Invasive Species in Post-2020 Global
Environmental Politics
(cid:129)
Jesann Gonzalez Cruz and McKenzie F. Johnson*
Abstract
As goods and people more rapidly traverse our interconnected world, invasive alien species
(IAS) are increasingly frequent, ecologically damaging, economically significant, and
culturally concerning. Through examinations of IAS, global environmental politics (GEP)
scholars can more deeply engage long-standing and newly emerging research problems
within the three areas of global governance, global political economy, and environmental
security. First, GEP scholars can use IAS research to further develop insights about the
impact of problem structure on global governance. Second, examining IAS dispersal risks
and associated costs, as well as intercountry variation in management responses, can
generate insights about North–South power dynamics in the global political economy
and how distributive conflict is likely to shape future invasion risk. Third, notions of envi-
ronmental security in GEP scholarship can be challenged and further developed by examin-
ing the conceptualization and operationalization of “biosecurity” amid increasingly diverse
multispecies assemblages. Greater research attention to IAS in GEP is long overdue, and we
intend for this article to open novel pathways for GEP interdisciplinary research on IAS.
Recently, Canada and the United States experienced the onset of an “invasion
event”: the arrival of the murder hornet (Vespa mandarinia). Known for their
voracious appetite for pollinators, particularly honeybees, their arrival and
the subsequent public panic highlight the destabilizing effects of invasive alien
species (IAS) on environmental security. An IAS is a species anthropogenically
introduced outside its native range, consequently causing ecological, economic,
or social harm (Essl et al. 2020). Growing concern over challenges associated
with “invasions” has focused international attention on identifying cooperative
and transnational solutions. However, current approaches have been inade-
quate; without adapting IAS responses at the global scale, researchers expect
“a 3- to 20-fold increase in global invasion risk” by the year 2050 (Sardain
* We are greatly appreciative of Kate J. Neville, Anna Sveinsdóttir, Rebecca Laurent, Kealie Vogel,
Emily Guske, Fatou Jobe, the editors, and the anonymous reviewers for their time and energy in
providing constructive feedback, particularly during a global pandemic.
Global Environmental Politics 22:2, May 2022, https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00625
© 2021 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
12
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
l
/
/
e
d
u
g
e
p
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d
l
f
/
/
/
/
/
2
2
2
1
2
2
0
0
8
2
2
8
g
e
p
_
a
_
0
0
6
2
5
p
d
.
l
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Jesann Gonzalez Cruz and McKenzie F. Johnson
(cid:129) 13
et al. 2019, 274). This Forum article highlights how greater attention to IAS with-
in GEP can contribute empirically and theoretically to the field, while advancing
IAS solutions. Specifically, GEP scholars can use IAS research to further develop
insights about the impact of problem structure on global governance, uneven
power relations in the global political economy, and how conceptualizations
of environmental security shape human and more-than-human vulnerability.
Owing to limited progress in reducing IAS pathways by 2020, the Conven-
tion on Biological Diversity (CBD) has developed a “post 2020 global biodiver-
sity framework,” with an expanded focus on IAS management (Essl et al. 2020).
Yet, the dominant framing of IAS as an ecological problem (e.g., biodiversity)
has obscured broader challenges IAS pose to global political and economic sys-
tems (Stoett 2010). Indeed, IAS pose urgent challenges across multiple sectors in
the global system, including agriculture, trade, and security. For example, while
the murder hornet threatens native honey bees in the United States, the potential
impacts of honey bee loss are far reaching, with economic losses to bee-pollinated
croplands (USD$ 11–26 million) and hive-derived products (∼USD$ 11 mil-
lion) (Alaniz et al. 2021). Moreover, the potential implications of dispersal to
neighboring countries demonstrates the simultaneously local and global nature
of IAS. Increasing awareness about the sociopolitical and economic dimensions
of IAS necessitates a shift in disciplinary perspectives for global research and ac-
tion (Vaz et al. 2017). This indicates significant potential for GEP to both influ-
ence and learn from IAS research.
GEP engagement with IAS, however, remains limited. Previous work on
the political/economic dimensions of IAS focuses on policy challenges and dif-
ferences across scales (García-Díaz et al. 2021; Tzankova 2009), management as
a global collective action dilemma (Graham et al. 2019), and the economics of
IAS management (Marbuah et al. 2014). We argue more is needed, and this
Forum aims to establish generative avenues for such research in the areas of
global governance, political economy, and environmental security.
