{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015493867010974823, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.0546875, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A critical review of the precautionary approach of the IUCN impact classification for non-native taxa.

The IUCN has proposed the use of the EICAT to standardize the classification of introduced species based on their environmental impact. The IUCN invoked the precautionary principle (PP) via the two rules: (i) the impact assigned to a taxon must be the maximum recorded impact across different impact assessments, and (ii) when the main driver of environmental damage is unclear, it must be assumed to be caused by the IS. The validity of PP is conditioned by two factors: the scientific evidence demonstrating the advantages of applying a preventive measure and the degree of emergency that warrants urgent decisions. In this review, I found that these two rules do not appear to have enough scientific support and that they are not justified by a serious or irreversible instances since impact scoring is an early stage of the impact assessment process. I discuss the possibility that these rules are primarily rooted in the ethical value system underlying conservation biology. Conservationists assign intrinsic value to native species by virtue of their roles and relationships within ecological and evolutionary systems and processes; thus, individuals introduced in new environments not only cease to have value as they are no longer part of that natural diversity and lack those links with the rest of the ecosystem, but they become a threat to what conservationists value most. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.