The IPBES report is the most comprehensive review carried out to date on the phenomenon of biological invasions, the result of the collective work of researchers from all over the world. The huge group and its efforts have broken down the barriers (of territories, species groups, impacts) of previous work. It is worth noting the report's emphasis on action, on pointing out that invasions are not something that will inevitably happen, but that we can act to stop them from happening and that, once they have started, we can also have options to reverse or dampen them. Finally, the report adds a social perspective that, perhaps, had not had the necessary relevance in previous works, which were more focused on purely biological aspects.
In general, the picture presented in this review is in line with the results of the scientific work carried out to date. Invasions are highly dependent (in their development and impacts) on many factors, from climatic to biological and social, so it is not surprising that there may be studies with contradictory results. This is where the main value of the report lies, in analysing a huge amount of data to detect general patterns.
The report highlights the enormous spatial biases in the availability of information. Almost all the data that is available comes from North America or Europe. This is not just a problem with the science of biological invasions, but with almost all scientific knowledge, which tends to be produced in very specific territories. I also think that the number of local extinctions is underestimated. In the Iberian Peninsula alone, and only with river fish, it is possible that there have been several dozen of these local extinctions.
What I miss in the summary (and probably also in the report) is an explicit mention from IPBES about the philosophical/political currents derived from animal rights movements, which are growing in many parts of the world and can generate insurmountable obstacles for the management of invasions. The summary briefly mentions ethical aspects in relation to lethal control, giving as an example the invasive population of hippopotamuses in Colombia (the example of parrots in Madrid or Seville would be equally valid). But I think he misses the point of giving the problem the magnitude it really has. Animal rights movements are concerned with the welfare of animals, of each and every individual, regardless of the species to which they belong (which is why it calls itself anti-speciesist). This philosophical framework is completely incompatible with the management of invasions and is rapidly gaining momentum among governments around the world (Spain and Portugal are two clear examples).