IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i21p9435-d1510236.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Addressing the Significance of the Union List with a Focus on Marine Invasive Alien Species Impacts

Author

Listed:
  • Merica Slišković

    (University of Split Faculty of Maritime Studies, Ruđera Boškovića 37, 21000 Split, Croatia)

  • Katja Božić

    (Plovput LLC, Obala Lazareta 1, 21000 Split, Croatia)

  • Jelena Žanić Mikuličić

    (University of Split Faculty of Maritime Studies, Ruđera Boškovića 37, 21000 Split, Croatia)

  • Ines Kolanović

    (University of Rijeka Faculty of Maritime Studies, Studentska ulica 2, 51000 Rijeka, Croatia)

Abstract

In the European Union, regulations and policies have been established to prevent and manage invasive alien species (IAS). The EU Regulation 1143/2014/EC, commonly known as the IAS Regulation, identifies species that pose significant ecological risks, requiring a coordinated response across all EU Member States. These species are classified as “species of Union concern” based on thorough risk assessments and standardized procedures within the EU. Accordingly, species are included in The List of Invasive Alien Species of Union Concern (the Union list), which is subject to regular updates through continuous species evaluations. Currently, the majority of the species on this list are terrestrial and freshwater with few marine species represented. The primary aim of this paper is to review the procedure for the inclusion of species in the Union list. The steps for inclusion are outlined by the IAS Regulation and associated legislation, which govern the risk assessment process. In addition, this paper synthesizes available scientific literature and official documents to summarize the impacts of Plotosus lineatus and Rugulopteryx okamurae on biodiversity and ecosystem services. The potential for future updates to the Union list is currently under consideration, and some marine species are within.

Suggested Citation

  • Merica Slišković & Katja Božić & Jelena Žanić Mikuličić & Ines Kolanović, 2024. "Addressing the Significance of the Union List with a Focus on Marine Invasive Alien Species Impacts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(21), pages 1-25, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:21:p:9435-:d:1510236
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/21/9435/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/21/9435/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fisher, Brendan & Turner, R. Kerry & Morling, Paul, 2009. "Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 643-653, January.
    2. de Groot, Rudolf S. & Wilson, Matthew A. & Boumans, Roelof M. J., 2002. "A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 393-408, June.
    3. Anna Occhipinti-Ambrogi, 2021. "Biopollution by Invasive Marine Non-Indigenous Species: A Review of Potential Adverse Ecological Effects in a Changing Climate," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(8), pages 1-20, April.
    4. Sutton, Paul C. & Anderson, Sharolyn J. & Costanza, Robert & Kubiszewski, Ida, 2016. "The ecological economics of land degradation: Impacts on ecosystem service values," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 182-192.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jiayi Zhou & Kangning Xiong & Qi Wang & Jiuhan Tang & Li Lin, 2022. "A Review of Ecological Assets and Ecological Products Supply: Implications for the Karst Rocky Desertification Control," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-20, August.
    2. Kubiszewski, Ida & Concollato, Luke & Costanza, Robert & Stern, David I., 2023. "Changes in authorship, networks, and research topics in ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    3. Comino, E. & Ferretti, V., 2016. "Indicators-based spatial SWOT analysis: supporting the strategic planning and management of complex territorial systems," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 64142, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    4. Bolaños-Valencia, Ingrid & Villegas-Palacio, Clara & López-Gómez, Connie Paola & Berrouet, Lina & Ruiz, Aura, 2019. "Social perception of risk in socio-ecological systems. A qualitative and quantitative analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    5. Alessio D’Auria & Pasquale De Toro & Nicola Fierro & Elisa Montone, 2018. "Integration between GIS and Multi-Criteria Analysis for Ecosystem Services Assessment: A Methodological Proposal for the National Park of Cilento, Vallo di Diano and Alburni (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-25, September.
    6. Johann Audrain & Mateo Cordier & Sylvie Faucheux & Martin O’Connor, 2013. "Écologie territoriale et indicateurs pour un développement durable de la métropole parisienne," Revue d'économie régionale et urbaine, Armand Colin, vol. 0(3), pages 523-559.
    7. Mohamed A. M. Abd Elbasit & Jasper Knight & Gang Liu & Majed M. Abu-Zreig & Rashid Hasaan, 2021. "Valuation of Ecosystem Services in South Africa, 2001–2019," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-18, October.
    8. Bo Yang & Ming-Han Li & Shujuan Li, 2013. "Design-with-Nature for Multifunctional Landscapes: Environmental Benefits and Social Barriers in Community Development," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-26, October.
    9. Stapleton, L.M. & Hanna, P. & Ravenscroft, N. & Church, A., 2014. "A flexible ecosystem services proto-typology based on public opinion," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 83-90.
    10. Beichen Ge & Congjin Wang & Yuhong Song, 2023. "Ecosystem Services Research in Rural Areas: A Systematic Review Based on Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-18, March.
    11. Aevermann Tim & Schmude Jürgen, 2015. "Quantification and monetary valuation of urban ecosystem services in Munich, Germany," ZFW – Advances in Economic Geography, De Gruyter, vol. 59(3), pages 188-200, December.
    12. Braat, Leon C. & de Groot, Rudolf, 2012. "The ecosystem services agenda:bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 4-15.
    13. Cordier, Mateo & Pérez Agúndez, José A. & Hecq, Walter & Hamaide, Bertrand, 2014. "A guiding framework for ecosystem services monetization in ecological–economic modeling," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 86-96.
    14. Alamanos, Angelos & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2022. "Economics of Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Water Resource Planning and Management," MPRA Paper 122046, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Grilli, Gianluca & Fratini, Roberto & Marone, Enrico & Sacchelli, Sandro, 2020. "A spatial-based tool for the analysis of payments for forest ecosystem services related to hydrogeological protection," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    16. Posthumus, H. & Rouquette, J.R. & Morris, J. & Gowing, D.J.G. & Hess, T.M., 2010. "A framework for the assessment of ecosystem goods and services; a case study on lowland floodplains in England," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 1510-1523, May.
    17. Jian Zhang & Hengxing Xiang & Shizuka Hashimoto & Toshiya Okuro, 2021. "Observational Scale Matters for Ecosystem Services Interactions and Spatial Distributions: A Case Study of the Ussuri Watershed, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-16, September.
    18. Sattler, Claudia & Trampnau, Susanne & Schomers, Sarah & Meyer, Claas & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2013. "Multi-classification of payments for ecosystem services: How do classification characteristics relate to overall PES success?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 31-45.
    19. Rasmussen, Laura Vang & Mertz, Ole & Christensen, Andreas E. & Danielsen, Finn & Dawson, Neil & Xaydongvanh, Pheang, 2016. "A combination of methods needed to assess the actual use of provisioning ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 75-86.
    20. Schaeffer, Y. & Dissart, J.-C., 2018. "Natural and Environmental Amenities: A Review of Definitions, Measures and Issues," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 475-496.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:21:p:9435-:d:1510236. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.