Global Governance
IAS, as a concept, emerged on the global stage during the 1982 Ecology Program
coordinated by the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment
(Simberloff 2011). In response, global institutions governing biodiversity issues,
including the CBD, the International Plant Protection Convention, and the
International Union for Conservation of Nature (among others), integrated
IAS as a key governance issue, effectively subsuming them under the umbrella
of biodiversity (Stoett 2010). Yet, IAS have increasingly garnered significant
attention across issue areas, leading other global and regional institutions
(e.g., the World Trade Organization) to generate rules and norms that impact
global action on IAS. Across these bodies, distinct mandates, structures, and
norms have emerged to form a patchwork of rules, regulations, and power struc-
tures perceived to limit the ability to prioritize IAS, share information across
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
l
/
/
e
d
u
g
e
p
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d
l
f
/
/
/
/
/
2
2
2
1
2
2
0
0
8
2
2
8
g
e
p
_
a
_
0
0
6
2
5
p
d
.
l
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
14 (cid:129) Invasive Species in Post-2020 GEP
issue-area silos, and mount a coordinated response (Ormsby and Brenton-Rule
2017). This raises several questions for GEP scholars: What are the consequences,
from a governance perspective, of the IAS problem structure emerging squarely
within a biodiversity framework? How might these consequences shape IAS
governance boundaries within the international system? These questions align
with and advance emerging GEP research examining how problem structures
and frames in environmental governance shape how, where, and when a
problem can or will be governed in international arenas (Stevenson et al. 2021).
While governance fragmentation can generate positive and negative effects
within and across issue areas (Bastos Lima and Gupta 2013; Biermann and Kim
2020), it has been perceived as a barrier to effective IAS governance (Perrings
et al. 2009). Amid regime fragmentation and IAS’ historical framing as a biodi-
versity issue, the CBD remains at the forefront of global initiatives addressing
IAS challenges. Research is thus needed to examine why biodiversity framings
in IAS governance predominate even as the problem or concept has been taken
up by diverse governance bodies. We hypothesize that the conceptual origins of
IAS have entrenched them within biodiversity discourse (Stoett 2010), poten-
tially delimiting alternative governance pathways. Ongoing debates over the
definition of what constitutes IAS further complicate these dynamics, potentially
allowing international actors greater flexibility in determining what “count” as
IAS (Humair et al. 2014). For example, despite similar risks and processes of
establishment (e.g., release, spread), genetically modified organisms and IAS
are treated distinctly within the international arena, with the former leading to
the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (Jeschke et al. 2013). Such conceptual splin-
tering may serve to dilute the prominence of IAS as an issue requiring governance
beyond existing biodiversity structures and practices. Without consensus on
basic underlying principles, IAS governance is likely to entrench or deepen frag-
mentation. Such challenges will be exacerbated by technological advances, such
as gene editing (e.g., “de-extinction”), which complicate how different stake-
holders understand IAS, acceptable risk, and associated ethics (Thiele 2020).
Therefore, tracing the conceptualization and operationalization of IAS and
IAS-adjacent concepts can clarify the role of the IAS’ problem structure in shaping
IAS and environmental governance.
Few states have demonstrated interest in a convention on IAS, possibly
related to autonomy, uncertainty, and commitment costs (Hulme 2021). Ab-
sent an international convention, the CBD is viewed as the appropriate body
to coordinate a “global approach” to IAS governance. However, it is unclear that
the CBD has the mandate, power, or influence to address the multifaceted di-
mensions of IAS, especially when intersecting with “high politics” issues like
trade and security (Perrings et al. 2009; Zhao 2020). Powerful states and orga-
nizations may ultimately benefit from this structure, particularly where a “bio-
diversity approach” enables greater flexibility in addressing politically charged
issues (Biermann and Kim 2020). This reinforces the idea that problem en-
trenchment may “lock in” particular governance approaches, stifling innovation
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
l
/
/
e
d
u
g
e
p
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d
l
f
/
/
/
/
/
2
2
2
1
2
2
0
0
8
2
2
8
g
e
p
_
a
_
0
0
6
2
5
p
d
.
l
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Jesann Gonzalez Cruz and McKenzie F. Johnson
(cid:129) 15
that could address IAS as a cross-cutting issue. More research is thus required to
examine what the CBD’s de facto authority in IAS governance enables and/or
precludes. Together, such questions and concerns have prompted calls for a
more unified and holistic approach to IAS governance (Hulme 2020). However,
what form a unified approach might take and whether it is possible or better
suited to address IAS remain open questions ripe for study.
