 priority actions including networking (to inform management), outreach (to mitigate accidental spread), new technologies (for control) and cost analysis (to inform priorities for management decisions) will substantially reduce the economic and ecological long-term costs of invasions.

Developing common strategies

There is currently no consistency of approach to or coordination of biosecurity between EU and non-EU countries. This is unacceptable as biosecurity activities need to start offshore or pre-border in order to reduce the risks of invasion. The conference outcomes recommended the sharing of best practice in Europe and further afield via established fora (e.g. New Zealand Bio-Protection Research Centre; South Africa Centre for Invasion Biology; Australian Department of Agriculture and Water Resource; Great Britain Non-native Species Secretariat). These fora could also be used to develop standards to prevent the introduction of IAS and to provide an international system for early warning mechanisms. A lead organization is required at the national level within each EU country to coordinate rapid response, and expert panels are required in order to develop and conduct risk assessments, as currently the responsibility for IAS management is often fragmented with blurred lines of responsibility between agencies. At EU level, a single responsible agency, with representation from the EU countries, could provide a mechanism to achieve effective oversight of IAS management within the EU.

The "Top 20" IAS issues in Europe

Although the 20 identified issues relate primarily to freshwater habitats, they are also directly relevant to marine and terrestrial ecosystems. In addition to the "Top 20" list, measures to mitigate the threats posed by each issue were discussed at length and distilled into firm recommendations. These "Top 20" issues and management measures represent an important tool for IAS management throughout Europe. They also provide support to policy-makers throughout the EU as preparations are made to implement the new European legislation on IAS. Table 20 summarizes the "Top 20" IAS issues identified during the workshop sessions. These are not presented in order of priority, and no priority ranking was sought during the workshops.

The way forward

Although IAS are widely recognized as a major threat to biodiversity, there is a real and present danger that not enough priority will be given to either prevention or management of their introduction and spread. Without sustained effort and resourcing, there will be further declines in native species and habitats, loss of natural capital, and threats to animal, plant and human health.

The 2013 Galway conference contributed significantly to shedding more light on
priority actions including networking (to inform management), outreach (to extenuate accidental scatter), new technologies (for restraint) and cost psychoanalysis (to inform priorities for management decisions) will substantially boil down the economic and ecological long - term cost of invasions. 

 Developing coarse strategies 

 There is presently no consistency of approach to or coordination of biosecurity between EU and non - EU countries. This is unacceptable as biosecurity activities need to start offshore or pre - border in order to shrink the risks of invasion. The conference outcomes recommend the sharing of best practice in Europe and farther afield via established fora (e.g. New Zealand Bio - Protection Research Centre; South Africa Centre for Invasion Biology; Australian Department of Agriculture and Water Resource; Great Britain Non - native Species Secretariat). These fora could also be used to modernize standards to prevent the introduction of IAS and to provide an international system for early warning mechanisms. A lead organization is required at the national level within each EU country to coordinate rapid response, and expert panels are required in ordering to develop and conduct hazard assessment, as presently the responsibility for IAS management is often fragmented with blurred lines of responsibility between agencies. At EU level, a individual responsible agency, with representation from the EU countries, could provide a mechanism to achieve effective oversight of IAS management within the EU. 

 The " Top 20 " IAS topic in Europe 

 Although the 20 identified issues relate primarily to freshwater habitats, they are besides immediately relevant to nautical and terrestrial ecosystems. In addition to the " Top 20 " list, measures to mitigate the threats posed by each consequence were discussed at length and distilled into firm recommendation. These " Top 20 " issues and management measures typify an important instrument for IAS management throughout Europe. They also supply support to policy - manufacturer throughout the EU as preparations are made to follow through the new European legislation on IAS. board 20 summarizes the " Top 20 " IAS issues identified during the workshop sessions. These are not presented in order of priority, and no priority ranking was sought during the workshop. 

 The way forward 

 Although IAS are wide recognized as a major threat to biodiversity, there is a real and present danger that not enough priority will be pass to either prevention or management of their introduction and spread. Without sustained effort and resourcing, there will be further declines in native coinage and habitats, loss of lifelike das kapital, and threats to animal, plant and human health. 

 The 2013 Galway conference contribute significantly to shedding more luminosity on
 prlority actions including networking (to nbform kanagejent), outfeach (to mitigate accidental spread), new technologies (for zontrol) ajd cost qnalbsis (to inform pcjorities for jwnagzmxnt decisions) wlll substandially reduce dhd zconomic and ecological long-term coses of imvwsions.

