We are increasingly investing in habitat restoration, Biodiversity Net Gain and nature recovery. But are we paying enough attention to one of the factors that can undermine those efforts before they even get started?
Invasive non-native species are widely recognised as a major driver of biodiversity loss. Yet, in England and Wales, the legal framework for controlling them is often reactive, with restrictions typically introduced only once sufficient evidence of ecological harm has accumulated.
This creates an important disconnect between legislation and ecological practice.
Ecologists working on development sites, habitat restoration projects and land management schemes are increasingly encountering species that demonstrate the potential to spread and cause ecological problems but are not yet subject to formal restrictions. The absence of a species from a regulated list can sometimes create the misleading impression that it is therefore ecologically suitable.
But by the time a species is formally recognised as a problem, it may already be widespread, requiring expensive and long-term management.
Our Associate Ecologist, Karen Lunan, explores this issue in her recent Viewpoint article for the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management's InPractice magazine.
Drawing on practical experience, Karen considers what England and Wales might learn from Scotland's more precautionary approach to non-native species, where the legislation places greater emphasis on preventing the release and planting of species outside their native range.
Bringing different experiences together
Karen's perspective on this issue is informed by more than 20 years of experience in ecological consultancy, alongside her work as a Technical Monitor for the EU LIFE programme, with a particular focus on invasive species projects in the UK.
Until recently, Karen combined these two roles, splitting her working week between Ecology by Design and the LIFE programme.
For us, this is also an important example of what flexibility can look like in practice.
We recognise that people bring different experiences, interests and opportunities to their careers, and that these can enrich the knowledge and expertise they bring to our team. Supporting Karen to continue her work with the LIFE programme has allowed her to maintain and develop specialist experience while also bringing that knowledge and perspective into her consultancy work at EbD.
We believe flexibility should be more than simply deciding where people work. It can also mean recognising that careers do not always follow a single, linear path and supporting people to develop in ways that work for them.
Why this matters for development and BNG
The issue is particularly relevant to development and Biodiversity Net Gain. Landscaping schemes, habitat creation and sustainable drainage features can all create opportunities for the introduction and spread of non-native species.
As we commit to managing habitats over increasingly long timescales, biosecurity and the prevention of invasive species need to form part of the conversation from the outset.
As Karen argues, prevention may be less visible than restoration, but it is often cheaper, more effective and more ecologically defensible.
The question is whether our policy framework is doing enough to help prevent tomorrow's ecological problems, rather than simply managing them once they have become established.
Karen's article, Precaution or Reaction? What England and Wales's Invasive Non-native Species Framework can learn from Scotland, was published in the September 2026 edition of InPractice.
We are incredibly proud to see Karen sharing her knowledge and experience through this important discussion.
The full article is available to download by kind permission of CIEEM.
Download InPractice Article
