ARTICLE IN PRESS

Marine Policy 27 (2003) 313–323

Marine invasive alien species: a threat to global biodiversity

Nicholas Baxa,*, Angela Williamsona, Max Aguerob, Exequiel Gonzalezb, Warren Geevesc
a
CSIRO, Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests (CRIMP), Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
b
InterAmerican Centre for Sustainable Ecosystems Development, Chile
c
Environment Australia, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia

Abstract

Invasive alien marine species threaten biodiversity, marine industries (including fishing and tourism) and human health, and
unlike oil spills only get worse with time. While some progress is being made internationally on the 10,000 species estimated to be in
transit around the world in the ballast water, effective solutions are a long way off; meanwhile the majority of vectors is being
ignored. A systematic approach to invasive alien marine species is required to target the means and location of the most effective
management actions. Cooperation among regional trading partners will be essential to effectively manage the threat.
r 2003 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

Keywords: Biodiversity; invasive alien marine species; marine environmental management

1. Introduction
Ever since people began travelling in ships, they have
inadvertently carried ‘‘pests’’ with them, including
diseases, rats and, largely unnoticed, marine organisms.
Historical records and studies on modern replicas
indicate that wooden sailing ships were often heavily
encrusted with fouling organisms. A wooden sailing
vessel in 1750 could have carried 120 marine organisms
fouling, boring into or nestling on the hull; and a further
30 associated with dry ballast and the anchor chain [1].
These organisms would have often have been scrubbed
off at stops along the voyage or left on the rotting hull
once the ship reached its journey’s end. It is perhaps not
surprising, therefore, to find that many wood-boring
species, like the teredo ‘‘worm’’ (actually a mollusc),
Teredo navalis, have cosmopolitan distributions. Such
distributions could well reflect zoological collecting that
was done after, rather than before the European global
‘voyages of discovery’ (in heavily fouled wooden
vessels). In reality, we may never know for certain the
true natural distributions of such species.
Marine invasions are not just historical. At any given
moment some 10,000 different species are being
transported between bio-geographic regions in ballast
*Corresponding author.
E-mail address: nic.bax@csiro.au (N. Bax).
tanks alone [1]. And ballast water is just one of an ever-
expanding list of vectors that mirror the worldwide
expansion in trade and tourism [2,3]. Fortunately, most
of these potential invaders die. Many species cannot
survive the dark and often dirty conditions in ballast
tanks over a long voyage; for others, the environmental
conditions at the port of discharge are not suitable. Even
when conditions are apparently suitable, most organ-
isms fail to establish, and of those that do establish most
fail to become invasive—although some may become
invasive after decades (or centuries) of otherwise
unremarkable existence [4]. Nonetheless, as ballast
water has become cleaner, ship’s transit speeds have
increased, and environmental management of ports has
improved, marine organisms are likely to find commer-
cial shipping and other vectors increasingly hospitable
means of transport worldwide.
Reflecting these factors, the rate at which foreign
organisms are establishing in ports worldwide has
increased dramatically. New estuarine and marine
species have been establishing once every 32 (San
Francisco Bay) to 85 weeks in six studied ports in the
US, Australian and NZ, and the rate of establishment
appears to be increasing [5].
Scientists and policy makers increasingly see the
introduction of alien species as a major threat to marine
biodiversity and a contributor to environmental
change. As these marine introductions, intentional and

0308-597X/03/$ - see front matter r 2003 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

