Home About National indicators Partners Resources

Legislation for prevention and control of invasive alien species (IAS), encompassing “Trends in policy responses, legislation and management plans to control and prevent spread of invasive alien species” and “Proportion of countries adopting relevant national legislation and adequately resourcing the prevention or control of invasive alien species”

Key indicator facts

Indicator type

Response

Applicable for national use

Yes

Indicator classification

Potential for future use at global and regional levels

Indicator type

Response

Applicable for national use

Yes

Indicator classification

Potential for future use at global and regional levels

Last update

2017

Coverage

Global

Availability

Not freely available

Partners

Issg logo

IUCN Invasive Species Specalist Group

Iucn ssc

IUCN Species Survival Commission

Iucn logo en

IUCN

Monash univeristy b w

Monash University

Contact point

Indicator description

Background to the indicators of “Policies for prevention and control of invasive alien species”, which encompass, specifically:

  • A. Trends in policy responses, legislation and management plans to control and prevent spread of invasive alien species
  • B. Proportion of countries adopting relevant national legislation and adequately resourcing the prevention or control of invasive alien species

These indicators of “Policies for prevention and control of invasive alien species (IAS)” aim to quantify trends in the:

  1. National adoption of IAS-relevant international policy.
  2. Percentage of countries with (a) national strategies for preventing and controlling IAS; and (b) national legislation and policy relevant to IAS
  3. National allocation of resources towards the prevention or control of IAS.

Related Aichi Targets

Primary target

9

Target 9:

By 2020, invasive alien species and pathways are identified and prioritized, priority species are controlled or eradicated, and measures are in place to manage pathways to prevent their introduction and establishment.

Secondary targets

Target 5:

By 2020, the rate of loss of all natural habitats, including forests, is at least halved and where feasible brought close to zero, and degradation and fragmentation is significantly reduced.

Target 10:

By 2015, the multiple anthropogenic pressures on coral reefs, and other vulnerable ecosystems impacted by climate change or ocean acidification are minimized, so as to maintain their integrity and functioning.

Target 11:

By 2020, at least 17 per cent of terrestrial and inland water, and 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, are conserved through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative and well connected systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, and integrated into the wider landscapes and seascapes.

Target 12:

By 2020 the extinction of known threatened species has been prevented and their conservation status, particularly of those most in decline, has been improved and sustained.

Target 17:

By 2015 each Party has developed, adopted as a policy instrument, and has commenced implementing an effective, participatory and updated national biodiversity strategy and action plan.

Primary target

9

Target 9:

By 2020, invasive alien species and pathways are identified and prioritized, priority species are controlled or eradicated, and measures are in place to manage pathways to prevent their introduction and establishment.

5
10
12
11
17
9

Related SDGs

E sdg goals icons individual rgb 15

GOAL 15 - Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss.

Target 15.8| Relevant indicator

By 2020, introduce measures to prevent the introduction and significantly reduce the impact of invasive alien species on land and water ecosystems and control or eradicate the priority species.

Target 15.8| Official indicator

By 2020, introduce measures to prevent the introduction and significantly reduce the impact of invasive alien species on land and water ecosystems and control or eradicate the priority species.

E sdg goals icons individual rgb 15

GOAL 15 - Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss.

E sdg goals icons individual rgb 15

Other related MEAs and processes

Indicator icon

IPBES Global Assessment Chapters

Chapter 6| Relevant indicator

Opportunities and challenges for decision makers

Indicator icon

IPBES Regional Assessment Chapters

Chapter 6| Relevant indicator

Options for governance, institutional arrangements and private and public decision-making across scales and sectors

Indicator icon

IPBES Global Assessment Chapters

Indicator icon

IPBES Regional Assessment Chapters

Indicator icon
Indicator icon

Themes

Bip policy

Policy & conservation actions

View related indicators >
Bip policy
Bip species

Partners

Issg logo
Iucn ssc
Iucn logo en
Monash univeristy b w

Key indicator facts

Indicator type

Response

Applicable for national use

Yes

Indicator classification

Potential for future use at global and regional levels

Indicator type

Response

Applicable for national use

Yes

Indicator classification

Potential for future use at global and regional levels

Last update

2017

Coverage

Global

Availability

Not freely available

Indicator description

Background to the indicators of “Policies for prevention and control of invasive alien species”, which encompass, specifically:

  • A. Trends in policy responses, legislation and management plans to control and prevent spread of invasive alien species
  • B. Proportion of countries adopting relevant national legislation and adequately resourcing the prevention or control of invasive alien species

These indicators of “Policies for prevention and control of invasive alien species (IAS)” aim to quantify trends in the:

  1. National adoption of IAS-relevant international policy.
  2. Percentage of countries with (a) national strategies for preventing and controlling IAS; and (b) national legislation and policy relevant to IAS
  3. National allocation of resources towards the prevention or control of IAS.

