Protecting Antarctica from Non-Native Species: The Imperatives and the Impediments

Yearbook of Polar Law

Volumn 1, Issue , 2009, Pages 383-399

  Potter, Sandra ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84866372493     PISSN: 18768814     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1163/22116427-91000020     Document Type: Article

References (89)

1. IAATO, “2006–2007 summary of seaborne, airborne and land based Antarctic tourism, International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators, http://image.zenn.net/REPLACE/CLIENT/1000037/1000116/application/pdf/tourism_summary_byexpedition.pdf (accessed 20 August 2008).
2. COMNAP, “Survey on existing procedures concerning introduction of non native species in Antarctica” (paper submitted to the XXXI Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Kiev, Ukraine, June 2–13, 2008).
3. Australia, “Report on the open-ended intersessional contact group on diseases of Antarctic wildlife. Report 1-Review and risk assessment” (paper submitted to the XXIV Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, St Petersburg, Russia, July 9–13, 2001).
4. Yves Frenot et al., “Biological invasions in the Antarctic: Extent, impacts and implications, ” Biological Reviews 80 (2005): 45.
5. For example, Reed F. Noss, “High-risk ecosystems as foci for considering biodiversity and ecological integrity in ecological risk assessments, ” Environmental Science & Policy 3 (2000): 321–32;
6. Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee, “Turning back the tide – the invasive species challenge. Report on the regulation, control and management of invasive species and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Invasive Species) Bill 2002” (Canberra: Parliament House, 2004);
7. Douglas J. Tempel, Amy B. Cilimburg and Vita Wright, “The status and management of exotic and invasive species in national wildlife refuge wilderness areas, ” Natural Areas Journal 24 (2004): 300–6.
8. For example, US Congress, Harmful non-indigenous species in the United States (Washington DC: Office of Technology Assessment, US Congress and US Government Printing Office, 1993);
9. Sarah E. Reichard, “Prevention of invasive plant introductions on national and local levels, ” in Assessment and management of plant invasions, ed. J. Luken and J. Thieret (Dordrecht: Springer-Verlag, 1997), 215;
10. L. Drees, “A retrospective on NPS invasive species policy and management, ” Park Science 22 (2004): 21;
11. D.M. Wotton and C.L. Hewitt, “Marine biosecurity post-border management: Developing incursion response systems for New Zealand, ” New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 38 (2004): 553;
12. J.A. McNeely et al., “A global strategy on invasive alien species: Synthesis and ten strategic elements, ” in Invasive alien species: A new synthesis, ed. H.A. Mooney et al. (Washington DC: Island Press, 2005), 332–45.
13. Maj De Poorter, “Non-native species issues: Challenges of international approach in the Antarctic context. Presentation summary, ” in Non-native species in the Antarctic workshop, 10–12 April 2006. Final Report, 2006;
14. COMNAP, “Survey on existing procedures concerning introduction of non native species in Antarctica” (paper presented at XXXI Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Kiev, Ukraine, June, 2–132008);
15. Bill Mansfield and Neil Gilbert, “Availability and applicability of legal tools for managing non-native species, ” in Non-native species in the Antarctic, ed. Michelle Rogan-Finnemore (Canterbury: Gateway Antarctica, 2008), 131.
16. David N. Cole, and Peter B. Landres, “Threats to wilderness ecosystems: Impacts and research needs, ” Ecological Applications 6 (1996): 168.
17. C.M. D’Antonio and T.L. Dudley, “Biological invasions as agents of change on islands versus mainlands, ” Ecological Studies 115 (1995): 103.
18. J. Treweek, Ecological impact assessment (Oxford UK: Blackwell Science, 1999);
19. UNEP, “Report of the ad hoc technical expert group on gaps and inconsistencies in the international regulatory framework in relation to invasive alien species, ” (United Nations Environment Program, Convention on Biological Diversity, Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice. UNEP/CBD/SBTTA/11/INF/4, 2005).
