Advertisement

Examples of Current International, Regional and National Regulatory Frameworks for Preventing and Managing Marine Bioinvasions

  • Chad L. Hewitt
  • Richard A. Everett
  • Naomi Parker
Part of the Ecological Studies book series (ECOLSTUD, volume 204)

There is a growing understanding at public and policy levels that bioinvasions represent a significant threat to the environment, economic, social and cultural values (e.g., Lubchenco et al. 1991; Pimentel et al. 2000a, b; Carlton 2001; Pimentel 2002). In terrestrial environments this has resulted in the adoption of regulatory frameworks at national, regional and international scales for the maintenance of quarantine and biosecurity protection of human health and economy. The recent outbreaks of Bovine Spongiform Encephalitus (BSE) and Avian Influenza have galvanised efforts throughout the globe to put in place appropriate measures for the protection and maintenance of our societal values, specifically human health and economy.

In contrast to the terrestrial (and to a lesser degree freshwater) situation, the awareness of marine bioinvasions as a societal threat has been slow to develop. In part this may be due to the relatively recent advent of marine bioinvasion research as a discipline. The seminal treatment of bioinvasions by Elton (1958) had less than 10 % (14 pages) allocated to marine invasions. Similarly, The Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) evaluations of bioinvasions during the 1980s and 1990s had no explicit focus on marine systems (e.g., Drake et al. 1989; Mooney et al. 2005). Over the last 25 years, however, a significant volume of work has been established that clearly identifies the global scale of marine bioinvasions (e.g., Carlton 1996, 2001; Hewitt et al. 1999; Hewitt 2003; Ruiz et al. 2000), with the development of theoretical frameworks that underpin explicit calls for research (e.g., Vermeij 1996; Carlton 2001; Byers et al. 2002; Ruiz and Hewitt 2002).

