INVASIVE ALIEN SPECIES IN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTS: A PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF THE ENTANGLED RELATIONSHIP Marina Škunca1, Luka Škunca1; Hrvoje Peternel1 1GEONATURA
d.o.o., Fallerovo šetalište 22, Zagreb, Hrvatska (
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected])
INVASIVE ALIEN SPECIES (IAS) AND
PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTS (EIAS) VARIOUS HUMAN
SPREAD OF IAS
INTERVENTIONS
ON LOCAL AND
IN THE ENVIRONMENT
REGIONAL SCALES
• main questions: 1. How often is the spread of IAS recognised as a result of planned intervention and a threat to biodiversity? 2. How often is the removal and/or monitoring of IAS proposed? 3. Were proposed measures implemented in the Decision of the Competent Authority ? +
Does level to which invasive flora and fauna were recognized as a threat depend on EIA’s and/or Decision’s publication date and intervention type?
PREVENTIVE, CONTROL AND/OR ERADICATION MITIGATION MEASURES
• 116 EIA Studies, available at the official website of the Ministry of Environmental and Nature Protection of
AND MONITORING PROGRAMS
Croatia (over the period 2013 - 01/08/2016) were used 102 Decisions were analysed (2 procedures were suspended, while 12 Decisions haven’t been published)
EIA PROCEDURES
• data were analysed using descriptive statistics
RESULTS No. of EIAs where the spread of IAS was recognized as a potential impact of planned intervention 5
1 79
not recognized invasive plant species
Monitoring program • only 9 monitoring programs were proposed
invasive animal species
26
6 were rejected
TYPES OF INTERVENTION
23
25
19
20
unspecified IAS
33
30
• all address invasive plant species
No. of EIAs where the spread of IAS was recognized as a potential impact of planned intervention with regard to intervention types
Relationship between proposed mitigation measures and EIA's publication date
19
15 10
1 was modified to address the unspecified IAS
6
6
6
0
2013 (total of 16 EIAs)
2014 (total of 43 EIAs)
2015 (total of 45 EIAs)
2016 (total of 12 EIAs)
64
none were proposed
56 12
none were mentioned
Relationship between implemented mitigation measures and Decision's publication date
invasive plant species
no Decision published invasive animal species
unspecified IAS
25
25 20
invasive plant species
20 16
17
15
50
9
10
EXTRACTION OF RAW MATERIALS
30
2
6
-
ENERGY
18
-
15
-
16
-
-
-
WASTE MANAGEMENT
6
-
-
-
WATER MANAGEMENT
6
-
1
-
MARICULTURE
4
-
-
-
INDUSTRY
3
-
-
-
SPORT AND RECREATION
2
-
-
-
116
5
33
1
Abbr.: EIAs = number of EIAs; IAS = unspecified invasive alien species, IApS = invasive plant species, IAaS = invasive animal species
5
suspended procedure
2014 (total of 37 Decisions)
invasive animal species
unspecified IAS
1
TOTAL SUM
11
0
invasive algae species
11
(MOSTLY INTENSIVE ANIMAL FARMING)
30
1
3
measures for invasive plant species
No. of Decisions where the mitigation measures for IAS were accepted 2 2
31
OTHER
no measures were proposed
1 procedure was suspended
11 1
TRANSPORT
5
1 Decision has not been published yet
IAaS
9
* No. of EIAs where mitigation measures for IAS were proposed
EIAs
TYPES OF IAS IAS IApS
44
2015 (total of 45 Decisions)
2016 (total of 20 Decisions)
none were mentioned measures for invasive plant species
* measures for unspecified IAS and invasive animal species were not analysed due to small sample size
Thoughts on EIAs
Thoughts on Decisions
• the need to analyse the impact of invasive species is rarely recognized:
interventions located in built-up areas
waste and water management, mariculture, industry, sport and recreation etc.
• overambitious and/or imprecise measures and monitoring programs
• measures proposed by EIA weren’t implemented in 4 Decisions • unfamiliarity of other sectors with the issue of IAS undermines the implementation • unclear legal framework
Nature Protection Act (OG 80/13) and The Regulation EU 1143/2014 on IAS are not always accepted as a basis for measure implementation national framework regarding IAS is still in the procedure
• lack of available data (fauna!) undermines the recognition of possible threats • the need for autochthonous plant species in biological recultivations is well recognized across EIAs • some of the analysed EIAs cover projects restricted to existing buildings or infrastructure on already developed land
• measures not proposed by EIA were implemented in 4 Decisions • even though proposed measures were modified in 6 Decisions…
Take away thoughts… …on next steps needed • better data availability:
official IAS lists (fauna!)
IAS distribution (fauna!)
recognized official pathways
• terminology standardization across studies • better problem recognition across all relevant sectors (e.g. water management, energy, construction and transport sector)
• clear legal framework
…
…one extended the period of species removal over a period of preparation and construction;
…one expanded the list of species proposed for removal;
…two were defined more precisely.
GUIDELINES BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY
