Alien species and nature conservation in the EU - The role of the ...

European Commission

L I F E I I I

Alien species and nature conservation in the EU

The role of the LIFE program

European CommissionEnvironment Directorate-General

LIFE Focus is the journal of LIFE III programme (2000-2004).

LIFE (“L’Instrument Financier pour l’Environnement” / The financing instrument for the Environment) is a programmelaunched by the European Commission and coordinated by the Environment Directorate-General (LIFE Unit – BU-9 02/1).

The content of LIFE Focus does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the institutions of the European Union.

Authors: Riccardo Scalera and Daniela Zaghi. Editorial Department: Mecomat/Comunità Ambiente. Managing Editor:Bruno Julien, European Commission, Environment DG, LIFE Unit – BU-9 02/1, 200 rue de la Loi, B-1049 Brussels. The following people contributed to this issue: Bernard Brookes, Mats Eriksson, Ana Guimarães, Alfonso Gutierrez Teira,John A. Houston, Alison Lewis, Stefano Picchi, Angelo Salsi, Oliviero Spinelli, Alberto Venchi, Alberto Zocchi. Acknowledgements: Guy Duke, Mariella Fourli, Marco Fritz, Anton Gazenbeek, Piero Genovesi, Marita Karling, Britta Küper, Federico Nogara, Concha Olmeda, Manuela Osmi, Olivier Patrimonio, Geert Raeymaekers, Angelika Rubin,Kerstin Sundseth, Marc Thauront. Photos: Federica Borella, Bosco Fontana Nature Reserve (CNBF), Miguel Briones,Guido Ceccolini, Junta de Castilla y León, Dept. Animal Biology Pavia University (Italy), Mats Eriksson, Paolo Forconi, Gobierno de Canarias, G.R.A.I.A. s.r.l., Alfonso Gutiérrez Teira, John A. Houston, Jesús Laviña, Joan Mayol, Juanjo Ortiz,Parco Lombardo della Valle del Ticino, Parco Nazionale Adamello Brenta, Stefano Picchi, Regione Toscana, RiccardoScalera, Alberto Venchi, Daniela Zaghi, Parco Fluviale del Po e dell'Orba. Drawings: Massimiliano Lipperi, RiccardoScalera. Graphic design: Paola Trucco. This issue of LIFE Focus is published in English with a print-run of 3800 copies.

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet.It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu.int).

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2004

ISBN 92-894-6022-9ISSN 1725-5619

© European Communities, 2004Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged

Printed in BelgiumPrinted on recycled paper

European CommissionLIFE Focus / Alien species and nature conservation in the EU. The role of the LIFE program.

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities

2004 – 56 pp. – 21 x 28 cmISBN 92-894-6022-9ISSN 1725-5619

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answersto your questions about the European Union

New freephone number: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

LIFE Focus I Alien species and nature conservation in the EU. The role of the LIFE program I p. 1

Introduction / 2

1 Alien species within the European Union / 7

1.1 The threat of invasive alien species to habitats and species / 9

1.2 The socio-economic impact of invasive alien species / 14

1.3 How to reduce the impact: managing invasive alien species / 15

2 Policy context / 162.1 Legal and institutional

background at international level / 16

2.1.1 The Convention on Biological Diversity / 16

2.1.2 The Bern Convention and the Council of Europe strategy / 17

2.1.3 Other Relevant International Instruments / 18

2.2 EU legislation regarding exotic species / 19

2.2.1 The regulation (EEC) 338/97 on international wildlife trade / 19

2.2.2 The EU Birds and Habitatsdirectives / 20

2.2.3 Other relevant EU directives and regulations / 21

Second only to habitats deterioration,invasive alien species are one of themajor threats to biodiversity. Facingthis threat represents one of the mostambitious challenges for the start ofthe new millennium. Considering thedimension of the threat posed by alienspecies the Commission decided tocollect information on actions beingcarried out to face the problem withinthe LIFE program, the main EU funddirected at nature conservation.

More than 100 LIFE projects have ei-ther partially or exclusively addressedthis threat mobilising significant humanand financial resources. Eradicationand control activities are examples ofa varied palette of actions. Wide rea-ching information campaigns and net-works have been implemented to raisepublic awareness on a problem fre-quently underestimated. It is surpris-ing to note the richness of the experi-ence gained through these projectsand the outstanding results achievedby some of them.

Once more LIFE has proved to be atool well adapted to the needs of na-ture conservation. It has also shownthat it is possible to control or eveneradicate alien species when well-defined areas, such as NATURA 2000sites, are targeted. This document ad-ds, therefore, a valuable “brick” to theLIFE “house.” The snapshot given inthe report confirms that the task isimmense and that guidance is needed.Yet, LIFE proved it is possible to reachsizable results.

The achievements in this sector fur-ther strengthen the image of LIFE asan essential element for the success-ful implementation of one of the mostambitious projects of the EuropeanUnion – that of creating and managingthe NATURA 2000 network, our com-mon natural heritage.

3 LIFE contribution to the implementation of the CBD guidingprinciples / 22

3.1 The Natura 2000 network / 223.2 The LIFE program / 233.3 LIFE projects dealing with

invasive alien species / 24 3.3.1 General principles / 253.3.2 Prevention / 29 3.3.3 Eradication / 32 3.3.4 Containment / 35 3.3.5 Control / 363.3.6 Accompanying measures / 42

4 Conclusions / 45

Abstract / 47

References / 48

Annexes - LIFE projects ealing with IAS financed from 1992 to 2002 / 501. LIFE Nature projects primarily aimed at alienspecies / 502. LIFE Nature projects only partially aimed at alien species / 513. LIFE Environment projects primarily aimed at alienspecies / 554. LIFE Environment and LIFEThird Countries projectspartially aimed at alien species / 56

Angelo SalsiDeputy Head of LIFE Unit

European Commission

Environment Directorate-General

© P

hoto

Fed

eric

a B

orel

la

The rose-ringed parakeet (Psittaculakrameri), native to Africa and Asia, has been introduced into severalEuropean urban parks.

A well-known example of the impactIAS can have on both the environmentand the economy is the 1954 intro-duction of the Nile perch (Lates niloti-cus) to Lake Victoria, in Eastern Africa(Goldschmidt, 1996). The introductionof the perch was brought about toreduce the drop in fishery due to overfishing. The result was the disappear-ance of about 300 out of 500 endemicfish species. The commercial exploita-tion of the Nile perch triggered a chainreaction, harming a wider variety ofcomponents of the ecosystem.

The use of wood to smoke the fishlead to the deforestation of the sur-

rounding area, and the consequentialincrease in soil erosion caused theeutrophication of Lake Victoria. Thesefactors in turn fostered the invasion ofthe South American water hyacinth(Eichornia crassipes), an exotic plantcharacterized by a rapid rate of respi-ration (high consumption of oxygenand water).

This plant competes with nativeorganisms causing asphyxiation andmassive die off and reduces the lake’swater level. The damage was not onlyecological but also economic, as thetraditional source of income for thou-sands of local fishermen decreased

dramatically, leading to the malnutri-tion of the inhabitants around the lake(WRI, 2000).

The growing number of cases similarto the Nile perch around the world hasprompted, in the last few decades, anincreasing attention to the issue ofalien species by the international com-munity. The problem has been addres-sed by more than thirty internationalconventions, agreements and treatiesdealing with nature conservation. Thetwo most important of these are theBern Convention (1979) and the Con-vention on Biological Diversity (1992),which establish that member parties

IntroductionInvasion by alien species represents one of the greatest biological threats to biodiversity,

second only to habitat destruction. In addition to affecting ecosystems

and contributing to the extinction of native species, invasive alien species (IAS)

also cause major socio-economic damage.

© P

hoto

Ric

card

o S

cale

ra

should implement measures to controland eradicate existing harmful alienspecies as well as prevent furtherintroductions.

Despite the course of action sugge-sted by these treaties, specific natio-nal legislation to address harmful alienspecies has been developed by onlya few governments, among whichAustralia, New Zealand, the UnitedKingdom and Denmark. Other coun-tries, like the United States, have ado-pted management plans or other spe-cific tools. Most countries howeverhave not yet begun to develop legalinstruments to tackle the issue, prob-ably due to an underestimation of thedimensions of the threats posed byIAS. Guidelines, which could aid in theelaboration of national legislation, ha-ve recently been provided by IUCN(Shine et al., 2000).

In the European Union specific legis-lation on IAS has not yet been pro-posed, although discussion has begun.At the March 2002 meeting of theEuropean Council of Ministers of Envi-ronment, it was recognized that “theintroduction of IAS is one of the mainrecorded causes of biodiversity loss

and is also the cause of serious dam-age to economy and health.”

The problem of alien species has how-ever been dealt with concretely withinnumerous areas of special conserva-tion of Natura 2000, the network beingestablished by the EU Commissionand Member States.

The aim of Natura 2000 is to reducethe loss of biodiversity in the EU, byestablishing a network of areas whereconservation of wild flora and fauna isgiven a special priority and harmfulimpacts on natural and semi-naturalhabitats of Community importance arereduced or eliminated.

Since 1992 the EU has supported,through the LIFE financial instrument,projects aimed at the development ofNatura 2000. Out of a total of 715 LIFENature projects financed from 1992 to2002, 14% included actions addres-sed at alien species. This figure showsthat, notwithstanding the underesti-mation by the general public and bypolicy makers, exotic species are per-ceived as a major concern by wildlifemanagers.

A considerable experience has there-fore been acquired in managing exo-tics and in reducing their impact onnative species and ecosystems. Les-sons learnt provide a contribution tofuture actions and strategies.


The false acacia (Robinia pseudoacacia)was introduced from North America into a private French garden during the 18th

century. It remained within the perimeterof the garden until the early 1900s whenthe blight of chestnut woods fostered its

diffusion throughout Europe. Now theremoval of this plant is carried out within

several LIFE Nature projects.

© P

hoto

Alb

erto

Ven

chi

Term Definition Example

Alien Species A species, subspecies or lower taxon occurring outside of the historically known range it occupies naturally and outside its dispersal potential as a result of direct or indirect introduction or care by humans. Includes any part, gametes or propagule that might survive and subsequently reproduce.Synonyms are non-native, non-indigenous, foreign, and exotic.

Acclimatized A species living in the wild in an alien Species environment or climate with the support

(i.e. for food and shelter) of humans.

Naturalized An introduced or feral population of speciesSpecies established in the wild with free-living,

self-maintaining and self-perpetuating populations unsupported by and independent of humans.

Invasive Species A species that is able to establish stable populations, colonizing irreversibly and spreading rapidly in entire natural or semi-natural ecosystems.Biological invasions may also be a natural phenomenon, determining natural range expansions or contractions, without direct interventions by humans, although sometimes they may be fostered by possible human related environmental changes.

Pest Species A species which may spread and cause serious environmental changes so as to threaten the conservation of indigenous habitats and species or cause severe economic losses to human activities.

Feral Population An animal species that has reverted to the wild from domestication. The mere keeping in captivity does not mean domestication, and therefore the term should never be referred to wild, non-domesticated, species (i.e. which did not undergo some change in phenotype, genotype and behaviour as a result of artificial selection in captivity).

Monk parakeets, wallabies, coypus (animals),eucalyptus, Jerusalem artichoke and false acacia,(plants) are well known cases of species introduced to Europe from other continents.

Grass carp has been released in several rivers, but they are unable to reproduce since their pelagic eggs need long course rivers for theirdevelopment.

The false acacia, introduced during the eighteenthcentury in a private French garden from the northAmerica, began spreading in the early 1900s allover Europe, establishing viable (self-sustaining in the wild) populations.

Muskrats, once introduced for the fur industry,have rapidly expanded their range towards the western side of Eastern European countries.On the other hand, collared doves are not exoticspecies, although they colonised WesternEuropean countries only recently. Their spread in such a region is recognizable as a naturalprocess of dispersion.

Coypus were introduced to many European countries at the beginning of the twentieth centuryfor the fur industry, and now represent a seriousthreat both to nature conservation and to humanactivities and infrastructures.

Dogs, cats, goats and ferrets are all domesticatedanimals which, once released in the wild, mayestablish self sustaining populations, independentof human support.

Key terms

What is an invasive alien species?What is an introduction? A proper useof the terms in this specific context iscrucial to understand the topic of inva-sive alien species, so as to avoid mis-understandings arising from an incor-rect interpretation of the terms.

Some words are used as synonymsalthough they should not be; the com-mon meaning of some terms is quitedifferent from the technical meaning. The terms listed below agree with thedefinitions reported by IUCN (1995and 2000), as well as those recom-

mended by Lever (1996) and Richard-son et al. (2000). A revision of the def-initions and terminology is being car-ried out by the European Council ofEnvironment Ministers, within theframework of the works of the Con-vention on Biodiversity.

LIFE Focus I Alien speciesand natura conservation in the UE. The role of the LIFE prorogram I p. 5

Introduction The process by which a species, subspecies, or lower taxon (including any part, gametes or propagule that might survive and subsequently reproduce) is transported by humans outside its historically known natural range, either intentionally or accidentally, byhumans outside its historically known natural range, either intentionally or accidentally.

Reintroduction An attempt to establish a species in a geographic area where it was once indigenous, but where it has become extinct in historical times as a result of human activities or natural events.

Re-stocking The release of individuals belonging to a certain plant or animal species with the intention of increasing the existing population in an area where it already occurs naturally.

Unintentional The result of the use of a species byintroductions humans or human delivery systems as

vectors for dispersal outside its natural range. Such introductions may be a consequence of a number of commercial activities, such as trade and tourism.

Intentional Species deliberately released by humansintroductions for a number of activities such as

agriculture, forestry, aquaculture and biological control.

Benign A particular type of intentionalinroductions introduction aimed at establishing a new

population of an endangered species outside its recorded historical range to favour its conservation without causing ecological damage.

Humans have introduced marmots, which arenative to the Alps, to the Pyrenees and theApennines. Introduction may also refer to speciesnative to one area and introduced elsewhere in thesame geographic area, beyond their natural range.Such introductions are called “translocations”.

The wild population of golden eagles in Ireland,once extinguished, mainly as a consequence ofhuman persecution, is being re-establishedthrough a LIFE Nature project.

The native brown bear population living in theItalian Alps has been reinforced through the releaseof individuals coming from Slovenia. This activitywas carried out in the framework of two LIFENature projects.

Transported by ship, mice and rats have beenaccidentally introduced onto dozens of islands.

Game species, such as pheasants, partridges and a number of ungulates, have been deliberatelyintroduced for hunting purposes in many Europeancountries.

The Guam rail, a flightless bird on the brink ofextinction in its natural range, the Guam island,due to the introduction of the brown tree snake,has been introduced to the Hawaii islands.

Eucalyptus sp. Release of the brown bear (Ursus arctos).

© P

hoto

Ste

fano

Pic

chi

© P

hoto

Par

co N

atur

ale

Ad

amel

lo-B

rent

a

Alien species have been introduced toEurope throughout history. There areregions, such as the Mediterranean,where for thousands of years peoplehave been responsible for the spreadof ever-increasing numbers of plantsand animals. The movement of alienspecies has mainly been due to theneeds for food and trade for the sur-vival of human communities. The im-provement in the efficiency of trans-portation and the growing frequency oftravel has facilitated, over time, thespread of imported species. For exam-ple, during the Roman Empire, thanksto the establishment of an efficient and

1. Alien species within the European Union

Above. Narrow-leaved ragwort(Senecio inaequidens).Below. Sand dune area on Anholt Islandin Denmark, five years after being clearedof plantations of the mountain pine(Pinus mugo). In order to assure the long-term success of the activity, continuous removal (by hand) of seedlingsover a period of 15-20 years is essential.

The loss of biodiversity due to invasive alien species represents a major problem in Europe

as in the rest of the world. Facing the problem, in an era characterized by an increasing global

movement of people and goods, is not an easy task.

well-managed road network and anincrease in movement of troops andgoods overseas, the opportunities foralien species to arrive in new areas,accidentally or intentionally, rose sig-nificantly. The Romans were responsi-ble for the introduction of several spe-cies of mammals and birds, usually asa source of food, in several Mediterra-nean countries and islands.

During the 18th century, the increas-ing interest of Europeans in exoticspecies from all over the world resul-ted in intensive efforts to establish newviable populations. This new “fashion”,linked to both socio-economic andornamental factors, led to the founda-tion of specialized “acclimatization”societies, such as the Société Impé-riale d’Acclimatisation founded in Parisin 1854 (Lever, 1996) or the Acclimati-sation Society of the United Kingdom.

Crosby (1986) described this process ingreat detail in “Ecological imperialism.”

Today, with the exceptional ease andspeed with which people and goodsmove, the intentional and uninten-tional introductions of IAS, related tovarious economic sectors – trade,tourism, agriculture, forestry and fish-eries – has increased dramatically.Introductions are also connected withattempts to create new sporting op-portunities, pet trade, biological con-trol and aesthetic values.

Even wars can facilitate the spread ofalien species. One hypothesis on theintroduction of the South African nar-row-leaved ragwort (Senecio inae-quidens) is that the plant arrived inEurope during the Second World War,together with the soil carried throughthe military equipment. The plant isnow spreading all over the continentalong the road and the railroad sys-tems.

The high number of non-native spe-cies present today in Europe is there-fore not surprising: tens of thousandsof plants and animals have been ad-ded to native biological communities.It has been calculated that about12,000 plants have been introduced to

© M

assi

mili

ano

Lip

per

i

© P

hoto

Mat

s E

riks

son

central Europe both intentionally andunintentionally (Sukopp, 1980). Out ofthis number, about 228 (1.9 percent)are now permanently established insemi-natural ecosystems (Kowarik,1996).

The successful introduction of anexotic species is, nevertheless, not acommon event. Out of all of the spe-cies introduced outside their naturalrange only a few species manage toestablish viable populations. Accor-ding to the “tens rule” identified byWilliamson (1996), the chance that anintroduced species becomes a pest isabout 1 out of 100. Out of the numberof species introduced to a given area,only 10 percent are likely to becomenaturalized and only 10 percent ofthese are likely to become invasive.

It is not yet clear which species aremore likely to become naturalized orto become invasive. Many scientistshave tried unsuccessfully to establisha priori if a plant or animal species isprone to become invasive in a givenregion. As stated by Lever (1994),when dealing with IAS, “the only ele-ment in species introduction that canbe forecast with certainty is that ofunpredictability.”

In order to comprehensively study theproblems related to IAS, it is importantto take into account the two differentways that exotic species in Europe areintroduced: from outside the Euro-pean Union and from one region toanother. Whereas species introducedfrom abroad are immediately recog-nized as exotic and potentially harm-ful to local habitats and species, thosecoming from other parts of Europe areoften not recognized as such.

