Non-native Species in the Antarctic

PROCEEDINGS

Michelle Rogan-Finnemore Editor

Gateway Antarctica Special Publication Series Number 0801

GATEWAY ANTARCTICA SPECIAL PUBLICATION

University of Canterbury Private Bag 4800

Christchurch, New Zealand www.canterbury.ac.nz

© EDITOR AND CONTRIBUTORS 2008

ISSN 1177-0481 ISBN 978-0-473-13126-5

First published 2008

This book is copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study, research or review, as permitted under the Copyright Act, no part may be reproduced by any process

without the permission of the publisher.

COVER PHOTO BY: Brent Wilson, 2004

Map of the Antarctic continent, the subantarctic islands and the Southern Ocean. The dashed line is the approximate location of the polar front/Antarctic convergence. Data from Antarctic Digital Database (ADD). Cartography by I. Jones, (Gateway Antarctica).

CONTENTS Acknowledgements………………………………………………………..vii Foreward………………..…………………………………………………..ix Introduction………………………………………………………………....xi Contributors Biographies…………………………………………..........xxv

Invasive Alien Species: Global Lessons and Antarctic Implications………………………….......1 Mick Clout & Maj De Poorter Antarctic and Subantarctic Biological Invasions: Sources, Extents, Impacts and Implications..................................…..53 Yves Frenot, Peter Convey, Marc Lebouvier, Steven L. Chown, Jennie Whinam, Patricia M. Selkirk, Mary Skotnicki & Dana M. Bergstrom Non-native Species in Antarctic Terrestrial and Freshwater Environments: Presence, Sources, Impacts and Predictions……......97 Peter Convey Availability and Applicability of Legal Tools for Managing Non-native Species………………………….......................................131 Bill Mansfield & Neil Gilbert Antarctic Quarantine Management: Australia’s Framework and Practice…………………………………...165 Sandra Potter & Tom Maggs Tools for Risk Assessment and Management of Non-native Species…………………………….……………………......183 Sue P. Worner

v

Appendices

1. List of Acronyms………………………………………………..212 2. Text of the Antarctic Treaty 1959………………………….....214 3. Text of the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty 1991..………………………………224 4. List of Workshop Participants…………………………………283 Photography Credits Chris Dolder took the photographs on pages iii (21 December 2004), xxix (22 December 2004) and 210 (25 December 2004); Narelle Baker the photograph on page 209 (24 December 2004); Bex Thomson the photograph on page 211 (23 December 2005) and Linda Lilburne the photograph on page 281 (2004). Used with permission.

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This publication is a result of the Non-native Species in the Antarctic Workshop held at Gateway Antarctica, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, in April 2005. The workshop was made possible with support from many people and organisations. In particular, the convenors would like to thank Antarctica New Zealand, Biosecurity New Zealand, “Happy Feet”, the Antarctic Policy Unit of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs & Trade, the University of Auckland and the University of Canterbury for their support.

A warm thank you to the Hon Jim Anderton who opened the workshop, and to Mick Clout, Yves Frenot, Chad Hewitt, Peter Convey, Bill Mansfield, Tom Maggs, Barry O’Neill, & Maj De Poorter for their presentations at the workshop. We are also grateful to the Working Group Chairs: Group 1 – Alan Hemmings, Group 2 – Tom Maggs, & Group 3 – Polly Penhale and also to those who submitted posters to the workshop.

Also thanks to Ms. Hannah Holder who provided administrative assistance with this publication, to Irfon Jones for production of the map, to Jessica O’Reilly, Catherine Tisch and Adie Fortune who provided assistance at the workshop and to the Graduate Certificate in Antarctic Studies graduates that gave permission to use their photography in this publication.

vii

viii

FOREWARD Invasive non-native species are one of the most significant threats to

the ecological and economic well-being of the planet. Such species

have caused enormous damage to biodiversity and natural agricultural

systems upon which we depend. And the damage can often be

irreversible.

Continuing globalization, with increasing trade, travel, and transport

across borders, has brought tremendous benefits. But it has also

exaggerated the rapid spread of non-native species and the

development of invasiveness by many of them.

Invasive species occur in all major taxonomic groups, and all habitats

and environments can be affected. It is becoming increasingly clear

that the Antarctic region is not immune. Less than 200 years ago no

human had set foot on Antarctica. Today over 40,000 people visit the

continent annually, arriving in a variety of ships and aircraft from

numerous countries around the world. Antarctica is no longer an

isolated and remote continent. This increasing visitation coupled with

a changing, more benign climate in certain parts of Antarctica, mean

that the risks of non-native species invasions are becoming more

significant.

At risk are the loss of natural Antarctic biodiversity, and equally

importantly, the value of Antarctica as a continent for scientific

research.

ix

At present, only a few non-native species are known in Antarctica, but

their very existence needs to set alarm bells ringing. Immediate action

needs to be taken to manage the risks and to put preventative

measures in place. Preventing the importation of invasive alien

species to Antarctica, or at worst, coordinating timely and effective

responses to actual invasions, requires urgent and significant co-

operative effort among Antarctic Treaty Parties, non-governmental

organisations, and international experts.

A variety of response and management mechanisms need to be

considered and developed including, risk assessments, guidelines,

protocols, response plans, awareness-raising opportunities, further

research and accessible databases.

The Non-native Species in Antarctic Workshop, held in Christchurch in

April 2006, was seen as a first step to address this global challenge in

an Antarctic context. We were delighted with the attendance at, and

outcomes to, the workshop which are captured in this publication. We

therefore commend these proceedings to all those with an Antarctic

interest, including Antarctic Treaty Parties and the Committee for

Environmental Protection, and hope that the workshop assists in

stimulating further discussion and action to address this significant

problem.

Maj De Poorter Neil Gilbert Bryan Storey Convenors

x

INTRODUCTION

MAJ DE POORTER, NEIL GILBERT, MICHELLE ROGAN-FINNEMORE & BRYAN STOREY

The natural biogeographical barriers of oceans, mountains, rivers and

deserts have provided the isolation in which species and ecosystems

evolved. Worldwide, these barriers have increasingly lost their

effectiveness as economic globalisation and the resulting trade, travel

& transport contributes to an exponential increase in the intentional or

unintentional movement of organisms from one part of the world to

another (McNeely et al. 2001; Carlton 1999).

We define a non-native species (sometimes called alien species) as a

species that has been introduced to an ecosystem either intentionally

or unintentionally, where introduction is used to indicate the

movement, as a direct or indirect result of human activity, of species

into an area where they are not native. While many introductions of

species into new ecosystems are beneficial to people, providing food,

building materials and other economic benefits, nevertheless,

tremendous damage results from those non-native species that

become detrimental.

In this publication, we use the term invasive non-native species for

non-native species whose introduction and/or spread threaten

biological diversity. Invasive non-native species are one of the most

significant threats to biological diversity on a global scale (McKinney &

Lockwood 1999; Sala et al. 2000; Courchamp et al. 2003). They have

affected native biota in virtually every ecosystem type on earth. The

xi

ecological cost includes the loss of native species and ecosystems,

ecosystem services and livelihoods (OTA 1993; Mack et al. 2000;

McNeely et al. 2001). In view of the significance of the global threat,

several international legal instruments address aspects of non-native

species introductions and the risks of subsequent biological invasion,

including, the Convention on Biological Diversity 1992, the United

Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 and the Ballast Water

Convention 2004 (not yet in force).

Native biodiversity on subantarctic islands has been heavily impacted

by invasive non-native plants and vertebrates (Bonner 1984; Cooper

1995; Chapuis 1995; Frenot et al. 2005). While the Antarctic continent

itself has, so far, escaped the ravages of biological invasion, non-

native organisms, including terrestrial invertebrates and plants, and a

marine crustacea have been found in the Antarctic Treaty region

(Australia 1995; Japan 1996; Olech 1996; Tavares et al. 2004).

The Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) recognised the importance of non-

native species as early as 1964 in the Agreed Measures for the

Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora. The Protocol on

Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty 1991 has not

expanded upon those early provisions and little has been done to

elaborate upon them through practical guidance. Further, the non-

native species provisions of the Protocol are largely aimed at

intentional introductions of non-native species. The need for parties to

address the issue of unintentional introductions is not explicitly stated

in the Protocol, though it can be inferred from a number of its Articles.

For example, Article 4 of Annex II to the Protocol:

xii

prohibits the introduction of non-native species except in

accordance with a permit;

places restrictions on what can be permitted;

provides an exemption for food;

requires that permitted species must be removed or

destroyed;

requires precautions to be taken to prevent the introduction of

microorganisms not present in the native fauna and flora.

Recently, however, a heightened interest has been developed by the

Antarctic Treaty System (ATS). For instance, Working Paper 28

(ATCM XXVIII) on measures to address the unintentional introduction

and spread of non-native biota and disease to the Antarctic Treaty

area noted that no formal assessment had been undertaken of the

risks associated with non-native species in the Antarctic context, and

that increasing visitation and a changing, more benign, climate in

certain parts of the Antarctic is likely to be increasing these risks. The

Committee for Environmental Protection (CEP) has been discussing

the issue and has recently declared this issue of the highest priority.

In this context, a three-day workshop was hosted by Gateway

Antarctica, the Centre for Antarctic Research and Studies at the

University of Canterbury, on “Non-native Species in the Antarctic

Region”, on 10, 11 and 12 April 2006. The Workshop was jointly

convened by Dr. Maj De Poorter (Centre for Biodiversity and

Biosecurity, University of Auckland), Dr. Neil Gilbert (Antarctica New

Zealand) and Professor Bryan Storey (Gateway Antarctica, University

of Canterbury), with Michelle Rogan-Finnemore (Gateway Antarctica,

xiii

University of Canterbury) as Workshop project manager. The

Workshop was attended by 42 people from six countries: Australia,

France, Italy, New Zealand, UK and USA (see Appendix 4 for list of

participants). The final report of the workshop and the individual

powerpoint presentations can be found at www.anta.canterbury.ac.nz.

The aim of the Workshop was to bring together relevant national and

international experts to discuss conservation, management and

research issues relating to the introduction of non-native species in the

Antarctic in order to foster increased understanding and awareness of:

The relevance of non-native species introductions to

conservation of Antarctic environmental and other values;

Pathways for intentional and unintentional introductions of

non-native species;

Best practice and management tools (practical as well as

legal);

Identification of gaps (knowledge, methods, regulatory);

Requirements to address these gaps (including research,

implementation, regulatory, awareness-raising).

The geographic focus of the workshop included all habitats in the

Antarctic region (below 60o South). This was not meant to exclude the

subantarctic region, it was simply a way to focus the discussions to the

Antarctic Treaty area. The scope included comprehensive coverage of

biota, and the emerging issue of diseases; terrestrial and marine

environments; internal (site-to-site) introductions and external (inter-

continental) considerations.

xiv

The workshop highlighted key lessons learned globally and confirmed

the significance of non-native species issues in the Antarctic context.

Based on the presentations and discussions, participants put forward

several conclusions and recommended actions to maximise the

lessons learned worldwide and to improve practical measures to

address the non-native species issue in the Antarctic context. These

are summarised below as workshop outcomes in two headings, those

outcomes in reference to non-native species in a global context, and

those outcomes in reference to non-native species in the Antarctic

context.

Non-native species in the global context

Invasive alien species (IAS) are contributing significantly to a

global biodiversity crisis. For several groups, IAS represent

the second or third major threat to their survival;

In the marine environment, IAS are recognised as the fifth

biggest threat to global marine biodiversity;

Invasive alien species are found in all taxonomic groups and

all ecosystem types are at risk from the impacts of IAS.

Isolated and island ecosystems are particularly at risk due to

the high degree of endemism found in such communities;

Ongoing increases in global trade and travel are causing an

exponential increase in the movement of species outside of

their natural range;

With regards to non-native species, the key lesson from

elsewhere in the world is that in view of the complexity of

ecological effects, non-native species issues need a

xv

preventative and precautionary approach. That is, prevention

of introduction must be a priority and we must consider any

species "guilty until proven innocent";

Key components of management are prevention, surveillance

and rapid response:

• Prevention is the most effective means of avoiding or

minimizing impacts caused by invasive non-native

species;

• Surveillance can be passive (waiting for things to appear

in the native environment) or targeted (an active

programme of identifying potential alien species) - good

baseline data on native fauna and flora present is

required;

• Rapid response requires a quick assessment of the

feasibility, and desirability of eradicating an alien species -

if eradication is not an option then control and/or

containment need to be considered;

To assist with the management of non-native species, a

number of risk assessment tools are continuing to be

developed. However, such tools require adequate data and

are likely to remain inadequate for data poor areas such as

the Antarctic;

A critical component of management is awareness-raising at

multiple levels to multiple audiences (from decision makers at

international and national levels to personnel in the field and

crews on ships). This should include awareness-raising on the

risks posed by non-native species and on the need to prevent

their introduction;

xvi

No non-native species management programme can be 100%

successful. There is a need to focus on the key risks and

pathways, to develop a coordinated approach and to ensure

adequate research and monitoring is in place.

Non-native species in the Antarctic context

IAS have already significantly affected the subantarctic

islands, with around 200 known alien plants and animals

established;

There is a strong correlation between introduced species and

human activity on the subantarctic islands with most alien

species being of European origin;

Introductions of non-native species into the Antarctic resulting

from human activity far outweigh natural dispersal of species;

Whilst Antarctica has natural environmental advantages

(remoteness and a harsh climate), these are not enough to

stop invasive species, pests and diseases and there are

several examples of non-native species occurring in

Antarctica;

Several marine species that are found in Antarctic waters

(notably bryozoans and ascidians) are found elsewhere in the

world. It may not be appropriate to assume that marine

species found in the Antarctic are native;

Increased human activity on the continent also risks

transferring species across natural biogeographic boundaries

with the subsequent breakdown of regional endemism, and

genetic distinctness. Antarctica is one of the few areas of the

xvii

planet where such boundaries and regions still hold. Two

examples of high risk areas are:

• Charcot Island which has no springtails (an otherwise

ubiquitous species) in its terrestrial ecosystem, which

is scientifically highly significant. The introduction of

species to Charcot Island would compromise the

scientific value of the island; and

• Ellsworth Land nunataks which contain the simplest

known multitrophic terrestrial ecosystems on the

planet comprising only tardigrades and rotifers. The

potential for pre-adapted taxa to invade these systems

is high with human activity in the region;

Increased human activity in the Antarctic also means

increased ship and aircraft activity. Aircraft pose particular

risks by reducing the transport time for alien species from

days or weeks to just a few hours (thus increasing the

chances of transport survival). Hull fouling of vessels is likely a

pathway for marine introductions to the Antarctic;

Increased links between Antarctica and the Arctic increases

the potential for introductions of species with survival;

A changing more benign climate, particularly in the Antarctic

increases the risks of alien species establishing themselves;

There is a pressing need for increased and coordinated

survey, monitoring and research across the continent and

Southern Ocean. Good baseline information should be

developed for all taxa and all environments, with special

emphasis on closing the gaps in knowledge on microbes and

on marine environments;

xviii

Antarctic Treaty parties have not ignored the issue of non-

native species, but provisions, have been largely aimed at

intentional introductions of non-native species. The Antarctic

Treaty’s Committee for Environmental Protection (CEP) is well

placed to take action. Consideration could be given to making

non-native species issues a separate agenda item;

All the values in Article 3 of the Protocol need to be protected

from non-native species introductions - the Antarctic requires

the highest standard of protection;

National Antarctic Programmes have demonstrated a mixed

response to the management of non-native species. It will be

important to ensure that practical measures are implemented

consistently among all operators in the Antarctic. In addition to

the consideration of new or additional procedures to address

non-native species, existing procedures, such as

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and protected areas

management should incorporate, as appropriate, components

to address non-native species concerns. Information sharing

should be encouraged and maximised on practices and/or

procedures used. Interagency cooperation will be beneficial;

The principle components of any management programme are

prevention, surveillance and rapid response, with prevention

being the most effective means of minimizing any impact;

Increasing awareness on the risks posed by non-native

species and on the need to prevent their introduction is a key

requirement for successful management.

xix

The Proceedings are a follow up from the Workshop and reflect the

discussions and presentations from April 2005. The CEP continues to

discuss the issue of non-native species in the Antarctic at its annual

meetings.

REFERENCES Australia (1995). Conservation of Antarctic flora and fauna. Working Paper to the 19th Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting. (XIX ATCM / WP 29). Bonner, W.N. (1984). Introduced mammals. In: Laws (ed.) (1984). Antarctic Ecology. Academic Press, London. Vol. 1, pp 237-278. Carlton, J.T. (1999). Invasions in the sea: six centuries of reorganizing the earth’s marine life. In: Sandlund, O.T., Schei, P.J., & Viken, A. (eds.). Invasive Species and Biodiversity Management. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands. pp 195-212. Chapuis, J.L. (1995). Alien mammals in the French Subantarctic islands. In: Dingwall P.R (1995). Progress in Conservation of the Subantarctic Islands. Proceedings of the SCAR/IUCN workshop on Protection, Research and Management of Subantarctic Islands (Paimpont, France, April 1992). IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. pp 127-132. Cooper, J. (1995). Introduced biota at the Subantarctic and cool temperature islands of the Southern Ocean: the issues. In: Dingwall, P.R (1995). Progress in Conservation of the Subantarctic Islands. Proceedings of the SCAR/IUCN workshop on Protection, Research and Management of Subantarctic Islands (Paimpont, France, April 1992) IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. pp 123-126. Courchamp, F., Chapuis, J.-L. & Pascal, M. (2003). Mammal invaders on islands: impact, control and control impact. Biological Reviews 78, 347-383.

xx

Frenot, Y., Chown, S.l., Whinam, J., Selkirk, P.M., Convey, P., Skotnicki, M. & Bergstrom, D.M. (2005). Biological invasions in the Antarctic: extent, impacts and implications. Biological Reviews 80, 45-72. Japan (1996). A grass (seed plant) found in Syowa Station area, East Antarctica. Information paper to the 20th Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting. (XX ATCM / IP-66). Mack, R.N., Simberloff, D., Lonsdale, W.M., Evans, H., Clout, M. & Bazzaz, F. (2000). Biotic Invasions: Causes, Epidemiology, Global Consequences and Control. Issues in Ecology (Spring 2000) 5, 2-20. McKinney, M.L. & Lockwood, J. (1999). Biotic homogenization: a few winners replacing many losers in the next mass extinction. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 14, 450-453. McNeely, J.A., Mooney, H.A., Neville, L.E., Sche, P.J. & Waage, J.K. (eds.) (2001). Global Strategy on Invasive Alien Species Published by IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, on behalf of the Global Invasive Species Programme (GISP). x + 50 pp. Olech, M. (1996). Human impact on terrestrial ecosystems in West Antarctica. NIPR Symposium on Polar Biology, Proceedings. No.9, pp 299-306. Publisher: Tokyo, National Institute of Polar Research, Japan. OTA [U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment] (1993). Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States. OTA-F-565 U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Also available online at: http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~ota/disk1/1993/9325. Sala, O.E., Chapin, F.S., Armesto, J.J., Berlow, E., Bloomfield, J., Dirzo, R., Huber-Sanwald, E., Huenneke, L.F., Jackson, R.B., Kinzig, A., Leemans, R., Lodge, D.M., Mooney, H.A., Oesterheld, M., Poff, N.L., Sykes, M.T., Walker, B.H., Walker, M. & Wall, D.H. (2000). Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287, 1770-1774.

xxi

Tavares, M. & de Melo, G.A.S. (2004). Discovery of the first known benthic invasive species in the Southern Ocean; the North Atlantic spider crab Hyas araneus found in the Antarctic Peninsula. Antarctic Science 16 (2), 129-131.

xxii

xxiii

xxiv

CONTRIBUTORS BIOGRAPHIES Mick Clout is the founding Chair of the Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG) of the World Conservation Union (IUCN). He is Professor and Director of the Centre for Biodiversity and Biosecurity at the University of Auckland and Chair of the Biosecurity Ministerial Advisory Committee. He is a vertebrate ecologist and has published widely on the ecology and conservation of native wildlife and the management of invasive alien species. Through his role as Chair of ISSG, he is involved in a range of international biosecurity initiatives to prevent, eradicate and manage invasive species.

Peter Convey is a polar terrestrial ecologist, and has worked at the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) since 1988. His research interests are wide-ranging, and include the evolution of life history strategies of Antarctic terrestrial biota, climate change and its biological consequences, & historical and contemporary Antarctic biogeography. He has completed twelve summer and one winter seasons in the Antarctic, at locations ranging from subantarctic South Georgia to the inland continental Pensacola Mountains, and two on Arctic Svalbard. He has written or contributed to more than 100 peer-reviewed publications on Antarctic biology.

Maj De Poorter (convenor) is the Chair of the World Conservation Union (IUCN) Antarctic Advisory Committee and the coordinator of the Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG) of IUCN’s Species Survival Commission. She is based at the Centre for Biodiversity and Biosecurity at the University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. She worked with Greenpeace as an Antarctic campaigner from 1984 to 1996, participating in five Greenpeace expeditions. She has personally carried out inspections on more than 35 bases throughout Antarctica checking environmental performance. Dr De Poorter has attended official meetings of the Antarctic Treaty System as an NGO observer since 1986.

Yves Frenot has more than 20 years experience in the terrestrial ecology of the subantarctic islands. His PhD was conducted on the soil characteristics and the earthworm fauna of Ile de la Possession, Crozet Islands. After his PhD his field of research moved to the colonisation processes on the glacier forelands at Kerguelen Islands.

xxv

More recently his research has focused on the impact of climate change and human activities on subantarctic biodiversity. This work was carried out under the umbrella of the SCAR RiSCC programme. He is currently Deputy-Director of the French Polar Institute (IPEV) and, in 2005, he was elected vice-chair of the Committee for Environmental Protection (CEP).

Neil Gilbert (convenor) has worked on polar matters for the last 22 years. In 1985 he joined the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) as a research scientist completing his PhD on near-shore marine ecology in 1991. For the field component of his research, he spent 2.5 years living and working at the BAS’s Signy Island research station. Between 1991 and 1994, Neil continued his association with Signy as permanent Base Commander for the station. In 1997 he was appointed to the position of Deputy Head of the Polar Regions Unit in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. In that capacity, he represented the UK at meetings of the Antarctic Treaty and its Committee on Environmental Protection (CEP). In 2003, he immigrated to New Zealand joining Antarctica New Zealand as Environmental Manager. In this capacity he has continued to attend meetings of the CEP as New Zealand’s representative. In 2006 he was elected to the Chair of the Committee.

Tom Maggs has been with the Australian Antarctic Division (AAD) since 1979, wintering twice at Mawson Station and at Casey as Station Leader in 1988. He is currently the Manager of Environmental Policy and Protection at the AAD, a position he has held since 1996. He is also the Australian contact point for the Committee for Environmental Protection (CEP).

Bill Mansfield is a former head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Legal Division, Deputy Secretary of Justice and Director-General of the Department of Conservation. He is now a barrister and international legal consultant with a particular interest in public international law, international environmental law and law of the sea. In that capacity he has appeared as counsel for New Zealand before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, served a term as a member of the International Law Commission and also as a Director of the New Zealand Antarctic Institute (ANTNZ) and is currently the independent Chair of the International Consultations on the Establishment of the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation.

xxvi

Sandra Potter is with the Australian Antarctic Division, heading the team responsible for the administration of the Australian Antarctic Territory. She is also a researcher with the School of Geography and Environmental Studies at the University of Tasmania, a member of a working group providing technical advice to the Tasmanian Government on biosecurity issues, and on a panel of experts advising industry on quarantine management in the context of sites of high conservation value.

Michelle Rogan-Finnemore is the Manager of Gateway Antarctica, the Centre for Antarctic Studies and Research at the University of Canterbury. She also teaches in the College of Science and the School of Law at the university with a focus of her research interest on the legal implications of bioprospecting in the Antarctic. She is the current Chair of Antarctic Link Canterbury (ALC) and the Editor of the New Zealand Antarctic Society’s Antarctic journal.

Bryan Storey (convenor) is Professor in Antarctic Studies and Director of Gateway Antarctica, the Centre for Antarctic Studies and Research at the University of Canterbury. Bryan worked for the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) for 25 years before taking on the role of Director of Gateway Antarctica. He is currently the Chair of the New Zealand University Antarctic Alliance (NZUAA), Secretary of the SCAR Standing Scientific Group on Geosciences (SSG – GS), and is a Polar Medal recipient.

Sue Worner is a senior lecturer and researcher at Lincoln University and a project leader in the biosecurity theme of the Bio-Protection Centre, a Centre of Research Excellence (CoRE) hosted by Lincoln University. Her experience is in ecological data analysis and modelling, particularly modelling climatic and other influences on invasive insect populations to predict potential distribution, abundance and spread. This work has resulted in many invited international conference presentations and international publications. Dr Worner currently leads, or is involved in, several international projects in Biosecurity research.

xxvii

xxviii

xxix

xxx

INVASIVE ALIEN SPECIES: GLOBAL LESSONS AND ANTARCTIC

IMPLICATIONS

MICK CLOUT 1,2 AND MAJ DE POORTER1,2

INTRODUCTION: INVASIVE ALIEN SPECIES—A GLOBAL ISSUE

The natural biogeographical barriers of oceans, mountains, rivers and

deserts provided the isolation in which species and ecosystems

evolved. Increasingly these barriers have lost their effectiveness – as

economic globalisation has resulted in an exponential increase in the

movement of organisms from one part of the world to another.

(McNeely et al. 2001; Carlton 1999). Pathways for intentional

introductions of alien (non-native = introduced) species3 include

forestry, agriculture, horticulture, aquaculture, erosion control, aid

programmes, pet trade, gardening, research etc. In many instances,

however, introductions are unintentional: such as contamination of

seeds or other agricultural produce, pests on plants, timber products,

organisms inside ships (ballast water) or on the outside of ships (hull

fouling), “hitchhikers” in containers, construction equipment or

luggage, organisms in soil of dirty shoes, tenting or hiking equipment,

etc (see e.g. Wittenberg & Cock 2001; Shine et al. 2000). 1 Centre for Biodiversity and Biosecurity, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. Corresponding author: De Poorter, M. (m.depoorter@auckland.ac.nz) 2 Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG) of the Species Survival Commission (SSC) of IUCN – the World Conservation Union. Also see Appendix B at end of paper. 3 For further definitions of terminology see Appendix A at end of paper and the Introduction section of this volume.

While many of the deliberate movements of species into new

ecosystems are beneficial to people, providing food, building materials

and other economic benefits, nevertheless tremendous damage

results from alien species that become detrimental. The IUCN World

Conservation Union defines an alien species as a “species,

subspecies, or lower taxon occurring outside of its natural range (past

or present) and dispersal potential (i.e. outside the range it occupies

naturally or could not occupy without direct or indirect introduction or

care by humans) and includes any part, gametes or propagule of such

species that might survive and subsequently reproduce.” An “Invasive

Alien Species” (IAS) is defined as an “alien species which becomes

established in natural or semi-natural ecosystems or habitat, is an

agent of change, and threatens native biological diversity” (IUCN

2000).

IAS are found in all taxonomic groups: they include introduced viruses,

pathogens and other micro-organisms, fungi, algae, mosses, ferns,

higher plants, invertebrates including insects, molluscs and

crustaceans, bryozoans, fish, seaweeds, amphibians, reptiles, birds

and mammals (e.g. Lowe et al. 2000; UNEP 2001; and see

www.issg.org/database). IAS have invaded and affected terrestrial,

freshwater and marine ecosystems from deserts to forests, lakes,

wetlands, grasslands, estuaries, rocky shores or coral reefs, to name

only a few. Virtually every ecosystem type in almost any region in the

world has been affected to some extent (UNEP 2001; Matthews &

Brand 2004; Matthews 2004, 2005).

2

Biological invasions are now considered one of the main factors in

biodiversity loss and endangered species listings worldwide (OTA

1993), and almost certainly the worst factor in biodiversity loss on

islands (Clout 1999; Clout & Lowe 2000). In the marine environment,

IAS has been rated as one of the four greatest threats to the world’s

oceans. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment confirms it as a main

driver of biodiversity loss over the last 50 to 100 years, globally, and

the trend in the impact is estimated to continue or increase in all

biomes (UNEP 2005a, 2005b). The ecological cost includes the loss of

native species and ecosystems, ecosystem services and livelihoods

(OTA 1993; Mack et al. 2000; McNeely et al. 2001).

It should be noted that “alien” refers to ecological boundaries, rather

than political ones. Within a country for instance, a species can be

native in one part, but alien and even invasive, in another part of the

same country if it has been moved across a biogeographical boundary

(e.g. from mainland to island, from one watershed to another, across a

mountain range, or, in case of the Antarctic for instance, across a vast

ice sheet from one nunatak region to another).

ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS FROM INVASIVE ALIEN SPECIES

Invasive alien species and the Red List: global extinctions and threats

The Global Species Assessment (based on the 2004 IUCN Red List)

contains information on extinctions and “extinctions in the wild” since

3

1500 AD. For birds, relatively good data exists indicating that invasive

species are being associated with the extinction of at least 65 species.

Predation by introduced rats and cats, and diseases caused by

introduced pathogens have been, overall, the most deadly contributing

to the extinctions of 30, 20, and ten bird species respectively. For

freshwater fish globally, preliminary analysis points to IAS as a

growing threat, having contributed to over 50% of species extinctions

(Baillie et al. 2004). For invertebrates, Baillie et al. 2004 contains an

illustrative case study: seventy-two percent of the Partula snail species

native to the Society Islands (French Polynesia) are now extinct since

the 1970s as a result of the introduction of the predatory wolf snail

(Euglandina rosea).

Amphibian species have been reported as declining since the 1970s,

and in many of them, the fungal disease chytridiomycosis is

implicated. Moreover, eight out of nine recorded amphibian extinctions

since 1980, as well as many of the more than 100 possible extinctions,

are also thought to be the result of this fungal disease, probably

operating in conjunction with climate change (Baillie et al. 2004). Not

only is the pathogen itself an IAS (Weldon et al. 2004), but its spread

across the globe is facilitated by vectors that are invasive alien

amphibians such as the African clawed frog (Xenopus laevis), the

American bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) and cane toad (Bufo marinus)

(www.issg.org/database, De Poorter in press).

In the Global Species Assessment, IAS have been identified as a

major threat faced by globally threatened birds and amphibians,

affecting 30% (326 species) and 11% (212 species) of them. Island

4

species are particularly vulnerable: 67% of oceanic-island globally

threatened birds are affected by IAS (Baillie et al. 2004). IAS are also

generally accepted to be one of the major issues in the conservation of

freshwater ecosystems, and the very high value of freshwater

ecosystems that are still free of alien species has been highlighted

(Saunders et al. 2002).

Impacts of invasive alien species on populations, species and ecosystem functioning

There is a growing body of literature on the epidemiology of biological

invasions, their impacts on populations, species, communities and

ecosystem functioning, and interactions with other factors of global

change (see e.g. Mack et al. 2000; McNeely et al. 2001; Macdonald et

al. 1989; Mooney & Hobbs 2000; UNEP 2001).

At the level of populations, impacts can be categorised into:

• Predation: for instance, by feral cats, rats and even mice

which has depleted or extirpated breeding populations of

seabirds or endemic land birds (Figures 1 and 2) in a variety

of locations spread over the world (e.g. Tershy et al. 2002;

Cooper & Glass 2006).

• Herbivory: for instance, by goats and rabbits which have been

responsible for damage to native plants through grazing or

browsing, including extinctions of endemic plants (Figure 3).

• Competition: for resources such as light, nutrients, prey, space

and niches within a habitat. The North American grey squirrel

(Sciurus carolinensis), for instance, is replacing the native red

5

squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris) in Britain by more efficient foraging,

and threatens to do so eventually on the European continent

(Genovesi & Bertolino 2001). In New Zealand, two alien

invasive wasp species successfully outcompete the

threatened parrot, the Kaka (Nestor meridionalis

septentrionalis) during the autumn peak of wasp density, by

using up to 95% of the honeydew produced by native scale

insects in the southern beech forests (Beggs 2001).

• Pathogens: Disease causing organisms (and/or their vectors)

can have significant impacts on plants as well as animals. For

example, the chestnut blight fungus (Cryphonectria parasitica)

arrived in the USA (on nursery stock) early in the 20th century

and within a few decades it had spread throughout the eastern

third of the USA destroying almost all American chestnuts

(Castanea dentata) within its native range (Macdonald & van

Wilgen 2002). Avian malaria was introduced to Hawaii in

exotic birds kept by settlers; with the introduction of the

southern house mosquito (Culex quiquefasciatus) in water

barrels of a sailing ship in 1826, it acquired a vector and has

since contributed to the extinction of at least ten native

Hawaiian birds and threats to many more (Lowe et al. 2000).

• Hybridisation of alien species with native species:

hybridisation with alien mallards threatens the existence – at

least as distinct species – of the New Zealand grey duck

(Anas superciliosa superciliosa) as well as the Hawaiian duck

(Anas wyvilliana) (Lever 2005).

6

Of course, these impact types are not mutually exclusive, and in

addition, effects at species level will have ramifications at the

community and ecosystem levels. Some authors consider the biggest

ecological threat posed by IAS to be the disruption of entire

ecosystems, often by invasive plants. Such biological invasion by

plants can result in dense stands excluding or smothering other

vegetation (Figure 4), lowering of water tables, changing fire regimes,

increasing nitrogen in soils, etc. Such changes can, in turn, favour

even more alien invasive plants (see Mack et al. 2000 for examples).

Impacts on native species, communities and ecosystems, are likely to

directly or indirectly impact on livelihoods (and poverty alleviation)

through affecting ecosystem services, sustainable use of biodiversity or

other values (Figure 5).

A complicating factor is that direct and/or indirect impacts on

biodiversity or ecosystem functioning, caused by IAS, are often more

complex and more surprising than the impacts of agricultural weeds on

crops. For instance, in the South African St. Lucia protected area,

Chromolaena odorata, an invasive plant, has been linked to Nile

crocodiles’ sex ratio changes (Leslie & Spotila 2001). In the New

Zealand subantarctic Enderby Island, not only did feral cows (Bos

taurus) adapt to seaweed as part of their diet, but introduced rabbits

(Oryctolagus cuniculus cuniculus) became a threat to the endangered

Hooker’s sea lion (Phocarctos hookeri). Possibly up to 10% of

Hooker’s sea lion pups had died annually by being trapped and

suffocated in rabbit burrows (Torr 2002) (Figure 6). Invasion by an

alien species facilitates and accelerates further invasion by other

species. The combination of indirect and secondary effects and

7

facilitation of further invasion by other aliens can sometimes reach a

level where “invasional meltdown” is triggered (Box 1).

Box 1 An example of “invasional meltdown” Alien crazy ants, Anoplolepis gracilipes, have formed extensive super colonies on Christmas Island (Australia) since the mid-1990s, most of them in the Christmas Island National Park. Red crabs (Gecarcoidea natalis) are very vulnerable, and mortality has been high. This has had further consequences for the dynamics and structure of the native forest, including changes in seedling recruitment, seedling species composition, litter breakdown and density of litter invertebrates. Due to the crab’s migratory nature, effects also occur in areas not (yet) invaded by the crazy ant. In addition, mutualism between the crazy ant and a scale insect and facilitation of invasion into native rainforest by the giant African land snail (Achatina fulicata), woody alien weeds and alien cockroaches (Green et al. 2001), has vastly increased scope and complexity of impacts – leading to invasional meltdown.

It is not always possible to clearly prove IAS impact on biodiversity –

often the resources are not available to carry out research and

baselines are often not known. Demonstration of environmental

impacts can be difficult because of the complexity of ecosystems. In

many cases it may not be feasible to quantitatively determine indirect

or cumulative impacts, and even direct biodiversity impacts may be

hard to quantify, especially in the case of impacts on plant species,

which often do not lead to species extinction, but rather to ecological

dysfunction. Rather than being unimportant, such hard to measure

effects can be pervading and insidious.

8

Figure 1 One of many cat-killed Xantus's murrelets (Synthliboramphus hypoleucus) in north-west Mexico. Photo: Island Conservation.

9

Figure 2 Tristan albatross on Gough Island, severely wounded after being attacked nightly by house mice; it died soon after. Photo: Ross Wanless, © Angel/Wanless, reproduced with permission.

10

Figure 3 Herbivory by introduced goats, Galápagos archipelago. Photo: Josh Donlan.

11

Figure 4 Invasive merremia vine (Merremia peltata) in the village of Fagaitua, American Samoa. Photo: Tavita Togia.

12

Figure 5 Livelihood impacts by water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), Uganda. Photo: Fen Beed, © International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), reproduced with permission.

13

Figure 6 Feral cows (main photo) and introduced rabbits (inset) on the New Zealand subantarctic Enderby Island (now both eradicated). Photos: Pete McClelland.

14

Likely future trends?

general, globalisation will increase the risks for biological invasions.

he number of visitors to an area has been shown to be associated

ATTERN OF INVASION

ost alien species do not trigger new biological invasions. Invasion is

In

Increasing volume of trade, travel and tourism has led to more species

than ever before being moved around the world, on land, in the air and

by sea. A billion tons of ballast water per year with at least 10,000

species per day in the ballast water is being transported around the

world (Carlton 1999).

T

with the numbers of IAS (e.g. see MacDonald et al. (1989) for vascular

plants in South African reserves, and Chown et al. (1998) for

subantarctic islands). Increased numbers of visitors means increased

numbers of introductions of alien species and hence an increased risk

that some of the introduced species will be able to become invasive.

P

M

indeed only one of the possible outcomes of a multi-stage process that

starts when organisms are transported from their native range to a

new ecosystem. Especially with unintentional introductions, first of all,

many will not survive the transport, and if they succeed in reaching a

new site, many, if not most, of the new immigrant organisms are likely

to be destroyed. Some, however, are likely to survive and reproduce.

A fraction of those will establish persistent populations and/or spread,

and a fraction of those will be harmful in natural or semi-natural

15

environments (invasive). Scientists have tried to mathematically

calculate what these proportions may be, but, so far, a general rule

has remained elusive (contra e.g. Williamson 1996).

While there is no general rule that can be applied to estimate the

likelihood that once alien organisms have arrived in a new region they

will result in biological invasion, there is much more agreement on

what the pattern is, in time, for those that do (Figure 7). After

introduction, an alien species may be dormant and show no signs of

being invasive for years or decades, and then, turn invasive rapidly.

For instance, the spread of invasive trees in the Florida Everglades

was delayed until the area became more prone to anthropogenic

disturbance and/or hurricanes (Crooks & Soulé 1999). Even without

any complicating factors, the usual pattern of invasion starts with a lag

phase, during which the alien species is low in abundance and

impacts are not noticeable. The lag phase can be short or last over a

century. Eventually the population reaches a phase where it increases

rapidly – the “explosion phase” – and the impacts usually become very

apparent. Following the explosion phase, the population levels out as

it reaches the carrying capacity. The lag phase of a future invader is

often indistinguishable from the slow rate of spread displayed by alien

non-invasive species in a new range, and this makes it particularly

challenging to identify future invaders during this phase when they can

be relatively easily eradicated (Mack et al. 2000). By the time that

impacts are noticeable, the invasion has usually reached a stage

where management is very difficult and/or very costly. For this reason,

effective and efficient protection of biodiversity against impacts from

invasive species means that management action needs to be taken

16

before invasiveness is noticeable in an alien species – and so the

crucial question is how to predict which alien species are likely to

become problems and which would remain innocuous if they are

introduced.

WHAT ECOSYSTEMS ARE AT RISK FROM INVASIVE ALIEN

cological communities all over the planet have been invaded to a

s a general rule, disturbance increases the risks of biological

SPECIES?

E

greater or lesser degree (UNEP 2005a, 2005b; UNEP 2001). But the

question arises whether remoteness, relative undisturbedness or a

harsh polar climate would convey sufficient protection against

biological invasion in the Antarctic.

A

invasion, but undisturbed habitats, ecosystems or sites are not

necessarily safe from biological invasion. For example, the relatively

undisturbed New Zealand South Island Nothofagus forest has suffered

severe alteration of its ecosystem processes, as a result of the

combined effect of alien Vespulid wasps (which colonised in the

1970s) and other IAS (Clout & Lowe 2000; Beggs 2001). In the oak

woods of Killarney, Ireland, the replacement of Ilex by Rhododendron

is another example of the successful invasion of an undisturbed

community by an alien species (Usher 1988). Usher bluntly states:

“The concept of invasion of undisturbed communities being rare is no

longer tenable. Either this is because undisturbed communities are not

resistant to invasion, or it is incorrect because all communities on this

17

planet are now disturbed, at least slightly. The reason is unimportant

since nearly all areas of the planet have invasive species” (Usher

1988).

Being far away from the main centres of civilisation is no protection

ittermeier et al. (2003) analysed 24 wilderness areas – each larger

igh latitude is no impediment to biological invasion either, as

against biological invasion either. For instance, Stirling Range National

Park in Australia contains a number of isolated mountain peaks which

are biodiversity hotspots containing 1,517 plant species, some being

endemics with narrow ecological ranges. The main threat to the alpine

floral communities in this park is a plant disease caused by the

introduced pathogen Phytophthora cinnamomi, also known as dieback

disease. It appears that it is spread by transport of infected soil, mainly

by foot access (Watson & Barret 2003).

M

than one million hectares, more than 70% intact and with human

densities of less than, or equal to, five people per km2. All continents

(except Antarctica) were included. Their analysis found IAS as a threat

in 15 of the 24 wilderness areas, including areas in the tropical humid

forests (2), tropical dry forests (2), temperate forests (5), wetlands (1),

deserts (4) and tundra (1).

H

illustrated by the case of the Red King crab (Paralithodes

camtschaticus), introduced from the North Pacific into the Soviet

Barents Sea. After an initial lag period, this crab has rapidly expanded

westward and northward into Norwegian waters, including North Cape.

Its spread is continuing and some have predicted it may eventually

18

reach Svaldbard. Here, management options are controversial, as

some would like to see management focus on the species’

invasiveness while others want to focus on the species value for

fishing (Jørgense 2006).

In the Southern Ocean, biological invasions of mammals, invertebrates

IGHTING BACK AGAINST INVASIVE ALIEN SPECIES

revention

revention is the first line of defence (see e.g. Wittenberg & Cock

and plants, have been devastating on the subantarctic islands in spite

of their remoteness (see e.g. Sanson & Dingwall 1995; Cooper 1995a,

1995b; Chapuis 1995; Cooper & Glass 2006; Clark & Dingwall 1985;

Poncet 2006; Springer 2006; Torr 2002; Bonner 1984; Frenot et al.

2005).

F

P

P

2001). It is the most cost effective approach to protecting biodiversity

and other values, and, in addition, it is a sine qua non of future

proofing them, especially in the face of global change. Pathogens may

be transferred by tourists in clothing or on boots, seeds of invasive

plants may be brought on construction equipment, animals may be

“hitchhiking” in people's belongings, vessels or vehicles. These

pathways can be addressed through requirements such as boot

cleaning, equipment cleaning, de-ratting certificates before allowing

access to islands, etc. In Stirling Range National Park, prevention

measures now include the provision of boot-cleaning stations

19

designed to reduce the spread of the pathogen via trampers (Watson

& Barret 2003).

Early Detection and Rapid Response

he second line of defence, and high priority, is the early detection of

radication

ven if an IAS has established itself, eradication may still be possible,

eradicated in New Zealand. Successful eradication, however, is not

T

an introduced, potential IAS, allowing for rapid response (e.g.

eradication before numbers have become too big, or the area of

spread too vast). That way, even if a species has arrived and has

survived there, it will not be able to become well established and

spread. Any potential invasion can be "nipped in the bud" – avoiding

impacts on biodiversity and livelihoods, and saving management

resources. Many invasive species may be almost impossible to

manage once they are well established, but they can be successfully

eradicated at this early stage. Figure 8 illustrates the exponential rise

in costs for management of IAS plants, with time since establishment.

While this particular graph referred to plant invasives in the New

Zealand Conservation estate (Timmins 2002), the same principle

applies more generally to taxa anywhere.

E

E

especially on islands where the bulk of successful eradication of

introduced vertebrates has been carried out (see e.g. Clout & Russell

2006; Tershy et al. 2002; Genovesi 2005). Figure 9 illustrates the

increasing size of islands from which Norway rats have been

20

Figure 7 Usual pattern of biological invasion.

Popu

latio

n si

ze o

f IA

S

Invasiveness not easy to notice – but easy to fight

Invasiveness easy to notice – but hard to fight

Time

21

e since establishment of S plant. (Based on weed management in the New Zealand

ervation estate.) After Timmins 2002.

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

0

0

0

0

$10000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Years since weed lished

Con

trol

cos

ts fast growth

slow

estab Years since establishment (of weed)

Man

agem

ent c

osts

Figure 8 Management costs as function of timIACons

22

bell Island (Clout & Veitch 002).

Figure 9 Increasing size of New Zealand Islands from which Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus) have been eradicated. The diamond symbol represents the recent eradication on Camp2

23

Popu

latio

n si

ze o

f IA

S

Prevention

Eradication or control – range of difficulty and cost

Eradication or control – difficult and costly

Time Introduction

ED & RR

Figure 10 Management options to address invasive alien species (IAS). ED = Early detection; RR = Rapid response.

24

limited to islands, vertebrates, or certain regions – many IAS, including

lants (Mack & Lonsdale 2002; Rejmánek & Pitcairn 2002), insects

enovesi 2005) and marine species (Bax et al. 2002) have been

radicated worldwide.

topic which merits greater attention when planning is that of

cosystem response to eradication of well established populations of

IAS. This can be very complex, especially where sites are affected by

unexpected (and

sometimes unwanted) conseque eradications, such as the

ecological release of invasive plants when an introduced herbivore is

remove r irruptions of prey species after the removal of a predator.

Addres s s to be included in planning and

implem ng eradications (Zavaleta et al. 2001; Zavaleta 2002).