Global Political Economy
Trade, magnified by globalization, is a leading vector for IAS dispersal (Sardain
et al. 2019). Policies to limit IAS movement include black/white lists, ballast
water requirements, cargo inspections, and more (Hulme 2021). These efforts,
however, are complicated by contested trade dynamics between and among the
Global North and South. This generates key questions for GEP: How do in-
equalities in the global political economy shape global IAS risk and, conse-
quently, solutions to IAS risk? How will IAS dispersal itself shape a dynamic
global political economy?
While some scholars suggest that developing countries act as hubs for IAS
dispersal due to limited mitigation capacity (Ricciardi et al. 2017a), others con-
tend that Global North countries drive dispersal as a consequence of trade quan-
tity and global market dominance (van Kleunen et al. 2020). Indeed, present
distributions of IAS have been linked to historical trajectories of economic devel-
opment, including colonialism (Turbelin et al. 2017). We posit that capacity ar-
guments direct attention toward particular players and solutions, potentially
circumventing broader structural changes to the global political economy. Thus,
power relations may play an outsized role in managing IAS dispersal, especially
the Global North’s ability to dictate terms of global trade. This suggests a need for
GEP research that goes beyond examining IAS as coordination and collective ac-
tion challenges to incorporate considerations of distributional conflict, which re-
sults from the potential of reform to “renegotiat[e] the institutions that structure
economic and social activity” within the domestic and global economy (Aklin
and Mildenberger 2020, 5). Specifically, work is needed on how divergent eco-
nomic interests affect IAS risk and the implications for priority setting and policy
formation amid a dynamic global political economy.
Disagreement about how to address IAS via trade policy provides a useful
entry point for GEP. Historically, global actors have relied on nontariff measures
(e.g., inspection protocols) and trade agreements to address IAS trade risks,
which theoretically make trade safer without necessarily imposing limitations
(Margolis and Shogren 2012). Indeed, Jinnah and Morin (2020) argue that en-
vironmental norms can be disseminated through trade agreements. Norm dif-
fusion and standard setting, however, raise questions about who sets the
normative agenda for IAS and determines what constitutes protective/protec-
tionist measures. Furthermore, fluctuations in IAS caused by shifts in global
trade or policy may not become immediately apparent due to lags in detection
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
l
/
/
e
d
u
g
e
p
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d
l
f
/
/
/
/
/
2
2
2
1
2
2
0
0
8
2
2
8
g
e
p
_
a
_
0
0
6
2
5
p
d
.
l
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
16 (cid:129) Invasive Species in Post-2020 GEP
of species’ establishment in new environments, leaving policy makers designing
mitigation strategies with a moving target (Epanchin-Niell et al. 2021; Seebens
et al. 2015). Despite efforts to address IAS dispersal via trade, intercountry var-
iation in prevention capacity, management capacity, and the implementation of
biosecurity standards persists, creating regional interdependencies for risk miti-
gation (Faulkner et al. 2020). To address such regional interdependencies, the
European Union, in 2014, implemented an IAS “polluter pays” policy, which
theoretically forces member states to assume liability for IAS dispersal outside
their territory and thus incentivizes internal investment in IAS dispersal preven-
tion (Beninde et al. 2015). Alternatively, Ricciardi et al. (2017b) suggest that
external investment in global biosecurity is essential for building capacity of
IAS management, especially in developing countries.