Some species are transported to oth-er countries to solve a problem, oftenbringing about even more serious onesand, in some cases, causing signifi-cant modifications to the landscape.The mountain pine (Pinus mugo), forinstance, a conifer indigenous to cen-tral Europe and the western Alps, wasintroduced to Denmark and south Swe-den in the mid 1800s in order to con-solidate the dune system. This pine isnow threatening the natural dynamicsof the dune system, causing the dis-


tion of the wolf and the bear in thenew parks in the central Apennines”(LIFE97 NAT/IT/4141) which includeda program for the capture of straydogs, in collaboration with the com-petent authorities.

Feral populations

Feral populations of domestic animalsare a major threat to biodiversity allover the world. Some of them, partic-ularly dogs, cats, pigs, may act as pre-dators threatening the survival of rareand endemic species, while others,such as rabbits, goats and sheep, arevoracious herbivorous which maydestroy the vegetation of entire terri-tories, turning dense vegetated areasinto a desolated desert.

Domestic animals are often also a dan-gerous source of genetic “pollution” ofwild species. Most of them, when re-leased into the wild, interbreed withtheir wild ancestors, provided thatspecific environmental conditions aremet. This is of particular concern inthe case of dogs and cats, which mayhybridise respectively with wolves andwild cats, but also in the case of otherdomesticated species, such as theferret (Mustela furo), which may inter-breed with the polecat (Mustela puto-rius).

One of the main problems related toferal dogs is the damage they causeto farm livestock, which often is erro-neously ascribed to wolves or bears.Actions to reduce the impact of straydogs on wildlife and livestock wereimplemented in a LIFE Nature projectcarried out in central Italy, “Conserva-

The wolf (Canis lupus) may suffer from competition with feral dogs.

© P

hoto

Pao

lo F

orc

oni

© P

hoto

Ric

card

o S

cale

ra

When dogs become feral, they can be dangerous predators

of indigenous wildlife.

appearance of wild vegetation andchanges to the landscape. The Euro-pean Commission has funded threeLIFE Nature projects (“Re-establilsh-ing lichen an coastal heaths in the An-holt Desert”, LIFE 94NAT/DK/492, “Pro-tection of grey dunes and other habi-tats on Hulsig Hede/Hulsig Heath”,LIFE96 NAT/DK/ 3000, and “Restora-tion of dune habitats along the DanishWest Coast”, LIFE02 NAT/DK/8584)tackling these problems in a strategicway across a whole series of DanishNatura 2000 sites. These projects wereaimed specifically at the restoration ofthe threatened dune habitats, “fixedgrey dunes” and “decalcified fixed du-nes with crowberry (Empetrum ni-grum),” both listed in the Habitats di-rective.

A number of studies carried out at thenational and local level show that allcountries are seriously affected byalien species. However, specific andcomprehensive studies on the currentstatus of IAS in the European Union,including a species checklist with dataon their ecological and socio-eco-nomical impact, are not yet availableand the current knowledge on IAS inEurope is far from being exhaustive.While a number of studies are beingproduced as isolated initiatives by sci-entific institutes or public administra-tions, there is no coordination at theinternational level.

The project being carried out by theEuropean Topic Center on Nature Pro-tection and Biodiversity of the Europe-an Environment Agency (www.eea.int) isone example of how this gap is beingaddressed. This project aims to col-late national data on introduced fishspecies and provide a regional statis-tical overview. In the future, this re-search could be extended to othertaxonomic groups and all data on IAScould be integrated into the EuropeanNature Information System (EUNISdatabase), which includes informationon species, habitats and their sitespresent in Europe (European Com-mission, 2003).

The case of the giant hogweed

“Fashionable country gentlemen had some cultivated wild gardens,In which they innocently planted the Giant Hogweed throughout the land.Botanical creature stirs, seeking revenge.Royal beast did not forget.Soon they escaped, spreading their seed,Preparing for an onslaught, threatening the human race.”

Return of the Giant Hogweed from the Genesis album Nursery Cryme (1971).

Many European freshwater ecosystems, made vulnerable by unsustainable man-agement practices, are colonized by exotic species that are seriously damaging theecosystems and, in some cases, represent a potential damage to human health.The giant hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum) is recognized as an invasive weedin almost all European countries (Waage, 2000). It was introduced from westernAsia during the 18th century for ornamental purposes. It competes with native ripar-ian species, and has a shallow root system that increases soil erosion along river-banks. The invasion of this species in urban and suburban areas is considered anincreasing public health hazard because of its toxic sap containing a substance thatcauses painful blister.

© M

assi

mili

ano

Lip

per

i

All ecosystems are characterized bystrict relationships between their bio-tic and abiotic components and by atypical spatial structure. IAS may alterthese features, modifying both thenumber and composition of species,the relation between the food chainsand the balance of the resources inthe ecosystems. This may result in anegative impact on biodiversity, affec-ting native species by means of chan-ges in ecological dynamics, in mor-phological and genetic features, andin the transmission of diseases andparasites. All of these factors may actat different levels simultaneously, andmay interfere with the ecological bal-ance of single habitats or entire eco-systems.

Impacts on species

The introduction of exotic species canalter the relations between species liv-ing in a particular area, establishingnew dynamics of competition and pre-dation, and possibly displacing nativespecies (Gause principle1 ).

Competition refers to the behaviour oftwo or more species that interact forthe exploitation of the same resources(i.e. food, water, shelter, light, etc.),which reach a natural dynamic bal-ance. The introduction of the greysquirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) in theUK is a well-known case of a speciesof North American origin introducedoutside its natural range for ornamen-tal purposes. It has almost completelydisplaced the native red squirrel (Sciu-rus vulgaris), now seriously threatenedwith extinction throughout the entirecountry.

In the wild, populations of prey andpredator live together in balance, and

the prey-predator relationship is ex-tremely important for the dynamics ofecosystems. When an exotic speciesis introduced in new territories it maybecome a predator of indigenousspecies which do not have adequatedefensive behaviour. In this case theecological balance will be disturbed.A dramatic example of exotic predatoris the American mink (Mustela vison)on native water voles (Arvicola ter-restris) in the UK. The American minkwas imported in several Europeancountries for the fur industry at thebeginning of the twentieth century.This voracious carnivore has a majorimpact on wildlife, especially mam-mals, birds and fish. Studies carriedout in Belarus show that the Americanmink has severely reduced and frag-mented water vole populations (seeMacdonald et al., 2002). The only re-deeming feature of the species is that

its diet may include other exotic speciessuch as rats and rabbits (Lever, 1994).

The ecological impacts of IAS mayalso be genetic. When IAS appear in anew ecosystem they can interbreedwith closely related native species.

This genetic exchange may result in aloss of the genetic integrity of thenative species and in the formation ofhybrids. A well-known case is theNorth American ruddy duck (Oxyurajamaicensis). This American species


1 The Gause principle, orcompetitive exclusion principle,states that two species withidentical ecological needs cannotcoexist in the same area.

The grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis)is a North American species introduced

into Italy and the United Kingdom, whereit competes with the native red squirrel(Sciurus vulgaris) and causes damage

to forestry and agriculture.

1.1 The ecological impact of invasive alien species

© P

hoto

Ric

card

o S

cale

ra

was introduced to the UK in 1949, andis now present in several Europeancountries. The American ruddy duckis a major concern for the conserva-tion of the white-headed duck (Oxyuraleucocephala), a native endangeredspecies of the Mediterranean basinwith fragmented breeding popula-tions. The ruddy duck is known to in-terbreed with the native white-headedduck, generating fertile hybrid individ-uals. Moreover it may be responsiblefor anomalous dynamics of sexualcompetition among the males andfemales of the two species. All of the-se factors are thought to represent aserious threat for the long-term sur-vival of the white-headed duck andare therefore being taken into consid-eration by a number of managementinitiatives, including two LIFE Natureprojects, namely the “Oxyura leuco-cephala’s reintroduction on Biguglia’spond” carried out in Corsica, France(LIFE97 NAT/F/4226), and the “Con-servation plan for the white-headed

duck in the Community of Valencia” inSpain (LIFE00 NAT/E/7311). This lastone includes the production of a spe-cific recovery plan for the native spe-cies.

Impact on habitats/ecosystems

The presence of IAS not only affectsindividual species, but can also influ-ence the ecological balance of entirehabitats or ecosystems.

The European Union hosts several vul-nerable ecosystems, ranging fromfreshwater to marine, forests to grass-lands and cultivated land. IAS mayaffect these ecosystems in a numberof ways, modifying their species rich-ness, community structure and phys-iognomy. In Europe the ecosystemsmost vulnerable to IAS are islands,lakes, rivers and in-shore marine areas(Heywood, 1995). Factors such asland use and habitat fragmentationhave also demonstrated to increasethe vulnerability of ecosystems toinvasion of harmful alien species(Williamson, 1999).

Competition resulting from the intro-duction of IAS may alter the structureof an ecosystem both directly andindirectly. The invasion of a forest by aplant species may result in an imbal-ance within the original vegetation lay-ers (herbaceous, shrubs and arboreal),which in turn may change the envi-ronmental conditions for indigenousspecies, for instance modifying theavailability of light or space, or theincidence of fires.

The impact of IAS is not limited to thestructure of an ecosystem. At the be-ginning of the twentieth century, a fewacacia species (Acacia longifolia, A.saligna, A. melanoxylon, A. cyclops)native to Australia were introduced toPortugal to stabilize dunes. These spe-cies not only caused structural changeto ecosystems, changing local habi-tats into monospecific communities,but also established symbiosis with ni-trogen-fixing bacteria. This resulted inan increase in availability of soil nitro-gen and carbon, impairing the successof native species and favouring the in-vasion by acacia itself and other exot-ic species (Marchante et al., 2001). TheLIFE Environment project “Recovery,Conservation and Management ofSpecies and Natural Habitats in theCoastal Area of the Central Portugal”(LIFE95 ENV/P/0119) contributed tothe removal of the trees of acacia fromthe Quiaios-Mira coastal zone.

Dynamics of change can be surprisin-gly similar on land and in the sea. Anexample is Caulerpa taxifolia, a greenalga native to tropical waters, culti-vated as ornamental plant in someEuropean aquaria. Around 1984, thisspecies was accidentally released intothe Mediterranean Sea below the Mo-naco Aquarium and spread quicklyalong the coasts of France, Spain,Italy, Croatia and Greece. Caulerpaalters the biodiversity of the ecosys-tem through the formation of mono-culture stands, affecting, among othersubmarine habitats, the Posidoniabeds, a habitat of Community impor-tance under the EU Habitats directive.The Caulerpa carpet causes ecologi-cal and economic damage, eliminatingnative seaweeds and their biologicalcommunities and impairing their func-tion as food and shelter for a complex

White-headed duck (Oxyura leucocephala).

© P

hoto

Ric

card

o S

cale

ra


Islands

Invasive alien species are one themain causes of biodiversity loss onislands and the damage they cause onisolated ecosystems has been knownfor centuries. Pliny the Elder wrote inhis Natural History that the invasion ofrabbits on the Balearic Islands wassuch a severe problem that the help ofCaesar and the Roman troops wassought to control them (see also Clut-ton-Brock, 1999).

Within the European Union, there arethousands of islands: about 5,000islands are scattered throughout theMediterranean Sea alone, a globallyimportant biodiversity hot spot. Theseislands, along with those in the Mac-aronesian region (Canary islands, Ma-deira and Azores) and the Frenchislands scattered in the Indian andAtlantic oceans, host typical habitatsand endemic species that have al-ways suffered from introductions ofalien species. Rabbits and goats, ifintroduced, for example, are able toturn these lush islands into deserts,due to their voracious feeding habits.In addition, dogs, cats and rats killchicks and the adults of several gre-garious seabird and other specieswhich have evolved free of predatorsand therefore have not developed anyeffective protection against newlyarrived predators.

Because IAS are a major concern forthe conservation of nature on islands,LIFE Nature has supported a numberof projects since 1992 dealing withcontrol and eradication of invasivealien vertebrates, especially on theislands of Spain, Portugal and West-ern Isles of Scotland.

Several projects implemented and/orcarried out in the islands and islets ofSpain and Portugal have addressedexotic predators (such as cats, rats andmice) or herbivores (such as rabbits,goats and wild sheep) and their threatto the survival of rare and endemicspecies (in particular seabirds, giantlizards and small mammals).

On the Western Isles of Scotland theLIFE projects aimed at the reductionof the spread of the American mink

Right. Rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus).Centre. A view of Lanzarote, CanaryIslands.Below. Steep cliff in the Balearics.

(Mustela vison), an exotic predatorthreatening the population of ground-nesting birds: species of special con-servation concern, which makes theseislands internationally important.

© P

hoto

Alfo

nso

Gut

iérr

ez T

eira

©

Pho

to J

esús

Lav

iña

© P

hoto

Ric

card

o S

cale

ra

Carriers of plant diseases, includingexotic variants of viruses, bacteria andfungi, are introduced through themovement of plants or parts of them.Cases of major infestations due toimported species have been docu-mented for centuries and are the bestknown examples of damage produ-ced by alien species. For instance,Phylloxera vastatrix is an aphid nativeto North America that lives on localvine Vitis labruscana, which has a nat-ural tolerance to the species. Phyllox-era was accidentally transported toEurope’s grape growing regions in themid 1800s on American rootstocks. Ina few decades it nearly destroyed theEuropean wine industry, which wasdependent on Vitis vinifera, a speciesvulnerable to Phylloxera. The epidemicwas brought under control by graftingV. vinifera scions onto resistant Amer-ican Vitis labruscana rootstocks, butthe effects of the biological invasionwere devastating. The economic losswas enormous; the landscape of manyEuropean regions changed rapidlyand a great part of the European heri-tage of viniculture disappeared.

Above. Male crayfish Austropotamobiuspallipes.Left. Close-up of crayfish abdomen infected by pathogens.

web of marine life and, eventually,reducing fishing resources. Eradica-tion is no longer feasible but actionsto contain this invasion are being car-ried out. Since 1992, the EuropeanCommunity supported four LIFE Envi-ronment and two LIFE Nature projectsto monitor and control the expansionof this alien species along the Mediter-ranean coasts of Spain, France andNorthern Italy.

Invasions have the potential of caus-ing loss of ecosystem resilience 2 ifthey lead to a habitat simplification. Asimplified habitat is more vulnerable toexternal disturbances (meteorologicalevents, fires, etc) and takes longer torecover. Agro-ecosystems are mostsensitive to invasions, due to theirsimple structure, which makes themmore vulnerable to loss in resilience.Apart from ecological considerations,the loss of resilience in these systemscan also have an economic cost: thecost of herbicides, pesticides, fertiliz-ers, irrigation and other inputs neededto maintain these systems can greatlyaffect the economy.

Health impacts

New diseases are often spread by theintroduction of IAS, which can act asvectors for pathogens or can causedisease themselves directly. This canthreaten not only native species ofplants and animals, but also humans.Pathogens and pests may attackwildlife, livestock and crops, causingthe destruction of large areas of nat-ural habitats, disappearance of indige-nous species, epidemics and evenfamine.

2 The term resilience indicatesthe capacity of a community or ecosystem to recover after a disturbance (Westman, 1978).

© P

hoto

Dep

t. A

nim

al B

iolo

gy –

Pav

ia U

nive

rsity

(Ita

ly)

© P

hoto

Mar

ia T

eres

a M

anfr

edi


Animals may also be vectors of dis-eases and parasites. One of the mainexamples in Europe is the spread of anew strain of the fungus Aphanomy-ces astaci, imported with stocks offarmed red swamp crayfish (Procam-barus clarkii) from North America toBritain (Williamson, 1996). This fungusmay be lethal to non-American spe-cies of crayfish. For this reason it mayhave been responsible for the con-traction of the distribution range of thenative freshwater crayfish (Austropo-tamobius pallipes) in Europe and inBritain in particular. In Italy the Euro-pean Commission has funded a project“Conservation of Austropotamobiuspallipes in two pSCIs of Lombardy”(LIFE00 NAT/IT/ 7159) aimed at thereintroduction of this crayfish. The pro-ject includes sanitary check-ups onboth wild and captive-bred individuals,now living together with other exoticspecies, such as the red swamp cray-fish (Procambarus clarkii) and the Turk-ish crayfish (Astacus leptodactylus),which may be a vector of new patholo-gies threatening the native species.

Examples of epidemics affecting hu-mans during the centuries are nume-rous. For instance, the black rat (Rattusrattus), native to Indian subcontinent, isnot only one of the naturalized speciesthat have had the worst ecologicaland economic impacts, but is alsoagent of deadly human diseases. The

history of the bubonic plague, whichrecurrently infested Europe during theMiddle Ages, is a tragic example of anepidemic caused by an introducedspecies. Between 1346 and 1352 thisdisease wiped out one quarter of theEuropean human population, killing upto 70% of the inhabitants in sometowns (Diamond, 1997).

Some invasive alien plants are alsoconsidered a health hazard. The Euro-pean Plant Protection Organisation(EPPO) signals the common ragweed(Ambrosia artemisifolia), a North Ame-rican invasive plant strongly allergenicto man, as an “introduced exotic pest.”This plant is widespread in Europe(Belgium, France, Germany, Luxem-bourg, Portugal, Sweden, Italy, ) andcould become a serious problem bothfor public health and for agriculture.Control and eradication programs have already started in Italy and France.

Above. Red swamp crayfish(Procambarus clarkii).

Below. Black rat (Rattus rattus)(from Scalera, 2001).

© P

hoto

Dep

t. A

nim

al B

iolo

gy –

Pav

ia U

nive

rsity

(Ita

ly)

© M

assi

mili

ano

Lip

per

i

In the European Union comprehensivedata on the economic costs associ-ated to the impact and the manage-ment of IAS are not available, exclud-ing assessments elaborated at locallevel and on single taxa. However,data relative to other countries cancontribute to provide a picture of therelevance of the problem.

Invasive alien species can have severeeconomic impacts, in particular inagriculture, aquaculture and forestrysectors. An estimate made by theWeed Society of America, in 1992,shows that annual damage due to IAS,including crop losses and the cost ofherbicides, was between 4.5 and 6.3billion USD. A significant example isthe case of the golden apple snail(Pomacea canaliculata), intentionallyintroduced from Argentina to Taiwan in1981 as a potential food source. Thesnail rapidly invaded rice fields in all ofeastern Asia, devastating crops andcreating serious problems for the localpopulation. It has been calculated thatin 1990 in the Philippines the cost ofcontrolling the golden apple snail andreplanting rice, and the loss of yieldsamounted to 48 million USD. More-over, the huge cost of replanting greatlyreduced farmers’ incomes. The golden

apple snail has also had a direct impacton human health. It is an intermediatehost of the lungworm (Angiostrongyluscantonensis), which causes a deadlyform of meningitis in humans.

The horse-chestnut leafminer (Camer-aria ohridella), a moth of unknown ori-gin, has infested trees of this speciesin Austria and the Czech Republic andis spreading at more than 100 km peryear across Europe. The insect nowthreatens rare endemic forests in theBalkans. The European Commissionis currently funding, under the 5thFramework Program for Research(www.eca.eu.int) , a multidisciplinaryresearch project, “CONTROCAM: Su-stainable control of the horse chestnutleafminer, Cameraria ohridella (Lepi-doptera, Gracillariidae), a new invasivepest of Aesculus hippocastanum inEurope” (QLK5-CT-2000-01684), invo-lving several Central and Eastern Euro-pean countries, aimed at the control ofthis exotic pest.