Another challenge with eradications of establish s that

they c uire a significant amount of reso

progra o successfully eradicate coypu (Myocastor coypus) from

East Anglia (UK), for instance, co

(Baker 2006).

and

se it will result in

biodiversity gains), it should be seriously considered, as the financial

and environmental costs will usually be even larger if ongoing control

rather than eradication is used (Genovesi 2005), or if no management

action is taken. Commitment of resources, as well as political and

public support need to be assured, because without them failure is

very likely (Genovesi 2005; Genovesi & Bertolino 2001; Veitch & Clout

p

(G

e

A

e

multiple invaders. Moreover, there may be

nces of

d, o

sing

enti

an req

mme t

uch effects need

ed populations i

urces – the 11 year

st as much as five million Euro

Nevertheless, where eradication is methodologically feasible

desirable from the ecological point of view (becau

25

2002). In many circumstances, especially where large areas and

invasive plants are the issue, eradication will not be possible, and

control will need to be considered instead.

Eradication should never be carried out for the sake of it, but always in

order to obtain specific biodiversity or livelihood gains. The positive

consequences for native biodiversity, and ecosystem restoration

successes resulting from eradications of invasive species are

increasingly well documented (Genovesi 2005; Lorvelec & Pascal

2005; Veitch & Clout 2002; Scalera & Zaghi 2004). Two subantarctic

examples are presented in Box 2.

Box 2 Positive biodiversity outcomes from eradication Subantarctic Case Study One. The rarest duck in the world, the Campbell Island teal (Anas nesiotis) has been classified as critically endangered, and it was almost driven to extinction following the accidental introduction of Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus) to these New Zealand subantarctic islands. In 2001, the New Zealand Department of Conservation successfully coordinated the eradication which cleared the 11,300 hectare island of R. norvegicus. Once the island was rat free, birds were returned from a captive breeding site and it is expected that the Campbell Island teal should spread to occupy its entire former range on the island. Further benefits of the rat eradication project are demonstrated by the recent return of 30 individuals of the Campbell Island snipe (Coenocorypha aucklandica. norv. sp), also endemic to the region. The snipe once lived on Campbell Island, but had recently been restricted to a neighbouring small offshore island. Subantarctic Case Study Two. The eradication of R. norvegicus, from Grass Island in Stromness Bay off South Georgia, was declared a success in 2002. The first South Georgia pipit, one of the most southerly breeding passerines in the world, returned in 2003, followed by the nesting of a pair in 2005-06 (Poncet 2006).

26

Control

Where eradication is not feasible, long-term control or containment

hould be considered. Several strategies for control exist, including the

itical commitment to spend the

sources required over the long term (McNeely et al. 2001). The

again be

le, it is never easy

s

use of biological control agents and integrated pest management

(Wittenberg & Cock 2001), and for weeds (IAS that are plants) manual

eradication, mechanised removal, use of fire and herbicides. No single

method is perfect and each case needs careful planning. As with

eradication, the desired outcome of control should be to achieve gains

for native biodiversity and/or livelihoods. As with eradication, there

needs to be both management and pol

re

benefits for biodiversity and livelihoods can once

demonstrated with a case study of an endangered bird – this one in

the tropics. In 1989 the Kakerori or Rarotonga flycatcher (Pomarea

dimidiata) was one of the world’s rarest birds (29 individuals). The

Takitimu Conservation Area (Rarotonga, Cook Islands) was created

and is now managed by traditional owners of the area. The ship rat

(Rattus rattus) is controlled in the area, and, as a result, in 2002 more

than 250 birds were alive and well and the area is now a flagship for

income-generating activities such as ecotourism (UNDP 2002).

Progression of management options IAS are a form of biological pollution. Unlike other pollution, however,

they are not diluted with time but, on the contrary, expand in numbers,

density and geographic spread – and often exponentially. While

addressing established populations is often possib

27

or cheap. Control requires ongoing efforts and costs. Eradication is

ossible under certain conditions, but often not affordable or feasible.

its native range (including

productive and dispersal mechanisms, tolerance to environmental

p

The key management approach is to apply prevention of new

invasions: first by preventing new introductions of potential IAS, and

second, by implementing early detection and rapid response as a

second line of defence. The progression of management options (and

increasing costs and difficulty) with time since introduction are

illustrated in Figure 10.

Prediction and precaution

A match of climate and habitat may help in predicting invasiveness,

but species are known to expand to other habitat types once outside

their native range. For instance, while the colonisation probability for

alien marine species in its new area is higher when salinity and

temperature are similar to those in their native range, this does not

mean that colonisation and harmfulness are ruled out if those

variables in the “recipient” region do not match the “donor” region

(Gollasch 2007). Moreover, non-native species, over time, may exhibit

evolutionary adaptation to their new environment (Cox 2004; Phillips et

al. 2006).

Characteristics of the species itself in

re

factors, such as shade or salinity, life form or habit, such as climbing

vine or an aquatic species, and adaptive mechanisms, such as the

ability of a plant to fix nitrogen) are not accurate risk predictors for

prevention although they are somewhat more useful for predicting rate

28

and extent of spread if prevention failed and the alien species is

already established. For use in prediction of invasiveness, especially

of a species not yet present, only one factor has a consistently high

correlation with invasiveness: whether or not the species is invasive

elsewhere (Wittenberg & Cock 2001).

The uncertainty surrounding the prediction of invasiveness is

compounded by the ecological complexity of biodiversity impacts,

hich adds additional uncertainty on what the impacts may be to the

cts would be caused. This reinforces the

eed to apply the precautionary principle where any alien species

cant is the issue of alien species in the Antarctic Treaty

rea? This depends on the one hand on how likely alien species are

w

uncertainty on whether impa

n

must be considered "guilty until proven innocent". In other words,

unless there is a reasonable likelihood that an introduction of a

species in an alien ecosystem will be harmless, it should be treated as

likely to be harmful (see Shine et al. 2000 and IUCN 2000 for more

details).

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ALIEN SPECIES ISSUE FOR THE ANTARCTIC TREATY AREA

How signifi

a

likely to “arrive” in the Antarctic Treaty area and on the other hand

whether it would matter if they did. In other words, the questions to be

answered relate to vectors for human-mediated transport of living

organisms (for details on vector science and integrated vector

management see e.g. Carlton & Ruiz 2005) and to the likelihood of

29

organism survival and species developing invasiveness. The

questions we will address here include: What are the vectors that can

bring alien species into the Antarctic? Are there routes followed that

connect the Antarctic recipient area with a donor area that is likely to

contain species that will survive in the Antarctic? Is the “travel time”

long these routes such that survival is likely? If alien organisms arrive

ter and marine debris. In the case of the Antarctic, all of

ese vectors have been found to have potential to transport alien

pecies to the Antarctic Treaty area, (Barnes 2002; Lewis et al. 2003,

005). It needs to be noted that several

terrestrial organisms. Antarctic visitors themselves have been found to

a

in the Antarctic, are they likely to survive? If alien organisms survive in

the Antarctic, would they be (or likely become) harmful to Antarctic

environmental values?

What are the vectors that can bring alien species into the Antarctic? For marine species, a range of vectors exist that can bring alien

species into the Antarctic Treaty area. Vectors include hull fouling,

ballast wa

th

s

2004) even though the relative contributions of each type may still be

nder discussion (Lewis et al. 2u

different actors are associated with these including National Antarctic

Programmes, tourist and fishing companies.

Ships also potentially carry many terrestrial alien organisms on board

in containers as well as in the ship itself. Shipping, cargo operations,

aircraft activities, fresh produce, hydroponic operations, and waste

management practices are all potential pathways for transporting alien

30

carry propagules with them in clothing, luggage and scientific or other

personal equipment. Human contact with wildlife can also transfer

organisms (see e.g. Potter 2006; Fortune 2006; New Zealand 2007;

Hughes 2006).

Invertebrate as well as vertebrate animals, plants or plant seeds can

be transported to the area south of 60°S (Potter 2006; Fortune 2006;

New Zealand 2007; Smith 1996). In fact, Potter states, “the discovery

of two cane toads (Bufo marinus) aboard a polar research and

supply vessel preparing to sail from Tasmania suggests that there

e.”

ollasch 2007). Moreover,

essels may carry out stopovers in the subantarctic before entering

re

are few import [sic.] scenarios that should be dismissed as

inconceivabl

Are there routes followed that connect the Antarctic recipient area with a donor area that is likely to provide species that will survive in the Antarctic? Is the travel time along these routes such that survival is likely?

Transport to the Antarctic is increasing, including an increase via

fishing vessels, research vessels and tourist vessels that also spend

time in the Arctic. Unintentional introductions of Arctic species would

be expected to have higher chances of naturalising and potentially

becoming invasive in Antarctic conditions (G

v

the Antarctic Treaty area, and the potential to pick up organisms there

must also be taken into consideration. This includes species native in

the subantarctic, as well as species that are alien in the subantarctic

and survived there, and possibly even adapted already to harsher

conditions than in their native range.

31

The use of equipment in bipolar research programmes, and the use of

airplanes in the Arctic as well as the Antarctic, also creates additional

routes connecting Arctic species with the Antarctic region. Importantly,

air transport significantly reduces travel times and, as such, increases

e chances that an associated organism is in relatively good condition

ms (Smith 1996). Much more relevant, however,

ere are several examples of individuals of alien species occurring

ed one or more winters at Antarctic

calities (Smith 1996). Unintentional introductions of plants have also

arded in the Schirmacher Oasis

th

upon arrival in the Antarctic region.

Are alien species able to survive in the Antarctic Treaty area?

There are by now many examples of alien species that have survived

inside station buildings, such as in the soil of greenhouses and in

hydroponic syste

th

outside of stations in the Antarctic environment and surviving.

Experimental introductions or “transplant experiments” resulted in

many instances where plants surviv

lo

resulted in survival over one or more winters. These include Poa

trivialis which has survived in Antarctic soils near Syowa Station

(Japan 1996) and Poa annua which has survived over a decade in

Antarctic soils and has increased in density around Arctowski Station

(Olech 1996). P. annua as well as P. spreepratensis were recorded

from several sites in the Antarctic Treaty area in the 1940s, 50s and

60s (Smith 1996), while grasses and other vascular plants of northern

hemisphere origin have been observed recently in (and removed from)

the Larseman Hills (Australia 1995; Potter 2006). Several invertebrate

alien species, including earthworms, mites, fly larvae and adult moths

were found in soils that had been disc

32

(Lewis Smith pers. comm.). In the marine environment, there has been

a record of the North Atlantic spider crab (Hyas araneus) in samples

taken from the northern Antarctic Peninsula region (Tavares & De

Melo 2004). Would alien species be harmfuvalues?

l to Antarctic environmental

ical

vasion that have impacted on biodiversity elsewhere in the world. On

The Antarctic itself has so far escaped the ravages of biolog

in

the marine side, however, a high proportion of alien marine species

that are associated with hull fouling of vessels departing to Antarctica

from ports of call outside the Antarctic such as Hobart have become

invasive in other parts of the world (Lewis et al. 2003), and have

thereby shown that they definitely have the capacity to develop

invasiveness. As far as terrestrial species go, organisms of many alien

taxa have already been found surviving in the Antarctic, and

increasing travel and transport of goods together with shorter transport

times and increasing direct links between Arctic and subantarctic

locations and Antarctica increase the likelihood of invasiveness being

developed by at least some alien species in future. Future changes in

the climate are likely to exacerbate such risk.

In the context of the Antarctic, it must be noted that alien species that

are not impacting native biodiversity and hence are not, strictly

speaking, “invasive alien species” according to the IUCN definition,

nevertheless are a threat to Antarctic values including wilderness

value, existence value, and science value. IUCN has argued that the

threshold at which action must be taken against alien species in the

33

Antarctic should be lower than elsewhere in the world in order to

reflect the full range of Antarctic values (IUCN 2005).

ANTARCTIC TREATY CONSULTATIVE MEETINGS RESPONSE

he Antarctic Treaty System recognised the importance of non-native

n species to biodiversity

general, the Committee of Environmental Protection (CEP) has now

T

species as early as 1964 in the Agreed Measures for the Conservation

of Antarctic Fauna and Flora (Agreed Measures) and the Protocol on

Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty 1991 (Protocol)

maintained those provisions (see Mansfield & Gilbert in this volume for

fuller discussion). These focus on regulating the intentional

introductions of non-native species and do not explicitly state the need

to address the issue of unintentional introductions, although it can be

inferred from a number of provisions such as those relating to the

importation of un-sterilised soil. IUCN has included the issue of

potential threats caused by alien species in the Antarctic Treaty area,

and the need to develop further management to address it, in its

contributions to the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings (ATCMs)

since 1998 (IUCN 1998, 2005, 2006, 2007). With growing

understanding of the potential threats by alie

in

given high priority to this issue.

Specific challenges in dealing with alien species in the Antarctic

context will include:

• All taxa, all vectors, and all actors need to be included in

measures to address the issue. This means that not only the

34

CEP and ATCM but also the Convention on the Conservation

of Antarctic Marine Living Resources 1980 (CCAMLR) will

also need to recognise the importance of addressing this

issue.

cal

invasion and of the need to be precautionary are not equally

amage, biological invasions are now nevertheless

con

species

• Awareness and understanding of the processes of biologi

well understood yet by all Treaty parties, and especially other

actors, such as fishing interests may still lag behind in

understanding of the issue and acceptance of the need to act

in a precautionary way.

• In addition to addressing introductions of alien species into the

Antarctic Treaty area, it is also necessary to deal with

introductions within the Antarctic itself (e.g. from one location

to another). The Antarctic can also be a donor region for

introductions into other parts of the world, and this needs to be

addressed.

• Awareness of the issue, and of the need to take certain

measures, needs to be widespread – effective implementation

can only happen if not only decision makers, but also all

personnel, understand what is required and why.

CONCLUSIONS

While many of the movements of species into new ecosystems do not

result in ecological d

sidered one of the main factors in biodiversity loss and endangered

listings worldwide. Invasive alien species are found in all

35

taxonom

ecosyst

Remote

the thre ological invasion. While no alien species has become

inva e

regularl

travel, c

for inva

position

biologic at have happened elsewhere in the

worl

the key

respons

any alie

APP

Termino

indepen health, and

onservation, and in the key international instruments that address

em, reflecting their different mandates. This glossary explains the

(in the invasive alien species context and/or in the

rotected areas context) in this publication.

ic groups and they have invaded and affected virtually every

em type in almost every region of the world to some extent.

, undisturbed, or very cold areas do not provide immunity to

at of bi

siv yet in the Antarctic Treaty area, alien organisms have

y arrived and survived there, and increasing transport and

oupled with global climate change will increase the chances

siveness, even in the Antarctic. The ATS is in the unique

of being able to take proactive measures and to learn from the

al invasion disasters th

d. The main lessons learned elsewhere are first that prevention is

management option, followed by early detection and rapid

e; and second, that with regards to the risk of invasiveness,

n species must be considered "guilty until proven innocent".

ENDIX A: GLOSSARY

logy relating to invasive alien species (IAS) has developed

dently in different sectors such as agriculture,

c

th

terminology used

p

Invasive alien species (IAS): in the context of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), invasive alien species means an "alien species whose introduction and/or spread threaten biological diversity", whereas IUCN defines them as: “an alien species which

36

becomes established in natural or semi-natural ecosystems or habitat, is an agent of change, and threatens native biological diversity”. For operational reasons, conservation managers and practitioners will often express invasiveness in terms of impacts caused, in the case on animal IAS, and in terms of establishment, spread and (sometimes) abundance for IAS that are plants. Alien species: a species, subspecies or lower taxon, introduced outside its natural past or present distribution; includes any part, gametes, seeds, eggs, or propagules of such species that might survive and subsequently reproduce (CBD 2002). Synonym to “non-native species” which is the terminology used in the Antarctic Treaty System. Control: a specific type of IAS management, reducing the density or distribution (or both) of an IAS population to below a pre-set acceptable threshold. Early detection: a specific type of IAS management, using surveys, fortuitous detection etc., to find and identify known or potential futuinvasive alien species as early as possible; the aim is to allow for rapid

re

sponse.

radication: a specific type of IAS management, namely the lation of an alien species in a managed

rea, eliminating the IAS completely.

try from a location where same country where it is

ot native, or the movement can be between countries (or even

re Eextirpation of the entire popua Establishment: the process of a species in a new habitat successfully reproducing at a level sufficient to ensure continued survival without infusion of new genetic material from outside the system. Introduction: the movement, by human agency, of a species, subspecies or lower taxon outside its natural range (past or present). The CBD and IUCN use similar concepts (CBD 2002, IUCN 2000) This movement can be either within a counthe species is native to a location within thencontinents). Management (of IAS): includes prevention, early detection, rapid response, eradication, control and mitigation.

37

Prevention: particular type of IAS management. It refers to the keeping IAS out of particular sites (or out of specific locations within a site), at country level, keeping IAS out of a country (e.g. through import restrictions, border control etc). Prevention includes: 1) the prevention of intentional introductions of any alien species unless they have been

etermined to be acceptable (e.g. through risk assessment), and

cies at an early stage, before they are established and/or idely spread.

g an estimate of the nature and magnitude of otential impacts, and a judgement of their significance. Note: the aim

consider an invasive alien species as a threat either when n impact has been identified or otherwise observed, or when a

so result from risk-pecies not present yet but likely to be introduced in future.

PPENDIX B: ISSG INFORMATION

d2) the minimisation of unintentional introductions of alien species (See IUCN 2000; Shine et al. 2001) Rapid response: a particular type of IAS management, consisting of a systematic effort to eradicate, or control invasive or potentially invasive alien spew Risk assessment: evaluation of the likelihood of invasiveness for an alien species, includinpof such assessment is not to produce an ecological model, but simply to support management decisions. Threat: wearelevant risk has been determined through risk assessment; Future threats result from species already present that, while not invasive yet, will likely become so in future; future threats als

A

The Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG) is a specialist group of the Species Survival Commission (SSC) of the World Conservation Union (IUCN). The goals of ISSG are to reduce threats to natural ecosystems and the native species they contain by increasing awareness of alien invasions and of ways to prevent, control or eradicate them.

38

The IUCN “Guidelines for the Prevention of Biodiversity Loss caused by Alien Invasive species” can be accessed on line English: http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/pubs/policy/invasivesEng.htm Spanish:http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/pubs/policy/invasivesSp.htm French: http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/pubs/policy/invasivesFr.htm Objectives of these guidelines include: • to increase awareness of alien invasive species as a major issue

affecting native biodiversity in all regions of the world. • to encourage prevention of alien invasive species introductions as

a priority issue requiring national and international action. • to minimise the number of unintentional introductions of alien

species • to prevent unauthorised introductions of alien species. • to encourage the development and implementation of management

action to address alien species that naturalised (and/or established and/or spread) and that have detrimental environmental effects

The Global Invasive Species Database (GISD) (www.issg.org/database) is a free, online public resource of authoritative information about Invasive Alien Species (IAS). The GISD aims to increase public awareness about invasives and to facilitate effective prevention and management activities by disseminating specialist’s knowledge and ex-perience globally. It receives 75,000 hits (1100 unique visitors) per day. At this point in time it contains information on the ecology, impacts, distribution and pathways of more than 430 IAS, along with the contact details of experts that can offer further advice, and most importantly, information on prevention and management options. Location- specific records for the subantarctic are already included to some extent and can be searched. Aliens-L Listserver: IUCN administers the globally active Aliens-L list server. Listservers offer an important contribution to empowerment and “horizontal” information transfer (practitioners helping each other). Moreover, they have great flexibility and are able to deal quickly with time-critical issues. Aliens Newsletter: bi-annual newsletter of the Invasive Species Specialist Group. Its role is to put researchers, managers and/or practitioners in contact with each other and to publish information and news of invasive alien species and issues. Contributions focus on

39

conservation and livelihood issues rather than economic, health or agricultural aspects of alien invasions. The Global Register of Invasive Species (GRIS) aims to identify all invasive species that negatively impact biodiversity by accessing and analysing checklists generated by national and regional collection an observation databanks around the world, as well as information not form source of ally published elsewhere. Access to the originalinformation, along with metadata will be provided. A prototype version has been developed and presented in July 2007. Glo sive Species Information Network (GISIN): bal Inva The development of GISIN will provide a platform through which IAS information from hundreds of databases and web sites can be ac essed (http://invasivespecies.nbii.gov/gisin.html). Tools being cdeveloped for GISIN include a model invasive species database that will be offered at no cost to users. ISSG’s contributions to developmentof the GISIN, such the IAS profile schema currently being developed, are based on expertise gained in the development of the Global Invasive Species Database. This ensures future compatibility of all GISD records with GISIN. For further information, see www.issg.org or contact: issg@auckland.ac.nz

CKNOWLEDGEMENTS A

This paper is based on two presentations presented by the authors at

the workshop. We wish to thank the organisers, hosts and sponsors of

his workshop, ant d acknowledge the discussions of workshop

participants as one of the additional sources of inspiration for this

present publication. We thank Carola Warner for assisting with

illustrations and for proofreading.

40

REFERENCES

Australia (1995). Conservation of Antarctic flora and fauna. Working Paper to the 19th Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting. (XIX ATCM / WP 29)

Australia (2005). Measures to address the unintentional introduction and spread of non-native biota and disease to the Antarctic Treaty Area. Working Paper to the 28th Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting.

Control of Biological Invasion Risks. Sellers, Kyoto, Japan and the World

42-147.

arnes, D.K.A. (2002). Human Rubbish Assists Alien Invasions of eas. Directions in Science (2002) 1, 107-112.

ll, A., Parry, D. & Tresher, R. (2002). Man-slands for alien marine organisms:

stablishment and eradication of an alien invasive marine species. In:

(ATCM XXVIII / WP 28)

Baillie, J.E.M., Hilton-Taylor, C. & Stuart, S.N. (eds.) (2004). 2004 IUCN Red list of Threatened Species: A Global Assessment. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. xxiv + 191 pp.

Baker, S. (2006). The eradication of coypus (Myocastor coypus) from Britain: the elements required for a successful campaign. In: Koike, F., Clout, M.N., Kawamichi, M., De Poorter, M. & Iwatsuki, K. (eds.) (2006). Assessment and Published by Shoukadoh Book Conservation Union (IUCN), Gland, Switzerland. pp 1

BS

Bax, N., Hayes, K., Marshamade marinas as sheltered ieVeitch, C.R. & Clout, M.N. (eds.). Turning the tide: the eradication of invasive species. IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. pp 26-39.

Beggs, J.R. (2001). The ecological consequences of social wasps (Vespula spp.) invading an ecosystem that has an abundant carbohydrate resource. Biological Conservation 99, 17-28.

41

Bonner, W.N. (1984). Introduced mammals. In: Laws (ed.) (1984). ntarctic Ecology. Academic Press, London. Vol. 1, pp 237-278.

vasive Species and Biodiversity Management. Kluwer cademic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands. pp 195-212.

oceedings of the SCAR/IUCN workshop on rotection, Research and Management of Subantarctic Islands

hown, S.L., Gremmen, N.J. & Gaston, K.J. (1998). Ecological

tarctica. iscussion document prepared for IUCN’s Commission on National

3 pp.

and environmental hange in New Zealand. In: Mooney H.A. & Hobbs. R.J. (eds.).

lout, M.N. & Russel, J.C. (2006). The eradication of mammals from New Zealand islands. In: Koike, F., Clout, M.N., Kawamichi, M., De

A

Carlton, J.T. (1999). Invasions in the sea: six centuries of reorganizing the earth’s marine life. In: Sandlund, O.T., Schei, P.J., & Viken, A. eds.). In(

A

Chapuis, J.L. (1995). Alien mammals in the French Subantarctic islands. In: Dingwall P.R (1995). Progress in Conservation of the

ubantarctic Islands. PrSP(Paimpont, France, April 1992). IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. pp 127-132.

Cbiogeography of southern ocean islands: species-area relationships, human impact and conservation. The American Naturalist 152(4), 562-575.

Clark, M.R. & Dingwall, P.R. (1985). Conservation of Islands in the outhern Ocean. A review of the protected areas of InsulanS

DParks and Protected Areas. February 1985. Published by IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, U.K. vii + 19

Clout, M. (1999). Biodiversity conservation and the management of invasive animals in New Zealand. In: O.T. Sandlund et al. (eds.). Invasive Species and Biodiversity Management. Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp 349-361.

lout, M.N. & Lowe, S.J. (2000). Invasive species CcInvasive Species in a Changing World. Island Press, Covelo, California, USA. pp 369-384.

C

42

Poorter, M. & Iwatsuki, K. (eds.) (2006). Assessment and Control of Biological Invasion Risks. Published by Shoukadoh Book Sellers,

yoto, Japan and the World Conservation Union (IUCN), Gland,

Veitch, .R. and Clout, M.N. (eds.). Turning the tide: the eradication of

servation of the Subantarctic Islands. roceedings of the SCAR/IUCN workshop on Protection, Research

r, J. (1995b). Introduced island biota: discussion and commendations. In: Dingwall, P.R (1995). Progress in Conservation

ooper, J. & Glass, J. (2006). Eradicating invasive species in the

s and Evolution. Island Press, USA; xii + 377 p.

nd Biodiversity Management. Kluwer cademic Publishers. pp 103-125.

KSwitzerland. pp 127-141.

Clout, M.N. & Veitch, C.R. (2002). Turning the tide of biological invasions: the potential for eradicating invasive species. In: Cinvasive species. IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. pp 1-3.

Cooper, J. (1995a). Introduced biota at the Subantarctic and cool temperature islands of the Southern Ocean: the issues. In: Dingwall, P.R (1995). Progress in ConPand Management of Subantarctic Islands (Paimpont, France, April 1992) IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. pp 123-126.

Coopereof the Subantarctic Islands. Proceedings of the SCAR/IUCN workshop on Protection, Research and Management of Subantarctic Islands (Paimpont, France, April 1992). IUCN, Gland and Cambridge, pp 133-138.

CUnited Kingdom Overseas Territory of Tristan da Cunha. Aliens 23, 1-4.

Cox (2004). Alien Speciep

Crooks, J.A. & Soulé, M.E. (1999). Lag times in population explosions of invasive species: causes and implications. In O.T. Sandlund et al. (eds.), Invasive Species aA

43

De Poorter (in press). Amphibians as Invasive Alien Species. In: Hoffman M., Stuart S. (eds.). Threatened Amphibians of the World. Published by Lynx Ediciones.

De Poorter, M., Gilbert, N., Storey, B., & Rogan-Finnemore, M. (2006).

renot, Y., Chown, S.l., Whinam, J., Selkirk, P.M., Convey, P.,

ve alien species issues: the case of the failure of the grey quirrel eradication project in Italy. In: McNeely, J.A. (ed.) (2001). The

enovesi, P. (2005). Eradication of invasive alien species in Europe: a

ollash, S. (2006). Assessment of the introduction potential of aquatic

orld Conservation Union (IUCN), land, Switzerland. pp 88-91.

Non-native species in the Antarctic. Final report of a workshop held at Gateway Antarctica, University of Canterbury Christchurch, 10-13 April 2006. Available online at: http://www.anta.canterbury.ac.nz/resources.shtml (accessed 20/08/2007).

Fortune, A.L. (2006). Biosecurity at the Extreme: Pathways and Vectors between New Zealand and Scott Base, Antarctica. A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Forestry Science at the School of Forestry, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. x + 90 pp.

FSkotnicki, M. & Bergstrom, D.M. (2005). Biological invasions in the Antarctic: extent, impacts and implications. Biological Reviews 80, 45-72.

Genovesi, P. & Bertolino, S. (2001). Human dimension aspects in vasiin

sGreat Reshuffling: Human Dimensions in Invasive Alien Species. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. pp 113-120.

Greview. Biological Invasions (2005) 7, 127-133.

Gspecies in new environments. In: Koike, F., Clout, M.N., Kawamichi M., De Poorter, M. & Iwatsuki, K. (eds.) (2006). Assessment and Control of Biological Invasion Risks. Published by Shoukadoh Book Sellers, Kyoto, Japan and the WG

44

Green, P.T., O'Dowd, D.J, Lake, P.S. (2001). From resistance to meltdown: secondary invasion of an island forest. In: Ganeshaiah, K.N., Uma Shaanker, R. & Bawa, K.S. (eds.). Proceedings of the

ternational Conference on Tropical Ecosystems. Published by

ction vehicles. Aliens 23, 8-10.

of non-native species in the Antarctic Treaty rea: and increasing problem. Information paper presented to the 22nd

ine at: ttp://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/publications/policy/invasivesEng.htm

en. (ATCM XXVIII / IP-63)

on-native pecies in the Antarctic and the Sub Antarctic. Information paper

aticus – From: Online Database of the orth European and Baltic Network on Invasive Alien Species –

InOxford-IBH, New Delhi, India. pp 451-455.

Hughes, K.A. (2006). Accidental transfer into Antarctica of alien species with soil on constru

IAUCN (1998). Introduction

ATCM, Tromso, Norway. (ATCM XXII / IP-53)

IUCN (2000). IUCN Guidelines for the Prevention of Biodiversity Loss Caused by Alien Invasive Species. Approved by 51st Meeting of the UCN Council, February 2000. Full text available onlIh

IUCN (2005). Introduction of non-native species, parasites and diseases. Information presented by IUCN to the 28th, Stockholm,

wedS

IUCN (2006). Antarctic non-native species: what can we learn from the global situation. Information paper presented by IUCN to the 29th ATCM, Edinburgh, UK. (ATCM XXIX / IP-57) UCN (2007). Prevention and Management of Harmful NI

spresented by IUCN to the 30th Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, New Delhi, India. (ATCM XXX / IP-126)

Japan (1996). A grass (seed plant) found in Syowa Station area, East Antarctica. Information paper to the 20th Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting. (XX ATCM / IP-66)

Jørgensen, L.L. (2006). NOBANIS – Invasive Alien Species Fact heet – Paralithodes camtschS

N

45

NOBANIS. Available online at: www.nobanis.org (accessed 20/08/2007).

Kakabatse, Y. (2000). The Antarctic Protected Areas System: hallenges and Practice. In: Valencia J. 2C

A000. Report of the Second

ntarctic Protected Areas Workshop (Lima, Peru, 22-23 May 1999).

rter M. & Iwatsuki K. ds.). Assessment and Control of Biological Invasion Risks.

e rocodilus niloticus) in Lake St Lucia, South Africa. Biological

s of the World .T & AD Poyser Ltd. & C Black) UK. 352 pp.

nrecognised hazard to

the sub-Antarctic Islands: nous marine organisms.

mith, S.D.A. (2005). Assisted Passage or rnative transport mechanisms for

Published by: Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, Instituto Antártico Chileno, Santiago, Chile (2000). pp 13-18.

Koike, F. (2006). Prediction of range expansion and optimum strategy for spatial control of feral raccoon using a metapopulation model. In: Koike F., Clout M.N., Kawamichi M., De Poo(eShoukado Book sellers, Kyoto, Japan and IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 2006. pp 148-156.

Leslie, A.J. & Spotila, J.R. (2001). Alien plant threatens Nile crocodil(CConservation (2001) 98, 347-355.

Lever, C. (2005). Naturalised Bird(A

Lewis, P.N., Hewitt, C.L., Riddle, M. & McMinn, A. (2003). Marine Introductions in the Southern Ocean: an ubiodiversity. Marine Pollution Bulletin (2003) 46, 213-223.

Lewis, P.N., Riddle, M.J. & Hewitt, C.L. (2004). Management of exogenous threats to Antarctica and

alancing risks from TBT and non-indigebMarine Pollution Bulletin (2004) 49, 999-1005.

Lewis, P.N., Riddle, M.J. & Sassive drift: a comparison of altep

non-indigenous coastal species into the Southern Ocean. Antarctic Science 17(2), 183-191.

46

Lorvelec, O. & Pascal, M. (2005). French attempts to eradicate non-indigeneous mammals and their consequences for native biota.

iological Invasions (2005) 7, 135-140.

ilable online at: ttp://www.issg.org/booklet.pdf (English) and

CN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. pp 64-172.

invasion of nature reserves by troduced species: a global perspective. In: Drake, J.A., Mooney,

n forests in osta Rica, March 2002; Prepared on behalf of the Global Invasive

Species Published by CN, Gland, Switzerland, on behalf of the Global Invasive Species

c Invasions: Causes, Epidemiology, Global onsequences and Control. Issues in Ecology (Spring 2000) 5, 2-20.

B

Lowe, S., Browne, M., Boudjelas, S., De Poorter, M. (2000). 100 of the World’s Worst Invasive Alien Species: A selection from the Global Invasive Species Database, Published by ISSG as special lift-out in Aliens (December 2000) 12, 12 pp. Also avahhttp://www.issg.org/spanish.pdf (Spanish)

Mack, R.N. & Lonsdale, W.M. Eradicating invasive plants: hard won lessons for islands. In: Veitch, C.R. and Clout, M.N. (eds.). Turning the tide: the eradication of invasive species. IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group. IU1

Macdonald, I.A., Loope, L.L., Usher, M.B. & Hamann, O. (1989). Wildlife conservation and the inH.A., di Castri, E., Groves, R.H., Kruger, F.J. and Rejmanek, M. (eds.). Biological invasions: a global perspective. Wiley, Chichester, UK. pp 215-255.

Macdonald, I. & van Wilgen, B. (2002). Invasive alien species: a global threat to forest ecosystems; Background paper for the forest roundtable meeting to be held at the second UN Forum oCSpecies Programme (GISP).

McNeely, J.A., Mooney, H.A., Neville, L.E., Sche, P.J. & Waage, J.K. (eds.) (2001). Global Strategy on Invasive AlienIUProgramme (GISP). x + 50 pp.

Mack, R.N., Simberloff, D., Lonsdale, W.M., Evans, H., Clout, M. & Bazzaz, F. (2000). BiotiC

47

Matthews, S. & Brand, K. (2004). Africa Invaded – the growing danger of invasive alien species. GISP, South African National Biodiversity Institute, Cape Town, South Africa. 80 pp.

d – the growing danger frican National Biodiversity

stitute, Cape Town, South Africa. 80 pp.

ve Meeting. (ATCM XXIX / WP 13)

'Dowd, D., Green, P. & Lake, P. (2001). Invasional meltdown in

lech, M. (1996). Human impact on terrestrial ecosystems in West

Matthews, S. (2004). Tropical Asia invaded – the growing danger of invasive alien species. GISP, South African National Biodiversity Institute, Cape Town, South Africa. 65 pp.

Matthews (ed.) (2005). South America invadef invasive alien species. GISP, South Ao

In

Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., Brooks, T.M., Pilgrim, J.D., Konstant, W.R., da Fonseca, G.A.B., & Kormos, C. (2003). Wilderness and biodiversity conservation PNAS 100(18), 10309-10313.

Mooney, H.A. & Hobbs, R.J. (2000). Invasive Species in a Changing World. Island Press. 457 pp.

New Zealand (2006). Non-native Species in the Antarctic. Report of a Workshop. Working paper presented to the 29th Antarctic Treaty Consultati

New Zealand (2007). Non-native species: Pathways and Vectors between New Zealand and Scott Base, Antarctica. Information paper presented at the 30th Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting. (ATCM XXX / IP-36)

Oisland rainforest. Proceedings of the International Conference on Tropical Ecosystems. Ganeshaiah, K.N., Uma Shaanker, R. & Bawa, K.S. (eds.). Published by Oxford-IBH, New Delhi, India. pp 447-450.

OAntarctica. NIPR Symposium on Polar Biology, Proceedings. No.9, pp 299-306. Publisher: Tokyo, National Institute of Polar Research, Japan.

48

OTA [U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment] (1993). Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States. OTA-F-565 U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Also available nline at: http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~ota/disk1/1993/9325

pp 439-803.

otter, S. (2006). The Quarantine Management o Australia’s Antarctic

ejmánek, M. & Pitcairn, M.J. (2002). When is eradication of exotic

invasive species. IUCN SSC Invasive pecies Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge,

rvation Status of New ealand’s Subantartcic Islands . In: Dingwall P.R (1995). Progress in

calera, R. & Zaghi, D. (2004). LIFE Focus / Alien species and nature

o

Phillips, B.L., Brown, G.P., Webb, J.K. & Shine, R. (2006). Invasion and the evolution of speed in toads. Nature

Poncet, S. (2006). South Georgia Pipits return: rat eradication success at Grass Island. Aliens 23, 12-13.

PProgram. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management 13, pp 185-195.

Rplants a realistic goal? In: Veitch, C.R. and Clout, M.N. (eds.). Turning the tide: the eradication of SUK. pp 249-253.

Sanson, L. & Dingwall, P. (1995). ConseZConservation of the Subantarctic Islands. Proceedings of the SCAR/IUCN workshop on Protection, Research and Management of Subantarctic Islands (Paimpont, France, April 1992). IUCN, Gland and Cambridge, pp 85-106.

Saunders, D.L., Meeuwig, J.J. & Vincent, C.J. (2002). Freshwater protected areas: strategies for Conservation. Conservation Biology, 16(1) February.

Sconservation in the EU: The role of the LIFE program. European Commission. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. 56 pp. Available online at: http://195.207.127.31/comm/environment/life/infoproducts/alienspecies_en.pdf

49

Shine, C., Williams, N. & Gündling, L. (2000). A Guide to Designing Legal and Institutional Frameworks on Alien Invasive Species – IUCN, Gland, Switzerland Cambridge and Bonn. xvi + 138 pp.

Smith, R.I. Lewis (1996). Introduced Plants in Antarctica: Potential

b Hyas araneus found in the Antarctic Peninsula. Antarctic cience 16(2), 129-131.

on and exotic mammal eradication. In: Veitch, C.R. nd Clout, M.N. (eds.). Turning the tide: the eradication of invasive

: the eradication of invasive species. IUCN SSC vasive Species Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and

by the Executive

Impacts and Conservation Issues. Biological Conservation 76, 135-146.

Springer (2006). Macquarie Island; Mammalian pests – past present and future. Aliens 23, 14-17.

Tavares, M. & de Melo, G.A.S. (2004). Discovery of the first known benthic invasive species in the Southern Ocean; the North Atlantic spider craS

Tershy, B.R., Donlan, C.J., Keitt, B.S., Croll, D.A., Sanchez, B., Wood, B., Hermosillo, M.A., Howald, G.R. & Biavaschi, N. (2002). Island conservation in north-west Mexico: a conservation model integrating research, educatiaspecies. IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. pp 293-300.

Timmins, S. (2002). Weed Surveillance: when to search for new weeds. Science Poster 55. DOC science Publications. Wellington, New Zealand.

Torr, N. (2002). Eradication of rabbits and mice from subantarctic Enderby and Ross islands. In: Veitch, C.R. and Clout, M.N. (eds.). Turning the tideInCambridge, UK. pp 319-328.

UNEP (2001). Status, impacts and trends of alien species that threaten ecosystems, habitats and species. NoteSecretary, Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological

50

Advice, Convention on Biological Diversity, Sixth meeting, Montreal, 12-16 March 2001;UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/6/INF/11.

UNEP (2005a). Implications of the findings of the Millennium

sis report. UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/11/7/Add.1 (31 August 2005).

ity Synthesis. World Resources Institute, ashington DC (USA). 100 pp.

ed conservation in the pacific islands” edited y Tory Read. Published by UNDP.

ge, UK. 424 pp.

aper presented at the Mountain Protected Areas orkshop, Drakensberg, South Africa, September 4-8, 2003.

illiamson, M. (1996). Biological Invasions. Chapman & Hall, London,

Ecosystem Assessment for the future work of the Convention – Addendum – Summary for decision makers of the biodiversity synthe

UNEP (2005b). Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-being; BiodiversW

UNDP (2002). “Warrior bird, warrior people – three clans cooperate and save a species in the cook islands” in “navigating a new course – stories in community-basb

Usher, M.B. (1988). Biological Invasions of Nature Reserves: A search for Generalisations; Biological Conservation 44, 119-135.

Veitch, C.R. & Clout, M.N. (eds.) (2002). Turning the tide: the eradication of invasive species. IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist

roup. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and CambridG

Watson, J. & Barret, S. (2003). Small is Beautiful: conserving the nature of low altitude mountain Protected Areas in South Western

ustralia. A pAW

Weldon, C., du Preez, L. H., Hyatt, A. D., Muller, R. & Speare, R. (2004). Origin of the Amphibian Chytrid Fungus. Emerging Infectious Diseases 10(12), 2100-2105. Available online at: www.cdc.gov/eid W244 pp.

51

Wittenberg, R. & Cock, M.J.W. (eds.) (2001). Invasive Alien Species: A Toolkit of Best Prevention and Management Practices.

ABInternational, Wallingford, Oxon, UK, xii -228.

Invasive Species Specialist Group. CN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. pp 393-403.

C

Zavaleta, E., Hobbs, R., Mooney, H. (2001). Viewing Invasive Species removal in a whole-ecosystem context. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16, 454-459.

Zavaleta, E. It's often better to eradicate but can we eradicate better? In: Veitch, C.R. & Clout, M.N. (eds.). Turning the tide: the eradication of invasive species. IUCN SSCIU

52

ANTARCTIC AND SUBANTARCTIC BIOLOGICAL INVASIONS:

OURCES, EXTENTS, IMPACTS AND IMPLICATS IONS

KI6 AND DANA M. BERGSTROM7

YVES FRENOT1, PETER CONVEY2, MARC LEBOUVIER1,

STEVEN L. CHOWN3, JENNIE WHINAM4, PATRICIA M. SELKIRK5, MARY SKOTNIC

BSTRACT A

This paper draws to a large extent on the recent benchmark review by

renot et al. (2005) of the presence and status of non-indigenous

lien) species, carried out under the auspices of the RiSCC (Regional

ensitivity to Climate Change in Antarctica) programme of the

cientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR). The aim of the

view was to document the current state of knowledge on alien

pecies in terrestrial, marine and freshwater ecosystems of continental

ca, and the subantarctic in terms of extent, impact and

implications, and taking into account contemporary changes in climate

F

(a

S

S

re

s

Antarcti

1 Ecobio, Univ.RennesI, CNRS and French Polar Institute (IPEV), Station Biologique, F-35380 Paimpont France. Corresponding author: Frenot, Y. (yves.frenot@univ-rennes1.fr) 2 British Antarctic Survey, Natural Environment Research Council, High Cross, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0ET, United Kingdom. 3 Spatial, Physiological and Conservation Ecology Group, Department of Zoology, University of Stellenbosch, Private Bag X1, Matieland 7602, South Africa. 4 Nature Conservation Branch, Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment, GPO Box 44, Hobart 7001, Australia. 5 Department of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney NSW 2109, Australia. 6 Research School of Biological Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia. 7 Australian Antarctic Division, 203 Channel Highway, Kingston 7050, Australia.

53

and pattern ent paper

summarises this tail in several

the ent

a

introductions.

ION

iological invasions are widely recognised as being one of the most

pervasive ecosystem impacts that human activities have brought to all

lready had

biota of the Antarctic region

rough high levels of endemism, is of considerable global

s of human activities in these regions. The pres

information, providing additional de

examples of alien establishment. We highlight the main conclusions of

review, with particular attention to possible managem

pproaches required to minimise the risks and impacts of future

INTRODUCT

B

significant threats to biodiversity (McKinney & Lockwood 1999; Sala et

al. 2000; Courchamp et al. 2003). Their occurrence and impacts are

expected to increase with two major contemporary processes affecting

the planet at global scales – environmental change and the

globalisation of human activities (Dukes & Mooney 1999; Hughes

2000; Smith et al. 2000; McKinney 2001; Prinzing et al. 2002; Walther

et al. 2002; Frenot et al. 2005; Convey et al. 2006). Historically,

Antarctica and the outlying subantarctic islands in the Southern Ocean

have, until the last two hundred years, been immune from the

other continents, protected through geographical isolation and harsh

environmental conditions. Despite this isolation, however, and since

their discovery and the establishment of human contact, invasions

have taken place. As elsewhere on the planet, some have a

considerable impacts on the indigenous

which, th

conservation significance. Furthermore, contemporary rapid climate

54

change in parts of the Antarctic region, especially when combined with

large increases in human activity, will increase both the opportunities

for new biological introductions to occur, and subsequently, the

likelihood of newly established alien species then becoming invasive

(Greenslade 1987; Frenot et al. 1997; Chown et al. 1998; Bergstrom &

Chown 1999; Chown & Gaston 2000; Convey 2001a; Convey et al.

006).

use the term “Antarctic” to include the main

ontinental landmass, the Antarctic Peninsula and associated

2

In this paper we

c

archipelagos (South Shetland, South Orkney, South Sandwich

Islands), and the isolated Southern Ocean subantarctic islands that lie

near to the Polar Frontal Zone. This approach is rationalised and

justified through the following reasoning. First, there are strong

biological connections between Antarctic and subantarctic

ecosystems, both in terms of long-term biogeographical relationships

and direct biological interdependence (Chown et al. 1998; Greve et al.

2005). For instance, recent studies on the feeding habits of Southern

elephant seals (Mirounga leonina) from Îles Kerguelen (Kerguelen

Islands) have demonstrated that these animals make a journey of

more than 2000 km in March in order to reach the Antarctic coastline

where they remain for up to two months before returning to Kerguelen

in June (Bailleul et al. 2007). Second, the same human agencies

(government and scientific national operators, cruise and airplane

operators) are generally responsible for logistic, scientific or tourism

programmes across these regions. In practical terms, the same

vessels are used throughout each operator’s area of operations,

thereby providing opportunity to act as vectors for the movement of

55

biota (Lee & Chown 2007). Finally, the existing status and impact of

alien species on the subantarctic islands may in effect provide a model

or ”early warning system” for the risks and changes likely to challenge

Antarctic continental ecosystems, especially under current scenarios

of climate change and changing human activity patterns.

ANTARCTIC ECOLOGICAL CONTEXT

In order to understand how alien species may constitute a serious

threat to the Antarctic, it is appropriate to reiterate some of the general

characteristics of the continent’s ecosystems. Antarctic ecosystems

are characterized by strong geographical and historical isolation.

Although varying widely across the continental scale in terms of the

intensity and variability of environmental stresses experienced (Peck

et al. 2006), it is clear that climatic constraints are fundamental in the

biology of these ecosystems which, at the extreme, include habitats at

the limit for life on the planet. By contrast with Antarctic marine

(particularly benthic) ecosystems where biodiversity and biomass are

relatively high (Clarke & Johnston 2003; Peck et al. 2006), diversity is

extremely low in terrestrial ecosystems (Convey, 2001b), although in

both, levels of endemism are high (Clarke & Johnston 2003; Chown &

Convey 2006, 2007). Antarctic terrestrial ecosystems are also much

simplified in comparison with those of lower latitudes, typically lacking

representatives of many higher taxonomic and ecological functional

groups (Block 1984; Convey 1996, 2007). In particular, there are no

indigenous terrestrial mammals, reptiles or amphibians (and very few

non-marine birds), or fish. Within the invertebrates, communities are

56

dominated by decomposers, true herbivores are unusual and

indigenous predators virtually absent.