doi:10.1016/S0308-597X(03)00041-1
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
314 N. Bax et al. / Marine Policy 27 (2003) 313–323
accidental, can result from numerous human mediated
activities, management responses need to cover a diverse
range of human activity.
In this paper, we briefly describe the environmental
impacts, and economic and social implications, of some
of the more invasive alien marine species, then we
describe the vectors responsible for moving marine
species around the world, emphasizing that ballast water
is only one of many vectors. Lastly, we describe the
international and domestic policy environment includ-
ing the current international instruments that apply to
the invasive species problem and recommend what
actions need to be taken to reduce the risk of future
invasions.
2. Brief overview of impacts
2.1. Biological impacts
Two hundred and fifty two introduced and crypto-
genic marine and estuarine species have been identified
in Australia [5], more than 150 alien species in Port
Phillip Bay alone [6]. New Zealand scientists identified
159 alien marine species [7] while 212 alien marine,
estuarine and freshwater species have been reported in
the San Francisco Bay and Delta, California [8]. In
Hawaii, 91 of the nearly 400 marine species present in
Pearl Harbor are alien [9]. Based on historical data, a
new marine or estuarine species establishes itself every
32–85 weeks in each of six ports studied in the US, New
Zealand and Australia, a rate that appears to be
increasing [5].
While many of the alien species become part of the
background flora and fauna, others become invasive,
reaching densities of 1000 s m!2, and come to dominate
the native flora and fauna. Virtually every coastal
habitat in the San Francisco Bay area is now dominated
by one or more alien species. Three of the six most
common benthic marine species in Port Phillip Bay in
1996 were alien species, a statistic that does not include
two recent and rapidly proliferating alien species, one of
which—the North Pacific seastar, Asterias amurensis—
has increased to over 100 million individuals covering
1500 km2 that have a greater biomass than that of all
fished species in the Bay (Fig. 1). In the 15 years since its
discovery off Monaco, the invasive green algae, Cau-
lerpa taxifolia, has come to cover 97% of available
surfaces between Toulon and Genes (France, Monaco
and Italy) has already been spread to the Adriatic Sea,
and is projected to eventually spread over most of the
Mediterranean [10].
The numerical dominance of invasive alien marine
species swamps native species and alters ecosystem
services. In the Black Sea, an invasive comb jelly,
Mnemiopsis leidyi, has been blamed for the collapse of
Fig. 1. Number of North Pacific seastars estimated to be in Port
Phillip Bay (Victoria, Australia). Early dates are numbers caught by
scallop dredgers (Don Hough, Victorian DSE pers. comm.).
coastal fisheries worth many millions of dollars annually
[11]. The Asian clam Potamocorbula amurensis, now
reaches densities of over 10,000/m2 in San Francisco
Bay, and has been blamed for the collapse of local
fisheries. An invasive crab, Carcinus maenas, a European
species now found in Australia, Japan, South Africa and
both coasts of North America, is blamed for the collapse
of bivalve fisheries on the North American east coast,
and it is it feared will outcompete migratory bird
populations on the west coast of North America for
favoured shellfish [12].
While the majority of marine alien invasive species
have been found in the tidal and subtidal zones, at least
one—the New Zealand screwshell, Maoricolpus roseus,
introduced to Tasmania from New Zealand in the
1920s—has spread across the continental shelf at
densities of 1000 s m–2 as far north as Sydney. This 5-
cm long screwshell, changes the seabed habitat, covering
soft sediments with its hard shell, providing attachment
points for other marine fauna (including another
invasive alien marine species, Undaria pinnatifida), and
once dead, its shell provides abundant homes for a
particular hermit crab that can use its heavy tapered
shell, thus shifting the pre-invasion food web.
Ballast water is also capable of transporting viral and
bacterial pathogens, including the bacteria that cause
cholera [13] and the resistant cysts of toxic dinoflagel-
lates that can lead to harmful algal blooms and shellfish
poisoning. Ballast water and other vectors can carry
invasive alien marine species that are intermediate hosts
for parasites affecting humans—e.g. the Chinese mitten
crab that has invaded Europe and the US West coast is
an intermediate host of the human liver fluke.
2.2. Economic and social impacts
The main economic and social impacts of invasive
alien marine species are negative impacts on human
health and decreases in economic production of
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
N. Bax et al. / Marine Policy 27 (2003) 313–323
activities based on marine environments and resources
such as fisheries, aquaculture, tourism and marine
infrastructure. These effects have related social impacts
through decreases in employment in economic activities
directly affected by invasive alien species but also
through decreases in people’s welfare from the reduced
quality of their environments and natural surroundings.
There is an associated opportunity cost to economies
and societies from the foregone benefits of financial
resources, labour and scientific and technical capacities
diverted to the management of invasive alien marine
species.
Though less frequent, alien marines species may also
have positive impacts, such as the improvement of
aesthetic values, the creation of new economic activities
(fisheries and aquaculture for example) and increased
employment in invasive alien marine species manage-
ment projects and programs. Knowledge gained on
ecosystem processes and resource dynamics and inter-
actions could also be seen as a positive impact.
The net cost to society of the introduction and
establishment of invasive alien marine species comes
from the subtraction of inter-temporal benefits from the
costs (negative impacts and additional costs of preven-
tion, control and management). Impacts on economic
activities may be measured by the change (usually
decrease) in net social benefits caused by the introduced
marine pests effect on the resource base and the added
management costs. Impacts on human health may be
measured by the reduction in working time (therefore in
lost revenues) and by additional medical treatment
costs. Nonetheless, if the end result is human mortality,
the valuation of this impact may be a very difficult
task, since it becomes a question of moral values and
ethics.
3. Vectors
Shipping carries more than 80% of the world trade
and in the process 12 billion tonnes of ballast water per
year. Over the last 30 years, world seaborne trade has
more than doubled from 2490 million tonnes in 1970 to
5330 million tonnes in 2000 [14,15]. Larger vessels with
larger ballast tanks and larger surfaces available to carry
more fouling organisms are being developed. The largest
operating vessels now in operation (7500 20 ft equiva-
lents (TEU)—the size of a shipping container), will soon
be surpassed by the 9200 TEU vessels on the drawing
board, while 12,500 TEU vessels are planned. The
registered merchant fleet now consists of more than
45,000 vessels. New building contracts over the last 5
years will provide an additional 6000 ships of 300grt and
above [14–16]. As the merchant fleet grows, the number
of ship visits increases and the number of species that
are given the opportunity to invade increases with it.
315
For example, it is estimated that Australia’s 64
international ports receive more than 22,000 vessel visits
originating in 300 overseas ports per year [17], and
commercial shipping is just one of many vectors.
The vectors for alien marine species are diverse.
International shipping and ocean-going recreational
vessels offers transport opportunities via hull fouling,
sea chests and ballast and a myriad of other compart-
ments [18]. The widespread use of anti-fouling paints
(including the soon to be phased out TBT) and the
increased speeds of modern vessels have reduced hull
fouling as a vector, but it still occurs, especially for
smaller vessels. In the 2 years following the 1999 Au$2.2
million eradication of the black striped mussel (Myti-
lopsis sp.) from three Darwin marinas, four undesirable
taxa were detected on yachts, commercial fishing vessels
and apprehended illegal vessels seeking entry to
Darwin harbour—including the black striped mussel,
subject of the first eradication, and the Asian
green mussel Perna viridis, currently being eradicated
from another Australian port [19]. Species prone to
transport as hull foulers are often also amenable to
transport in mariculture shipments; many species
may be able travel either as larvae in ballast water
or as juveniles and adults in sea chests or as hull foulers
[3].
There are 15 broad categories of vectors that
transport marine organisms from shallow coastal waters
to similar habitats outside the species’ home range
(Table 1, adapted from [16]). Historically vectors have
included hull fouling (and boring), dry and semi-dry
ballast, ballast water, unintentional introductions asso-
ciated with the importation of mariculture species, and
deliberate introductions of exotic species for mariculture
[20]. More recent vectors include those associated with
the aquarium trade, recreational water users, and the oil,
gas and construction industries. The changing nature of
domestic and international shipping is altering the
diversity and speed of potential vectors. This both
increases the probability that a known invasive species
will be transported and increases the probability that
previously untransported species will find suitable
vectors.
One measure of the relative importance of the
different transport vectors is the proportion of invasive
species attributed to each by different studies (Fig. 2). In
San Francisco Bay, four vectors are thought to
historically be of roughly equal importance: ship
fouling, ballast water, accidental introductions due to
mariculture, and deliberate introductions, while in
Australia the primary modes of introduction have been
hull fouling and accidental releases associated with
mariculture, followed by ballast water, dry ballast and
intentional releases [2,5,21].
More than half the recognized alien marine species
in the United Kingdom are associated with shipping—
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
316 N. Bax et al. / Marine Policy 27 (2003) 313–323