Exotic animal species with known rel-evant economic impacts include thegrey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis),which affects forestry and agriculturein the UK, Ireland and Italy, and thecoypu (Myocastor coypus), whichaffects the same sectors in a numberof countries. LIFE Nature projectsaddressing coypus are ongoing inFrance, Italy and Spain.

The introduction of alien species canat times bring also benefits, as whenthey are used for agriculture, animalfarming, wood production, hunting ortrade of ornamental plants. However,

1.2 The socio-economic impact of invasive alien species

The coypu (Myocastor coypus) was introduced in Europe from North Americaat the beginning of the twentieth centuryfor the fur industry. Once escaped in the wild, coypus caused severe damagesto antrophic structures along canals and rivers, to agriculture and to autochthonous wildlife in general.

in most cases introduction of an exoticspecies benefits only a limited numberof people.

Of the few estimates of the cost ofalien species invasion at the nationallevel, a study realized by Pimentel etal. (2000) showed that annual damagein the United States amounted to 137billion USD and to 12 billion USD in theUnited Kingdom.

A number of studies have been real-ized at the local level to assess thedirect costs of prevention, control andmitigation measures against alien plantand animal species. Estimates exist forRhododendron ponticum, a plantnative to the Iberian Peninsula, Turkey,Bulgaria and the Balkans (Rotherham,2001), which is a highly invasive exoticin forests and semi-natural woodlandsof the British Isles. In Ireland, it has anegative impact on “transition mires”and “quaking bogs,” habitats to beprotected according to the Habitatsdirective. In the UK, control of thisspecies in a single protected area(Snowdonia National Park, Wales) hascosted 45 million GBP to date (Euro-pean Commission, 2003). Since 1997the EU has co-financed five LIFE Na-ture projects in order to face the prob-lem of invasion by the rhododendronin several Natura 2000 sites in the UK.

Even though the negative effect onindigenous natural and agriculturalecosystems is indisputable (Parker etal, 1999), there are currently few reli-able estimates of the indirect impact,reduction of the value of the agricul-tural land, increase of water con-

© P

hoto

Ric

card

o S

cale

ra


According to the Convention on Bio-logical Diversity (see following chapter)“once the establishment of an invasivealien species has been detected,States, individually and cooperatively,should take appropriate steps such aseradication, containment and control,to mitigate adverse effects. Tech-niques used for eradication, contain-ment or control should be safe tohumans, the environment and agricul-ture as well as ethically acceptable tostakeholders in the areas affected bythe invasive alien species. Consistentwith national policy or legislation, anindividual or entity responsible for theintroduction of invasive alien speciesshould bear the costs of control mea-sures and biological diversity restora-tion where it is established that theyfailed to comply with the national lawsand regulations. Hence, early detec-tion of new introductions of potentiallyor known invasive alien species isimportant, and needs to be combinedwith the capacity to take rapid follow-up action” (Decision VI/23).

The most environmentally desirableand cost-effective strategy is of courseprevention, which eliminates the prob-lem at its very origin. Surveillance, asfield activities to identify new alienspecies in a given region, is a funda-mental measure to guarantee, throughan efficient early warning system, pre-vention. According to the Council ofEurope Strategy on IAS (Genovesi andShine, 2003), surveillance should tar-get all taxonomic groups and focus onhigh-risk sites, such as:> main entry points for commercial

tourist arrivals (airports, ports, har-bours and open moorings, train sta-tions, etc.);

> entry points of natural dispersalpathways (coasts, border crossingsof water systems shared with neigh-bouring countries, etc.);

> areas adjacent to facilities wherealien species are kept in captivity orcontainment (botanical gardens,zoological gardens, fish farms, nurs-eries, game parks, etc.);

> areas where severe disturbance hasoccurred (land clearance, stormdamage, etc.).

When prevention has failed, if thespread of an introduced species hasbeen detected on time, eradication isthe best management option, aimingat the complete removal of the alienspecies. Usually, it is possible to elim-inate an exotic species only soon afterits introduction, before it becomesinvasive. Therefore, a rapid action isneeded. The type of intervention to beimplemented in the field depends onseveral factors, biological, social andeconomic.

To provide competent authorities basictools for the implementation of a rapidresponse to introductions, specificcontingency eradication plans shouldbe developed. Their elaboration shouldbe standardised on the basis of anagreed framework and should foreseeconsultation with relevant agenciesand involved communities.

If eradication is no longer feasible, it isstill possible to restrict the spread ofthe exotic species, through its con-tainment beyond a geographical boun-dary and/or its long-term control, byreducing the population density underan acceptable threshold.

When all the above measures are notfeasible, the last option left is to learnto “live with” such species and to mit-igate their impact on native speciesand ecosystems.

Whatever the strategy adopted (foradditional information see Wittenbergand Cock, 2001), it is important toremember that managing invasivealien species is only a phase in theprocess to achieve a higher goal, theconservation of native habitats andspecies.

Irish Famine

In order to increase the productionduring the nineteenth century, a hybridpotato was introduced to Europe andwidely cultivated. In 1844 a shipmentof seed potatoes infected with thepotato blight (Phytophthora infestans),a fungus native to Mexico, arrivedfrom the United States and was offloa-ded at Ostende in Belgium.

In a short time the fungus reached Ire-land where potato crops were rapidlyinfected. In 1845 and again in 1848 athird of the potato crop was destroyedby blight. Even more disastrously,three-quarters of the crop failed in1846.

One million people died of famine-related diseases (Clarkson, 1989) andup to 1.5 million more emigrated toavoid starvation (Alexopoulos et al.,1996). Potato blight was a huge shock,which had a long-term impact on Eu-ropean agriculture, reducing the returnson potato growing. Consequently,prices of potatoes relative to those ofcereals – for the equivalent food value -were, on average, 50-100 percenthigher in the late 1850s than in the1830s (Solar, 1997).

sumes, loss of ecological “services”,economic loss, of alien species (Per-rings et al, 2002). The Japaneseknotweed (Fallopia japonica) for in-stance, was introduced in South Walesgardens in the 19th century andstarted to have a negative economicimpact since the 1930’s, reducing withits mere presence the price of the land.The Japanese knotweed moreoverreduces plant and animal populationsand alters significantly ecosystemstructure and function. During winterdormancy, the species standing bio-mass may represent a fire hazard.From 1992 to 2002, the county ofSwansea spent more than 240,000GBP to contain this plant. At present,the invasion of the Japanese knot-weed is such that the county cannotafford its control and is currently iden-tifying possible funding opportunitiesfor a biological control research pro-gram (Renals et al., 2001).

1.3 How to reduce the impact: managing invasive alien species

2.1.1 The Convention on Biological Diversity

In 1992 more than 100 world leadersattended the “Earth Summit” organ-ised in Rio de Janeiro by the UnitedNations, approving the Convention onBiological Diversity (CBD), the firstmajor global agreement on the con-servation and sustainable use of bio-diversity, now ratified by 181 Parties. Article 8(h) of this comprehensive stra-tegy recommends that “each Contrac-ting Party shall, as far as possible andappropriate, prevent the introductionof, control or eradicate those alienspecies which threaten ecosystems,habitats or species.”

The Convention on Biological Diver-sity urges the contracting parties,

2. Policy contextOver 40 international and regional instruments contain provisions and programs related to alien

invasive species. An exhaustive and comprehensive review of the global legal framework related

to IAS has been recently published by Shine et al. (2000).

The EU has developed a number of regulations and directives dealing directly or indirectly with IAS.

The most important are the “Birds” and “Habitats” directives and the wildlife trade regulations.

2.1 Legal and institutional background at the international level

among which the European Commu-nity, to undertake measures address-ing the problem of IAS.

During the VI Conference of the Par-ties, held in October 2002, a numberof Guiding Principles to develop “effec-tive strategies to minimise the spreadand impact of invasive alien species”was identified. These principles areintended to assist governments andrelevant bodies in the implementationof Article 8(h) of CBD (Decision VI/23)and in the elaboration of strategiesand action plans to manage IAS at thenational and regional levels.

The European Commission (2003) hasdescribed the situation within theEuropean Union in a specific report tothe Convention on Biological Diversity,the “Thematic Report on Alien Inva-sive Species”, which describes legal,administrative and policy measuresadopted by the Community in sectors

concerned directly or indirectly to IAS,which outlines how the Communitycontributes to relevant internationaland European processes.

The European biodiversity strategy

The Convention on Biological Diver-sity provides that all parties develop abiodiversity strategy. As a party to theCBD, the European Community devel-oped and adopted, in 1998, the Euro-pean Community biodiversity strategy(COM(1998)42 final). This documentincludes the following specific refer-ence to IAS: “The presence or intro-duction of alien species or sub-speciescan potentially cause imbalances andchanges to ecosystems. It can havepotentially irreversible impacts, byhybridisation or competition, on nativecomponents of biodiversity. Applyingthe precautionary principle, the Com-munity should take measures pursu-ing to prevent that alien species causedetrimental effects on ecosystems,priority species or the habitats theydepend on and establish measures tocontrol, manage and, wherever possi-ble remove the risks that they pose”.

The EC strategy is to be implementedthrough four sectoral action plans: 1) Conservation of natural resources.2) Agriculture.3) Fisheries.4) Economic and development co-operation.

The plans also refer to the develop-ment of the Natura 2000 network andto the overall efficacy of the LIFE pro-gram.

White-headed duck (Oxyura leucocephala).

© M

assi

mili

ano

Lip

per

i

The IUCN/SSC Invasive Species SpecialistGroup

In 1993, in order to increase aware-ness of IAS and to create ways to pre-vent, control or eradicate them, ahighly qualified group of more than140 scientific and policy experts from41 countries, the “Invasive SpeciesSpecialist Group” (ISSG), was estab-lished as a part of the Species SurvivalCommission of The World Conserva-tion Union (IUCN/SSC). The activitiesof the group focus primarily on IASthat cause biodiversity loss, with par-ticular attention to those that threatenoceanic islands, and its recommenda-tions are directed especially at IUCNmembers, conservation practitioners,and policy-makers.

In collaboration with the IUCN Com-mission on Environmental Law, theISSG prepared a document entitled“IUCN Guidelines for the Prevention ofBiodiversity Loss caused by AlienInvasive Species”.

Additional information on the activitiesof the ISSG and a number of relevantdocuments on IAS are available on thewebsite www.issg.org.

The actions dealing with invasive alienspecies recommended in the “Con-servation of natural resources” plan,include: > updating of the list of alien invasive

species that are known to pose anecological threat to native flora andfauna, habitats and ecosystemswithin the EU;

> promotion of exchange of informa-tion regarding existing legislation,guidelines and experience, includ-ing measures to control or eradicatealien invasive species or preventtheir introduction;

> development of international guide-lines to address the problem of alieninvasive species under the CBD.

2.1.2 The Bern Conventionand the Council of Europestrategy

The “Convention on the Conservationof European Wildlife and Natural Habi-tats,” was signed in Bern in 1979 by45 contracting parties, among whichthe European Community. This agree-ment, managed by the Council of Eu-rope, includes important provisions andrecommendations dealing with alienspecies. In particular, according to ar-ticle 11.2b, each Contracting Party un-dertakes “to strictly control the intro-duction of non-native species.”

The Bern Convention has alreadyadopted a wide range of provisions tohelp member states identify adequatemanagement and control measuresagainst IAS.

In recent years other recommenda-tions have been adopted, especiallythose addressing native species threa-tened by IAS or IAS themselves andthose on the eradication of non-nativeterrestrial vertebrates and on IASthreats to biological diversity onislands and other isolated ecosys-tems.

Under the Bern Convention, speciali-zed groups of experts have prepareda number of technical documents and


The Global Invasive SpeciesProgram (GISP)

This innovative program was estab-lished in 1997.

The GISP mission is to conserve bio-diversity and sustain human livelihoodby minimizing the spread and impactof IAS through a “Partnership Network”that includes scientific and technicalexperts on IAS issues from around theworld. GISP services are primarilyintended to benefit developing coun-tries and institutions that support sus-tainable development.

During GISP Phase I, the EuropeanCommunity supported the develop-ment of “A Guide to Designing Legaland Institutional Frameworks on AlienInvasive Species” (Shine et al., 2000).

The cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus)is an American species introduced intonorthern Italy. It is the object of specificrecommendations of the Bern Convention.

© P

hoto

Alb

erto

Ven

chi

papers for the Council of Europe inorder to promote sound implementa-tion of provisions dealing with IAS (seefor example deKlemm, 1996; Lambi-non, 1997). Most significant docu-ments are “Guidelines for eradicationof terrestrial vertebrates: a Europeancontribution to the invasive alienspecies issue” (T-PVS (2000) 65) and“Identification of non-native freshwa-ter fish established in Europe, assess-ing their potential threat to native bio-logical diversity” (T-PVS(2001) 6).

The document “Bern Convention actionon invasive alien species in Europe”(T-PVS (2001) 10) underlines the impor-tance of greater synergy between insti-tutions, especially between the Con-vention and the European Commis-sion, to harmonise legislation andprograms on invasive alien species.

In 2003 the Council of Europe appro-ved the “European strategy on inva-sive alien species” (T-PVS (2003) 7),which promotes the development andimplementation of coordinated mea-sures and efforts throughout the re-gion to minimise the adverse impactof IAS on Europe’s biodiversity, econ-omy and human health and well being(Genovesi and Shine, 2003).

2.1.3 Other relevant international instruments

In addition to the Convention on Bio-logical Diversity and the Bern Con-vention, the EU has ratified a numberof other important international con-ventions aimed at nature conserva-tion, which refer to alien species.These are: > the Helsinki Convention on the

Baltic Sea (1974),> the Ramsar Convention on the Con-

servation of Wetlands (1971),> the Barcelona Convention on the

Mediterranean (1976),> the Bonn Convention on Migratory

Species (1979),> the Convention on the Protection of

the Alps (1991).

The European Union and its MemberStates collaborate with a number ofinternational bodies concerned withIAS issues. They include the following: > European and Mediterranean Plant

Protection Organisation (EPPO), > Organisation International des Epi-

zooties (for animal health),> World Trade Organisation, > International Civil Aviation Organi-

sation,> International Maritime Organisation.

Cooperation with these bodies is aimedat reducing risks associated with cer-tain pathways as well as preventionand management of species. For ex-ample, the EU is actively cooperatingwith the International Maritime Organ-isation, to develop legal measures forballast water management, and withthe IPPC/EPPO (European Commis-sion, 2003) to develop a work programon IAS, in particular plants, with the fol-lowing objectives:> definition of terms,> collection of data,> collection of information on existing

control measures,> preparation of pilot studies on re-

commendations to EPPO memberson the eradication and containment,

> development of a common approachto weeds as quarantine pests or reg-ulated non-quarantine pests, whereappropriate,

> information services.

The EU is also engaged sub-region-ally, for instance through regional seasinstruments for the North-East Atlantic(OSPAR), Baltic Sea and the Mediter-ranean, which mandate prevention andmanagement measures for marineintroductions.

The UN Food and Agriculture Orga-nization (FAO) has also elaboratedspecific document taking into accountmatters related to IAS, such as the“Code of Conduct for ResponsibleFisheries” and the “Code of Conductfor the Import and Release of ExoticBiological Control Agents” both adop-ted in 1995.

Tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima).

The American ruddy duck (Oxyurajamaicensis) (from Scalera, 2001).

© P

hoto

Ste

fano

Pic

chi

© R

icca

rdo

Sca

lera

In the European Union there is no spe-cific legislation dealing with IAS. Thismight be also due to the considerationthat, as reported by the EuropeanCommission (2003), such cross-cut-ting issues as IAS involve several sec-tors. They include nature conservation,trade, agriculture, fisheries, health andresearch.

Moreover up to now IAS issues havehad relatively low visibility in the Com-munity, especially outside specialist cir-cles. Only in the last years, problemsand risks associated to IAS have re-ceived greater attention. For instance,in 2001 the Commission has officiallyrecognised IAS as an emerging issue(COM(2001)162 final). Alien specieshave been also taken into account bythe March 2002 European Council ofEnvironment Ministers as one of themain causes of biodiversity loss andserious damage to economy and health.

Even though there is no EU specificlegislation addressing IAS, the wildlifetrade regulations and the “Birds” and“Habitats” directives include provi-sions which address the risks of intro-duced species to native fauna andflora.

2.2.1 The Regulation (EC) 338/97 on internationalwildlife trade

In order to protect endangered wildlifefrom unsustainable trade exploitation,the European Union has adopted anumber of laws, generally known aswildlife trade regulations. These aremainly aimed at a sound implementa-tion of the Convention on InternationalTrade in Endangered Species of WildFauna and Flora (CITES), signed inWashington in 1973. Although not yeta party to the Washington convention,the EU has implemented the conven-tion since 1984 through Council Reg-


2.2 EU legislation related to exotic species

© M

assi

umili

ano

Lip

per

iIntroduced goats (Capra hircus) can turngreen islands into desolated deserts, due to their voracious feeding habits. The species has been targeted by the Portuguese project “Measures for the recovery of the terrestrial habitat of Deserta Grande” (LIFE95 NAT/P/0125).

© P

hoto

Ric

card

o S

cale

ra

The American bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana),a species introduced in Europe as a pet species and for food.

(from Scalera, 2001).

In 1973 a number of countries signedthe Convention on International Tradein Endangered Species of Wild Faunaand Flora, also known as CITES. CI-TES is a complex and a continuallyevolving treaty, with a number of res-olutions relating to its interpretation,definitions and application.

The enforcement of CITES is based ona complex administrative systemwhich all parties must implement toregulate and control movement ofspecies at international level. This sys-tem depends on the issue of importand export certificates provided thatspecific conditions are met, for exam-ple, after execution of adequate mon-itoring of trade both at entry pointsand in the wild.

This convention does not include anyprovision directly related to IAS. How-ever CITES has recognized the impor-tance of cooperation with the CBD onthis topic and has shown increasinginterest in IAS issues. For instance,Decision 11.64 on trade in alienspecies calls for the recognition thatnon-indigenous species can pose sig-nificant threats to biodiversity, andthat fauna and flora in commerce arelikely to be introduced into new habi-tats as a result of international trade. Iturges Parties to consider the problemof invasive species when developingnational legislation that deal with tradein live animals or plants (see for in-stance decision 11.100 and the min-utes of the meetings of the AnimalCommittee).

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

2.2.2 The EU Birds and Habitats directives

In 1979, the Council of the EuropeanCommunity adopted Directive 79/409/EC on the conservation of wild birds(also known has the “Birds” directive),which requires Member States to pro-tect all bird species naturally occurringin the wild on their territory.