Keywords

Ballast Water International Maritime Organization Invasive Aquatic Species International Plant Protection Convention Marine Environmental Protection Committee 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. AFS (2001) International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-Fouling Systems on Ships, International Maritime Organization, London, United Kingdom.<www.imo.org>accessed 30 January 2006Google Scholar
  2. APEC (2002) First Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Ocean-related Ministerial Meeting, Seoul, Korea, 22 – 26 April, 2002.<www.apec.org/apec/ministerial_statements/sectoral_ministerial/ocean-related/ocean-related.html>accessed 30 January 2006Google Scholar
  3. APEC (2005) APEC Senior Officials ' Report on Economic and Technical Cooperation 2005.<www.apec.org>accessed 30 January 2006Google Scholar
  4. Bax NJ (1999) Eradicating a dreissenid from Australia. Dreissena! 10:1 – 5Google Scholar
  5. Biosecurity Council (2003) Tiakina Aotearoa — Protect New Zealand: the biosecurity strategy for New Zealand. Wellington, New Zealand, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. 63p.<www.maf.govt.nz/biosecurity-strategy>accessed 30 January 2006Google Scholar
  6. Bolch CJS, de Salas MF (2007) A review of the molecular evidence for ballast water introduction of the toxic dinoflagellatesGymnodinium catenatumand theAlexandrium “ tamarensecomplex” to Australia. Harmful Algae 6:465 – 485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. BWM (2005) International Convention on the Control and Management of Ship ' s Ballast Water and Sediments, International Maritime Organization, London, United Kingdom.<www.imo.org>accessed 30 January 2006Google Scholar
  8. Byers JE, Reichard S, Randall JM, Parker IM, Smith CS, Lonsdale WM, Atkinson IAE, Seastedt TR, Williamson M, Chornesky E, Hayes F (2002) Directing research to reduce the impacts of non-indigenous species. Conserv Biol 16:630 – 640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carlton JT (1996) Pattern, process, and prediction in marine invasion ecology. Biol Conserv 78:97 – 106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carlton JT (2001) Introduced species in U.S. coastal waters: environmental impacts and management priorities. Arlington, Virginia, USA, Pew Oceans Commission, p 28Google Scholar
  11. Carlton JT, Ruiz GM (2004) The magnitude and consequences of bioinvasions in marine ecosystems: implication for conservation biology. In: Norse EA, Crowder LB (eds) Marine conservation biology: the science of maintaining the sea ' s biodiversity. Island Press, Washington, USA, pp 123 – 148Google Scholar
  12. CEP VIII (2005) Report of the Committee for Environmental Protection, CEP VIII, Stockholm, Sweden, June 2005.<www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/5430>, accessed 30, January 2006Google Scholar
  13. Cohen AN, Carlton JT (1998) Accelerating invasion rate in a highly invaded estuary. Science 279:555 – 558PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. CBD (1992) Convention on Biological Diversity, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.<www.cbd.org>accessed 30 January 2006Google Scholar
  15. Convention on Wetlands (1971) Ramsar Convention, Tehran, Iran.<www.ramsar.org>accessed 30 January 2006Google Scholar
  16. Drake JA, Mooney HA, di Castri F, Groves RH, Kruger FJ, Rejmanek M, Williamson M (eds) (1989) SCOPE 37. Biological invasions: a global perspective. Wiley, London, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  17. Elton CS (1958) The ecology of invasions by animals and plants. Methuen, London, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  18. FAO (1995) Code of conduct for responsible fisheries. Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome, Italy.<www.fao.org>accessed 30 January 2006Google Scholar
  19. FAO (1996) Precautionary approach to capture fisheries and species introductions. Elaborated by the technical consultation on the precautionary approach to capture fisheries (including species introductions). FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries, No 2. Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome, Italy.<www.fao.org>accessed 30 January 2006Google Scholar
  20. FAO (1997) Aquaculture development. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries, No 5. Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome, Italy.<www.fao.org>accessed 30 January 2006Google Scholar
  21. Gollasch S (2002) The importance of ship hull fouling as a vector of species introductions into the North Sea. Biofouling 18:105 – 121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grosholz ED, Ruiz GM, Dean CA, Shirley KA, Maron JL, Connors PG (2000) The impacts of a nonindigenous marine predator in a California bay. Ecology 81:1206 – 1224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hallegraeff GM (1993) Review of harmful algal blooms and their apparent global increase. Phycologia 32:79 – 99Google Scholar
  24. Hedley J (2004) The International Plant Protection Convention and invasive species. In: Miller ML, Fabian RN (eds) Harmful invasive species: legal responses. Environmental Law Institute, Washington, DC, USA, pp 185 – 201Google Scholar
  25. Hewitt CL (2003) Marine biosecurity issues in the world oceans: global activities and Australian directions. Ocean Yearbook 17:193 – 212Google Scholar
  26. Hewitt CL, Martin RB (2001) Revised protocols for baseline port surveys for introduced marine species — design considerations, sampling protocols and taxonomic sufficiency. CRIMP Technical Report Number 22. CSIRO Marine Research, Hobart, 46 ppGoogle Scholar
  27. Hewitt CL, Campbell ML, Thresher RE, Martin RB (eds) (1999) The introduced species of Port Phillip Bay, Victoria. Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests Technical Report No. 20. CSIRO Marine Research, HobartGoogle Scholar
  28. Hewitt CL, Willing J, Bauckham A, Cassidy AM, Cox CMS, Jones L, Wotton DM (2004) New Zealand Marine Biosecurity: delivering outcomes in a fluid environment. N Z J Mar Freshwater Res 38:429 – 438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hines AH, Ruiz GM, Chapman JM, Hansen GI, Carlton JT, Foster N, Feder HM (2000) Biological invasions of cold-water coastal ecosystems: ballast-mediated biological introductions in Port Valdez/Prince William Sound, Alaska. Regional Citizen ' s Advisory Committee of Prince William Sound, ValdezGoogle Scholar