While not mutually exclusive, choice of approach dictates where funding
and attention are allocated. Should resources be pooled into accountability
structures like “polluter pays” or into capacity-building measures in the form
of investment commitments? Tension between these approaches emerges when
considering BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa),
whose capacity to manage IAS dispersal amid growing economic footprints re-
mains in question (Measey et al. 2019). For example, China’s Belt and Road Ini-
tiative prioritizes environmental conservation; however, its expansive design,
connecting more than 120 countries, presents a hazard for IAS dispersal (Liu
et al. 2019). Without global “polluter pays” policies to cover the potential costs
of invasion events linked to transnational development, China stands to reap the
economic benefits of infrastructure development without deeper considerations
of the global costs of increased invasion risk. Calculating “global costs of inva-
sion” (e.g., how much, for what, to whom), as well as determining what consti-
tutes “capacity-deficient,” is challenging and has only recently been facilitated by
the advent of the new InvaCost database (Diagne et al. 2020). Moreover, consid-
eration of capacity deficits amid growing economic footprints shifts the question
from defining global cost to theorizing how such costs are shared or allocated in
a dynamic economy. Such complexity necessitates research along three lines of
inquiry: first, delineating how global invasion costs are constructed; second,
determining the relationship between cost attribution and distribution (i.e.,
are capacity-deficient states or industries less liable for IAS dispersal?); and third,
analyzing how the attribution and distribution of costs affect the emergence of
IAS policy and priorities. This would elucidate ongoing debates considering
capacity versus accountability in IAS governance and the resulting distributional
consequences within the global economy.
Environmental Security
If international politics is interspecies politics, as Rafi Youatt (2020) suggests,
then security is necessarily interspecies security. Indeed, while GEP scholarship
historically focused on the effect of environmental change on conflict risk (and
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
l
/
/
e
d
u
g
e
p
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d
l
f
/
/
/
/
/
2
2
2
1
2
2
0
0
8
2
2
8
g
e
p
_
a
_
0
0
6
2
5
p
d
.
l
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Jesann Gonzalez Cruz and McKenzie F. Johnson
(cid:129) 17
thus national security), recent work has broadened the field to incorporate issues
of human and more-than-human security (O’Brien and Barnett 2013; Johnson
2019; Tsing et al. 2021). Such conceptualizations have enabled scholars to better
incorporate considerations of power, justice, and scale into security- and IAS-
related work. Tsing et al. (2021), for example, deploy a broad understanding
of environmental security to examine how complex assemblages interact to un-
dermine or sustain human and environmental well-being. This approach en-
gages global governance to ask “environmental security for who and what?”
Following this lead, we ask, How can GEP build on this view of environmental
security to address the risks posed by IAS in diverse more-than-human assem-
blages? More specifically, what can relational thinking unveil about security and
about GEP more broadly?
Despite growing awareness that human and environmental health are
interconnected, the international community struggles to transcend a siloed
approach to human, animal, and environmental health (Davis and Sharp
2020). For example, viruses and nonpathogenic IAS are considered separately
because they constitute “distinct” issue areas (health and biodiversity, respec-
tively). However, the emergence of viruses like Ebola and SARS-COV-2 has
led scholars to question this separation (Nuñez et al. 2020). Where virus trans-
mission begins and ends is not always clear, as viruses jump between species,
expanding assemblages and facilitating the creation of novel associations, hy-
bridizations, and/or mutations (Kirksey 2020). In response, Hulme recently
proposed “One Biosecurity,” which aims to provide a “unified framework” to
address IAS biosecurity risks beyond bounded conceptualizations of animal,
plant, human, and environmental health (Hulme 2020, 541).
The One Biosecurity proposal, despite its universalist appeal, signals a
hegemonic approach to environmental security that risks marginalizing or ex-
cluding perspectives not encapsulated within dominant security frameworks.
However, as Māori scholars Lambert and Mark-Shadbolt (2021, 56) contend,
bringing in voices from the margins “is central to rethinking more effective bio-
security approaches.” Anishnaabe teachings, for example, recognize IAS as issues
of “invasive ideologies” rather than invading species (Reo and Ogden 2018,
1447). The concept of invasive ideologies demonstrates how questions of
power and sovereignty, in addition to science, shape approaches to biosecurity.
Indeed, security assemblages interact with social inequities, shaping disease
burden and risk more broadly. Questions of scale thus remain—how can secu-
rity transcend siloed approaches without universalizing the experience of risk
and vulnerability? This prompts a need for research on IAS and the politics of
difference in security assemblages, as well as the policies and discourses that in-
form, constitute, and/or shape biosecurity risks and vulnerabilities. Ultimately,
how One Biosecurity unfolds in practice remains to be seen, providing GEP
scholars an entry point into more inclusive studies of emerging policy (e.g.,
China’s Biosafety Law), its impact on global IAS risk, and its influence on inter-
national biosecurity conversations.