Article 11 of the directive states that“Member States shall see that anyintroduction of species of bird whichdo not occur naturally in the wild statein the European territory of the Mem-ber States does not prejudice the localflora and fauna.”

In 1992, the European Union adoptedthe Council Directive 92/43/EEC onthe conservation of natural habitatsand wild fauna and flora, also knownas the “Habitats” directive, with theaim of realising a network of protec-ted areas, called Natura 2000, andmaintaining habitats and species in afavourable conservation status.

Article 22 of the Habitats directiveestablishes that, for Member States,“the deliberate introduction into thewild of any species which is not nativeto their territory is regulated so as notto prejudice natural habitats withintheir natural range or the wild nativefauna and flora and, if they consider itnecessary, prohibit such introduction.”

Moreover, according to article 6(3),“Any plan or project not directly con-nected with or necessary to the man-agement of the site but likely to havea significant effect thereon, either indi-vidually or in combination with otherplans or projects, shall be subject toappropriate assessment of its impli-cations for the site in view of the site’sconservation objectives.” This provi-sion should be applied also to activi-ties involving the release, transloca-tion or any other improper use ofexotics affecting the conservation sta-tus of native species within a Natura2000 site.

© P

hoto

Ric

card

o S

cale

ra

Red–eared slider (Trachemys scripta elegans).

ulation (EEC) No. 3626/82. Followingthe adoption of the single market inJanuary 1993, which abolished tradecontrols between Member States, thisregulation has been amended andupdated by Council Regulation (EC) No.338/97, currently amended by Com-mission Regulation (EC) No. 1579/2001(Magel, 2002).

Wildlife trade regulations deal withimports and exports of wild animalsand plants and their products to andfrom the EU, as well as commercebetween and within Member States.All CITES provisions are incorporatedin these regulations, in addition toother measures (for instance, inclusionof non-CITES listed species). Theseregulations also take into account theprovisions of other EU directives, suchas the “Birds” and “Habitats” direc-tives, in order to be consistent with theEU nature conservation policy.

The wildlife trade regulations not onlyprovide a basis for the implementationof CITES within the Community, butrepresents also the most effectivelegal tool for controlling imports of

species that may become invasive.Specifically, Regulation 338/97 pro-vides that the Commission may estab-lish restrictions on the import of “livespecimens of species for which it hasbeen established that their introduc-tion into the natural environment of theCommunity present an ecologicalthreat to wild species of fauna andflora indigenous to the Community.”

The American bullfrog (Rana cates-beiana) and the red-eared slider (Tra-chemys scripta elegans), are the onlyspecies for which import has beensuspended (according to CommissionRegulation (EC) No. 349/2003).

2.2.3 Other relevant EU directives and regulations

Other EU directives and regulationsexist concerning invasive alien spe-cies. For instance, having regard ofthe role of zoological gardens as amajor pathway for the spread of exo-tics worldwide, a relevant measure isincluded in Council Directive 1999/-22/EC on the keeping of wild animalsin zoos, which requires Member Sta-tes to “prevent the escape of animalsin order to avoid possible ecologicalthreats to indigenous species and pre-venting intrusion of outside pests andvermin” (art.3).

As reported by the European Com-mission (2003), there are also a num-ber of legal instruments which, althoughnot directly addressed to nature con-servation, prohibit or restrict imports ofalien plant and animal species particu-larly in relation to agricultural pestsand diseases affecting livestock and


The European Court of Justice (ECJ)has considered the application ofArt.8(h) of the Convention of BiologicalDiversity in the context of free move-ment of goods within the Community. Case C-67/97 concerned the keepingof a non-indigenous bee species onthe island of Læsø (Denmark) and theprotection of the brown bee sub-species Apis mellifera mellifera nativeto the island.

The European Court of Justice ruledon 3 December 1998 that a legislativemeasure prohibiting the keeping ofany species of bee other than thenative subspecies Apis mellifera mel-lifera on the island must be regardedas justified, under Article 30 of the ECTreaty (ex Article 36), with a view toprotecting the health and survival ofanimals. It considered that measuresto preserve an indigenous animal pop-ulation with distinct characteristicscontribute to the maintenance of bio-diversity by ensuring the survival of thepopulation concerned and are thusaimed at the protection of animal life.

From the point of view of such con-servation of biodiversity, it is immate-rial whether the object of protection isa separate subspecies, a distinctstrain within any given species ormerely a local colony, so long as thepopulations in question have charac-teristics distinguishing them from oth-ers and are therefore judged worthy ofprotection.

This case creates a precedent – atleast in specific circumstances – for

farmed fish. For these two categories,the Community has a comprehensiveframework of laws and proceduresthat are harmonised with internationalphytosanitary and zoo sanitary rules.

limiting the operation of the SingleMarket for reasons related to the pro-tection of wild species and geneticdiversity.

The European Commission (2003)considers that this case law might,under certain conditions, also apply toterritories larger than small islandssuch as Læsø, and is currently exam-ining whether the principles estab-lished by the ECJ for small islandscould be applied to all Member States.

There may be scope to apply thisprecedent to other alien species orsubspecies that, once introduced to agiven territory, are extremely difficultto contain and may have irreversibleeffects at the species or other geneticlevel. Such risks may come from, forinstance, the introduction of aliencrayfish, the use of live baitfish in wildor semi-wild fisheries without priorscreening for suitability, and large-scale landscaping and replanting withnon-native genotypes of plants.

European case law on restricting movement of alien species (reported from the European Commission, 2003)

The grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis).

The European bee (Apis melliferamellifera).

© M

assi

mili

ano

Lip

per

i

© P

hoto

Ric

card

o S

cale

ra

The Birds and Habitats directives areamong the main legal instruments forthe conservation of wild threatenedspecies and habitats in the EU. Themain objective of the Habitats direc-tive is the creation of a network of pro-tected areas, called Natura 2000,aimed at ensuring that all fauna, floraand habitats listed in the two direc-tives receive sufficient protection toguarantee their long-term conserva-tion. Natura 2000 will include SpecialAreas of Conservation, classified underthe Habitats directive, and SpecialProtection Areas, designated by theMember States pursuant to the Birdsdirective.

One innovation introduced with theHabitats directive is that the selectionof sites is not linked to States bound-aries, but to biogeographical regions:Alpine, Atlantic, Boreal, Continental,Macaronesian, Mediterranean andPannonian (this last introduced in “Thetreaty to the accession to the Euro-pean Union 2003”). A second innova-tive approach is that socio-economicrealities within the sites are taken intoconsideration together with conserva-tion values. The sites will not be naturesanctuaries: the preservation of biodi-versity may require human activitiescompatible with the conservationaims of Natura 2000.

The realization of the Natura 2000 net-work is structured in three phases.During the first phase the Member

3. LIFE contribution to the implementation of the CBDguiding principlesThe LIFE program, which has been a testing ground for pilot actions aimed at the eradication

and control of alien species, demonstrates that the threats posed by exotics can be addressed

successfully within the Natura 2000 network, obtaining considerable results, particularly

in isolated ecosystems and at the early stage of invasion.

3.1 The Natura 2000 network

States identify a number of sites onthe basis of the presence of habi-tats/species listed in the Habitatsdirective, to be proposed to the Com-mission as Sites of Community Impor-tance (pSCIs).

In the following phase the MemberStates and the Commission, with thesupport of the European Topic Centeron Nature Protection and Biodiversityof the European Environment Agency,

verify the information andconsolidate the


In 1992 the European Union estab-lished the Financial Instrument for theEnvironment, LIFE (Council Regulation(EEC) No. 1973/92) to contribute to theimplementation and development ofenvironmental policy and legislation.

This instrument, which consists ofthree branches, LIFE Nature, LIFEEnvironment and LIFE Third Coun-tries, started its third phase (2000-2004) under Regulation (EC) No.1655/2000, with a budget of 640 mil-lion Euros.

The three branches are very differentfrom each other. The specific objec-tive of LIFE Nature is to contribute tothe implementation of the Birds andHabitats directives, and in particular,to the creation of the Natura 2000 net-work. It finances nature conservationprojects to maintain or restore naturalhabitats and/or species populations toa favourable conservation status. LIFEalso finances Co-op projects, aimed ateffective co-operation and networkingamong LIFE Nature projects targetingsimilar nature conservation subjects orthemes, and Starter projects in orderto contribute to the preparation ofinternational LIFE Nature proposals.

LIFE Environment finances demon-strative projects, which contribute tothe development of innovative tech-niques for the protection of the envi-ronment.

LIFE Third Countries contributes tothe creation of capacity building and

3.2 The LIFE program

Map showing the biogeographical regionsof the European Union. It also includesthose regions relative to the AccessionCountries and the Candidate Countries(from European Environment Agency,2003).

RegionsArctic Boreal AtlanticContinentalAlpinePannonianMediterraneanMacaronesianSteppicBlack SeaAnatolian

Brochure of the EuropeanCommission on the LIFE program.

national lists. After the Council of Min-isters approval of all the biogeograph-ical lists of sites, the Member Stateshave six years to designate the pSCIsas Special Areas of Conservation andto gradually introduce the measures toconserve and manage the sites.

The Special Protection Areas, desig-nated under the Birds directive, areincorporated into the Natura 2000 net-work from the time of their designationby the competent national authority.

Up to October 2003, 15,557 Sites ofCommunity Importance have beenproposed by Member States for inclu-sion in the Natura 2000 network and3,200 Special Protection Areas havebeen designated.

to the development of environmentallegislation in neighbouring countries ofthe EU and countries bordering on theMediterranean and Baltic Sea.

A total of 1992 LIFE projects havebeen financed from 1992 to 2002: 665LIFE Nature, including 4 Co-op and 12Starter projects, 1,166 LIFE Environ-ment and 161 LIFE Third Countriesprojects.

Many LIFE projects include actionsdealing with the management ofexotic species, although LIFE doesnot specifically address the problem.

Most of them are LIFE Nature projects:out of a total of 715 projects, fundedsince the start of the program, 102include measures dealing with IAS(about 14 % of the total, Annexes 1and 2). Alien species were alsoaddressed by one LIFE Third Coun-tries and six LIFE Environment pro-jects (Annexes 3 and 4).

Of these 109 LIFE projects, 66 dealwith plants, 31 with animal speciesand 12 address both (Fig.1). In totalover 27 million Euros have been ded-icated to reducing or eliminating thethreats posed by exotics.

The high number of LIFE projects

dealing with IAS in Italy and Spain (seefig.2) is related to the high number ofprojects proposed each year by thetwo countries anddoes not imply agreater perception of the problem. Asshown in fig.3, the number of projectsdoes not reflect the budget financedfor actions aimed at IAS in each coun-try, because the cost of projects andmeasures varies considerably fromcountry to country.

Twenty-four projects deal almost ex-clusively with the eradication or controlof alien species, including 20 financedby LIFE Nature and 4 by LIFE Environ-ment (Fig.2, Annexes 1 and 3). The to-tal budget of these projects amountsto 23.3 million Euros, with an EC con-tribution of almost 11.9 million Euros.

The other 83 projects aimed, at least inpart, at alien species (see Fig.2) include

various types of measures, often con-nected with restoration of habitats orrecovery of species of EU interest. Theminimum budget spent on actionsdealing with exotics, which amounts tomore than 4.3 million Euros, has beencalculated for only 44 projects, due tothe impossibility to extrapolate the ex-penses dedicated specifically to man-age IAS, from figures related to actionsaimed to other objectives.

The following pages review the mainoutcomes of LIFE projects dealing withIAS, in accordance with the GuidingPrinciples developed by the CBD.

The CBD guiding principles for the pre-vention, introduction and mitigation ofimpacts of alien species that threatenecosystems, habitats or species aresubdivided into four groups: general,prevention, introduction of speciesand mitigation of impacts.

Among the themes included in thegeneral group of the guiding princi-ples, developed in various degrees by

3.3 The LIFE projects dealing with invasive alien species

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Austri

a

Belgium

Denm

ark

Finlan

d

Fran

ce

Germ

any

Italy

Portu

gal

Spain

Sweden

The N

ethe

rland

United

King

dom

Estonia

Hunga

ry

Latvi

a

Bosnia

Alien plants

Alien animals

Alien plants and animals

Fig.1 – Number of LIFE projects addressing alien plants/animals in each European country from 1992 to 2002

LIFE projects, there are the ecosystemapproach, the role of states, researchand monitoring, education and publicawareness.

LIFE gives a specific contribution tothe principles concerning preventionand mitigation of impacts, the latterincluding provisions for eradication,containment and control.

The “lessons learnt” in implementingthese projects (Annexes 1 and 4) rep-resent an important contribution to:> plan the actions to be envisaged

within future projects dealing withalien species;

> support, the need be, the develop-ment of a EU strategy based on theConvention on Biological Diversity(CBD) guiding principles.

In addition to “lessons learnt” in rela-tion to the CBD Guiding Principles,experiences from some LIFE projectsdealing with measures accompanyingthe management of exotics are alsotaken into consideration.

3.3.1 General principles

Ecosystem approach

Article 2 of the CBD defines the ecosys-tem as a “dynamic complex of plant,animal, and micro-organism communi-ties and their non-living environmentinteracting as a functional unit.” An effi-cient approach to IAS cannot limititself to an intervention on the singlespecies but involves an integratedmanagement of all components of theecosystem, based on the most appro-priate scientific methodologies andpromoting, in parallel, conservationand sustainable use.

The ecosystem approach is implied inthe spirit of LIFE Nature, the objectiveof which is “to maintain or restore thenatural habitats and the population ofspecies of wild fauna and flora at afavourable status.”

All LIFE Nature projects are based onthe ecosystem approach, the only onethat can guarantee the long-term

maintenance of natural biodiversity,favouring a greater resistance againstthe invasion by exotic species and/ora greater capacity of the ecosystem torecover after a biological invasion.

The ecosystem approach implies astrict co-operation between neigh-bouring administrative regions, asecological boundaries rarely coincidewith administrative ones.

This approach can help the applicationof a single strategy in managing IAS inthe same ecological units. For exam-ple, between 2000 and 2002, four LIFENature projects were submitted forfunding by four different Spanish pub-lic administrations. Their objective wasto develop a collaborative frameworkto protect the only relatively healthypopulation of the native European mink(Mustela lutreola) in Western Europe.The main threat for this species is thespread of its (competitive) Americanrelative (Mustela vison) in its distribu-tion area, the medium and lower Ebrobasin. The four projects (LIFE00 NAT/E/


0 5 10 15 20 25 300 5 10 15 20 25 30

Austria

Belgium

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Hungary

Italy

Latvia

Portugal

Spain

Sweden

The Netherland

United Kingdom

Austria

Belgium

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Hungary

Italy

Latvia

Portugal

Spain

Sweden

The Netherland

United Kingdom

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

Primarily aimed at alien species

Partially aimed at alien species

Total budgetof projectsprimarily aimed at alien species

Minimum budgetspent for actionsaimed at alien species

1.270

data not avilable

5.680

373

42

2.155

151

6

3.594

18

2.334

8.295

338

data not avilable

3.324

Fig.2 – Number of LIFE projects addressing alienspecies from 1992 to 2002

Fig.3 – Budget dedicated to LIFE projectsaddressing alien species from 1992 to 2002(thousands of Euro)

The role of States

The management of IAS is a trans-boundary problem. This is particularlytrue within Europe, with its sharedcoastline, mountain chains and water-courses, where species introducedwithin the boundaries of one State caneasily spread to neighbouring coun-tries, without any respect of nationaladministrative boundaries.

A prompt collaboration and exchangeof information among States is there-fore particularly important to identifypathways that enable exotics to spreadover new territories and invade newareas within the European Union.

In 2003, following a symposiumorganised within the framework of theLIFE Nature Co-op project “Control ofexotic vertebrates in Islands of Portu-gal and Spain” (LIFE02 NAT/CP/E/14),presidents of the governments of theautonomous regions of Madeira, Azo-res, Canary islands and Balearic is-lands signed a declaration for thedevelopment of a common adequate

The international meeting “Vertebradosinvasores en islas de España y Portugal,”held in Santa Cruz de Tenerife on February 12-14, 2003.Below. Female American striped crayfish(Orconectes limosus) with eggs.

© P

hoto

Alfo

nso

Gut

ierr

ez T

eira

© P

hoto

Dep

t. A

nim

al B

iolo

gy –

Pav

ia U

nive

rsity

(Ita

ly)

The CBD guiding principles for the prevention, introduction and mitigation of impacts of alien species that threaten ecosystems,habitats or species

A General1 Precautionary approach 2 Three-stage hierarchical

approach3 Ecosystem approach4 The role of States5 Research and monitoring 6 Education and public

awareness B Prevention 7 Border control and

quarantine measures8 Exchange of information9 Cooperation, including

capacity-buildingC Introduction of species10 Intentional introductions11 Unintentional introductionsD Mitigation of impact 12 Eradication13 Mitigation of impact 14 Containment15 Control

7331, LIFE00 NAT/E/7335, LIFE00 NAT/E/7299, LIFE02 NAT/E/8604) were fi-nanced and are today being managedin strict coordination to apply a com-mon conservation strategy in the Ebrobasin.

activities are financed when con-nected with interventions in the field.In some cases important results oninvasive alien species have beenobtained. One of these is the LIFEEnvironment project “Expansion of thetropical green algae Caulerpa taxifoliain the Mediterranean Sea” (LIFE92ENV/F/0066, LIFE92 ENV/E/0067 andLIFE92 ENV/IT/0068), directed atalgae that represent one of the mainthreats for the Posidonia oceanicabeds, a Community important habitat.The area of distribution of the sea-weed in the Mediterranean Sea wasdetermined and secondary metabo-lites that play an important role in thecompetitiveness of the Caulerpa toindigenous species have been identi-fied. The main conclusion of the pro-ject was that the eradication of theseaweed is no longer feasible in theMediterranean basin.

The project “Control of the Caulerpataxifolia extension in the MediterraneanSea” (LIFE95 ENV/F/782), involvedeighteen partners, including nationaland regional governments. In this pro-ject methodologies of description andidentification of Caulerpa were stan-dardised. Various techniques for thecontrol of the seaweed were devel-oped, tested and proposed at the local,regional and international level. On thebasis of surveys of sensitive areas andNatura 2000 sites, realised to monitorthe spread of the so dubbed “killeralga” and to discover new populations,a mathematical model of the spread ofCaulerpa and a strategy for its controlin the entire Mediterranean Sea weredeveloped.

Monitoring, which is carried out by agreat number of LIFE Nature projects,is a key tool for a prompt detection ofthe presence of new exotic species.Today discovery of new species oftendepends on occasional reporting byspecialists (naturalists, birdwatchers,botanists, etc…) or non-specialistsconnected with other fields of activity(agriculture, forestry, fishing, etc.).