Table 1 There are numerous vectors associated with aqua-

Anthropogenic vectors for marine introductions culture and fisheries that can lead to unintentional
Source Vector Target taxa species introductions. Parasites and pathogens of aqua-
culture species can be introduced unintentionally in
Commercial Ballast water Plankton, nekton,
association with stock movement. Polydorid poly-
shipping benthos in sediment
Hull fouling Encrusting, nestling, chaetes that bore into oyster and abalone shells have
and some mobile species been introduced to Hawaii and California on commer-
Solid ballast (rocks, Encrusting, benthos, cial product [23,24]. Oyster predators came to Europe
sand, etc.) meiofauna and flora with half grown American oysters in the 1880s [25,26].
Aquaculture Intentional release for Single species
Caulerpa taxifolia is spread by fishing gear in the
and fisheries stock enhancement
Gear, stock or food Various Mediterranean Sea [27].
movement Even harvested product (frozen or live) has the
Discarded nets, floats, Various potential to result in species introductions. White spot
traps, trawls, etc. syndrome virus is a highly virulent of prawns with a
Discarded live packing Various
wide range of potential hosts. It was first reported in
materials
Release of transgenic Single species Chinese Tapei in 1991/92 and is now widely spread
species throughout SE Asia and was introduced to the Americas
Drilling Ballast water Plankton, nekton, in 1995 by a processor processing prawns from Thai-
platforms benthos in sediment land.
Hull fouling Encrusting, nestling,
The unintentional loss of reared Atlantic salmon on
and some mobile species
Canals Movement of species Various North America’s Pacific and Atlantic coasts and in
through locks due to Norway, following seal damage, storm damage or
water motion or active operator error has resulted in new ‘wild’ breeding
swimming populations that are altering the genetic composition
Aquarium Accidental or Aquarium fauna and
of local populations [28]. Given the history of escapes of
Industry intentional release flora
Recreational Hull fouling Encrusting, nestling, reared salmon, concern has been expressed at the
boating and some mobile species potential impacts of reared transgenic salmon escaping
Dive practices Snorkeling and scuba Algal spores, bacteria, [29].
gear some small mobile
species
Floating debris Discarded plastic debris Encrusting and some
mobile species 4. Relationship to other environmental stressors
Adapted from [16].
Marine environmental stressors are often cumulative
and the stress of invasive marine species is no different.
fouling being the dominant mechanism—while uninten- While it has as yet not been possible to establish the
tional introductions account for the majority of the primary mechanisms that lead to new invasive species
remainder [22]. In New Zealand, most alien marine becoming established, except for the level of inoculation,
species have been attributed to hull fouling [7]. it seems most likely that factors that modify or create