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
l
/
/
e
d
u
g
e
p
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d
l
f
/
/
/
/
/
2
2
2
1
2
2
0
0
8
2
2
8
g
e
p
_
a
_
0
0
6
2
5
p
d
.
l
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
18 (cid:129) Invasive Species in Post-2020 GEP
Moreover, the call to engage biosecurity holistically suggests employing the
concept of relationality, which emphasizes the interconnections of radiating rela-
tionships (Whetung 2019) and can help GEP scholars think about the sociopo-
litical and material connections between security issues traditionally considered
independently (e.g., human health and biodiversity) and/or outside of IAS (e.g.,
pathogens). What politics might be revealed when scholars use a relational lens to
understand IAS–security interactions? We posit that such consideration can high-
light how and why IAS policy and politics mitigate insecurity for some connections
within an assemblage, while ignoring or amplifying insecurity for others. For
example, viewing SARS-COV-2 solely as a public health concern obscures the
way the pathogen is leveraged as a mechanism that enables state-sanctioned land
grabs, further compounding insecurity for Indigenous and more-than-human
communities in Brazil (Menton et al. 2021). Hence, relationality scholarship
invites GEP to draw on multispecies approaches to center social justice consider-
ations in environmental security discourse and IAS management, such that secu-
rity does not come at the cost of human and more-than-human equity. Research
might specifically examine where value is placed within security assemblages and
how risk is manipulated to leverage safety for some but not others.
Conclusions
Given the current difficulties of governing IAS, the power-laden effects of their
distribution, and the nonrelational construction of (in)security, IAS studies
need GEP scholars to more comprehensively address IAS as an urgent, cross-
cutting, and political issue. Although already familiar with global governance,
global political economy, and environmental security, GEP stands to advance
theories of problem structure and distributional conflict in studying IAS, while
also expanding theorizations of security through incorporations of relationality.
While we have done our best to present a research agenda that neatly addresses
governance, political economy, and security, the reality is that IAS demand inte-
gration. The questions outlined here thus present opportunities to work toward
the IAS solutions of more equitable and just futures. This work is not only critical
but timely as humans navigate uncertainty in a post-2020 world.
Jesann Gonzalez Cruz is an interdisciplinary PhD student in the Department of
Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences at the University of Illinois
Urbana-Champaign. Her research primarily examines the human dimensions
of invasive species and their management, with a geographic focus on Latin
America and the Caribbean.
McKenzie F. Johnson is an assistant professor in the Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental Sciences at the University of Illinois Urbana-
Champaign. Her research and teaching examine the complex interlinkages
between global environmental governance, human security, and social justice.
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
l
/
/
e
d
u
g
e
p
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d
l
f
/
/
/
/
/
2
2
2
1
2
2
0
0
8
2
2
8
g
e
p
_
a
_
0
0
6
2
5
p
d
.
l
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Jesann Gonzalez Cruz and McKenzie F. Johnson
(cid:129) 19
She has conducted interdisciplinary research in South Asia, West Africa, and
North and South America, with her most recent work focused on environmental
peacebuilding in Colombia and energy infrastructure governance in the United
States. Her work has been published in World Development, International Affairs,
and Global Environmental Change, as well as other journals.
References
Aklin, Michaël, and Matto Mildenberger. 2020. Special Section: Domestic Climate Policy
Under Anarchy Prisoners of the Wrong Dilemma: Why Distributive Conflict, Not
Collective Action, Characterizes the Politics of Climate Change. Global Environ-
mental Politics 20 (4): 4–26. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00578
Alaniz, Alberto J., Mario A. Carvajal, and Pablo M. Vergara. 2021. Giants Are Coming?
Predicting the Potential Spread and Impacts of the Giant Asian Hornet (Vespa
mandarinia, Hymenoptera: Vespidae) in the USA. Pest Management Science 77 (1):
104–112. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.6063, PubMed: 32841491
Bastos Lima, Mairon G., and Joyeeta Gupta. 2013. The Policy Context of Biofuels: A Case
of Non-Governance at the Global Level? Global Environmental Politics 13: 46–64.
https://doi.org/10.1162/GLEP_a_00166
Beninde, Joscha, Marietta L. Fischer, Axel Hochkirch, and Andreas Zink. 2015. Ambitious
Advances of the European Union in the Legislation of Invasive Alien Species.
Conservation Letters 8 (3): 199–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12150
Biermann, Frank, and Rakhuyn Kim, editors. 2020. Architectures of Earth System
Governance: Institutional Complexity and Structural Transformation. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108784641
Davis, Alicia, and Jo Sharp. 2020. Rethinking One Health: Emergent Human, Animal and
Environmental Assemblages. Social Science and Medicine 258: 113093. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113093, PubMed: 32531688
Diagne, Christophe, Jane A. Catford, Franz Essl, Martín A. Nuñez, and Franck Courchamp.