A project that achieved significantresults on exotic species, as a conse-quence of monitoring activity, is “Con-servation of Austropotamobius pal-lipes in two pSCIs of Lombardy”


mation for the purposes of properco-ordination of research carried outat Member State and at Communitylevel.”Research and monitoring are particu-larly important to tackle exotics. Theirmanagement requires a base of upda-ted and comprehensive scientific andtechnical knowledge. Current knowl-edge is often inadequate to allow deci-sion makers to adopt measures oninvasive alien species.

LIFE does not finance projects basedonly on research. However, research

legislation to prevent further undesiredintroductions and to facilitate eradica-tion and control actions.

Research and monitoring

The Habitats and Birds directivesspecifically require for research andmonitoring of conservation status ofnative habitats and species. Accord-ing to article 11 of the Habitats direc-tive “Member States shall undertakesurveillance of the conservation statusof the natural habitats and speciesreferred to in Article 2 with particularregard to priority natural habitat typesand priority species.” Moreover Article18 foresees that: “Member States andthe Commission shall encourage thenecessary research and scientificwork […] They shall exchange infor-

Above. Removal of exotic crayfish from a tributary of the Ticino River in Northern Italy.Below. Exotic crayfish captured with a trap.

© P

hoto

Dep

t. A

nim

al B

iolo

gy –

Pav

ia U

nive

rsity

(Ita

ly)

© P

hoto

Dep

t. A

nim

al B

iolo

gy –

Pav

ia U

nive

rsity

(Ita

ly)

(LIFE00 NAT/IT/7159). A map showingthe distribution of all crayfish speciesfound on a wide geographic area isbeing realised. Surveys already carriedout lead to the discovery of at leastthree exotic species, namely the red-swamp crayfish (Procambarus clarkii),the American striped crayfish (Orco-nectes limosus) and the Turkish cray-fish (Astacus leptodactylus), togetherwith a number of sites hosting remnantpopulations of the native white-clawedcrayfish (Austropotamobius pallipes).The data collected are being used toestablish the best management optionfor a proper conservation strategy forthe native species, to be reintroducedin two protected areas.

Education and public awareness

According to the European Commu-nity (2003), the threats posed by inva-

sive alien species “have low visibilityoutside the specialist circles” and cit-izens, key sectors groups and deci-sion makers have only a limited per-ception of the problem. Education andpublic awareness campaigns are the-refore extremely important for a suc-cessful management of the problems

associated to the introduction ofexotic species. In this context, LIFEoffers the best opportunities to raisepublic awareness, since all projectsinclude a specific section on publicawareness and dissemination of re-sults.

Awareness raising campaigns may beessential activities not only for pre-venting new invasions of exotic speciesbut also for ensuring public support oneradication and control programs.Spread of information addressing sta-keholders and other involved targets(i.e. traders, farmers, gardeners, tou-rist associations, etc.), could give animportant contribution stimulating, forexample, voluntary collaboration.

Leaflets and brochures are among themost popular products realised for thispurpose. A relevant example is theSpanish project “Conservation of thethreatened freshwater mussel (Mar-garitifera auricularia) in the River Ebro(Catalunya)” (LIFE00 NAT/E/7328). Dur-

ing its implementation, a new popula-tion of the alien zebra mussel (Dreissenapolymorpha), a famous invader, wasdiscovered accidentally. Although theproject did not include any action aimedat exotics, this discovery led to the re-alisation of a leaflet on the threat posedby Dreissena, produced as a contribu-tion to the prevention of its spread. Theleaflet furnishes indications on boatmaintenance to avoid the spread of theexotic mussel.

Consensus and cooperation are im-portant in particular when the species

Above. The eradication of the fig marigold(Carpobrotus edulis) was carried out during the LIFE Nature project“Conservation of areas with threatenedflora on the island of Minorca” (LIFE2000 NAT/E/7355). Numerous volunteers were involved in the project as a result of the intensive awarenesscampaign.Right. The leaflet published to stop thespread of the zebra mussel (Dreissenapolymorpha) in the Ebro river basin.

is present in more than one country.The LIFE Environment project “Controlof the Caulerpa taxifolia extension inthe Mediterranean Sea” (LIFE95 ENV/-F/782), included an even wider infor-


The leaflet on the need to control rodentsand cats in the Canary Islands producedduring the project “Restoration of theislets and cliffs of Famara (LanzaroteIsland)” (LIFE99 NAT/E/6392).

> To overcome possible disputes andconflicts between States or subna-tional regions, inter-jurisdictionalmanagement agreements and oth-er measures to operate cross-sec-torial integration should be encour-aged, as in the case of the four Span-ish projects aimed at saving theEuropean mink (Mustela lutreola) andthe LIFE Nature Co-op project "Con-trol of exotic vertebrates in Islandsof Portugal and Spain”.

> Research on IAS ecology and biol-ogy, including status, distribution,history and population trends, shouldbe supported. Research should in-clude assessment of the impacts ofIAS on the ecosystems and on thesocio-economic sectors. Informa-tion exchange and consultationamong specialists on alien speciesshould be promoted.

> Regular monitoring of areas vulner-able to invasion (Natura 2000 sites,islands, isolated ecosystems, pro-tected areas) should be implement-ed. In the project “Conservation of the

threatened freshwater mussel (Mar-garitifera auricularia) in the River Ebro(Catalunya)” it allowed the unex-pected discovery of a new harmfulexotic species.

> Regular updating of scientific dataand local knowledge should be pro-moted in order to raise public awa-reness and to support decision-mak-ers in adopting prompt actions in re-sponse to IAS emergencies.

> The involvement of stakeholders oncontainment and control programsshould be envisaged in order to en-hance the possibility to afford thehigh and recurrent costs of thesemanagement options and to reacheffective results.

> Awareness raising programs and reg-ular information for the public shouldalways be considered an integral partof any eradication or control project.Public awareness, even though anessential part of the LIFE projects,often does not specifically cover theIAS issue. The need to raise aware-

ness on exotic species should betaken into account within all projectsaimed at the development of theNatura 2000 network. Due to the im-portance and the generalized lack ofknowledge on alien species, projectsshould also be encouraged to includea more detailed analysis of the sitesinterested by the project. The LIFEEnvironment project “Control of theCaulerpa taxifolia extension in theMediterranean Sea” (LIFE95 ENV/F/782), furnishes a good example ofthe usefulness of a well managedpublic awareness campaign.

> Information campaigns on IAS issuesshould be promoted for different tar-get audiences (general public, stu-dents, stakeholders, local authori-ties, government agencies). Infor-mation materials to assist farmers,gardeners, birdwatchers, foresters,fishermen, hunters, divers, hikers andphotographers in detecting the es-tablishment of new alien species,should be prepared.

General principles: lessons learnt

mation campaign. One of the aimsof the project was to inform govern-ments and all involved sectors (i.e.fishermen, divers, pleasure craftcrews) on the need to contrast theinvasion of Caulerpa. A video, multi-language leaflets and posters havebeen produced and distributed ineight Mediterranean countries (Spain,France, Italy, Malta, Croatia, Tunisia,Algeria and Turkey). The effectivenessof this campaign was remarkable:tourists and residents contributed tothe discovery of new colonies of Cau-lerpa, which were removed, slowing-down the spread of the “killer algae”in the Mediterranean sea, now recog-nised as a pest to be eliminated.

Awareness raising campaigns mayalso be useful in changing publicperception of exotic species. Publicconsultation with local communitiesand stakeholders, so as to solve inadvance potential misunderstand-ings and disagreements, is strongly

the Spanish LIFE Nature Co-op pro-ject “Control of exotic vertebrates inIslands of Portugal and Spain” (LIFE02NAT/CP/E/14), which includes actionsaimed at promoting exchange of infor-mation through the organisation of aninternational symposium, the realisa-tion of a guide on management tech-niques for invasive vertebrates, andthe establishment of a network toshare updated information on exoticsand their management.

One of the outcomes of the Italian LIFENature project “EOLIFE99 – Conser-vation of priority plant species in Aeo-lian Islands” (LIFE99 NAT/IT/6217),aimed at four endemic plant speciesof Community interest, was the inclu-sion of specific measures to avoid in-tentional introductions of exotics in thespecies management plans. The Liparimunicipality, beneficiary of the project,issued an ordinance to ban the intro-duction of exotic animals and plants inthe entire archipelago.

Silene hicesiae is a small flower endemicof the Aeolian Islands, which is threatened by intentionally introducedexotic plants.

© P

hoto

Dan

iela

Zag

hi

recommended to allow for a rapid andeffective implementation of the man-agement actions. Public oppositioncould cause significant delays in themanagement of undesirable IAS. Awell-known case study is the block ofthe eradication of the grey squirrel inItaly due to strong local opposition(Genovesi and Bertolino, 2001). As aresult the species can no longer beremoved from the area.

The invitation to the meeting organisedwithin the Spanish Co-op project.

3.3.2 Prevention

“An ounce of prevention is worth a po-und of cure”.

The protection of the environment isbest achieved by preventing environ-mental harm rather than by attempt-ing to remedy or compensate for thedamages (McNeely, et al., 2001). Pre-vention is therefore the first line ofdefence, as suggested by all interna-tional instruments dealing with IAS.

Prevention, as referred to in the CBDguiding principles, includes: a) Border control and quarantine

measures.b) Exchange of information.c) Cooperation, including

capacity-building.

LIFE, which is aimed at containing andeliminating actual and not potentialthreats to habitats/species, has notfunded projects addressed specifi-cally at the prevention of invasive alienintroductions. However, there are pre-vention measures, other than thosedealing with awareness raising (seeprevious paragraph), which have beenincluded in a number of LIFE projects. A major example of the implementa-tion of the CBD principles is found in


Strombolicchio, the islet close to Stromboli,in the Eolian Archipelago, where the introduction of alien species has beenavoided thanks to the LIFE project“Eolife99”.

© P

hoto

Ric

card

o S

cale

ra

Case study

Measures for the management andconservation of the laurel forest ofMadeira (LIFE97 NAT/P/4082)

One cannot blame the Madeiran peo-ple for having been seduced by thestunning ornamental Kahili ginger(Hedychium gardnerianum) with itslarge, vividly coloured inflorescence,and adopting it in their gardens backin 1934. They are regretting it, though,since it is now running wild in Madeira’sforests, choking the native vegetation.The true home of Hedychium gardne-rianum is the foothills of the Himalayabut this big plant - over 1 m tall – nowforms vast, dense colonies across thelower border of the Madeiran moun-tains, displacing the native species ofthe macaronesian laurel forest – a pri-ority habitat according to Habitats di-rective. It propagates by stolons wherealready established, while fleshy, redseeds are dispersed by frugivorousbirds. Even small (1 cm) root fragmentswill regrow.

In 1997, a LIFE Nature project wasfunded to the Madeira Natural Park tocontrol this incredibly aggressivespecies and raise public awarenesstowards the problem of species intro-duction into islands. Although the sur-face covered by the invasive plantincreased dramatically between thepreparation of the LIFE proposal andthe beginning of the project - from 150

> Local and regional rules to prevent introductions in particularly vulnerableareas (e.g. archipelagos, isolated ecosystems, biodiversity hot spots, protect-ed areas) should be developed. Legal base to forbid the entry of IAS shouldbe provided, as in the case of the Aeolian Islands LIFE project.

> Sites management plans and species action plans should include, whenappropriate, measures directed at preventing IAS introductions.

> Capacity-building programs should be promoted for training personnel to beused for early detection, following the example of the LIFE project funded inthe Madeira Natural Park.

> Exchange of information among administrations, particularly those in similarbiogeographical and climatic conditions, should be encouraged to identify andaddress risks, provide feedback and, as appropriate, support capacity-build-ing for prevention and risk assessment.

ha to more than 200 ha – a total of 165ha were worked on, meaning 850 tonsof plant material removed. The resultswere incredible as the removal wasdone manually, the only way to preventsmall pieces of rhizome from being leftbehind and re-growing. Eradicationwas achieved inside the forest and inkey areas near it, forming a kind of“cordon sanitaire”. The project hiredseveral rural workers and had the sup-port of the army for the plants’ re-moval. Farmers owning land plots nearthe cordon sanitaire were encouragedto cultivate them after a first exoticsremoval by the natural park, under thecompromise to fight back any naturalre-sprouting. Plant remains were com-posted and the resulting fertiliser givenout to local farmers.

This doesn’t mean that when the pro-ject ended, in January 2000, the workwas to be considered finished. Far fromit. With such aggressive species, a con-tinuous monitoring and control is need-ed. This is being achieved with the in-tegration of three of the LIFE projectworkers in the Park’s staff to form anexotics prevention team and perma-nent agreements with the army - thatguarantees the assignment of a brigadeof twelve men to the field work once aweek – and the Centro Ocupacional doFunchal, a local institution that organ-ises activities for disabled young peo-ple – which assigns ten people to thefield work once a week.

Similar results were obtained with theLIFE Third Countries project “Devel-opment of a new management policyfor the Hutovo Blato wetlands, Bosnia-Herzegovina” (LIFE99 THC/BIH/0035).Its main objective was the drafting ofa new Cantonal and State law, includ-ing specific indications for the controland elimination of non-native, invasivefish species, within protected areas.

Prevention: lessons learnt

3.3.3 Eradication

Eradication is the most effective solu-tion in terms of biodiversity conserva-tion, and when carried out successful-ly, it is more cost-effective than control,which requires continuous expendi-tures over a long period of time.

This management option is used inLIFE more for plants than for animals,probably because the definitive re-moval of plant species is perceived asmore feasible and achievable withinthe average LIFE project time length.One example is the LIFE-Nature pro-ject “Restoration of alluvial woods inthe Ticino Park”, (LIFE97 NAT/IT/4134)which took place in Northern Italy. TheAmerican cherry (Prunus serotina), thefalse acacia (Robinia pseudacacia),the tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima)and the red oak (Quercus rubra) wereeradicated from a wide surface of for-est habitat of Community interest.

In general, no eradication projectshould begin unless a specific assess-ment study has shown its technicaland financial feasibility. In the case ofthe Italian project “Palata Menasciutto– management and conservation of

wet woodlands” (LIFE99 NAT/IT/6253),the eradication of black bullhead (Icta-lurus melas) and pumpkinseed sunfish(Lepomis gibbosus), two fish speciesintroduced from North America, wasconsidered no longer feasible after thestart of the activities. The eradicationwas not possible because the waterbodies hosting the two species werelying too close to a river course, andfloods, which occur periodically in thatarea, would have brought about a nat-ural re-colonisation. Another constraintwas the lack of species-specific eradi-cation techniques to be applied to fish.

Eradication is likely to be even moredifficult in marine environments, asshown by the international LIFE Envi-ronment project “Expansion of thetropical green algae Caulerpa taxifoliain the Mediterranean Sea” (LIFE92ENV/F/0066, LIFE92 ENV/E/0067 andLIFE92 ENV/IT/0068). The main diffi-culties of eradication were due to thelack of biological barriers in the marineenvironment and to the difficulty ofimplementing the physical removal ofthe Caulerpa beds underwater. Thiskind of eradication is in general onlypossible in extremely rare conditionsthat allow the treatment of an extre-

Removal of the American cherry (Prunus serotina) along the Ticino River(above), and panel informing on the worksbeing carried out in the project site(below).

© P

hoto

Par

co L

omb

ard

o d

ella

Val

le d

el T

icin

o

© P

hoto

Par

co L

omb

ard

o d

ella

Val

le d

el T

icin

o

mely isolated population in restrictedareas.

As a general rule, eradication is con-sidered to be feasible in the earlystages of invasion, when populationsare small and localized, and only inareas of manageable size, such assmall islands or other isolated ecosys-tems, which should be considered pri-ority areas for this type of intervention.Successful results have been obtai-ned in Italy: black rats (Rattus rattus)and trees of heaven (Ailanthus altissi-ma) have been eradicated from someislands of the Tuscan archipelagothrough the LIFE Nature project “Pro-tection of biodiversity in Capraia andother minor islands in Tuscany” (LIFE97 NAT/IT/4153). The removal of ratshad an immediate positive effect onthe reproductive performance and onthe population size of one importantcolony of Cory’s shearwater (Calonec-tris diomedea), a bird listed in the Birdsdirective’s annexes.

In addition to a sound feasibility study,a successful eradication campaignrequires coordination among all ad-ministrations with competence on theterritory, to avoid that other interven-tions not coherent with the objectivesof the project are carried out in thesame area.

Above. Scuba diver removing the killeralgae (Caulerpa taxifolia).Below. A view of Mediterranean maquis inthe Capraia Island after the removal of thetree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima).


© P

hoto

Reg

ione

Tos

cana

The Italian project “Protection of bio-diversity in the Tuscan Tiber valley”(LIFE98 NAT/IT/5125), to mention onespecific example, included actions toremove the maritime pine trees (Pinuspinaster) translocated between 1920and 1970 by the national forestry ad-ministration and used for reforesta-tion. The lack of preliminary consulta-tion with the Forestry Corps, at theplanning phase of the activities, didnot allow for the total removal of thespecies, since the only measure per-mitted was selective felling of thetrees. However, after negotiations, theForestry Corp agreed to continue theaction also after the end of the project,so as to obtain complete removal.

Also the Austrian project “PannonianSanddunes” (LIFE98 NAT/A/5418)shows that the removal of exotic trees,which is the objective of many LIFENature projects, is not always an easytask. The project was aimed at the lastrelict dunes in Austria, which were“blocked” by the pines placed by fo-restry administration during variousreforestation campaigns and by thealien plants, such as the tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima) and the falseacacia (Robinia pseudoacacia), thatinvaded the dunes. The national fore-stry laws were the main constraints tothe project, forbidding the removal ofexotic trees, especially those used du-ring the twentieth century in reforesta-tion programs.

© M

assi

mili

ano

Lip

per

i

> Eradication of invasive alien speciesis more likely to succeed in islandsand isolated ecosystems.

> Total removal of exotics should betaken into consideration only wheremeasures are most likely to be suc-cessful.

> Sound feasibility studies should bealways carried out before any eradi-cation program. This approachwould avoid a project failure due tothe impossibility to remove certainspecies both for ecological andfinancial reasons. Feasibility studiesshould take into account the effi-cacy of the interventions, the pos-sible effects on native species andecosystems, and the potential riskof re-invasion.

> Contingency plans for the eradica-tion of specific taxa should be elab-orated. Specific monitoring actionsshould be implemented to verify thesuccess of the eradication and theeventual need of corrections.

> Any eradication program should besupported by the authority compe-tent for the management of the areaand should be developed accordingto an appropriate spatial-temporalscale.

> Local and national legislation deal-ing with the management of alienspecies should be reviewed, on thebasis of experience acquired, toverify if it can be improved.

circumstances. One example is that ofthe project “Conservation of habitatsand species of the pSCI Bosco dellaMesola” (LIFE00 NAT/IT/7147). Inorder to protect a lowland forestgrown on fossil dunes from the 15thcentury, the exotic fallow deer (Damadama) population was contained intemporary enclosures. This species

3.3.4 Containment

Containment, limiting the spread andkeeping the IAS within regional barri-ers, especially when eradication is nolonger feasible, is an appropriate strat-egy where the range of the populationis small enough to achieve a signifi-cant result.