100

AUS
75
Percent of Species

SFB

50

25

0
Hull Fouling Mariculture Semi-Dry Ballast Water Intentional
Ballast
Fig. 2. Probable mechanisms of invasion for known introduced species in Australia and San Francisco Bay based on life history characteristics.
(Adapted from [6] and Chad Hewitt, Ministry of Fisheries, NZ Pers. Comm)
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
N. Bax et al. / Marine Policy 27 (2003) 313–323
new habitat facilitate invasion. Increased population,
trade and tourism in coastal regions has resulted in an
increasing number of novel man-made habitats—e.g.
piers, breakwaters, seawalls, eutrophied and polluted
areas, docks and marinas, boat hulls and ballast tanks—
that often support assemblages that are distinct from
neighbouring communities [30]. When novel physical
habitats are developed in areas subject to a high influx of
alien organisms, such as international ports, the
combination increases opportunities for alien species
establishment.
It is not just the presence of novel physical structures
but also the changed physical and biological environ-
ments that surround these structures and provide
habitat to which local communities have not adapted
over evolutionary time. For example the 1999 black
striped mussel invasion in Darwin occurred in artificial
marinas, closed off from local tidal exchange, subject to
periodic freshwater inflows (that kills off the inverte-
brate fauna) and with a recent history of sewage
pollution [19]. The other areas in Southeast Asia, where
the mussel is invasive are primarily environmentally
disturbed inner harbour areas.
Similarly toxic algal blooms often occur in response to
environmental pollution, but their frequency and
ubiquity have been enhanced by the distribution of
algal species around the world. For example, dated core
samples indicate the dinoflagellate Gymnodinium cate-
natum (one of the causative organisms of paralytic
shellfish poisoning) appeared in Australian waters after
1972 [31].
Once an invasive alien species enters the local marine
environment, it is most likely there forever. It will
interact with existing communities and, in the process
modify native habitats. Many invasive species can be
considered system engineers—that is, rather than just
blend in to their new environment, they will change it.
This can occur through increasing the predation
pressure on native organisms (e.g. the North Pacific
seastar in Australia; the European shore crab in North
America, Australia and South Africa; the comb jelly in
the Black and Asov seas) or modifying the habitat by
smothering (e.g. Caulerpa taxifolia in the Mediterranean
and California; black striped mussel in Southeast Asia
and Australia), or providing new structural habitat
(Japanese seaweeds in Europe, South Africa and
Australia; the New Zealand screwshell in Australia).
Many of these invasive species work synergistically—the
environmental modifications caused by one species
provide increased opportunities for further alien species
to invade. This escalating problem has been termed
‘‘invasional meltdown’’ [32].
The far-reaching impacts of invasive species have the
potential to impact most marine conservation programs
and they need to be considered as part of the planning
for those programs. The conservation value of marine
317
protected areas, for example, will be highly compro-
mised by alien species invading, modifying the habitat
and driving out native species. Caulerpa taxifolia now
encroaches on many marine reserves in the Mediterra-
nean, smothering existing habitat and replacing native
seagrasses, reducing the reserve’s conservation value
[10,27]. In Tasmania (Australia) the bizarre situation
has been reached where an invasive marine macroalga
(Undaria pinnatifida) is protected where it occurs in
marine reserves, because these are no-take zones. This
raises the question of what are the conservation goals
for these marine protected areas, and the inadequacy of
marine reserves that are not part of a broader
conservation strategy including minimizing the risk of
introducing and spreading invasive alien marine species
[33].
The role of invasive species in structurally altering
habitat, compromises the value of habitat conservation
programs. While the impacts of fishing on benthic
habitat are well documented [34] and increasingly the
focus of environmental management, little is known and
no one is considering managing an invasive marine
gastropod from New Zealand—the New Zealand screw-
shell, Maoricolpus roseus—that smothers the bottom out
to 80 m depth and changes the seabed from one of fine
sand to a dense cover of live and dead shells [35]. A
systematic approach is needed to first determine the
diversity and scale of manageable threats to the marine
environment before embarking on single-issue manage-
ment [36].
5. Existing responses
It is clear that invasive marine species constitute
major threats to the economic and environmental health
of marine ecosystems, and may also pose substantial
risks for human health. It is also clear no single vector
accounts for all pest species. Consequently, management
actions that focus solely on one vector, even if
completely successful, will not stop the invasions. A
comprehensive management system is required that
assesses the risks posed by different species and vectors,
and then leads to appropriate actions [37].
To date, no country has done this. This may be the
result of poor appreciation of the economic and
environmental costs of bioinvasions, and, for marine
invasions in particular, their often hidden nature. A
massive invasion by a marine species is often much less
conspicuous than, for example, an invasion by a brightly
flowering garden plant. Nonetheless, the examples listed
above and the work of biologists worldwide have
resulted in marine introduced species emerging as a
major management issue within the last 20 years [16].
A number of international initiatives has identified
alien invasive species as a major challenge for decision
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
318 N. Bax et al. / Marine Policy 27 (2003) 313–323

