INV0032
Written evidence submitted by the Yorkshire Invasive Species Forum (YISF)
1.1 The Yorkshire Invasive Species Forum (YISF) is a Local Action Group (LAG) dedicated to drive the management of invasive species and the coordination of management in a sustainable and systematic way across Yorkshire. YISF was born from the DEFRA LAG funding to facilitate the GB Non-Native Species Strategy and is coordinated by the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust, Environment Agency, Yorkshire Water and University of Leeds.
1.2 YISF supports the EU IAS Regulations however one of our main concerns is the lack of resourcing that prevents the UK from delivering the three-pronged approach to invasive species. The provision for internal and border biosecurity is poor compared to other countries, such as New Zealand. Good biosecurity is vital for many of the species that we cannot easily control. Several LAGs were established by DEFRA to manage INNS across the UK however the reduction and/or difficulty in obtaining funding for INNS projects means a lack of efficiency and reduction in treatment. The lack of funding reduces the impact of documents produced under the regulations as member states do not have the access to funding to implement them.
1.3 The EU regulation has been useful in placing stronger emphasis on the need to prevent species which would not have occurred under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The EU species of concern list could be vital if integrated well into domestic law. However, YISF believe that there must be better enforcement and policing of wildlife legislation for INNS management to be a priority.
1.4 Climate change is likely to enhance the suitability for species with invasive traits to colonise, rapidly establish and spread. It does not however mean that invasive species are migrating to the UK. Climate change is likely to enhance internal travel and external tourism which will increase footfall into and around the country increasing biosecurity risk
1.5 Leaving the EU may present several challenges for the management of invasive species. We may lose the connection to the EU detection and rapid response systems, funding for collaborative research and nature conservation programmes and the UK will be required to create a new body to replace the ‘Scientific Forum’.
2.1 The Yorkshire Invasive Species Forum (YISF) believes that the UK is not adapted to efficiently manage the impact of invasive species and control the risks of further invasion. There isn’t full oversight of activities regarding invasive species management which leads of ineffective use of resources. For a successful long-term strategy, we must monitor the initial sources and routes of infection, this will allow for correct and appropriate provision of resources to effectively manage species over the timescales required. This may require a step change in the mindset of the general public and state who will be vital in the monitoring and action towards these species Finally, legislation regarding invasive species is poorly enforced which doesn’t support groups actioning management.
2.2 Local action groups (LAGs) such as YISF were established via DEFRA funding to help meet the objectives of the GB Non-Native Species Strategy and are vital for the awareness raising and management of invasive species as well as the promotion of biosecurity. LAGs can mobilise large numbers of volunteers as well as direct and in-kind contributions from a range of organisations which makes them ideally placed to tackle invasive species. While LAGs have been successful in their mission. The support and provision for the funding of core activities means that these LAGs are not able to fully fulfil their purpose. LAGs often must change approach towards an invasive species project or spend valuable hours of project time to secure funding for continuity of programmes. This lack of continuity with projects is not effective when managing invasive species and is disruptive when engaging with landowners, recreational users and the public in terms of awareness raising of invasive species and biosecurity. YISF also believe that the current provision to prevent further invasions is lacking and this can be seen through relevant expenditure on biosecurity. In 2016/17 the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) spent £217 million on biosecurity, however only £922,000 went towards biosecurity for invasive species (0.5%)1.
2.3 There is currently little policing and enforcement of legislation relating to invasive species which often means we require good will from the landowners we engage with to manage invasive species on their land. In addition, the lack of enforcement and policing of biosecurity for invasive species has no doubt allowed several introductions to happen. This resource gap means that the UK isn’t in the position to effectively deliver GBNNSS and IAS strategy. There is some contrast with plant and animal biosecurity in the UK who have inspectorates to ensure biosecurity at borders. The UK’s biosecurity operation, when compared against other countries like New Zealand, is greatly under resourced.
Human health;
3.1 The species that pose the greatest harm to human health are those that could cause harm to an individual on a physical level. Giant Hogweed has the potential to cause permanent scaring.
3.2 There are several cases where Japanese Knotweed has prevented homeowners from acquiring a mortgage or selling their property for its full value. The cases in law have identified Japanese Knotweed as preventing homeowners from quiet enjoyment or loss of amenity of their property. In addition, there is potential for invasive species to prevent the enjoyment or rivers and impact the aesthetic view or sense of place. Many riparian and aquatic species (e.g. Floating Pennywort and Himalayan Balsam) have the potential to increase flood risk by sedimentation or the obstruction of drainage systems. The proliferation in flood risk and prevention of enjoyment of the home should be considered here for mental health purposes.
Animal health;
3.3 The YISF are not focused on animal health matters.
Plant health and biodiversity.
3.4 There are many riparian and aquatic species that pose serious harm to biodiversity. The YISF primary focus on riparian plants which are easily visible to the public and can be treated relatively easily (e.g. Giant Hogweed, Japanese Knotweed, Himalayan Balsam and American Skunk Cabbage). These species can create vast monocultures which reduce the native biodiversity of our riparian habitat and the resilience of our waterways. The EA, a key partner of YISF, focus on the management of aquatic plants such as Floating Pennywort which, if unchecked, can completely block out light to whole sections of the river. There are other species such as Parrot’s Feather, New Zealand Pygmyweed, Water Fern, Water Primrose and several species of waterweeds (Curly, Nuttall’s and Canadian) which all present similar impacts to aquatic biodiversity too. Finally, invasive mammals, such as the Mink, should be considered due to the impact they have on larger native fauna such as birds and small mammals.