Spread of IAS in suitable habitats canbe avoided through natural or artificialbarriers and exclusion fencing can bean effective control measure in some

inhibits the natural renovation of theforest, threatening the precious nativepopulation of Hermann’s tortoise (Tes-tudo hermanni) occurring in the areaand the last native population of reddeer (Cervus elaphus) of the Italianpeninsula. A sound control campaignassociated with containment reducedthe risk of expansion of the exoticspecies beyond the containmentzone.

Rhododendron ponticum is one of themain invasive alien plants in theUnited Kingdom. It has invaded sev-eral environments and habitats pro-tected under the Habitats directive.Total eradication of this species is nolonger feasible in the country. How-ever, the LIFE Nature project, “Restora-tion of Atlantic Oakwoods” (LIFE97NAT/UK/4244) achieved the total re-moval of this species from one Natura2000 site. To maintain this result, themain problem was the massive pres-ence of rhododendron in the area sur-rounding the Natura 2000 site and thepopularity of this plant in local gar-dens, potential sources of reseeding.To solve these problems the projectmanager decided to create a bufferzone, a “cordon sanitaire”, whichproved to be successful to avoid thereinvasion of rhododendron. The same

Eradication: lessons learnt

Above. The fallow deer (Dama dama)(from Scalera, 2001).Below. The Hermann’s tortoise (Testudohermanni).

© P

hoto

Gui

do

Cec

colin

i

© M

assi

mili

ano

Lip

per

i

Case study

Restoration of the islets and cliffs ofFamara (Lanzarote Island) (LIFE99NAT/E/6392)

Island ecosystems are particularlysensitive to the intentional or acciden-tal introduction of exotic species. Feralcats and dogs, rats, mice, rabbits areamong the most harmful, since theybehave as predators or opportunisticinvaders of habitats that have evolvedwithout them.

In the Canary Islands, LIFE Nature hasfinanced one successful experience ofalien species’ eradication, which canbe deemed as exemplar and some-how pioneering. The formerly unspoiledislets of La Graciosa, Alegranza andMontaña Clara hosted vigorous pop-ulations of rabbits, native only tosouthern Spain and probably estab-lished since the early arrival of theSpanish people in the XVI century.Also populations of feral cats, rats andthe false tobacco (Nicotiana glauca,native to South America) remained inthe islets as witness to human pres-ence in these pristine environments.

While rabbits were threatening uniqueplant communities (14 endemic toLanzarote and 38 to the Canary Islands,and four plant species whose conser-vation is considered a priority underthe Habitats directive), feral cats andrats played their role as the mostreputed predators for vertebrate com-munities. Resident and migratorybirds and endemic mammals and rep-tiles were put at risk of extinction.

ried out in the “Alegranza” islet (12 km2)showed that, while initially consideredimpossible, tackling such problem inmedium-sized islets is feasible.

After achieving the main objective withthe rabbit, further control measureswere carried out, aimed at the eradi-cation of feral cats, rats, and the falsetobacco. As a result, alien specieswere virtually removed from the isletsand the local habitats and speciesimmediately started to recover. Toensure that the results of these worksbe long lasting, the beneficiary estab-lished a permanent monitoring sys-tem, and designed a prototype mech-anism to avoid the invasion of ratsfrom boats, which was being testedwhen the LIFE project finished.

The experience acquired through LIFEshows that new methodologies,improved expertise among wildlifemanagers and the increased share ofinformation are providing excellentnew opportunities to combat alienspecies.


Above. A view of Famara (Canary Islands).Below. The brown rat (Rattus norvegicus)(from Scalera, 2001).

© P

hoto

Alfo

nso

Gut

iérr

ez T

eira

The objective of the LIFE Nature pro-ject was to improve the conservationstatus of this archipelago, a marine-terrestrial Natura 2000 site, by con-trolling invasive alien species in twoislets, using “clean” methods. Inten-sive trapping campaigns were under-taken using only methods aimed atreducing damage to local species andnegative effects over the ecosystems.The full eradication of exotic rabbits in“Montaña Clara” islet (1 km2) meant apioneer work worldwide for islands ofcomparable size, and the control car-

© M

assi

mili

ano

Lip

per

i

Case study

Managing rhododendron in the UK

Rhododendron (mainly Rhododendronponticum) was introduced to manyparts of the British Isles in the 18th and19th centuries to private estates, parksand woodlands (for game cover) main-ly from Spanish stock. It was known inthe wild by the late 19th century andspread widely in the 20th century. Itsdistribution is now considered stable.The species regenerates freely fromseeds, suckers and rootlets and hasspread to native woodland, heaths,bogs and sand dunes on a wide rangeof damp acid substrates.

One of the problems with rhododen-dron has been its popularity as a co-lourful addition to wild places and bythe time it has been generally acce-pted that control is required there is of-ten a huge task to be carried out at alandscape scale. This is where the in-put from a fund such as LIFE Naturehas been particularly useful. It has en-abled a number of projects to be car-ried out in England, Scotland and Walesto tackle the backlog of work and toestablish funding mechanisms that canbe used for ongoing control.

The focus of the LIFE-funded projects

largely successful it would be too ear-ly to consider the problem solved. Un-til all sources of seed are tackled thethreat of reinvasion will remain and notall landowners wish to support theeradication programme. The UK pro-ject “Safeguarding Natura 2000 riversin the UK” (LIFE99 NAT/UK/6088) wasin a similar situation when trying to per-suade landowners to remove rhodo-dendron from riversides in North WestScotland.

In the New Forest National Park over110 ha of rhododendron were clearedfrom heaths and woods where it wasforming a “rhododendron-forest”,thanks to the project “Securing Natu-ra 2000 objectives in the New Forest”(LIFE97 NAT/UK/4242). The complet-ed work will require constant vigilanceto ensure that any new growth is tack-led in time. Again, the project faced theproblem of rhododendron’s popularityas a garden plant and even had to re-plant a section of ornamental rhodo-dendron hedge which was damagedin the clearance work! Rhododendronwill remain a problem in and near Natu-ra 2000 sites until there is a generalchange in attitude and the promotionof, for example, the planting of dwarfsterile Rhododendron hybrids.

Mechanical removal of floweringRhododendron ponticum.

> LIFE projects have demonstratedthat containment in limited areas,such as Natura 2000 sites, is an effi-cient tool to manage alien species.

> Specific monitoring actions shouldbe implemented to verify the suc-cess of the intervention.

> Specific management plans, basedon ecological research, regularmonitoring, public consultation andcareful coordination, should berealised.

Containment: lessons learnt

© P

hoto

Joh

n H

oust

on

has been to eradicate rhododendronfrom the core Natura 2000 areas, toprovide a cordon sanitaire around the-se special sites and to work with pri-vate landowners and communities toseek their support for a coordinatedprogramme.

The techniques employed involve thewhole-scale removal of the plants (bymechanical and manual clearance),burning the material, removing root-mats to expose fresh soil and control-ling re-growth with herbicides. Rhodo-dendron is poisonous so grazing ani-mals cannot control it.

The “Restoration of Atlantic Oakwoods”project (LIFE97 NAT/UK/4244) under-took the large-scale removal of rhodo-dendron from woodlands at LochSunart on the west of Scotland. Al-though the LIFE project could mobiliseprivate landowners (by covering 95%of the costs) the necessary ongoingmaintenance looked uncertain until,largely through the work of the project,a funding package was included in theScottish Forestry Grant Scheme. High-er payment rates are also offered forwork within Natura 2000 sites. A fol-low-up project in Loch Sunart notesthat whilst the earlier work has been

approach has been used in the Por-tuguese LIFE Nature project “Mea-sures for the management and con-servation of the laurel forest ofMadeira” (LIFE97 NAT/P/4082) to sa-feguard the Macaronesian laurel for-est, where local farmers were involvedin the cultivation of a cordon sanitaireto keep it free of exotic species.

A special form of containment is theremoval of the undesired species fromthe wild and its control in a dedicatedsite. Within the Spanish project “Resto-ration and integrated management ofthe Island of Buda” (LIFE96 NAT/E/3180) two palm species, Phoenixsp. and Washingtonia sp., have beenremoved from a Natura 2000 site andplaced in a public garden in a urbanarea next to the Buda Island. This hasbrought the support of the local com-munity.


3.3.5 Control

The aim of control is to reduce densityand abundance of an exotic species tokeep its impact to an acceptable level(Genovesi and Shine, 2003). Effectivecontrol may be achieved through a rangeof integrated management techniques,including mechanical, chemical and bi-ological control. Control methods shouldbe selected taking into considerationefficiency, selectivity and the unde-sired effects they may cause and inaccordance with Community regula-tions and codes.

Many LIFE projects include actions tocontrol harmful populations of IASthreatening species listed in the Birdsand Habitats directives. Once theexotic species targeted has been wea-kened, the native species affected cangenerally regain ground, sometimeseven reducing the abundance of theexotic species and leading to its ex-tinction.

LIFE projects relevant in this contextare those dedicated to the conserva-tion of the European mink (Mustelalutreola) in the La Rioja, Álava andCastilla and León regions in Spain(LIFE00 NAT/E/7331, LIFE00 NAT/E/7335, LIFE00 NAT/E/7299). These pro-jects are making great efforts to savethe native populations of the Europeanmink found in the area, from the threatrepresented by the American mink (Mu-stela vison). Annual control campaignsare being carried out along the Ebroriver and its tributaries, significantly re-ducing the American mink population.

The Italian LIFE Nature project, “BoscoFontana: urgent conservation actionson relict habitat” (LIFE99 NAT/IT/6245),aimed at the conservation of the resid-ual alluvial forests of Alnion glutinosoincanae invaded by the American oak(Quercus rubra), used a singular con-trol technique. The exotic plants werenot removed but were “killed” throughdifferent methods that ranged fromthe use of explosives to the ring bark-

Above. A view of the Ebro river delta, targeted by four LIFE Nature projects.Below. Capture of the American mink

(Mustela vison) in the Ebro basin.

© P

hoto

Jun

ta d

e C

astil

la y

Leó

n©

Pho

to J

esús

Lav

iña

reduction of the population density ofthis exotic predator. For this reasonperiodical removal is being carried outthrough electro-fishing, particularly instretches along the river where highdensity of Wels catfish were observed.The density of this undesired alienspecies is being controlled with a lim-ited use of financial resources.

Control operations can also be carriedout correctly without obtaining signifi-cant results. As in the case of the LIFENature project, “Increase in the size ofColumba bollii and Columba junoniaepopulations” (LIFE96 NAT/E/3095),where the elimination of rats from theslopes of Tigaiga Mountain, in Teneri-fe (Canary islands), did not result, forunknown reasons, in an improvementof the breeding success of pigeons.This should not be considered as afailure of the project. The eliminationof rats, with no significant negativeimpact on other species and on theecosystem, has removed one of themain known cause of the low breedingsuccess of the pigeons. The poison-ing method used in the successfulelimination of rats, based on the uti-lization of security bait-boxes to avoidconsumption or extraction by otherspecies, should be promoted andcould be used to eradicate rats in par-ticularly sensitive areas.

To be successful the methods appliedshould be socially, culturally and ethi-

ing of trees. The dead trees were thenleft on site. This methodology differsfrom the one used normally, whichconsists in cutting and removing theplant, leaving open gaps in the wood-land. The results of the ecosystemapproach used in the project were notonly the control of the exotic species,but also the improvement of the con-servation status of the forest and theincrease of dead wood favouring thesaproxylic fauna that depends onthem.

A good example of how exotic fishspecies might be controlled, consid-ering that, as specified above, eradi-cation is almost impossible, comesfrom the Italian LIFE Nature project“Conservation of Salmo marmoratusand Rutilus pigus in the Ticino river”(LIFE00 NAT/IT/7268). The project wasaimed at the reintroduction of theendangered marble trout (Salmo mar-moratus) and the Danube roach(Rutilus pigus), in a stretch of theTicino river where the exotic Wels cat-fish (Silurus glanis) has been intro-duced. The reintroduction programwould not succeed without prior

The use of explosives to eradicate exotictrees (above) created new ecological niches for saproxylic fauna of EUimportance, such as the stag beetle(Lucanus cervus) (right).Below. The placing of traps to eliminatethe rats in Tenerife (Canary Islands).

© P

hoto

Alfo

nso

Gut

iérr

ez T

eira

© P

hoto

Bos

co F

onta

na N

atur

e R

eser

ve (C

NB

F)

© P

hoto

Bos

co F

onta

na N

atur

e R

eser

ve (C

NB

F)

cally acceptable. The Spanish project“Recovery Plan of Puffinus puffinusmauretanicus in SPA (Balearic Islands)”(LIFE97 NAT/E/4147), included an ac-tion aimed at the control of cats andrats, two of the main threats to theBalearic shearwater. Adverse publicopinion affected the elimination ofcats. A compromise was negotiatedwhich allowed for the capture of catsand their sterilization. But this did notremove the threat: the shearwaterpopulation continued to decrease,due to cat predation. The situationwas different for rat control, which didnot encounter any opposition.

One-way to obtain consensus andraise awareness on the actions carriedout, may be to involve local communi-ties, either creating new employmentor on a voluntary basis. Within the pro-ject “Management of the most valu-able wetlands in SW Finland” (LIFE99NAT/FIN/6278), the non-native Amer-ican mink (Mustela vison) and raccoondog (Nyctereutes procyonoides) havebeen hunted systematically with thecollaboration of local hunting associ-ations, reconciling the needs of natureconservation, fishing and hunting.


© P

hoto

G.R

.A.I.

A.

s.r.l

.

© P

hoto

G.R

.A.I.

A.

s.r.l

.

© P

hoto

G.R

.A.I.

A.

s.r.l

.

Wels catfish (Silurus glanis), removed from the Ticino River through

electro-fishing (top), were measured (right)and their stomach contents

analyzed (above) to study their impact on indigenous fauna.

The main constraint of control opera-tions, as opposed to eradication, isthat they are to be considered asrecurring activities. Since they do notforesee the complete and definitiveremoval of a species, but only thediminution of the population level toan acceptable threshold, they are rea-sonable only if there are sufficientfinancial resources to maintain the re-sults obtained over an extended periodof time.

Many LIFE projects started controlmeasures which were continued byadministrations responsible for thesites or by local stakeholders. As anexample, the LIFE Nature project“Rhön Biotope region - Building Blockfor Natura 2000” (LIFE98 NAT/D/5064)activated actions aimed at the controlof non-native pine trees, placed underpast reclamation efforts, and the lu-pine (Lupinus sp.), introduced in 1942for production purpose. At the end ofthe project, the local forestry adminis-tration continued the removal of thepines while local farmers controlledthrough grazing the spread of thelupine.

Left. Control of the Wels catfish (Silurus glanis) in a newspaper.Centre. The American mink (Mustela vison).Below. The Balearic shearwater (Puffinus puffinus).

© P

hoto

Jo

hn A

. H

ous

ton

© P

hoto

Jo

an M

ayo

l


A view of the Harris and Lewis Islands(UK).

Case study

Mink control to protect important birdsin SPAs in the Western Isles (LIFE00NAT/UK/7073)

The remote Western Isles of Scotland(Lewis, Harris, North Uist, Benbecula,South Uist and Barra) are one of themost important bird sites in Europe.The absence of predators has allowedground-nesting birds (for example,terns, corncrake, dunlin, ringed plover,lapwing and divers) to nest undis-turbed on the extensive farmland,coasts, lochs and moors. Howeverthere is now a particularly seriousthreat to the island chain.

Mink (Mustela vison) fur farms wereset up on the island of Lewis in the1950s. These farms closed down inthe late 1950s and some mink esca-ped or were released into the wild. By1969 the first feral mink were spottedin Lewis.

The spread of mink moved south-wards down the chain of islandsreaching North Uist in 1999 and SouthUist in 2001. Not only does the Amer-ican mink threaten the bird popula-tions but it has a damaging effect onaquaculture, crofting and tourism.

A mink group began a trapping pro-gramme in Harris in the early 1990s

but could not prevent the animalscrossing to South Uist. The mink wereable to spread by “island-hopping”and even several kilometres of theAtlantic proved no barrier to colonisa-tion.

The designation of Special ProtectionAreas gave an impetus and an oppor-tunity to establish “The Hebridean MinkProject”. The project, which is sup-ported by national and local interests,has received funding through the LIFENature programme to eradicate minkfrom the southern part of the islandchain. To succeed the project must alsocontrol the population in the northernislands and establish a ‘defensive line’.Whilst the main objective of the pro-ject is to protect the internationally im-portant bird populations there will alsobe a benefit to sport fishing, grouseshooting, fish farming and the keepingof free-range poultry.

The project started in November 2001and by October 2003 over 350 minkshad been caught. There is clear evi-dence that the numbers being caughtare falling; the project is having an im-

pact on the total population. The realstrength of the eradication programmelies in the combination of the employ-ment of skilled local trappers, a sci-ence-based overview through the UKCentral Science Laboratory and ap-plied research running in parallel to theproject. The detailed population andbehavioural research work has helpedto give very precise estimates of pop-ulations in each habitat type and haslooked at the effect on behaviour asthe trapping programme takes effect.

As the population becomes more dis-persed, the project will use dogs to lo-cate dens and remains optimistic thateradication, rather than control, isachievable. The project will use its ex-perience to estimate the effort requiredto eradicate mink from the entire islandchain, a long-term goal. The scientificapproach adopted by the project is en-suring the best deployment of re-sources and innovation. Information iscollected on each animal, good use ismade of GPS and GIS to guide thework, DNA analysis can be used toidentify individual animals (importantwhen the project is trying to eradicatethe last individuals).

More information can be found on thewebsite www.snh.org.uk.

© P

hoto

Ric

card

o S

cale

ra

> Control programs should be imple-mented only after a long-term cost/benefit analysis, with defined aimsand adequate monitoring arrange-ments.

> Responsibility should be extendedto relevant stakeholders to prevent orcontrol further spread of IAS. Majorresults were obtained by LIFE projectsin Finland, where local hunting as-sociations were actively involved,and in Germany, where local forestryadministrations and farmers conti-nued the actions started with the LIFEproject.

> Incentive programs should be imple-mented in order to promote the in-volvement of local stakeholders inthe management of invasive exoticspecies.

Control: lessons learnt

> IAS problems that could be ad-dressed through coordinated con-trol by neighbouring countries/subregions should be identified (e.g.aquatic plants in shared water sys-tem, marine algae along a sharedcoastline) and appropriate programsdeveloped.

> The management of exotics ofteninvolves some sort of “cruelty”.Therefore a special effort should betaken to raise awareness and togain public support. Preventive dis-cussion should be undertaken inprojects dealing with control ofspecies which could create publicopposition, i.e. when dealing withexotic mammals and birds.