2020. What Are the Economic Costs of Biological Invasions? A Complex Topic
Requiring International and Interdisciplinary Expertise. NeoBiota 63: 25. https://
doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.63.55260
Epanchin-Niell, Rebecca, Carol McAusland, Andrew Liebhold, Paul Mwebaze, and
Michael Springborn. 2021. Biological Invasions and International Trade: Managing
a Moving Target. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 15 (1): 180–190.
https://doi.org/10.1086/713025
Essl, Franz, Guillaume Latombe, Bernd Lenzner, Shyama Pagad, Hanno Seebens, Kevin
Smith, John Wilson, and Piero Genovesi. 2020. The Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD)’s Post-2020 Target on Invasive Alien Species—What Should It
Include and How Should It Be Monitored? NeoBiota 62: 99–121. https://doi.org
/10.3897/neobiota.62.53972
Faulkner, Katelyn, Mark Robertson, and John Wilson. 2020. Stronger Regional Biosecurity
Is Essential to Prevent Hundreds of Harmful Biological Invasions. Global Change
Biology 26: 2449–2462. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15006, PubMed: 31957142
García-Díaz, Pablo, Phillip Cassey, Grant Norbury, Xavier Lambin, Lía Montti, J. Cristóbal
Pizarro, Priscila Powell, David F. R. P. Burslem, Mário Cava, Gabriella Damasceno,
Laura Fasola, Alessandra Fidelis, Magdalena F. Huerta, Bárbara Langdon, Eirini
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
l
/
/
e
d
u
g
e
p
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d
l
f
/
/
/
/
/
2
2
2
1
2
2
0
0
8
2
2
8
g
e
p
_
a
_
0
0
6
2
5
p
d
.
l
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
20 (cid:129) Invasive Species in Post-2020 GEP
Linardaki, Jaime Moyano, Martín A. Núñez, Aníbal Pauchard, Euan Phimister,
Eduardo Raffo, Ignacio Roesler, Ignacio Rodríguez-Jorquera, and Jorge A. Tomasevic.
2021. Management Policies for Invasive Alien Species: Addressing the Impacts
Rather than the Species. BioScience 71 (2): 174–185. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci
/biaa139
Graham, Sonia, Alexander Metcalf, Nicholas Gill, Rebecca Niemiec, Carlo Moreno,
Thomas Bach, Victoria Ikutegbe, Lars Hallstrom, Zhao Ma, and Alice Lubeck.
2019. Opportunities for Better Use of Collective Action Theory in Research and
Governance for Invasive Species Management. Conservation Biology 33 (2): 275–287.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13266, PubMed: 30548338
Hulme, Philip. 2020. One Biosecurity: A Unified Concept to Integrate Human, Animal,
Plant, and Environmental Health. Emerging Topics in Life Sciences 4 (5): 539–549.
https://doi.org/10.1042/ETLS20200067, PubMed: 33111945
Hulme, Philip. 2021. Advancing One Biosecurity to Address the Pandemic Risks of
Biological Invasions. BioScience 71 (7): 708–721. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci
/biab019, PubMed: 34211340
Humair, Franziska, Peter Edwards, Michael Siegrist, and Christoph Kueffer. 2014. Under-
standing Misunderstandings in Invasion Science: Why Experts Don’t Agree on
Common Concepts and Risk Assessments. NeoBiota 20: 1–30. https://doi.org/10
.3897/neobiota.20.6043
Jeschke, Jonathan, Felicia Keesing, and Richard Ostfeld. 2013. Novel Organisms: Com-
paring Invasive Species, GMOs, and Emerging Pathogens. Ambio 42 (5): 541–548.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-013-0387-5, PubMed: 23456779
Jinnah, Sikina, and Jean-Frédéric Morin. 2020. Greening Through Trade: How American
Trade Policy Is Linked to Environmental Protection Abroad. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/12430.001.0001
Johnson, McKenzie F. 2019. Strong (Green) Institutions in Weak States: Environmental
Governance and Human (in)Security in the Global South. World Development 122:
433–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.06.010
Kirksey, Eben. 2020. The Emergence of COVID-19: A Multispecies Story. Anthropology
Now 12 (1): 11–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/19428200.2020.1760631
Lambert, Simon, and Melanie Mark-Shadbolt. 2021. Indigenous Biosecurity: Past,
Present, and Future. In Routledge Handbook of Biosecurity and Invasive Species, edited
by Kezia Barker and Robert Francis. New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10
.4324/9781351131599-5
Liu, Xuan, Tim Blackburn, Tianjian Song, Xianping Li, Cong Huang, and Yiming Li.