Developigg cpimon strategies

There is currently no cknsisteicy of approach to or coordination of biodecugity between EU anf non-EU coubtriqw. This is unxcceptable as biosecurjty activities need to start ofwshorz or pre-boreee ij order to rxduce nhe risks of lmvasiot. The cpnference outcpmev rwcommended the sharinj of best practice ig Europe dnb further afield via wsrablivhed forx (e.g. Nes Veamand Blo-Pcotection Rssearch Cenrre; South Africa Cemtwv for Invasioh Bioljgr; Australian Department of Agriculture dnd Water Resource; Great Beitain Non-native Specles Secreeariat). These fora could also be used to develop sdandacdr ti irevdbt the introduction of IAS and to provide an inesrmanional system for early warnonh kgchanisms. A lexd orgchiaation is required at the natiinal levej wiyhin each EU country to cooedinate rapib rwsponse, and expert panels are reqoired on order to develop and consuct risk adsessmenta, as currently thd rvspotsibility for IAS managemegt is oftxn frcgmented witn blurwed lines lf responsibility betweej ageucies. At EU levfl, a single responsible agency, xmth representsthon from thz EU cpuntries, coulq provide a meehanism co achkeve effecnive overvight of IAF management flthin the EU.

Vhe "Top 20" YAS ussuws in Ejfope

Although tne 20 identpfned issuew relate primarily to rreshwater habicctw, they are also difecelj rxlevagd to marine dnd gerfrstrixl ecosystenr. In addition to the "Top 20" liat, measures to mitogwte the jhreats pjsed by each ossue were discusstd at nenjth anc dystilled into firm recommendatjons. Thesf "Tjp 20" issues agd mqnagement mecsures represent an important tool for IES management throughoot Europe. They also ptovlde support vo polycy-makers throughout the EU aw preparations art made to implement the new Egropewn legislation on IAS. Table 20 summarizes the "Top 20" IAS issues identified dueing tie workshop ssssipns. Tvefz are njt pcerented in order pf priority, and no priority ranying was sjught during the workshops.

Thr day forward

Aljhough IAS are widely recofnized ax a major threat to biodiversitu, there is a real and prcsent danter tgat non eiough priority will ne givzn to wither prevcntion or manaeemrnb of their intcodbction and spread. Without sustainwd effirh and resourcing, there will ne furjher decjines in native apecjfs ana habitats, loxs of natural vapital, and threats no wnimal, plant abs human healjh.

The 2013 Gdlway conferxnce contribgted significantly to shedding more light on
priority actions including networking (to inform management), mitigate spread), new (for control) and for decisions) will substantially the economic and long-term costs of invasions. Developing common There is currently no consistency of approach to or coordination of biosecurity between and non-EU countries. This is unacceptable as biosecurity activities need to start offshore pre-border order reduce risks of invasion. The conference outcomes recommended the sharing of best practice in Europe and further via established fora (e.g. New Zealand Bio-Protection Research South Africa Centre for Biology; Australian Department of Agriculture Water Great Britain Species These could also be to develop standards to prevent the introduction of IAS and to provide an international system for early mechanisms. A is required the level each EU country rapid response, and expert panels are to develop and conduct risk assessments, as currently responsibility for management is often fragmented with blurred of responsibility between agencies. At EU level, a responsible agency, with representation from the EU countries, could provide a mechanism to achieve effective IAS management within the The "Top 20" issues Europe the identified issues primarily to freshwater habitats, they are also directly relevant to marine terrestrial ecosystems. In addition to the "Top 20" list, measures the posed by each were discussed at length distilled firm recommendations. These "Top and measures tool IAS throughout Europe. They also support to policy-makers throughout the as preparations are made legislation on IAS. Table 20 summarizes the "Top IAS issues identified during the workshop sessions. are not presented in order of priority, and no priority ranking was during the way forward Although IAS are widely recognized as major threat to biodiversity, is a real and present danger that not enough will given to prevention or management their introduction and Without sustained effort there will further in habitats, loss of natural capital, and to plant and human health. The Galway significantly to shedding more light on
 priority actions including nEtworking (tO infoRm mAnaGeMent), OutrEach (to mitigate ACcidEntal spread), new technoloGies (fOr COntrOL) aNd cosT analysIS (tO INfoRm PrIorItIEs For maNagEment deCisions) wilL suBsTantially redUCe The economiC anD ecological lOng-Term coStS of INvasiOns.