Table 2 19.3 provides for parties to consider the need for and
International legal instruments relevant to the management of marine modalities of a protocol on the safe transfer, handling
invasive species and use of living modified organisms that may have an
Binding Non-binding adverse effect on biodiversity.
Specific regulatory initiatives to prevent future im-
Convention on Biological Diversity IMO Resolution A.868
(1992) (20) 1997, Guidelines for pacts are only now being developed, and to date have
the control and concentrated on international shipping and ballast
Management of Ships’ water. The International Maritime Organization
Ballast Water to minimize (IMO) introduced voluntary ballast water guidelines in
the transfer of Harmful
1997 and is developing a demonstration port survey and
aquatic Organisms and
Pathogens management plan to minimize the risk of transfer of
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the IUCN Guidelines for the alien marine species in ballast water—the GloBallast
CBD (2000) Prevention of Biodiversity Program. An international convention on the manage-
Loss Caused by Alien ment of ballast water and sediments will be ready for
Species (2000)
ratification in 2004. Voluntary codes have been re-
Law of the Sea Convention (1994) ICES Code of Practice on
the Introductions and inforced by other marine groups, for example the
Transfer of marine Lloyd’s Register that now specifically recognizes the
organisms (1994) need for a ship’s operational procedures to follow IMO
International Health Regulations FAO Code of Conduct for guidelines [37].
(1982) Responsible Fisheries
The slow international progress on regulating the
(1995)
CITES (1975) discharge of alien marine species in ballast water in
The WTO Agreement on Application nation’s ports, and the lack of any global system to
of Sanitary and Phytosanitary monitor or enforce compliance, has led to the unilateral
Measures (1995) development of national regulations. Australia, Canada,
Convention on the Law of the Non-
Chile, Israel, New Zealand and the US, or sub-national
Navigational Uses of Watercourses
(1997) jurisdictions within these countries, have developed or
are developing ballast water legislation. Two recent
developments are the mandatory Australian Ballast
Water Management Requirements that came into effect
makers at local, national, and regional levels (Table 2). on 1 July 2001 and the Brazilian Resolution RDC 217 of
These include the Convention on Biological Diversity November 2001, which requires ships’ masters to
(Decision V/8-Alien species that threaten ecosystems, complete an IMO ballast water reporting form and
habitats or species), the IUCN guidelines for the provides for its substantiation by ballast sampling.
Prevention of Biodiversity Loss caused by Alien Initiatives such as New Zealand’s proposed Biodiver-
Invasive Species, and the Draft Invasive Species sity Strategy and Australia’s proposed National System
Strategy for the Pacific Islands Region. None of these for the Prevention and Management of Introduced
initiatives specifically target marine invasive species. Marine Pests take a more comprehensive approach to
Marine invasive species are addressed in Law of the Sea target marine introduced species and offer the hope of
Convention Article 196—‘‘States shall take all measures moving beyond the single issue focus of ballast water
necessary to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the control. These initiatives include, or are planned to
marine environment resulting from the use of techno- include, a range of pre-border to post-border control
logies under their jurisdiction or control, or the systems for various vectors, monitoring activities to
intentional or accidental introduction of species, alien detect new incursions or the spread of existing pests,
or new, to a particular part of the marine environment, pest emergency response procedures including inter-
which may cause significant and harmful changes’’. agency coordination and cost-sharing arrangements,
Other international instruments and developments and options for long-term control of existing pests.
have application in developing a regional response Given the effective national and international re-
to introduced marine pests. These include the Precau- sponse to the threat of ordinary pollutants such as oil
tionary Approach, the reach of WTO Agreements, spills, it is surprising that so little has been done to
and the impact of the Convention on Biological combat the spread of invasive alien marine species—the
Diversity (CBD) that entered into force in 1996 with superpollutant. While oil spills have an immediate visual
152 signatory nations, and the Cartagena Protocol on damage, their impact on the marine environment is
Biosafety. Article 8 h of the CBD commits signatories, restricted in both space and time—it would now take an
as far as possible and as appropriate, to ‘‘prevent the expert to determine residual effects of the Exxon Valdez
introduction of, control or eradicate those alien species oil spill, for example. In contrast, the impacts of invasive
which threaten ecosystems, habitats or species’’. Article alien marine species, that include human health impacts,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
N. Bax et al. / Marine Policy 27 (2003) 313–323
just continue to get worse as time goes on and their
abundance and range increase.
6. What is needed?
Successful abatement and management of the threats
due to marine invasive species is only possible if handled
at a global and regional level. Action at the national
level can temporarily reduce the inoculation frequency
of alien marine species but, as more alien species become
established in the neighbouring region and in the ports
of trading partners, the inoculation rate has to increase,
especially while the options for treatment of ballast
water (and hull fouling on any except the smallest
international vessels) remain marginally effective or
prohibitively expensive.
It is not just the increased proximity of alien marine
species to a nation’s ports that should be of concern as
they spread through to neighbouring regions and
trading partners; as alien marine species establish in
new areas, they adapt to a variety of environments. For
example, there may currently be some protection against
temperate species with a strongly seasonal life history
establishing in the opposite hemisphere from which they
are native. There were originally very few ports in
Australia where the North Pacific seastar could establish
as it needed a port where the summer temperatures were
not greater than the upper limits of its winter tolerance
(this seastar spawns in the northern hemisphere winter).
Now that it is established in southern Australia and has
reversed its seasonal cycle to match austral seasons,
ports from Sydney to Perth in Australia, as well as ports
in New Zealand, South Africa and South America have
become potential invasion sites.
The second reason why regional and global ap-
proaches are needed to respond to marine invasive
species is that a proliferation of uncoordinated national
management initiatives complicates the conduct of
international trade. Global trade and marine traffic are
accelerating and new trade routes are emerging. The
perceived tensions between initiatives for trade liberal-
ization, on the one hand, and increased awareness of
and needs to minimize the risks of bioinvasions need to
be reconciled.
Before introduced marine pests can be managed it is
necessary to determine the risks of introduction,
establishment and spread of marine pest in the