These characteristics, in combination with the recent history of human

contact with the Antarctic, underlie the particular sensitivity of these

cosystems to processes of contemporary environmental change. The

istory of human contact can be separated into three phases (see Hull

overy (commencing with the

ubantarctic islands in the late 17th century) and until the mid 20th

e

h

& Bergstrom 2006). Following initial disc

s

century, human activity on the subantarctic islands and to a more

limited extent the maritime Antarctic archipelagos, took the form of the

land-based elements of sealing and whaling industries, and attempts

to establish farming industries on some of the less extreme islands.

This phase of contact saw the deliberate and accidental introduction of

vertebrates (both herbivores and predators) to most subantarctic

islands, along with the introduction of some of the more invasive

flowering plants and most likely some invertebrates. The late 19th

century saw the beginning of the “Heroic Era” and scientific exploration

of the Antarctic continent, with 11 of the historic huts from this phase

still remaining (Hull & Bergstrom 2006). This was followed by the last

and continuing phase which commenced in the mid 20th century, with

the International Geophysical Year (1957/58) and the signing of the

Antarctic Treaty 1959. These events formed the catalysts for the

initiation of intense scientific research activities on the Antarctic

continent and some subantarctic islands which continue to this day.

This phase saw the establishment of many permanent research

stations, and also coincided with the effective end of the remaining

onshore activities associated with the whaling industry. With the

57

exception of limited “scientific” whaling, there is no longer a pelagic

whaling industry in the Southern Ocean. This region, however, still

presents a fisheries resource within the global economy and, re

although the vessels involved have limited direct contact with land in

the Antarctic and subantarctic, there remains both a risk of inadvertent

introduction of alien biota through events such as shipwreck (as

recently demonstrated on South Georgia) (Frenot et al. 2005), a risk of

pollution through deposition of dispersal of marine debris into the

littoral and nearby terrestrial environment (Gregory & Ryan 1997;

Convey et al. 2002), and direct impacts (bycatch, fouling) to marine

mammal and bird populations that come ashore to reproduce and

moult, and contribute considerable nutrients into terrestrial

ecosystems. The last three decades (since the early 1980s) has seen

the rapid development of a further form of human contact with the

Antarctic, through the tourism industry (Navareen et al. 2001). In

numerical terms, this industry focuses its activities mainly around

locations most rapidly or conveniently accessible to cruise vessels, in

particular around the northern Antarctic Peninsula and Scotia Arc

archipelagos, and the subantarctic island of South Georgia. Lower

levels of tourism activity are also experienced by some other

subantarctic islands, the historic sites associated with the early

continental exploring expeditions in the Ross Sea region, and with the

use of air support for visitors to explore the inland Ellsworth Mountains

and to reach the South Pole. These changing patterns of human

contact are inevitably likely to have influenced the flux of biological

propagules reaching the region.

58

DEFINITIONS

Various terminology has been applied to invasive ecology (e.g.

Richardson et al. 2000; Davis & Thompson 2000; Daehler 2001).

Frenot et al. (2005) adopted the following definitions based on Greene

(1964), Walton & Smith (1973) and Richardson et al. (2000) which are

also used in the present paper:

Alien (or non-native): introduced to an ecosystem as a result

of human activity. Includes species that arrive by

natural means to a specific ecosystem but are alien to

that biogeographical zone;

Transient alien: survive in small populations for a short time

period but either die out naturally, or are removed by

human intervention;

Persistent alien: survive, establish and reproduce for many

years in a restricted locality, but do not expand in

range from that location;

Invasive alien: spread into indigenous communities and

displace indigenous species.

CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF ALIEN SPECIES IN ANTARCTICA AND THE SUBANTARCTIC

Plants

The diversity of alien vascular plant species varies from 69 species at

erguelen, to zero to two species in maritime Antarctic and one

pecies on continental Antarctica (Frenot et al. 2005; Convey 2007).

K

s

59

On subantarctic islands including South Georgia, Marion Island and

es Kerguelen and Crozet, there are now more alien than indigenous

rted to spread more rapidly around its

core po d

(South Shetlan plant

species of all ali

Most al s

(Poaceae, Aste

particularly wid ua, Poa pratensis, Cerastium

fontanu ).

Most persistent bout

75% being pere pecies characteristically with

an annu ar life

cycle at Antarct 01), and such flexibility

ay underlie its success as an invasive. By contrast, about 65% of

ansient alien plant species recorded from Îles Kerguelen and

resence is cited in the literature but that were not observed during

survey work between 1996 and 2000) are annual or biennial

renot et al. 2001). It would appear that an (obligate) annual life cycle

Îl

vascular plant species recorded in the contemporary biota. Examples

from maritime and continental Antarctic (Poa pratensis, P. annua, P.

trivialis) are currently of persistent alien status (Japan 1996; Olech

1996; Smith 1996), although there is some recent anecdotal evidence

to suggest that P. annua has sta

pulation close to Arctowski Station on King George Islan

d Islands). By contrast, there are examples of

en classes on several different subantarctic islands.

ien plant species in the subantarctic belong to four familie

raceae, Brassicaceae, Juncaceae), and six species are

espread (Poa ann

m, Rumex acetosella, Stellaria media, Sagina procumbens

or invasive alien species are long-lived, with a

nnial. Even P. annua, a s

al life cycle at lower latitudes, tends to adopt a multi-ye

ic locations (Frenot et al. 20

m

tr

Possession (Crozet archipelago) (species defined as those whose

p

detailed

(F

is not appropriate for species in these ecosystems (see Convey 1996),

and that colonization or establishment abilities relevant to the sub-

60

antarctic environment may be better developed in alien perennial

species.

A strong relationship between the establishment of alien species and

human occupancy and activities has been clearly demonstrated

(Chown et al. 1998, 2005; Frenot et al. 2001). On Crozet and

Kerguelen (Frenot et al. 2001), early introductions are likely to have

been associated with the activities of sealers and whalers, although

scientific expeditions at the end of the 19th century recorded the

presence of few alien species (Figure 1). Their species number

rastically increased during the 1950s at Kerguelen and the 1960s at

d

Crozet, corresponding with the timing of establishment of permanent

stations. These data give no evidence of a decrease in this rate of

introduction today. On Possession, all known alien species are present

in the immediate vicinity of the island’s research station, while only

seven species have yet spread away from this location. The rapid

increase in distribution of one of the latter since the 1980s (when it

was limited to the station area and the immediate vicinity of certain

field huts), Sagina procumbens, is illustrated in Figure 2, and indicates

that this species has now become an invasive alien on this island. The

pattern of expansion after the species switched to invasive status

continues to indicate the important contribution of human activity in its

dispersal, with the new and expanded distribution records radiating out

from the island’s tracks that are the major routes of human overland

movement (M. Lebouvier et al. unpubl. data).

61

Figure 1 Changes in the number of alien vascular plant species at Ile de la Possession (Crozet archipelago, solid line) and Kerguelen archipelago (dotted line). Arrows indicate the date of establishment of permanent stations, Alfred Faure station on Ile de la Possession, Port-aux-Français on Iles Kerguelen. Modified from Frenot et al. (2001).

Alfred Faure

1850 1900 1950 20000

20

40

60

80

100

Number of alien vascular plant species

Port-aux-Français

62

!(

!(

!(

! ( #

##V

!(

!(

!(

! ( #V

Figure 2 Changes in the distribution pattern of Sagina procumbens on Possession Island, Crozet archipelago, between 1989 and 2002. Solid ines inland indicate the tracks used by the walkers (scientists andllo

gisticians) to reach the field huts from the permanent station Alfred aure. Lebouvier and coll., unpubl. data. F

1989 records 1996 records 2002 records

Permanent station

Possession Island Crozet archipelago

Huts

63

A number of alien plant species were historically deliberately

troduced to some subantarctic islands. For example, Bourzat &

onie (1977) reported that Elymus repens, Dactylis glomerata,

estuca ovina, F. arundinacea, Lolium perenne, Poa pratensis and

Phleum pratense seeds had been sown in the 1970s at Îles Kerguelen

e

can assume that ch de troductions in

future. By contrast, accidental introduction of plants continues to be

the norm. On Gough Island (a South Atlantic cold temperate oceanic

island) and subantarctic Marion Island the relative contributions of

natural colonization processes and anthropogenic introductions have

been estimated, with the latter being over two orders of magnitude

greater than the former over the periods since each island’s discovery

(Gaston et al. 2003; Gremmen & Smith 2004). Whinam et al. (2005)

demonstrated that a large proportion of cargo items transported from

Hobar Antarct ted a ra ical

propagules, including spiders, plant material and viable seed. An

encouraging sign, however, was that cargo items

found to be contaminated decreased over their study period (2000 to

ultivation in glasshouses that are associated with some research

tations also facilitates the introduction and establishment of new

pecies, not least as greenhouses can serve as transit areas

facilitating the acclimatization of alien species, plants or invertebrates

in

M

F

on the islands where sheep were introduced (Île Longue, Île du

Château). With changing attitudes to human environmental impact, w

su liberate in will not take place

t to Australian ic stations hos nge of biolog

the percentage of

2002), indicating some efficacy of newly introduced mitigation methods

including new cleaning procedures and changes in cargo container

design.

C

s

s

64

(Hullé et al. 2003). Such a route might also be expected to facilitate

the introduction of microbes and viruses, including disease-causing

organisms, although, to date, rigorous data on these groups are not

available.

Invertebrates

The level of knowledge of invertebrate fauna varies much more widely

between taxonomic groups and locations. In particular, the physically

smaller invertebrate groups, and those that form part of the soil

ecosystem, are generally poorly known. The largest numbers of alien

invertebrates are recorded from Kerguelen (30) and Macquarie Islands

(28) (Chown et al. 1998; Frenot et al. 2005; Greenslade 2006), but

comparable detail is not available for most other islands. The few

persistent alien invertebrates known from maritime Antarctic are

described by Convey (2007). Dartnall (2005) mentioned transient alien

rotifers at Casey. As with the flowering plants, most alien invertebrates

belong to a limited number of higher taxonomic groups, in particular

the Diptera, Hemiptera and Coleoptera. Many of the species

concerned share the significant biological trait of parthenogenetic

reproduction (which obviously reduces the barrier to establishment as,

in theory, arrival of a single viable individual is sufficient), and the two

most widely distributed alien insects in the subantarctic (Psychoda

arthenogenetica - Diptera, Psychodidae and Rhopalosiphum padi - p

Hemiptera, Aphididae) possess this characteristic.

There are few well-documented examples of invertebrate introductions

(but see Slabber & Chown 2002; Lee et al. 2007). The case of

65

Oopterus soledadinus (Coleoptera, Carabidae) is important in a

number of respects. It provides one of the few examples of

establishment of a non-European alien species in the subantarctic

region, being accidentally transported from the Falkland Islands or

outhern South America to both South Georgia and Kerguelen. At the

st likely introduced in the early 20th century with sheep

nd forage exported from the Falkland Islands as part of an attempt to

flightless dipteran

T. antarcticus is similarly responsible for significant reductions in

s

latter, it was mo

a

establish farming, and its introduction took place in a single site, Port

Couvreux (Jeannel 1940; Chevrier et al. 1997). The introduction on

South Georgia is thought to have been more recent (the species was

first recorded in 1963), and possibly happened on at least two

separate occasions, as the species is known from two distinct

locations while a separate closely related alien carabid (Trechisibus

antarcticus) is only known from one (Darlington 1970; Ernsting 1993).

On Kerguelen, O. soledadinus is spreading both naturally and through

human help, while T. antarcticus was also documented to be

spreading rapidly on South Georgia during the 1990s (Ernsting et al.

1995). Unfortunately, more recent survey data are unavailable from

this island. Both O. soledadinus and T. antarcticus are voracious

predators of small insects and other invertebrates, and their arrival on

these two subantarctic islands has deeply modified the food web

equilibrium, in which no other comparable indigenous predators exist.

After only a few years of the presence of O. soledadinus at a specific

location at Kerguelen, almost all other large invertebrates are found to

become locally extinct, including the endemic

Anatalanta aptera, a species that plays a major role in organic matter

decomposition (M. Lebouvier et al., unpubl. data). On South Georgia,

66

populations of endemic herbivorous beetles and has also been

implicated in a selective alteration of life cycle characteristics in these

preys (Ernsting et al. 1999; Convey et al. 2006). Furthermore, on both

islands, current climate warming trends might be expected to increase

the rate of dispersal of both species, as well as the area of habitat

environmentally suitable for their occupation, and hence their negative

impact on the local fauna.

Prediction of changes in Antarctic terrestrial biodiversity is obviously a

challenge for future decades. Here, the risk assessment approach

developed by Greenslade (2002) for Collembola on Heard Island, one

of the subantarctic islands to date least impacted by alien species,

may be useful. Greenslade examined several criteria in order to

determine the risk of introduction of several springtails as possible

candidates for establishment in this island. These criteria included:

1. The origin of the species, its current distribution (including on

other subantarctic islands);

2. Life history characteristics, in particular the mode of

reproduction (parthenogenetic or sexual), length of life cycle,

and feeding habits;

3. Habitat requirements and ecological plasticity;

4. Preferred climate range or envelope; and

5. Possession of appropriate dispersal mechanisms or

opportunities, including human intervention (packing materials,

plants, soil or food).

67

Greenslade (2002) concluded that the highest risk relates to species in

the family Hypogastruridae, in particular Hypogastrura viatica. Several

species in this family are known to be successful invasive species on a

global scale, including two (H. viatica and H. purpurescens) that have

already been introduced to some subantarctic islands. H. viatica has

also been recorded at some maritime Antarctic locations, although it is

not clear whether it has become established at these (Greenslade

995; Frenot et al. 2005). As mitigation measures (removal) of such

Vertebr

Alie

antarcti

on the go, with 12 alien species. Some were

intro c deer, salmonid

fish some have reached

the

souther

Island). the only terrestrial vertebrate predator

resent on the subantarctic islands to which it has been introduced,

as had considerable impacts, including drastic reductions and local

extinctions of some seabird populations. The most widespread alien

1

species after establishment is likely to be difficult if not impossible (not

least as establishment is unlikely to be noticed at an early enough

stage before significant spread occurs), Greenslade suggested that

practicable measures would need to take the form of quarantine

controls such as various types of inspection, washing procedures

and/or fumigation.

ates

n terrestrial and freshwater vertebrates are restricted to the sub-

c islands (Frenot et al. 2005). The greatest diversity is present

Kerguelen archipela

du ed deliberately (sheep, mouflon, rabbit, cat, rein

es) and others accidentally (mouse, rat), while

islands through natural movement from alien populations on other

n hemisphere landmasses (birds, largely affecting Macquarie

The domestic cat,

p

h

68

vertebrate, the house mouse, present on five subantarctic islands, has

a considerable and negative impact on indigenous insect fauna, and

has even been observed predating on albatross chicks. Ship and

brown rats, occurring on four islands, have wider impacts, affecting

vegetation, invertebrates and birds. Of grazing mammals, the rabbit is

responsible for drastic changes (loss of biomass and diversity) in the

plant communities of some islands, while reindeer on South Georgia

and Kerguelen have led to overgrazing and soil erosion, and also

encouraged the spread of the alien invasive grass Poa annua.

Mammals, being more easily visible, are obvious targets for

eradication, and several such campaigns have been attempted

(rabbits from Macquarie Island – Copson & Whinam 2001 – and from

some small islands at Kerguelen – Chapuis et al. 2001; cats from

Marion Island – Bloomer & Bester 1992), but some of these attempts

emselves produced undesirable or unexpected effects. For instance,

eradication of rabbits from some small islands was seen

induce an increase in the abundance of alien plant species including

th

at Kerguelen

to

Taraxacum officinale, a species whose spread was previously

regulated by the herbivores. In the absence of this grazing, and now

being further assisted by current climatic trends, this alien plant can

now become dominant (Chapuis et al. 2004).

Macquarie Island currently is seeing a dramatic expansion of rabbit

numbers and associated negative impacts on the ecosystem, with

coastal slopes particularly being devastated, contributing to soil

erosion and landslips. One such landslip has killed penguins in a

colony below the slope. Three factors are thought to be interacting,

resulting in an increase in rabbit numbers: one, the removal of feral

69

cats; two, built-up resistance to Myxoma virus with subsequent

stopping of Myxoma virus use; and finally climate change resulting in

increased rabbit winter survival and fecundity (Springer 2006).

Microbes and diseases

Very little is known about levels of diversity or endemicity in the

various microbial groups present in the Antarctic, or of the presence or

population trends of alien species (Convey 2007), and there have

been few attempts to either quantify or minimise introduction risks, or

to assess any impacts on indigenous microbial flora or other biota.

There are several known examples of introduced fungi infecting

indigenous plants on the subantarctic islands. For example, stands of

the Kerguelen cabbage (Pringlea antiscorbutica) infected by Albugo

candida, a fungus species probably transferred from fresh vegetables,

has been noted on Kerguelen (Lebouvier & Frenot, unpubl. data).

One specific and high profile exception relates to plans to drill into

Antarctic subglacial lakes such as Lake Vostok, where the danger of

inadvertent introduction of microbes, and the various chemical

components of drilling fluids, to an otherwise pristine environment has

een clearly recognised (Gavaghan 2002). The Committee for b

Environmental Protection (CEP) of the Antarctic Treaty expressed

concerns in 2003 over the continuation of drilling towards the lake ice

boundary (CEP 2003) in the absence of appropriate clean technology,

and concerns remain today.

70

Potential interactions between indigenous microorganisms and alien

organisms are noteworthy. The recently identified Stilbocarpa

Bacilliform Mosaic Virus (SBMV), a badnavirus causing bright yellow

osaic symptoms on leaves of the subantarctic megaherb Stilbocarpa

m Macquarie Island, where it is widespread

kotnicki et al. 2003). Badnaviruses are most often found associated

sed

some widespread disease organisms. These include Avian

rtainly exist and may also be more

lausible.

m

polaris is recorded only fro

(S

with tropical and subtropical plants and are usually transmitted

between plants by sucking insects. On Macquarie Island, it appears

that the virus has been present for a very long time in Stilbocarpa, with

an unknown indigenous transfer agent. It is likely that transfer between

plants could now be undertaken by alien species of aphids.

Finally, human activity across the Antarctic has been identified as a

potential source of disease in wildlife, primarily through the

translocation of pathogens. There are several examples of evidence

that Antarctic and subantarctic marine vertebrates have been expo

to

Paramyxoviruses (APMV) and antibodies to Newcastle Disease (NDV)

reported from Macquarie Island Royal penguins (Morgan & Westbury

1981); five species of Salmonella isolated from continental Antarctic

Adélie penguins (Morgan et al. 1978); antibodies to Lyme disease

being found in King penguins; and the Lyme disease spirochete in the

cosmopolitan tick, Ixodes uriae (Gauthier-Clerc et al. 1999). Such

evidence does not, however, prove unequivocally that exposure has

taken place in the Antarctic or that it is underlain by human activity, as

other routes of infection ce

p

71

Marine introductions

There are very few records of alien species in the Antarctic marine

environment. A recent report of a North Atlantic majid spider crab,

Hyas araneus from the northern Antarctic Peninsula (Tavares & De

Melo 2004), has received some publicity as being the first record of a

benthic invasive species in this region, and it is certainly plausible that

this species may have arrived in the Antarctic region via ships’ sea

chests or ballast water. Other than the initial report, however, there

have been no other records of this species either in the vicinity of the

riginal trawl area or elsewhere, hence its true status in the region

ve been shown to house invasive Mediterranean mussels

o

cannot be assessed. Lewis et al. (2006) documented the potential for

introduction of marine organisms into subantarctic waters through data

obtained from a barge used for ship-to-shore transfers at Macquarie

Island (the presence of the fouling community was fortuitously

detected en route from Tasmania to Macquarie Island, hence

measures could be applied to ensure that no transfer took place on

arrival). The fouling community included a total of 20 Tasmanian

estuarine species, amongst which one invasive amphipod species,

Monocorophium acherusicum, was very abundant – over 136,000

individuals including ovigerous females were calculated to be present.

Although no transfer of alien species to Macquarie Island water took

place on this occasion, this study demonstrated the ability of elements

of the fouling community to survive on the barge on the ship’s deck

over several months. More recently, sea chests of the supply ship SA

Agulhas ha

72

(Mytilus galloprovincialis), that clearly survived repeated voyages to

tarctic islands (Lee et al. 2007).

include such features as parthenogenetic reproduction (as described

the Antarctic and suban

ORIGINS AND CORRELATES OF INVASION

Many alien species now present in the Antarctic are of European

origin, although many are now effectively cosmopolitan and globally

distributed having successfully invaded other temperate areas (e.g.

Pyšek 1998; Prinzing et al. 2002). These species are often

opportunistic “weeds”, and typically possess a large ecological range.

The European influence is in part a reflection that the early

exploration, colonization and exploitation activities of humans in the

Antarctic originated largely from European ports (Headland 1989). As

noted in the above example of the South American carabid beetle

Oopterus soledadinus, exceptions to the pattern of introductions from

Europe do exist. Furthermore, on the site of the introduction of O.

soledadinus to Kerguelen, the grass Trisetum spicatum, a bipolar plant

species growing in the Falkland Islands, is also recorded (Frenot et al.

2001).

Effort has been devoted to quantitative studies of the correlates of

invasion on some of the subantarctic islands. Many successful

colonists possess life history features that assist them in overcoming

the “colonization filter” imposed by the large geographical isolation of

these islands from source populations, and the “environmental filter”

relating to environmental conditions typically being harsher. These

73

above) (Crafford et al. 1986), the ability to complete life cycles over

extended periods, and flexibility in expression of stress tolerance

apabilities. These features are also typical of the “adversity selected”

e history strategies of many indigenous Antarctic terrestrial biota

(both indigenous and

lien species) is driven by a range of island features frequently

ent impacts of alien species in the Antarctic (Chown &

anguage 1994; Kennedy 1995; Chown & Gaston 2000).

c

lif

(Convey 1996). Subantarctic island biodiversity

a

identified in studies of island biogeography (Williamson 1996; Chown

et al. 1998), including size and altitudinal range of islands (i.e. habitat

heterogeneity), level of human occupancy, climate and energy

availability (Chown et al. 2005), and diversity of different biological

groups. Common features of Antarctic and subantarctic terrestrial

ecosystems are low species richness and functional redundancy (i.e.

vacant niches), both of which may render the subantarctic islands, and

the island-like exposed land of the Antarctic continent, susceptible to

alien colonization and invasion (Bergstrom & Chown 1999; Chown et

al. 2000; Convey 2007). In the context of alien biota, the overriding

influences on levels of introduction appear to be human patterns of

use and climate matching. Changes in these variables are, therefore,

likely to have the largest impact on further establishment and

subsequ

L

74

CHANGING PATTERNS OF USE

Tourism

The first tourists visited Antarctica in 1956, flying over the continent

from Chile. Commercial tours commenced in 1958. Tourist numbers

remained very low for the two subsequent decades, but since the

1980s, and particularly over the last decade, there has been a

consistent and rapid increase in tourism (Figure 3). During the 2005/06

summer season, approximately 40,000 people, including all touristic

activities and crew members, visited the Antarctic in this way, in

comparison with approximately 4000 National Antarctic Programme

staff. Information from the International Association of Antarctica Tour

Operators (IAATO) indicates that, numerically, tourism is

predominantly based around the Scotia Arc islands and the Antarctic

Peninsula (involving up to 98% of visitors), with a much smaller

industry visiting the historic sites of the Ross Sea region, and the New

Zealand shelf islands (which some authors include in a wider definition

of the subantarctic islands). The most typical format of tourist visits are

that they are cruise-ship based, visiting a sequence of sites over a

short time period (two to four weeks), often progressing from warmer,

igher biodiversity areas to cooler, lower biodiversity areas. This

tepping stone’ approach intuitively increases the risk of transfer of

iota from one site to the next, although explicit and quantitative

tudies have not been attempted. Furthermore, such journeys highlight

further risk – that of transferring biota indigenous to one part of

ntarctica (and thereby already adapted to the environmental

xtremes) into another (discussed in detail by Convey this volume).

h

‘s

b

s

a

A

e

75

Figure 3 1992-2007 Antarctic tourist trends (including ship and land-based passenger numbers; 1997-98 onwards includes commercial yacht activity). Source: www.iaato.org.

76

Other than private expeditions, the only possibility for tourists to visit

land regions of the Antarctic continent is presented through the air

nk of the operator Antarctic Logistics and Expeditions between Punta

renas (Chile) and Patriot Hills (c. 80°S) in the eastern extension of

e Ellsworth Mountains. Tourists using this opportunity then typically

articipate in trips to Vinson Massif (Antarctica’s highest mountain) or

to the Geographic South Pole.

e of tourist activities available is expanding – in many cases it is

nger sufficient simply to land on beaches and observe

Island. The provision of “visitor

dwalks, is starting to become an issue on some

antarctic islands. These have the advantage of reducing

mental damage and disturbance through control of human

utes and trampling, but the disadvantage that they are

s a fundamental alteration to the “pristine” state of these

in

li

A

th

p

Frenot et al. (2005), drawing on data published by Navareen et al.

(2001), identified four trends in tourism patterns likely to be of

particular significance for the potential introduction and spread of alien

organisms into and around the Antarctic. First, tourists (tour operators)

are disproportionately attracted to sites of higher diversity. Second, the

intensity of visitor use is increasing, as measured by such factors as

the number of inflatable boat landings or the total number of people

landing. Third, the most popular visitor sites change over time,

meaning that potential human impacts are not contained to specific

locations but vary as tourist trends or fashions change. Finally, the

rang

no lo

immediately accessible wildlife, and operators are now offering options

including extended walks, kayaking trips, climbing, diving, and even a

competitive marathon on King George

facilities”, such as boar

sub

environ

travel ro

themselve

77

environments, itself one of the major factors drawing tourists to the

region.

National Antarctic Research Programmes

There are considerably fewer people involved in all aspects of running

and supporting national research programmes in the Antarctic than in

e tourism industry. For example, in the summer of 2005/06, 3760 th

National Antarctic Programme personnel visited Antarctica and the

subantarctic islands, and this number is currently relatively stable year

to year. In winter, the national programmes population drops to around

1000 personnel. Individual programme personnel spend longer

periods in the Antarctic, and generally have a greater opportunity to

visit more locations and move around than do tourists and most likely

account for more “person days” than tourists (Hull & Bergstrom 2006).

Stations or field camps are generally concentrated around the coast,

which are by their very nature ice free and with higher relative

biodiversity, hence areas of increased environmental sensitivity

(Poland et al. 2003). In 2006, 82 stations had been established in the

Antarctic (including the maritime islands). Of these, 37 were year

round stations and twelve were significant seasonal stations

(COMNAP 2006). The Antarctic Peninsula has a large proportion of

the occupied stations due to its high degree of accessibility from South

America (Hull & Bergstrom 2006) with the majority of stations, and

almost half the personnel, located on the South Shetland Islands and

northern Antarctic Peninsula, with a much lower density of stations

further south on the Antarctic Peninsula and around the continental

coastline. The second focus of station activity lies in the Ross Sea on

78

the Victoria Land coast – particularly due to the relatively large size of

the US McMurdo Station, amounting to almost 1000 personnel there

uring the austral summer.

ccessibility by air

d

A

Although ships provide the bulk of logistic support and transport to

Antarctic locations, several national programmes, tourist operators and

a small number of non-governmental organisations use air transport.

The practical advantages are obvious, in particular, in terms of faster

and more efficient exchange of personnel and equipment. However,

and to a much greater extent than the time-consuming reliance on ship

transfer, this method also overcomes the “isolation barrier” that

generally protects Antarctic locations, thereby allowing the rapid

transfer of propagules, including even short-lived life stages. There are

currently four points of departure for intercontinental flights to

Antarctica carrying tourists or research staff (Punta Arenas, Chile;

Stanley, Falkland Islands; Cape Town, South Africa; Christchurch,

New Zealand), with a fifth route planned to commence operation from

Tasmania. This means that, without effective quarantine measures,

alien biota could be transported from all Southern Hemisphere

continents to Antarctica within a three to nine hour time period. A

further new development within the Antarctic Peninsula tourism

industry is that, in order to accelerate the turnover of tourists on the

Antarctic Peninsula and avoid the often unpleasant two day sailing

across the Drake Passage, a “fly and sail” option is being made

available, allowing tourists to reach the Antarctic (King George Island)

by air and to board their cruise ship there.

79

CLIMATE CHANGE

Trends

Rapid temperature increases are well documented in maritime

Antarctic, with increases in annual air temperatures of at least 1ºC

over the last 30-50 years reported at several locations (King et al.

2003; Turner et al. 2005a; Convey 2006). Warming trends have also

been reported at some subantarctic and continental Antarctic locations

(e.g. Adamson et al. 1988; Smith & Steenkamp 1990; Gordon and

Timmis 1992; Frenot et al. 1997; Tweedie & Bergstrom 2000; Smith

2002; Jacka et al. 2004). By contrast, few long duration temperature

fluctuations have been noted in the Dry Valleys region of Victoria

Land. Changes in other climatic variables such as precipitation have

also been documented, including increases in parts of the maritime

Antarctic (Turner et al. 1997, 2005b), and decreases at subantarctic

Marion and Kerguelen Islands since the early 1970s (Smith &

Steenkamp 1990; Frenot et al. 1997; Smith 2002; Chapuis et al. 2004)

and maritime Antarctic Signy Island (Noon et al. 2001). Water

availability in terrestrial habitats is governed by direct precipitation and

through seasonal snow and glacial melt – the latter is the only source

of liquid water on continental Antarctica. Rapid rates of glacial retreat

and snow cover across many maritime and subantarctic sites are

particularly significant in this context (Convey 2006). Newly exposed

ground offers new opportunities for colonisation of both indigenous

80

and exotic biota without the influence of potential competition from

stablished communities.

plications for alien biota

general, climate change processes that result in a relaxation of

likely to have ecosystem level impacts lies in its consequences for

e

Im

In

current environmentally imposed constraints are likely to enhance the

ability of both natural long-distance colonists and human-assisted

aliens to become established, particularly in the subantarctic (Selkirk

1992; Smith 1993; Chown & Language 1994; Kennedy 1995;

Bergstrom & Chown 1999). For example, the establishment of the

dipteran Calliphora vicina at Kerguelen is likely to have been related to

the recent warming experienced at this location. This cosmopolitan fly

reaches the margin of its physiological tolerance range in the

subantarctic. Taking into account the energy requirement in order to

complete its life cycle, successful establishment was very unlikely

during the 1950s and the 1960s. Since the late 1970s, however,

several favourable (warmer) years were experienced, increasing the

probability of successful establishment, and correlating with the first

record of C. vicina on the island in 1978. After initial establishment, the

distribution of the fly expanded very rapidly during the early 1980s, as

it colonized most of the eastern (warmer) part of the Kerguelen

archipelago. The western regions of the archipelago are fractionally

colder (< 1°C) and, as yet, C. vicina has not been observed there

(Frenot et al., unpubl. data).

A second important area in which contemporary climate change is

81

alien species that are already established and considered as

persistent rather than invasive (i.e. the majority of species currently

nown from the Antarctic regions). Here, there is a clear possibility of a

ive status. This may occur, for example,

rough increases in vegetative or sexual reproduction and may then

alien biota on the subantarctic

lands.

k

switch from persistent to invas

th

lead to the natural colonization from impacted sites of nearby,

currently pristine sites, as is proposed to have happened with alien

plant species at the infrequently visited Prince Edward Islands

(Gremmen & Smith 1999).

CONCLUSIONS

At present, a large majority of alien terrestrial biota are confined to the

subantarctic islands, with much lesser occurrence in maritime

Antarctic, and only a single species in continental Antarctic. The full

extent of occurrence of alien biota in the Antarctic is currently

unknown, as limited or no rigorous survey data or even anecdotal

observations exist for many of the smaller invertebrate, lower plant, or

microbial groups.

Impacts of alien taxa on indigenous ecosystems range from

negligible/transient to significant. Within the Antarctic Treaty area

these impacts are currently low in comparison with the dramatic

effects resulting from some invasive

is

82

Most alien species are representatives of widespread families and/or

are European in origin. Major correlates of invasion are human visitor

numbers/frequency and temperature. The risk of further introductions

to the Antarctic region, although lower than in many other parts of the

planet, is significant, with potentially disproportionate consequences in

the context of impacts on regional and global biodiversity and

conservation issues.

Current climatic trends will further enhance the chance of introduced

pecies establishment and, therefore, opportunities for alien invasion,

nd will act synergistically with increased direct opportunities through

Those under the most threat are relatively milder

reas with increased human visitation and the most dramatic changes

therefore, subsequent modification of ecosystem

nctioning.

ess of any mitigation procedures adopted. A range of further

easures are available for consideration, in concert with monitoring, in

order to minimise the risk of introductions. Practicable approaches

s

a

human visitation.

a

in environmental conditions.

Unless stringent measures are taken to reduce propagule load on

humans, their food, cargo, and transport vessels, it is reasonable to

predict that, as the number of human vectors visiting Antarctic ice free

areas increases, so will the introduction and establishment of new

alien taxa and,

fu

There is a clear and urgent need for the establishment of long-term

monitoring programmes to identify and assess future invasions,

monitor the status of species already established or assess the

effectiven

m

83

include: cessation of imports of foreign biological material and soil;

cessation of on-station cultivation of biological material; precaution in

the import of building materials used to upgrade or expand the

stations; stringent measures to ensure rodent free status of ships and

aircraft; logistical planning to minimize the risk of intra-regional and

local transfer of propagules to pristine locations; control of visitor

numbers and access to more sensitive or pristine sites;

leaning/sterilization of high risk transport locations for aliens, such as

uring the next decade, research conducted under the umbrella of the

provide the first continent-wide assessment of

nthropogenically-associated propagule pressure on Antarctica, and

c

cargo surfaces, foodstuffs and clothing; establishment of a code of

conduct for all visitors in order to assess and to minimize both the risk

of introduction of new alien taxa into the Antarctic and subantarctic

and the risk of accidental transfer of regionally indigenous taxa

between major ice-free localities.

D

new SCAR Programme Evolution and Biodiversity in Antarctica (EBA)

will provide an important tool for further understanding colonization

processes and alien species impacts in the Antarctic. Concentrated

activities planned under the International Polar Year, in particular the

international collaborative programme Aliens in Antarctica, are

intended to

a

thereby allow the development of realistic control and mitigation

measures based on objectively assessed risks.

84

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are grateful for the research resources of the French

Polar Institute (Programme 136), the CNRS (Zone-atelier de

recherches sur l’environnement antarctique et subantarctique), the

NRF Centre for Invasion Biology, Tasmanian Nature Conservation

Branch, Macquarie University, British Antarctic Survey (BIOPEARL

Project), Australian National University (Canberra), Australian

Antarctic Programme (Project 1015 and 1187), and the Australian

Government Antarctic Division. This paper is a product of the SCAR

EBA programme.

R

EFERENCES

s. Trends in Ecology nd Evolution 14, 472-477.

lock, W. (1984). Terrestrial microbiology, invertebrates and cosystems, In Antarctic Ecology, (ed. Laws, R.M.), Academic Press, ondon, pp 163-236.

Adamson, D.A., Whetton, P. & Selkirk, P.M. (1988). Warming on Macquarie Island: temperature changes reflecting Southern Hemisphere circulation and the Southern Oscillation. Papers and Procedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania 122, 107-112.

Bailleul, F., Charrassin, J.B., Monestiez, P., Roquet, F., Biuw, M. & Guinet, C. (2007). Successful foraging zones of southern elephant seals from Kerguelen Islands in relation to oceanographic conditions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences (in press).

Bergstrom, D.M. & Chown, S.L. (1999). Life at the front: history, ecology and change on southern ocean islanda

BeL

85

Bloomer, J.P. & Bester, M.N. (1992). Control of Feral Cats on Sub-

ot, Y. & Lebouvier, M. (2004). Recovery of native lant communities after eradication of rabbits from the subantarctic es Kerguelen, and influence of climate change. Biological onservation 117, 167-179.

hevrier, M., Vernon, P. & Frenot, Y. (1997). Potential effects of two

hown, S.L. & Convey, P. (2007). Spatial and temporal variability

hown, S.L. & Gaston, K.J. (2000). Island-hopping invaders hitch a i

Antarctic Marion-Island, Indian Ocean. Biological Conservation 60, 211-219.

Bourzat, D. & Monie, J.P. (1977). Evaluation des pâturages aux îles Kerguelen. I.N.P.S.A., Mémoire I.T.A., Dijon.

Chapuis, J.L., Le Roux, V., Asseline, J., Lefevre, L. & Kerleau, F. (2001). Eradication of the rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) by poisoning on three islands of the subantarctic archipelago of Kerguelen. Wildlife Research 28, 323-331.

Chapuis, J.L., FrenpIlC Calien insects on a subantarctic wingless fly in the Kerguelen Islands. In: Antarctic Communities: Species, Structure and Survival. (eds. Battaglia, B., Valencia, J. & Walton, D.W.H.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. pp 424-431.

Chown, S.L. & Convey, P. (2006). 4. Biogeography. In Trends in Antarctic Terrestrial and Limnetic Ecosystems: Antarctica as a Global Indicator, (eds. Bergstrom, D.M, Convey, P. & Huiskes, A.H.L.). Springer, Dordrecht. pp 55-69.

Cacross life’s hierarchies in the terrestrial Antarctic, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, series B. (in press).

Cride with tour sts in the Southern Ocean. Nature 408, 637.

86

Chown, S.L., Gaston, K.J. & Gremmen, N.J.M. (2000). Including the

ch. pp 1-15.

rea relationships, human pacts and conservation. American Naturalist 152, 562-575.

hy 14 (6), 521-528.

shtm, see paragraphs 19-28 nd Appendix 2).

.-R., Burga, .A., & Edwards, P.J.). Kluwer, New York. pp 17-42.

Antarctic: Insights for ecologists everywhere. In Antarctic Ecosystems: Models for Wider Ecological Understanding. (eds. Davison, W., Howard-Williams, C., & Broady, P.A.). New Zealand Natural Sciences,

hristchurC

Chown, S.L., Gremmen, N.J.M. & Gaston, K.J. (1998). Ecological iogeography of Southern islands: species-ab

im

Chown, S.L., Hull, B. & Gaston, K.J. (2005). Human impacts, energy availability and invasion across Southern Ocean Islands. Global

cology and BiogeograpE

Chown, S.L. & Language, K. (1994). Recently established Diptera and Lepidoptera on Sub-Antarctic Marion Island. African Entomology 2, 57-60.

Clarke, A.& Johnston, N.M. (2003). Antarctic marine benthic diversity. Oceanography and Marine Biology Annual Review 41, 47-114.

CEPVI 2003 final report downloadable at ttp://cep.ats.aq/cep/documentarchive.h

a

COMNAP (2003, 2006). Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs http://www.comnap.aq

Convey, P. (1996). The influence of environmental characteristics on life history attributes of Antarctic terrestrial biota. Biological Reviews 71, 191-225.

Convey, P. (2001a). Terrestrial ecosystem response to climate changes in the Antarctic. In “Fingerprints” of climate change - adapted

ehaviour and shifting species ranges. (eds. Walther, GbC

87

Convey, P. (2001b). Antarctic Ecosystems, in Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, (ed. Levin, S.A.). 1st Edition, Academic Press, San Diego, Vol. 1. pp 171-184.

onvey, P. (2006). AnCte

tarctic climate change and its influences on rrestrial ecosystems. In Trends in Antarctic Terrestrial and Limnetic

onvey, P. (2007). Non-native species in Antarctic terrestrial and

4.

onvey, P., Frenot, Y., Gremmen, N. & Bergstrom, D.M. (2006).

, D.M., onvey, P., & Huiskes, A.H.L.). Springer, Dordrecht. pp 193-220.

ubantarctic Macquarie Island: pest management rogress and future directions. Ecological Management and

ourchamp, F., Chapuis, J.-L. & Pascal, M. (2003). Mammal invaders

rafford, J.E., Scholtz, C.H. & Chown, S.L. (1986). The insects of

Ecosystems: Antarctica as a Global Indicator. (eds. Bergstrom, D.M, Convey P., & Huiskes A.H.L.). Springer, Dordrecht. pp 193-220.

Cfreshwater environments: presence, sources, impacts and predictions. Non-native Species in the Antarctic: Proceedings (ed. Finnemore). Gateway Antarctica, Christchurch. pp 101-13

Convey, P., Barnes, D.K.A. & Morton, A. (2002). Artefact accumulation on Antarctic oceanic island shores. Polar Biology 25, 612-617.

CBiological Invasions. In Trends in Antarctic Terrestrial and Limnetic Ecosystems: Antarctica as a Global Indicator. (eds. BergstromC

Copson, G. & Whinam, J. (2001). Review of ecological restoration programme on spRestoration 2, 129-138.

Con islands: impact, control and control impact. Biological Reviews 78, 347-383.

Csubantarctic Marion and Prince Edward Islands; with a bibliography of entomology of the Kerguelen biogeographical province. South African Journal of Antarctic Research 16, 41-84.

88

Daehler, C.C. (2001). Two ways to be an invader, but one is more suitable to ecology. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 82, 101-102.

Darlington, P.J. (1970). Coleoptera: Carabidae of South Georgia. Pacific Insects Monographs 23, 234-234.

artnall, H.J.G. (2005). Are Antarctic planktonic rotifers anthropoDin

genic troductions? The Queckett Journal of Microscopy 40(2), 137-143.

81, 226-230.

ion 14, 5-139.

utum. Oecologia 103, 34-42.

bution of direct and indirect effects. Journal of Animal cology 68, 741-752.

ds. Biological Conservation 01, 33-50.

Davis, M.A. & Thompson, K. (2000). Eight ways to be a colonizer; two ways to be an invader: a proposed nomenclature scheme for invasion

cology. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America e

Dukes, J.S. & Mooney, H.A. (1999). Does global change increase the uccess of biological invaders? Trends in Ecology and Evoluts

3

Ernsting, G. (1993). Observations on life cycle and feeding ecology of two recently-introduced predatory beetle species at South Georgia, ubantarctic. Polar Biology 13, 423-428. s

Ernsting, G., Block, W., MacAlister, H. & Todd, C. (1995). The invasion of the carnivorous carabid beetle Trechisibus antarcticus on South Georgia (subantarctic) and its effect on the endemic herbivorous

eetle Hydromedion spasb

Ernsting, G., Brandjes, G.J., Block, W. & Isaaks, J.A. (1999). Life-history consequences of predation for a subantarctic beetle: evaluating he contrit

E

Frenot, Y., Gloaguen, J.C., Massé, L. & Lebouvier, M. (2001). Human activities, ecosystem disturbances and plant invasions in subantarctic

rozet, Kerguelen and Amsterdam IslanC1

89

Frenot, Y., Gloaguen, J.C., & Tréhen, P. (1997). Climate change in Kerguelen Islands and colonization of recently deglaciated areas by Poa kerguelensis and P. annua. In Antarctic Communities: Species,

tructure and Survival. (eds. Battaglia, B., Valencia, J. & Walton

renot, Y., Chown, S.L., Whinam, J., Selkirk, P.M., Convey, P.,

e disease agent) antibodies in King penguin Aptenodytes atagonicus in Crozet Archipelago. Polar Biology 22, 141-143.

ordon, J.E. & Timmis, R.J. (1992). Glacier fluctuations on South

anagement. pp 119-121.

SD.W.H.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. pp 358-366.

FSkotnicki, M. & Bergstrom, D.M. (2005). Biological invasions in the Antarctic: extent, impacts and implications? Biological Reviews 80, 45-2. 7

Gaston, K.J., Jones, A.G., Hänel, C. & Chown, S.L. (2003). Rates of species introduction to a remote oceanic island, Proceedings of the

oyal Society of London, series B 270, 1091-1098. R

Gauthier-Clerc, M., Jaulhac, B., Frenot, Y., Bachelard, C., Monteil, H., Le Maho, Y. & Handrich, Y. (1999). Prevalence of Borrelia burgdorferi the lym(

pGavaghan, H. (2002). Life in the deep freeze. Nature 415, 828-830.

GGeorgia during the 1970s and 1980s. Antarctic Science 4, 215-226.

Greene, S.W. (1964). The vascular flora of South Georgia. British Antarctic Survey Scientific Reports 45, 58 pp.

Greenslade, P. (1987). Invertebrate conservation in the Antarctic and subantarctic. In The role of invertebrates in conservation and biological survey. (ed. J. D. Majer). Western Australian Department of Conservation & Land M

Greenslade, P. (1995). Collembola from the Scotia Arc and Antarctic Peninsula including descriptions of two new species and notes on biogeography. Polskie Pismo Entomologiczne 64, 305-319.

90

Greenslade, P. (2002). Assessing the risk of exotic Collembola invading subantarctic islands: prioritizing quarantine management. Pedobiologia 46, 338-344.

reenslade, P. (2006). The Invertebrates of Macquarie IslandGA

, ustralian Antarctic Division, Kingston, Tasmania, xvi + 326 pp.

isphere perspectives. In Marine debris: sources, impacts and olutions. (eds. Coe, J.M. & Rogers, D.B.). Springer-Verlag, New

s of alien vascular lants from Marion and Prince Edward Islands, Sub-Antarctic. Polar

5. estedness of Southern Ocean island biotas: Ecological perspectives

eadland, R.K. (1989). Chronological list of Antarctic expeditions and

rrestrial and limnetic cosystem conservation. In Trends in Antarctic Terrestrial and

Gregory, M.R. & Ryan, P.G. (1997). Pelagic plastics and other seaborne persistent synthetic debris: a review of Southern

emHsYork. pp 49-66.

remmen, N.J.M. & Smith, V.R. (1999). New recordGpBiology 21, 401-409.

Gremmen, N. & Smith, V. (2004). The flora of Marion and Prince Edward Islands, Data Analyse Ecologie, Diever, Netherlands. Greve, M., Gremmen, N.J.M., Gaston, K.J. & Chown, S.L. 200Non a biogeographic conundrum. Journal of Biogeography 32, 155-168.