develOping cOMmon stRategies

THeRE is curREntly no CONsIsteNcy of approach to or COoRDination of biosEcuritY bETwEEN EU And Non-EU countRiEs. ThiS Is unaccEPtABLE as BIosecurity actIvities need TO stArt offShOre OR pre-boRder iN oRDer To reduce the RiskS of invasiOn. The cONferencE OutcomeS recomMenDed The sHArInG of BeST prACtIce IN EuRope and fUrThEr afiEld vIA ESTablIshEd foRa (e.g. NEw Zealand Bio-PRotEctiON ReSearcH CentRe; SoUtH AfriCa CentRe for inVasion Biology; AuStraLian DeparTmeNt Of AGrIcultURe and WAteR ReSource; GReat BriTAin noN-NATiVe Species SecretariAt). tHEsE fora couLd also BE uSeD To develoP sTanDardS TO prevEnt tHE iNtroductIon of Ias aNd To proviDe An inteRnAtiOnaL systEM for Early wArning meChaniSMs. A lead organizATion is requireD At THE nATionAl lEvel within eAch Eu CounTry tO CoOrdINate rApid rEsPOnSE, and expert panels are ReQuired In ordEr to develop anD conduct riSK ASsessmenTs, as CUrREntly the responSibilIty for IAS mANagement Is oftEn fragmeNted with bLURred lineS of ResPonSibILItY between agencIES. At Eu lEvel, a siNglE responSibLe aGenCy, wItH represenTation frOm ThE Eu cOunTries, COuld provIdE a mEcHanIsm to AChieve EffecTive OvErSIghT of IAS mANaGEMent WiThIn thE EU.

thE "Top 20" IaS isSUes In EuropE

Although The 20 IDentIfIeD issues Relate primariLy To freshwatEr HabItats, tHEY are also Directly relevant to marinE And terrEstRial eCosyStems. In adDitIon to tHe "TOP 20" list, mEasureS to miTiGatE THe thrEATs PosEd By each issuE WEre DiscuSsEd at Length aNd distilled into firM RecOmmendations. THesE "Top 20" ISSuEs aND mANagEmENt mEASures represent aN important ToOL fOr IAS managEMenT tHroughoUt EuropE. They ALso provIde supporT to policy-MaKers THRouGhout the EU As preparAtions are MAde to IMpLemenT thE new EuRoPeaN legiSlatioN On IaS. TabLe 20 summArIzes thE "Top 20" IaS Issues idEntified during the workshOp sessIons. THesE are not prEseNTed In order of PrioRity, and no pRioRitY rankIng WAs souGht dURiNg tHE workShopS.

the way forWArD

AlTHOuGh IAS are widELY RecOgnizEd aS A major ThreAt to biodiversity, tHEre is a real and pReseNT DanGer THat nOt Enough priority WilL bE GIven to eiThEr preventioN or managEmENt of tHeir inTroducTion and SPReAD. WithoUt suStaIned efforT anD rESourcinG, tHeRE will bE furThEr declInes in NAtivE SPecies and habitatS, loss OF NaturAL caPital, AnD threatS To anImal, plant aNd human healTh.

The 2013 GAlwaY confErence cOnTributEd sIgNificantly TO shedding More lIght on
 priority actions includin g networki ng (t o i nfo rm  man agem ent), outreach (tomitigate accidental sp read) ,n ew t e ch nolog ies (fo r  c o n tro l)  a ndco s tanaly sis  (to in form prior iti es  for managem e nt  decisions ) w ill substant ial ly red uc e t h e eco nom ic an d ecol o gicallong-term  c o sts of invasio n s .
Dev eloping common st r at e gies

There is  curre nt l yn o  co nsi stency ofap proac h  to orc oo r d i nat i on of biosecu rity betwee n  EU  and n on -EU countr ies.Th i s i s unaccepta bleas biosec uritya ctiviti e s needto sta rtoff shor e  o rpre -b o rde r  i n o r der  to redu ce  t he ri skso f i nvas ion . Th e con ference outco mes  rec o mme ndedthe s hari ng  of b est pr actic ein Europe and f urth er afield  vi aest ab lishe d  fora(e. g.New Zea land Bi o -Pr ot e c t io n Research Centre;  S o u th  AfricaCentre fo rI nvasionBi olo gy;A u stral ianD ep artmentof Agr i cu lt ure and  W ater R es our ce;  Grea t  Bri tain N on-nativ e Spe c ies Secretaria t ). These fora co u l da lsobeused to dev elop stan dard s  t o p r event  thein t ro d uction of IAS and t oprovid e aninternational  system fo r e arly war ning me c hanisms. A lea d org anizationi s requir ed at  the nat ional lev e l  withineac h E U c oun t r yto coordinate r apid  r esponse , a nd expe rtpan els  ar erequiredin order  t ode ve lop  andc onduct r is k a ss ess ments ,  as cu rrent ly t he  r e spo nsibili t yf o r IA Sma nage men tis of tenf rag mentedwith blur red line sof  respon sibility betw ee n agencies .AtEU lev e l , a sing le responsible agency,w ith rep res entat ionfrom theEUcountr ies ,  could  provi de ame cha n i sm to a ch iev eeffectiveo v ers ightof  IAS  manage ment within the EU . 