particular regions, and their potential impacts on the
ecosystem, human health and economic activities.
Determination of risks and potential net benefits of
prevention and management need to take into account
the availability of financial resources and technical
capabilities of different economies. Techniques such as
comparative risk analysis [37] and cost-benefit analysis
may help inform decisions on when and how to respond
to the threat of introduced marine pests [38].
319
Management of marine invasive species is best treated
as an epidemiological problem. This has three direct
implications. First, the problem only gets worse the
longer it is ignored—prevention is more effective (and
cheaper) than control. Second, if management is to be
effective, then it is essential that all of the important
vectors are identified and treated, or at a minimum
prevented from spreading the species to new areas.
Finally, it will generally be impossible to absolutely
prevent a species invading—what can be done is to
reduce the risk of a species invading and manage
invasions that do occur. Due to this, the design of
policy should account for the six points in the generic
process of marine pest invasion where intervention is
possible—prevention, detection, quarantine, eradica-
tion, control and mitigation.
While considerable work is going on to improve
prevention of pests transmitted via ballast water, next to
nothing is being done to reduce the threat from the
many other important vectors (Table 1). This is a major
weakness in the current global response to marine
invasive species.
Methods being developed to treat ballast water
included heat treatment, chemical treatment, ultrafiltra-
tion, ultraviolet light, etc. Each of these methods has
drawbacks, especially given that thousands of tonnes of
ballast water need to be treated in a short time. The
most common treatment method in use at the present is
ballast water exchange at sea, where it is hoped that
pumping 3 times the volume of ballast tank through the
tank will lead to 95% exchange of the original ballast
water, replacing it with oceanic ballast that poses little
threat to coastal ecosystems. The efficacy of this
treatment is unknown. Many marine species will remain
in the ballast water and especially the sediments after
this exchange and the link between inoculation size and
establishment rate is not proven for marine species. New
techniques of ballast water treatment are needed, but as
importantly, and recognizing that there will always be
tradeoffs between the environmental costs and benefits
of treatment and economic interests, an overall risk
management framework is needed to identify those
vessels posing the highest risk to a nation and thus
requiring treatment (and a high intensity of monitoring
and enforcement), and those vessels that are compara-
tively low risk and can be permitted to discharge their
ballast water or be subject to a lower level of
monitoring.
Similarly, a comparative risk management system is
required that can be used to establish the costs and
benefits of alternative management options [37,38]. Such
a system would include the environmental, social and
economic impacts of invasive alien marine species and
the benefits and costs of their prevention, control
and management as part of the process of social and
economic development of the region (i.e. sustainable
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
320 N. Bax et al. / Marine Policy 27 (2003) 313–323
development). Based on the premise that prevention is
more effective than control, we would predict that such
a system would indicate the need to have early warning
of international outbreaks of marine invasive species
and indicate that a regional response to managing
marine invasive species is required. This will require the
establishment of an international monitoring and
reporting network.
The management of vectors carrying alien marine
species will reduce the risk of marine invasive species
entering a new area, but not prevent it. Ongoing
monitoring would help detect a new invasion quickly,
allowing control efforts to commence quickly, as well as
providing up to date information for ballast water
management. Under IMO ballast water management
guidelines, Port States are encouraged to undertake
biological surveys and monitoring. Although port
surveys are a new concept for many countries, a global
system of ongoing surveys based on a standardized
approach should be developed to allow the construction
of a global database of introduced marine species. The
port surveys being undertaken under the IMO GloBal-
last program at six demonstration sites (Sepetiba, Brazil;
Dailan, China; Mumbai, India; Khark Island, IR Iran;
Saldanha, South Africa; Odessa, Ukraine) offer a
beginning to a global system [39].
Port surveys and ongoing monitoring provide the
option to quarantine an area and provide the option to
quarantine an area and attempt a local eradication [19].
Effective quarantine provides the opportunity to devel-
op an eradication response but may be difficult to
achieve in many instances. What can be done is to
reduce the marine traffic between invaded and non-
invaded areas and thus reduce the further impacts of
that invasive species in the affected nations. The
importance of rapid and effective quarantine is well
demonstrated by the consequences of its failure. When
the North Pacific seastar was detected in the Derwent
estuary, Tasmania in the early 1990s nothing was done
to reduce the risk of its spread. It has since been
transported to Port Phillip Bay, a hub of shipping
activity for mainland Australia, and will continue to be
transported to the Great Australian Bight (the longest
east–west coastline in the world), unless preventative
management actions are taken.
If a marine invasive species is detected shortly after
arrival it can sometimes be eradicated [19,24]. When this
opportunity is missed, as for Caulerpa taxifolia in the
Mediterranean (Table 3), and the invasive species
become widely distributed, there are no proven techni-
ques to mitigate its impacts or to eradicate it. Biological
control techniques have had some success in controlling
invasive species on the land and may have potential in
the oceans but, to date, few control agents have been
identified [2,40,41]. Genetic control techniques are being
investigated but are at a very early stage of development.
Table 3
The history of the invasive marine algae, Caulerpa taxifolia, in the
Mediterranean (and area occupied)
Year Event
1984 First discovered (1 site B1 m2)
1989 Authorities informed verbally (1 Ha)
1990 Authorities informed in writing
1991 Scientific and media controversy
1992 Four commissions created (430 Ha)
1994 Caulerpa declared a major threat (1500 Ha)
1996 38 sites (3052 Ha)
1997 control recommended by French Academy (4630 Ha)
1998 UN law recommending all necessary measures to battle
invader quickly
1999 Covers 97% of suitable surfaces between Toulon and
Genes (France, Monaco and Italy)
Source: [10].
Biological and/or genetic control techniques would need
to be carefully vetted, and international oversight has
been recommended because of the potential of these
techniques to have regional and potentially global
impacts [42].
7. A regional response
In November 2001, Australia and Chile hosted an
APEC workshop on Introduced Marine Pests. APEC is
a 21 member body including all the major Pacific rim
economies. APEC provides a suitable forum through
which to develop regional management repose to
problems of introduced marine pests. APEC economies
are dependent on sea-borne trade and major interna-