Hrelated historical events. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 730 pp.

Hughes, L. (2000). Biological consequences of global warming: is the signal already apparent? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 15(2), 56-61.

Hull, B.B. & Bergstrom, D.M. (2006) Antarctic teeLimnetic Ecosystems: Antarctica as a Global Indicator. (eds. Bergstrom, D.M, Convey P., & Huiskes A.H.L.). Springer, Dordrecht. pp 315- 338.

91

Hullé, M., Pannetier, D., Maurice, D., Courmont, L., Chaillon, C., Chaillon, P.-E., Saccone, P., Hébert, C., Gracia, M., Buffin, J., Simon, J.-C. & Frenot, Y. (2003). Aphids from Kerguelen and Crozet Islands,

ubantarctic. In VIII SCAR International Biology Symposium: Antarctic

apan (1996). A grass (seed plant) found in Syowa Station area, East

eannel, R. (1940). Croisière du Bougainville aux Iles Australes

ystematics 26, 683-704.

(2003), Antarctic Peninsula climate variability and its causes as vealed by analysis of instrumental records. Antarctic Research

ee, J.E. & Chown, S.L. (2007). Mytilus on the move: transport of an

olonisation of Sub-Antarctic Marion Island by a non-digenous aphid parasitoid Aphidius matricariae (Hymenoptera,

Braconidae). Polar Biology, in press.

SBiology in a Global Context. (eds. Huiskes, A.H.L., Gieskes, W.W.C., Rozema, J., Schorno, R.M.L., van der Vies, S. & Wolff, W.J.).

ackhuys, Leiden. pp 308-312. B

Jacka, T.H., Budd, W.H. & Holder, A. 2004: A further assessment of surface temperature changes at stations in the Antarctic and Southern Ocean, 1949-2002. Annals of Glaciology 39, 331-338.

JAntarctica, XX Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Information Paper 66.

JFrançaises. Mémoires du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, series A 14, 1-268.

Kennedy, A.D. (1995). Antarctic terrestrial ecosystem response to global environmental change. Annual Review of Ecology and S

King, J.C., Turner, J., Marshall, G.J., Connally, W.M. & Lachlan-Cope, T.A. reSeries 79, 17-30.

Linvasive bivalve to the Antarctic. Marine Ecology Progress Series, in press.

Lee, J.E. Slabber, S., Jansen van Vuuren, B., van Noort, S. & Chown, S.L. (2007). Cin

92

Lewis, P.N., Bergstrom, D.M. & Whinam, J. (2006). Barging in: a temperate marine community travels to the subantarctic. Biological Invasions 8, 787-795.

McKinney, M.L. (2001). Effects of human population, area, and time on non-indigenous plant and fish diversity in the United States.

iological Conservation 100, 243B

-252.

rnal report Westmeadows, Victoria. Attwood Veterinary esearch Laboratory.

s adeliae) in Antarctica. Avian Diseases 25, 1019-026.

189-99. Polar Record 37, 121-132.

, 375-392.

tional Institute of Polar Research, Tokyo, Japan.

McKinney, M.L. & Lockwood, J. (1999). Biotic homogenization: a few winners replacing many losers in the next mass extinction. Trends in

cology and Evolution 14, 450-453. E Morgan, I.R. Caple, I.W., Westbury, H.A. & Campbell, J., (1978). Disease investigations of penguins and elephant seals on Macquarie Island. InteR

Morgan, I.R. & Westbury, H.A. (1981). Virological Studies of Adelie Penguins (Pygosceli1 Navareen, R., Forrest, S.C., Dagit, R.G., Blight, L.K., Trivelpiece, W.Z. & Trivelpiece, S.G (2001). Zodiac landings by tourist ships in the

ntarctic Peninsula region,A

Noon, P.E., Birks, H.J.B., Jones, V.J. & Ellis-Evans, J.C. (2001). Quantitative models for reconstructing catchment ice-extent using physical-chemical characteristics of lake sediments. Journal of

alaeolimnology, 25P

Olech, M. (1996). Human impact on terrestrial ecosystems in West Antarctica, NIPR Symposium on Polar Biology, Proceedings, 9, 299-06, Na3

Peck, L.S., Convey, P. & Barnes, D.K.A. (2006). Environmental constraints on life histories in Antarctic ecosystems: tempos, timings and predictability. Biological Reviews 81, 75-109.

93

Poland, J.S., Riddle, M.J. & Zeeb, B.A. (2003). Contaminants in the Arctic and the Antarctic: a comparison of sources, impacts, and remediation options. Polar Record 39, 369-383.

yšek, P. (1998). Is there a taxonomic pattern to plant invasions?

nek, M., Barbour, M.G., Panetta,

.S., Armesto, J.J., Berlow, E., Bloomfield, J., irzo, R., Huber-Sanwald, E., Huenneke, L.F., Jackson, R.B., Kinzig,

.

D.W.H.). Blackwell, xford. pp 55-78.

Prinzing, A., Durka, W., Klotz, S. & Brandl, R. (2002). Which species become aliens? Evolutionary Ecology Research 4, 385-405.

POikos 82, 282-294.

ichardson, D.M., Pyšek, P., RejmáRF.D. & West, C.J. (2000). Naturalization and invasion of alien plants: concepts and definitions. Diversity and Distributions 6, 93-107.

Sala, O.E., Chapin, FDA., Leemans, R., Lodge, D.M., Mooney, H.A., Oesterheld, M., Poff, N.L., Sykes, M.T., Walker, B.H., Walker, M. & Wall, D.H. (2000). Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287, 1770-774. 1

Selkirk, P. M. (1992). Climate change and the subantarctic. In: Impact of Climate Change, Antarctica, Australia. (ed. Quilty, P.G.J.).

ustralian Government Publishing Service, Canberra. pp 43-51A

Skotnicki, M.L., Selkirk, P.M., Kitajima, E., McBride, T.P., Shaw, J. & Mackenzie, A. (2003). The first subantarctic plant virus report: Stilbocarpa bacilliform badnavirus (SMBV) from Macquarie Island.

olar Biology 26, 1-7. P

Slabber, S. & Chown, S.L. (2002). The first record of a terrestrial crustacean, Porcellio scaber (Isopoda, Porcellionidae), from Sub-

ntarctic Marion Island. Polar Biology 25, 855-858. A

Smith, R.I.L. (1993). The role of bryophyte propagule banks in primary succession: case study of an Antarctic fellfield soil. In Primary uccession on land. (eds. Miles, J. & Walton, s

O

94

Smith, R.I.L. (1996). Introduced plants in Antarctica: potential impacts nd conservation issues. Biological Conservation 76, 135-146.

k, R.S. 000). Elevated CO2 increases productivity and invasive species

mith, V.R. (2002). Climate change in the Sub-Antarctic: An illustration

nd its cological implications at a subantarctic island. Oecologia 85, 14-24.

2004). Discovery of the first known enthic invasive species in the Southern Ocean: the North America

urner, J. Colwell, S.R. & Harangozo, S. (1997). Variability of

urner, J., Colwell, S.R., Marshall, G.J., Lachlan-Cope, T.A., Carleton,

. Annals of Glaciology 41, 85-91.

a

Smith, S.D., Huxman, T.E., Zitzer, S.F., Charlet, T.N., Housman, D.C., oleman, J.S., Fenstermaker, L.K., Seemann, J.R. & NowaC

(2success in an arid ecosystem. Nature 408, 79-82.

Sfrom Marion Island. Climate Change 52, 345-357.

mith, V.R. & Steenkamp, M. (1990). Climatic change aSe

Springer, K. (2006) Macquarie Island – mammalian pests, past, present and future. Aliens 23, 14-17.

Tavares, M. & De Melo, G.A.S. (bspider crab Hyas araneus found in the Antarctic Peninsula. Antarctic Science 16, 129-131.

Tprecipitation over the coastal western Antarctic Peninsula from synoptic observations. Journal of Geophysical Research 102, 13999-14007.

TA.M., Jones, P.D., Lagun, V., Reid, P.A. & Iagovkina, S. (2005a). Antarctic climate change during the last 50 years. International Journal of Climatology 25, 279-294.

Turner, J., Lachlan-Cope, T.A., Colwell, S.R. & Marshall, G.J. (2005b). A positive trend in western Antarctic Peninsula precipitation over the last 50 years reflecting regional and Antarctic-wide atmospheric circulation changes

95

Tweedie, C.E. & Bergstrom, D.M. (2000). A climate change scenario for surface air temperature at subantarctic Macquarie Island. In

ntarctic Ecosystems: Models for Wider Ecological Understanding.

A., Parmesan, C., eebee, T.J.C., Fromentin, J.-M., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., & Bairlein, F.

hinam, J., Chilcott, N. & Bergstrom, D.M. (2005). Subantarctic

A(eds. Davison, W., Howard-Williams, C. & Broady, P.A.). New Zealand Natural Sciences, Christchurch. pp 272-281.

Walther, G-R., Post, E., Convey, P., Menel, B(2002). Ecological responses to recent climate change. Nature 416, 389-395.

Walton, D.W.H. & Smith, R.I.L. (1973). Status of the alien vascular flora of South Georgia. British Antarctic Survey Bulletin 36, 79-97.

Williamson, M. (1996). Biological invasions. Chapman & Hall, London, UK. Whitchhikers: expeditioners as vectors for the introduction of alien organisms. Biological Conservation 121, 207-219.

96

NON-NATIVE SPECIES IN

ANTARCTIC TERRESTRIAL AND FRESHWATER ENVIRONMENTS: PRESENCE, SOURCES,

IMPACTS AND PREDICTIONS

PETER CONVEY1

ABSTRACT

of

yet to experience significant impacts from the introduction of non-

occurring on the

orthern Antarctic Peninsula and archipelagos of the Scotia Arc. None

f these species have yet become invasive. This paper reviews the

rrent status of non-native species on the Antarctic continent, and

nsiders their likely routes of arrival and the future risks associated

ith their establishment. Increasing human contact with the continent,

rough scientific, logistical and tourism-related operations, provides

y far the greatest source of transport of alien biota and colonising

propagules, far outweighing natural routes of colonisation (although

these still operate). Contemporary regional climate change trends will

act synergistically to increase the pool of potential colonists with

niquely, unlike any other continent or even the subantarctic islandsU

the Southern Ocean, terrestrial ecosystems of the Antarctic continent

have

native species. At present, single figure numbers of non-native plants

and animals are known to have become established, in all instances

ver the last few decades, with most such eventso

n

o

cu

co

w

th

b

1 British Antarctic Survey, Natural Environment Research Council, High Cross, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0ET, United Kingdom. (pcon@bas.ac.uk)

97

appropriate biolo of successful

es

both rctica,

particularly, bu gy. Accepting

that human contact with inevitably continue, any

contact carries with it a risk of the ntroduction of non-native species.

y virtue of the relatively limited number of routes and modes of

ccess, and concentration of operations at mostly defined locations,

vides the only continental-scale opportunity remaining to

umans to demonstrate our ability to put in place practicable control

Bouvetøya (although the latter two lie north of 60ºS), and Peter I Øya.

gical attributes, and their chances

tablishment. There also remain very large gaps in our knowledge of

the indigenous and alien terrestrial biota of Anta

t not restricted to, the field of microbiolo

the continent will

i

B

a

Antarctica pro

h

and mitigation measures that will slow rates of introduction and

establishment.

INTRODUCTION

This paper focuses on the presence and (potential) impacts of non-

indigenous organisms on the native biota of the terrestrial and

freshwater ecosystems of Antarctica. Antarctica (in this paper being

the area south of 60°S latitude) includes two currently recognised

terrestrial biogeographical zones, the maritime and continental

Antarctic, and their subdivisions (see Smith 1984; Longton 1988, for

further description; Peat, Clarke & Convey 2007; Chown & Convey

2007, for recent refinement). The maritime Antarctic includes the

western coast of the Antarctic Peninsula to c. 72ºS, the South

Shetland, South Orkney and South Sandwich Islands and the isolated

This area does not include all, or even a majority of, the geological

98

region of West Antarctica. The continental Antarctic is much larger,

including all of East Antarctica, the Balleny Islands, and the remaining

parts of the Antarctic Peninsula and West Antarctica. Terrestrial

habitats of the maritime and continental Antarctic are usually small in

area and often extremely isolated, including coastal rocky regions and

inland nunataks and mountain ranges. The extensive ice free cold

deserts of Victoria Land (Lyons, Howard-Williams & Hawes 1997)

provide a unique exception to this generalisation.

The Antarctic terrestrial biota is species poor and also lacks

representatives of many higher taxonomic groups (Block 1984; Smith

1984; Convey 2001, in press). Terrestrial faunal communities consist

f invertebrates (Diptera – two species only, Acari, Collembola,

ematoda, Rotifera, Tardigrada, Protista), and plant communities

ams (mosses, liverworts, lichens), with only two

igher plants present. Biodiversity and community complexity at a

o

N

largely of cryptog

h

large scale generally decrease with increasing latitude and

environmental severity, although the detailed pattern is considerably

more complex (Convey 2001, in press; Clarke 2003; Chown & Convey

2007). In relation to most groups present, fine scale observational

survey data are sparse and large lacunae remain in knowledge of

even the basic biology and biogeography of much of the Antarctic

terrestrial biota. The continental Antarctic includes faunal communities

amongst the simplest on the planet (Freckman & Virginia 1997),

uniquely in some areas lacking even Nematoda (Convey & McInnes

2005). Ecosystem structure and trophic complexity are very simple.

Most invertebrates are thought to be microbivores or detritivores, with

predation insignificant (Lister, Block & Usher 1988; Usher, Block &

99

Jumeau 1989), although there is an element of dogma in this view as

few rigorous autecological studies have been attempted (Hogg et al.

2006).

Even in comparison with the level of biological data available for

macrofauna and flora, minimal information is currently available for

most microbiota. Microbial autotrophs are fundamental to polar

terrestrial ecosystem processes (Vincent 1988; Wynn-Williams 1993,

996a) and, as elsewhere, an understanding of their role in ecosystem 1

function is a vital component in developing understanding of

ecosystem level responses to change. Although the use of molecular

biological techniques is now leading to an increase in microbial

diversity data available from continental and maritime Antarctica

(Lawley et al. 2004; Adams et al. 2006; Boenigk et al. 2006; Yergeau

et al. 2007), the spatial coverage of such studies remains very limited.

The simplicity of Antarctic terrestrial ecosystems leads to predictions

that they will be particularly vulnerable to the various processes

involved in environmental change, amongst which are that changes in

biogeographical distributions and the colonisation of currently non-

indigenous species are expected (Freckman & Virginia 1997;

Bergstrom & Chown 1999; Walther et al. 2002; Convey 2003). This

simplicity also leads to predictions that Antarctic ecosystems include

examples lacking, or poor in, specific biological functional groups that

will, therefore, include little of the functional redundancy that is typical

in more diverse ecosystems of lower latitudes. In the context of

consideration of the possible consequences of colonisation of

Antarctica by currently non-indigenous biota, the lack of indigenous

100

diversity (however defined) opens up the possibility of the occupation

of new ecological niches (including currently unrepresented trophic

functions and levels), inevitably leading to large changes in the

tructure and function of trophic webs in ecosystems. When,

005, this volume; Convey et al. 2006, 2007).

s

inevitably, colonisation events occur, responses of the indigenous

biota will be constrained by features of their typically “adversity-

selected” life history strategies (Convey 1996). While these organisms

are well-placed to survive the abiotic environmental extremes of

Antarctic terrestrial ecosystems, their competitive abilities are very

poorly developed, meaning that species and communities are

vulnerable to increased competition and predation from invading taxa

(Convey 1996, 2003; Frenot et al. 2005; Convey et al. 2006, 2007).

This vulnerability is already well demonstrated in the literature relating

to the consequences of the presence of a wide range of non-

indigenous species on the various subantarctic islands (Frenot et al.

2

NATURAL DISPERSAL TO THE ANTARCTIC CONTINENT

While the Antarctic is to a large extent isolated and protected by

oceanic and atmospheric barriers from the natural transfer of biota

from lower latitudes, these barriers are not hermetically sealed and it is

clear that such transfers take place over evolutionary timescales, both

into and out of the region (Clarke, Barnes & Hodgson 2005; Barnes et

al. 2006). Although successful establishment events are clearly rare,

several potential dispersal routes exist, with reported instances of

occurrence (reviewed by Hughes et al. 2006). Air or water currents

101

have carried biota long distances (Benninghoff & Benninghoff 1985;

Marshall 1996; Marshall & Convey 1997; Greenslade, Farrow & Smith

1999; Hughes et al. 2004; Muñoz et al. 2004; Convey 2005; Lewis,

Riddle & Smith 2005), as have zoochoric associations with migratory

birds and mammals (Schlichting, Speziale & Zink 1978; Bailey &

James 1979; Pugh 1997; Barnes et al. 2004), and attachment to

natural or anthropogenic debris (hydrochory) (Barnes 2002; Barnes &

Fraser 2003). At the South Atlantic Gough Island (a cold temperate

oceanic island) and subantarctic Marion Island, it has been possible to

assess the relative contributions of natural colonisation processes and

anthropogenic introductions over the centuries since each island’s

discovery (Gaston et al. 2003; Gremmen & Smith 2004). These

authors found that natural processes have been outweighed by

anthropogenic by at least two orders of magnitude over this period,

although it is not clear that the same expectation can be applied to

colonisation of the much more severe Antarctic environment, as the

ool” of available colonists with appropriate pre-adapted biological

atures is likely to be smaller.

“p

fe

ANTHROPOGENIC ASSISTANCE

In the subantarctic, the last two centuries have seen major changes in

the structure and functioning of subantarctic terrestrial ecosystems

(Frenot et al. 2005, this volume; Convey et al. 2006). These changes

have involved the introduction of a wide range of non-indigenous

plants and animals, with the majority (other than large grazing and

predatory non-rodent vertebrates) generally being introduced

102

inadvertently. While, even in the subantarctic, knowledge of the

presence, distribution and status of non-indigenous species is often far

from complete, it is already clear from the studies listed that the

subantarctic provides a warning of consequences to be expected in

the event of establishment of invasive alien species (Frenot et al.

2005) within the Antarctic continent (maritime and continental

Antarctic). At present, very few non-indigenous species are known to

have become established in this region, and none of these are

classified as invasive (these discussed in detail below). Even in the

absence of specific monitoring programmes, however, it is already

clear that many analogous transfers of biota do occur, with the major

vectors including cargo, vehicles, food, clothing and people

themselves (Sjoling & Cowan 2000; Whinam, Chilcott & Bergstrom

2004; Frenot et al. 2005; Lewis, Riddle & Smith 2005; Lewis,

Bergstrom & Whinam 2006; Hughes et al. 2006; Hughes 2007). Even

where specific control measures and procedures exist, failure of their

implementation can lead to significant accidental transfer events

(Hughes 2007). Until relatively recently, the majority of human access

and within the Antarctic continent involved lengthy transport by sea

r overland/ice, which itself provided an imperfect “colonisation filter”

loniser life stage with extended

urvival abilities. In recent decades the level of access by air has

to

o

by requiring the presence of a co

s

increased rapidly, reducing transport times from weeks to mere hours,

and potentially providing an extremely efficient means of dispersal

(Bölter & Stonehouse 2002; Frenot et al. 2005).

As with the subantarctic islands, the early history of human contact

with the Antarctic continent generated many examples of the

103

deliberate import of a range of vertebrates for transport (dogs, ponies),

food (pigs, chickens) and recreational and pest control (cats)

purposes. In contrast with the subantarctic, these animals could only

survive within the confines of established stations or closely

associated with expeditions; it is very likely that rodents (rats, mice)

will have been taken ashore inadvertently during these periods, and

they have likewise failed to become established at any location on the

continent. Such deliberate imports are no longer permitted under the

Antarctic Treaty System (ATS), and the last dogs were removed from

the continent in 1994. The 1960s and 1970s also saw a number of

intentional botanical transplant experiments into Antarctic field

locations, particularly the maritime Antarctic South Orkney Islands

(Edwards et al. 1973; Edwards 1980; Smith 1996), as part of attempts

to assess the characteristics prerequisite of potential colonising

species. These transplants were sourced from locations typified by

cold climates (subantarctic South Georgia, the Falkland Islands, Arctic

locations). Again, such transplants are no longer permitted, and a strict

permitting system exists under the ATS for controlling the import into

Antarctica of non-native biota for scientific purposes, including the

specifying of controlled conditions for storage/handling and

subsequent destruction.

KNOWN INSTANCES OF INTRODUCTION AND ESTABLISHMENT

It is clear that the number of recorded instances of non-indigenous

species becoming established in the maritime and continental

Antarctic biogeographical zones is much lower than that for the

104

subantarctic (Table 1), with a total of up to eight species (five proven)

known from the former two zones compared with approximately 200

from the latter. There is no evidence to date of any non-indigenous

species becoming invasive in the maritime or continental Antarctic,

with all currently classified as persistent aliens (Frenot et al. 2005). In

addition to the small number of species that have become established

in the Antarctic environment, there are many anecdotal and a few

published instances of non-indigenous biota existing synanthropically

within human habitation and other station buildings over periods of at

least several years (e.g. Greenslade 1987, 2006; Hughes et al. 2005).

The five proven examples are all found in the immediate vicinity of

active research stations. Three are grasses of the genus Poa: P.

annua near the Polish Arctowski Station, King George Island (Olech

1996); P. pratensis at Cierva Point near the Argentinean Primavera

Station, northern Antarctic Peninsula (Smith 1996); and P. trivialis near

the Japanese Syowa Station, on the continental coast (Japan 1996).

While all are known to have been established for at least several

years, there are no detailed studies published of any population or

distribution trends, although it is known anecdotally that the extent of

the P. annua population at Arctowski Station has expanded in recent

ears, and there have been some partial attempts at removal, while P.

ivialis remains a single plant. Both P. annua and P. pratensis are

ubantarctic islands.

y

tr

among non-indigenous species that have become invasive on several

s

The remaining species known to have persistent status are both

invertebrates accidentally introduced to the immediate vicinity of the

105

Biological group Subantarctic Islands

Maritim

e Antarctic

Continental A

ntarctic

Entire S

ubantarctic

South G

eorgia

Marion

Prince E

dward

Crozet

Kerguelen

Heard

MacD

onald

Macquarie

Dicotyledons 0 0 62 17 6 2 40 34 0 0 2 Monocotyledons 2 1 45 15 7 1 18 34 1 0 1 Pteridophytes 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0

Table 1 The occurrence of non-indigenous species across Antarctic

biogeographical zones (updated from Frenot et al. (2005)).

Total non-indigenous plants

2

1

108 33 13 3 59 69 1 0 3

Invertebrates 2-5 0 72 12 18 1 14 30 3 0 28 Vertebrates 0 0 16 3 1 0 6 12 0 0 6

106

British Signy Island Station (South Orkney Islands, maritime Antarctic).

The ns were alm t ainly made t

transplant experiments me n bove (Block, Burn & Richard 1984;

Convey & Block 199 Do -F as & Convey 1997), although their

presence was not gn d il ea 1 s, long after the

originally transplanted plan a l h be re ved ey lu

the enchytraeid worm Christensenidri blo an the brachypterous

c idge retm te u yi, both other k n only

fr tar is outh Georgia. The cie is

p tic, a e h ory ara ristic often ass iate e

s lon tion a o nv nm ll xtr e

lo s (Frenot et al. 2005).

T er re s n nd nous Collemb h b n

ublished from maritime Antarctic sites, but no subsequent studies

recorded from the South Shetland Islands (where there are many

research stations and much human activity) and Léonie Island in

Marguerite Bay (several kilometres from the British Rothera Station on

Adelaide Island) (Greenslade 1995). If proven to have become

established at either location, this species is a particular concern, as it

or its congeners have become aggressive invasive species on some

subantarctic islands, including South Georgia and Macquarie Island

(Convey et al. 1999; Frenot et al. 2005; Greenslade 2006). Folsomia

candida and Protaphorura sp. have been reported from Deception

Island (South Shetland Islands) (Greenslade & Wise 1984). Here, their

in tiotroduc os

ntio

zsa

ise

t m

cert

ed a

ark

unt

teria

during the 1960s plan

6;

reco the

ad

lus

rly

en

cki

980

mo

d

. Th inc de

hironomid m E op ra m rph wise now

om the suban ctic land of S latter spe s

arthenogene lif ist ch cte oc d with th

uccessful co isa of isol ted r e iro enta y e em

cation

hree furth cord of on-i ige ola ave ee

p

have taken place to allow any assessment of either their persistence

or status. The cosmopolitan springtail Hypogastrura viatica has been

107

association with human activity is unproven as, although Deception

eived research attention, and very few

etailed studies or data currently exist (Frenot et al. 2005). This dearth

Island has been the site of several research stations, it is also

geothermally active, a characteristic known to encourage the natural

establishment of lower latitude plant and animal taxa otherwise unable

to survive in the Antarctic terrestrial environment (Convey, Greenslade

& Pugh 2000; Convey et al. 2000a; Smith 2005). The current status of

these two species is unknown.

MICROBIAL GROUPS

The potential significance of microbial introductions to the Antarctic

continent has only recently rec

d

of information is compounded by the very real problem of separating a

“newly recorded” microbial taxon that has been introduced by

anthropogenic means, from one that is present naturally and is either

cosmopolitan in distribution or has dispersed to the region by natural

means, as many microbes are hypothesised to have virtually

unrestricted dispersal capabilities (Finlay 2002). Advances in the

availability of molecular phylogenetic tools promise to improve our

ability to identify non-indigenous microbes – for instance, while the

classically described algal flora is thought to be largely cosmopolitan

(Broady 1996), molecular studies of various microbial groups are now

showing them to be more distinct, and by implication, indicative of

more ancient evolutionarily isolation (Franzmann 1996; Lawley et al.

2004; Boenigk et al. 2006). Molecular biological methods that ease the

108

detection of specific microbes as “indicators” of human activity are also

now available (Baker, Ah Tow & Cowan 2003).

As with larger organisms, the risks of importation of microorganisms

into the Antarctic, and their subsequent movement within the

continent, are recognized (Smith 1996; Wynn-Williams 1996b;

Gavaghan 2002), and some microbial introductions have been

ported (Broady & Smith 1994; Wynn-Williams 1996b; Kashyap &

hukla 2001; Minasaki et al. 2001). Such reports, however, also

in defining the current state of knowledge, in

at there is normally no subsequent attempt to assess whether

particularly skuas and gulls, regularly forage around ports and refuse

re

S

highlight another problem

th

establishment has occurred, as distinct from simple transfer.

Circumstantial evidence of microbial introductions is provided by

studies such as those of Kerry (1990), Upton, Pennington & Haston

(1997) and Azmi & Seppelt (1998) that compare diversity at human

impacted sites (such as the vicinity of research stations) and pristine

areas, suggesting that taxa present only at the former are likely to be

associated with human activity.

The potential of anthropogenic routes of microbial introduction has

received attention in the context of forming a potential source of

disease in wildlife (Kerry, Riddle & Clarke 1999), although an

indisputable link has yet to be demonstrated. Even in instances where

evidence of disease exposure exists (e.g. presence of specific

antibodies), alternative routes of exposure should be considered – for

instance, most Antarctic birds and mammals encounter humans

beyond the Antarctic itself during at least part of the year. While some,

109

sites as well as following ships at sea, before returning to Antarctica to

interact with other native biota and to breed.

One of the potentially most pervasive sources of human-associated

microbial introduction to the Antarctic continent is found in sewage,

generally taken to include human waste and “grey water”. Faecal

bacteria have been located in the marine and terrestrial environments

and sea ice in the vicinity of sewage outfalls, and can potentially

contaminate marine vertebrates (Olsen et al. 1996; Edwards,

McFeters & Venkatesan 1998; Smith & McFeters 1999; Hughes

2003a, 2003b). Their presence also raises the possibility of transfer of

genetic material to indigenous microbiota (Smith & McFeters 1999), or

the introduction of viruses. There would appear to be no practical

alternative to sewage discharge from the main research stations, but it

should also be recognised that effective mitigation measures that

considerably reduce microbial release are often practicable (Hughes &

Blenkharn 2003; Hughes 2004).

Human presence is not simply restricted to research stations, as field

parties travel extensively, if sporadically, across the continent. While

most travel is inevitably over ice and snow, terrestrial habitats (e.g.

rock outcrops) have historically formed the focus of many field

activities, and these provide simple soil habitats for potential microbial

colonists. Few studies of microbial introductions to such sites have

been published (e.g. Cameron 1972; Wynn-Williams 1996b; Sjoling &

Cowan 2000; Cowan & Ah Tow 2004 2005). Meyer, Morrow & Wyss

(1963) and Nedwell, Russell & Cresswell-Maynard (1994) reported the

presence of viable bacteria amongst historical expedition remains that

110

had been in situ for up to 80-90 years. A detailed examination of the

microbial community associated with one 30-40 year old field waste

mp on Alexander Island (Hughes & Nobbs 2004) likewise reported

tinent. In this context, it is important

recognise the strength of the biogeographical boundary across the

du

the presence of a range of culturable microbes, and highlighted the

potential of such sites for future environmental pollution and negative

consequences for human health and scientific research.

THE RISKS OF INTRA-CONTINENTAL TRANSFER

While a focus on the risks associated with the establishment of

species not already native to the Antarctic continent is clearly

important, there is a danger that a separate, but still fundamentally

important, risk will thereby be overlooked. It is often not appreciated

that the Antarctic continent is not a single biogeographical unit and,

therefore, that there are clear threats to regional biodiversity from

transfers occurring within the con

to

southern Antarctic Peninsula (the “Gressitt Line” – Chown & Convey

2007), across which a number of major higher taxonomic groups (in

particular the Acari, Collembola and Nematoda) share no or virtually

no species. Contemporary biogeographical studies are also

highlighting that the current view of Antarctic terrestrial biogeography

is over-simplified. A continent-wide analysis of biogeographical

associations in the moss and lichen flora (Peat, Clarke & Convey

2007) supports refinement of the two-part continental and maritime

Antarctic zonation in use until now. Detailed regional studies of

nematodes (Maslen & Convey 2006) and tardigrades (Convey &

111

McInnes 2005) report the existence of considerable levels of

previously unknown diversity within specific subregions that do not

reconcile comfortably with the accepted clines of decreasing diversity

with increasing latitude and environmental severity; elsewhere on the

planet these findings would be interpreted as indicative of the

existence of long-term refugia or biodiversity hotspots.

Molecular biological studies are also now starting to generate data

terrestrial biota

re considerably more ancient or evolutionarily distinct than previously

indicating that at least some elements of the Antarctic

a

suspected (Allegrucci et al. 2006; Boenigk et al. 2006; Stevens &

Hogg 2006). Such studies highlight an often unappreciated element of

biodiversity – that of local evolutionary differentiation. The highly

fragmented and isolated nature of Antarctic terrestrial ecosystems,

combined with evidence of their long-term existence as provided by

such studies, provides an ideal template upon which differentiation

processes can occur. The biogeographical and genetic distinctness of

such ecosystems, however, is clearly much more vulnerable than

previously appreciated to the inadvertent transfer of biota within the

Antarctic itself. Two examples can be used as illustrative case studies

of the risks associated with intra-continental transfer of biota otherwise

regarded as native to the Antarctic continent.

First, Convey et al. (2000b) describe the terrestrial ecosystems of

isolated nunataks on the northern coast of maritime Antarctic Charcot

Island, itself a very isolated island in the eastern Bellingshausen Sea,

west of Alexander Island. These nunataks have been visited on only

four or five occasions by geologists and biologists operating with the

112

British Antarctic Survey, with access being via an approximately two

hour flight from the British Rothera Station. The biota and diversity of

the terrestrial ecosystems at this location are exceptional in a number

of respects, but most pertinent here is that they lack any

representatives of the Collembola, with the only arthropods present

being a diverse Acari community, otherwise typical of the maritime

ntarctic. Maslen & Convey (2006) also report the presence of

s unlikely, and any form

f mitigation impracticable.

A

previously unknown Nematoda at this site. At present, no other

locations within the maritime Antarctic are known to lack Collembola.

This lack of an otherwise ubiquitous biological and functional group

provides an almost unique research opportunity, in combination with

studies of ‘typical’ maritime Antarctic terrestrial ecosystems, to

address fundamental questions in ecological theory relating to species

and functional redundancy and the controls of ecosystem structure. It

is also clear that any human contact with the ecosystems of Charcot

Island, which will inevitably originate from a maritime Antarctic location

where Collembola are native, will immediately create a serious risk of

the transfer of these arthropods. If such an eventuality occurs, the

likelihood of establishment is considerably increased by the fact that

the Collembola indigenous to the maritime Antarctic already possess

the ecophysiological and life history features required for survival at

this location, while rapid detection of transfer i

o

Second, Convey & McInnes (2005) have described tardigrade

dominated terrestrial ecosystems associated with inland nunatak

ranges covering a wide area in Ellsworth Land, at 75-77ºS in the

southern Antarctic Peninsula. These ecosystems are currently unique

113

worldwide in lacking any representatives of the Nematoda, a group

previously thought to be ubiquitous in terrestrial ecosystems

(Freckman & Virginia 1997). The risks faced by these ecosystems are

at least twofold. First, as in the example of Charcot Island, they lack

representatives of taxonomic and functional groups that are generally

common in most other Antarctic terrestrial ecosystems, including those

from which the logistical operations required to access Ellsworth Land

emanate. Hence the inadvertent transfer of pre-adapted Antarctic biota

is a very real possibility. Second, these Ellsworth Land mountain

ranges (and also the larger Ellsworth Mountains range, about which

virtually no biological information is available) host “forward support”

facilities and field camps supporting, primarily, the deep field

operations of the British Antarctic Survey (Sky Hi Nunataks) and

tourism activities of Antarctic Logistics and Expeditions (Patriot Hills).

As well as these primary operators, these locations are visited by the

aeroplanes of several other operators, in journeys emanating from

diverse locations across the Antarctic continent and southern Antarctic

Peninsula, and even from King George Island (South Shetland

Islands) and Punta Arenas (Tierra del Fuego), and the frequency and

operational footprint of such journeys is increasing. Virtually all of

these journeys inevitably cross the biogeographical boundary formed

by the Gressitt Line, hence further exacerbating the risk of intra-

continental transfer of species native only to one part of the Antarctic

ontinent. While transfer in such instances is only one step in the c

process ultimately leading to establishment, it should again be

emphasised that many of the biota that could potentially be transferred

will automatically be pre-adapted to environmental conditions at the

new location.

114

CONCLUSIONS

The Antarctic continent appears currently to be largely unaffected by

the introduction of non-indigenous species, with very few known

examples of long term establishment, and no species yet becoming

invasive. This simple and apparently positive picture should not,

however, lead to complacency. The current level of knowledge is

based on a very incomplete dataset, with relevant information simply

not available for many biological groups (in particular, but not

restricted to, microbial groups) and geographical locations, or over the

extended timescales required to identify true establishment and

population trends. As well as there being a clear and urgent

requirement for baseline and continuing biological survey to address

this lack of knowledge, there are also no established monitoring

studies designed with the intention of identifying new instances of

introduction, or targeting non-indigenous species already known to be

established in order to provide continuing assessment of their status or

any change in the threat they pose.

It is clear that, both for the subantarctic and the continent itself,

anthropogenic mechanisms of colonisation already far outweigh

natural dispersal and colonisation processes (Pugh 1997; Frenot et al.

2005; Chown & Convey 2007). This effectively negates the dispersal

filter that exists through the isolation of Antarctic terrestrial habitats, by

removing the need for physiological or life history strategies allowing

survival of the stresses inevitably experienced during unassisted

transfer from the other southern continents or Southern Ocean islands.

115

It is well known that many lower latitude microbial, plant and

es possess features that would allow them to survive

the more extreme conditions of the Antarctic. Antarctica is now

it is clear that any human visit to

e continent carries with it a risk of the introduction of new non-

invertebrate speci

in

faced by twin threats from such species. First, regional climate change

trends leading to amelioration of existing climate regimes will lower the

ecophysiological barriers involved in “natural” transfer and

establishment. Second, continuing and increased human contact with

the continent will result in a greater frequency of inadvertent

anthropogenic introduction events (Frenot et al. 2005; Convey et al.

2006, in press).

Humans are already having extraordinary impacts on regional and

global diversity (Brooks et al. 2002; Thomas et al. 2004; Balmford et

al. 2005; Gaston 2005), impacts that are largely yet to be felt by the

Antarctic continent. Human contact with Antarctica, both through the

research and logistic activities of national Antarctic operators, and the

various elements of recreational tourism, is currently increasing rapidly

and, realistically, is likely to continue to do so (Frenot et al. 2005;

COMNAP 2006; IAATO 2006). While

th

indigenous species, in an Antarctic context there are realistic

measures available to minimise this risk (e.g. Whinam, Chilcott &

Bergstrom 2004; Frenot et al. 2005; Curry et al. 2005; De Poorter et al.

2006). In combination with monitoring programmes that would allow

the rapid adoption of mitigation measures, a practical measure of

protection can be given to maintain the integrity of Antarctic

ecosystems. There is clearly an urgent requirement to better

understand the native biodiversity of Antarctic terrestrial ecosystems,

116

as well as to document the existence and current status of non-

indigenous species, and set in place sufficient and robust monitoring

and control measures to allow assessment of and response to any

change in status and risk to native ecosystems.

The consequences of establishment of non-indigenous species in

Antarctica will mirror those already well documented worldwide. These

include the loss of biodiversity through the blurring of biogeographic

boundaries and loss of genetic identity (Chown & Convey 2007). In the

context of Antarctic terrestrial ecosystems, their typically island-like

nd isolated nature exacerbates this risk, in the process also a

compromising the value of the continent as a scientific research

resource. In comparison with terrestrial ecosystems across the rest of

the world, the Antarctic continent is still, arguably, unique. It is the

least affected by the introduction of non-indigenous species to date.

Through the relatively limited number (in absolute terms) of access

routes, vessels and journeys it is the most practicable of continents on

which to apply control measures. High standards of environmental

stewardship are imposed on visitors to the continent through agreed

mechanisms within the ATS and the International Association of

Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO). This combination of factors means

that the Antarctic provides one of the last opportunities available to

humankind to demonstrate our ability to instigate and apply continent-

wide control and conservation measures, while failure to do so will

provide an irreversible legacy.

117

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author thanks the convenors of the workshop for the invitation to

ontribute and for financial support. This paper forms an output of the

wan, D.A. (2003). Detection of non- ‘pristine’ environments. Journal of

icrobiological Methods 53, 157-164.

c

British Antarctic Survey’s BIOPEARL project, and the SCAR Evolution

and Biodiversity in Antarctica (EBA) Programme.

REFERENCES

Adams, B., Bardgett, R.D., Ayres, E., Wall, D.H., Aislabie, J., Bamforth, S., Bargagli, R., Cary, C., Cavacini, P., Connell, L., Convey, P., Fell, J., Frati, F., Hogg, I., Newsham, N., O’Donnell, A., Russell, N., Seppelt, R. & Stevens, M.I. (2006). Diversity and Distribution of Victoria Land Biota. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 38, 3003-3018.

Allegrucci, G., Carchini, G., Todisco, V., Convey, P. & Sbordoni, V. (2006). A molecular phylogeny of Antarctic Chironomidae and its implications for biogeographical history. Polar Biology 29, 320-326.

Azmi, O.R. & Seppelt, R.D. (1998). ‘The broad-scale distribution of microfungi in the Windmill Islands region, Antarctica. Polar Biology 19, 92-100.

Bailey, R.H. & James, P.W. (1979). Birds and the dispersal of lichen propagules. Lichenologist 11, 105

Baker, G., Ah Tow, L. & Coindigenous micro-organisms inM

118

Balmford, A., Crane, P., Dobson, A., Green, R. E. & Mace, G. M. e: data availability, information needs and hilosophiocal Transactions of the Royal

ociety of London, series B 360, 221-228.

y five phyla on man-ade flotsam in the Southern Ocean. Marine Ecology Progress Series 62, 289-291.

Warren, N., Webb, K., Phalan, B. & Reid, K. (2004). olar pedunculate barnacles piggy-back on pycnogona, penguins, inniped seals and plastics. Marine Ecology Progress Series 284, 305-

R., ondy, P.R. & Laws, R.M.). Springer-Verlag, Berlin. pp 592-596.

and change on southern ocean islands. Trends in Ecology nd Evolution 14, 472-476.

microbiology, invertebrates and cosystems. In: Antarctic Ecology. (ed. Laws, R.M.). Academic Press,

984). An insect introduction to e maritime Antarctic. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 23,

33-39.

(2005). The 2010 challengextraterrestrial insights. PS

Barnes, D.K.A. (2002). ‘Invasions by marine life on plastic debris. Nature 416, 808-809.

Barnes, D.K.A. & Fraser, K.P.P. (2003). Rafting bm2

Barnes, D.K.A., Pp310.

Barnes, D.K.A., Hodgson, D.A., Convey, P., Allen, C, & Clarke, A. (2006). Incursion and excursion of Antarctic biota: past, present and uture. Global Ecology and Biogeography 15, 121-142. f

Benninghoff, W.S. & Benninghoff, A.S. (1985). Wind transport of electrostatically charged particles and minute organisms in Antarctica. n: Antarctic Nutrient Cycles and Food Webs. (eds. Siegfried, W.IC

Bergstrom, D.M. & Chown, S.L. (1999). Life at the front: history, cology e

a

lock, W. (1984). Terrestrial BeLondon. pp 163-236.

lock, W., Burn, A.J. & Richard, K.J. (1Bth

119

Boenigk, J., Pfandl, K., Garstecki, T., Harms, H., Novarino, G. & Chatzinotas, A. (2006). Evidence for geographic isolation and signs of ndemism within a protistan morphe

Eospecies. Applied and

nvironmental Microbiology 72, 5159–5164.

B. (2002). Uses, preservation, and protection f Antarctic coastal regions. In: Geoecology of Antarctic ice-free

roady, P.A. (1996). Diversity, distribution and dispersal of Antarctic

ity, survivability and dispersal of algae introduced into Antarctica y human activity. Proceedings of the NIPR Symposium on Polar

a Fonseca, G. . B., Rylands, A. B., Konstant, W. R., Flick, P., Pilgrim, J., Oldfield,

rctic rrestrial ecosystem. In: Proceedings of the Colloquium on

hown, S.L. & Convey, P. (2007). Spatial and temporal variability

9.

ölter, M. & Stonehouse, Bocoastal landscapes. (eds. Beyer, L. & Bölter, M.) Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Ecological Studies 154, 393-407.

Bterrestrial algae. Biodiversity and Conservation 5, 307-1335.

Broady, P.A. & Smith, R.A. (1994) A preliminary investigation of the iversd

bBiology 7, 185-197.

rooks, T. M., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., dBAS., Magin, G. & Hilton-Taylor, C. (2002). Habitat loss and extinction in the hotspots of biodiversity. Conservation Biology 16, 909-923.

ameron, R.E. (1972). Pollution and conservation of the AntaCteConservation Problems in Antarctica. (ed. Parker, B.C.). Allen Press, Lawrence, Kansas. pp 267-306.

Cacross life’s hierarchies in the terrestrial Antarctic. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, series B. DOI 10.1098/rstb.2006.194

Clarke, A. (2003). Evolution, adaptation and diversity: global ecology in an Antarctic context. In: Antarctic Biology in a Global Context. (eds.

120

Huiskes, A.H.L., Gieskes, W.W.C., Rozema, J., Schorno, R.M.L., Van

, 1-3.

onvey, P. (2001). Antarctic Ecosystems. In: Encyclopedia of

Recent lepidopteran records from Sub-Antarctic outh Georgia. Polar Biology 28, 108-110.

, D.M., onvey, P. & Huiskes, A.H.L.). Springer, Dordrecht.

onvey, P. & Block, W. (1996). Antarctic dipterans: ecology,

rom Ellsworth Land, Antarctica. Ecology 86, 19-527.

Peck, L.S. (2007). An holistic approach to understanding the biological

Der Vries, S.M. & Wolff, W.J.). Backhuys, Leiden. pp 3-17.

Clarke, A., Barnes, D.K.A. & Hodgson, D.A. (2005) How isolated is Antarctica? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20

Convey, P. (1996a) Overwintering strategies of terrestrial invertebrates in Antarctica – the significance of flexibility in extremely seasonal environments. European Journal of Entomology 93, 489-505.

CBiodiversity (ed. Levin, S.A.). 1st Edition, Academic Press, San Diego, Vol. 1. pp 171-184.

Convey, P. (2003) Maritime Antarctic climate change: signals from terrestrial biology. Antarctic Research Series 79, 145-158. Convey, P. (2005). S

Convey, P. (2006) Antarctic climate change and its impacts on terrestrial ecosystems. In: Trends in Antarctic Terrestrial and Limnetic Ecosystems: Antarctica as a Global Indicator. (eds. BergstromC

Convey, P. (in press). Antarctic Ecosystems. In: Encyclopedia of Biodiversity (ed. Levin, S.A.). 2nd Edition, Elsevier, San Diego.

Cphysiology and distribution. European Journal of Entomology 93, 1-13.

Convey, P. & McInnes, S.J. (2005). Exceptional, tardigrade ominated, ecosystems fd

5

Convey, P., Barnes, D.K.A., Clark, M.S., Dominic, A., Hodgson, D.A. &

121

impacts of climate change: Antarctica as a planetary warning system. Inside Agriculture 2, 16-39.

Convey, P., Frenot, F., Gremmen, N. & Bergstrom, D. (2006). Biological invasions. In: Trends in Antarctic Terrestrial and Limnetic

cosystems: Antarctica as a Global Indicator. (eds. Bergstrom, D.M.,

auna of e South Sandwich Island. Journal of Natural History 34, 597-609.

onvey, P., Smith, R.I.L., Hodgson, D.A. & Peat, H.J. (2000a). The

ugh, P.J.A. (2000b). The rrestrial biota of Charcot Island, eastern Bellingshausen Sea,

ams (COMNAP) 006). Antarctic Operations. www.comnap.aq/operations

icrobial ommunities. Annual Review of Microbiology 58, 649-690.

digenous bacterial genomes in pristine Antarctic environments.

., McCarthy, J.S., Darragh, H.M., Wake, R.A., Churchill, .E., Robins, A.M. & Lowen, R.J. 2005, “Identification of an agent

EConvey, P. & Huiskes, A.H.L.). Springer, Dordrecht.