Contact point

Graphs / Diagrams

1. National adoption of IAS-relevant international policy

Commitment by countries to IAS-relevant multinational agreements is an instrumental response indicator.

Figure 1: The percentage of signatories (n= 196 countries) in 2017 to ten multinational agreements relevant to the prevention and control of IAS.

  • On average 82% of countries have signed up to the IAS-relevant international agreements, demonstrating that there is widespread international support for such agreements that support some degree of prevention and control of IAS.
  • Fewer than 30% (53) of countries have to date signed up to the most recent multinational agreement, the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship's Ballast Water and Sediments (BWM), which was adopted in 2004 and enters into force in September 2017.
2. Percentage of countries with (a) national strategies for preventing and controlling IAS; and (b) national legislation and policy relevant to IAS

National strategies for preventing and controlling IAS, underpinned by legislation, are essential for the effective management of biological invasions.

a. National strategies for preventing and controlling IAS

Figure 2: Trends in national legislation relevant to the prevention or control of Invasive alien species (IAS) for 196 countries reporting to the Convention on Biological Diversity (1967–2016), showing specifically percentages of countries with i) IAS legislation, ii) NBSAP targets on IAS, and iii) IAS targets aligned to Aichi Target 9.

  • The percentage of countries with relevant national legislation increased from 54% in 2010 to 73% of countries in 2016 (Figure 2) -an increase of 19% since the last reporting period (2010).
  • 75 % (146/196) of countries have targets related to IAS management in their NBSAPs
  • 67% (132 countries) have aligned their IAS targets to Aichi Biodiversity Target 9

b.National legislation and policy relevant to IAS


Figure 3: Percentage of countries whose institutions have a clear mandate and/or legal authority to manage IAS are indicated. A positive result is given by a Yes. Negative result is for No, N/A or Unsure.

  • Over 88% of the 81 countries considered in the measurement of this indicator have a Government Department, National agency or agencies (including supranational institutions/organizations, e.g. EU) responsible for managing IAS that impact the natural environment, economic sectors (e.g. agriculture, forestry, tourism, etc.) or human health
  • As seen in Figure 3, on average, institutions in 72% countries have a clear mandate and/or legal authority for a suite of IAS management related themes. The percentage of countries with established and strategic approaches to the development of plans and policies, management of intentional introductions and increasing public awareness and outreach is relatively high (≥70%).
  • A strategic approach to management of risks of introduction of alien species and the critical area of monitoring and detection are the weakest of all the listed thematic areas.
3. The resourcing of IAS-related management action

Figure 4: Quantifying the allocation of resources (both national and through global financial mechanisms) towards the prevention or control of IAS are shown as a bar graph with % of countries on the y axis. [81 countries are included in this indicator]

  • Close to 20% of countries have a national budget allocation specific to IAS related management action (National funding only).
  • Largest allocations (in absolute terms) were noted in South Africa and New Zealand.
  • Just over 17% of countries with no allocated national budget for IAS management, have accessed funding from global finanacial mechanisms for IAS related management action (Global funding only).
  • Cumulatively, 68% of countries had an allocated national budget and/or had accessed funding from a global financial mechanism for IAS related activities.
  • Over a third of the countries that responded to the survey have no allocated budgets whatsoever, from either national or global funding sources, as a mechanism for resourcing IAS related activities.

Current storyline

The first measurement of parts of this indicator was completed in 2010, where aims (1) and (2) (a) were addressed as per the relevant target at that time. Part 2 indicators now also include (b) national commitment (mandate and legal authority) to key IAS related themes.

The indicator now also addresses (3) resourcing by national governments for the prevention and control of IAS, as identified by the Sustainable Development Goals indicator 15.8.1 (“Proportion of countries adopting relevant national legislation and adequately resourcing the prevention or control of invasive alien species”).

The larger the number of IAS-relevant international policies, and the greater the level of national commitment to these, the greater the global commitment to controlling IAS. This calculation updates the 2010 measure of the change through time in the number of IAS-relevant multinational agreements and their adoption by countries.

  • The more countries with IAS related legislation, and national strategies including IAS concerns the greater the national commitment to controlling the threat to biodiversity from IAS.
  • This indicator measures the number of countries that include targets related to IAS management and if they are aligned to Aichi Biodiversity Target 9. NBSAPS submitted after 2010 were examined for IAS related targets and their alignment to Target 9.
  • Adequate resourcing is vital to ensure implementation and effective delivery of targets set. Allocation of resources to facilitate the implementation of IAS management action is difficult to measure, particularly in a way that is comparable across countries.
  • Data and methodology

    Metadata used

    Four data-sets were updated/developed for the measurement of this indicator:

    1. Update of countries commitments to global conventions/international agreements relevant to invasive alien species (used for "National adoption of IAS-relevant international policy").