2019. Risks of Biological Invasion on the Belt and Road. Current Biology 29 (3):
499–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2018.12.036, PubMed: 30686739
Marbuah, George, Ing Marie Gren, and Brendan McKie. 2014. Economics of Harmful
Invasive Species: A Review. Diversity 6 (3): 500–523. https://doi.org/10.3390
/d6030500
Margolis, Michael, and Jason Shogren. 2012. Disguised Protectionism, Global Trade
Rules and Alien Invasive Species. Environmental and Resource Economics 51 (1):
105–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-011-9490-x
Measey, J., V. Visser, Y. Dgebuadze, B. Li, M. Dechoum, S. R. Ziller, and D. M. Richardson.
2019. The World Needs BRICS Countries to Build Capacity in Invasion Science.
PLoS Biology 17 (9): e3000404. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000404,
PubMed: 31536486
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
l
/
/
e
d
u
g
e
p
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d
l
f
/
/
/
/
/
2
2
2
1
2
2
0
0
8
2
2
8
g
e
p
_
a
_
0
0
6
2
5
p
d
.
l
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Jesann Gonzalez Cruz and McKenzie F. Johnson
(cid:129) 21
Menton, Mary, Felipe Milanez, Jurema Machado de Andrade Souza, and Felipe Sotto
Maior Cruz. 2021. The COVID-19 Pandemic Intensified Resource Conflicts and
Indigenous Resistance in Brazil. World Development 138: 105222. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105222
Nuñez, Martin, Anibal Pauchard, and Anthony Ricciardi. 2020. Invasion Science and the
Global Spread of SARS-CoV-2. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 35 (8): 642–645.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2020.05.004, PubMed: 32487347
O’Brien, Karen, and Jon Barnett. 2013. Global Environmental Change and Human
Security. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 38: 373–391. https://doi.org
/10.1146/annurev-environ-032112-100655
Ormsby, Michael, and Evan Brenton-Rule. 2017. A Review of Global Instruments to
Combat Invasive Alien Species in Forestry. Biological Invasions 19 (11): 3355–3364.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-017-1426-0
Perrings, Charles, Stas Burgiel, Mark Lonsdale, Harold Mooney, and Mark Williamson.
2009. Globalization and Bioinvasions: The International Policy Problem. In
Bioinvasions and Globalization: Ecology, Economics, Management, and Policy, edited
by Charles Perring, Harold Mooney, and Mark Williamson. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199560158.003.0016
Reo, Nicholas, and Laura Ogden. 2018. Anishnaabe Aki: An Indigenous Perspective on
the Global Threat of Invasive Species. Sustainability Science 13 (5): 1443–1452.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0571-4
Ricciardi, Anthony, Tim Blackburn, James Carlton, Jaimie Dick, Philip Hulme, Josephine
Iacarella, Jonathan Jeschke, Andrew M. Liebhold, Julie L. Lockwood, Hugh J. MacIsaac,
Petr Pyšek, David M. Richardson, Gregory M. Ruiz, Daniel Simberloff, William J.
Sutherland, David A. Wardle, and David C. Aldridge. 2017a. Invasion Science: A
Horizon Scan of Emerging Challenges and Opportunities. Trends in Ecology and Evolu-
tion 32 (6): 464–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2017.03.007, PubMed: 28395941
Ricciardi, Anthony, Tim Blackburn, James Carlton, Jaimie Dick, Philip Hulme, Josephine
Iacarella, Jonathan Jeschke, Andrew M. Liebhold, Julie L. Lockwood, Hugh J.