tional trade routes and sea-lanes pass through and
around the region. Each economy has major interna-
tional ports that are prime sites for introduction of
marine invasive species. Intra-economy sea-borne trade
provides a major means of translocation of introduced
pests and increases risk. Equally important in assess-
ment of such risk is to recognize that the marine zones of
APEC economies contain important industries such as
aquaculture and capture fisheries that may be adversely
affected by such introductions.
While there are numerous activities relating to alien
species in the region, there are very few initiatives on
alien marine species. The effectiveness of any instrument
will depend on its implementation at the level of the
individual economy, but economy-level response varies
from world’s best practice to barely recognizing that the
problem exists [38]. Overall, there are no, or only
inefficiently implemented, management tools in place
and results represent total or partial failure. In most
economies, institutions, legislation and management
approaches set up with a partial focus on fisheries and
aquaculture development, deal with invasive alien
marine species from an isolated and sectoral approach
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
N. Bax et al. / Marine Policy 27 (2003) 313–323
focusing on a subset of the issues mainly related to
fisheries and aquaculture imports, and with varying
levels of success. Even in economies with the most
advanced management of invasive alien marine species,
such as the USA, New Zealand and Australia, a
multiplicity of institutions, legislation and regulations
deal with different aspects of the problem. Only recently
are their government officials and decision-makers
recognizing the need for a comprehensive and integrated
management system implemented by a well-coordinated
network of institutions and professionals.
There is scant recognition among policy-makers that
this is a pattern that needs to be repeated at the regional
and global levels. Integration at the level of the
economy, region and globally is complicated by the
threat of invasive alien marine species being predomi-
nantly a coastal and not an open ocean problem, thus
requiring local action government action in the frame-
work of a larger policy. The overall lack of comprehen-
sive management for invasive alien marine species in the
APEC region leaves the region vulnerable to further
invasions resulting in unmitigated extreme impacts that
devalues the effectiveness of management regimes that
are in place within a small number of the APEC
economies.
The diversity in institutional structures and legislation
within economies, provides considerable scope for
developing appropriate responses suitable for each
economy and supporting the effective development
and implementation of risk management frameworks
to address invasive alien marine species [38]. While few
economies have specific legislation in place to manage
alien marine species, such management could be effected
under existing legislation or administrative arrange-
ments. The key question becomes which administrative
agency and under what legislature is the appropriate one
to take responsibility for a management program that
involves scientific research, monitoring and the admin-
istration of marine areas, activities and resources.
Effective institutional arrangements will also require
the devolution of some authority to local administra-
tion, which raises the question of whether sufficient local
capacity exists—a question equally relevant to all
economies.
Fifteen APEC economies and representatives from
IMO, SPREP and marine industries attended the 2001
workshop. They concluded that:
* Marine invasive species posed a serious, and escalat-
ing problem, to the region that requires urgent action.
* A regional, and preferably a global approach, is
required to manage this problem.
* A regional approach will require assessment of the
risks posed to individual economies and the APEC
region, encompassing human activities as vectors and
321
environmental and marine industry aspects of the
problem.
* Economies should adopt common regional standards
for prevention of introduced marine pests, bearing in
mind existing internationals frameworks and instru-
ments.
* Extending the IMO GloBallast program to the region
would be an effective way forward, by assisting
economies to adopt the IMO Guidelines for the
Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water.
* The IMO Convention for the Control and Manage-
ment of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments (2003)
should be supported.
* Management frameworks for other, non-ballast
water, risks should be considered, for example the
UN Convention on the Law of the Sea; the Guide-
lines on a Precautionary Approach to Capture
Fisheries and Species Introduction from the FAO
Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries; the
Guiding Principles for the Prevention, Introduction
and Mitigation of Impacts of Alien Species from the
Convention on Biological Diversity; and the Network
of Aquaculture Centres in the Asia-Pacific.
* There is a need to increase scientific knowledge of
introduced marine pests, and improve its availability.
* Capacity building in developing countries will be an
essential part of a regional approach.
* The marine invasive species issue should be raised at
the next APEC Ministerial meeting and in processes
leading up to the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable
Development.
The intent of the workshop was subsequently echoed in
the declaration of the First APEC Ocean—Related
Ministerial Meeting in Seoul, Republic of Korea [43] in
which Ministers resolved to ‘‘contribute further to
international efforts for the control and management
of ships ballast water and sediments’’ and ‘‘Accelerate
efforts to address the threats posed by [inter alia]
introduced marine pestsy’’.
8. Conclusions
The marine invasive species problem is getting worse
but the growing environmental, social and economic
risks, and the negative impact on people’s well-being
(loss of net socioeconomic benefits) are still being largely
ignored by governments and environmental interest
groups. Only one vector (ballast water) is being
addressed—the fact that ballast water is being addressed
has perhaps led to the incorrect conclusion that the
problem as a whole is being addressed. In fact, almost
nothing is being done to manage the majority of vectors
responsible for distributing invasive alien marine species
around the world. These other vectors are responsible
for introducing some of the most damaging invasive
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
322 N. Bax et al. / Marine Policy 27 (2003) 313–323
species (e.g. Caulerpa taxifolia in the Mediterranean and
California; white spot syndrome virus throughout the
Pacific). Marine invasive species are primary drivers of
ecological change—they create and modify habitat; eat
or outcompete native fauna; act as disease agents or
vectors; and threaten biodiversity. Their diverse and
widespread impacts means that they affect all other
marine conservation programs including: marine pro-
tected areas; habitat management (effects of fishing);
marine mammal conservation, etc. Unlike most other
environmental impacts (but similar to species extinction)
they are irreversible.
Marine invasive species present a regional and global
problem that requires regional and global solutions.
Inaction by areas within a region has the potential to
devalue effective management actions undertaken by
their trading partners. Systematic tools need to be