Convey, P., Greenslade, P. & Pugh, P.J.A. (2000). Terrestrial fthConvey, P., Greenslade, P., Arnold, R.J. & Block, W. (1999) Collembola of Sub-Antarctic South Georgia. Polar Biology 22, 1-6.

Cflora of the South Sandwich Islands, with particular reference to the influence of geothermal heating. Journal of Biogeography 27, 1279-

295. 1

Convey, P., Smith, R.I.L., Peat, H.J. & PteAntarctica an example of extreme isolation. Antarctic Science 12, 406-413.

Council of Managers of National Antarctic Progr(2

Cowan, D.A. & Ah Tow, L. (2004) Endangered Antarctic mc

Cowan, D.A. & Ah Tow, L. (2005). Dissemination and survival of non-inExtremophiles 9, 385-389.

Curry, C.HSsuitable for disinfecting boots of visitors to the Antarctic”, Polar Record 41(216), 39-45.

122

e Poorter, M., Gilbert, N., DN

Storey, B. & Rogan-Finnemore, M. (2006). on-native species in the Antarctic – a workshop, Gateway Antarctica,

, 482-486. [this aper subsequently modified – see Erratum, Polar Biology 20, 292

rine nvironment influenced by the sewage outfall from McMurdo Station,

outh Georgia to the maritime Antarctic. British Antarctic Survey ulletin 49, 73-80.

s. British Antarctic Survey Bulletin 33 & 34, 33-45.

ervation 5, 295-1305.

istribution and response to disturbance. cology 78, 363-369.

nd implications. Biological Reviews 80, 45-72.

Christchurch. 40 pp.

Dózsa-Farkas, K. & Convey, P. (1997). Christensenia, a new nchytraeid genus from Antarctica. Polar Biology 17e

p(1998)]

Edwards, D.D., McFeters, G.A. & Venkatesan, M.I. (1998). Distribution f Clostridium perfringens and fecal sterols in a benthic coastal mao

eAntarctica. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 64, 2596- 2600.

Edwards, J.A. (1980). An experimental introduction of vascular plants rom Sf

B

Edwards, J.A. & Greene, D.M. (1973). The survival of Falklands Islands transplants at South Georgia and Signy Island, South Orkney slandI

Finlay, B.J. (2002). Global dispersal of free-living microbial eukaryote pecies. Science 296, 1061–1063. s

Franzmann, P.D. (1996). Examination of Antarctic prokaryotic diversity hrough molecular comparisons. Biodiversity and Const

1

Freckman, D.W. & Virginia, R.A. (1997). Low-diversity Antarctic soil ematode communities: dn

E

Frenot, Y., Chown, S.L., Whinam, J., Selkirk, P., Convey, P., Skotnicki, M. & Bergstrom, D. (2005). Biological invasions in the Antarctic: extent, impacts a

123

Gaston, K.J. (2005). Biodiversity and extinction: species and people. Progress in Physical Geography 29, 239-247.

Gaston, K.J., Jones A.G., Hänel, C. & Chown, S.L. (2003). Rates of

). Life in the deep freeze. Nature 415, 828-830.

reenslade, P. & Wise, K.A.J. (1984). Additions to the collembolan

reenslade, P., Farrow, R.A. & Smith, J.M.B. (1999). Long distance

ogg, I.D., Cary, S.C., Convey, P., Newsham, K.K., O’Donnell, T.,

species introduction to a remote oceanic island. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, series B 270, 1091–1098.

avaghan, H. (2002G

Greenslade, P. (1995). Collembola from the Scotia Arc and Antarctic Peninsula including descriptions of two new species and notes on biogeography. Polskie Pismo Entomologiczne 64, 305-319.

Greenslade, P. (2006). The Invertebrates of Macquarie Island. Australian Antarctic Division, Kingston, Tasmania. xvi + 326 pp.

Gfauna of the Antarctic. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia 108, 203-205.

Gmigration of insects to a sub Antarctic island. Journal of Biogeography 26, 1161-1167.

Gremmen, N. & Smith, V. (2004). The flora of Marion and Prince Edward Islands. Data Analyse Ecologie, Diever, Netherlands.

HAdams, B.J., Aislabie, J., Frati, F.F., Stevens, M.I. & Wall, D.H. (2006). Biotic interactions in Antarctic terrestrial ecosystems: are they a factor? Soil Biology and Biochemistry 38, 3035-3040.

Hughes, K.A. (2003a). Aerial dispersal and survival of sewage-derived faecal coliforms in Antarctica. Atmospheric Environment 37, 3147-3155.

124

Hughes, K.A. (2003b). The influence of seasonal environmental variables on the distribution of presumptive fecal coliforms around an

ntarctic research station. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 5,

in the Antarctic arine environment using a sewage treatment plant. Marine Pollution

ughes, K.A. & Blenkharn, N. (2003). A simple method to reduce

, D.M., onvey, P. & Huiskes, A.H.L.). Springer, Dordrecht.

A555-565.

Hughes, K.A. (2004). Reducing sewage pollutionmBulletin 46, 353-357.

Hughes, K.A. (2007). Accidental transfer of alien soil species into Antarctica on construction vehicles. Aliens Newsletter 23 (in press).

Hdischarge of sewage microorganisms from an Antarctic research station. Marine Pollution Bulletin 46, 353-357.

Hughes, K.A. & Nobbs, S.J. (2004). Long-term survival of human faecal microorganisms on the Antarctic Peninsula. Antarctic Science 16, 293-297.

Hughes, K.A., McCartney, H.A., Lachlan-Cope, T.A. & Pearce D.A. (2004). A preliminary study of airborne microbial biodiversity over peninsular Antarctica. Cellular and Molecular Biology 50, 537-542.

Hughes, K., Ott, S., Bölter, M., & Convey, P. (2006). Colonisation processes. In: Trends in Antarctic Terrestrial and Limnetic

cosystems: Antarctica as a Global Indicator. (eds. BergstromEC

Hughes, K.A., Walsh, S., Convey, P., Richards, S. & Bergstrom, D. (2005). Alien fly populations established at two Antarctic research tations. Polar Biology 28, 568-570. s

International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators (IAATO) (2006). Tourism Statistics. www.iaato.org

125

Japan (1996). A grass (seed plant) found in Syowa Station area, East

A.K. & Shukla, S.P. (2001). Algal species diversity of chirmacher Oasis, Antarctica: a survey. Abstracts of VIII SCAR

oorganisms colonising plants and soil subjected different degrees of human activity, including petroleum

ronmental Microbiology 70, 5963-5972.

ress.

Antarctica. XX Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Information Paper 66.

Kashyap, SInternational Biology Symposium, Amsterdam, Abstract S5P62.

Kerry, E. (1990). Micrtocontamination, in the Vestfold Hills and MacRobertson Land. Polar Biology 10, 423-430.

Kerry, K., Riddle, M. & Clarke, J. (1999). Diseases of Antarctic Wildlife, A Report for The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) and The Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs COMNAP), 104 pp. (

Lawley, B., Ripley, S., Bridge, P. & Convey, P. (2004). Molecular analysis of geographic patterns of eukaryotic diversity in Antarctic oils. Applied and Envis

Lewis, P.N., Bergstrom, D.M. & Whinam, J. (2006). Barging in: a temperate marine community travels to the sub Antarctic. Biological nvasions DOI: 10.1007/s10530-005-3837-6 I

Lewis, P.N., Riddle, M.J. & Smith, S.D.A. (2005). Assisted passage or passive drift: a comparison of alternative transport mechanisms for non-indigenous coastal species into the Southern Ocean. Antarctic

cience 17, 183-191. S

Lister, A, Block, W. & Usher, M.B. (1988). Arthropod predation in an Antarctic terrestrial community. Journal of Animal Ecology 57, 957-71. 9

Longton, R.E. (1988). Biology of Polar Bryophytes and Lichens. ambridge, Cambridge University PC

126

Lyons, W.B., Howard-Williams, C. & Hawes, I. (eds.) (1997). cosystemE

R Processes in Antarctic Ice-Free Landscapes. Balkema,

otterdam.

e Antarctic – clues to history? Soil Biology and iochemistry 38, 3141-3151.

9, 163-167.

s of VIII CAR International Biology Symposium, Amsterdam, Abstract S5P28.

vehicle in the Southern emisphere. Science 304, 1144-1147.

o Sound. Antarctic Science 6, 67-68.

ational Institute of Polar Research, Tokyo, Japan.

Marshall, W.A. (1996). Biological particles over Antarctica. Nature 383, 80. 6

Marshall, W.A. & Convey, P. (1997). Dispersal of moss propagules on Signy Island, maritime Antarctic. Polar Biology 18, 376-383. Maslen, N.R. & Convey, P. (2006). Nematode diversity and distribution n the southern maritimiB

Meyer, G.H., Morrow, M.B. & Wyss, O. (1963). Viable organisms from faeces and foodstuffs from early Antarctic expeditions. Canadian ournal of MicrobiologyJ

Minasaki, R., Farrell, R.L., Duncan, S., Held, B.W. & Blanchette, R.A. (2001). Mycological biodiversity associated with historic huts and

rtefacts of the heroic period in the Ross Sea region. AbstractaS

Muñoz, J., Felicísimo, A.M., Cabezas, F., Burgaz, A.R. & Martínez, I. 2004). Wind as a long-distance dispersal (

H

Nedwell, D.B., Russell, N.J. & Cresswell-Maynard, T. (1994). Long-term survival of microorganisms in frozen material from early Antarctic

ase camps at McMurdb

Olech M. (1996). Human impact on terrestrial ecosystems in West Antarctica. NIPR Symposium on Polar Biology, Proceedings 9, 299-06, N3

127

Olsen, B., Bergstrom, S., McCafferty, D.J., Sellin, M. & Wistrom, J.

eat, H.J., Clarke, A. & Convey, P. (2007). Diversity and biogeography

ugh, P.J.A. (1997). Acarine colonization of Antarctica and the islands

tic flying birds. Antarctic Journal of the SA 13, 147-149.

oric field camp site. Polar Biology 3, 644-650.

cientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) and the Council of

mith, R.I.L (2005). The bryophyte flora of geothermal habitats on Deception Island, Antarctica. Journal of Hattori Botanical Laboratory 97, 233-248.

(1996). Salmonella enteritidis in Antarctica: Zoonosis in man or humanosis in penguins? Lancet 348, 1319-1320.

Pof the Antarctic flora. Journal of Biogeography 34, 132-146.

Pof the Southern Ocean: the role of zoohoria. Polar Record 33, 113-122.

Schlichting, H.E., Speziale, B.J. & Zink, R.M. (1978). Dispersal of algae and protozoa by AntarcU

Sjoling, S. & Cowan, D.A. (2000). Presence of human-specific enteric micro-organisms in current and hist2

Smith, J.J. & McFeters, G.A. (1999). Microbial issues of sewage disposal from Antarctic bases: dispersion, persistence, pathogens and “genetic pollution”. In: Disease of Antarctic Wildlife. A report for the SManagers of National Antarctic Programs (CONMAP). (eds. Kerry, K.M., Riddle, M. & Clarke, J.). Australian Antarctic Division, Kingston. pp 56-57.

Smith R.I.L. (1984). Terrestrial Plant Biology of the Sub-Antarctic and Antarctic. In: Antarctic Ecology. (ed. Laws, R.M.). Academic Press, London. pp 61-162.

Smith, R.I.L. (1996). Introduced plants in Antarctica: potential impacts and conservation issues. Biological Conservation 76, 135-146.

S

128

Stevens, M.I., Greenslade, P., Hogg, I.D. & Sunnucks, P. (2006). outhern hemisphere springtails: could any have sS

Aurvived glaciation of

ntarctica? Molecular Biology and Evolution 23, 874–882.

eaumont, .J., Collingham, Y.C., Erasmus, B.F.N., de Siqueira, M.F., Grainger,

s, S.E. (2004). Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427, 45-148.

e area around an Antarctic research station. ntarctic Science 9, 156–161.

an Antarctic terrestrial community. In: University esearch in Antarctica (Antarctic Special Topic). (ed. Heywood, R.B.).

J.C., Fromentin, J.-M., Hoegh-Guldberg, O. & Bairlein, F. 002). Ecological responses to recent climate change. Nature 416,

t, N. & Bergstrom, D.M. (2004). Subantarctic itchhikers: expeditioners as vectors for the introduction of alien

ynn-Williams, D.D. (1993). Microbial processes and the initial

homas, C.D., Cameron, A., Green, R.E., Bakkenes, M., BTLA., Hannah, L., Hughes, L., Huntley, B., van Jaarsveld, A.S., Midgley, G.F., Miles, L., Ortega-Huerta, M.A., Peterson, A.T., Phillips, O.L. & William1

Upton, M., Pennington, T.H. & Haston, W. (1997). Detecting commensals in thA

Usher, M.B., Block, W. & Jumeau, P.J.A.M. (1989). Predation by arthropods inRBritish Antarctic Survey, Cambridge. pp. 123-129.

Vincent, W.F. (1988). Microbial Ecosystems of Antarctica. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Walther, G.-R., Post, E., Convey, P., Parmesan, C., Menzel, M., eebee, T.B

(2389-395.

hinam, J., ChilcotWhorganisms. Biological Conservation 121, 207-219.

Wstabilisation of fellfield soil. In: Primary Succession on Land. (eds. Miles, J. & Walton, D.W.H.). Blackwell, Oxford.

129

Wynn-Williams, D.D. (1996a). Antarctic microbial diversity: the basis of

ynn-Williams, D.D. (1996b). Response of pioneer soil microalgal

tode communities along an Antarctic environmental gradient. EMS Microbiology Ecology 59, 436-451.

polar ecosystem processes. Biodiversity and Conservation 5, 1271-1293.

Wcolonists to environmental change in Antarctica. Microbial Ecology 31, 177-188.

Yergeau, E., Bokhorst, S., Huiskes, A.H.L., Boschker, H.T.S., Aerts, R., & Kowalchuk, G.A. (2007). Size and structure of bacterial, fungal and nemaF

130

AVAILABILITY AND APPLICABILITY OF LEGAL TOOLS FOR MANAGING NON-NATIVE SPECIES

BILL MANSFIELD1 AND NEIL GILBERT2

ABSTRACT

It can no longer be assumed that the remoteness and extreme climatic

conditions of Antarctica will protect it from the unintentional

introduction of non-native species. A changing, more benign climate

in certain parts of Antarctica, coupled with increasing visitation means

the risks of non-native species being introduced and becoming

established are increasing. At present the region remains relatively

free from invasions by alien species. The Antarctic Treaty3 Parties

therefore have an opportunity to develop and implement preventative

measures to ensure the ongoing protection of the Antarctic

environment.

In an Antarctic context some progress has been made to address the

issue, through the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the

Antarctic Treaty 1991.4 However, the Protocol deals only with the

control of intentional introductions of non-native species and does not

1 Barrister and international legal consultant. 2 Environmental Manager, Antarctica New Zealand. Corresponding author: Gilbert, N. (n.gilbert@antarcticanz.govt.nz) 3 The Antarctic Treaty, opened for signature 1 December 1959, 402 UNTS 71 (entered into force 23 June 1961) (‘Antarctic Treaty’). 4 Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, opened for signature on 4 October 1991, 30 ILM (1991) (entered into force 14 January 1998) (‘Protocol’).

131

nec of

un

Away from Antarctica, a number of international agreements have

addressed the issue of biodiversity conservation and the risks

ssociated with non-native species. While these agreements do not

pply directly to the Antarctic region, certain provisions

nd approaches will be valuable to the Antarctic Treaty Parties in their

emselves “to the comprehensive protection of the

ntarctic environment and dependent and associated ecosystems”

environment and dependent and associated ecosystems, and the

e fundamental considerations in

essarily provide an adequate framework for managing the risks

intentional introductions.

a

necessarily a

a

development of Antarctic-specific measures.

This paper reviews the legal tools available for regulating and

managing the risks associated with non-native species introductions.

INTRODUCTION

With the adoption of the Protocol in 1991, the Antarctic Treaty Parties

committed th

A

and designated Antarctica as “a natural reserve devoted to peace and

science”.5

The Treaty Parties also agreed that the “protection of the Antarctic

intrinsic value of Antarctica…shall b

the planning and conduct of all activities in the Antarctic Treaty area.”6

5 Protocol, Article 2 6 Protocol, Article 3

132

No other region on the planet enjoys a comparable level of

ternational commitment to its protection. But if this commitment to

to concerns over the

otential resumption of commercial sealing in Antarctica. The

iving Resources 19808 (CCAMLR) and the Convention on the

egulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities 19889 (CRAMRA)

cern amongst the Treaty Parties that unregulated

source activity could have serious effects on the Antarctic

nd precautionary way, before they develop into major

roblems, may now need to be applied to the issue of non-native

in

protecting the natural environment in Antarctica is to be more than a

paper exercise it requires the Treaty Parties to respond to challenges

as they arise and, to the maximum extent possible, anticipate future

threats. The Treaty Parties already have a track record of taking such

pre-emptive action. The Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic

Seals 19727 (CCAS), was negotiated due

p

negotiations on living resources and mineral resources that led

respectively to the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine

L

R

stemmed from con

re

environment as well as lead to tension and conflict that could put the

Antarctic Treaty itself at risk.10

This characteristic of tackling Antarctic environmental issues in a

proactive a

p

species. With parts of Antarctica showing a significant warming trend,

7 Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Seals, opened for signature 1 June 1972, 29 UST441 (entered into force 11 March 1978) (‘CCAS’). 8 Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, opened for signature on 20 May 1980, 19 ILM (1980) (entered into force 7 April 1982) (‘CCAMLR’). 9 Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities, opened for signature on 25 November 1988, 27 ILM (1988) (Not in force) (‘CRAMRA’).

is unlikely to enter into force now that the Protocol has introduced ineral resource activities.

10 Though CRAMRAan indefinite ban on m

133

and thus a less hostile environment, and with ever increasing visitation

d female North Atlantic spider crab.

ther examples of non-native Antarctic species are provided in other

economies and the issue is now the subject of increasing attention at

to Antarctica, the risks associated with unintentional species

introductions may well require the Treaty Parties to take preventive

action.

To the north of the Antarctic continent invasive alien species have had

a major impact on the natural biodiversity of many of the subantarctic

islands (Frenot et al. 2005). Rats on South Georgia have had a

devastating effect on several ground-nesting birds. There is a long list

of non-native vascular plants on many subantarctic Islands. Maritime

Antarctica is also not immune from persistent non-native species with

two species of grass (Poa pratensis and Poa annua) present in small

areas at Cierva Point on the northern Antarctic Peninsula and King

George Island respectively (Smith 1996). More recently, Tavares and

De Melo (2004) have reported the first discovery of a non-indigenous

marine species in Antarctic waters. Their reanalysis of material

collected during a 1986 Antarctic Peninsula research cruise revealed

the presence of both a male an

O

papers in this volume.

In other parts of the world there are numerous examples of the

impacts of invasive alien species on local and regional biodiversity and

national and international levels.

Against this background, this paper will consider the existing legal

controls that are in place within the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) to

134

manage non-native species as well as looking at regulatory controls

internationally and to consider the utility of these regimes in the

Antarctic context.

LEGAL TOOLS WITHIN THE ATS The Agreed Measures on the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora 196411

The Antarctic Treaty itself contains little in the way of environmental

protection provisions. However, within just three years of its entry into

force the Parties had turned their attention to issues related to the

management of the Antarctic environment. The first substantive

demonstration of this was the adoption of the 1964 Agreed Measures

on the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora. The Agreed

Measures addressed the issue of non-indigenous species, parasites

and diseases through its Article IX, which provided for:

a prohibition on the importation to Antarctica of any species of

animal or plant not indigenous to the Antarctic Treaty Area

except in accordance with a permit;

a restriction on the types of animals and plants that could be

ents to ensure that all reasonable

precautions be taken against accidental introduction of

permitted (these were listed in Annex C to the Agreed

Measures), and the need for permits to specify strict controls;

an exemption for the importation of food; and

an obligation on Governm

11 Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora, Misc. 23 (1965) Cmnd. (‘Agreed Measures’). Adopted at the third Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (Brussels, 2-13 June 1964).

135

parasites and diseases particularly those precautions set out

in Annex D to the Agreed Measures.

Annex C limited the importation of non-indigenous species to

ntarctica to dogs, domestic animals and plants, laboratory animals

ria, yeasts and fungi. Annex D

quired dogs to be inoculated against specified diseases and

of commercial

har

comme

of non- ich the key principles of

con

conserv

A

and plants including viruses, bacte

re

prohibited the importation to Antarctica of live poultry.

At the time the focus of attention was clearly on terrestrial Antarctica,

with no specific mention of controls to prevent introductions to the

marine environment. This issue was to an extent addressed in 1980

with the adoption of CCAMLR.

Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR)

Whilst CCAMLR was negotiated to address the issue

vesting of marine species, and more specifically concerns over the

rcial harvesting of krill, the convention does recognise the issue

native species in its Article II, in wh

servation are set out. Article II(3)(c) states that one of the

ation principles of CCAMLR is the:

136

“presermarine reversible over two to three de f available knowledge of

e direct and indirect impact of harvesting, the effect of introduction

the CCAMLR

ommission to give effect to Article II by (inter alia):

tus and changes in populations of

Antarctic marine living resources including factors affecting

ve been recommended by es in fulfilment of their

sponsibility for the protection of the Antarctic environment from all rms of harmful human interference.”

would therefore seem that CCAMLR Parties have an obligation to

anage their harvesting and associated activities within the

vation of changes or minimisation of the risk of changes in the ecosystem which are not potentiallycades, taking into account the state o

thof alien species (emphasis added), the effects of associated activities on the marine ecosystem and of the effects of environmental changes, with the aim of making possible the sustained conservation of Antarctic marine living resources”.

Further, Article IX of the Convention requires

C

Facilitating scientific research on the Antarctic marine

ecosystem;

Compiling data on the sta

their distribution, abundance and productivity.

CCAMLR also contains in its Article V(2) an obligation on the

Contracting Parties which are not Parties to the Antarctic Treaty to

agree that, in their activities in the Antarctic Treaty area:

“…they will observe as and when appropriate the Agreed Measures…and such other measures as hathe Antarctic Treaty Consultative Partirefo

It

m

137

Convention Area, so as to avoid the introduction of non-native species

at least if their introduction carries a risk of irreversible changes in the

marine environment, and, in that regard, at a minimum, to assess the

potential impacts of introduced species in the Convention Area.

Whether this obligation has been met by the Parties is hard to judge

owever, given that, to date, the mh atter of non-native marine species

as not received any significant attention at any of the annual

c Treaty Parties,

ese provisions of CCAMLR may, in future, take on a more active

obli

The

Betwee

Agreed e of

on-native species at the political level. In 1991 the Treaty Parties

together and

uperseded many earlier environmental provisions that had been

ntarctic Fauna and Flora and Article 4 of Annex II deals with the

sue of non-native species. To a large extent the authors of the

h

CCAMLR meetings. However, with non-native species introductions

being addressed more proactively by the Antarcti

th

gation.

Protocol

n 1964 and 1991, other than implementation of Article IX of the

Measures, very little further attention was paid to the issu

n

adopted the Protocol, which was intended to provide a comprehensive

environmental protection regime for Antarctica. To that extent the

Protocol, which entered into force in 1998, brought

s

adopted by the Parties, including the 1964 Agreed Measures.12

Annex II to the Protocol deals specifically with the conservation of

A

is

12 Annex II and Annex V to the Protocol between them superseded the provisions of the 1964 Agreed Measures.

138

Protocol transcribed the provisions of Article IX of the Agreed

Measures into Article 4 of Annex II to the Protocol, which provides for:

a prohibition on the introduction of non-native animals or

plants onto land or ice shelves, or into water in the Antarctic

Treaty area except in accordance with a permit;

a restriction on the types of animals and plants that may be

permitted;

removal or disposal of a permitted species, prior to expiration

of the permit, by effective means in order to eliminate risk to

native fauna or flora;

a banning of dogs from 1 April 1994; and

mption for food.

e lation

f intentional introductions of non-native species. The exception to

this article focuses on microorganisms is not clear, particularly when

an exe

The notable differences between Article IX of the Agreed Measures

and Article 4 of Annex II to the Protocol is that the latter includes

provisions for the destruction/removal of non-native species that have

been permitted, as well as a prohibition on the introduction of dogs,

and a requirement to remove all existing dogs in Antarctica by 1 April

1994 (which was achieved).

It is clear that the primary focus of Article 4 of Annex II is the r gu

o

this last comment is Article 4(6) of Annex II, which requires

precautions to be taken to “prevent the introduction of micro-

organisms not present in the native fauna and flora”. The reason why

139

so little is known about what species are present in the native fauna

and flora.

The

introduc

the Pro rovisions that

imp

introduc example, Article 3 of the Protocol states that

acti

so as to

n, abundance and

and populations of species of fauna

and flora;

ative species poses one of the greatest

reats to biodiversity in Antarctica as elsewhere, this provision would

relevant to the prevention of unintentional introductions of non-native

need to take broad measures to prevent the unintentional tion of non-native species is not explicitly stated anywhere in

tocol. The Protocol does, however, contain p

ly the need to take precautions to prevent unintentional

tions. For

vities in the Antarctic Treaty area shall be planned and conducted

avoid, inter alia:

detrimental changes in the distributio

productivity of species

further jeopardy to endangered and threatened species and

populations of such species; and

degradation of, or substantial risk to, areas of biological,

scientific, historic, aesthetic or wilderness significance.

As the introduction of non-n

th

seem, at a minimum, to create an obligation on Treaty Parties to give

careful consideration to the risk of the introduction of non-native

species through their activities and to plan and conduct those activities

so as to eliminate or minimise the risk of any such introductions.

At present, the only specific provision that might be considered to be

140

species (and then only in relation to the marine environment) is Annex

IV, Article 9, which requires vessels of Treaty Parties operating in the

reaty Area to have:

his provision may assist in minimising the introduction of non-native

mar

this is n

non-nat species per se, and says nothing for example about

the

Ann

and pro cted

reas. Any area, including any marine area, may be designated as an

prove co-operation between Parties or minimise environmental

T

“…sufficient capacity on board for the retention of all sludge, dirty ballast, tank washing water and other oily residues and mixtures, and have sufficient capacity on board for the retention of garbage, while operating in the Antarctic Treaty area and have concluded arrangements to discharge such oily residues and garbage at a reception facility after leaving that area.”

T

ine species, e.g. by preventing the disposal of garbage at sea, but

ot its main purpose. Annex IV does not, however, mention

ive marine

issue of hull fouling.

ex V to the Protocol deals with area protection and management

vides for the designation of terrestrial and marine prote

a

Antarctic Specially Protected Area (ASPA) or an Antarctic Specially

Managed Area (ASMA). An ASPA may be approved to protect

outstanding environmental, scientific, historic, aesthetic or wilderness

values, any combination of those values, or ongoing or planned

scientific research. An ASMA may be approved to assist in the

planning and co-ordination of activities, avoid possible conflicts,

im

impacts.

141

In the case of ASPAs, any such areas should include the need to keep

areas inviolate from human interference,13 examples of major

ecosystems,14 areas with important and unusual assemblages of

pecies15 and the type locality or only known habitat of any species.16

Whilst A

from th

provide

material organisms which may be brought into any protected

rea.

fficient means for managing the issue of non-

ative species in Antarctica. However, those provisions of the Protocol

s

nnex V does not specifically refer to the need to protect areas

e introduction of non-native species, Article 5 of the annex

s for management plans for ASPAs to include restrictions on

s and

a

Discussion

Taken together, these various provisions of the Protocol, might be

considered to provide su

n

that explicitly address the issue of non-native species, (i.e. those found

in Annex II), only appear to address intentional, and therefore by

inference, already controlled, introductions. The remaining provisions

deal with the issue only implicitly, with few direct obligations placed on

Parties to tackle the issue.

The Protocol was specifically designed to allow for modifications and

amendments to be made to it. As such, further consideration may

need to be given as to whether the existing provisions adequately

13 Protocol, 14

Annex V, Article 3(2)(a) Protocol, Annex V, Article 3(2)(b) Protocol, Annex V, Article 3(2)(c) Protocol, Annex V, Article 3(2)(d)

15

16

142

address the issue of unintentional introductions of non-native species

to Antarctica, or if more explicit obligations should be included.17

OTHER INTERNATIONAL LEGAL INSTRUMENTS, AGREEMENTS

species. Table 1 (CBD 2001) provides a summary of these

ternational legal agreements. The key treaties that specifically

of non-native species are the Convention on

iological Diversity 199218 (CBD), the United Nations Convention on

AND INDUSTRY ARRANGEMENTS

Outside of the Antarctic region, there are numerous international

treaties, agreements and arrangements that, to varying degrees,

address the issue of conservation of biodiversity and control of non-

native

in

address the issue

B

the Law of the Sea 198219 (UNCLOS) and the International Convention

for the Control and Management of Ships Ballast Water & Sediments

200420 (Ballast Water Convention). While none of these contain

provisions of specific application to the Antarctic Treaty Area, review of

these external legal instruments is a means of assessing current

international legal thinking and best practice on the issue.

It is noted that the issue is beginning to receive greater attention within the Antarctic

y arena. Several papers on the issue have been tabled at recent meetings of the

(1992) (entered into force 29 December 1993) (‘CBD’). 19 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, 21 ILM (1982), 1261 (entered into force 16

Management of Ships Ballast Water & 13 February 2004. (Not yet in force) (‘Ballast Water

17

TreatCommittee for Environmental Protection (e.g. ATCM XXIII / WP32 (Australia); ATCM XXVIII / WP28 (Australia); ATCM XXIX / WP5rev.1 (UK); ATCM XXIX / WP13 (New Zealand); ATCM XXIX / WP37 (SCAR); The Committee has also placed the issue as a standing item on its agenda. 18 Convention on Biological Diversity, opened for signature on 5 June 1992, 31 ILM

November 1994) (‘UNCLOS’). 20 International Convention for the Control andSediments, opened for signature on Convention’).

143

International Agreements

T

he Convention on Biological Diversity 1992 (CBD)

he most comprehensive of the international agreements related to

s Article 1, is “…the conservation of biological diversity, the

various other activities for implementing the objectives of the

CBD.

T

protection of biodiversity is the CBD. The objective of which, found in

it

sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of

the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources...”

Under the CBD, governments agree to:

prepare national strategies and action plans;

identify genomes, species, and ecosystems crucial for

conservation and sustainable use;

monitor biodiversity and factors that are affecting biological

systems;

establish effectively managed systems of protected areas;

rehabilitate degraded ecosystems;

exchange information;

conduct public information programmes; and

On the specific issue of invasive alien species the convention itself is

reasonably succinct. Article 8(h) of the CBD calls on Parties to

“prevent the introduction of, control or eradicate those alien species

which threaten ecosystems, habitats, or species.”

144

Despite the legal brevity, the issue of invasive alien species has been

e focus of considerable attention by the Conference of the Parties

n urgent need

species represent one of the

n geographically

onal invasive alien species

ies to co-operate internationally;

g Principles for the Prevention,

ien Species that

its Decision VII/13 COP 7 (2004) invited Parties to the CBD, as well

th

(COP) to the CBD, which has recognized that there is a

to address the impact of invasive alien species. Steps toward

eradication, control, and mitigation of impacts combined with

legislation and guidelines at national, regional and international levels

were addressed during COP 6 (2002), which adopted Decision VI/23,

which, inter alia:

recognised that invasive alien

primary threats to biodiversity, especially i

and evolutionary isolated ecosystems;

called upon Parties to develop nati

strategies and action plans;

urged Part

encouraged increased collaboration and co-operation with the

Global Invasive Species Programme; and

adopted fifteen “Guidin

Introduction and Mitigation of Impacts of Al

Threaten Ecosystems, Habitats or Species”.

In

as national, regional and international organisations to (inter alia):

improve the coordination of regional measures through the

development of regional standards, risk analysis and co-

operation mechanisms;

145

incorporate invasive alien species considerations, monitoring,

reporting and notification of new threats into regional

agreements and other instruments.

Whilst the unique jurisdictional status of Antarctica makes it difficult to

directly apply the CBD to the Antarctic Treaty area, the Antarctic

Treaty Parties may benefit significantly from close examination of work

done under the auspices of the CBD on the issue of invasive alien

pecies (CBD 2001). Indeed this may provide a useful model for the

Tre

brief in

expand sions adopted at COP

meeting

guiding eporting and information sharing

proc

In 2000 w of the efficiency

and

species

referenc ndesired

nvironmental or economic impacts.” But while many instruments

aps,

ove

learned

Antarcti take note of areas where there are

opportunities for improvements.

s

aty Parties to consider. The text of the convention itself is relatively

relation to invasive alien species, but the CBD Parties have

ed upon those provisions through deci

s and a range of practical implementation tools such as

principles, guidelines and r

esses.

, the CBD undertook a comprehensive revie

efficacy of existing legal instruments applicable to invasive alien

. This review found that “many international instruments

e the subset of alien species that may have u

e

reference alien species, “only a few have developed guidance for

effective implementation.” The review found that there are “g

rlaps and inconsistencies…at all levels.” So while lessons may be

from these international legal instruments and agreements,

c Treaty Parties should

146

The

The aim le is to:

onment.

UN Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (UNCLOS)

of UNCLOS as stated in its Preamb

“[p]rovide a legal order for the seas and oceans which will facilitate international communication, and will promote the peaceful uses of the seas and oceans, the equitable and efficient utilisation of their resources, the conservation of their living resources, and the study, protection and preservation of the marine environment”.

UNCLOS specifically addresses the protection and preservation of the

marine environment in its Part XII. The general obligation for the

protection of the marine environment is outlined in Article 192 which

provides that “[s]tates have the obligation to protect and preserve the

marine environment.” Further, Article 196 of UNCLOS requires

Parties:

“to take all measures necessary to prevent, reduce and control the intentional or accidental introduction of species, alien or new, to a particular part of the marine environment, which may cause significant and harmful changes thereto.”

Whilst the unresolved nature of the Antarctic territorial claims situation

complicates the relevance of this provision in respect of coastal state

duties, it creates a clear and relevant obligation for all flag states

whose vessels operate in the Southern Ocean. It may also provide an

impetus to address the issue in more specific terms in the context of

the Southern Ocean marine envir

147

It is also worth recording that a number of regional seas agreements

uch as those pertaining to the Caribbean, the Southeast Pacific and

r prohibit

troductions of alien species, though nothing is yet in place for the

last Water onvention)

ent, human health, property and resources arising from of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens through the

ontrol and management of ships’ ballast water and sediments”.

as in the past agreed “special area” provisions for Antarctica (under

ARPOL 73/78). Consideration might therefore be given to seeking

(s

the Mediterranean) contain provisions to minimise o

in

Southern Ocean.

The International Convention for Control and Management of hip’s Ballast Water & Sediments 2004 (BalS

C

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has begun to address

the issue of marine transport of alien species. The Ballast Water

Convention is not yet in force, but aims to:

“…prevent, minimise and ultimately eliminate the risks to the environmtransfer c

Once in force, this convention will apply equally to vessels of states

parties operating in the Southern Ocean. It is worth recalling that IMO

h

M

IMO’s approval to similar provisions under the Ballast Water

Convention that may, for example, introduce a prohibition on ballast

water exchange in the Antarctic Treaty area, significantly

strengthening the provisions of Annex IV to the Protocol discussed

above.

148

It is also noted that there are currently no international agreements in

place to deal with the issue of hull fouling despite the high risk that this

carries in relation to transport of alien species. It might also be argued

that the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling

Systems on Ships (IMO 2005) may be inadvertently increasing the

sks associated with hull fouling.

y for dissemination of alien

pecies. ICAO’s Resolution 35-19 (2004) urged its member states to

erate from ships to areas of land in the Antarctic and

ubantarctic.

ri

Industries and sectors

Aviation

The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) has recently

recognised aviation as a significant pathwa

s

support efforts to reduce the risk of introducing, through civil air

transport, potentially invasive alien species to areas outside their

atural range. ICAO has also addressed the issue of aircraft n

disinsection to help minimise the transportation of insects, particularly

those carrying diseases (e.g. mosquitoes and malaria).21

The extent to which aircraft pose a risk of introducing non-native

species into the Antarctic region needs to be assessed. Aircraft are

used to support the logistics and field operations of most of the

National Antarctic Programmes. These aircraft carry passengers and

cargo inter-continentally as well as intra-continentally. Helicopters

also op

s

21 See for example: ICAO ASSEMBLY – 36th Session. Executive Committee - AGENDA ITEM 18.

149

Tourism

Under the CBD, the Parties have developed international guidelines

for activities related to sustainable tourism development in vulnerable

terrestrial, marine and coastal ecosystems and habitats of major

importance for biological diversity and protected areas, including

agile riparian and mountain ecosystems. The CBD Guidelines on

Development recognise that impacts of

urism in relation to the environment and biological diversity “may

creased risk of introduction of alien species”, and note that

mpact management for tourism development and activities can

on-native plants or animals into the Antarctic such as live poultry, pet

fr

Biodiversity and Tourism

to

include in

“i

include the adoption and effective implementation of policies, good

practices and lessons learned that cover, inter alia, preventing the

introduction of alien species as a result of the construction,

landscaping and operating of tourism activities, including, for example,

from shipping associated with tourism” (CBD 2004).

In an Antarctic context the Treaty Parties have adopted Tourism

Guidelines (Recommendation XVIII-1) that oblige tourists not to “bring

n

dogs and cats or house plants”. However, as with the Protocol itself,

little is currently in place to control unintentional introductions through

tourism, and the industry remains largely self-regulating with respect to

its operations.

150

Science

The majority of infrastructure, operations and logistics in the Antarctic

are used to support scientific research activities. While the overall

number of scientists and support staff is lower than the overall total

number of tourists that visit the Antarctic each year, the number of

person hours associated with supporting scientific research in the

Antarctic far outweighs the number of person hours of tourists on the

Antarctic continent. As awareness of the issue increases, a number of

National Antarctic Programmes are now beginning to investigate the

risks of the introduction of non-native species associated with their

activities.

External to the Antarctic, an Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group (AHTEG)

on invasive alien species produced a report which was an exhaustive

analysis of gaps and inconsistencies in the international regulatory

amework in relation to invasive alien species (UNEP 2005). This

se noted above, there are other more generic

uidelines and codes of conduct that have been prepared. Of these it

perhaps worth noting in particular the IUCN’s Guidelines for the

revention of Biodiversity Loss due to Biological Invasion (IUCN

fr

report recognised that a pathway for unintentional introductions of non-

native species was scientific research. This clearly is a key issue to

consider in the context of Antarctica.

Other International Guidelines

In addition to tho

g

is

P

151

2000). These guidelines recommend that, at the international level,

overnments should:

vement of alien species across borders; and

Generally develop international co-operation to prevent and

al Council for the Exploration of

e Sea (ICES) has begun to address the issue of alien marine

oup on Ballast and other Shipping

ectors which has developed a Code of Practice on the Introductions

g

Implement the provisions of international treaties (notably the

CBD);

Implement decisions taken by Parties to specific global and

regional conventions;

Consider the need for further agreements on a bilateral or

multilateral basis to control introductions of alien species;

Consider the desirability of co-operative action, including

information sharing and response actions, to prevent

mo

combat damage caused by alien invasive species.

IUCN’s Environmental Law Centre has also developed a Guide to

Designing Legal and Institutional Frameworks on Alien Invasive

Species (Shine, Williams & Gundling 2000).

In the marine context the Internation

th

species through its Working Gr

V

and Transfers of Marine Organisms (ICES 2004). This too may have

practical application in an Antarctic context.

152

National Legislation

A number of countries have developed national legislation to manage

and n

borders ealand’s Biosecurity Act 1993 (as amended) invests

pow

places ation of goods arriving by air and sea;

pro

manage ns,

offe

to deve

2003). national level

may

Antarcti

he Antarctic Treaty Parties recognised the risk and the potential

ider issue.

he provisions on non-native species included in the Protocol of 1991

re similar to those of the Agreed Measures 1964 and, in practice, little

co trol the introduction of invasive alien species within national

. New Z

ers in key officials and bodies at the national and local level;

controls on the import

vides for the development of national and regional pest

ment strategies; as well as setting out enforcement provisio

nces and penalties. New Zealand is also one of the first countries

lop a national Biosecurity Strategy (NZ Biosecurity Council

Hereto, lessons and experiences learnt at the

be called upon in the development of provisions applicable to

ca.

CONCLUSIONS

T

consequences of the introduction of non-native species into Antarctica

as early as 1964, and formally addressed the issue with the adoption

of the Agreed Measures in that year. But the focus at the time was the

control of intentional introductions. Apart from the issuing of permits

for the purpose of controlling intentional introductions little was done

under the Agreed Measures to address the w

T

a

153

attention has so far been given to the risks and potential significance

f unintentional introductions.

number of countries, including New Zealand, have adopted

trategies, backed by legislation, to control and manage the

non-native species into areas under national

overeignty or jurisdiction. These strategies include information

ct it from the

reat of the introduction of non-native species and especially

o

In other parts of the world the damage caused by the introduction

(intentional and unintentional) of non-native species has become

increasingly apparent. As a consequence a number of international

agreements have recognised the issue and attempted to address it to

a greater or lesser extent. The steps taken range from statements of

high-level, legally binding obligation, through more detailed standards

and guidelines, to recommended strategies and the sharing of best

practice. For the most part, however, the issue is being dealt with in a

highly sectoral way and gaps appear to remain (for example the issue

of hull fouling).

A

s

introduction of

s

campaigns, the introduction of new technology in such areas as the

testing of ballast water, improved record keeping, the systematic

collection of baseline data and improved monitoring and surveillance

systems.

It has become clear that the relative remoteness of Antarctica and the

harshness of its climate cannot be relied upon to prote

th

unintentional introductions. It seems highly desirable that, consistent

with their history of tackling issues proactively before they become

154

major problems, the Antarctic Treaty Parties look to take further

preventive action.

In considering such further preventive action at this point the ATS has

some clear advantages. First, it can draw upon a range of

international and national experience with different models in different

sectors. Second, because it has appropriate existing decision making

structures and a history of international cooperation it has an

opportunity to develop a comprehensive regime to cover all key

pathways, species and environments (marine, terrestrial and

freshwater).

It is too early to offer prescriptions about the process that might be

llowed, the phases of that process or the elements that should be

to enlist the assistance and cooperation of other

ternational agencies and organisations, such as the IMO for example

fo

included in such a regime, but a few broad points may be in order.

In terms of process, it is obvious that substantial work is involved in

assembling, analysing, and assessing in an Antarctic context, the rules

and practices that have been developed elsewhere. Within the ATS

the CEP might be best placed to lead this, but it will be important also

to find appropriate ways of involving CCAMLR. It will be equally

important

in

with respect to ballast water exchange in the Treaty area.

An early phase of the process should include promotion of awareness

of the issue and encouragement of the sharing of best practice. This

should not be confined to the Treaty Parties themselves but should

155

include others with a direct interest such as IUCN and relevant tourism

organisations. This initial phase may give rise to immediate

provements in management perhaps based on interim practice

relating to standards of behaviour and assume

eir implementation will ensure the issue has been dealt with

will

e important components of a successful regime, so too will be a

But in the

nger run, there should be a commitment to them that forms part of a

im

guidelines developed through the CEP.

The essential elements of the regime will become clearer through the

process itself, though a significant element is likely to include an

ongoing commitment to education, awareness raising, and continuous

improvement. Constant vigilance will be a critical component if any

regime is to remain effective. It will never be sufficient to put in place a

set of specific rules

th

successfully.

Education and continuous improvement in practice and procedure

b

commitment to the collection of appropriate baseline data at key sites

and monitoring against that data.

This is not to suggest that education, an exhortation to continuous

improvement and some effective monitoring is all that is needed. They

will be an important step in the prevention of introductions of non-

native species and they have the advantage that their commencement

is not dependent on the conclusion of a legal instrument.

lo

set of legally binding obligations that may include substantive rules as

well as processes for updating those rules in a timely manner to take

156

account of developments both in Antarctica and in other parts of the

world.

The establishment of commitments in legally binding form would be an

portant manifestation of the commitment of the Treaty Parties to

he form or forms these legally binding measures should take is a

EFERENCES

im

being proactive on the issue, to setting standards for themselves of an

appropriately precautionary kind and to taking collective steps to

secure compliance by the wider international community. It would also

reflect the fact that, when it comes to the damage that can be caused

by the introduction of non-native species, prevention is much easier

than cure and nowhere is that more likely to be the case than

Antarctica.

T

matter to be worked out in due course but, as noted above, it will be

important to ensure that they apply to all environments.

R

CBD (2001). Review of the Efficiency and Efficacy of Existing Legal Instruments Applicable to Invasive Alien Species. CBD Technical Series No. 2, ISBN: 92-807-2001-5.

CBD (2004). Guidelines on Biodiversity and Tourism Development. Montreal 2004. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. ISBN: 92-807-2468-1.

157

Frenot, Y., Shown, S.L., Whinam, J., Selkirk, P.M., Convey, P., SkotnicAntarct

ki, M., & Bergstrom, D.M. (2005). Biological invasions in the ic: extent, impacts and implications. Biological Review 80, 45-

2.

rity Strategy for New Zealand. ISBN 0-478-07764-5.

hine, C., Williams, N. and Gundling, L. (2000). A Guide to Designing

mith, R.I.L. (1996). Introduced plants in Antarctica: potential impacts nd conservation issues. Biological Conservation 76, 135-146.

e Melo, G.A.S. (2004). Discovery of the first known enthic invasive species in the Southern Ocean: the North Atlantic pider crab Hyas araneus found in the Antarctic Peninsula. Antarctic

S/1/1/Add.1.

7

ICES (2004). Code of Practice on the Introductions and Transfers of Marine Organisms. IMO (2005). International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-Fouling Systems on Ships. London.

IUCN (2000). Guidelines for the Prevention of Biodiversity Loss due to Biological Invasion. Approved by the IUCN Council, February 2000.

NZ Biosecurity Council (2003). Tiakina Aotearoa Protect New Zealand: The Biosecu SLegal and Institutional Frameworks on Alien Invasive Species. Environmental Policy and Law Paper 40. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, Cambridge and Bonn. Sa

Tavares, M. & DbsScience 16(2): 129-131.