3.5 Whilst YISF focus much of their attention on riparian plants it is the aquatic invertebrates (e.g. several species of invasive crayfish, mussel and shrimp) that pose the greatest risk to native species. Unfortunately, we cannot have much impact on these species if they arrive and therefore the promotion of good biosecurity is essential for these species.
3.6 We also note that there can often be a lag for many species where the species themselves are not recorded and their impacts are not seen. Recording and awareness of lesser known or recently introduced species which have invasive potential will be essential in the future.
3.7 The YISF are not focused on plant health matters.
4.1 Climate change is not causing the migration of INNS into the UK but is likely to increase the suitability of our country for many non-natives to thrive and potentially become invasive (these may be currently internal or external species). Another of our concerns is that the changing climate is likely to increase tourism, especially with regards recreational users. This could will likely increase volume of traffic into the UK but also movement within the UK, heightening biosecurity risk (e.g. anglers/ walkers/ sailors may move around more due to good weather).
5.1 Invasive species have no respect for borders and therefore the UK must ensure that we adopt the IAS regulations into domestic law and continue to cooperate with the European Union. Currently the EU receives pest and disease notifications from the EU as a Member State, we must continue to receive these notifications to adapt our monitoring process. The list of Invasive Alien Species of Union Concern can be altered to focus on species the UK solely identifies as a risk which may give the UK better control of high-risk species. Changes in climatic conditions mean that it is imperative that the UK ensure biosecurity legislation is resourced and enforced for invasive species, plant and animal health.
6.1 Core funding As mentioned above LAGs are already widely established and well developed to manage invasive species in the UK. While initially relying on DEFRA funding to establish many LAGs have been successful in securing their own funding, however this comes at a cost. It is difficult to secure funding for core activities, which means project officer time is often spent securing new means of funding rather on activity. The continuity of funding here would one allow the LAGs strengthen their outputs, but it would also prevent a large insertion of funding into this sector from being wasted. The availability of core funding to LAGs would allow a far more structured and systematic approach to management and better outcomes for the GBNNS Strategy.
6.2 Coordination and policy The most efficient way to treat invasive species is a systematic headwater down approach, underpinned by strong national legislation and government coordination., A catchment approach this relies on engagement from all landowners in a catchment. We believe that landowners such as statutory undertakers, councils and businesses must have a greater regard for invasive species on their properties to make the management of invasive species in catchments more feasible. We would be interested in seeing invasive species developed into the new Environmental Land Management Schemes (ELMS) as this would open a pathway to make the LAGs more resilient and provide a route to positively fund activities addressing this issue. Projects such as the YISF landowner pay-in scheme could easily be facilitated and would create a more systematic and sustainable way of working. These efforts require stronger policy to ensure there is onus on landowners to prevent these species from growing on their land and complete management if necessary. The outcome of stronger policy will likely require more coordination to ensure that catchment scale treatment is completed.
6.3 Biosecurity Biosecurity must be a priority as LAGs are not in the position to treat aquatic plants, tree diseases or invertebrates. In addition, these species that cannot be treated are often far more damaging than those that can. This means that there must be a strong level of biosecurity at the borders to prevent new species from entering the country. There must also be a focus on internal biosecurity to prevent exacerbating INNS populations further. The recruitment of INNS biosecurity officers should complement and enhance plant and animal health officers. LAGs are in a perfect position to raise biosecurity awareness within the UK, but again enforcement and penalties may be required to ensure that biosecurity practices are enacted.
N/A
8.1 The EU IAS regulation has likely strengthened the 3-pronged approach (prevention, early detection/ rapid response and management) to tackling invasive species. The most notable positive is the strengthening on biosecurity measures compared to domestic legislation such as statutory requirements for early eradication of INNS, emergency response measures, pathway prevention measures and management plans to control certain INNS.
8.2 The major shortfall of the regulation in relation to the production of management plans and pathway prevention measures is the lack of funding which prevents member states from implementing them. The EU regulation identifies a need to produce these documents however the funding cannot be secured.
8.3 It places a stronger emphasis on the need to prevent species and therefore has brought restrictions on species under the regulation which would not have been brought about through the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The species listed in this regulation are focused at an EU scale, which means there are several species native to EU countries which have been excluded from the regulation, potentially weakening its impacts. Conversely removing species from this list that are not a high priority may free up resourcing elsewhere.
8.4 The EU regulation may have also strengthened the RAPID LIFE application to the EU LIFE programme. The LIFE programme provides cofounding for environmental, nature conservation and climate action that contributes to the policy objectives. The RAPID LIFE project has allowed several LAGs to further their work and bridge the gap between high level strategy and on the ground action.
9.1 The UK need to establish a clear and defined process for reviewing high risk species. The new ‘Scientific Forum’ will need to contain both domestic and EU participants to ensure that we are able to share data and surveillance systems across countries we trade with and so capture new high-risk species. While researchers are required the forum must also capture input from economists, social scientists and those groups who tackle INNS (e.g. NGOs, engineers). The body responsible for coordination should be unbiased and resourced to complete the process efficiently. We want to stress that the ‘Scientific Forum’ should not reinvent the wheel and would draw upon other groups such as the NNSS or JNCC to minimise additional workloads.
10.1 Again, invasive species do not respect boundaries and therefore it is essential we continue to work with the EU and any other countries in which trade is likely to increase. This means we need to ensure that we can share data and surveillance strategies as well as maintaining our access to detection and rapid response systems. To aid this, the UK government must ensure that there is a system to cooperate and fund EU/UK research programmes as this will strengthen our biosecurity knowledge.
1 https://www.wcl.org.uk/docs/HoL_biosecurity_inq_evidence_%20April2018.pdf