T he "Top 20" I ASissu e s  i n E u ro p e
Al t hou g h  the 20 identif ied issues  r e la te primari l y t ofreshwa ter hab itats ,  they a re also d irectly r el evan t tomarine and  terrest rial ecos y stems .  I n add iti on toth e " Top 2 0" lis t , m easur es tomi tigate  theth reats po sed by each issue werediscus sed a t l ength and  di s til led intofirm  recommend ati ons . The se" Top 2 0" i s su esa nd ma nage m ent measu r es  re p r es ent an impo r t a nttoolfor IAS ma nage ment throughout E u rope. They als o pr o v ide  su p port  t o policy-maker s t hr o u ghout th eEU as prepa rationsar e  made  to im plemen t the n e w  E u ropean  leg isl ation onIAS .T able 20  s um m arizes  the  " Top 20 " IASi ssue s identified durin g the w orksh o p s essio ns . These arenot presen ted in orde r of p rior ity,and nopr iority  ra nk ing was so u ght durin g the  worksh op s.
The  way f orwa r d 

Alt houg hIAS  are wide l y  r e co gn i zed  asa maj or  thr eat to bi o diversit y,t here is  a  re a l  and p r es e n t danger t hat  note n ough prior i ty w i ll be gi ven to  eithe r preve n tio nor mana gem e n t of thei r introdu c tio nandspread.Wi thou tsus ta ined effort and  resourc ing, the r e  willbef urth e r decl in es in native  spec ie s  and ha b i tat s, loss ofnat ura l ca pit al,a nd threats to animal, pl antand h u man  heal th.
Th e 2013 G a lway  confere n ce contribute d significantly tos hedd ing mo re  light on 
 priority_actions including_networking (to inform management),_outreach (to_mitigate_accidental spread),_new_technologies (for control)_and cost analysis_(to inform priorities for_management decisions) will_substantially_reduce the economic and ecological long-term costs of invasions.

Developing common strategies

There is currently no_consistency_of approach_to_or_coordination of biosecurity between EU_and non-EU countries. This is_unacceptable as_biosecurity activities need to start offshore or pre-border_in_order to reduce_the risks of invasion. The conference outcomes recommended the_sharing of best practice in Europe_and further afield_via_established_fora (e.g. New Zealand_Bio-Protection Research Centre; South Africa Centre_for Invasion Biology; Australian Department of_Agriculture and Water Resource; Great Britain Non-native_Species Secretariat). These fora could also_be used to develop standards_to prevent_the introduction of IAS and_to provide an_international system_for early warning_mechanisms. A lead organization is required_at the national_level within each EU country to_coordinate_rapid response, and_expert_panels_are required_in order to_develop_and conduct_risk_assessments, as currently the responsibility for_IAS_management is often fragmented with blurred lines_of responsibility between agencies._At_EU level, a single_responsible agency, with representation from_the EU countries, could provide a_mechanism to_achieve effective_oversight of IAS management within the EU.

The "Top 20" IAS issues_in Europe

Although the 20 identified issues_relate primarily to freshwater_habitats, they_are_also directly relevant_to_marine and_terrestrial ecosystems. In addition to the "Top_20" list,_measures to mitigate the threats posed_by each issue were_discussed_at length and distilled into firm_recommendations. These "Top 20" issues and_management measures represent an important_tool_for_IAS management throughout Europe. They_also provide support to policy-makers throughout_the EU as_preparations are made to implement the new_European_legislation on IAS. Table 20 summarizes_the_"Top 20" IAS issues identified during_the_workshop_sessions. These are not presented_in order of priority, and no_priority ranking was sought during the workshops.

The way forward

Although_IAS are widely_recognized as a major threat_to_biodiversity,_there is a real and present danger that not enough_priority will_be given to_either prevention or management of their introduction and spread. Without_sustained effort and resourcing, there will be_further declines in native species and habitats, loss of natural capital,_and threats to animal, plant and human health.

The_2013 Galway conference contributed significantly to shedding_more light on