NEP (2005). UNEP/CBD/AHTEG-IAU

158

Table 1

Instrument at e i Re on p c ms o

/ ys d

St us R levant Prov sions/ soluti s SEC

ecies /osystevered

VectorsPathwaCovere

1. Convention on Biological Diversity (Nairobi,1992) http://www.biodiv.org Interim Guiding Principles for the Prevention, Introduction and Mitigation of Impacts of Alien Species Cartagena Protocol on to the CBD (Montreal, 2000)

din ) rtie indda e ofpti

o of, r a ato at cie ). e h and vin

o s g fr rnot e a ffec the a of b

versi

)

Bin(Paguiado

g (1993) (1993s - 179) Non-b

nce (2000) Daton 29.01.2000

ing

ToerecThmbiondi

prevent the intrdicate those asystems, habit safe transfer,

dified organismechnology that

and sustainty (Art. 1)

duction lien species w

s or speandling resultinmay havble use

control ohich thres Art. 8(h use of liom modedverse eiological

en

g ts

All All (nospecific provisions

2. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Montego Bay, 1982) http://www.un.org/Depts /los/losconv1.htm

ding ( es -)

pre rol ofe ma m ultintentio e oduecie e a of e ma m ich se gnific m ge 96)

rineviron

ic Bin135

1994) (Parti Tothinspthsi

vent, reducerine environnal or accid

s, alien or nrine environant and har

and content resntal intr

w, to a pent, whful chan

pollutiong… the ction of

rticular part may cau

s. (Art. 1

Maen

ment

No SpecifProvision

3.Convention on Wetlands of Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar, 1971) http://www.ramsar.org

ding ( es -)

OP7/ V asi ies d W

onve

etlan nd tlan

ic Bin123

1975) (Parti CanC

Resolution etlands” (Nontion text)

II.14 “Invspecific

ve Spec provisions in the

Wwe

ds, ad species

No SpecifProvision

4. Convention onConservation of

the Migratory Animals

http://www.wcmc.org.uk/cms/

01.11.1983 (Parties - 70) To prevent, reduce or control factors that are endangering or are likely to further endanger

or eliminating, already introduced exotic species. Art. III (4) (c)

All species and their habitats

No Specific Provision

Species of Wild (Bonn, 1979)

Appendix 1 species, including strictly controlling the introduction of, or controlling

5. Convention on the Lawof the Non-Navigational

International watercourse marine and freshwaters

Uses of International Watercourses (New York, 1997) http://www.un.org

Not in force to prevent the introduction of species, alien or new, into an international watercourse, which may have effects detrimental to the ecosystem of the watercourse resulting in significant harm to other watercourse States. (Art. 22)

no specific provisions

6. International Plant Protection Convention

g(Rome, 1951, Revised in 1997) http://www.fao.or

Binding (1952) (Parties - 111) 1997 revision not in

ational regime to prevent spread and introduction of plant and plant

Quarantine pests of plants and

ducts.

Trade in agricultural

force.

Creates an intern

product pests premised through the use of sanitary and phytosanitary measures. (Relationship to Invasive Species being explored, 2000)

plant pro products

7. International StandPhytosanitary Measures: Principles of Plant Quarantine as Related to International Trade Guidelines for Pest Risk

ards for

Analysis Code of Conduct for

the

ms rveillance

stem Status

Establishment of Pest Free Places of Production and Pest Free Production Sites

the Import and Release of Exotic Biological Control Agents Requirements forEstablishment of Pest FreeAreas Glossary of Phytosanitary TerGuidelines for SuExport Certification SyDetermination of Pest Guidelines for Pest Eradication Programmes Requirements for the

Standards recognized by WTO

8. The WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (Marrakech, 1995) http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/spsagr.htm

01.01.1995 (Parties - 132) Provides a uniform framework governing the adoption of sanitary and phytosanitary measures applied to protect human, animal or plant life or health.

Pests and diseases affecting human, plant and animal health

Trade in goods and products

9. International Health a, 1982, adopted by the 22nd World Health Assembly amended by world Health Assembly in 1973, and the34th World Health Assemin 1981) http://www.who.int

bly

urpose is to ensure the maximum security against the international spread of diseases. Goals are to: (1) detect, reduce or eliminate sources from which infection spreads; (2) improve sanitation in and around ports and airports, and (3) prevent dissemination of vectors.

iseases affecting human health. Specifically cholera, plaque and yellow fever

ternational traffic

Under revision (expected completion: 2002)

P D In

10. Guidelines for the Contand Management of Ships´ Ballast Water to Minimize the Transfer of Harmful Aquatic Organisms and Pat(Resolution A.868 (29)1997International Maritime Organization) http://www.imo.org

rol

hogens. ,

Non-binding. Binding instrument under preparation (completion expected 2002)

Provides guidance and strategies to minimize the risk of unwanted organisms and pathogens from ballast water and sediment discharge.

Marine and Coastal areas

Ballast Water through shipping

11. Code of Practice on Transfers of Marine Organisms (ICES/EIFAC 1994)

Non-binding Recommends practices and procedures to diminish risks of detrimental effects from marine organism introduction and transfer, including those genetically modified. Also applicable to freshwater organisms. Requires ICES members to submit a prospectus to regulators, including a detailed analysis of

All aquatic ecosystems

Direct introductions including for fisheries and aquaculture

potential environmental impacts to the aquatic ecosystem.

12. Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (FAO1995) http://www.fao.org/fi/agreecodecond/ficonde.asp

,

m/

enetically altered stocks to

fisheries and aquaculture

Non-binding Sets out principles and international standards for responsible fishing practices, including aquaculture, including: Pre-introduction discussion with neighboring states when non-indigenous stocks are to beintroduced into transboundary aquatic ecosystems.; Harmful effects of non-indigenous and gbe minimized.

Aquatic ecosystems

Direct introductions including for

13. Preventing the Introduction of Invasive AlienSpecies. Resolution A-32-9, International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) (1http://www.icao.ires/a32_9.htm

998). nt/icao/end/

sportation, potentially invasive species to areas outside their natural range.

All species ort Non-binding To reduce the risk of introducing, through civil air tran

Air transp

14. The Biological and TWeapons Convention (signed in 1972, and enter

oxin

ed into force in 1975) http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/ docs/bw-btwc-mainpage.html

agents used as weapons

Binding To prohibit the development, production andstockpiling of biological and toxin weapons, and destroy them for the protection of populations and the environment.

Microbial andother biological

Various

Table 1 Major global instruments related es. Table taken from: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2001). Review of the Efficiency and efficacy of existing legal instruments applicable to invasive alien species. Montreal, SCBD, 42p.

to invasive alien speci

164

ANTARCTIC QUARANTINE MANAGEMENT: AUSTRALIA’S FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE

SANDRA POTTER1 AND TOM MAGGS2

ABSTRACT

The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty

(Protocol) requires that parties to the Antarctic Treaty do not introduce

animals or plants to the Antarctic Treaty area other than for specified

purposes. The manner by which this requirement is practically

achieved has yet to be collectively agreed. So, to date, parties have

individually developed and applied measures that they consider will

provide the Antarctic with an appropriate level of protection. The

Australian Antarctic Division has developed a quarantine management

system for Australia’s Antarctic Program. This paper describes the

principles underpinning those quarantine practices currently in place.

INTRODUCTION

Australia is one of the original signatories to the Antarctic Treaty and is

an active Consultative State member of the Antarctic Treaty System

(ATS). The Australian Antarctic Division (AAD) is the agency of the

1 Australian Antarctic Division, and School of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Tasmania. Corresponding author: Potter, S. (sandra.potter@aad.gov.au) 2 Australian Antarctic Division.

165

Depar

resp

inter alia, coo rctic Program

logistics.

he AAD recognises that the movement of aircraft, ships, personnel

port of activities in the Antarctic, subantarctic and

outhern Ocean creates a risk of transferring species, wildlife disease,

stricting the supply of specific vegetables to the subantarctic islands.

ce been revised and broadened to cover a wider

nge of potential pathways for introductions (see Potter 2006). The

undergoes routine cleanliness checks and all AAD-chartered ships,

l

tment of the Environment and Water Resources that is

onsible for advancing Australia’s Antarctic interests. This includes,

rdinating and managing Australian Anta

T

and cargo in sup

S

and material of quarantine concern. The AAD is therefore committed

to administering and conducting its activities in a way that will prevent

or minimise such risks, consistent with the principles of the Protocol

including its annexes, in particular, on the protection of fauna and

flora, and waste management.

In the 1990s the AAD’s quarantine management efforts were limited to

the pre-shipment inspection of fresh produce, cleaning of footwear and

outer clothing prior to landings at subantarctic islands, restricting the

use of poultry products in the Antarctic and subantarctic, and

re

Practices have sin

ra

AAD’s cargo packing operations have been relocated to a dedicated

ship-side facility certified as a Quarantine Approved Premise by the

Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS). Cargo

aircraft and small watercraft undergo pre-departure inspections.

polar clothing issued to program personneAircraft are disinsected,

166

has been modified (e.g. to minimise the use of Velcro which can

harbour seeds) and expedition personnel are comprehensively briefed

on quarantine issues. These strengthened measures have been

developed in response to a concerning increase in the number of

ports of invertebrates and organic matter amidst food and other

for organisational continuity when

anagers change, and facilitate review processes as new knowledge

nd discussed below.

re

cargo sent to Australia’s Antarctic and subantarctic stations, and with

reference to research and the quarantine procedures in place for other

sites of high conservation value.

The documentation of policy praxis in relation to natural areas and

non-indigenous species is desirable as it has the potential to expose

assumptions, facilitate the assessment of the adequacy of

management actions, provide

m

surfaces, or conditions and values change (Schwartz & Randall 1995).

While the principles underpinning the AAD’s quarantine management

system may have long been “understood” by AAD managers, they

have only recently been documented. These principles are identified

a

167

QUARANTINE MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES

Quarantine management for Australia’s Antarctic Program should reflect excellence and leadership in the development and implementation of policy and procedures.

This overarching principle reflects the AAD’s Environmental Policy,

aspirations to the adoption of best practice environmental

management, and the Australian Government’s Antarctic policy

bjectives of protecting the environment of, and influencing

raining and effective self-regulation are considered keys to achieving

s through human activities; significant propagule

ads have been reported on the clothing and footwear of

xpeditioners prior to mandatory pre-landing cleaning sessions (see

hinam, Chilcott & Bergstrom 2005).

formation about quarantine issues and the need to only pack and

ear gear that is free of soil, seeds and other material of quarantine

oncern is delivered in a number of ways. Prior to travelling, program

o

developments in, a region geographically proximate to Australia (AAD

undated; AAD 2005).

Public education and the training of program personnel should be integral components of protection measures.

T

environmental protection outcomes in the Antarctic. The attention

given by individuals to cleaning and checking their personal effects

and other gear is therefore of paramount importance in minimising

accidental introduction

lo

e

W

In

w

c

168

participants receive documents explaining their environmental,

cluding quarantine, obligations. They also participate in pre-

ontent of this training responds to the types of perceptions identified

cy of quarantine processes more broadly. The

porting of incursions has been facilitated by the development of a

imple-to-use, web-based, incident notification system. Since the

tation personnel.

is excluded from Australia’s

ational quarantine arrangements and instruments including the

may be tapped into to enhance the biosecurity of Antarctic operations.

in

departure and or shipboard training that involves a mix of formal

lectures and hands-on gear checking and cleaning. The theoretical

c

in a survey by Renkin (1996) – that “nothing would survive down here

anyway” and that “measures are really only warranted for the Sub-

Antarctic.”

Quarantine-aware program personnel are also well-placed to observe

and report on the effica

re

s

system’s inception in 2003, some 30 separate post-departure

uarantine incursion reports have been logged by sq

Most reports have been findings of invertebrates in food – both dry

stores and fresh produce.

The technical expertise of individuals and organisations with relevant quarantine experience or roles should be sourced and utilised.

While Australian Antarctic Territory

n

Quarantine Act 1908, Quarantine Proclamation 1998 and Quarantine

Regulations 2000, the AAD recognises that national and domestic

quarantine services offer a wealth of knowledge and experience that

169

Protocols and procedures successfully adapted for Antarctic

operations include those related to aircraft and cargo fumigation, mail

screening, food export inspections, port surveillance, container

inspection, the use of quarantine detector dogs, and, most recently,

the development of quality assurance programs for contractors.

National quarantine goals and policies may be inappropriate though,

for direct translation. For example, the objective of Australian

iosecurity is the prevention or control of the entry, establishment or

rotection measures for the Antarctic and subantarctic should be mployed regardless of whether a species or disease has been etermined unable to establish or cause environmental harm.

redictions about the ability of species to establish is very difficult – a

b

spread of pests and diseases that could cause significant damage to

human beings, animals, plants, other aspects of the environment, or

economic activities, whereas, in addition to biodiversity conservation,

Antarctic quarantine measures also need to factor the Protocol’s

specific recognition of the intrinsic value of Antarctica and its value as

an area for the conduct of scientific research.

Ped

This precautionary approach recognises that making quantitative

p

position widely acknowledged in the literature. It also recognises the

advantages of taking practical measures to prevent an introduction

over costly and difficult eradication or control responses. Responding

to, say, a human-introduced disease outbreak or marine pest invasion,

or even a small fly introduced and confined to a station’s infrastructure,

can be especially challenging in Antarctica (see e.g. Smith 2005).

170

High standards of quarantine management should be delivered while maintaining operational efficiency in the logistical support of activities; quarantine protection measures should be commensurate with the magnitude and scale of operations.

The costs of establishing and maintaining scientific stations in

ntarctica are high, making the prudent use of resources an especially

uarantine protection measures should be focussed on reventative action and reflect a multiple-barrier approach.

eed for resource-intensive, post-invasion control or eradication

tine

A

important planning consideration. Quarantine processes that, for

example, entail significant expenditure for potentially minimal returns

(as may be the case for the lay-up of ships in fresh water as a hull

fouling mitigation strategy), or could result in significant re-supply

delays (as may be the case for the pre-loading fumigation of all south-

bound cargo), or could compromise the safety of program personnel,

are unlikely to be acceptable.

Qp

A consistent theme in both the conservation biology and

environmental management literature is the desirability of avoiding the

n

activities (e.g. Ruiz & Carlton 2003; SSC 2000; Wittenberg & Cock

2001). A focus on pre-border or “off shore” quarantine measures as a

first line of defence, is consistent with prevention. To this end, the AAD

has adopted the point of departure for the Antarctic as the preferred

opportunity for the implementation of quarantine measures.

The need for a staged or multiple barrier approach – argued by Nairn

et al. (1996) and otherwise referred to as the continuum of quaran

171

– is also recognised. Using the import of fresh food into Antarctica as

an example: the tender documentation provided to the AAD’s

provedores, and in turn by the provedores to their suppliers, stipulates

that fruit and vegetables are to be delivered free of invertebrates, soil

to complete tasks, unanticipated time

ressures resulting in trade-offs, resource constraints, differing

ttitudes to risk, and the capabilities and personalities of individuals

elivering training programs, or comfort levels in policing practices).

and other biota; a third party inspection of the produce occurs before it

is packed; ozone-generating units are deployed in the refrigerated

containers transporting the produce to Antarctica; and station chefs

are required to report on the quality of goods received. Finally, any

scraps and spoiled fruit and vegetables are incinerated and the ash

returned to Australia.

Organisational system failures may occur as a result of communication

issues, insufficient incentives

p

a

involved in quarantine processes (e.g. in attentiveness to details,

d

Where human behaviours are not taken into account, risks may be

greater than otherwise calculated (Freudenburg 1988). The logic

applied here in response is that the more quarantine checks and

balances that there are in place, the greater is the likely level of

success.

172

The use of methyl bromide and other quarantine treatments associated with adverse environmental impacts and human health should be minimised.3

The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer

1987 targets methyl bromide for phase-out. While some of its uses for

quarantine and pre-shipment purposes are currently exempt, an AAD

aim is to avoid its use altogether or, at the very least, ensure that the

minimum effective application rates are adopted.

Marine paints used to retard hull fouling are another treatment

ssociated with adverse environmental impacts. The leaching of

a

tributyltin from these, for example, has had extensive impacts on

aquatic organisms (ANZECC 2000) and is now banned under the

International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling

Systems on Ships 2001.

This principle recognises that in selecting quarantine treatments there

is a need to reconcile the benefits the treatment offers with the

potential adverse impacts associated with the treatments. A similar

approach is required under the Protocol for the clean up of past waste

disposal sites in Antarctica.

Note: regulations on methyl bromide usage have changed since the workshop in April

2005 and since the submission of this paper for publication. 3

173

AAD’s quarantine management procedures and performance should be monitored, evaluated and improved upon as a component of AAD’s Environmental Management System.

This “continuous improvement principle” acknowledges the need to

re more likely to be effective when

ey are main-streamed into an organisations’ core business rather

he environmental impact assessment process associated with ny intentional imports of biota to the Antarctic and subantarctic gion for research purposes should involve a wide consultation

rocess.

The AAD administers Australia’s legislation implementing the Protocol,

namely the Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act 1980. Some

Central to conservation practice and the pro-active management of

areas of high conservation value is the evaluation of management

effectiveness, and the application of the results of evaluations (CBD

2004).

review protection measures regularly as new threats and pathways for

introductions are identified, as quarantine management technologies

are advanced, as risks analyses are completed, and as incident trends

suggest that existing procedures are insufficient. It also recognises

that environmental management systems, and by implication

quarantine management systems, a

th

than treated as an additional overlay or burden on operations. The

AAD has had an ISO 14001-certified environmental management

system in place since 2002.

Tarep

174

70 environmental impact assessments are assessed by the AAD

annually.

As well as being “the regulator”, the AAD is also often “the proponent”.

Details of activities for which the environmental impacts are expected

to exceed the descriptor of “less than minor or transitory” are therefore

published on the AAD’s website and in the Australian Government

azette. A 30-day period is typically allowed for public comment.

ntifies scientific research as a potentially

ignificant pathway for introductions, stating: “Researchers may pose

particular risk to biodiversity because they have access to sites of

lso, researchers may seek to deliberately import species. While

subantarctic for research purposes are not unknown (see e.g.

G

Research projects having a high potential to facilitate the introduction and spread of biota should be rejected if the risks cannot be adequately mitigated.

Concern that the activities of scientists may result in accidental

species transfer to remote and pristine environments is expressed in

the United Nations Environment Program’s Report of the Ad Hoc

Technical Expert Group on gaps and inconsistencies in the

international regulatory framework in relation to invasive alien species

(UNEP 2005). The report ide

s

a

high conservation value that may be closed to the general public, and

may carry equipment or organisms to those sites” (UNEP 2005).

A

applications to permit the taking of non-indigenous species into the

Antarctic are not anticipated, intentional imports to the Antarctic and

175

Edwards 1980; Holdgate 1964). The assessment of requests will need

to consider the potential impacts of the import alongside the likely

ontributions of the research. “The responsibility to understand and

troductions effected through Australian Antarctic Program ctivities should be eradicated or controlled; eradication should e undertaken where there is significant prospect for success.

asible if a problem is detected sufficiently early. In other

c

study protected and environmentally sensitive areas must not take

precedence over our primary obligation: to protect and care for them”

(ASTEC 1998).

Inab

Eradication is usually seen as preferable to control, and may be

fe

circumstances, eradication may not be achievable for technical

reasons. This is likely to be the case for the marine environment where

few successful eradication efforts have been recorded, and where

there is a high potential for non-target species to be impacted by some

eradication methods (Peebles 2004).

The AAD is attempting to eradicate a small “mushroom gnat”,

Lycoriella ingenua, introduced to Casey Station via produce in about

1998. No other Australian introductions are known to have

established.

176

Unauthorised deliberate introductions, and negligence resulting in significant accidental introductions, should be investigated and appropriate action taken.

An AAD environmental policy commitment is that AAD will “comply

with all applicable environmental laws and agreements, and require

compliance with them by participants in activities supported by the

AD, by other Australian visitors to the Antarctic, and by our

ontractors and suppliers” (AAD 2005).

he level of stakeholder confidence in the effectiveness of

be developed in isolation. In

rmulating these policies and programs, government officials must

A

c

Tquarantine procedures should be established.

Community interest in the Antarctic region and its protection is high.

The report of Professor M. Nairn’s review of Australian quarantine

practices makes pertinent comment for Antarctic quarantine, saying,

“The formulation of quarantine policies and programs must be a

consultative process involving the Australian community. Quarantine

policies and programs should not

fo

understand and consider the concerns and interests of the community”

(Nairn et al. 1996).

177

CONCLUSIONS

There is now agreement within the ATS that the introduction of non-

perations to ensure non-native

pecies are not introduced (e.g. Australia 1995, Australia 2005, IUCN

998), and have identified or promoted possible responses (e.g.

AD (2005). Environmental Policy. ttp://www.aad.gov.au/MediaLibrary/asset/MediaItems/ml_3860343892037_policy%20poster%205%203.8.05.pdf ccessed 10/12/2006). Australian Antarctic Division, Tasmania.

NZECC (2000) Code of practice for antifouling and in-water hull leaning and maintenance.

indigenous species to the Antarctic is a significant issue warranting

pro-active management. Numerous CEP meeting Working Papers and

Information Papers have highlighted disease and non-indigenous

species risks (e.g. Australia 1999, Australia 2001a, Japan 1996, IUCN

2005), called for parties to review their o

s

1

Australia 1999, Australia 2001b, Australia 2004, IAATO 2005).

The discussion here of the principles and considerations behind

Australia’s approach to Antarctic quarantine management may be of

interest to other national programs in the refinement of their practices.

REFERENCES AAD (undated). Strategic directions. Australian Antarctic Division, Tasmania. 18 pp.

Ah1(a

Ac

178

http://www.deh.gov.au/coasts/pollution/antifouling/code/pubs/code.pdf ccessed 10/12/2006). Australian Department of Environment and eritage, Canberra, ACT.

m the orking

aper 32. XXIII Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Lima, May-

ssessment. CEP IV Working Paper WP-10, XXIV Antarctic Treaty onsultative Meeting, St Petersburg, July 2001.

). Report on the open-ended intersessional contact roup on diseases of Antarctic wildlife. Report 2 – Practical measures diminish risk (draft). CEP IV Working Paper WP-11, XXIV Antarctic

ustralia (2004). Australia’s Antarctic quarantine practices. Information onsultative Meeting, Cape Town,

ction nd spread of non-native biota and disease to the Antarctic Treaty

05.

(aH

ASTEC (1998). Environmental research ethics – National principles and guidelines for the ethical conduct of research in protected areas and environmentally sensitive areas. Australian Science, Technology and Engineering Council, Canberra, ACT. 83 pp.

Australia (1995). Introduction and continued presence of non-native species of animals and plants. XIX ATCM Working Paper 29 Rev. 1. XIX Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Seoul, May 1995.

Australia (1999). Report to ATCM XXIII on outcomes froWorkshop on Diseases of Antarctic Wildlife. XXIII ATCM WPJune 1999.

Australia (2001a). Report on the open-ended intersessional contact group on diseases of Antarctic wildlife. Report 1 - Review and riskaC

Australia (2001bgtoTreaty Consultative Meeting, St Petersburg, July 2001.

APaper 071, XXVII Antarctic Treaty CJune 2004.

Aa

ustralia (2005). Measures to address the unintentional introdu

Area. CEP VIII Working Paper 28, XXVIII Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Stockholm, June 20

179

CBD (2004). Biodiversity issues for consideration in the planning, establishment and management of protected area sites and networks. CBD Technical Series No. 15. Secretariat of the Convention on

iological Diversity, Montreal. 160 pp.

oldgate, M.W. (1964). An experimental introduction of plants to the

nd the introduction and detection of diseases in Antarctic ildlife: IAATO’s perspective. CEP VIII Information Paper 97, XXVIII

tion Paper 53, XXII ntarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Tromso, May-June 1998.

cht, April-May 1996.

B

Edwards, J.A. (1980). An experimental introduction of vascular plants from South Georgia to the maritime Antarctic. Bulletin of the British Antarctic Survey 49, 73-80.

Freudenburg, W.R. (1988). Perceived risk, real risk: social science and the art of probabilistic risk assessment. Science 242(4875), 44-49.

HAntarctic. Bulletin of the British Antarctic Survey 3, 13-16.

IAATO (2005). Updated on boot and clothing decontamination uidelines ag

wAntarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Stockholm, June 2005.

IUCN (1998). Introduction of non-native species in the Antarctic Treaty rea: an increasing problem. CEP I InformaA

A

IUCN (2005). Report by IUCN submitted to the XXVIII ATCM. Information Paper 117, XXVIII Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting,

tockholm, June 2005. S

Japan (1996). A grass (seed plant) found in Syowa Station area, East Antarctica. Information Paper 66, XX Antarctic Treaty Consultative

eeting, UtreM

Nairn, M. E., Allen, P.G., Inglis, A.R. and Tanner, C. (1996). Australian quarantine: a shared responsibility. Department of Primary Industries and Energy, Canberra, ACT. 284 pp.

180

Peebles, I. (2004). Towards a national emergency management framework for marine bio-invasions. The Australian Journal of Emergency Management 19(3), 50-56.

Potter, S. (2006). The quarantine management of Australia’s Antarctic

enkin, A. (1996). Introducing species: educating our Antarctic

stal anagement), Southern Cross University. 47 pp.

rotection of iodiversity: the role of quarantine laws in resolving inadequacies in

vectors nd management strategies. Washington, DC. 518 pp.

alien vasive species. Species Survival Council, Invasive Species

Body on Scientific, Technical nd Technological Advice, United Nations Environment Program,

Convention on Biological Diversity. 19 pp.

program. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management 13(3), 185-195.

Rtravellers. Integrated project prepared as partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Bachelor of Applied Science (CoaM

Riley, S. (2005). Invasive alien species and the pbthe international legal regime. Journal of Environmental Law 17(3), 323-359.

Ruiz, G.M. and Carlton, J.T. (eds.) (2003). Invasive species: a

Species Survival Council (SSC) (2000). IUCN guidelines for the prevention for the prevention of biodiversity loss caused by inSpecialist Group, IUCN Council, Gland, Switzerland. 14 pp. Schwartz, M. W. and Randall, J.M. (1995). Valuing natural areas and controlling nonindigenous plants. Natural Areas Journal 15(2), 98-100. Smith, J. (2005). This week in Antarctica: Shoo fly! http://www.aad.gov.au/default.asp?casid=19699 (accessed 1/12/2006). Australian Government Antarctic Division, Tasmania.

UNEP (2005). Report of the ad hoc technical expert group on gaps and inconsistencies in the international regulatory framework in relation to invasive alien species. Report Number

NEP/CBD/SBTTA/11/INF/4. SubsidiaryUa

181

Wittenberg, R. and Cock, M.J.W. (eds.) (2001). Alien invasive species: toolkit of best prevention and ma

Inanagement practices. CAB

ternational, Oxon. 228 pp.

182

TOOLS FOR RISK ASSESSMENT

P. WORNER1

AND MANAGEMENT OF NON-NATIVE SPECIES

SUE

ABSTRACT

The Antarctic region comprises habitats and ecosystems that are clearly

unique and characterised by extremes. It is difficult to imagine terrestrial

species that could invade such environments, however, while the

extremes of climate may currently protect this area, such conditions may

not always remain so. With climate change now well recognised, there

is a need to pre-empt any foreign species incursion that has the

potential to do irreparable harm to the delicate ecosystems in the region.

Pest risk assessment methods have an important place in this process.

One of the most important components of risk assessment is to

determine whether a species is able to establish a viable population in

the region. Obviously, abiotic factors, especially climatic variables are

the most influential variables determining successful establishment of

terrestrial species. If an appropriate risk assessment indicates that it is

unlikely a species can establish a viable population under either present

or future conditions, that means attention can shift to other species so

effort can be prioritised.

1 Lincoln University. (worner@lincoln.ac.nz)

183

Well used, a have been

app isk

assessment for the Antarc ods that have been

applied to both terrestrial and m species and ecosystems are

escribed and examples are given to illustrate their potential use to

rotect this important area from devastating impacts of alien invasive

tive rather than reactive to the threat of non-

ative species incursion into these ecologically sensitive areas.

Before describing the tools in detail the process of pest risk assessment

he definition used here is based on

s well as innovative, predictive methods that

lied in more temperate regions can be adapted for pest r

tic region. A range of meth

arine

d

p

species.

INTRODUCTION

Assessment of the risk of invasion of alien species into the Antarctic or

subantarctic region requires all the tools and methods used to assess

the risk of invasive species elsewhere in the world. The Antarctic region

comprises habitats and ecosystems that are clearly unique and while

most techniques for pest risk assessment discussed here have been

applied to species in mainly terrestrial temperate environments, such

methods can also be used to assess potential invasions into marine

ecosystems and more extreme terrestrial conditions. Some of the

examples discussed here have been applied to insects and weeds but

can equally be applied to other taxonomic groups such as other

invertebrate species, plants, fungi and also bacteria. The methods offer

more predictive approaches to pest risk assessment and so provide the

opportunity to be pro-ac

n

requires definition and explanation. T

184

the framework that is followed by biosecurity agencies in New Zealand

(Biosecurity New Zealand 2006) and is based on guidelines provided by

the World Organisation for Animal Health, Organisation Internationale

Epizooties (OIE), and the Commission for Phytosanitary Measures

(CPM) under the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC).

Specifically, pest risk assessment is the second stage of a more

encompassing Pest Risk Analysis (PRA) that involves three main steps:

1. Initiation of a full pest risk analysis and identification of a

pathway;

ssessment;

3. Risk management.

s entry

stablishment and spread illustrated in detail in Figure 1.

2. Pest risk a

Within the PRA, the pest risk assessment process also comprises the

following sections each of which comprises many steps:

1. Categorization of individual pest species;

2. Evaluation of probability of pest entry, establishment and

spread;

3. Evaluation of economic and biological consequences.

Clearly, formal pest risk assessments are very detailed investigations

and each aspect requires careful consideration and high-quality data.

The methods and techniques discussed here are concerned mainly with

tools that can be used to help evaluate the probability of species

establishment and spread. Indeed, the complexity of the task is well

illustrated by the evaluations required to assess the risk of specie

e

185

Mostly, the PRA is a reactive procedure often carried out in response to

the interception of an unwanted species in a new area or the importation

of a new commodity. A predictive or pre-emptive approach that identifies

a new threat so that measures to prevent its establishment can be

implemented before it is detected or becomes an unmanageable new

incursion, is much more desirable.

PREDICTING INVASIVE SPECIES ESTABLISHMENT

Nea ation, have given terrestrial alien species

any opportunities to establish in the Antarctic region. For most

hly unlikely to

provide pted. Naturally, most

spe wever,

is the p hat the harsh Antarctic environment may change to

bec lity of

stablishment of foreign invaders. Moreover, the growth of tourism

n lacking or

sufficient when information about a particular species is scarce. In

such cases a pest risk assessment is often based on expert opinion

rly 190 years of explor

m

species, as hitchhikers on the equipment and produce transported by

numerous expeditions, the extreme conditions are hig

the food or climate to which they are ada

cies have failed to establish. The most immediate concern, ho

rospect t

ome more amenable to more species, increasing the probabi

e

brings more shipping into the region increasing the risk of marine

organisms arriving that are capable of devastating impact on the

Antarctic marine ecosystem. Obviously, it is important to identify the

species that may pose a threat well before they emerge. Identification

and prioritisation of potential invaders promotes proactive measures

such that pathways are identified and arrival prevented. To prioritise

threats, good data are clearly required but are ofte

in

186

Traditional Pest Risk Assessment

• Categorisation of the species

•• Assessment of its probability of intro

Assessment of its probability of introdduuccttiioonn,, eessttaabblliisshhmmeenntt aanndd sspprreeaadd

• Assessment of potential economic/environmental consequences

Figure 1 Breakdown of the steps for the evaluation of the risk of pest entry, establishment and spread (FAO 2001).

2.2 Assessment of the probability of introduction, establishment and spread 2.2.1 Probability of entry of a pest 2.2.1.1 Identification of pathways for a PRA initiated by a pest 2.2.1.2 Probability of the pest being associated with the pathway at origin 2.2.1.3 Probability of survival during transport or storage 2.2.1.4 Probability of pest surviving existing pest management procedures 2.2.1.5 Probability of transfer to a suitable host 2.2.2 Probability of establishment 2.2.2.1 Availability of suitable hosts, alternate hosts and vectors in the PRA area 2.2.2.2 Suitability of environment 2.2.2.3 Cultural practices and control measures 2.2.2.4 Other characteristics of the pest affecting the probability of establishment 2.2.3 Probability of spread after establishment 2.2.4 Conclusion on the probability of introduction, establishment and spread 2.2.4.1 Conclusion regarding endangered areas

Qualitative assessment

187

188

Figure 2 Early tools for matching climates using subantarctic island examples. A) Monthly rainfall and temperature profiles for Campbell Island; B) Climatographs comparing different localities.

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

Y N L G P T V C

MA

AUJU JU SE OC

NO DE

100

110

120

130

140

Aver

age

Ann

ual P

reci

pita

tion

(mm

)

5

6

7

8

9

10

Ave

rage

Tem

per

s ce

lsiu

s)at

ure

(deg

ree

ACampbell Island Average Annual Precipitation and Temperature

4

B

Rainfall (mm)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Average Annual Precipitation and Temperature for Four s and IcelandSubantarctic Island

-20

-5

0

5

10

15

Campbell Is.

gree

s ce

lciu

s)at

ure

(de

Tem

per

-15

-10 Macquarie Is.Deception Is.Casey StationIceland

only, but even with the barest details, there are tools that can be used to

inform that opinion. Climate Matching, Ecoclimatic Assessment and Ecological Niche Modelling

Graphical approaches

Identification of potential invasive species can be aided by consideration

of known invaders elsewhere in the world, particularly if they come from

climates or environmental conditions that are analogous to regions in

which we are interested in investigating (Peacock & Worner 2006). This

means a useful initial step in a PRA is to compare the climate or

environmental conditions in the region of interest with similar regions in

other parts of the world, to identify potential locations from which an

invasive species might originate. This preliminary analysis is based on

the assumption that species in analogous conditions are already pre-

adapted to conditions in the new location.

There are several ways to do such an analysis. The earliest techniques

applied to the terrestrial environment were most often graphical models

called climatographs. There are basically two types: One, mean monthly

temperatures are plotted against mean monthly humidity or rainfall totals

(Figure 2A); and, two, mean monthly temperatures and rainfall profiles

from different localities are depicted on the same graph such that they

189

pecies currently

can be compared in shape and height (Figure 2B). Different climates will

produce climatographs of different shapes such that combination of

levels of climatic factors at localities where the target s

occurs can be compared with climatic features where the species might

pose a threat (Worner 1994).

determine if biological control introductions are likely to

stablish in the area of introduction. While a simple visual comparison of

s indicates climate similarity between

gions, more recently, quantitative similarity indices are more often

Campbell represents a cold

mperate location, Macquarie is classified as a true subantarctic

These graphical tools have been used mainly by biological control

scientists to

e

climatographs for different localitie

re

used to derive a quantifiable index of climate comparability using

approaches such as that outlined by Sutherst et al. (1999) or by

application of other well known similarity indices, for example, the

Euclidian distance (Krebs 2001). Similarity indices have the advantage

that a number of environmental variables can be combined to produce a

single metric.

Figure 2B compares the climate for Reykjavik, Iceland, with three

islands of the subantarctic region and Casey Station on the coast of the

Antarctic continent. Of the three islands,

te

location, and Deception is classified as a maritime location. On the

climatograph, areas of difference and overlap are easily identified. For

example, it can be seen that Deception Island and Macquarie Island

have different temperatures but have very similar rainfall at similar times

of the year.

While only two–dimensional representations of the data are possible,

additional information can be used to produce eco-climatographs for

particular species. For example, Howe & Burgess (1953) created an

190

eco-climatograph by superimposing a climatograph as shown in Figure

2B, over graphs depicting the relationship of survival and development

f the Australian spider beetle, Ptinus ocellus, to temperature and

els, such as the well used CLIMEX system, provide a

atch Climate Function (Sutherst et al. 1999) that automatically

esponse to climatic conditions. Unfortunately, the CLIMEX

eather database does not include information for any of the

o

relative humidity determined in lab studies allowing more detailed

interpretation of why some locations in the world were unsuitable for

Ptinus development (Worner 1994).

Such graphical methods are, however, not often used today. Even

though they are valuable tools for quick assessments of climate or

environmental comparability to inform the risk assessment process, it

appears these approaches undeservedly fell from favour, overshadowed

by the perceived potential for improved prediction provided by more

sophisticated statistical analyses and computer models (Worner 1994).

Computer mod

M

calculates climate similarity for a large range of global climates.

Peacock & Worner (2006) found the climate matching function in the

computer system CLIMEX very useful to identify analogous climates for

New Zealand. This approach can easily be improved by using the latest

version of CLIMEX and its climate matching function that allows

sequential comparison of the climates of regions with the rest of the

world to provide a composite result set. CLIMEX can also be used to

explore the effects of climate change both on the climate match function

and species r

w

subantarctic islands of the Antarctic, but this information can be easily

added to the system for future analyses.

191

Statistical approaches

The climatographs discussed can only represent at most three

environmental variables simultaneously. There are a number of

straightforward statistical approaches. For example, a multivariate

statistical technique such as discriminant analysis can be useful for

entifying the environmental limits of species distributions. Given good id

data, discriminant analysis will identify environmental variables that can

discriminate between the presence or absence, of a species in its

known distribution. That information can then be used to predict species

presence or absence in a new region where it is not normally found and

given the appropriate data could be used to determine whether parts of

the Antarctic region were suitable for the establishment of species of

interest.

For example, Peacock & Worner (2006) used discriminant analysis to

identify which climate variables best discriminated between two groups

of insect pest species. One group had established in New Zealand and

the other group had not. All species in both groups are often intercepted

at the border and were assumed to have had considerable opportunity

to establish. The discriminant analysis classified the presence/absence

sites and Peacock & Worner (2006) found seasonal air temperature,

particularly in summer, was found to best discriminate the absence of

species that are not established in New Zealand. No individual climate

variable, however, could be identified as clearly influential classifying the

insect species already established in New Zealand.

192

In addition, other statistical analyses that could be used to predict

pecies establishment in the Antarctic include ordination techniques

aland the majority of the species tend to occupy

e warm/dry and wet/warm sites whereas the distribution of the other

ther detailed ecoclimatic assessment or ecological niche modelling

approaches are available, but require more complex computer

s

such as principal component analysis (PCA). PCA can simplify the

interpretation of complex environmental data sets comprised of

variables that may be highly correlated. PCA is a data reduction method

that can identify smaller and more important combinations of variables

that best explain the distributional patterns or variance within data

(Manly 1986). For example, the results of a PCA analysis (Peacock &

Worner 2005) for the two groups of species described previously are

shown in Figures 3 and 4. A marked difference between the combined global distributions of the

two study groups of insect pests is apparent. For the group that has not

established in New Ze

th

group of New Zealand established insect species extends into regions

that are dry/cold and wet/cold areas. Peacock & Worner (2005) went

further and used scores from the PCA analysis and the results of

discriminant analysis to construct binary regression models to predict

establishment of all the study species in areas where they are not

presently found. These models were also compared with artificial neural

network models that are completely new approaches for predicting the

distribution of species based on artificial intelligence.

Computer modelling

O

193

modelling. More complex ecoclimatic assessment is provided in

CLIMEX (Sutherst & Maywald 1985). Other examples of similar

programs more commonly known as ecological niche models are,

CLIMATE (Kriticos & Randall 2001), STASH (Sykes 2001), BIOCLIM

(Neave & Norton 1998), GARP (Peterson & Vieglas 2001), DISTRIB

(Iverson et al. 1999) and many others that are either regression or

process based (see Elith et al. 2006; Heikkinen et al. 2006). Of all of

these modelling approaches perhaps CLIMEX and GARP are the most

well known and have been widely used, but now compete with a wide

variety of machine or statistical learning methods (Heikkinen et al.

006).

, CLIMEX is well

tigate the effects of climate change on species

therefore quickly indicate expected conditions in

e region.

2

CLIMEX uses maximum and minimum temperatures, relative humidity,

precipitation and the response of the organism to moisture, temperature

and daylight, combined into one, or two, meaningful indices, to indicate

the potential for population growth of a species in a particular area. The

two indices are the Growth Index (GI) and the Eco-climatic Index (EI).

Examples are shown in the following sections. Worner (2002) suggested

that a frustration associated with such computer based models is that

the climate database is small. The most recent version of CLIMEX has

much more detailed gridded climate (New et al. 2002), but unfortunately

still does not include climate details of the subantarctic or Antarctic

regions. If such detail for the Antarctic were added

placed to inves

distributions and could

th

194

-20

-10

0

10

0 10-10

Insect pests established in New Zealand

-20

-10

0

10

0 10-10

warm / dr

wet / war

incipal component scores of the combined global dhed in New Zealand and those that have already e5).

y

m

Figure 3 Pr istributinot establis stablishWorner 200

dry / cold

wet / cold

ons of each insect pest (n=21) that are ed in New Zealand (n=15) (Peacock &

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

-10 0 10

wet / warm

warm / dry dry / cold

wet / cold

Figure 4 Principal component score plot of the New Zealand climate sites (n=310) (Peacock & Worner 005).2

When one has good abiotic and biotic information on a species then

more detailed mechanistic models can be used to predict their

distribution and establishment in regions where they are not presently

found. For example Pitt et al. (2006) investigated the probability of

establishment of gypsy moth in New Zealand based a detailed

phenology m originally developed by R ière et al. 02). Pitt et

al. (2006) also used the model to predict changes in the ribution of

the insect u r climate change. Such models only need appropriate

climate data and developmental data for the organism ed to

provide useful predictions.

Ecological Informatics and Computational Intelligenc

While risk assessments of individual species are cle important

there are many hundreds of known global invasive speci nd just as

many unknown species that could become trouble e in the

vulnerable ecosystems in the Southern Ocean es ially in a

changing climate. The question is which species are kely to

pose the greatest threat to a region and thereby des a closer

analysis of ? Prioritising species will ct pre-em research

and help all e resources. Such prediction may seem impossible but

ecological rmatics and computational intelligence can help.

Computational intelligence is the term applied to comp programs

that are able to learn, adapt or evolve. Such programs in e artificial

neural networks that are particularly good for analysing plex and

noisy ecological data.

on

(20

dist

concern

e

arly

es a

som

pec

more li

erve

ptive

uter

clud

com

odel

nde

égn

risk

ocat

info

dire

197

As an example, Worner & Gevrey (2006) constructed a database on

insect pest distribution records from data recorded in the

Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux International (CABI) Crop

Compendium (CABI 2003) that includes global distributional

information for approximately 10,000 recognised species of insects,

diseases and weeds. Their database comprised exclusively the

species distributions for 3088 insect pests, recorded over 459

geographic regions throughout the world. Only 800 species of the

original 3088, however, were considered to have complete distribution

data. With the species grouping or assemblage for each region

presented as a column of ones and zeroes indicating species

) were able

group geographic regions that have similar pest species

ells. Because each assemblage represents a

eographic region, the regions sharing similar species assemblages

are grouped together. For example, New Zealand is grouped with

re

presence or absence, respectively, Worner & Gevrey (2006

to

assemblages onto a two-dimensional map based on a slightly different

approach to the more traditional method of carrying out a cluster

analysis based on some sort of similarity metric.

This approach was to use an artificial neural network called a Self

Organising Map (SOM) to detect patterns in the database. Artificial

neural networks are computer algorithms designed to mimic the

animal brain where the connections between neurons or processing

elements become reinforced, or made stronger, the more the model

matches the real world. SOMs are excellent pattern detectors, and,

over many iterations, the SOM computational algorithms group similar

assemblages together and can project these onto a two-dimensional

map represented by c

g

198

parts of Australia and many European and Mediterranean countries.

That is not unexpected when the origin of most of New Zealand’s crop

and garden plants are considered. The result is high-dimensional data

is reduced, for easy visualisation, that can often reveal previously

hidden predictive information.

Underlying the SOM and associated with each cell, is a “weight” that

indicates the strength of association of each species with the

assemblage associated with each cell. The weight or strength of the

association falls between 0 and 1, with values close to 1 indicating a

very strong association with the corresponding assemblage. This

means that it is possible to measure how strongly each species is

associated with New Zealand’s cell and clearly those species that are

most strongly associated with New Zealand’s pest assemblage but are

not yet established, deserve closer study. So how can this approach

help with predicting species invasion into the Antarctic region?

Applying the computational intelligence approach to the

Antarctic and subantarctic regions

While the SOM approach provided a useful map to predict association

of a species with the New Zealand species assemblage, can such an

analysis help predict potential invasive species in the Antarctic region?

A recent example of using a SOM analysis in the marine ecosystem to

determine analogous sites with respect to environmental variables is

given by Leal (2007). Leal collated data comprising 34 environmental

variables for 357 ports generated within the International Maritime

Organisation (IMO) project, GloBallast. Leal then used a SOM analysis

199

to group ports that were similar with respect to these environmental

variables. Clearly if ports that have been invaded by a new species are

grouped with others in the data set then that could indicate those ports

that are likely to provide suitable habitat for the invader and the

approach could be used to identify marine sites in the Antarctic region

at might be susceptible to a new invader given that the necessary

ple, the

ix phytophagous (plant feeding) insect pest species that co-occur

th

data exists.

Using, for example, the oat aphid, Rophalsiphum padi as a starting

point, the SOM analysis on global insect pest species described

previously provides additional information about the strength of

association of individual species with the species grouping or

assemblages in each region as well as species co-occurrence. Strong

associations between species on a global scale and in certain regions

could indicate the co-occurrence of suitable environmental conditions

as well as indicate the next or most likely invaders. For exam

s

most often globally with the oat aphid are listed in Table 1.

Agrotis ipsilon Black cutworm Plutella xylostella Diamond-backed moth

Delia platura Onion or seed corn maggot

Acyrthosiphon pisum Pea aphid

Aphis gossypii Melon aphid

Myzus persicae Green peach aphid

Table 1 The six species of phytophagous insect pests that co-occur most often with the oat aphid, Rophalsiphum padi.

200

So, do these other species co-occur with the oat aphid anywhere in

the Antarctic or subantarctic region? Unfortunately, not many

invertebrate species lists for the subantarctic islands appear

published. The South African National Antarctic Programme (SANAP)

website records the naturalized alien insect species of Marion Island

(SANAP 2007). The known phytophagous pest species in this list are

shown in Table 2.