> Control methods should not ad-versely affect native fauna and flora.Particular attention was given to thisaspect by the LIFE project dealingwith Columba bollii and Columbajunoniae in Tenerife (Canary islands).

3.3.6 Accompanying measures

The ultimate goal of managing alienspecies is to ensure the conservationof native habitats and species. Insome cases, removing exotic speciesfrom an ecosystem will automaticallylead to the return of the indigenousflora and fauna. In other cases, habi-tat restoration actions and reintroduc-tion of indigenous species are needed.Accompanying measures also helppreventing re-invasions.

Re-introductions

Re-introduction of native species afterthe implementation of eradication orcontrol campaigns of exotic speciesmay have two major benefits:

1) It may mitigate the negative effectscaused by the presence of the alienspecies targeted.

2) It may justify the need to managethe population of alien species, fos-tering public acceptance of the in-terventions. For this reason somewildlife managers and policy mak-ers believe that reintroduction pro-grams should always accompanyeradication or control programs.

However reintroductions should be car-ried out only under stringent condi-tions, strict control and in accordancewith best practice guidelines (e.g.IUCN/SSC Guidelines for Re-intro-ductions, IUCN Position Statement onTranslocation of Living Organisms). Theintroduction of non native-subspeciesshould be avoided due to the risk ofgenetic contamination.

One LIFE example of a control pro-gram planned to prepare the groundfor the reintroduction of native speciesis the project “Reintroduction of ElHierro Giant Lizard (Gallotia simonyi

© P

hoto

Dep

t. A

nim

al B

iolo

gy

- P

avia

Uni

vers

ity (

Ital

y)

Reintroduction of the native freshwatercrayfish (Austropotamobius pallipes) carried out by the Lambro regional park in northern Italy within the project“Conservation of Austropotamobiuspallipes in two pSCIs of Lombardy”(LIFE00 NAT/IT/7159).


machadoi) in its former natural habi-tat” (LIFE97 NAT/E/4190). This projectwas the continuation of a previous one“Program for the restoration of HierroGiant Lizard Gallotia simonyi” (LIFE94NAT/E/1238), implemented between1994 and 1997, during which it resul-ted that this species, the Europeanreptile most threatened with extinc-tion, disappeared as a consequenceof pressure from introduced preda-tors, such as domestic cats. To ensuresuccessful reintroduction, a captivebreeding program was implementedand a species management plan wasdrawn up. Cats were not eradicated inthe project’s area because it was notpossible to stop immigration fromneighbouring towns, but a permanentcontrol program, aimed at reducingferal populations of cats preying uponthe lizards, is being carried out.

In Estonia, the LIFE Nature project “Re-covery of Mustela lutreola in Estonia:captive and island populations” (LIFE00NAT/EE/7081) supports a captivebreeding and reintroduction programfor the European mink. The animalsare reintroduced to two islands, whichwere the last refuge for the species innorthern Europe, after a campaign toremove the American relative.

Above. Young individuals of the endemicHierro giant lizard.Centre. Tomahawk trap use in the schemefor protecting the habitat of Gallotia gomerana of the cats coming from a nearby village.Below. Restoration of the priority Alnionglutinoso incanae forest habitats, after the removal of the American cherry (Prunus serotina) and other exotic trees.

Habitat restoration

There are cases where the environ-ment recovers naturally, after theremoval of exotic species. This is ofcourse easier in simplified or isolatedecosystems. In other cases, restora-tion needs the support of human inter-vention.A relevant number of LIFE Nature pro-jects links measures for the restorationof habitats of EU importance to theeradication of exotic species. One ofthese, the Swedish project “Restora-tion of deciduous forests in SöderåsenNational Park” (LIFE02 NAT/S/8483) isentirely aimed at the removal of com-mercial spruce plantations and at theeradication of exotic plants, such as

© P

hoto

Gob

iern

o d

e C

anar

ias

© P

hoto

Alfo

nso

Gut

iérr

ez T

eira

© P

hoto

Par

co L

omb

ard

o d

ella

Val

le d

el T

icin

o

> The use of native species in carryingout wildlife management and ecosy-stem restoration actions should beencouraged. As a general rule forreintroduction/restocking, local indi-viduals should be preferred to indi-viduals coming from other coun-tries, which, although belonging tothe same species, can have differ-ent ecological needs and maybelong to different subspecies.

> Conservation payment schemesand agri-environment measuresshould be reviewed and, whereappropriate, adjusted in order to linkincentive payments for the use ofnative material.

> The need of including restorationprograms should be assessed whenplanning specific measures in erad-ication, containment and control.

the common maple (Acer pseudopla-tanus), the American red oak (Quercusrubra) and the American arbor vitae(Thuja occidentalis), followed by therestoration of oak and beech forestsprotected under the Habitats directive.The beneficiary is using environmen-tal friendly techniques, based on tra-ditional forest management methods.For instance horses are used fortransporting wood, and pigs to ploughthe ground and thus help the naturalregeneration of the native forests.

One of the main restoration measurescarried out when a plant species hasbeen eradicated is the planting of na-tive species. A number of LIFE projectscreated ad hoc plant nurseries to beused for restoration and in order toavoid potential genetic pollution. Oneof these projects is the Spanish “Re-covery of riverine ecosystem in LosGalachos SPA” (LIFE96 NAT/E/3098)during which cuttings and seeds of lo-cal plants, common willow (Salix alba),red willow (Salix purpurea), silver poplar(Populus alba), black poplar (Populusnigra), narrow-leaved ash (Fraxinus an-gustifolia) and French tamarisk (Tamar-ix gallica), were collected from the Ebro

valley, and cultivated in the nursery forreforestation purposes after the removalof the exotic hybrid poplar (Populus xEuroamericana).

The invasion of exotic species can bea consequence of the deterioration ofthe conservation status of naturalecosystems. Habitat restoration istherefore also a prevention measure.The objective of LIFE Nature is toimprove or maintain habitats andspecies in a good status of conserva-tion, achieved also through habitatrestoration. Even though it is notspecifically linked to the prevention ofinvasion by alien species, restorationoften contributes to obtain this goal. Itis in fact indisputable that well-bal-anced ecosystems are less vulnerableto the invasion of exotics. The indirectcontribution of LIFE Nature projects is,therefore, relevant considering thatthey have already involved 10% of theNatura 2000 sites.

Accompanying measures:lessons learnt

The artificial wood of maritime pine treeshas been felled in order to allow

for the re-colonization of the native habitats of karstic calcareous

grasslands (Alysso-Sedion albi).Above. Common maple (Acer pseudoplatanus).

© P

hoto

Ste

fano

Pic

chi

© P

hoto

Dan

iela

Zag

hi

General recommendations

> LIFE should continue to support IASrelated projects including preventiveprojects/actions aimed at reducingthe impact of both real and poten-tial threats. In doing so, synergiesand co-ordination with other EUfinancial instruments should bestrengthened.

> The impact of IAS related projectsfunded by LIFE could be enhancedby developing a LIFE strategy onfinancing actions/projects directedat alien species. The lack of a com-mon EU policy based on the Con-vention on Biological Diversity guid-ing principles and on the Council ofEurope strategy may, however, par-tially hinder the long term effects ofsuch projects. The experience gai-ned through LIFE could be a valu-able reference in the case such apolicy is to be developed in thefuture.

> Management plans for Natura 2000sites should devote explicit atten-tion to IAS in terms of preventionand management measures.

> Long term action programs, ratherthan short term projects, should begiven a higher priority, since they areusually more adequate for a suc-cessful management on invasivealien species.

> IAS problems that could be addres-sed through coordinated control byneighboring countries/sub regionsshould be identified and appropriateprograms developed.


The analysis of LIFE projects hasshown that:

> LIFE is today the main EU source offunding for field activities aimed atexotics.

> The high number of LIFE projectsdedicated to IAS shows that wildlifemanagers perceive exotics as a majorthreat to biodiversity conservation.

> LIFE demonstrated that the threatsposed by exotics can be addressedsuccessfully within the Natura 2000network, obtaining considerable re-sults, particularly in isolated ecosys-tems and at an early stage of inva-sion.

> LIFE has had a pump priming effect.Measures addressing exotic speciesstarted with LIFE are continuing withthe support of agro-environmentalfunds and other financial instru-ments. This represents a good exam-ple of continuity over time: one ofthe most important factors to guar-antee the success of the manage-ment of IAS.

> Most of the interventions financedthrough LIFE aimed at exotics arestill too small scale and localizedand only seldom adopt a standard-ized approach. This situation, due tothe lack of a comprehensive, large-scale strategy, represents a majorlimit for a sound management of theproblem.

> A technical and scientific basisshould be developed to identifywhich species/habitats need mosturgent attention, when planning natureconservation projects, in order toestablish, in terms of priority and fea-sibility, and on a case by case basis,which alien species deserve appro-priate management for the actual orpotential damage caused to the bio-diversity.

Specific recommendations for development and implementation of projects/actionsaimed at alien species

> Appropriate guidelines on preven-tion and management of invasivealien species should be taken intoaccount in planning projects. Sev-eral bodies, among which IUCN,Council of Europe, FAO, IPPC, etc,have already realized specific guide-lines.

4 Conclusions

Above. The biometric measurementof an American mink (Mustela vison) captured in the Ebro River (Spain).Below. The house mouse (Mus domesticus), a small Asian rodentintroduced in Europe in ancient times(from Scalera, 2001).

© P

hoto

Jua

njo

Ort

iz a

nd M

igue

l Bri

one

s

© M

assi

mili

ano

Lip

per

i

> Before planning a project to addressexotics, it is essential to evaluate thehuman dimension of the problem.For this purpose, a key role in the ma-nagement of alien species should berecognized to awareness raising. Thisis a major issue, which deserve aspecial attention: public consultationwith local communities and stake-holders should always be encou-raged to solve or accommodate inadvance potential misunderstan-dings and disagreements. Althoughwildlife managers recognize thegrowing threat of alien species, de-cision makers and the general pub-lic still seem to underestimate theproblem. A sound communicationcampaign would allow a rapid andeffective implementation of the man-agement actions.

> Sound feasibility studies shouldalways be carried out before anyeradication program, in order toavoid a project failure due to theimpossibility to remove certain spe-cies, both for ecological and finan-cial reasons. Feasibility studiesshould take into account the effi-cacy of the interventions, the possi-ble effects on native species andecosystems, and the potential riskof re-invasion.

> Any eradication program should besupported by the authority compe-tent for the management of the areaand should be developed accordingto an appropriate spatial-temporalscale.

> The use of native species in carry-ing out wildlife management andecosystem restoration actions shouldbe encouraged. As a general rule forreintroduction/restocking, local indi-viduals should be preferred to indi-viduals coming from other coun-tries, which, although belonging tothe same species, can have differ-ent ecological needs and may be-long to different subspecies.

> The need of including restorationprograms should be assessed whenplanning specific measures in erad-ication, containment and control.

> Specific monitoring actions shouldbe implemented to verify the suc-cess of the intervention.

> Special care should be devoted toensure project follow-up after itsend. This should be done already atthe time of project development or,at the latest, in its early stage ofimplementation.

> Responsibility should be extendedto relevant stakeholders to preventor control further spread of IAS.

Above. View of a dune invaded by theexotic fig marigold (Carpobrotus edulis)

on Minorca Island (Spain).Below. Removal of the fig marigold.

© P

hoto

Jes

ús L

aviñ

a©

Pho

to J

esús

Lav

iña

Below. The coypu (Myocastor coypus) is one of the exotic species targeted

by the Italian project “Conservation andmanagement of the biotope S. Genuario

Wetland” (LIFE00 NAT/IT/7209).Left. A cage trap used during

the project.


Invasion by alien species representsone of the greatest biological threatsto biodiversity, second only to habitatdestruction. In addition to affectingecosystems and contributing to the ex-tinction of native species, invasive alienspecies also cause major socio-eco-nomic damage. The European Unionhas no specific legislation on invasivealien species, but a number of regula-tions and directives include provisionsto deal directly or indirectly with IAS.The most important are the Birds andHabitats directives, and the wildlifetrade regulation. The problem of alienspecies has had tackled within manyNatura 2000 sites, the EU network ofprotected areas aimed at protectingand conserving wild species of floraand fauna, and natural and semi nat-ural habitats considered of Communi-ty importance.

From 1992 to 2002, out of a total of715 projects financed through the LIFENature program, the financial instru-ment aimed at the development of theNatura 2000 network, more than 100include actions dealing with the man-agement of exotic species. The totalbudget spent for implementing theseprojects amounts to more than 27 mil-lion Euros. These figures show that,

Abstract

© P

hoto

Alb

erto

Ven

chi

© P

hoto

Par

co F

luvi

ale

del

Po

e d

ell'O

rba

notwithstanding the underestimationby the general public and by policymakers, wildlife managers perceiveexotic species are as a major concern.LIFE proved to be a well suited instru-ment to respond in an efficient way tothe precise needs of wildlife man-agers. LIFE Nature in particular hasprovided major investment to supportactivities in this area.

The projects financed provided theopportunity to learn a number of veryimportant lessons directly from thefield, so as to contribute to the identi-fication of the actions to be envisagedwithin future projects dealing withalien species and to develop a EUstrategy based on the Convention onBiological Diversity guiding principles.

ALEXOPOULOS C. J., MIMS C.W.,BLACKWELL M., 1996.Introductory Mycology, pp. 717-723. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.

CLARKSON L. A. 1989. Conclusion: Famine and Irish history.In Crawford E.M. (ed.), Famine: theIrish experience 900-1900, pp.220-236. John Donald Publishers, Ltd., Edinburgh.

CLUTTON-BROCK J., 1999. A Natural History of DomesticatedMammals. Cambridge UniversityPress.

CROSBY A.W., 1986. Ecological Imperialism: The EcologicalExpansion of Europe, 900-1900.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

DEKLEMM C., 1996. Introduction of non-native organismsinto the natural environment. Nature and Environment Series No. 73, Council of Europe.

DIAMOND J., 1997. Guns, germs and steel. The fatesof human societies. W.W. Northon & Company, New York-London.

European Commission, 2003. Thematic report on alien invasivespecies. Second Report of the European Community to the Conference of the Parties of theConvention on Biological Diversity.

European Environment Agency, 2003.Europe’s environment: the thirdassessment. Environmental assessment report No 10.Luxembourg: Office for OfficialPublications of the EuropeanCommunities, p. 231.

GENOVESI P., BERTOLINO S., 2001.Human dimension aspects in invasive alien specie issues: the caseof the failure of the grey squirreleradication project in Italy. In: McNeely J. (ed.). The greatreshuffling: human dimensions ofinvasive alien species. IUCN Gland,Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.Pp.113-120.

GENOVESI P., SHINE C., 2003. European strategy on invasive alienspecies. Council of Europe. T-PVS(2003) 7.

GOLDSCHMIDT T., 1996. Darwin's Dreampond: Drama in LakeVictoria. MIT Press. 280 pages.

HEYWOOD V. (ed.), 1995. Global biodiversity assessment.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

IUCN, 1995. IUCN/SSC Guidelines forRe-Introductions. Approved by the 41th Meeting of the IUCN Council. Gland, Switzerland.

IUCN, 2000. IUCN Guidelines for the preventionof biodiversity loss due to biologicalinvasion (approved by the IUCNCouncil, February 2000).

KOWARIK I., 1996. Auswirkungen von Neophyten aufÖkosysteme und deren Bewertung,Texte des Umweltbundesamtes, 58-96: 119-155.

LAMBINON J., 1997. Introduction of non-native plantspecies into the natural environment.Nature and Environment Series No.87, Council of Europe.

LEVER C., 1994.Naturalized animals. Poyser naturalHistory. Pages 354.

LEVER C., 1996. Naturalised birds: feral, exotic, intro-duced or alien? British Birds,89(8):367-369.

MACDONALD D.W., SIDOROVICH V.E.,ANISOMOVA E.I., SIDOROVICH N.V.,JOHNSON P.J., 2002. The impact of American minkMustela vison and European minkMustela lutreola on water volesArvicola terrestris in Belarus. Ecography 25: 295-302.

MAGEL N., 2002. More than CITES: a EU wildlife traderegulation. In: Anton M., Dragffy N., Pendry S., Young T.R. (eds) 2002.Proceedings of the InternationalExpert Workshop on the Enforce-ment of Wildlife Trade Controls in the EU, 5-6 November 2001,Frankfurt/Germany. TRAFFICEurope, Brussels, Belgium and IUCN– The World Conservation Union,Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge,UK.

MARCHANTE H., MARCHANTE E., CAMPELO F., FREITAS H., 2001.Invasion of Portuguese dune ecosystems by Acacia: evaluation of its effects on soil nutrients andplant communities. VI Conference on Ecology and Management of Alien Plant Invasions (EMAPI),Loughborough, UK September 12-15, 2001.

MCNEELY J.A., MOONEY H.A., NEVILLE L.E., SCHEI P.,WAAGE J.K (eds), 2001. Global strategy for addressing the problem of invasive alienspecies. IUCN Gland, Switzerland,and Cambridge, UK, in collaborationwith the Global Invasive SpeciesProgram. X + 50 pp.

References

PARKER I. M., SIMBERLOFF D., LONSDALE W.M., GOODELL K., WONHAM M., WILLIAMSON M.H.,VON HOLLE B., MOYLE P.B., BYERS J.E., GOLDWASSER L., 1999.Impact: toward a framework for understanding the ecological effectsof invaders. Biological Invasions 1: 3-19.

PERRINGS C., WILLIAMSON M.,BARBIER E.B., DELFINO D., DALMAZZONE S., SHOGREN J.,SIMMONS P., WATKINSON A., 2002.Biological Invasion Risks and thePublic Good: an Economic Perspec-tive. Conservation Ecology 6 (1):1.

PIMENTEL D., LACH L., ZUNIGA R.,MORRISON D., 2000. Environmental and economic costsof non-indigenous species in theUnited States. BioScience 50:53-65.

RENALS T., HATHAWAY S., CHILD L., WADE M., 2001. Fallopia japonica (JapaneseKnotweed) management: a tale of two counties. VI Conference on Ecology and Management of Alien Plant Invasions (EMAPI),Loughborough, UK September 12-15, 2001.

RICHARDSON D.M., PYSEK P., REJMANEK M., BARBOUR M.G.,PANETTA F.D., WEST C.J., 2000. Naturalization and invasion of alienplants: concepts and definitions.Diversity and Distribution, 6: 93-107.

ROTHERHAM I.D., 2001. Rhododendron gone wild. Biodiversity, 48 (1).

SHINE C., WILLIAMS N., GÜNDLING L., 2000. A Guide to Designing Legal andInstitutional Frameworks on AlienInvasive Species – IUCN , Gland,Switzerland Cambridge and Bonn.xvi+138 pp.

SCALERA R., 2001. Invasioni biologiche. Le introduzionidi vertebrati in Italia: un problema tra conservazione e globalizzazione.Collana Verde, 103. Corpo Forestaledello Stato. Ministero per le politicheagricole e forestali. Roma. Pp. 368.