20. R.D. Horan et al., “Biological pollution prevention strategies under ignorance: The case of invasive species, ” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 84 (2002): 1303.
21. Susan P. Bratton, “The effects of exotic plant and animal species on nature preserves, ” Natural Areas Journal 2 (1982): 3;
22. P. Kramer, “Man and other introduced organisms, ” Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 21 (1984): 253;
23. Ian A.W. MacDonald et al., “Wildlife conservation and the invasion of nature reserves by introduced species: A global perspective, ” in Biological invasions: A global perspective, ed. J.A. Drake et al. (Paris: International Council of Scientific Unions, Scientific Committee on the Problems of the Environment, 1989), 37: 215;
24. J.H. Myers and D. Bazely, Ecology and control of introduced plants (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003); and Senate (see note 5).
25. See Yves Frenot et al. (see note 4).
26. Other international legal instruments from which obligations related to non-native species arise include the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Article II of the former requires that harvesting and associated activities in the area to which this Convention applies shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of this Convention and with regard to, inter alia, the effect of the introduction of alien species. Article 196 of the latter requires that parties take measures to prevent the intentional or accidental introduction of IAS to the marine environment.
27. COMNAP (see note 2). The programs with measures in place are not identified.
28. The SCAR is an interdisciplinary body of the International Council for Science. In “SCAR annual report for 2005, ” SCAR Bulletin 160 (2006): 1–24 it is described as ‘the principal non-government organization responsible for the international coordination of scientific research taking place in the Antarctic region’. Its mandate includes providing objective and independent scientific advice on issues affecting the management of the environment.
29. COMNAP (see note 2). This is presumably a reference to COMNAP and SCAR, Antarctic Environmental Monitoring Handbook, https://www.comnap.aq/publications/manuals/comnap-scar_env_monitoring_handbook_jun2000 (accessed 20 August 2008).
30. For example, Australia, “Report to ATCM XXIII on outcomes from the workshop on diseases of Antarctic wildlife” (paper presented at XXIII Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Lima, Peru, May 24–28, 1999);
31. Australia, “Report on the open-ended intersessional contact group on diseases of Antarctic wildlife. Report 1-Review and risk assessment” (paper presented at XXIV Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, St Petersburg, Russia, July 9–13, 2001);
32. Kevin A. Hughes and Nigel Blenkharn, “A simple method to reduce discharge of sewage microorganisms from an Antarctic research station, ” Marine Pollution Bulletin 46 (2003): 353;
33. Kevin A. Hughes, “Reducing sewage pollution in the Antarctic marine environment using a sewage treatment plant, ” Marine Pollution Bulletin 49 (2004): 850;
34. C.H. Curry et al., ”Identification of an agent suitable for disinfecting boots of visitors to the Antarctic, ” Polar Record 41 (2005): 39;
35. Yves Frenot et al. (see note 4);
36. Maj De Poorter et al. (see note 7);
37. New Zealand, “Non-native species in the Antarctic. Report of a workshop” (paper presented at XXIX Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Edinburgh, Scotland, June 12–16, 2006);
38. United Kingdom, “Practical guidelines for ballast water exchange in the
39. Antarctic Treaty Area” (paper presented at XXIX Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Edinburgh, Scotland, June 12–16, 2006);
40. Yves Frenot et al., “Antarctic and subantarctic biological invasions: Sources, extents, impacts and implications, ” in Non-native species in the Antarctic, ed. Michelle Rogan-Finnemore (Canterbury: Gateway Antarctica, 2008), 53; and Bill Mansfield and Neil Gilbert (see note 7).
41. IAATO, “Boot, clothing and equipment decontamination guidelines for small boat operations, ” International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators, http://www.iaato.org/docs/Boot_Washing07.pdf.
42. Sandra Potter, “The quarantine management of Australia’s Antarctic program, ” Australasian Journal of Environmental Management 13 (2006): 185.