  30. ICES (1994) ICES Code of Practice Concerning Introductions and Transfers of Marine Species. International Council for the Exploration of the Seas, Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  31. ICES (2005) ICES Code of Practice on the introductions and transfers of marine organisms. International Council for the Exploration of the Seas, Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  32. IPPC (1951) International Plant Protection Convention. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy.<www.fao.org/Legal/treaties/004s-e.htm>accessed 30 January 2006Google Scholar
  33. Lewis PN, Hewitt CL, Riddle M, McMinn A (2003) Marine introductions in the Southern Ocean: an unrecognised hazard to biodiversity. Mar Pollut Bull 46:213 – 223PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lubchenco JA, Olson M, Brubaker LB, Carpenter SR, Holland MM, Hubbell SP, Levin SA, MacMahon JA, Matson PA, Melillo JM, Mooney HA, Peterson CH, Pulliam HR, Real LA, Regal PJ, Risser PG (1991) The sustainable biosphere initiative: an ecological research agenda. Ecology 72:371 – 412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Miller ML, Fabian RN (eds) (2004) Harmful invasive species: legal responses. Environmental Law Institute, Washington, D.C., USAGoogle Scholar
  36. Mooney HA, Mack RN, McNeely JK, Neville LE, Schei PJ, Waage JK (eds) (2005) SCOPE 63. Invasive alien species — a new synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  37. NANPCA (1990) US National Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990. US Congress, Washington DC.<http://nis.gsmfc.org/pubs/NANPCA.pdf>Google Scholar
  38. Niimi AJ (2004) Environmental and economic factors can increase the risk of exotic species introductions to the Arctic region through increased ballast water discharge. Environ Manag 33(5):712 – 718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. NISC (2001) The national invasive species management plan: meeting the invasive species challenge. National Invasive Species Council, Washington, D.C.<www.invasivespecies.gov>accessed 30 January 2006Google Scholar
  40. OTA (1993) Harmful non-indigenous species in the United States. OTA-F-565. U.S. Congress,Office of Technology Assessment, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 397pp.<www.wws.princeton.edu/ota/ns20/year_f.html>accessed 30 January 2006Google Scholar
  41. PCE (2000) New Zealand under siege: a review of the management of biosecurity risks to the environment. Wellington, New Zealand, Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the EnvironmentGoogle Scholar
  42. Pimentel D (2002) Biological invasions: economic and environmental costs of alien plant, animal, and microbe species. CRC Press, Boca Raton, USAGoogle Scholar
  43. Pimentel D, Lach L, Zuniga R, Morrison D (2000a) Environmental and economic costs of nonin-digenous species in the United States. BioScience 50:53 – 65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pimentel D, McNair S, Janecka J, Wightman J, Simmonds C, O ' Connell C, Wong E, Russell L, Zern J, Aquino T, Tsomondo T (2000b) Economic and environmental threats of alien plant, animal, and microbe invasions. Agric Ecosyst Environ 84:1 – 20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Reiser A, Gray Hudson C, Roady SE (2004) The role of legal regimes in marine conservation. In: Norse EA, Crowder LB (eds) Marine conservation biology: the science of maintaining the sea ' s biodiversity. Island Press, Washington, USA, pp 362 – 374Google Scholar
  46. Ruiz GM, Hewitt CL (2002) Toward understanding patterns of coastal marine invasions: a prospectus. In: Leppäkoski E, Gollasch S, Olenin S (eds.) Invasive aquatic species of Europe — distribution, impact and management. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. pp 529 – 547Google Scholar
  47. Ruiz GM, Fofonoff PW, Carlton JT, Wonham MJ, Hines AH (2000) Invasion of coastal marine communities in North America: apparent patterns, processes, and biases. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 31:481 – 531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schaffelke B, Hewitt CL (2007) Impacts of introduced macroalgae. Bot Mar 50:397 – 417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. UNCLOS (1982) United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. United Nations General Assembly, Montego Bay, Jamaica.<www.un.org/Depts/los/index.htm >, accessed 30 January 2006Google Scholar
  50. UNEP/CBD/COP/8/3 (2005) Report of the subsidiary body on scientific, technical and technological advice on the work of its eleventh meeting. Convention on Biological Diversity, 8th Conference of Parties, Meeting Paper 3, Montreal, Canada.< www.biodiv.org/doc/meetings/ cop/cop-08/official/cop-08-03-en.doc>, accessed 30 January 2006Google Scholar
  51. UNESCO (1972) Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, Paris, France.< unesdoc.unesco.org >, accessed 30 January 2006Google Scholar
  52. Vermeij GJ (1996) An agenda for invasion biology. Biol Conserv 78:3 – 9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Williamson AT, Bax NJ, Gonzalez E, Geeves W (eds) (2002). Development of a regional risk management framework for APEC economies for use in the control and prevention of introduced marine pests. APEC Marine Resource Conservation Working Group, Final Report.<crimp.marine.csiro.au>accessed 30 January 2006Google Scholar
  54. Wotton DM, Hewitt CL (2004) Marine biosecurity post-border management: developing incursion response systems for New Zealand. N Z J Mar Freshwater Res 38:553 – 559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wyatt ASJ, Hewitt CL, Walker DI, Ward TJ (2005) Marine introductions in the Shark Bay World Heritage Property, Western Australia: a preliminary assessment. Divers Distrib 11:33 – 44CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chad L. Hewitt
    • 1
  • Richard A. Everett
  • Naomi Parker
  1. 1.Australian Maritime CollegeLauncestonAustralia

Personalised recommendations