Non-Native Species in the Antarctic Workshop

1. Non-Native Species in the AntarcticWorkshop 10, 11 & 12 April 2006

2. Group 1, (Green badges) Chair: Dr. Alan Hemmings Reporter: Catherine Tisch

3. PREVENTION OF INTRODUCTIONS INTO THE ANTARCTIC (FROM OUTSIDE ANTARCTIC). • DID NOT ADDRESS – FELT IT HAD BEEN WELL COVERED IN PRESENTATIONS • Terrestrial / freshwater • b) Prevention of marine introductions of non-native species into

4. 2) PREVENTION OF SPREAD WITHIN THE ANTARCTIC ONCE NON -NATIVE ORGANISMS HAVE ARRIVED DID NOT ADDRESS

5. 3) PREVENTION OF INTRODUCTION OF SPECIES THAT ARE NATIVE IN THE ANTARCTIC TO OTHER AREAS IN THE ANTARCTIC WHERE THEY ARE NOT NATIVE • Pathways/taxa/situations/geographic areas include: • Marine- Circumpolar traffic between ports and bays; introductions via fouled vessels, small boats (tourism and science) • Transport of simpler life forms over terrestrial landscapes and inland waters such as isolated regions of the Dry Valleys or isolated nunataks, via hiking, surface vehicles (ATV’s), camping, sampling, air traffic • Currently, risk is addressed via case-specific EIA, management practices which have been established for specific regions; ASMA, ASPA; national legislation and practice

6. 3) (cont). • Gaps and means to address: • Establish baseline conditions, via reporting and information sharing -Reporting vectors within continent from all operators and science parties -Define biogeographical boundaries -Determining relative isolation of biogeographic regions • Risk assessment • Increase awareness, which leads to cooperation and action. Develop Vessel Monitoring System beyond CCAMLR

7. 4) PREVENTION OF INTRODUCTION OF ANTARCTIC SPECIES INTO OTHER AREAS (that is, NORTH of the AT area) WHERE THEY ARE NOT NATIVE Pathways: ● Ballast water and tank sediment (esp. Arctic) ● Soil, propagules on equipment, containers vehicles, waste ● National operator + tourist traffic linking Ant and sub-Ant ● Airlinks, ● IUU Addressed by ATS/other instruments: No formal obligations, general biosecurity obligations by state Gaps: ● Genome recycling (sub-glacial lakes, anthrax, spanish flu virus) ● Lack of standard approaches and guidelines to quarantine ● Disease on sub-Ant territory may impact on local economy

8. PROTECTION OF ANTARCTIC VALUES AGAINST NON-NATIVE SPECIES IMPACTS, WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO ACHIEVE? • 1) Generate list high value/high risk areas (HMI,PEI models) • 2) Set standards and precedents-proactive rather than reactive • 3) Avoid degrading the environment • Ramifications- • Need to acquire baseline data, management procedures, caveats: selling this will not be easy, marine environments particularly difficult • How to increase awareness- • Ideas- • Assemble information from states with ongoing biosecurity programs, • examples from subantarctic, work with stakeholders from beginning • Implementation- • Bring to the attention of Antarctic bodies- SCAR Open Science, SCAR subantarctic conf., Census Antarctic Marine Life, regional bodies. • Target information to “low awareness” states • Raise awareness with field groups, tourism, others etc.

9. 6) LEGAL / INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES. • Goes beyond just the ATS – important as that is • Within ATS: graduated response – step 1 Guidelines • 2006 – establishment ICG through CEP (scoping issues) • 2007 – report back to CEP • 2007-2009 – risk assessment (SCAR, state or states?) • 2009 – advice to ATCM, draft guidelines • 2010 – guidelines (and any associated Measure?) • Biosecurity expertise into national positions/delegations? • Engagement with extra-ATS institutions • Using existing tools – Protected Areas & EIA systems

10. SCIENCE AND RESEARCH • What do we need to know for management & conservation? • Baseline biodiversity and how it is distributed • What values do we want to protect? • What are the values at risk? Places at risk? • Risk Management - relative risk of IAS vs. other management priorities; cost-benefit analyses • How to balance risk management vs. scientific research • Priorities for increased efforts? • Taxonomic expertise • Baseline biodiversity and how it is distributed • Risk Assessment - quantifying vectors, pathways, consequences, likelihood • Protecting areas – how many? how big? • Sharing existing knowledge

11. 8) FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS New pathways: ● New bases, tourist/science activities and sites, logistic lines ● Autonomous rovers, unmanned aircraft, balloons ● Globally distributed GMOs/nano particle hybrids Conflicts: ATS (terrestrial), CCAMLR (marine); ATS/non-ATS Climate change: ● New colonisation sites – marine (extinctions?); terrestrial (extended range, alien species life cycle completion) ● New sites for human activities – science/bases/logistics ● Persistent aliens become invasive aliens New threats for research and logistics: Key service (algal blockage), science + intrinsic values, reallocation of funds Appropriate strategies (eradication?, control?) ● Depends! ● Prepare contingency plans (rats). ● Marine environment a problem. ● New technologies may help medium term?

12. 9) OTHER: Are there other questions which should be considered /addressed? • How we set priorities – not just between the risks posed by non-native species, but between this and other key env issues, given costs and opportunity costs posed? • What level of risk to accept? • How to technically conduct the risk analysis process (who, sources, uncertainties, etc) • How to arrive at agreed position across differing national/cultural norms of Antarctic states? (process issues within states, between states/IG and NG organisations and within CEP & SCAR) • How to fund

13. Summary of KEY Points: • Knowledge base (limited, needs development) • Risk Assessment – determining priorities • Timeline • To develop understanding that it is an issue • To acquire data • To develop responses