Protecting Biodiversity from Invasive Alien Species by Improving Policy Instruments in Greece: The INVALIS Project Action Plan
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper presents interesting findings of the INVALIS project which aims to highlight and address Invasive Alien Species (IAS) management issues, focusing in the Greek case. In overall, the paper presents the structure, on-going work and later targets of the INVALIS project, linked with the targets of the IAS EU Regulation 1143/2014.
Since the IAS Regulation gives (by today) focus to terrestrial and freshwater IAS, the paper is mainly linked with these habitats, rather than the marine realm. So, I am not sure how much linked is the present paper with the thematic content of the special issue on Marine Bio-invasions. However, I would prefer to let this issue to the Special Editor to provide opinion.
The article is well written and gives an overall view of the INVALIS project. But here exactly lies its main weakness. It provides a theoretical concept of IAS management and "what should be done", rather than practical concrete experience on IAS management, 7 years after the adoption of the EU IAS Regulation. This creates a gap to the reader: what has been done during these years in Greece in terms of IAS management and the IAS Regulation? (e.g. how many new arrivals of IAS of Union concern in Greece? early eradication efforts? mitigation/control efforts on established IAS of Union concern?). What are the gaps and main problems on the implementation of the IAS Regulation in Greece so far? It would be useful to provide relevant information.
In the abstract the paper mentions the main element of the article: "Gaps in IAS management were identified mainly in the areas of raising public awareness on IAS and networking among IAS stakeholders". In my view, these are indeed important points of IAS management, but not the only ones. Surprisingly, there is limited (or absent) information provided on existing Action plans on the pathways of IAS (Article 13 of the IAS Regulation), the Surveillance System in Greece on IAS (Article 14), Official Controls in Greece (Article 15) and Management Measures (Article 19). What is the status of these elements in IAS management in Greece? Who is responsible? What are the main problems? Are there enough resources? What should be enhanced? How the INVALIS project could contribute on these issues? I would propose the authors to provide more information on these aspects and discuss them together with the existing information provided in the article.
In conclusion, raising public awareness on IAS, establishing a common web portal and networking among IAS stakeholders are important tools on IAS management but they cannot act alone without the backbone of official authorities action on the implementation of the Articles of the IAS Regulation mentioned above.
In overall, I would recommend revision on the article and I would invite the authors to elaborate on the issues above. More comments can be found in the revised pdf.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Please find here some suggestion presented in relation to the article sections.
1. The INVALIS project
- Suggest to include reference to Haubrock et al 2021, which provided recently updated economic costs of invasive alien species across Europe: https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.67.58196
- Suggest to indicate the country to which the partners listed belong.
- Suggest deleting action in following sentence "... the promotion and implementation of actions for sustainable development actions and climate change".
- Suggest to highlight that phase 2 is ongoing, other than to just indicate the end date.
2. The INVALIS Action Plan- Background
- Suggest to add 'in Greece" to the title
- "The state of play of IAS management has been initially assessed at the beginning of the project in 2018...a more comprehensive understanding of the challenges related to IAS in Greece was achieved." What were the assessment criteria at the begining of the project? How were the meetings, consultations and dialogues structured? In relation to the initial assessment? Please add this information.
- Please clarify what is meant with "The new developments in IAS management during Phase 1 of the project (2018-2021), in some of which INVALIS had substantially contributed, were recorded".
2.2. Developments in IAS management in Greece in 2018-2021
- Suggest substituting 'recording' with 'monitoring' in the following sentence"...recording the species, which can potentially enter
Greece, and a proposal for an IAS surveillance system."
2.3. Identification of gaps in IAS management
- What information was gathered in the regional stakeholders meetings and public dialogues? Please include this information and its analysis. How was this used in the identification of gaps and following up Actions?
3.1. Action 1 - Project: Education & Raising Awareness on IAS
3.1.1. Background
- Any information collected on the level of awareness of different stakeholder groups and public in Greece? Which level of details? Are there need for targeted actions per group?
- How were the experiences exchanged in the inter-regional events considered in the development of actions?
3.2. Action 2 - Web Portal on IAS
3.2.1. Background
- Any information collected from stakeholders and public on data an information availability and accessibility requirements? Are stakeholders willing to share their data?
3.3. Action 3 - IAS Management Working Group
3.3.1. Background
- How were the experiences exchanged in the inter-regional events considered in the development of actions, e.g. how are conflicts addressed based on the Corsica Alien Network experience?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
I find your project report really interesting. Due to the ever growing rate of introductions and/or biological invasions worldwide, this kind of works are really important and necessary in order to enhance the prevention, early detection and control of invasive alien species as well as to help to design appropriate management strategies.
I think the report is well structured and contains sufficient background to put the reader in context. I made some suggestions and corrections to improve it (highlighted in yellow in the pdf attached) that should be relatively easy for the authors to fix. Therefore, I consider that this project report could be accept for publication in Journal of Marine Science and Engineering after minor revision.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
In my opinion the authors have succesfully addressed all of the comments and remarks of my revision. I believe now that the manuscript can be published at its present form.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your comments.
A spell check in English was carried out.
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for considering comments and suggestions made. It is more clear the method followed and how it has influenced the Actions.
Two additional suggestions:
- Table B2 is difficult to read. Suggest to add a line delimiting conclusions of each specific stakeholder meeting.
- Suggest an English language check
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your comments.
Point 1: Table B2 is difficult to read. Suggest to add a line delimiting conclusions of each specific stakeholder meeting.
Response 2: The proposed change has been made at the revised manuscript.
Point 2: Suggest an English language check
Response 2: An English language check was carried out and changes have been made at the revised manuscript.
