Search

U.S. and international rules have been proposed to reduce the risks associated with invasive aquatic organisms by requiring that ships' ballast water be treated to kill or remove living organisms and achieve certain standards before being discharged. Enforcing these rules requires verifying when a discharge violates these standards. A preliminary comparison of verification systems indicates that mandatory reporting and inspecting treatment equipment do not provide an acceptable level of confidence and that sampling and analyzing enough ballast water to achieve acceptable confidence is prohibitively costly. The most cost-effective alternative that achieves an acceptable level of confidence involves indirect measures of ballast water using sensors that indicate whether discharge standards are met. Keywords ballast water regulations, enforcement, invasive species DOI: 10.1080/00908321003733139

I. INTRODUCTION II. BALLAST WATER AS A CONDUIT FOR INVASIVE SPECIES TRANSFERS A. Dispersal of Invasive Species Through Ballast Water Discharges B. The Technology Gap III. THE INTERNATIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR [...], Ballast water discharges are responsible for many of the most damaging aquatic invasive species introductions around the world Despite the costs, environmental harm, and tremendous threat posed by aquatic invasive species introductions, no binding federal or international regime exists that requires the adoption of treatment technologies for ballast water discharges. Recently, however, in Northwest Environmental Advocates v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Ninth Circuit held that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency must regulate ballast water discharges under the Clean Water Act. In light of the implications of Northwest Environmental Advocates, this Chapter examines the efficacy of existing and proposed federal, state, and international ballast water controls, and explores whether the United States could drive the adoption of treatment technologies that exceed the proposed international standard The Chapter concludes with suggestions on how the United States might resolve the contlicts between federal, state, and international ballast water controls.

The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty requires that Parties do not introduce animals or plants not native to the Antarctic region onto the Antarctic continent's land or ice shelves or into the surrounding water. The Protocol does not make a distinction between introductions per se and introductions of species with the potential to establish. This suggests that all human-mediated introductions are considered, or ought to be assumed to be, problematic--a stance that is significantly different from the quarantine standards generally adopted by national quarantine services, which for the most part are focused upon preventing the introduction or spread of disease and species deemed to be pests or weeds. In the absence of any Antarctic Treaty System prescribed sanitary and phyto-sanitary standards or procedures, the onus is on Treaty Parties to develop and apply quarantine measures that they consider will provide Antarctica with an appropriate level of protection. The Australian Government's efforts to minimise unintentional introductions associated with its activities in Antarctica and the Territory of Heard Island and McDonald Islands are detailed. The mitigation strategies adopted are intended to simultaneously capture a wide range of species and contaminants.