Border Patrol for Biodiversity: The Global Fight Against Invasive Alien Species
By Katherine Cantor
What comes to mind when you think of international trade? Is it wealthy businessmen and crowded shipyards? A lesser-known threat lurks: countries trade more than goods, they trade invasive species. Humans bringing non-native species into new lands is not new.[1] However, international trade has allowed these invasive alien species to lead ecosystem-altering sieges on foreign lands.[2] Much of the trade in invasive species is unintentional: they sneak across borders as secret seeds, parasites, or stuck on soil.[3] The main pathway for invasive alien species into new countries is through horticulture and the nursery trade, sometimes intentionally.[4]
Invasive alien species (IAS) are species brought to a new place by humans, which allows them to overcome barriers the native species face.[5] Unfortunately, this allows IAS to wreak havoc on native ecosystems.[6] IAS result in monetary harm through changes in nutrient cycling, hydrology, and the ecosystem’s ability to deal with disturbances.[7] Introduction of IAS also leads to significant extinctions. Since the 17th century, “invasive alien species played a significant part ‘in nearly 40% of all animal extinctions’” with known causes.[8] This problem is especially widespread in America. Even disregarding overseas territories, the U.S. has some of the highest amounts of IAS worldwide.[9] Invasive species in the international markets are problematic, so what is being done?
International Regulations on Invasive Alien Species
There are many international treaties relevant to IAS.[10] The primary treaty is the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The CBD states that countries should “[p]revent the introduction of, control or eradicate those alien species which threaten ecosystems, habitats or species.”[11] Unfortunately, while the U.S. signed the CBD, they did not ratify it.[12] The International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) governs “pests”—species that are injurious to plants.[13] It also governs “quarantine pests”—pests that pose an economic threat to the introduced area.[14] The IPPC also developed International Phytosanitary Measures (IPMs), which set rules preventing the spread of pests in international trade.[15] Because the CBD, IPPC, and IPMs are all international, cooperation across countries and various levels of government is imperative. To aid international cooperation, the IPPC introduced an EPhyto program, where countries can electronically send and receive messages and phytosanitary certificates.[16] 127 countries have adopted the EPhyto program.[17] Under the CBD and IPPC, countries have taken the reigns and established their own regimes to protect against IAS.
Case Studies: What Other Countries Are Doing
America operates a host of programs fighting IAS under the IPPC.[18] The main American program carrying out the IPPC is the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s Plant Protection and Quarantine program (APHIS-PPQ).[19] The APHIS-PPQ works to safeguard “against the entry, establishment, and spread of economically and environmentally significant pests.”[20] America is also a part of NAPPO, the North American Plant Protection Organization.[21] Under both the IPPC and NAPPO, the APHIS-PPQ developed their own set of International Phytosanitary Standards (IPS).[22] One specific IPS aims to prevent IAS from hitching a ride in on imported plants. Under that rationale, the NAPPO implemented a regional phytosanitary measure requiring plant-growers to ensure containment and control of possible pests.[23] This measure poses issues: what constitutes non-compliance and how the standard is enforced are both ambiguous.[24] Working internationally to prevent IAS, America also implemented the International Forestry Cooperation Act.[25] This Act allows support to non-U.S. forests through “prevention and control of insects, diseases, and other damaging agents.”[26] While America has many IAS regulations, the issue has not been diminished.[27]
Across the world, Viwa Island of Fiji is a success story in eradicating IAS.[28] This effort was congruent with the Fijian National Biodiversity Action Plan passed under the CBD.[29] The Action Plan notes concerns with IAS and states that it’s a priority for landowners to “use, manage, or eradicate species” that threaten biodiversity.[30] The Viwa Island plan originally started with the intent to eradicate poisonous and invasive cane toads.[31] After hearing community concerns, the project shifted to feral dogs, cats, and rats.[32] Community members were trained and “involved in all decisions and . . . engaged in the full range of management activities.”[33] Because community members were able to choose the IAS most disruptive to them, they were incredibly engaged.[34] Because of their engagement, all chosen species were completely eradicated.[35] The community has since cited increases in native lizards, birds, and crop yields.[36] Importantly, local communities now have the knowledge and skills to support biodiversity and manage IAS.