    Information sources comprised membership information from the Conventions and the United Nations Information Portal on Multilateral Environmental Agreements (InforMEA)[1]. 196 countries were included. The data format is a spreadsheet of countries vs MEAs, with year of membership in each cell.
    [1] InforMEA
    https://www.informea.org/en

    2. National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) targets alignment to Aichi Biodiversity target 9 set out in the Strategic Plan of Biodiversity Conservation 2011-2020 and status of implementation of targets as described in the 5th National reports (used for “National strategies for preventing and controlling IAS”).

    The information source was the CBD website, which features country profiles[2]. 196 countries were included. The data format is a spreadsheet of countries vs inclusion of IAS in NBSAP, and Aichi Target 9 alignment.
    [2] CBD Country profiles
    https://www.cbd.int/countries/

    3. Update and expansion of dataset on National Legislation considered relevant to the prevention of introduction of invasive alien species and control (used for “National strategies for preventing and controlling IAS”).

    Any National Legislation, Act or regulation that has any relevance to alien and invasive alien species was recorded including annotations of relevant text of the Legislation, key words, and date of enactment. 196 countries were included. The data format is a spreadsheet of countries vs inclusion of IAS in legislation, with year of legislation in each cell.

    Key information sources included ECOLEX [1], FAOLEX [2], and national government websites with information on Legislation. Country experts were also contacted for clarifications.

    [1] ECOLEX https://www.ecolex.org/
    [2] FAOLEX
    http://www.fao.org/faolex/en/

    4. Results of online survey, disseminated to all CBD national focal points, on Policy responses, mandate, legal authority and resourcing to manage the threat of invasive alien species (used for “National legislation and policy relevant to IAS” and “National allocation of resources towards the prevention or control of IAS”). 79 countries were included. The data format is a spreadsheet of countries vs each of nine IAS management related themes, for both mandate and legal authority and with an additional column indicating funding source (national, global, both, or none).

    Methodology

    This indicator is calculated from data derived from four datasets that were updated/developed for the measurement of this indicator

    • a. Update of countries commitments to global conventions/ international agreements relevant to invasive alien species
    • b. Update and expansion of dataset on National Legislation considered relevant to the prevention of introduction of invasive alien species and control
    • c. National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) targets alignment to Aichi Biodiversity target 9 set out in the Strategic Plan of Biodiversity Conservation 2011-2020
    • d. Results of online survey on Policy responses, mandate, legal authority and resourcing to manage the threat of invasive alien species

    Part A and Part B Indicators were calculated as follows

    Part A Indicators: Commitment by countries to relevant multinational agreements.
    National strategies for preventing and controlling IAS, underpinned by national policy and legislation for effective management of biological invasions.

    Results for the first two aims of the measurement of this indicator, [(a) Demonstrate the percentage of countries with (i) national legislation and policy relevant to Invasive alien species (IAS) concerns; and (ii) national strategies for preventing and controlling IAS; (b) Quantify trends in the adoption of IAS-relevant international policy], are shown as trends with a discussion on how this measure has changed since 2010.

    Part B Indicators: The translation of policy arrangements into action by countries to implement policy and actively prevent and control IAS and the resourcing of this action.

    National use of indicator

    Both Indicator A “Trends in policy responses, legislation and management plans to control and prevent spread of invasive alien species” (specifically 1 “National adoption of IAS-relevant international policy” across ten international policies) and Indicator B “Proportion of countries adopting relevant national legislation and adequately resourcing the prevention or control of invasive alien species” (specifically 2(b) “national legislation and policy relevant to IAS” across nine IAS management related themes) can be applied at national levels.

    1(a) “national strategies for preventing and controlling IAS” (inclusion of IAS in legislation, NBSAP, and Aichi Target 9 alignment) and 3 “National allocation of resources towards the prevention or control of IAS” (financing source) can also be applied at the national level, but as simple yes/no checkboxes rather than full national indicators.

    Further resources

    Key indicator facts

    Indicator type

    Response

    Applicable for national use

    Yes

    Indicator classification

    Potential for future use at global and regional levels

    Indicator type

    Response

    Applicable for national use

    Yes

    Indicator classification

    Potential for future use at global and regional levels

    Last update

    2017

    Coverage

    Global

    Availability

    Not freely available

    Partners

    Issg logo

    IUCN Invasive Species Specalist Group

    Iucn ssc

    IUCN Species Survival Commission

    Iucn logo en

    IUCN

    Monash univeristy b w

    Monash University

    Contact point