financial resources, and a process of prioritisation of potential interventions, including
considerations related to the funds available to put the management plan into action
(Wilson et al. 2017). Such detailed assessments are generally beyond the scope of risk
analyses which are mostly desktop-based (but see example of biological control release
applications below). However, some basic management considerations need to be
taken into account that allow for a broad classification of how to treat a certain risk.
Risk management is generally more open-ended than the risk assessment, but
needs to be documented in detail to assure that decisions are transparent and can be
revisited when information becomes available. Risk management can include
parameters like socio-economic and environmental benefits, the feasibility of stopping future immigration of a risky species, and basic considerations regarding
eradication feasibility (e.g. Panetta and Timmins 2004; Wilson et al. 2017). Renteria
et al. (2017), for example, suggested a rapid scheme for prioritisation of alien species
in South Africa for eradication, using information on the species’ distribution and
“eradication feasibility syndromes”. While such simple desktop studies are useful to
flag species for further evaluation, they are not sufficient to determine whether a
species is a suitable eradication target. In practice, eradication feasibility depends
heavily on the biological (e.g. location of individuals, detectability, availability of
effective control methods) and administrative context (e.g. funds available, and a
dedicated and persistent leader and team).
20.1.3 Risk Communication
Once the level of risk has been determined and options for management and benefits
evaluated, it is crucial to clearly communicate the outcomes of the analysis to
stakeholders, including the general public, policy-makers and traders of the alien
species. There are two important requirements for risk communication. Firstly,
stakeholders must be engaged during the risk analysis, both for assessors to obtain
information on the hazard, and to gain the support of stakeholders (e.g. Novoa et al.
2015, 2016b). There are often formal regulatory processes of stakeholder engagement. For example, before the promulgation of new regulations in South Africa, they
are published for public comment, whereafter the comments needed to be addressed
or acknowledged. In contentious cases, an independent scientific assessment might
be needed (Scholes et al. 2017), but if conflicts are to be avoided, engagement should
happen from the outset of the process.
Secondly, risk communication is important for providing stakeholders with sufficient information to understand the recommendations. Stakeholders need to be in a
position to know under which circumstances decisions would be altered, for example,
how new information or changing practices would influence risk. Therefore, communication needs to be simple enough to ensure understanding, but simultaneously
enough information needs to be provided to underpin the decision. Decisions are
often only successful and implementable if stakeholders understand the risks associated with the taxon. To gain the support from the general public and financial
580
S. Kumschick et al.
considerations related to the funds available to put the management plan into action
(Wilson et al. 2017). Such detailed assessments are generally beyond the scope of risk
analyses which are mostly desktop-based (but see example of biological control release
applications below). However, some basic management considerations need to be
taken into account that allow for a broad classification of how to treat a certain risk.
Risk management is generally more open-ended than the risk assessment, but
needs to be documented in detail to assure that decisions are transparent and can be
revisited when information becomes available. Risk management can include
parameters like socio-economic and environmental benefits, the feasibility of stopping future immigration of a risky species, and basic considerations regarding
eradication feasibility (e.g. Panetta and Timmins 2004; Wilson et al. 2017). Renteria
et al. (2017), for example, suggested a rapid scheme for prioritisation of alien species
in South Africa for eradication, using information on the species’ distribution and
“eradication feasibility syndromes”. While such simple desktop studies are useful to
flag species for further evaluation, they are not sufficient to determine whether a
species is a suitable eradication target. In practice, eradication feasibility depends
heavily on the biological (e.g. location of individuals, detectability, availability of
effective control methods) and administrative context (e.g. funds available, and a
dedicated and persistent leader and team).
20.1.3 Risk Communication
Once the level of risk has been determined and options for management and benefits
evaluated, it is crucial to clearly communicate the outcomes of the analysis to
stakeholders, including the general public, policy-makers and traders of the alien
species. There are two important requirements for risk communication. Firstly,
stakeholders must be engaged during the risk analysis, both for assessors to obtain
information on the hazard, and to gain the support of stakeholders (e.g. Novoa et al.
2015, 2016b). There are often formal regulatory processes of stakeholder engagement. For example, before the promulgation of new regulations in South Africa, they
are published for public comment, whereafter the comments needed to be addressed
or acknowledged. In contentious cases, an independent scientific assessment might
be needed (Scholes et al. 2017), but if conflicts are to be avoided, engagement should
happen from the outset of the process.
Secondly, risk communication is important for providing stakeholders with sufficient information to understand the recommendations. Stakeholders need to be in a
position to know under which circumstances decisions would be altered, for example,
how new information or changing practices would influence risk. Therefore, communication needs to be simple enough to ensure understanding, but simultaneously
enough information needs to be provided to underpin the decision. Decisions are
often only successful and implementable if stakeholders understand the risks associated with the taxon. To gain the support from the general public and financial
580
S. Kumschick et al.