The goal of these international laws should be preventing IAS from being transported, rapid detection, and efficient eradication.[37] This necessitates global cooperation and enforcement of current laws. There are also moral questions raised in eradicating IAS that laws have not tackled.[38] While many regulations exist, the problem persists.
[1] Philip E. Hulme, Unwelcome exchange: International trade as a direct and indirect driver of biological invasions worldwide, 4 One Earth 666, 666 (2021).
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Anna J. Turbelin et al., Mapping the global state of invasive alien species: patterns of invasion and policy responses, 26 Glob. Ecology & Biogeography 78, 78 (2016).
[5] Id.
[6] Petr Pyšek et al., Scientists’ warning on invasive alien species, 95 Biological Revs. 1511, 1512 (2020).
[7] Id.
[8] Vito De Lucia, Bare Nature. The Biopolitical Logic of the International Regulation of Invasive Alien Species, 31 J. Envt’l L. 109, 110 (2019).
[9] Turbelin, supra note 4, at 83.
[10] Id. at 87–88.
[11] Convention on Biological Diversity art. 8(h), June 5, 1992, 1760 U.N.T.S. 79.
[12] List of Parties, Convention on Biological Diversity, https://www.cbd.int/information/parties.shtml. (last visited Oct. 9, 2025).
[13] International Plant Protection Convention, art. 2, Dec. 6, 1951, 4 U.S.T. 1791, 150 U.N.T.S. 67. (2d ed., 2024, at 2–3).
[14] Id.
[15] Adopted Standards (IPSMs), Int’l Plant Prot. Convention, https://www.ippc.int/en/core-activities/standards-setting/ispms/ (last visited Jan. 20, 2026).
[16] IPPC ePhyto Solution, Four Years In, United Nations International Computing Centre (Mar. 15, 2022), https://www.unicc.org/news/2022/03/15/ippc-ephyto-solution-four-years-in/.
[17] Member countries of the Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation on the road to adopting the IPPC ePhyto Solution, International Plant Protection Convention (Oct. 9, 2023), https://www.ippc.int/en/news/member-countries-of-the-central-asia-regional-economic-cooperation-on-the-road-to-adopting-the-ippc-ephyto-solution/.
[18] International and Regional Plant Health Standards, U.S. Dep’t of Agric., Animal & Plant Health Inspection Serv., https://www.aphis.usda.gov/international-standards/plant-health-standards. (last modified July 30, 2025).
[19] Id.
[20] Plant Protection & Quarantine, U.S. Dep’t of Agric., Animal & Plant Health Inspection Serv., https://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant-protection-quarantine (last modified Sept. 30, 2025).
[21] International and Regional Plant Health Standards, supra note 18.
[22] Id.
[23] Secretariat of the North American Plant Protection Organization, RSPM 24 Integrated Pest Risk Management Measures for the Importation of Plants for Planting into NAPPO Member Countries 6–7 (2013).
[24] Id. at 10–11.
[25] 16 U.S.C. § 4501(b)(1)(D).
[26] Id.
[27] Turbelin, supra note 4, at 83.
[28] Sypmosia, A “Community” Approach to Invasive Species Management: Some Pacific Case Studies, Managing Vertebrate Invasive Species: Proc. of the USDA Nat’l Wildlife Rsch. Ctr. Symp. 29, 31 (2007).
[29] Fiji‟s Actions on IAS, Bioinvasion and Global Environmental Governance: The Transnational Policy Network on Invasive Alien Species 1, 2 https://www.cbd.int/invasive/doc/legislation/Fiji.pdf.
[30] Government of Vanuatu, National Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 21 (1999).
[31] Id.
[32] Id.
[33] Id.
[34] Id. at 32.
[35] Id.
[36] Id.
[37] Pyšek, supra note 6, at 1522.
[38] See Lucia, supra note 8, at 112.