Non-Native Species in the Antarctic Workshop

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

2. Group 3, (Yellow badges) Chair: Dr. Polly Penhale Reporter: Jessie O’Reilly

3. PREVENTION OF INTRODUCTIONS INTO THE ANTARCTIC (FROM OUTSIDE ANTARCTIC). • Terrestrial / freshwater: • Well identified and addressed in some programs, however, wide range of recognition and response: • Current focus on boots, clothing, food, cargo, and airplanes. • Not well covered: microbes, scientific equipment, transport within Antarctica, and most, if not all, taxa. • b) Marine introductions: • Identified: ballast water, debris, and hull fouling • Not well covered: all pathways, all taxa. Need baseline data. • Recommend: Encourage universal adoption of best practices.

4. 2) PREVENTION OF SPREAD WITHIN THE ANTARCTIC ONCE NON -NATIVE ORGANISMS HAVE ARRIVED No consensus on action to take when a non native species is discovered. Good baseline data needed. • lack of expertise in taxonomy “Rapid Response Frameworks” required. • taxa-specific procedures needed Recommend: Eradicate as quickly and effectively as possible: methodologies will be taxa and location specific.

5. 3) PREVENTION OF INTRODUCTION OF SPECIES THAT ARE NATIVE IN THE ANTARCTIC TO OTHER AREAS IN THE ANTARCTIC WHERE THEY ARE NOT NATIVE The major risks occur with any type of human movement. Heightened risk with frequent and successive movements. Recognition of greater risk with movements between different and distinct biogeographic zones within the Antarctic. Some programs and operators emphasize gear cleaning, bootwashing, permitting, and new gear and equipment requirements for sensitive areas. Recommend: Heightened awareness of risk is required for intra-Antarctic movement.

6. 4) PREVENTION OF INTRODUCTION OF ANTARCTIC SPECIES INTO OTHER AREAS (that is, NORTH of the AT area) WHERE THEY ARE NOT NATIVE Responsibility of recipient country. Very dependent on legal requirements of trans shipment ports and ultimate destination. Recommend: Special consideration should be given to transfer to and from the Sub Antarctic islands and Arctic regions. Recommend: Need rapid exchange of information on disease outbreaks or unexplained die-offs.

7. 5) PROTECTION OF ANTARCTIC VALUES AGAINST NON-NATIVE SPECIES IMPACTS, WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO ACHIEVE? • To protect all the values in Article III of the Protocol. • Recommend: Every effort should be made to protect these unique environments. • Recommend: Prevent or minimize the human assisted transfer of native or non-native animals, plants, and microorganisms associated with human activities. • Recommend: Address all options, including eradication, for non-native species.

8. 6) LEGAL / INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES. There is a need for understanding of the issues by all stakeholders (policymakers, scientists, tour operators, national programs). Management approaches should be adaptive to changeand grounded in as much scientific information as available. Formalizing an agreed approach is a progressive, multi-stage process. Recommend: Better focused information recording and sharing required.

9. 7) SCIENCE AND RESEARCH Recommended Research Priorities: • Focus on sites of high human activity and highly valued or sensitive sites. • Pathways, baseline data, and associated risks • Encourage increased development of taxonomic expertise • Microbes: lack of knowledge, difficult science. Focus on penguin sites, seal sites, and disease outbreaks. • Marine baseline surveys, surveillance, assessment of vectors and pathways

10. 8) FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS Management Recommendations: • Maximize information sharing on practices and/or procedures used by parties to address different pathways (Antarctic and elsewhere), for example, sharing codes of conduct and inspection protocols. • CEP should take action, including soliciting appropriate advice or consider making it a specific, separate agenda item (Not an ICG). • “Rapid Response Frameworks” should be compiled and made available : these are collections of reports and expert contacts from programs and non-Antarctic actorsproviding ideas on how to respond to an invasion. • Make sure that management approaches are adaptive to change.

11. Summary of KEY points • • Introductions from human activity far outweigh natural dispersal. • • All the values in Article 3 of the Protocol need to be protected; the Antarctic requires the highest standard of protection. • Recommended Actions: • Develop good baseline information • Increase awareness on multiple levels to multiple audiences • Encourage information sharing on current practices • Increase focus on microbes and marine environments • Identify specific high-risk areas • Recognize distinct biogeographic zones within the Antarctic • Preserve genetic diversity