Municipalities are losing out to dangerous species. They must act at the expense of property managers
- NIK negatively assesses the actions of public administration in the field of recognizing and combating invasive alien species of plants and animals (IAS).
- All the audited municipalities did not conduct a comprehensive identification of invasive species in their area.
- The head of a commune, mayor or city president is responsible for taking remedial action against IGOs that pose a threat to the Union and Poland and are spread on a large scale.
Invasive alien species pose a serious threat to the natural environment. The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services warns in a report published in September 2023 that invasive alien species (IAS) pose a global threat to biodiversity . In 60% of recorded cases, they were the main cause of global plant and animal extinctions, and in 16% - the only cause.
It is estimated that there are over 12,000 alien species in Europe. Around 10-15% of them have reproduced and spread, causing significant environmental, economic and social damage, which amounts to at least €12 billion per year in the European Union and is increasing.
In the Act on Alien Species, which entered into force on 18 December 2021 and was intended to adapt the national system for combating invasive alien species of plants and animals to the requirements of the regulation of the European Parliament, an important role in the system for eliminating invasive alien species of plants and animals established by the Act was entrusted to commune heads, mayors and city presidents.
They are responsible, among other things, for receiving reports of the presence of IGOs in the environment, verify the formal report and notify the appropriate environmental protection authorities. The mayor, mayor or city president is also responsible for taking remedial action against IGOs that pose a threat to the Union and Poland, spread on a large scale.
These tasks were entrusted to commune heads, mayors and city presidents as the commune’s own tasks .
As the Supreme Audit Office notes, this results in the need to secure financial resources for their implementation. Although there are available financing options for tasks related to the elimination of IGO plants and animals (e.g. programs of provincial funds for environmental protection and water management), they mainly concern the control of hogweed species (Sosnowsky and Mantegazzi).
It should be emphasized that effective counteracting of IGOs requires systemic solutions, including stable and predictable financing, taking into account all threats and actions necessary to limit damage to the environment, economy or human health.
- writes NIK.
The Supreme Audit Office points to irregularities in municipalitiesAccording to the Chamber, most of the audited municipalities did not correctly define tasks related to combating invasive species in municipal environmental protection programs. Five municipalities did not adopt such a program, and in three such documents were not in force throughout the period covered by the audit. In turn, in six out of 12 offices where such programs were in force, they did not include tasks related to the issue of recognizing and combating IGOs, despite the fact that such species occurred in the area of each of these municipalities.
According to NIK, the preparation and adoption of environmental protection plans is essential for the proper functioning of the environmental management system, as the provisions contained therein integrate all activities and documents concerning environmental protection at the municipal level . Moreover, 10 out of 17 audited offices did not cooperate with other bodies and institutions in counteracting the spread of IGOs.
None of the audited offices conducted a comprehensive assessment of the number and scale of IGO presence in the natural environment of the communes. The results of the assessment of the occurrence of invasive plant sites commissioned by the Supreme Audit Office may indicate such a need. In the audited communes, the experts identified a total of 246 previously unidentified IGO plant sites . In addition, the experts identified sites of Sosnowsky's hogweed in six communes that posed a threat to human life and health (they were located near schools, residential buildings, roads and pavements).
In five offices, there were cases of failure to implement remedial actions on IGO sites located on municipal properties, about which the offices had knowledge. In six offices, there were cases of implementing remedial actions on properties not owned by the municipality, despite the fact that the entities in possession were not informed of the need for them to carry out these actions.
The above resulted in an unjustified burden on the budgets of municipalities for a total amount of PLN 65 thousand. During the inspection, it was also established that 10 offices did not inform entities owning properties about their obligations regarding the elimination of IGOs. These situations concerned a total of 326 properties
- informs the Chamber.
The Supreme Audit Office audit revealed numerous problems and barriers in the management of nature conservationThe NIK audit revealed numerous problems and barriers in the management of nature conservation in municipalities. The most frequently mentioned problems included:
- low awareness and knowledge about IGO plants and animals and the threats they pose, complicated reporting method (necessity to find, fill in and submit the appropriate form) discouraging reporting;
- a small number of reports of the presence of IGOs in the environment;
- time-consuming processing of IGO-related cases;
- lack of acceptance among some sections of society for the elimination of IGO animals;
- lack of centers accepting IGO animals;
- the lack of regulations in the Act on IGOs that would allow for the obligation of state organizational units or state legal persons to implement remedial actions towards IGOs;
- the cost of remedial actions and the inability to obtain financing for the implementation of remedial actions, e.g. transport and elimination of IGO animals.
NIK appealed for the expansion of the powers of the commune head, mayor or city president and enabling these bodies to carry out remedial actions against IGOs at the expense of the property manager.
Moreover, the Supreme Audit Office indicated to the Minister of Climate and Environment the need to consider the possibility of co-financing from public funds the implementation of the municipalities’ own tasks related to the identification and combating of IGOs.