43. New Zealand, “Non-native species incursions at Scott Base, Antarctica” (paper presented at XXXI Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Kiev, Ukraine, June 2–13, 2008).
44. Australia, China, India, Romania and Russian Federation, “Measures to protect the Larsemann Hills, East Antarctica, from the introduction of non-native species” (paper presented at XXXI Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Kiev, Ukraine, June 2–13, 2008).
45. The processes involved in recruiting and interviewing individuals was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee (Tasmania) Network constituted under the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia.
46. For example, Japan, “A grass (seed plant) found in Syowa station area, East Antarctica” (paper presented at XX Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Utrecht, The Netherlands, April 29–May 10, 1996);
47. Australia, “Report to ATCM XXIII on outcomes from the workshop on diseases of Antarctic wildlife” (paper presented at XXIII Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Lima, Peru, May 24–28, 1999);
48. Australia (see note 3); Australia, “Report on the open-ended intersessional contact group on diseases of Antarctic wildlife. Report 2-Practi-cal measures to diminish risk (draft)” (paper presented at XXIV Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, St Petersburg, Russia, July 9–13, 2001);
49. New Zealand, “Non-native species: Pathways and vectors between New Zealand and Scott Base, Antarctica” (paper presented at XXX Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, New Dehli, India, April 30 to May 11, 2007); and New Zealand (see note 21).
50. For example, IUCN, “Introduction of non-native species in the Antarctic Treaty Area: An increasing problem” (paper presented at XXII Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Tromso, Norway, May 25–June 5, 1998);
51. Australia, “Measures to address the unintentional introduction and spread of non-native biota and disease to the Antarctic Treaty Area” (paper presented at XXVIII Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Stockholm, Sweden, June 6–17, 2005);
52. IUCN, “Report by IUCN” (paper presented at XXVIII Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Stockholm, Sweden, June 6–10, 2005).
53. For example, COMNAP and IAATO, “Information paper on the use of ballast water in Antarctica” (paper presented at XXVIII Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Stockholm, Sweden, June 6–17, 2005);
54. COMNAP, “Information paper on the use of anti-fouling bio-cide paints by national Antarctic program vessels” paper presented at XXIX Antarctic
55. Treaty Consultative Meeting, Edinburgh, Scotland, June 12–16, 2006);
56. COMNAP, “Information paper on the use of ballast water in Antarctica” (paper presented at XXIX Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Edinburgh, Scotland, June 12–16, 2006); and COMNAP (see note 2).
57. See Australia, “Review of Annex II to the Protocol on Environmental Protection” (paper presented at XXXI Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Kiev, Ukraine, June 2–13, 2008).
58. For example, Maj De Poorter et al., ”Practical measures in the Antarctic context: Workshop conclusions and recommended actions, ” in Non-native species in the Antarctic workshop, 10–12 April 2006. Final Report; New Zealand, “Non-native species in the Antarctic. Report of a workshop” (paper presented at XXIX Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Edinburgh, Scotland, June 12–16, 2006); and Bill Mansfield and Neil Gilbert (see note 7).
59. For example, IUCN 1998 (see note 25).
60. S. Draggan, “Protection of Antarctic microbial habitats, ” in Antarctic microbiology, ed. E.I. Friedmann (New York: Wiley-Liss Inc, 1993), 603;
61. Gregory J. White, “Microbial ecosystems in Antarctica: Is protection necessary?” Antarctic Journal of the United States 30 (1996): 13;
62. United Kingdom, “Annex II to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty” (paper presented at XXVII Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Cape Town, South Africa, May 24–June 4, 2004).
63. See US Department of State, “United States Antarctic Inspection Team 2006: Report of Inspections under Article VII of the Antarctic Treaty and Article 14 of the Protocol on Environmental Protection, November 12 to December 1, 2006, ” http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/82146.pdf (accessed 20 August 2008).