SOLAR P.M., 1997. The potato famine in Europe. In: Cormac O Grada (ed.). Famine 150 commemorative lecture series, p. 113-124. Teagasc, Dublin.

SUKOPP H., 1980. Zur Geschichte der Ausbringung von Pflanzen in den letzten hundertJahren, in: Ausbringung von Wildpflanzen, Akademie f.Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege,Laufen. Tagungsbericht 5:5-9.

WAAGE J., 2000. Invasive species: ecology and globalresponses. Fifth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to theConvention on Biological DiversityNairobi, 15-26 May 2000.

WILLIAMSON M., 1996. Biological invasions. Chapman & Hall, London, UK.

WILLIAMSON M., 1999. Invasions. Ecography 22:5-12.

WRI., 2000. World Resources 2000-2001. WorldResources Institute, Washington DC,USA.


1. LIFE Nature projects primarily aimed at alien species

Project title Project number Target alien species*

Pannonian sanddunes LIFE98 NAT/A/5418 P Robinia pseudoacacia,

Ailanthus altissima

Protection of grey dunes and other habitats on Hulsig Hede/ LIFE96 NAT/DK/3000 P Pinus mugoHulsig Heath

Restoration of dune habitats along the Danish West Coast LIFE02 NAT/DK/8584 P Pinus mugo, Pinus contorta

Restoration of the islets and cliffs of Famara (Lanzarote Island) LIFE99 NAT/E/6392 A Oryctolagus cuniculus,Felis catus, Rattus sp.

P Nicotiana glauca

Conservation of the European mink (Mustela lutreola) LIFE00 NAT/E/7299 A Mustela visonin Castilla y León (Spain) P Populus hybrida

Conservation plan for the white-headed duck LIFE00 NAT/E/7311 A Oxyura jamaicensisin the Community of Valencia

SCI Parga-Ladra-Támoga: recovery of bog woodland LIFE00 NAT/E/7330 P Azolla filiculoides, and dystrophic lake Pinus sp., Populus

hybrida, Eucalyptus sp.

Conservation of the European mink (Mustela lutreola) in La Rioja LIFE00 NAT/E/7331 A Mustela visonP Populus hybrida

Conservation of the European mink (Mustela lutreola) LIFE00 NAT/E/7335 A Mustela visonin Álava (Spain) P Populus hybrida

Conservation of areas with threatened flora on the island LIFE00 NAT/E/7355 P Carpobrotus edulisof Minorca

Conservation of the European mink (Mustela lutreola) LIFE02 NAT/E/8604 A Mustela visonin Cataluña, Spain

Giant lizard of La Gomera (Gallotia bravoana or Gallotia LIFE02 NAT/E/8614 A Felis catus, Rattus sp.simonyi gomerana) and livestock

Control of exotic vertebrates in Islands of Portugal and Spain LIFE02 NAT/CP/E/14 A Exotic vertebrates

Recovery of Mustela lutreola in Estonia: Captive LIFE00 NAT/EE/7081 A Mustela visonand island populations

Restoration of alluvial woods in the Ticino Park LIFE97 NAT/IT/4134 P Prunus serotina, Ailanthusaltissima, Quercus rubra

Bosco Fontana: urgent conservation actions on relict habitat LIFE99/NAT/IT/6245 P Quercus rubra, Platanus spp.

Measures for the recovery of the terrestrial habitat LIFE95 NAT/P/0125 A Oryctolagus cuniculus,of Deserta Grande Rattus rattus,

Capra hircus

Conservation of priority and rare plant species of Madeira LIFE99 NAT/P/6431 P Pinus radiata

Gerês valley natural habitats restoration LIFE99 NAT/P/6439 P Acacia dealbata

Mink control to protect important birds in SPAs in the Western Isles LIFE00 NAT/UK/7073 A Mustela vison

Annexes – LIFE projects dealing with IAS financed from 1992 to 2002

* A = animals; P = plants

2. LIFE Nature projects only partially aimed at alien species


Water World March-Thaya-Auen LIFE98 NAT/A/5413 P Robinia pseudoacacia, Fraxinus americana

Management of Natural Forests in the National Park Kalkalpen LIFE99 NAT/A/5915 P Pinus sylvestris, Picea abies

The Wengermoor Project LIFE99 NAT/A/5916 P Pinus sp.

Flood-plain forests of the Upper Drau river valley LIFE99 NAT/A/6055 P Solidago sp., Impatiens glandulifera

Management of floodplains on the Tisza LIFE00 NAT/A/7051 P Amorpha fruticosa, Asclepia sp., Acer negundo, Fraxinus pennsylvanica

Intermediary Atlantic Heathlands in Flanders LIFE99 NAT/B/6298 P pines, Quercus rubra

Cross-border recovery and conservation of wet ecosystems LIFE99 NAT/B/6296 P pines

Oligotrophic aquatic habitats in the Kempen LIFE00 NAT/B/5168 P pines, Prunus serotina

Fens and heathlands of Zuiderkempen LIFE02 NAT/B/8595 P pines

Re-establilshing lichen an coastal heaths in the Anholt Desert LIFE94NAT/DK/492 P Pinus mugo

Management of the most valuable wetlands in SW Finland LIFE99 NAT/FIN/6278 A Mustela vison, Nyctereutes procyonoides

Protection and management of the valuable wetland Siikalahti LIFE00 NAT/FIN/7061 A Mustela vison, Nyctereutes procyonoides

Evo Forest - Awareness-raising and protection of Southern LIFE02NAT/FIN/8466 P Larix sibirica, Finalnd forest biotopes Abies sibirica

Management of urban Natura 2000 areas in SW Finland LIFE02 NAT/FIN/8468 A Mustela vison, Nyctereutes procyonoides

Conservation of the Grand-lieu lake LIFE94 NAT/F/0841 A Myocastor coypus

Program to safeguard the coastal lakes of Languedoc-Roussillon LIFE94 NAT/F/0860 A Myocastor coypus

Oxyura leucocephala's reintroduction on Biguglia's pond LIFE97 NAT/F/4226 A Oxyura jamaicensis

Maritime archipelagos and islets of Brittany LIFE98 NAT/F/5250 A Mustela vison, Rattusnorvegicus

Program for the restoration and management of the habitat LIFE00 NAT/F/7269 A Myocastor coypusused by the bittern in France

Preserving great bustard habitats in Brandenburg LIFE92 NAT/D/4838 A Nyctereutes procyonoides

Habitat Protection in the Rhön LIFE93 NAT/D/10200 P Lupinus sp.

Meadow Habitat Elzwiesen Rheinhausen LIFE96 NAT/D/3038 P Populus hybrida

Protection and Development for Benningen Marsh (Benniger Ried) LIFE96 NAT/D/3043 P Abies sp.

Rhön Biotope region - Building Block for Natura 2000 LIFE98 NAT/D/5064 P Lupinus sp.

Restoration of clear water lakes, mires and swamp forests LIFE00 NAT/D/7057 A Hyphthalmichthys of the Lake Stechlin molitrix, tenopharyngodon

idella; Cyprinus carpioP Picea sp.

Regeneration and preservation of dry grassland in Germany LIFE00 NAT/D/7058 P Robinia pseudoacacia

Large freshwater mussels Unionoidea in the border LIFE02 NAT/D/8458 A Ondatra zibethicusarea of Bavaria, Saxonia and the Czech Republic

Increase in the Size of Columba bollii and Columba junoniae LIFE96 NAT/E/3095 A Rattus sp.populations.

Restoration of riparian ecosystem in the natural reserve LIFE96 NAT/E/3098 P Populus hybridaof Galachos, Spain



Restoration and integrated management of the island of Buda LIFE96 NAT/E/3180 P Eucalyptus sp., Populushybrida, Phoenix sp. and Washingtonia sp.

Recovery Plan of Puffinus p. mauretanicus in SPA) LIFE97 NAT/E/4147 A Felis catus, Rattus sp. (Balearic Islands) and other mammals

Project of physical and ecological recovery of “Playa del Matorral” LIFE97 NAT/E/4157 P Washingtonia sp., Tamarix sp.

Reintroduction of El Hierro Giant Lizard in its former natural habitat LIFE97 NAT/E/4190 A Felis catus, Rattus sp.

Conservation of island SPAs in the Valencian region LIFE98 NAT/E/5300 A Livestock (hens, peacocks)

P Opuntia sp.

Restauration and management of the “Estanys de Sils” LIFE98 NAT/E/5348 P Phytolacca americana, Arundo donax

Conservation of the Blue Chaffinch of Gran Canaria LIFE98 NAT/E/5354 A Felis catus

Biodiversity conservation and recovery in the river basin of Asón LIFE99 NAT/E/6333 P Eucalyptus globulus, Bacharis halimifolia, Cortaderia selloana

Restoration of an integral reserve zone in the SPA for birds LIFE99 NAT/E/6343 P Populus hybrida“Riberas de Castronuño”

Conservation of priority habitats in the Valencian Community LIFE99 NAT/E/6417 P Carpobrotus edulis, Agave americana

Protection of Posidonia grasses in SCIs of Baleares LIFE00 NAT/E/7303 P Caulerpa taxifolia

Conservation of the black vulture in Majorca and other LIFE00 NAT/E/7340 A Felis catusSpanish SPAs

Habitat management of Hortobágy eco-region for bird protection LIFE02 NAT/H/8638 P Amorpha fruticosa

Conservation program for the Po Delta park geographical area LIFE94 NAT/IT/0538 A Miocastor coypus, (second phase) Silurus glanis,

Carassius carassius

Conservation of freshwater habitats in the Siena Province LIFE95 NAT/IT/0657 P Pinus sp.

Environmental restoration of the sites of Community interest LIFE96 NAT/IT/3068 P Prunus serotina, (Bioitaly) inside the Groane park Robinia pseudoacacia,

Solidago gigantea, Lonicera japonica

Active conservation of natural reserve “Valli del Mincio” LIFE96 NAT/IT/3073 P Nelumbo nucifera

Conservation of the wolf and the bear in the new parks LIFE97 NAT/IT/4141 A Canis lupus familiarisin the central Apennines

Protection of biodiversity in Capraia and other minor LIFE97 NAT/IT/4153 A Rattus rattusislands in Tuscany P Ailanthus altissima

Forest conservation in the Conero Regional Nature Park LIFE98 NAT/IT/5089 P Pinus halepensis, Robinia pseudoacacia, Ailanthus altissima

Urgent actions for the conservation of Pelobates fuscus insubricus* LIFE98 NAT/IT/5095 A Rana catesbeiana, Procambrus clarkii, Myocastor coypus

Protection of biodiversity in the Tuscan Tiber valley LIFE98 NAT/IT/5125 P Pinus pinaster

“Juniper dunes”: rearrangement and conservation LIFE99 NAT/IT/6189 P Acacia cianophylla,of SCI Monte Russu Mesembryanthemum

acinaciforme

Project for the conservation of the wolf in the Pollino National Park LIFE99 NAT/IT/6209 A Canis lupus familiaris

Biodiversity in the Iseo peat moss LIFE99 NAT/IT/6212 A Silurus glanisP Amorpha fruticosa,

Ailanthus altissima,Phytolacca americana, Solidago canadensis

Monte Labbro and upper Albegna valley, conservation LIFE99 NAT/IT/6229 P Abies cephalonica, and management Pseudotsuga menziesii,

Cedrus sp.

Actions of environmental restoration of Alserio Lake LIFE99 NAT/IT/6235 P Populus x canadensisPlatanus hybrida

Restore the alluvial forests – Regional Natural Reserve LIFE99 NAT/IT/6252 P Robinia pseudoacacia, “Naviglio di Melotta” Acer negundo,

Phytolacca americana

Palata Menasciutto – management and conservation LIFE99 NAT/IT/6253 A Ictalurus melas, of wet woodlands Lepomis gibbosus

P Populus hybrida, Robinia pseudoacacia

Safeguard of marine and coastal areas in the southern Tirreno LIFE99 NAT/IT/6275 P Caulerpa taxifolia

Conservation of habitats and species of the pSCI Bosco LIFE00 NAT/IT/7147 A Dama damadella Mesola

Conservation of Austropotamobius pallipes in two LIFE00 NAT/IT/7159 A Procambarus clarkiipSCIs of Lombardy

Urgent action to safeguard the Orbetello Lagoon SCI LIFE00 NAT/IT/7208 P Eucaliptus sp.

Conservation and management of the biotope LIFE00 NAT/IT/7209 A Myocastor coypus,“S. Genuario Wetland” Trachemys scripta,

Ctenopharyngodon idellaP Robinia pseudoacacia,

Solidago gigantea.

Integrated management of Insubric Prealpine habitats LIFE00 NAT/IT/7258 P Laserpitium niger

Conservation of Salmo marmoratus and Rutilus pigus LIFE00 NAT/IT/7268 A Silurus glanisin the Ticino river

Restoration of ecological balance in order to preserve habitats LIFE02 NAT/IT/8526 A Myocastor coypus, and species of Community interest Silurus glanis,

Procambarus clarkiiP Populus hybrida

River Toce: conservation of riverbank environments LIFE02 NAT/IT/8572 P Robinia pseudoacacia, to encourage nesting and migratory birds Ailanthus altissima, etc.

Restoration and demonstration project pSCI “De Wieden LIFE99 NAT/NL/6282 P Aronia melanocarpaand De Weerribben”

Conservation of the seabirds communities and habitats of Açores LIFE94 NAT/P/1034 A Oryctolagus cuniculus,Rattus rattus

Study and Conservation of the Açores Natural Patrimony LIFE96 NAT/P/3022 P Hedychium gardnerianum

Measures for the Management and Conservation LIFE97 NAT/P/4082 P Hedychium gardnerianumof the Laurissilva Forest of Madeira (code 45.62*)

Conservation of four rare species in pSCI Valongo LIFE98 NAT/P/5234 P Eucalyptus globules, Acacia dealbata, Ailanthus altissima

Restoration of the laurel forest in Funduras LIFE99 NAT/P/6436 P Eucaliptus globulus, Pinus radiata, Cupressus macrocarpa, Criptomeria japonica

Restoration of alvar habitats on the island of Stora Karlsö LIFE00 NAT/S/7118 P Prunus mahaleb, Acer pseudoplatanus

Restoration of deciduous forest in Söderåsen national park. LIFE02 NAT/S/8483 P Acer pseudoplatanus, Quercus rubra, Thuja occidentalis

A conservation strategy for the sand dunes of the Sefton Coast, LIFE95 NAT/UK/0818 P Hippophae rhamnoidesNorth West England


Securing Natura 2000 objectives in the New Forest LIFE97 NAT/UK/4242 P Rhododendron ponticum, Gaulteria shallon

Restoration of Atlantic Oakwoods LIFE97 NAT/UK/4244 P Rhododendron ponticum

Wet Woods Restoration Project LIFE98 NAT/UK/5431 P Rhododendron ponticum, Physocarpus opulifolia

Safeguarding Natura 2000 Rivers in the UK LIFE99 NAT/UK/6088 A Pacifastacus leniusculus

P Rhododendron ponticumWoodland Habitat Restoration: Core sites for a forest LIFE00 NAT/UK/7074 P Rhododendron ponticum,habitat network Fallopia japonica,

Synphoricarpus alba

3. LIFE Environment projects primarily aimed at alien species


Proliferation of the tropical algae Caulerpa taxifolia LIFE92 ENV/E/0067 P Caulerpa taxifoliain the Mediterranean

Expansion of the tropical green algae Caulerpa taxifolia LIFE92 ENV/F/0066 P Caulerpa taxifolia in the Mediterranean Sea

Control of the Caulerpa taxifolia extention LIFE95 ENV/F/0782 P Caulerpa taxifoliain the Mediterranean Sea

Proliferation of the tropical green algae Caulerpa taxifolia LIFE92 ENV/IT/0068 P Caulerpa taxifoliain the Mediterranean



4. LIFE Environment and LIFE Third Countries projects partially aimed at alien species


Recovery, Conservation and Management of Species LIFE95 ENV/P/0119 P Acacia sp.and Natural Habitats in the Coastal Area of the Central Portugal

Sustainable use and management rehabilitation of flood plain LIFE03 ENV/H/0280 P Amorpha fruticosain the Middle Tisza District

Development of a new management policy for the Hutovo LIFE99 TCY/BIH/035 A Fish speciesBlato wetlands, Bosnia-Herzegovina


Name LIFE (“L'Instrument Financier pour l'Environnement” / The financing instrument for the environment)

Type of intervention co-financing of actions in favour of the environment in the Community, in the countries of central and eastern Europe that are applicants for accession to the European Union and in certain third countries.

LIFE is made up of three subject headings: “LIFE-Nature”, “LIFE-Environment” and “LIFE – Third countries”.

Objectives> with a view to sustainable development in the European Union, contribute to the drawing up,

implementation and up-dating of Community policy and legislation in the area of the environment;> explore new solutions to environmental problems on a Community scale.

Beneficiaries any natural or legal person, provided that the projects financed meet the following general criteria:> they match the priorities laid down at Community level and contribute to the objectives listed; > they are submitted by reliable participants from financial and technical points of view;> they can be carried out from the technical point of view, in terms of timetable and budget,

and offer a good cost-benefit ratio.

Types of project> Eligible for LIFE-Nature are nature conservation projects which contribute to maintaining or restoring natural habitats

and/or populations of species in a favourable state of conservation within the meaning of Directive 92/43/EEC.

> Eligible for LIFE-Environment are demonstration projects which bring environment-related and sustainable development considerations together in land management, which promote sustainable water and waste management or which minimise the environmental impact of economic activities. Five areas of intervention are preferred: the management and enhancement of the territory, water management, the effect of economic activities, waste management, integrated product policy.

> Eligible for LIFE – Third countries are technical assistance projects which• Constitute a benefit for the Community, particularly on account of their contribution to the implementation of regional

and international policies and agreements; • Promote sustainable development at international, national or regional level; • Bring solutions to serious environmental problems in the region and the area concerned.

Implementation the Member States or third countries send the Commission the proposals of projects to be co-financed. The Commission sets the date for sending the proposals annually and reaches a decision on these. It monitors the financing and follow-up of the implementation of the LIFE actions. Accompanying measures enable the projects to be monitored on the ground and, in the case of LIFE-Nature, to encourage certain forms of cooperationbetween similar projects (“Co-op” measure).

Period of involvement 5 years (2000-2004).

Funds from the Community approximately 638 million EUR distributed as follows: 300 million EUR to LIFE-Nature, 300 million EUR to LIFE-Environment and 38 million EUR to LIFE – Third countries.

ContactEuropean Commission – Environment Directorate-GeneralLIFE Unit – BU-9 02/1 - 200 rue de la Loi - B-1049 Brussels – Fax: +32 2 296 95 56 Internet: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/life/home.htm

14K

H-53-03-887-E

N-C

Alien species and nature conservation in the EU - The role of the ...

Documents

Transcript of Alien species and nature conservation in the EU - The role of the ...