Moths Diamond-backed moth (Plutella xylostella)

Noctuid moth (Agrotis ipsilon)

Aphids Potato aphid (Macrosiphum euphobiae)

Aphid (Myzus ascalonicus)

Oat aphid (Rhopalosiphum padi)

Table 2 Naturalised aliens of Marion Island.

Two co-occurring species indicated by the SOM analysis, also appear

in Table 2, the Diamond-backed moth, Plutella xylostella and the

tis ipsilon that co-occur with the

side (Ta nd the aphid,

glo However,

ed from high latitudes in

ot. Does that mean that

ore of a persicae to the

subantarctic islands? Clearly, the biology of the species under

Noctuid moth, Agro . If other species

Oat aphid are con red ble 1), Delia platura a

Myzus persicae have a wide bal distribution (CABI 2003).

it is interesting that Delia platura is record

Greenland and Iceland but Myzus persicae is n

Delia platura is m threat than Myzus

consideration needs to be taken into account, and in particular, each

201

species life history parameters. If the secondary hosts of the aphid

species are considered, the species that are established in

subantarctic regions commonly have grasses as intermediate/over-

wintering hosts, whereas those that are not established (on Marion

Island at least), for example, Myzus persicae has Prunus species as

over-wintering hosts. Clearly such species are not present in these

high latitudes.

CONCLUSIONS

o

est risk assessment of m in particular,

sects, it should be clear ropriate

data they can be usefully applied to most other taxa that have potentia

ith very little modification,

any of the techniques, and in particular the multivariate analyses and

omputational intelligence approaches can be applied to the marine

While the methods and tools considered here have been applied t

p ainly terrestrial species and

in from the examples that given app

l

to invade terrestrial Antarctic ecosystems. W

m

c

environment. Because species invasions attract a great deal of

research interest worldwide there is constant development and

comparison of new types of models that predict species distributions.

For example, Elith et al. (2006) compare novel methods along with

well-established modelling approaches and their ability to predict

species distributions from occurrences. They found in general that the

novel approaches performed better. That does not mean, however,

that well established methods should be ignored. Often they provide

predictions that affirm a newer approach or provide some information

that adds additional knowledge to the process of pest risk assessment.

202

Already there is evidence of ecological impacts of recent climate

change (Walther et al. 2002) and the recent warming trend (0.5˚C) is

the likely explanation for the increase in numbers of individuals and

populations of terrestrial plants in the Antarctic since the mid-1960s

(Smith 1994, cited in McCarty 2001). Model projections over the next

50 or so years suggests a maximum 3˚C increase in temperature and

much emphasis has been placed on the effect on the existing flora and

una in the region. Clearly though, among the threats to the Antarctic

re species that may change the unique nature of that continent and

eaten its marine life.

fa

a

that could also thr

Prediction and prevention are the most sensible ways to avoid

environmental catastrophe caused by the incursion of an aggressive

invasive species into such delicate ecosystems. Prevention needs

education, information, good operational procedures and monitoring to

establish baseline data and to gauge what is happening in similar

climates and eco-regions. Prediction requires large amounts of good

data, comparative methods, rigorous validation and sensitivity

analyses and continued development of new predictive tools,

particularly those that can deal with uncertainty and the fuzzy nature of

the data and decisions that need to be made.

203

REFERENCES

Biosecurity New Zealand (2006). Risk Analysis Procedures, Version 1, 12 April 2006. CABI 2003. Crop Compendium – Global Module, 5th Edition, CAB International, Wallingford, UK.

Elith, J., Graham, C.H., Anderson, R.P., Dudík, M., Ferrier,S., Guisan, A., Hijmans,R.J, Huettmann, F., Leathwick, J.R., Lehmann, A., Jin Li, Lohmann, L.G., Loiselle, B.A., Manion, G., Moritz, C., Nakamura, M., Nakazawa, Y., Overton, J.M.M., Peterson, A.T., Phillips, S.J., Richardson, K., Scachetti-Pereira, R., Schapire, R.E., Soberón, J.,

illiams, S., Wisz, M.S., Zimmermann, N.E., (2006). Novel methods to prove prediction of species' distributions from occurrence data.

owe, R.W. & Burges, H.D. (1953). Studies on beetles of the family tinidae. (A laboratory study of the biology of Ptinus tectus Boield. ulletin of Entomological Research 44, 461-516.

erson, L.R., Prasad, A. & Schwartz, M.W. (1999). Modeling future dividual tree species distributions in eastern United States under limate change scenario: a case study with Pinus virginiana.

Ecological modelling 115, 77-93.

WimEcography 29, 129-151.

FAO (2001). International standards for Phytosanitary measures: pest risk analysis for Quarantine pests. Publication No. 11. May 2001. (http://www.spc.int/pps/ispm.htm).

GloBallast (2000-2007). Global Ballast Water Management Programme. IMO. (http://globallast.imo.org/index.asp).

Heikkinen, R K., Luoto, M., Araújo, M.B., Virkkala, R., Thuiller, W., & Sykes, M.T. (2006). Methods and uncertainties in bioclimatic envelope modelling under climate change Progress in Physical Geography 30, 751.

HPB

Ivinc

204

Krebs, C.J. (2001). Ecology. The Experimental Analysis of Distribution

riticos, D.J. & Randall, R.P. (2001). A comparison of systems to

k Assessment. CSIRO Publications, elbourne. 61-79.

eave, H.M. & Norton, T.W. (1998). Biological inventory for

eacock, L. & Worner, S.P. (2006). Using analogous climates and

and Abundance, 5th edition. Benjamin Cummings, San Francisco, CA.

Kanalyse potential weed distributions. In: Groves, R.H., Panetta, F.D. & Virtue, J.G. (eds.) Weed RisM

Leal Neto, A. (2007). Identifying similarities: An application for ballast water risk assessment. D.Sc Thesis. http://www.ppe.ufrj.br/ppe/production/tesis/dlealnetoac.pdf

Manly, B.F.J. (1986). Multivariate statistical methods: a primer. Chapman and Hall, London, UK.

McCarty, J.P. (2001). Ecological consequences of recent climate change. Conservation Biology 15, 320-331.

Nconservation evaluation IV. Composition, distribution and spatial prediction of vegetation assemblages in southern Australia. Forest

cology and Management 106, 259-281. E

New, M., Lister, D., Hulme, M. & Makin, I. (2002). A high-resolution data set of surface climate over global land areas. Climate Research 21, 1-25.

Peacock, L. & Worner S.P. (2005). What makes a successful bioinvader? Biosecurity, 63: 20-21.

Pglobal insect distribution data to identify potential sources of new invasive insect pests in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 33, 141-145.

205

Peacock, L., Worner, S., & Sedcole R. (2006). Climate variables and

itt, J., Regniere, J. & Worner S.P. (2006) Risk Assessment of gypsy

égnière, J. & Nealis,V. (2002). Modelling seasonality of gypsy moth,

tml)

mith, R.I.L. (1994). Vascular plants as bioindicators of regional

ustralia, 88 pp.

their role in site discrimination of invasive insect species distributions. Environmental Entomology 35, 958-963.

Peterson, A.T. & Vieglais, D.A. (2001). Predicting species invasions using ecological niche modelling: new approaches from bioinformatics attack a pressing problem. BioScience 51, 363-371.

Pmoth, Lymantria dispar (L.) in New Zealand based on phenology modelling. International Journal of Biometeorology 51, 295-305.

RLymantria dispar, to evaluate probability of its persistence in novel environments. Canadian Entomologist 134, 805-824.

SANAP (2007). Invertebrata. (http://marion.sanap.org.za/fauna-inverteb.h

Swarming in Antarctica. Oecologia 99, 322-328.

Stephens et al. (2006).

Sutherst, R.W. & Maywald, G.F. (1985). A computerised system for matching climates in ecology. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 13, 281-299.

Sutherst, R.W., Maywald, G.F., Yonow, T., & Stevens, P.M. (1999). CLIMEX: Predicting the Effects of Climate on Plants and Animals.

SIRO Publishing, Collingwood, AC

Sykes, M.T. (2001). Modelling the potential distribution and community dynamics of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl.ex.Loud.) in Scandanavia. Forest Ecology and Management 141, 69-84.

206

The Biosecurity Council. (2003). Tiakina Aotearoa, Protect New Zealand, The Biosecurity Strategy for New Zealand 2003. http://www.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/rural-nz/statistics-and-

recasts/sonzaf/2003/2003-sonzaf-07.htm

ulder, olorado. 11-32.

asive arthropods nd agriculture: problems and solutions. Science Publishers, Inc.,

orner, S.P. & Gevrey, M. (2006). Modelling global insect species

fo

Walther, G.R. et al. (2002). Ecological responses to recent climate change. Nature 416, 389-395.

Worner, S.P. (1994). Predicting the establishment of exotic pests in relation to climate. In: Sharp, J.L. & Hallman, G.J. (eds.) Quarantine treatments for pests of food plants. Westview Press, BoC

Worner, S. P. (2002). Predicting the invasive potential of exotic insects. In: Halman, G. & Schwabe, C.P. (eds.) InvaEnfield, New Hampshire. 119-137. Wassemblages to determine risk of invasion. Journal of Applied Ecology, 43, 858-867.

207

208

209

210

211

APPENDICES

211

212

LIST OF ACRONYMS ADD Australian Antarctic Division AFZ Australian Fishing Zone AHTEG Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group AQIS Australian Quarantine Inspection Service

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone EIA Environmental Impact Assessment FAO Food and Agricultural Organisation IAATO International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators ICAO International Civil Aviation Organisation ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Sea ICSU International Council for Science IGY International Geophysical Year IMO International Maritime Organisation IP Information Paper IPOA International Plan of Action

APPENDIX 1

ASOC Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition ASMA Antarctic Specially Managed Area ASPA Antarctic Specially Protected Area AT Antarctic Treaty ATCM Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting ATS Antarctic Treaty System BAS British Antarctic Survey BIOROSS Biodiversity of the Ross Sea CABI Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux International CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CCAMLR Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine

Living Resources CEP Committee for Environmental Protection CHM Common Heritage of Mankind COMNAP Council of Managers of National Antarctic

Programmes COP Conference of the Parties CPM Commission for Phytosanitary Measures CRAMRA Convention for the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral

Resource Activity EBA Evolution and Biodiversity in Antarctica

IPPC International Plant Protection Convention tellectual Property Rights

ional Seabed Authority ional Union for the Conservation of Nature

U Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated tion

de

nge in Antarctica arch

enetic Global

IPR InISA Internat

CN InternatIUIUIWC International Whaling Conven

ject LGP Latitudinal Gradients ProMFAT Ministry of Foreign Affairs and TraNGO Non-Governmental Organisation

OIE Organisation Internationale Epizooties PCA Principle Component Analysis PRA Pest Risk Analysis

ate ChaRiSCC Regional Sensitivity to ClimSCAR Scientific Committee for Antarctic Rese

P s Survey Programme SOFS Southern Ocean FisherieSOM Self Organising Map TISGC Treaty Initiative to Share the G

Commons al Property TRIPS Trade Related Aspects of Intellectu

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme UNGA United Nations General Assembly WP Working Paper WTO World Tourism Organisation

213

APPENDIX 2 TEXT OF THE ANTARCTIC TREATY 1959 The G ve ts of Argentina, Australia, Belgium,

oo rnmen nch

bli an f South Africa, the reat

d Nort merica,

g tha Antarctica shall ue for ev oses and o nal discord;

ging rom tion in ;

d tha r the ion an asis of of scie ring the nal Ge s of science

es

ced also th use of Antarctica for peaceful purposes only and the continuance of international harmony in Antarctica will further the purposes and principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations; Have agreed as follows: Article I 1. Antarctica shall be used for peaceful purposes only. There shall be

prohibited, inter alia, any measure of a military nature, such as the establishment of military bases and fortifications, the carrying out of military manoeuvres, as well as the testing of any type of weapon.

2. The present Treaty shall not prevent the use of military personnel

or equipment for scientific research or for any other peaceful purpose.

Chile, the FreRepu c, Jap , New Zealand, Norway, the Union

nited Kingdom of GUnion of Soviet Socialist Republics, the UBritain an hern Ireland, and the United States of A

gn inReco iz t it is in the interest of all mankind that eaceful purpcontin er to be used exclusively for p

t of internatioshall n t become the scene or objec

nowledgeAcknowled the substantial contributions to scientific kfresulting international cooperation in scientific investiga

tiAntarc ca Convince t the establishment of a firm foundation focontinuat d development of such cooperation on the b

d dufreedom ntific investigation in Antarctica as applierestInternatio ophysical Year accords with the inte

and the progr s of all mankind; Convin at a treaty ensuring the

214

Article II Freedom of scientific investigation in Antarctica and cooperation toward that end, as applied during the International Geophysical Year, shall continue, subject to the provisions of the present Treaty. Article III In order to promote international cooperation in scientific investigation in Antarctica, as provided for in Article II of the present Treaty, the Contracting Parties agree that, to the greatest extent feasible and

anged to permit maximum economy of and efficiency

results from Antarctica shall be

rpreted as:

ny Contracting Party of previously asserted of or claims to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica;

practicable: 1. information regarding plans for scientific programs in Antarctica

shall be exchof operations;

2. scientific personnel shall be exchanged in Antarctica between

expeditions and stations; 3. scientific observations and

exchanged and made freely available. Article IV 1. Nothing contained in the present Treaty shall be inte

a. a renunciation by arights

b. a renunciation or diminution by any Contracting Party of any

basis of claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica which it may have whether as a result of its activities or those of its nationals in Antarctica, or otherwise;

c. prejudicing the position of any Contracting Party as regards its

recognition or non-recognition of any other State's rights of or claim or basis of claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica.

215

2. No acts or activities taking place while the present Treaty is in force nstitute a basis for asserting, supporting or denying a claim

to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica or create any rights of

rritorial sovereignty in Antarctica shall be asserted while the present Treaty

e.

e waste material shall be prohibited.

l of radioactive waste material, to which all of the Contracting Parties whose representatives are entitled to

nder such agreements shall apply in Antarctica.

Ar

ions of the present Treaty shall apply to the area south of d the

the e

to

Ar 1. In

therep participate in the meetings referred

Artwhi be ommunicated to every other Contracting Party having the right to

shall co

sovereignty in Antarctica. 3. No new claim, or enlargement of an existing claim, to te

is in forc Article V 1. Any nuclear explosions in Antarctica and the disposal there of

radioactiv 2. In the event of the conclusion of international agreements

concerning the use of nuclear energy, including nuclear explosions and the disposa

participate in the meetings provided for under Article IX are parties, the rules established u

ticle VI

The provis60 eg. South Latitude, including all ice shelves, but nothing in present Treaty shall prejudice or in any way affect the rights, or ex rcise of the rights, of any State under international law with regard

the high seas within that area.

ticle VII

order to promote the objectives and ensure the observance of provisions of the present Treaty, each Contracting Party whose resentatives are entitled to

to in Article IX of the Treaty shall have the right to designate observers to carry out any inspection provided for by the present

icle. Observers shall be nationals of the Contracting Parties ch designate them. The names of observers shall

c

216

designate observers, and like notice shall be given of the termination of their appointment.

Each observer designated 2. in accordance with the provisions of

paragraph 1 of this Article shall have complete freedom of access

3. f Antarctica, including all stations, installations and

equipment within those areas, and all ships and aircraft at points of ing or embarking cargoes or personnel in Antarctica, shall

be open at all times to inspection by any observers designated in

. Aerial observation may be carried out at any time over any or all

5.

a. all expeditions to and within Antarctica, on the part of its ships or

als, and all expeditions to Antarctica organized in or proceeding from its territory;

paragraph 2 of Article I of the present Treaty.

at any time to any or all areas of Antarctica.

All areas o

discharg

accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article.

4areas of Antarctica by any of the Contracting Parties having the right to designate observers.

Each Contracting Party shall, at the time when the present Treaty enters into force for it, inform the other Contracting Parties, and thereafter shall give them notice in advance, of

nation

b. all stations in Antarctica occupied by its nationals; and

c. any military personnel or equipment intended to be introduced

by it into Antarctica subject to the conditions prescribed in

rticle VIII A

1. In order to facilitate the exercise of their functions under the

present Treaty, and without prejudice to the respective positions of the Contracting Parties relating to jurisdiction over all other persons in Antarctica, observers designated under paragraph 1 of Article VII and scientific personnel exchanged under sub-paragraph 1(b) of Article III of the Treaty, and members of the staffs accompanying any such persons, shall be subject only to the jurisdiction of the Contracting Party of which they are nationals in respect of all acts

217

or omissions occurring while they are in Antarctica for the purpose of exercising their functions.

2. Without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article,

and pending the adoption of measures in pursuance of subparagraph 1(e) of Article IX, the Contracting Parties concerned in any case of dispute with regard to the exercise of jurisdiction in

Ar

. Representatives of the Contracting Parties named in the preamble

ls and places, for the purpose of exchanging information, consulting together on matters of common

cluding measures regarding:

a.

. facilitation of scientific research in Antarctica;

c. facilitation of international scientific cooperation in Antarctica;

d.

ns relating to the exercise of jurisdiction in Antarctica;

2.

Antarctica shall immediately consult together with a view to reaching a mutually acceptable solution.

ticle IX

1to the present Treaty shall meet at the City of Canberra within two months after the date of entry into force of the Treaty, and thereafter at suitable interva

interest pertaining to Antarctica, and formulating and considering, and recommending to their Governments, measures in furtherance of the principles and objectives of the Treaty, in

use of Antarctica for peaceful purposes only;

b

facilitation of the exercise of the rights of inspection provided for in Article VII of the Treaty;

e. questio

f. preservation and conservation of living resources in Antarctica.

Each Contracting Party which has become a party to the present Treaty by accession under Article XIII shall be entitled to appoint representatives to participate in the meetings referred to in paragraph 1 of the present Article, during such times as that Contracting Party demonstrates its interest in Antarctica by conducting substantial research activity there, such as the

218

establishment of a scientific station or the despatch of a scientific expedition.

3. Reports from the observers referred to in Article VII of the present

Treaty shall be transmitted to the representatives of the Contracting Parties participating in the meetings referred to in paragraph 1 of the present Article.

The measures referred to in paragraph 4. 1 of this Article shall

become effective when approved by all the Contracting Parties epresentatives were entitled to participate in the meetings

held to consider those measures.

5.

Ar Ea ontracting Parties undertakes to exert appropriate fforts, consistent with the Charter of the United Nations, to the end

tha contrary to the rinciples or purposes of the present Treaty.

rticle XI

. If any dispute arises between two or more of the Contracting

Tre ies shall consult among themselves with a view to having the dispute resolved by negotiation, inquiry,

er peaceful means of their own choice.

. Any dispute of this character not so resolved shall, with the

whose r

Any or all of the rights established in the present Treaty may be exercised as from the date of entry into force of the Treaty whether or not any measures facilitating the exercise of such rights have been proposed, considered or approved as provided in this Article.

ticle X

ch of the Ce

t no one engages in any activity in Antarcticap

A

1Parties concerning the interpretation or application of the present

aty, those Contracting Part

mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement or oth

2consent, in each case, of all parties to the dispute, be referred to the International Court of Justice for settlement; but failure to reach agreement on reference to the International Court shall not absolve parties to the dispute from the responsibility of continuing to seek to resolve it by any of the various peaceful means referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article.

219

Ar a. The present Treaty may be modified or amended at any time by

en the depositary Government has received notice from all such Contracting Parties that they have ratified it.

1b

tary Government. Any such Contracting Party from which no notice of ratification is received

such period.

munication addressed to the depositary Government, a Conference of all the Contracting

hall be held as soon as practicable to review the operation of the Treaty.

2b

unicated by the depositary Government to all Contracting Parties immediately after the

2c.

after the date of its communication to

ticle XII

1unanimous agreement of the Contracting Parties whose representatives are entitled to participate in the meetings provided for under Article IX. Any such modification or amendment shall enter into force wh

. Such modification or amendment shall thereafter enter into force as to any other Contracting Party when notice of ratification by it has been received by the deposi

within a period of two years from the date of entry into force of the modification or amendment in accordance with the provision of subparagraph 1(a) of this Article shall be deemed to have withdrawn from the present Treaty on the date of the expiration of

2a. If after the expiration of thirty years from the date of entry into force

of the present Treaty, any of the Contracting Parties whose representatives are entitled to participate in the meetings provided for under Article IX so requests by a com

Parties s

. Any modification or amendment to the present Treaty which is approved at such a Conference by a majority of the Contracting Parties there represented, including a majority of those whose representatives are entitled to participate in the meetings provided for under Article IX, shall be comm

termination of the Conference and shall enter into force in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of the present Article

If any such modification or amendment has not entered into force in accordance with the provisions of subparagraph 1(a) of this Article within a period of two years

220

all the Contracting Parties, any Contracting Party may at any time after the expiration of that period give notice to the depositary

Art . The present Treaty shall be subject to ratification by the signatory

2.

in accordance with its constitutional processes.

. Instruments of ratification and instruments of accession shall be

4.

amendment thereto.

6.

Government of its withdrawal from the present Treaty; and such withdrawal shall take effect two years after the receipt of the notice by the depositary Government.

icle XIII

1States. It shall be open for accession by any State which is a Member of the United Nations, or by any other State which may be invited to accede to the Treaty with the consent of all the Contracting Parties whose representatives are entitled to participate in the meetings provided for under Article IX of the Treaty.

Ratification of or accession to the present Treaty shall be effected by each State

3

deposited with the Government of the United States of America, hereby designated as the depositary Government.

The depositary Government shall inform all signatory and acceding States of the date of each deposit of an instrument of ratification or accession, and the date of entry into force of the Treaty and of any modification or

5. Upon the deposit of instruments of ratification by all the signatory

States, the present Treaty shall enter into force for those States and for States which have deposited instruments of accession. Thereafter the Treaty shall enter into force for any acceding State upon the deposit of its instruments of accession.

The present Treaty shall be registered by the depositary Government pursuant to Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations.

221

Ar Thlanthe e United States of America, which hall transmit duly certified copies thereof to the Governments of the

acceding States.

ticle XIV

e present Treaty, done in the English, French, Russian and Spanish guages, each version being equally authentic, shall be deposited in archives of the Government of th

ssignatory and

222

223

APPENDIX 3 THE PROTOCOL ON ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TO THE ANTARCTIC TREATY 1991 Preamble The States Parties to this Protocol to the Antarctic Treaty, hereinafter referred to as the Parties, Convinced of the need to enhance the protection of the Antarctic environment and dependent and associated ecosystems; Convinced of the need to strengthen the Antarctic Treaty system so as to ensure that Antarctica shall continue forever to be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and shall not become the scene or object of international discord; Bearing in mind the special legal and political status of Antarctica and the special responsibility of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties to ensure that all activities in Antarctica are consistent with the purposes and principals of the Antarctic Treaty; Recalling the designation of Antarctica as a Special Conservation Area and other measures adopted under the Antarctic Treaty system to protect the Antarctic environment and dependent and associated ecosystems; Acknowledging further the unique opportunities Antarctica offers for scientific monitoring of and research on processes of global as well as regional importance; Reaffirming the conservation principles of the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources; Convinced that the development of a Comprehensive regime for the protection of the Antarctic environment and dependent and associated ecosystems is in the interest of mankind as a whole;

224

Desiring to supplement the Antarctic Treaty to this end;

ave agreed as follows: H Article 1

. "The Antarctic Treaty" means the Antarctic Treaty done at

ty apply in accordance with Article VI of that Treaty;

. "Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties" means the Contracting

Treaty system" means the Antarctic Treaty, the measures in effect under that Treaty, its associated separate

. "Arbitral Tribunal" means the arbitral Tribunal established in

Definitions For the purposes of this Protocol: 1

Washington on 1 December 1959; 2. "Antarctic Treaty area" means the area to which the provisions of

the Antarctic Trea

3. "Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings" means the meetings

referred to in Article IX of the Antarctic Treaty; 4

Parties to the Antarctic Treaty entitled to appoint representatives to participate in the meetings referred to in Article IX of that Treaty;

5. "Antarctic

international instruments in force and the measures in effect under those instruments;

6

accordance with the Schedule to this Protocol, which forms an integral part thereof;

7. "Committee" means the Committee for Environmental Protection

established in accordance with Article 11.

225

Article 2

comprehensive protection of the ntarctic environment and dependent and associated ecosystems and ereby designate Antarctica as a natural reserve, devoted to peace

e. rticle 3

nvironmental Principles

. The protection of the Antarctic environment and dependent and

tic values and its value as an area for the conduct of scientific research, in particular research

in the Antarctic Treaty area.

a. activities in the Antarctic Treaty area shall be planned and

b. activities in the Antarctic Treaty area shall be planned and

ii. significant adverse effects on air or water quality;

l or marine environments;

s of species of fauna and flora;

Objective and Designation The Parties commit themselves to the Ahand sciencA E 1

associated ecosystems and the intrinsic value of Antarctica, including its wilderness and aesthe

essential to understanding the global environment, shall be fundamental considerations in the planning and conduct of all activities

2. To this end:

conducted so as to limit adverse impacts on the Antarctic environment and dependent and associated ecosystems;

conducted so as to avoid:

i. adverse effects on climate or weather patterns;

iii. significant changes in the atmospheric, terrestrial (including

aquatic), glacia

iv. detrimental changes in the distribution, abundance or productivity of species of population

226

v. further jeopardy to endangered or threatened species or populations of such species; or

vi. degradation of, or substantial risk to, areas of biological,

ted on the basis of information sufficient to allow prior ssments of, and informed judgments about, their possible

impacts on the Antarctic environment and dependent and s and on the value of Antarctica for the

conduct of scientific research; such judgments shall take

in the Antarctic Treaty area;

r the activity will detrimentally affect any other activity in the Antarctic Treaty area;

rs and ecosystem components so as to identify and provide early warning of any adverse effects

dification of operating procedures as may be necessary in the light of the

e Antarctic environment and dependent and associated ecosystems;

vi. whether there exists the capacity to respond promptly and

scientific, historic, aesthetic or wilderness significance;

c. activities in the Antarctic Treaty area shall be planned and conducasse

associated ecosystem

account of:

i. the scope of the activity, including its area, duration and intensity;

ii. the cumulative impacts of the activity, both by itself and in

combination with other activities

iii. whethe

iv. whether technology and procedures are available to provide for environmentally safe operations;

v. whether there exists the capacity to monitor key environmental paramete

of the activity and to provide for such mo

results of monitoring or increased knowledge of th

and

effectively to accidents, particularly those with potential environmental effects;

227

d. ass oing activities, including the verification of predicted impacts;

e. reg ilitate

early detection of the possible unforeseen effects of activities

3. Ac

arethe arctica as an area for the conduct of such research, including research essential to understanding the global en

4. Activities undertaken in the Antarctic Treaty area pursuant to

sciand nwhich advance notice is required in accordance with Article VII (5) of

a. take place in a manner consistent with the principles in this

b. be modified, suspended or cancelled if they result in or threaten

depri

Article 4 RelationSystem

1. Thneithe

2. othing in this Protocol shall derogate from the rights and

obligations of the Parties to this Protocol under the other

regular and effective monitoring shall take place to all essment of the impacts of ong

ular and effective monitoring shall take place to fac

carried on both within and outside the Antarctic Treaty area on the Antarctic environment and dependent and associated ecosystems.

tivities shall be planned and conducted in the Antarctic Treaty a so as to accord priority to scientific research and to preserve value of Ant

vironment.

entific research programs, tourism and all other governmental on-governmental activities in the Antarctic Treaty area for

the Antarctic Treaty, including associated logistic activities, shall:

Article; and

to result in impacts upon the Antarctic environment or pendent or associated ecosystems inconsistent with those nciples.

ship with other Components of the Antarctic Treaty

is Protocol shall supplement the Antarctic Treaty and shall

r modify nor amend that Treaty.

N

228

international instruments in force within the Antarctic Treaty tem. sys

Article 5 ConsiSyste The P nsult and cooperate with the Contracting Parties to

e other international instruments in force within the Antarctic Treaty

achavoprinimp those instruments and of this Protocol.

Co 1.

activities in the Antarctic Treaty area. To this end, each Party shall

. promote cooperative programs of scientific, technical and

b. propriate assistance to other Parties in the

preparation of environmental impact assessments;

c. provide to other Parties upon request information relevant to

cts of accidents which may damage the Antarctic environment or dependent and associated ecosystems;

rd to the choice of sites for prospective station sand other facilities so as to avoid the

stency with other Components of the Antarctic Treaty m

arties shall cothsystem and their respective institutions with a view to ensuring the

ievement of the objectives and principles of this Protocol and iding any interference with the achievement of the objectives and ciples of those instruments or any inconsistency between the lementation of

Article 6

operation

The Parties shall cooperate in the planning and conduct of

endeavour to:

aeducational value, concerning the protection of the Antarctic environment and dependent and associated ecosystems;

provide ap

any potential environmental risk and assistance to minimise the effe

d. consult with other Parties with rega

cumulative impacts caused by their excessive concentration in any location;

229

e. where appropriate, undertake joint expeditions and share the use of stations and other facilities; and

y out such steps as may be agreed upon at Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings.

Party undertakes, to the extent possible, to share information that may be helpful to other Parties in planning and conducting

Mineral Resource Activities

res

rticle 8 Envir 1. roposed activities referred to in paragraph 2 below shall be

the nment or on dependent or associated ecosystems according to whether those

a. b. a minor or transitory impact; or

c.

2. Ea ensure that the assessment procedures set out in

Annex I are applied in the planning processes leading to decisions

f. carr

2. Each

their activities in the Antarctic Treaty area, with a view to the protection of the Antarctic environment and dependent and associated ecosystems.

3. The Parties shall co-operate with those Parties which may exercise jurisdiction in areas adjacent to the Antarctic Treaty area with a view to ensuring that activities in the Antarctic Treaty area do not have adverse environmental impacts on those areas.

Article 7 Prohibition of Any activity relating to mineral resources, other than scientific

earch, shall be prohibited.

A

onmental Impact and Assessment

Psubject to the procedures set out in Annex I for prior assessment of

impacts of those activities on the Antarctic enviro

activities are identified as having:

less than a minor or transitory impact;

more than a minor or transitory impact.

ch Party shall

230

about any activities undertaken in the Antarctic Treaty area rsuant to scientific research programspu , tourism and all other

governmental and non-governmental activities in the Antarctic

(5) , including associated logistic support activities.

3.

issioning of a facility, or otherwise.

. Annexes, additional to Annexes I-IV, may be adopted and become e in accordance with Article IX of the Antarctic Treaty.

exes may be adopted and become effective in accordance with Article IX of the Antarctic

4. and modifications thereto which

have become effective in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3 s otherwise in respect of

e entry into effect of any amendment or modification thereto, g Party to the Antarctic Treaty

which is not an Antarctic Treaty Consultative Party, or which was rty at the time of the

adoption, when notice of approval of that Contracting Party has

Treaty area for which advance notice is required under Article VII of the Antarctic Treaty

The assessment procedures set out in Annex I shall apply to any change in an activity whether the change arises from an increase or decrease in the intensity of an existing activity, from the addition of an activity, the decomm

4. Where activities are planned jointly by more than one Party, the Parties involved shall nominate one of their number to coordinate the implementation of the environmental impact assessment procedures set out in Annex I.

Article 9 Annexes 1. The Annexes to this Protocol shall form an integral part thereof. 2

effectiv 3. Amendments and modifications to Ann

Treaty, provided that any Annex may itself make provision for amendments and modifications to become effective on an accelerated basis

Annexes and any amendments

above shall, unless an Annex itself providethbecome effective for a Contractin

not an Antarctic Treaty Consultative Pa

been received by the Depositary.

231

5.

Ar

ntarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings

1.

l, the

le IX of the Antarctic Treaty for the implementation of this Protocol.

. Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings shall review the work of the tee and shall draw fully upon its advice and

recommendations in carrying out the tasks referred to in paragraph on

Antarctic Research.

Ar

1.

. Each Party shall be entitled to be a member of the Committee and

3.

4.

rvation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources to participate as observers at its sessions. The

Annexes shall, except to the extent that an Annex provides otherwise, be subject to the procedures for dispute settlement set out in Articles 18 to 20.

ticle 10

A

Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings shall, drawing upon the best scientific and technical advice available: a. define, in accordance with the provisions of this Protoco

general policy for the comprehensive protection of the Antarctic environment and dependent and associated ecosystems; and

b. adopt measures under Artic

2

Commit

1 above, as well as upon the advice of the Scientific Committee

ticle 11

Committee for Environmental Protection

There is hereby established the Committee for Environmental Protection.

2to appoint a representative who may be accompanied by experts and advisers.

Observer status in the Committee shall be open to any Contracting Party to the Antarctic Treaty which is not a Party to this Protocol.

The Committee shall invite the President of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research and the Chairman of the Scientific Committee for the Conse

232

Committee may also, with the approval of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, invite such other relevant scientific, environmental and technical organisations which can contribute to its work to participate as observers at its sessions.

. The Committee shall present a report on each of its sessions to the The report shall cover all

matters considered at the session and shall reflect the views

hall thereupon be made

6. Th e

ubject to approval by the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting. Articl

1.

his Protocol, including the operation of its Annexes, for consideration at Antarctic Treaty Consultative

s, and to perform such other functions as may be referred to it by the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings. In particular, it

b. the need to update, strengthen or otherwise improve such

for additional measures, including the need for

additional Annexes, where appropriate;

ct assessment procedures set out in Article 8 and Annex I;

5

Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting.

expressed. The report shall be circulated to the Parties and to observers attending the session, and spublicly available.

e Committee shall adopt its rules of procedure which shall bs

e 12 Functions of the Committee

The functions of the Committee shall be to provide advice and formulate recommendations to the Parties in connection with the implementation of t

Meeting

shall provide advice on:

a. the effectiveness of measures taken pursuant to this Protocol;

measures;

c. the need

d. the application and implementation of the environmental impa

e. means of minimising or mitigating environmental impacts of

activities in the Antarctic Treaty area;

233

f. procedures for situations requiring urgent action, including response action in environmental emergencies;

g. the operation and further elaboration of the Ant

arctic Protected Area system;

nmental protection;

k. the need for scientific research, including environmental

toring, related to the implementation of this Protocol.

he Committee shall, as appropriate, consult with the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, the

Ar Co col

1. , cluding the adoption of laws and regulations, administrative

Pro

2. Ch that no one engages in any activity contrary to this Protocol.

3. Ea it takes

pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2 above.

h. inspection procedures, including formats for inspection reports

and checklists for the conduct of inspections;

i. the collection, archiving, exchange and evaluation of information related to enviro

j. the state of the Antarctic environment; and

moni 2. In carrying out its functions, t

Scientific Committee for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources and other relevant scientific, environmental and technical organisations.

ticle 13

mpliance with this Proto

Each Party shall take appropriate measures within its competenceinactions and enforcement measures, to ensure compliance with this

tocol.

Each Party shall exert appropriate efforts, consistent with the arter of the United Nations, to the end

ch Party shall notify all other Parties of the measures

234

4. act entation of the objectives and principles of this Protocol.

5. Th aty Consultative Meetings shall draw the attention

of any State which is not a Party to this Protocol to any activity

jur of transport which affects the implementation of the objectives and principles of this

rticle 14

spection

1. In t and

dependent and associated ecosystems, and to ensure compliance

2.

rvers designated by any Antarctic Treaty Consultative Party who shall be nationals of that Party; and

b. any observers designated at Antarctic Treaty Consultative

3. l co-operate fully with observers undertaking

inspections, and shall ensure that during inspections, observers are

aintained thereon which are called for pursuant to this Protocol.

4. the Parties whose stations, installations, equipment, ships or aircraft are covered by the reports. After those Parties have been given the opportunity to comment, the reports and any comments thereon shall be

Each Party shall draw the attention of all other Parties to any ivity which in its opinion affects the implem

e Antarctic Tre

undertaken by that State, its agencies, instrumentalities, natural or idical persons, ships, aircraft or other means

Protocol.

A

In

order to promote the protection of the Antarctic environmen

with this Protocol, the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties shall arrange, individually or collectively, for inspections by observers to be made in accordance with Article VII of the Antarctic Treaty.

Observers are:

a. obse

Meetings to carry out inspections under procedures to be established by an Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting.

Parties shal

given access to all parts of stations, installations, equipment, ships and aircraft open to inspection under Article VII (3) of the Antarctic Treaty, as well as to all records m

Reports of inspections shall be sent to

235

circulated to all the Parties and to the Committee, considered at Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, and thereafter made publicly available.

Article 15

ergency Response Action

In order to respond to environmental emergencies in ^ Antarctic Treaty are

Em 1.

a, each Party agrees to:

de for prompt and effective response action to such emergencies which might arise in the performance of scientific

ch programs, tourism and all other governmental and non-governmental activities in the Antarctic Treaty area for

with potential adverse effects on the Antarctic environment or

d associated ecosystems.

2.

. co-operate in the formulation and implementation of such

b. d co-

operative response to, environmental emergencies.

3.

Ar

iability

Coproec

a. provi

resear

which advance notice is required under Article VII (5) of the Antarctic Treaty, including associated logistic support activities; and

b. establish contingency plans for response to incidents

dependent an

To this end, the Parties shall:

acontingency plans; and

establish procedures for immediate notification of, an

In the implementation of this Article, the Parties shall draw upon the advice of the appropriate international organisations.

ticle 16

L

nsistent with the objectives of this Protocol for the comprehensive tection of the Antarctic environment and dependent and associated

osystems, the Parties undertake to elaborate rules and procedures

236

relaAnpro all be included in one or more Annexes to be adopted in

ccordance with Article 9 (2).

rticle 17

nnual Report by Parties

1. n the steps taken to implement this Protocol. Such reports shall include notifications made in

accinfoothinfo

2. Re made in accordance with paragraph 1 above shall be

irculated to all Parties and to the Committee, considered at the

ava

rticle 18

ispute Settlement If a di the interpretation or application of this Protocol, the parties to the dispute shall, at the request of any one of thehaving mediation, onciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement or other . which the parties

rticle 19

hoice of Dispute Settlement Procedure

. Each Party, when signing, ratifying, accepting, approving or

ting to liability for damage arising from activities taking place in the tarctic Treaty area and covered by this Protocol. Those rules and cedures sh

a A A

Each Party shall report annually o

accordance with Article 13 (3), contingency plans established in ordance with Article 15 and any other notifications and rmation called for pursuant to this Protocol for which there is no er provision concerning the circulation and exchange of rmation.

portscnext Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, and made publicly

ilable.

A D

spute arises concerning

m, consult among themselves as soon as possible with a view to the dispute resolved by negotiation, inquiry,

cto the dispute agree.

A C 1

acceding to this Protocol, or at any time thereafter, may choose, by written declaration, one or both of the following means for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application

237

of Articles 7, 8 and 15 and, except to the extent that an Annex provides otherwise, the provisions of any Annex and, insofar as it relates to these Articles and provisions, Article 13:

a. the International Court of Justice;

b. the Arbitral Tribunal.

. A declaration made under paragraph 1 above shall not affect the

3.

. If the parties to a dispute have accepted the same means for the

5. es to a dispute have not accepted the same means for

the settlement of a dispute, or if they have both accepted both the dispute may be submitted only to the Arbitral Tribunal,

unless the parties otherwise agree.

. A declaration made under paragraph 1 above shall remain in force

ot in any way affect proceedings pending before the International Court of Justice or the Arbitral Tribunal, unless the

o the dispute otherwise agree.

in this Article shall be deposited with the Depositary who shall transmit copies thereof to

2

operation of Article 18 and Article 20 (2).

A Party which has not made a declaration under paragraph 1 above or in respect of which a declaration is no longer in force shall be deemed to have accepted the competence of the Arbitral Tribunal.

4settlement of a dispute, the dispute may be submitted only to that procedure, unless the parties otherwise agree.

If the parti

means,

6

until it expires in accordance with its terms or until three months after written notice of revocation has been deposited with the Depositary.

7. A new declaration, a notice of revocation or the expiry of a

declaration shall n

parties t 8. Declarations and notices referred to

all Parties.

238

Art

ispute Settling Procedure 1. the parties to a dispute concerning the interpretation or

8 or 15 or, except to the extent that an Annex provides otherwise, the provisions of any Annex or, insofar

12 months of the request for consultation pursuant to Article 18, the dispute shall be referred,

2. al Tribunal shall not be competent to decide or rule upon any matter within the scope of Article IV of the Antarctic Treaty. In

of settling disputes between Parties to decide or otherwise rule upon any matter within

Ar

ignature

ThOc19 te which is a Contracting Party to the Antarctic Treaty.

Ra . This Protocol is subject to ratification, acceptance or approval by

2. rd of October 1992 this Protocol shall be open for

accession by any State which is a Contracting Party to the Antarctic Treaty.

icle 20

D

Ifapplication of Articles 7,

as it relates to these Articles and provisions, Article 13, have not agreed on a means for resolving it within

at the request of any party to the dispute, for settlement in accordance with the procedure determined by Article 19 (4) and (5). The Arbitr

addition, nothing in this Protocol shall be interpreted as conferring competence or jurisdiction on the International Court of Justice or any other tribunal established for the purpose

the scope of Article IV of the Antarctic Treaty.

ticle 21

S

is Protocol shall be open for signature at Madrid on the 4th of tober 1991 and thereafter at Washington until the 3rd of October 92 by any Sta

Article 22

tification, Acceptance, Approval or Accession

1signatory States.

After the 3

239

3. Instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession shall sited with the Government of the United States of America,

hereby designated as the Depository.

. After the date on which this Protocol has entered into force, the

Ar Entry into Force

1.

2. rctic Treaty which,

subsequent to the date of entry into force of this Protocol, deposits ment of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession,

this Protocol shall enter into force on the thirtieth day following such

to this Protocol shall not be permitted.

. Without prejudice to the provisions of Article 9, this Protocol may be

be depo

4

Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties shall not act upon a notification regarding the entitlement of a Contracting Party to the Antarctic Treaty to appoint representatives to participate in Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings in accordance with Article IX (2) of the Antarctic Treaty unless that Contracting Party has first ratified, accepted, approved or acceded to this Protocol.

ticle 23

This Protocol shall enter into force on the thirtieth day following the date of deposit of instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession by all States which are Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties at the date on which this Protocol is adopted.

For each Contracting Party to the Anta

an instru

deposit. Article 24 Reservations Reservations Article 25 Modification or Amendment

1modified or amended at any time in accordance with the procedures set forth in Article XII (1) (a) and (b) of the Antarctic Treaty.

240

2. If, after the expiration of 50 years from the date of entry into force of this Protocol, any of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties so requests by a communication addressed to the Depositary, a conference shall be held as soon as practicable to review the

3.

ication or amendment adopted pursuant to paragraph 3 above shall enter into force upon ratification, acceptance, approval

three-quarters of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties, including ratification, acceptance, approval or accession by

5a. rctic mineral

resource activities contained therein shall continue unless there is

ferred to in Article IV of the Antarctic Treaty and apply the principles thereof. Therefore, if a modification or amendment to

is proposed at a Review Conference referred to in paragraph 2 above, it shall include such a binding legal regime.

b. If any such modification or amendment has not entered into force y may at any time

thereafter notify to the Depositary of its withdrawal from the , and such withdrawal shall take effect 2 years after receipt

of the notification by the Depositary.

operation of this Protocol.

A modification or amendment proposed at any Review Conference called pursuant to paragraph 2 above shall be adopted by a majority of the Parties, including three-quarters of the States which are Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties at the time of adoption of this Protocol.

4. A modif

or accession by

all States which are Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties at the time of adoption of this Protocol.

With respect to Article 7 the prohibition on Anta

in force a binding legal regime on Antarctic mineral resource activities that includes an agreed means for determining whether, and if so, under which conditions, any such activities would be acceptable. This regime shall fully safeguard the interests of all States re

Article 7

5

within 3 years of the date of its adoption, any Part

Protocol

241

Article 26

tifications by the Depositary

e Depositary shall notify

No Th all Contracting Parties to the Antarctic

reaty of the following:

entry into force of this Protocol and any additional

d notices pursuant to Article 19;

and

Ar Au 1.

of America, which shall transmit duly certified copies thereof to all

2.

T

a. signatures of this Protocol and the deposit of instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession;

b. the date of

Annex thereto;

c. the date of entry into force of any amendment or modification to this Protocol;

d. the deposit of declarations an

e. any notification received pursuant to Article 25 (5) (b).

ticle 27

thentic Texts and Registration with the United Nations

This Protocol, done in the English, French, Russian and Spanish languages, each version being equally authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of the Government of the United States

Contracting Parties to the Antarctic Treaty.

This Protocol shall be registered by the Depositary pursuant to Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations.

242

ANNEX I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

1. Th referred to in rticle 8 of the Protocol shall, before their commencement, be

. If an activity is determined as having less than a minor or transitory

rticle 2

Initial environmental evaluation

1. ss than a minor or transitory impact, or unless a Comprehensive

ental Evaluation is being prepared in accordance with Article 3, an Initial Environmental Evaluation shall be prepared. It

activity may have more than a minor or transitory impact and shall include:

posed activity and any impacts that the activity may have, including consideration of

. If an Initial Environmental Evaluation indicates that a proposed activity is likely to have no more than a minor or transitory impact, the activity may proceed, provided that appropriate procedures, which may include monitoring, are put in place to assess and verify the impact of the activity.

Article 1

reliminary stage P

e environmental impacts of proposed activitiesAconsidered in accordance with appropriate national procedures.

2impact, the activity may proceed forthwith.

A

Unless it has been determined that an activity will have le

Environm

shall contain sufficient detail to assess whether a proposed

a. a description of the proposed activity, including its purpose,

location, duration, and intensity; and b. consideration of alternatives to the pro

cumulative impacts in the light of existing and known planned activities.

2

243

Article 3

omprehensive environmental evaluation

itial Environmental Evaluation indicates or if it is otherwise a proposed activity is likely to have more than a itory impact, a Comprehensive Environmental

Evaluation shall be prepared.

