, in conjunction with existing risk assessment schemes, to support prioritisation. The Non-Native Risk Management scheme (NNRM) can be applied to any predefined area and any taxa. It uses semi-quantitative response and confidence scores to assess seven key criteria: Effectiveness, Practicality, Cost, Impact, Acceptability, Window of opportunity and Likelihood of re-invasion. Scores are elicited using expert judgement, supported by available evidence, and consensus-building methods. We applied the NNRM to forty-one INNS that threaten Great Britain (GB). Thirty-three experts provided scores, with overall feasibility of eradication assessed as ‘very high’ (8 species), ‘high’ (6), ‘medium’ (8), ‘low’ (10) and ‘very low’ (9). The feasibility of eradicating terrestrial species was higher than aquatic species. Lotic freshwater and marine species scored particularly low. Combining risk management and existing risk assessment scores identified six established species as priorities for eradication. A further six species that are not yet established were identified as priorities for eradication on arrival as part of contingency planning. The NNRM is one of the first INNS risk management schemes that can be used with existing risk assessments to prioritise INNS eradication in any area.

Highlights

Decision-makers are under growing pressure to respond to invasive non-native species (INNS) (Hulme 2006; Seebens et al 2017) and require transparent evidence on which to base decisions (Sutherland et al 2004)
High risk species for which management is cost effective are prioritised first and low risk species for which management is expensive and ineffective are prioritised last. Both risk assessment and risk management are essential for prioritisation; while numerous INNS risk assessment schemes have been developed very few exist for risk management (Heikkila 2011; Vanderhoeven et al 2017)
We demonstrate that the Non-Native Risk Management scheme (NNRM) is a practical scheme that can be used to assess a wide range of taxa from different environments and directly

Summary

Introduction

Decision-makers are under growing pressure to respond to invasive non-native species (INNS) (Hulme 2006; Seebens et al 2017) and require transparent evidence on which to base decisions (Sutherland et al 2004). One way of prioritising INNS management is to use risk analysis, which traditionally includes hazard identification, risk assessment, risk management and risk communication (Vanderhoeven et al 2017) It is the balance between risk assessment and risk management that allows for prioritisation, with risk assessment used to assess the threat or hazard of a species and risk management used to evaluate and implement management options (FAO 1995). Within this framework, high risk species for which management is cost effective are prioritised first and low risk species for which management is expensive and ineffective are prioritised last. While more elaborate schemes are available for weed risk management and plant health pests, these are limited

Methods

Results

Conclusion