64. Sandra Potter and Tom Maggs, Antarctic quarantine management: Australia’s framework and practice, in Non-native species in the Antarctic, ed. Michelle Rogan-Finnemore (Canterbury: Gateway Antarctica, 2008), 165.
65. M-H. Parizeau, “Considerations on a code of ethics for conservation biologists, ” in Protecting biological diversity: Roles and responsibilities, ed. C. Provin, M. Kraenzel and G. Seutin (Canda: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2001), 12.
66. Victor Pomelov (Russian Antarctic Expedition Environmental Manager, Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute), email message to author, 2008.
67. Page 13, UNEP (see note 10).
68. Pages 13–14, UNEP (see note 10).
69. Mark W. Schwartz, “Defining indigenous species: an introduction, ” in Assessment and management of plant invasions, ed. J. Luken and J. Thieret (New York: Springer Verlag, 1996), 7.
70. J.E. Byers et al., “Directing research to reduce the impacts of nonindigenous species, ” Conservation Biology 16 (2002): 630.
71. For example, C.R. Pyke et al., “Current practices and future opportunities for policy on climate change and invasive species, ” Conservation Biology 22 (2008): 585;
72. B.G. Bierwagen, R. Thomas and A. Kane, “Capacity of management plans for aquatic invasive species to integrate climate change, ” Conservation Biology 22 (2008): 568 with respect to policy and planning in the United States of America; and author’s observations with respect to the quarantine protection of IUCN Category Ia Protected Areas (Strict Nature Reserves) around Australia.
73. Climis A. Davos, “On determining the social relevance of oceanography, ” Progress in Oceanography 44 (1999): 457.
74. See Australia (note 3) and Australia (note 24).
75. Australia (see note 18).
76. Other/specific recommendations were that: preventive measures are based on scientific understanding of the risk of disease introduction and spread; a precautionary approach be adopted; consideration is given to applying quarantine practices to intra-continental travel; the protected area system and related measures should be used to limit actions which may introduce or spread disease; gateway states should be encouraged to apply agreed procedures; uniform practices should be employed at points of departure, landing, and dispersal to field sites and in the marine environment; and a code of behaviour should be adopted – Australia (see note 18).
77. SCAR and COMNAP, “Wildlife diseases” (paper presented at Antarctic Treaty XII Special Consultative Meeting, The Hague, The Netherlands, September 11–15, 2000).
78. For example, JCPAA, “Report 394. Review of Australia’s quarantine function, ” Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jpaa/aqis/report.pdf;
79. D. Finnoff et al., “Take a risk: Preferring prevention over control of biological invaders, ” Ecological Economics 62 (2007): 216.
80. Tom Maggs (Australian CEP delegate, Australian Antarctic Division), personal communication, 2008.
81. David A. Andow, “Pathways-based risk assessment of exotic species invasions, ” in Invasive species: Vectors and management strategies, ed. Gregory M. Ruiz and James T. Carlton (Washington DC: Island Press, 2003) 439–458.
82. Steve Rayner, “What drives environmental policy?” Global Environmental Change 16 (2006): 4.
83. For example, David M. Lodge and K. Shrader-Frechette, “Nonindigenous species: Ecological explanation, environmental ethics, and public policy, ” Conservation Biology 17 (2003): 31.
84. CBD, “Convention on Biological Diversity, ” http://www.biodiv.org/convention/articles.asp.
85. William R. Freudenburg, “Perceived risk, real risk: Social science and the art of probabilistic risk assessment, ” Science 242 (1988): 44.
86. Author’s unpublished data.
87. Kevin A. Hughes, “Accidental transfer into Antarctica of alien species with soil on construction vehicles, ” Aliens 23 (2006): 8.
88. Stewart Barr, “Are we all environmentalists now? Rhetoric and reality in environmental action, ” Geoforum 35 (2004): 231.
89. Sandra Potter, “The quarantine protection of sub-Antarctic Australia: Two islands, two regimes, ” Island Studies Journal 2 (2007): 177.