2.

a. a description of the proposed activity including its purpose,

ot proceeding, and the consequences of those alternatives;

b. a description of the initial environmental reference state with to be compared and a prediction of

the future environmental reference state in the absence of the

g. identification of measures, including monitoring programmes,

that could be taken to minimise or mitigate impacts of the

able impacts of the proposed activity;

C . If an In1

determined that minor or trans

A Comprehensive Environmental Evaluation shall include:

location, duration and intensity, and possible alternatives to the activity, including the alternative of n

which predicted changes are

proposed activity;

c. a description of the methods and data used to forecast the impacts of the proposed activity;

d. estimation of the nature, extent, duration, and intensity of the likely direct impacts of the proposed activity;

e. consideration of possible indirect or second order impacts of the proposed activity;

f. consideration of cumulative impacts of the proposed activity in the light of existing activities and other known planned activities;

proposed activity and to detect unforeseen impacts and that could provide early warning of any adverse effects of the activity as well as to deal promptly and effectively with accidents;

h. identification of unavoid

244

i. consideration of the effects of the proposed activity on the conduct of scientific research and on other existing uses and

k. a non-technical summary of the information provided under this

3. he draft Comprehensive Environmental Evaluation shall be made

alssha

. The draft Comprehensive Environmental Evaluation shall be

the efore the next Antarctic Treaty

5. No with the proposed activity in the Antarctic Treaty area unless there has been an

En tion by the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting on the advice of the Committee, provided that no decision

opof circulation of the draft Comprehensive Environmental Evaluation.

6. A f

shaCoCo isions relating thereto, and any evaluation of the significance of the

ed activity, shall be circulated to all Parties, which shall also make

values;

j. an identification of gaps in knowledge and uncertainties encountered in compiling the information required under this paragraph;

paragraph; and

l. the name and address of the person or organization which prepared the Comprehensive Environmental Evaluation and the address to which comments thereon should be directed.

Tpublicly available and shall be circulated to all Parties, which shall

o make it publicly available, for comment. A period of 90 days ll be allowed for the receipt of comments.

4forwarded to the Committee at the same time as it is circulated to

Parties, and at least 120 days bConsultative Meeting, for consideration as appropriate.

final decision shall be taken to proceed

opportunity for consideration of the draft Comprehensive vironmental Evalua

to proceed with a proposed activity shall be delayed through the eration of this paragraph for longer than 15 months from the date

inal Comprehensive Environmental Evaluation shall address and ll include or summarise comments received on the draft

mprehensive Environmental Evaluation. The final mprehensive Environmental Evaluation, notice of any dec

predicted impacts in relation to the advantages of the propos

245

them publicly available, at least 60 days before the commencement the proposed activity in the Antarctic Treaty area. of

rticle 4

Decisevalu

Anapplie d, and, if so, whether in its original or in a

odified form, shall be based on the Comprehensive Environmental Ev Articl

1.

d verify the impact of any activity that proceeds following the completion of a

2.

cord of the

rticle 6

Cir 1.

A

ions to be based on comprehensive environmental ations

y decision on whether a proposed activity, to which Article 3

s, should proceem

aluation as well as other relevant considerations.

e 5 Monitoring

Procedures shall be put in place, including appropriate monitoring of key environmental indicators, to assess an

Comprehensive Environmental Evaluation.

The procedures referred to in paragraph 1 above and in Article 2(2) shall be designed to provide a regular and verifiable reimpacts of the activity in order, inter alia, to: a. enable assessments to be made of the extent to which such

impacts are consistent with the Protocol; and b. provide information useful for minimising or mitigating impacts,

and, where appropriate, information on the need for suspension, cancellation or modification of the activity.

A

culation of information

The following information shall be circulated to the Parties, forwarded to the Committee and made publicly available: a. a description of the procedures referred to in Article l;

246

b. an annual list of any Initial Environmental Evaluations prepared in accordance with Article 2 and any decisions taken in consequence thereof;

c. significant information obtained, and any action taken in lace in

nce with Articles 2(2) and 5; and

ergency

etion of the procedures set out in this Annex.

2. f a Comprehensive

Pa on of the activities arried out shall be provided within 90 days of those activities.

Articl

mendment or modification

. This Annex may be amended or modified by a measure adopted in X(1) of the Antarctic Treaty. Unless the

measure specifies otherwise, the amendment or modification shall

nsultative eeting at which it was adopted, unless one or more of the

within

consequence thereof, from procedures put in paccorda

d. information referred to in Article 3(6).

2. Any Initial Environmental Evaluation prepared in accordance with

Article 2 shall be made available on request. Article 7 Cases of em 1. This Annex shall not apply in cases of emergency relating to the

safety of human life or of ships, aircraft or equipment and facilities of high value, or the protection of the environment, which require an activity to be undertaken without compl

Notice of activities undertaken in cases of emergency, which would otherwise have required preparation oEnvironmental Evaluation, shall be circulated immediately to all

rties and to the Committee and a full explanatic

e 8

A 1

accordance with Article I

be deemed to have been approved, and shall become effective, one year after the close of the Antarctic Treaty CoMAntarctic Treaty Consultative Parties notifies the Depositary,

247

that period, that it wishes an extension of that period or that it is able to approve the measure. un

. Any amendment or modification of this Annex which becomes

beit h

ANNEX II

1.

3. f its

le (including seeds, and other propagules), indigenous to the Treaty area;

ans any terrestrial or freshwater

5.

6.

2effective in accordance with paragraph 1 above shall thereafter

come effective as to any other Party when notice of approval by as been received by the Depositary.

CONSERVATION OF ANTARCTIC FAUNA AND FLORA

Article 1 Definitions For the purposes of this Annex:

"native mammal" means any member of any species belonging to the Class Mammalia, indigenous to the Antarctic Treaty area or occurring there seasonally through natural migrations;

2. "native bird" means any member, at any stage of its life cycle

(including eggs), of any species of the Class Aves indigenous to the Antarctic Treaty area or occurring there seasonally through natural migrations; "native plant" means any terrestrial or freshwater vegetation, including bryophytes, lichens, fungi and algae, at any stage olife cycAntarctic

. "native invertebrate" me4

invertebrate, at any stage of its life cycle, indigenous to the Antarctic Treaty area;

"appropriate authority" means any person or agency authorized by a Party to issue permits under this Annex;

"permit" means a formal permission in writing issued by an appropriate authority;

248

7. ove or damage such quantities of

native plants that their local distribution or abundance would be

8.

a. flying or landing helicopters or other aircraft in a manner that disturbs concentrations of birds and seals;

b. oats,

in a manner that disturbs concentrations of birds and seals;

g explosives or firearms in a manner that disturbs trations of birds and seals;

g or moulting birds or concentrations ns on foot;

Art

1. of ships, aircraft, or equipment and facilities

. of emergency shall be

"take" or "taking" means to kill, injure, capture, handle or molest, a native mammal or bird, or to rem

significantly affected;

"harmful interference" means:

using vehicles or vessels, including hovercraft and small b

c. usin

concen

d. willfully disturbing breedinof birds and seals by perso

e. significantly damaging concentrations of native terrestrial plants

by landing aircraft, driving vehicles, or walking on them, or by other means; and

f. any activity that results in the significant adverse modification of

habitats of any species or population of native mammal, bird, plant or invertebrate.

9. "International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling" means the Convention done at Washington on 2 December 1946.

icle 2 Cases of emergency

This Annex shall not apply in cases of emergency relating to the safety of human life orof high value, or the protection of the environment.

Notice of activities undertaken in cases 2circulated immediately to all Parties and to the Committee.

249

Article 3

otection of native fauna and flora Pr

. Taking or harmful interference shall be prohibited, except in

2.

wh shall be issued only the following circumstances:

a. ion;

ional or cultural institutions or uses; and

c. ces of scientific activities

not otherwise authorized under sub-paragraphs (a) or (b) above,

. The issue of such permits shall be limited so as to ensure that:

a.

eet the purposes set forth in paragraph 2

killed and in no case more native mammals or birds are killed from local

ulations than can, in combination with other permitted takings, normally be replaced by natural reproduction in the

; and

pecies", and shall be accorded special protection by the Parties.

1accordance with a permit.

Such permits shall specify the authorized activity, including when, ere and by whom it is to be conducted and

in

to provide specimens for scientific study or scientific informat

b. to provide specimens for museums, herbaria, zoological and botanical gardens, or other educat

to provide for unavoidable consequen

or of the construction and operation of scientific support facilities.

3

no more native mammals, birds, or plants are taken than are strictly necessary to mabove;

b. only small numbers of native mammals or birds are

pop

following season

c. the diversity of species, as well as the habitats essential to their existence, and the balance of the ecological systems existing within the Antarctic Treaty area be maintained.

4. Any species of native mammals, birds and plants listed in Appendix

A to this Annex shall be designated "Specially Protected S

250

5. A permit shall not be issued to take a Specially Protected Species unless the taking:

a. is for a compelling scientific purpose;

survival or recovery of that species or local population; and

. All taking of native mammals and birds shall be done in the manner

Art Introd on-native species, parasites and diseases

1. shaAn

. Dogs shall not be introduced onto land or ice shelves and dogs

3. impthis shall specify the species, numbers and, if

esc 4. An

acc phs 1 and 3 above, shall, prior to expiration of the permit, be removed from the Antarctic Treaty area

elimob to the Antarctic Treaty area not native to that area, including any progeny, shall be

b. will not jeopardize the

c. uses non-lethal techniques where appropriate.

6that involves the least degree of pain and suffering practicable.

icle 4

uction of n

No species of animal or plant not native to the Antarctic Treaty area ll be introduced onto land or ice shelves, or into water in the

tarctic Treaty area except in accordance with a permit.

2currently in those areas shall be removed by 1 April 1994.

Permits under paragraph 1 above shall be issued to allow the

ortation only of the animals and plants listed in Appendix B to Annex and

appropriate, age and sex and precautions to be taken to prevent ape or contact with native fauna and flora.

y plant or animal for which a permit has been issued in ordance with paragra

or be disposed of by incineration or equally effective means that inates risk to native fauna or flora. The permit shall specify this

ligation. Any other plant or animal introduced in

removed or disposed of, by incineration or by equally effective means, so as to be rendered sterile, unless it is determined that they pose no risk to native flora or fauna.

251

5. Nothing in this Article shall apply to the importation of food into the Antarctic Treaty area provided that no live animals are imported for this purpose and all plants and animal parts and products are kept

sed of in accordance ith Annex III to the Protocol and Appendix C to this Annex.

6. Ea that precautions, including those listed in

Appendix C to this Annex, be taken to prevent the introduction of s, yeasts, fungi)

not present in the native fauna and flora.

Ar

n

forth, particular, prohibited activities and providing lists of Specially

preen visions of

is Annex.

Ar

1.

r quantities of each species of native mammal, bird or plant taken annually in the

under carefully controlled conditions and dispow

ch Party shall require

micro-organisms (e.g., viruses, bacteria, parasite

ticle 5

Informatio Each Party shall prepare and make available information settinginProtected Species and relevant Protected Areas to all those persons

sent in or intending to enter the Antarctic Treaty area with a view to suring that such persons understand and observe the pro

th

ticle 6 Exchange of information

The Parties shall make arrangements for: a. collecting and exchanging records (including records of permits)

and statistics concerning the numbers o

Antarctic Treaty area; b. obtaining and exchanging information as to the status of native

mammals, birds, plants, and invertebrates in the Antarctic Treaty area, and the extent to which any species or population needs protection;

c. establishing a common form in which this information shall be submitted by Parties in accordance with paragraph 2 below.

252

2. Each Party shall inform the other Parties as well as the Committee before the end of November of each year of any step taken pursuant to paragraph 1 above and of the number and nature of permits issued under this Annex in the preceding period of 1 July to 30 June.

Article 7

lationship with other agreements outside the Antarctic Treaty stem

Resy

this Annex shall derogate from the rights and obligations of arties under the International Convention for the Regulation of

of Antarctic fauna and flora, taking into account any commendations from the Committee.

Ar Amen 1. his Annex may be amended or modified by a measure adopted in

mebeon e of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting at which it was adopted, unless one or more of the

tha it is unable to approve the measure.

Nothing inPWhaling. Article 8 Review The Parties shall keep under continuing review measures for the conservationre

ticle 9

dment or modification

Taccordance with Article IX(1) of the Antarctic Treaty. Unless the

asure specifies otherwise, the amendment or modification shall deemed to have been approved, and shall become effective, e year after the clos

Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties notifies the Depositary, within t time period, that it wishes an extension of that period or that

253

2. Any amendment or modification of this Annex which becomes effective in accordance with paragraph 1 above shall thereafter become effective as to any other Party when notice of approval by it has been received by the Depositary.

APPENDICES TO THE ANNEX

B: Importation of Animals and Plants

wing animals and plants may be imported into the Antarctic ea in accordance with permits issued under Article 4 of this

. laboratory animals and plants including viruses, bacteria, yeasts and fungi.

C: Precautions to Prevent Introduction of Micro-s

her living birds shall be brought into the

,

by e flora

2.

Appendix A: Specially Protected Species All species of the genus Arctocephalus, Fur Seals. Ommatophoca rossii, Ross Seal. Appendix The folloTreaty arAnnex: 1. domestic plants; and 2

Appendixorganism 1. Poultry. No live poultry or ot

Antarctic Treaty area. Before dressed poultry is packaged for shipment to the Antarctic Treaty area, it shall be inspected for evidence of disease, such as Newcastle's Disease, tuberculosisand yeast infection. Any poultry or parts not consumed shall beremoved from the Antarctic Treaty area or disposed of incineration or equivalent means that eliminates risks to nativand fauna.

The importation of non-sterile soil shall be avoided to the maximumextent practicable.

254

ANNEX III

WASTE DISPOSAL AND WASTE MANAGEMENT

rticle 1

General obligation

ertaken in the Antarctic ch programmes, tourism

tal activities in the is required under

Treaty, including associated logistic

of in the Antarctic

rch and with other uses of Antarctica which are consistent ty.

ons in the planning and conduct of activities in the Antarctic Treaty area.

ies generating the waste were organized or to any other

5.

val of any structure designated as a historic site or

A

s 1. This Annex shall apply to activities und

Treaty area pursuant to scientific researand all other governmental and non-governmenAntarctic Treaty area for which advance noticeArticle VII(5) of the Antarctic support activities.

. The amount of wastes produced or disposed 2

Treaty area shall be reduced as far as practicable so as to minimise impact on the Antarctic environment and to minimise interference with the natural values of Antarctica, with scientific reseawith the Antarctic Trea

3. Waste storage, disposal and removal from the Antarctic Treaty

area, as well as recycling and source reduction, shall be essential considerati

4. Wastes removed from the Antarctic Treaty area shall, to the maximum extent practicable, be returned to the country from which the activitcountry in which arrangements have been made for the disposal of such wastes in accordance with relevant international agreements.

Past and present waste disposal sites on land and abandoned work sites of Antarctic activities shall be cleaned up by the generator of such wastes and the user of such sites. This obligation shall not be interpreted as requiring:

a. the remomonument; or

255

b. the removal of any structure or waste material in circumstances where the removal by tical option would result in gre tructure or waste material in its existing location.

rticle 2

aste disposal by removal from the Antarctic Treaty area

1.

terials;

ent compounds;

g. fuel drums; and

ove drums and solid non-

combustible wastes contained in subparagraphs (g) and (h) above

by any practical option would result in greater adverse nvironmental impact than leaving them in their existing locations.

any pracater adverse environmental impact than leaving the s

A W

The following wastes, if generated after entry into force of this Annex, shall be removed from the Antarctic Treaty area by the generator of such wastes:

a. radio-active ma

b. electrical batteries;

c. fuel, both liquid and solid;

d. wastes containing harmful levels of heavy metals or acutely toxic or harmful persist

e. poly-vinyl chloride (PVC), polyurethane foam, polystyrene foam,

rubber and lubricating oils, treated timbers and other products which contain additives that could produce harmful emissions if incinerated;

f. all other plastic wastes, except low density polyethylene

containers (such as bags for storing wastes), provided that such containers shall be incinerated in accordance with Article 3(1);

h. other solid, non-combustible wastes;

provided that the obligation to rem

shall not apply in circumstances where the removal of such wastes

e

256

2. sewprage

llowing wastes shall be removed from the Antarctic Treaty area by the generator of such wastes, unless incinerated,

ro-organisms and plant pathogens; and

ts. Art

Wa

1. tho not removed from the Antarctic Treaty area shall be burnt in incinerators which to the

emrecCo ntarctic Research shall be taken into account. The solid residue of such incineration shall be removed from the

2. All s

practicable, but no later than the end of the 1998/1999 season. tion of such phase-out, when it is necessary to

dispose of wastes by open burning, allowance shall be made for wastes to be burnt to

limit particulate deposition and to avoid such deposition over areas

Liquid wastes which are not covered by paragraph 1 above and age and domestic liquid wastes, shall, to the maximum extent

cticable, be removed from the Antarctic Treaty area by the nerator of such wastes.

3. The fo

autoclaved or otherwise treated to be made sterile:

a. residues of carcasses of imported animals; b. laboratory culture of mic

c. introduced avian produc

icle 3

ste disposal by incineration

Subject to paragraph 2 below, combustible wastes, other than se referred to in Article 2(1), which are

maximum extent practicable reduce harmful emissions. Any ission standards and equipment guidelines which may be ommended by, inter alia, the Committee and the Scientific mmittee on A

Antarctic Treaty area.

open burning of wastes shall be phased out as soon a

Pending the comple

the wind direction and speed and the type of

of special biological, scientific, historic, aesthetic or wilderness significance including, in particular, areas accorded protection under the Antarctic Treaty.

257

Article 4

her waste disposal on land Ot

. Wastes not removed or disposed of in accordance with Articles 2

2. ewage, domestic liquid wastes and other liquid wastes not

ordance with Article , shall, to the maximum extent practicable, not be disposed of

such wastes which are generated by stations located inland on ice e-sheet may be disposed of in deep

ice pits where such disposal is the only practicable option. Such all not be located on known ice-flow lines which terminate at

ice-free areas or in areas of high ablation.

. Wastes generated at field camps shall, to the maximum extent

Ar

1.

b. large quantities of such wastes (generated in a station where the average weekly occupancy over the austral summer is

1and 3 shall not be disposed of onto ice-free areas or into fresh water systems.

Sremoved from the Antarctic Treaty area in acc2onto sea ice, ice shelves or the grounded ice-sheet, provided that

shelves or on the grounded ic

pits sh

3

practicable, be removed by the generator of such wastes to supporting stations or ships for disposal in accordance with this Annex.

ticle 5 Disposal of waste in the sea

Sewage and domestic liquid wastes may be discharged directly into the sea, taking into account the assimilative capacity of the receiving marine environment and provided that: a. such discharge is located, wherever practicable, where

conditions exist for initial dilution and rapid dispersal; and

258

approximately 30 individuals or more) shall be treated at least by maceration.

. The by-product of sewage treatment by the Rotary Biological

d provided also that any such disposal at sea shall be in accordance with Annex IV to the Protocol.

Art Sto All disinto

rticle 7

Pro No orinated biphenyls (PCBs), non-sterile soil, polystyrene

eads, chips or similar forms of packaging, or pesticides (other than ose required for scientific, medical or hygiene purposes) shall be troduced onto land or ice shelves or into water in the Antarctic Treaty rea.

rticle 8

aste management planning

1. a waste disposal

lassification system as a basis for recording wastes and to

sci end, astes produced shall be classified as:

a.

2

Contacter process or similar processes may be disposed of into the sea provided that such disposal does not adversely affect the local environment, an

icle 6

rage of waste

wastes to be removed from the Antarctic Treaty area, or otherwise posed of, shall be stored in such a way as to prevent their dispersal the environment.

A

hibited products

polychlbthina A W

Each Party which itself conducts activities in the Antarctic Treaty area shall, in respect of those activities, establishcfacilitate studies aimed at evaluating the environmental impacts of

entific activity and associated logistic support. To thatw

sewage and domestic liquid wastes (Group 1);

259

b.

r to reduce further the impact of waste on the Antarctic environment, each such Party shall prepare and annually review

s waste management plans (including waste reduction, storage and disposal), specifying for each fixed site, for

g management plans for ships):

rammes for cleaning up existing waste disposal sites and abandoned work sites;

b. current and planned waste management arrangements,

d. other efforts to minimise any environmental effects of wastes and waste management.

ch Party shall, as far as is practicable, also prepare an inventory of locations of past activities (such as traverses, fuel

aircraft) before the information is lost, so that such locations can be taken into account in planning future

Ar Cir ent plans

1. ance with Article , reports on their implementation, and the inventories referred to in

other liquid wastes and chemicals, including fuels and lubricants (Group 2);

c. solids to be combusted (Group 3);

d. other solid wastes (Group 4); and

e. radioactive material (Group 5). 2. In orde

and update it

field camps generally, and for each ship (other than small boats that are part of the operations of fixed sites or of ships and taking into account existin

a. prog

including final disposal;

c. current and planned arrangements for analysing the environmental effects of waste and waste management; and

3. Each su

depots, field bases, crashed

scientific programmes (such as snow chemistry, pollutants in lichens or ice core drilling).

ticle 9

culation and review of waste managem

The waste management plans prepared in accord8

260

Article 8(3), shall be included in the annual exchanges of information in accordance with Articles III and VII of the Antarctic Treaty and related Recommendations under Article IX of the

2. aste management plans, and reports on their implementation and review, to the Committee.

. The Committee may review waste management plans and reports

4.

nd appropriate isposal and discharge methods.

Articl Ma

ach Party shall: 1. de itor

waste management plans; in the field, this responsibility shall be

3.

ay introduce into that area in order that these products may be removed subsequently in accordance with

nex.

Antarctic Treaty.

Each Party shall send copies of its w

3thereon and may offer comments, including suggestions for minimising impacts and modifications and improvement to the plans, for the consideration of the Parties.

The Parties may exchange information and provide advice on, inter alia, available low waste technologies, reconversion of existing installations, special requirements for effluents, ad

e 10

nagement practices

E

signate a waste management official to develop and mon

delegated to an appropriate person at each site;

2. ensure that members of its expeditions receive training designed to limit the impact of its operations on the Antarctic environment and to inform them of requirements of this Annex; and discourage the use of poly-vinyl chloride (PVC) products and ensure that its expeditions to the Antarctic Treaty area are advised of any PVC products they m

this An

261

Ar Re

his Annex shall be subject to regular review in order to ensure that it

pro rctic nvironment.

Ar Ca

. Notice of activities undertaken in cases of emergency shall be

d immediately to all Parties and to the Committee.

odification

modification shall be deemed to have been approved, and shall become effective,

epositary, within

2.

accordance with paragraph 1 above shall thereafter become effective as to any other Party when notice of approval by it has been received by the Depositary.

ticle 11

view

Tis updated to reflect improvement in waste disposal technology and

cedures and to ensure thereby maximum protection of the Antae

ticle 12

ses of emergency 1. This Annex shall not apply in cases of emergency relating to the

safety of human life or of ships, aircraft or equipment and facilities of high value or the protection of the environment.

2circulate

Article 13 Amendment or m 1. This Annex may be amended or modified by a measure adopted in

accordance with Article IX(1) of the Antarctic Treaty. Unless the measure specifies otherwise, the amendment or

one year after the close of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting at which it was adopted, unless one or more of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties notifies the Dthat time period, that it wishes an extension of that period or that it is unable to approve the measure.

Any amendment or modification of this Annex which becomes effective in

262

ANNEX IV PREVENTION OF MARINE POLLUTION

es of this Annex: ge" means any release howsoever caused from a ship and ny escape, disposal, spilling, leaking, pumping, emitting or

by the of 1978 relating thereto and by any other amendment in reafter;

eans any noxious liquid substance as

5.

6. 7.

s hydrofoil boats, air-cushion

Article 1 Definitions

or the purposF1. "dischar

include aemptying;

2. "garbage" means all kinds of victual, domestic and operational

waste excluding fresh fish and parts thereof, generated during the normal operation of the ship, except those substances which are covered by Articles 3 and 4;

3. "MARPOL 73/78" means the International Convention for the

Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as amendedProtocolforce the

. "noxious liquid substance" m4

defined in Annex II of MARPOL 73/78;

"oil" means petroleum in any form including crude oil, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse and refined oil products (other than petrochemicals which are subject to the provisions of Article 4);

"oily mixture" means a mixture with any oil content; and

"ship" means a vessel of any type whatsoever operating in the marine environment and includevehicles, submersibles, floating craft and fixed or floating platforms.

263

Article 2

pplication

x applies, with respect to each Party, to ships entitled to fly o any other ship engaged in or supporting its Antarctic hile operating in the Antarctic Treaty area.

Dis

arged into the sea. Ships shall

. not apply to:

the

b. the discharge into the sea of substances containing oil which are being used for the purpose of combating specific pollution incidents in order to minimise the damage from pollution.

A This Anneits flag and tperations, wo

Article 3

charge of oil 1. Any discharge into the sea of oil or oily mixture shall be prohibited,

except in cases permitted under Annex I of MARPOL 73/78. While operating in the Antarctic Treaty area, ships shall retain on board all sludge, dirty ballast, tank washing waters and other oily residues and mixtures which may not be dischdischarge these residues only outside the Antarctic Treaty area, at reception facilities or as otherwise permitted under Annex I of MARPOL 73/78.

This Article shall 2

a. the discharge into the sea of oil or oily mixture resulting from damage to a ship or its equipment:

i. provided that all reasonable precautions have been taken

after the occurrence of the damage or discovery of the discharge for the purpose of preventing or minimising discharge; and

ii. except if the owner or the Master acted either with intent to

cause damage, or recklessly and with the knowledge that damage would probably result; or

264

Article 4 Discharge of noxious liquid substances

ibited.

ge

2.

. The disposal into the sea of food wastes may be permitted when

h a comminuter or grinder, provided that such disposal shall, except in cases permitted under Annex V

she 12 nautical miles from the nearest land or ice shelf. Such comminuted or ground food wastes shagreate

4. When material covered by this article is mixed with

other such substance or material for discharge or disposal, having diffdispos

. The provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 above shall not apply to:

a.

been taken, before and after the occurrence of the damage, for the purpose of preventing or minimising the escape; or

The discharge into the sea of any noxious liquid substance, and any other chemical or other substances, in quantities or concentrations that are harmful to the marine environment, shall be proh Article 5 Disposal of garba 1. The disposal into the sea of all plastics, including but not limited to

synthetic ropes, synthetic fishing nets, and plastic garbage bags, shall be prohibited.

The disposal into the sea of all other garbage, including paper products, rags, glass, metal, bottles, crockery, incineration ash, dunnage, lining and packing materials, shall be prohibited.

3they have been passed throug

of MARPOL 73/78, be made as far as practicable from land and ice lves but in any case not less than

ll be capable of passing through a screen with openings no r than 25 millimetres.

a substance or

erent disposal or discharge requirements, the most stringent al or discharge requirements shall apply.

5

the escape of garbage resulting from damage to a ship or its equipment provided all reasonable precautions have

265

b. the accidental loss of synthetic fishing nets, provided all reasonable precautions have been taken to prevent such loss.

. The Parties shall, where appropriate, require the use of garbage

of sewage

ld unduly impair Antarctic operations:

autical miles of land or ice shelves;

d of no less than 4 knots.

2.

Ar

1.

those on board or saving life at sea.

. Notice of activities undertaken in cases of emergency shall be

Articl Effect on dependent and associated ecosystems

6

record books. Article 6 Discharge 1. Except where it wou

a. each Party shall eliminate all discharge into the sea of untreated sewage ("sewage" being defined in Annex IV of MARPOL 73/78) within 12 n

b. beyond such distance, sewage stored in a holding tank shall not be discharged instantaneously but at a moderate rate and, where practicable, while the ship is en route at a spee

This paragraph does not apply to ships certified to carry not more than 10 persons.

The Parties shall, where appropriate, require the use of sewage record books.

ticle 7 Cases of emergency

Articles 3, 4, 5 and 6 of this Annex shall not apply in cases of emergency relating to the safety of a ship and

2

circulated immediately to all Parties and to the Committee.

e 8

266

In imp ll

e given to the need to avoid detrimental effects on dependent and

rticle 9

hip retention capacity and reception facilities

. Each Party shall undertake to ensure that all ships entitled to fly its Antarctic

operations, before entering the Antarctic Treaty area, are fitted with

sluan d for the

tention of garbage, while operating in the Antarctic Treaty area

anshano ces.

2. ty area undertakes to ensure that as soon as

practicable adequate facilities are provided for the reception of all

rbage from ships, without causing undue delay, and according to the needs of the ships using them.

. Parties operating ships which depart to or arrive from the Antarctic of other Parties shall consult with those Parties

with a view to ensuring that the establishment of port reception

esign, construction, manning and equipment of ships

lementing the provisions of this Annex, due consideration shabassociated ecosystems, outside the Antarctic Treaty area.

A S 1

flag and any other ship engaged in or supporting its

a tank or tanks of sufficient capacity on board for the retention of all dge, dirty ballast, tank washing water and other oily residues d mixtures, and have sufficient capacity on boar

reand have concluded arrangements to discharge such oily residues

d garbage at a reception facility after leaving that area. Ships ll also have sufficient capacity on board for the retention of

xious liquid substan

Each Party at whose ports ships depart en route to or arrive from the Antarctic Trea

sludge, dirty ballast, tank washing water, other oily residues and mixtures, and ga

3

Treaty area at ports

facilities does not place an inequitable burden on Parties adjacent to the Antarctic Treaty area.

Article 10

D

267

In the design, construction, manning and equipment of ships engaged

rticle 11

overeign immunity

. This Annex shall not apply to any warship, naval auxiliary or other

2.

3. other Parties of how it implements this

provision.

4.

Ar

reventive measures and emergency preparedness and response

1.

e pollution response in the Antarctic Treaty area, including contingency plans for ships (other than small boats that are part of the operations of fixed sites or of ships)

g in the Antarctic Treaty area, particularly ships carrying oil as cargo, and for oil spills, originating from coastal installations,

shall:

a. co-operate in the formulation and implementation of such plans; and

in or supporting Antarctic operations, each Party shall take into account the objectives of this Annex. A S 1

ship owned or operated by a State and used, for the time being, only on government non-commercial service. However, each Party shall ensure by the adoption of appropriate measures not impairing the operations or operational capabilities of such ships owned or operated by it, that such ships act in a manner consistent, so far as is reasonable and practicable, with this Annex.

In applying paragraph 1 above, each Party shall take into account the importance of protecting the Antarctic environment.

Each Party shall inform the

The dispute settlement procedure set out in Articles 18 to 20 of the Protocol shall not apply to this Article.

ticle 12

P

In order to respond more effectively to marine pollution emergencies or the threat thereof in the Antarctic Treaty area, the Parties, in accordance with Article 15 of the Protocol, shall develop contingency plans for marin

operatin

which enter into the marine environment. To this end they

268

b. draw on the advice of the Committee, the International Maritime

Organization and other international organizations.

rties shall also establish procedures for cooperative response to pollution emergencies and shall take appropriate

accordance with such procedures.

Re Th is Anof y amendments and

ew regulations adopted under MARPOL 73/78, with a view to

rticle 14

Relationship with MARPOL 73/78

73/ specific rights and bligations thereunder.

rticle 15

mendment or modification

1.

it is unable to approve the measure.

2. The Pa

response actions in Article 13

view

e Parties shall keep under continuous review the provisions of thnex and other measures to prevent, reduce and respond to pollution the Antarctic marine environment, including an

nachieving the objectives of this Annex.

A

With respect to those Parties which are also Parties to MARPOL

78, nothing in this Annex shall derogate from the o A A

This Annex may be amended or modified by a measure adopted in accordance with Article IX(1) of the Antarctic Treaty. Unless the measure specifies otherwise, the amendment or modification shall be deemed to have been approved, and shall become effective, one year after the close of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting at which it was adopted, unless one or more of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties notifies the Depositary, within that time period, that it wishes an extension of that period or that

269

2. Any amendment or modification of this Annex which becomes

be pproval by it has been received by the Depositary.

O THE PROTOCOL ON ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TO THE IC TREATY – AREA PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT

erson or agency authorised by o issue permits under this Annex;

ission in writing issued by an

Antarctic Specially Managed Area.

are an proPla Ar

n

effective in accordance with paragraph 1 above shall thereafter come effective as to any other Party when notice of a

ANNEX V TANTARCT

Article 1 Definitions For the purposes of this Annex: . "appropriate authority" means any p1

a Party t 2. "permit" means a formal perm

appropriate authority; 3. "Management Plan" means a plan to manage the activities and

protect the special value or values in an Antarctic Specially Protected Area or an

Article 2

bjectives O For the purposes set out in this Annex, any area, including any marine

a, may be designated as an Antarctic Specially Protected Area or Antarctic Specially Managed Area. Activities in those Areas shall behibited, restricted or managed in accordance with Management ns adopted under the provisions of this Annex.

ticle 3

tarctic Specially Protected Areas A

270

1. Any area, including any marine area, may be designated aAntarctic Specially Protected Area to protect outstandenvironmental, scientific, historic, aesthetic or wilderness values,any combination of those values, or on

s an ing

going or planned scientific

research. 2. Parties shall seek to identify, within a systematic environmental-

geographical framework, a de in the series of Antarctic

a. areas kept inviolate from human interference so that future parisons may be possible with localities that have been cted by human activities;

entative examples of major terrestrial, including glacial nd marine ecosystems;

interest to on-going or planned scientific

s of outstanding aesthetic and wilderness value;

r monuments or recognised historic value; and

nsultative Meetings esignated as Antarctic Specially Protected Areas and

renamed and renumbered accordingly.

tected Area shall be prohibited except in accordance with a permit issued under Article 7.

nd to incluSpecially Protected Areas:

comaffe

b. repres

and aquatic, ecosystems a

c. areas with important or unusual assemblages of species, including major colonies of breeding native birds or mammals;

d. the type locality or only known habitat of any species;

e. areas of particular

research;

f. examples of outstanding geological, glaciological or geomorphological features;

g. area

h. sites o

i. such other areas as may be appropriate to protect the values

set out in paragraph 1 above. 3. Specially Protected Areas and Sites of Special Scientific Interest

designated as such by past Antarctic Treaty Coare hereby dshall be

. Entry into an Antarctic Specially Pro4

271

Article 4

tarctic Specially Managed Areas

Any area,

An

s, avoid possible conflicts, improve co-

2. An

En a

.

Pro as, entry into which shall be prohibited except in

rticl

a

Antarctic

an Area or an Antarctic Specially

2.

1. including any marine area, where activities are beingconducted or may in the future be conducted, may be designated as an Antarctic Specially Managed Area to assist in the planning and co-ordination of activitieoperation between Parties or minimise environmental impacts.

tarctic Specially Managed Areas may include:

a. areas where activities pose risks of mutual interference or cumulative environmental impacts; and

b. sites or monuments of recognised historic value.

try into an Antarctic Specially Managed Area shall not require 3. permit.

4 Notwithstanding paragraph 3 above, an Antarctic Specially

Managed Area may contain one or more Antarctic Specially tected Are

accordance with a permit issued under Article 7.

e 5 A M

nagement Plans

1. Any Party, the Committee, the Scientific Committee forResearch or the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources may propose an area for designation as

Antarctic Specially ProtectedManaged Area by submitting a proposed Management Plan to the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting. The area proposed for designation shall be of sufficient size to protect the values for which the special protection or management is required.

3. Proposed Management Plans shall include, as appropriate:

272

a. a description of the value or values for which special protection or management is required;

ectives of the Management Plan

uding marine

c Specially

d Areas or Antarctic Specially Managed Areas designated under this Annex, or other protected areas

in accordance with measures adopted under ents of the Antarctic Treaty System;

b. a statement of the aims and obj

for the protection or management of those values;

c. management activities which are to be undertaken to protect the values for which special protection or management is required;

d. a period of designation, if any;

e. a description of the area, including:

i. the geographical co-ordinates, boundary markers and natural features that delineate the area;

ii. access to the area by land, sea or air incl

approaches and anchorages, pedestrian and vehicular routes within the area, and aircraft routes and landing areas;

iii. the location of structures, including scientific stations,

research or refuge facilities, both within the area and near to it; and

iv. the location in or near the area of other AntarctiProtecte

designated other compon

f. the identification of zones within the area, in which activities are

to be prohibited, restricted or managed for the purpose of achieving the aims and objectives referred to in subparagraph b. above;

g. maps and photographs that show clearly the boundary of the

area in relation to surrounding features and key features within the area;

h. supporting documentation;

273

i. in respect of an area proposed for designation as an Antarctic Specially Protected Area, a clear description of the conditions under which permits may be granted by the appropriate

i. access to and movement within or over the area;

, including restrictions on time and place;

iii. the installation, modification, or removal of structures;

iv. the location of field camps;

v. ms which may be

brought into the area;

vi.

viii.the disposal of waste;

ix.

x. requirements for reports to be made to the appropriate

j.

y Managed Area, a code of conduct regarding:

s which are or may be conducted within the area, including restrictions on time and place;

iii. the installation, modification, or removal of structures;

authority regarding:

ii. activities which are or may be conducted within the area

restrictions on materials and organis

the taking of or harmful interference with native flora and fauna;

vii. the collection or removal of anything not brought into the

area by the permit holder;

measures that may be necessary to ensure that the aims and objectives of the Management Plan can continue to be met; and

authority regarding visits to the area;

in respect of an area proposed for designation as an Antarctic Speciall

i. access to and movement within or over the area; ii. activitie

274

harmful interference with native flora and

fauna;

i. the collection or removal of anything not brought into the

vii. the disposal of waste; and

viii.any requirements for reports to be made to the appropriate

he area; and

k. see tion in advance of activities which they propose to conduct.

Article 6

Desig

. Proposed Management Plans shall be forwarded to the Committee, the on Antarctic Research and, as appropriate, to the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic MaTreatyany c rovided by the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Re arch and, as appropriate, by the Commission for the CoMana the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties by a measure adopted at an Antarctic Treaty

An the Plan shall be deemed to have been approved 90 days after the close of the n s adopted, un ss one or more of the Consultative Parties notifies the Dethat p .

iv. the location of field camps;

v. the taking of or

varea by the visitor;

authority regarding visits to t

provisions relating to the circumstances in which Parties should

k to exchange informa

nation Procedures

1 Scientific Committee

rine Living Resources. In formulating its advice to the Antarctic Consultative Meeting, the Committee shall take into account omments p

senservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. Thereafter,

gement Plans may be approved by

Consultative Meeting in accordance with Article IX(1) of the tarctic Treaty. Unless the measure specifies otherwise,

A tarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting at which it walepositary, within that time period, that it wishes an extension of

eriod or is unable to approve the measure

275

2. Having regard to the provisions of Articles 4 and 5 of the Protocol, no ated as an Antarctic Specially Protected Area or an Antarctic Specially Managed Area without the priMarine s.

3. DeSpecia for an indefinite period unless the Management Plan provides otherwise. A review of a Management Pla ery five years. The Plan shall be updated as necessary.

4. Manag in accordance with paragraph 1 above.

Upon Depos sitary shall maintain a record of all urrently approved Management Plans.

rticle 7

ermits

1.

2.

marine area shall be design

or approval of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Living Resource

signation of an Antarctic Specially Protected Area or an Antarctic

lly Managed Area shall be

n shall be initiated at least ev

ement Plans may be amended or revoked

approval Management Plans shall be circulated promptly by the itary to all Parties. The Depo

c A P

Each Party shall appoint an appropriate authority to issue permits to enter and engage in activities within an Antarctic Specially Protected Area in accordance with the requirements of the Management Plan relating to that Area. The permit shall be accompanied by the relevant sections of the Management Plan and shall specify the extent and location of the Area, the authorised activities and when, where and by whom the activities are authorised and any other conditions imposed by the Management Plan.

In the case of a Specially Protected Area designated as such by past Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting which does not have a Management Plan, the appropriate authority may issue a permit for a compelling scientific purpose which cannot be served elsewhere and which will not jeopardise the natural ecological system in that Area.

276

3. Each Party shall require a permit-holder to carry a copy of the permit while in the Antarctic Specially Protected Area concerned.

icle 8 Art

istoric Sites and Monuments

1.

Sites and Monuments.

n designated as an Antarctic Specially Protected Area or an Antarctic Specially Managed Area, or which is

by a measure adopted at an Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting in accordance with Article

f the Antarctic Treaty. Unless the measure specifies otherwise, the proposal shall be deemed to have been approved 90

e close of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting at which it was adopted, unless one or more of the Consultative

3.

4. Historic Sites and Monuments shall not be damaged,

removed or destroyed.

5.

H

Sites or monuments of recognised historic value which have been designated as Antarctic Specially Protected Areas or Antarctic Specially Managed Areas, or which are located within such Areas, shall be listed as Historic

2. Any Party may propose a site or monument of recognised historic

value which has not bee

not located within such an Area, for listing as a Historic Site or Monument. The proposal for listing may be approved by the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties

IX(1) o

days after th

Parties notifies the Depositary, within that time period, that it wishes an extension of that period or is unable to approve the measure.

Existing Historic Sites and Monuments which have been listed as such by previous Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings shall be included in the list of Historic Sites and Monuments under this Article.

Listed

The list of Historic Sites and Monuments may be amended in accordance with paragraph 2 above. The Depositary shall maintain a list of current Historic Sites and Monuments.

277

Article 9

formation and Publicity

. With a view to ensuring that all persons visiting or proposing to visit serve the provisions of this Annex,

each Party shall make available information setting forth, in

2.

boMama

xchange of Information

1.

a. collecting and exchanging records, including records of permits and reports of visits, including inspection visits, to Antarctic Specially Protected Areas and reports of inspection visits to Antarctic Specially Managed Areas;

In 1

Antarctica understand and ob

particular:

a. the location of Antarctic Specially Protected Areas and Antarctic Specially Managed Areas;

b. listing and maps of those Areas;

c. the Management Plans, including listings of prohibitions relevant to each Area;

d. the location of Historic Sites and Monuments and any relevant prohibition or restriction.

Each Party shall ensure that the location and, if possible, the limits of Antarctic Specially Protected Areas, Antarctic Specially Managed Areas and Historic Sites and Monuments are shown on its topographic maps, hydrographic charts and in other relevant publications.

Parties shall co-operate to ensure that, where appropriate, the

undaries of Antarctic Specially Protected Areas, Antarctic Specially naged Areas and Historic Sites and Monuments are suitably rked on the site.

Article 10

E

The Parties shall make arrangements for:

278

b. obtaining and exchanging information on any significant change or damage to any Antarctic Specially Managed Area, Antarctic

ea or Historic Site or Monument; and

. Each Party shall inform the other Parties and the Committee before

pe x in the preceding period of 1st July 30th June.

. Each Party conducting, funding or authorising research or other

Sp d Areas shall maintain a record of such activities and in the annual exchange of information in accordance with the

con ct to its jurisdiction in such areas in the preceding year.

4.

stances of activities in contravention of the provisions of the approved Management Plan for an Antarctic

ases of Emergency

. The restrictions laid down and authorised by this Annex shall not ency involving safety of human life or of

ships, aircraft, or equipment and facilities of high value or the

2. circ

Specially Protected Ar

c. establishing common forms in which records and information shall be submitted by Parties in accordance with paragraph 2 below.

2the end of November of each year of the number and nature of

rmits issued under this Anneto

3activities in Antarctic Specially Protected Areas or Antarctic

ecially Manage

Antarctic Treaty shall provide summary descriptions of the activities ducted by persons subje

Each Party shall inform the other Parties and the Committee before the end of November each year of measures it has taken to implement this Annex, including any site inspections and any steps it has taken to address in

Specially Protected Area or Antarctic Specially Managed Area. Article 11 C 1

apply in cases of emerg

protection of the environment.

Notice of activities undertaken in cases of emergency shall be ulated immediately to all Parties and to the Committee.

279

Ar Amen

1. acmeasure specifies otherwise, the amendment or modification shall be deemed to have been approved, and shall ,become effective,

d, that it wishes an extension of that period or that it is unable to approve the measure.

2.

ticle 12

dment or Modification

This Annex may be amended or modified by a measure adopted in cordance with Article IX(l ) of the Antarctic Treaty. Unless the

one year after the close of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting at which it was adopted, unless one or more of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties notifies the Depositary, within that time perio

Any amendment or modification of this Annex which becomes effective in accordance with paragraph 1 above shall thereafter become effective as to any other Party when notice of approval by it has been received by the Depositary.

280

281

282

APPENDIX 4 LIST OF WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS

Name Organisation Brown, Barbara Department of Conservation

Choquenot, Dave Landcare Research

Clout, Mick University of Auckland Convey, Peter British Antarctic Survey Curry, Chris Freemantle Hospital Davison, Bill University of Canterbury De Poorter, Maj University of Auckland Foreman, Christine Montana State University Fortune, Adie University of Canterbury Frenot, Yves University de Rennes / IPEV France Gilbert, Neil Antarctica New Zealand Gordon, Shul Antarctica New Zealand Hayden, Barbara NIWA Hemmings, Alan Gateway Antarctica, University of Canterbury

Hewitt, Chad Nat.Centre for Marine & Coastal Conservation, AMC

Hicks, Geoff Department of Conservation

Howard-Williams, Clive NIWA, SCAR

Hughes, Kevin British Antarctic Survey

Hughes, Trevor Antarctic Policy Unit MFAT

Huston, Miranda Antarctica New Zealand

Kluza, Daniel Biosecurity New Zealand Lewis, Pat University of Tasmania Maggs, Tom Australian Antarctic Division Mansfield, Bill Antarctica New Zealand Newman, Jana Antarctica New Zealand O’Neil, Barry Biosecurity New Zealand O'Reilly, Jessica Gateway Antarctica, University of Canterbury Parker, Naomi Biosecurity New Zealand Peterson, Dean Antarctica New Zealand Penhale, Polly US National Science Foundation

Pope, Sandra Antarctic Policy Unit MFAT Potter, Sandra Australian Antarctic Division Ridgway, Iain Biosecurity New Zealand Rogan-Finnemore, Michelle Gateway Antarctica, University of Canterbury Sanson, Lou Antarctica New Zealand Shenk, Cassandra Raytheon Polar Services Storey, Bryan Gateway Antarctica, University of Canterbury Tisch, Catherine Gateway Antarctica, University of Canterbury Torcini, Sandro Italian Antarctic Programme Worner, Sue Lincoln University