The freshwater Fish Invasiveness Screening Kit (FISK) has been applied in 35 risk assessment areas in 45 countries across the six inhabited continents (11 applications using FISK v1; 25 using FISK v2). The present study aimed: to assess the breadth of FISK applications and the confidence (certainty) levels associated with the decision-support tool’s 49 questions and its ability to distinguish between taxa of low-to-medium and high risk of becoming invasive, and thus provide climate-specific, generalised, calibrated thresholds for risk level categorisation; and to identify the most potentially invasive freshwater fish species on a global level. The 1973 risk assessments were carried out by 70 + experts on 372 taxa (47 of the 51 species listed as invasive in the Global Invasive Species Database www.iucngisd.org/gisd/ ), which in decreasing order of importance belonged to the taxonomic Orders Cypriniformes, Perciformes, Siluriformes, Characiformes, Salmoniformes, Cyprinodontiformes, with the remaining ≈ 8% of taxa distributed across an additional 13 orders. The most widely-screened species (in decreasing importance) were: grass carp Ctenopharyngodon idella, common carp Cyprinus carpio, rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss, silver carp Hypophthalmichthys molitrix and topmouth gudgeon Pseudorasbora parva. Nine ‘globally’ high risk species were identified: common carp, black bullhead Ameiurus melas, round goby Neogobius melanostomus, Chinese (Amur) sleeper Perccottus glenii, brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus, eastern mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki, largemouth (black) bass Micropterus salmoides, pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus and pikeperch Sander lucioperca. The relevance of this global review to policy, legislation, and risk assessment and management procedures is discussed.

Invasive alien species (IAS) are a significant and growing problem worldwide. In Europe, some aspects of IAS have been\ud addressed through existing legal instruments, but these are far from sufficient to tackle the problem comprehensively. The\ud FINS II Conference considered the relevance of Top 20 IAS issues (Top 10 threats and opportunities) for Europe determined\ud at the 1st Freshwater Invasiveness – Networking for Strategy (FINS I) conference held in Ireland in 2013. Using a similar\ud format of sequential group voting, threats from FINS I (lack of funding, of awareness and education; poor communication)\ud and several new threats (lack of lead agencies, of standardized management and of common approach; insufficient monitoring\ud and management on private property) were identified by 80 academics, applied scientists, policy makers and stakeholders\ud from 14 EU and three non-EU countries (including 10 invited speakers) during four workshop break-out sessions (legislation\ud remit in both EU/non-EU countries; best management and biosecurity practice for control; data management and early warning;\ud pathways of introductions and citizen science). Identified opportunities include improved cooperation and communication,\ud education and leadership to enhance public awareness and stakeholder participation, systems establishment for early detection,\ud rapid response, monitoring and management of IAS using standardised methods of data collection, storage and usage. The\ud sets of threats and opportunities identified underline the importance of international cooperation on IAS issues in\ud communication, education and funding as priorities, as well as in standardization of legislation, control methods and best\ud practise of research

Standardized tools are needed to identify and prioritize the most harmful non-native species (NNS). A plethora of assessment protocols have been developed to evaluate the current and potential impacts of non-native species, but consistency among them has received limited attention. To estimate the consistency across impact assessment protocols, 89 specialists in biological invasions used 11 protocols to screen 57 NNS (2614 assessments). We tested if the consistency in the impact scoring across assessors, quantified as the coefficient of variation (CV), was dependent on the characteristics of the protocol, the taxonomic group and the expertise of the assessor. Mean CV across assessors was 40%, with a maximum of 223%. CV was lower for protocols with a low number of score levels, which demanded high levels of expertise, and when the assessors had greater expertise on the assessed species. The similarity among protocols with respect to the final scores was higher when the protocols considered the same impact types. We conclude that all protocols led to considerable inconsistency among assessors. In order to improve consistency, we highlight the importance of selecting assessors with high expertise, providing clear guidelines and adequate training but also deriving final decisions collaboratively by consensus.

A high level of freshwater fish endemism in the Balkans Region emphasizes the need for non-native species risk assessments to inform management and control measures, with pre-screening tools, such as the Fish Invasiveness Screening Kit (FISK) providing a useful first step. Applied to 43 non-native and translocated freshwater fishes in four Balkan countries, FISK reliably discriminated between invasive and non-invasive species, with a calibration threshold value of 9.5 distinguishing between species of medium and high risk sensu lato of becoming invasive. Twelve of the 43 species were assessed by scientists from two or more Balkan countries, and the remaining 31 species by a single assessor. Using the 9.5 threshold, three species were classed as low risk, 10 as medium risk, and 30 as high risk, with the latter category comprised of 26 moderately high risk, three high risk, and one very high risk species. Confidence levels in the assessments were relatively constant for all species, indicating concordance amongst assessors.