MacIsaac, Petr Pyšek, David M. Richardson, Gregory M. Ruiz, Daniel Simberloff,
William J. Sutherland, David A. Wardle, and David C. Aldridge. 2017b. Invasion
Science: Looking Forward Rather than Revisiting Old Ground—A Reply to Zenni
et al. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 32 (11): 809–810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.tree.2017.08.007, PubMed: 28863858
Sardain, Anthony, Erik Sardain, and Brian Leung. 2019. Global Forecasts of Shipping
Traffic and Biological Invasions to 2050. Nature Sustainability 2 (4): 274–282.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0245-y
Seebens, Hanno, Franz Essl, Wayne Dawson, Nicol Fuentes, Dietmar Moser, Jan Pergl,
Petr Pyšek, Mark van Kleunen, Ewald Weber, Marten Winter, and Bernd Blasius.
2015. Global Trade Will Accelerate Plant Invasions in Emerging Economies Under
Climate Change. Global Change Biology 21 (11): 4128–4140. https://doi.org/10
.1111/gcb.13021, PubMed: 26152518
Simberloff, Daniel. 2011. Charles Elton: Neither Founder nor Siren, but Prophet. In Fifty Years
of Invasion Ecology: The Legacy of Charles Elton, edited by David M. Richardson and
Petr Pyšek. Malden, MA: Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444329988.ch2
Stevenson, Hayley, Graeme Auld, Jen Iris Allan, Lorraine Elliott, and James Meadowcroft.
2021. The Practical Fit of Concepts: Ecosystem Services and the Value of Nature.
Global Environmental Politics 21 (2): 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00587
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
l
/
/
e
d
u
g
e
p
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d
l
f
/
/
/
/
/
2
2
2
1
2
2
0
0
8
2
2
8
g
e
p
_
a
_
0
0
6
2
5
p
d
.
l
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
22 (cid:129) Invasive Species in Post-2020 GEP
Stoett, Peter. 2010. Framing Bioinvasion: Biodiversity, Climate Change, Security, Trade,
and Global Governance. Global Governance 16 (1): 103–120. https://doi.org/10
.1163/19426720-01601007
Thiele, Leslie Paul. 2020. Nature 4.0: Assisted Evolution, De-extinction, and Ecological
Restoration Technologies. Global Environmental Politics 20 (3): 9–27. https://doi.org
/10.1162/glep_a_00559
Tsing, Anna, Jennifer Deger, Alder Keleman Saxena, and Feifei Zhou. 2021. Feral Atlas:
The More-than-Human Anthropocene. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.21627/2020fa
Turbelin, Anna, Bruce Malamud, and Robert Francis. 2017. Mapping the Global State of
Invasive Alien Species: Patterns of Invasion and Policy Responses. Global Ecology
and Biogeography 26 (1): 78–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12517
Tzankova, Zdravka. 2009. The Science and Politics of Ecological Risk: Bioinvasions
Policies in the US and Australia. Environmental Politics 18 (3): 333–350. https://
doi.org/10.1080/09644010902823725
van Kleunen, Mark, Xinyi Xu, Qiang Yang, Noëlie Maurel, Zhijie Zhang, Wayne Dawson,
Franz Essl, Holger Kreft, Jan Pergl, Petr Pyšek, Patrick Weigelt, Dietmar Moser,
Bernd Lenzner, and Trevor S. Fristoe. 2020. Economic Use of Plants Is Key to Their
Naturalization Success. Nature Communications 11 (1): 3201. https://doi.org/10
.1038/s41467-020-16982-3, PubMed: 32581263
Vaz, Ana, Christoph Kueffer, Christian Kull, David Richardson, Stefan Schindler, A. Jesús
Muñoz-Pajares, Joana Vicente, João Martins, Cang Hui, Ingolf Kühn, and João P.
Honrado. 2017. The Progress of Interdisciplinarity in Invasion Science. Ambio
46 (4): 428–442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-017-0897-7, PubMed: 28150137
Whetung, Madeline. 2019. (En)gendering Shoreline Law: Nishnaabeg Relational Politics
Along the Trent Severn Waterway. Global Environmental Politics 19 (3): 16–32.
https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00513
Youatt, Rafi. 2020. Interspecies Politics. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.4598702
Zhao, Jingjing. 2020. The Role of International Organizations in Preventing Conflicts
Between the SPS Agreement and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. Review of
European, Comparative and International Environmental Law 29 (2): 271–281.
https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12326
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
l
/
/
e
d
u
g
e
p
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d
l
f
/
/
/
/
/
2
2
2
1
2
2
0
0
8
2
2
8
g
e
p
_
a
_
0
0
6
2
5
p
d
.
l
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Download pdf