brought to bear on the problem to determine the major
sources of risk and the type and location of the most
effective management responses. We suspect that some
of the most effective responses will be offshore assisting
regional trading partners achieve their environmental
goals rather than concentrating solely on national goals.
Solutions will need to address environmental impacts
and net socioeconomic benefits, while accounting for
regional differences in perspectives, technical capacity
and financial resources.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the many representatives from
APEC economies, international organizations and
marine industries that contributed to the 2001 APEC
workshop. Dr. Marcus Haward, University of Tasmania
and Drs. Keith Hayes, Chad Hewitt, Alice Morris, and
Ron Thresher from the Centre for Research on
Introduced Marine Pests, CSIRO, Australia contributed
to the Workshop documents, on which some of this
paper is based. Ron Thresher and Keith Hayes
improved an earlier draft of this paper.
References
[1] Carlton JT. The scale and ecological consequences of biological
invasions in the world’s oceans. In: Sandlund OT, Schei PJ, Viken
( editors. Invasive species and biodiversity management.
A,
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1999. p. 195–212.
[2] Thresher RE. Diversity, impacts and options for managing
invasive marine species in Australian waters. Australian Journal
of Environmental Management 1999;6:164–74.
[3] Thresher RE. In: Pederson J, editor. Key threats from marine
bioinvasions: a review of current and future issues. Boston, MA:
MIT Press, 2000. p. 24–34.
[4] Crooks JA, Soul!e ME. Lag times in populations explosions of
invasive species: causes and implications. In: Sandlund OT, Schei
PJ, Viken A,( editors. Invasive species and biodiversity manage-
ment. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1999. p. 103–25.
[5] Hewitt CL. In: Borgesse EM, Chircop A, McConnell ML, editors.
Marine biosecurity issues in the world oceans: global activities
and Australian directions. Ocean Yearbook 17 University of
Chicago Press, in press.
[6] Hewitt C, Campbell M, Thresher R, Martin R. Marine biological
invasions of Port Phillip Bay, Victoria. CRIMP Technical Report
20, CSIRO Marine Research, Hobart, Tasmania, 1999.
[7] Cranfield HJ, Gordon DP, Willan RC, Marshall BA, Battershill
CN, Francis MP, Nelson WA, Glasby CJ, Read GB. Adventive
marine species in New Zealand. National Institute of Water and
Atmosphere.Technical Report 34, Wellington, 1998.
[8] Cohen AN, Carlton JT. Accelerating invasion rate in a highly
invaded estuary. Science 1998;279:55–8.
[9] Coles SL, DeFelice RC, Eldridge LG, Carlton JT. Historical and
recent introductions of non-indigenous marine species into Pearl
Harbor, Oahu, Hawaiian Islands. Marine Biology 1999;135:
147–58.
[10] Meinesz A. Killer algae. Chicago, USA: University of Chicago
Press; 1999.
[11] Shiganova TA. Invasion of the Black Sea by the ctenophore
Mnemiopsis leidyi and recent changes in the pelagic community
structure. Fisheries Oceanography 1998;7:305–10.
[12] Grosholz ED, Ruiz GM, Dean CA, Shirley KA, Maron JL,
Connors PG. The impacts of a nonindigenous marine predator in
a California Bay. Ecology 2000;81(5):1206–24.
[13] Ruiz GM, Rawlings TK, Dobbs FC, Drake LA, Mullady T, Huq
A, Colwell RR. Global spread of microorgansims by ships.
Nature 2000;408:49–50.
[14] UNCTAD, Review of maritime transport. United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development. United Nations Publica-
tion UNCTAD/RMT(200)/1, Geneva, 2000.
[15] UNCTAD Handbook of Statistics. United Nations Conference
on Trade, Development. United Nations Publication TD/STAT
0.25, Geneva, 2000.
[16] Carlton JT. Introduced species in US coastal waters: environ-
mental impacts and management priorities. Arlington, Virginia:
Pew Oceans Commission; 2001.
[17] Hayes K. CSIRO, Australia personal communication.
[18] Hayes KR. Identifying hazards in complex ecological systems—
Part 2: Infections modes and effects analysis for biological
invasions. Biological Invasions 2002;4:251–61.
[19] Bax N, Hayes K, Marshall A, Parry D, Thresher R. Man-made
marinas as sheltered islands for alien marine organisms: Establish-
ment and eradication of an alien invasive marine species. In:
Veitch CR, Clout MN, editors. Turning the tide: the eradication
of invasive species. Auckland, Invasive Species Specialist Group
of The World Conservation Union (IUCN), Occassional Paper
2002;27:26–39.
[20] Campbell ML, Hewitt CL. Vectors, shipping and trade. In:
Hewitt CL, Campbell ML, Thresher RE, Martin RB, editors.
Marine biological invasions of Port Phillip Bay. Hobart,
Australia: CSIRO Marine Research; 1999. p. 45–60.
[21] Cohen AN, Carlton JT. Nonindigenous aquatic species in a
United States estuary: a case study of the biological invasions of
the San Francisco Bay and delta. US Fisheries and Wildlife and
National Sea Grant College Program. Report NTIS Number
PB96166525, 1995.
[22] Eno NC. Non-native marine species in British waters: effects and
controls. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosys-
tems 1996;6:215–28.
[23] Eldredge LG. Perspective in aquatic exotic species management in
the Pacific Islands. Volume 1: Introductions of commercially
significant aquatic organisms to the Pacific Islands, South Pacific
Commission, South Pacific Regional Environment Programme.
New Caledonia, 1994.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
N. Bax et al. / Marine Policy 27 (2003) 313–323
[24] Culver SL, Kuris AM. The apparent eradication of a locally
established introduced marine pest. Biological Invasions
1998;2:245–53.
[25] Minchin D, McGrath D, Duggan CB. The distribution of the
slipper limpet, Credipula fornicata (L.)(Gastropoda: Mollusca) in
the North-Eastern Atlantic and notes of records from Irish
waters. Journal of Conchology 1995;35:247–54.
[26] Minchin D. Management of the introduction and transfer of
marine mollusks. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater
Ecosystems 1996;6:229–44.
[27] Relini M, Trochia G. The role of fishing gear in the spreading of
allochthonous species: the case of Caulerpa taxifolia in the
Ligurian Sea. ICES Journal of Marine Science 2000;57:1421–7.
[28] Gausen D, Moen V. Large-scale escapes of farmed Atlantic
salmon (Salmo salar) into Norwegian rivers threaten natural
populations. Canadian Journal Fisheries Aquatic Science
1991;48:426–8.
[29] Muir WM, Howard RD. Assessment of possible ecological risks
and hazards of transgenic fish with implications for other sexually
reproducing organisms. Transgenic Research 2002;11:101–14.
[30] Glasby TM. Differences between subtidal epibiota on pier pilings
and rocky reefs at marinas in Sydney, Australia. Estuarine,
Coastal and Shelf Science 1999;48:281–90.
[31] McMinn A, Hallegraeff GM, Thomson P, Jenkinson AV, Heijnis
H. Cyst and radionucleotide evidence for the recent introduction
of the toxic dinoflagellate Gymnodinium catenatum into Tasma-
nian waters. Marine Ecology Progress Series 1997;161:165–72.
[32] Simberloff D, von Holle B. Positive interactions of nonindigenous
species: invasional meltdown. Biological Invasions 1999;1:21–32.
[33] Bax N, Williams A. Designing representative and adequate MPAs
in a structured environment World Congress on Aquatic
Protected Areas, August 15–17 2002, Cairns, Australia, in press.
[34] Auster PJ, Langton RW. The effects of fishing on fish habitat.
American Fisheries Society Symposium 1999;22:150–87.
[35] Bax NJ, Williams A. Seabed habitat on the southeast Australian
continental shelf—context vulnerability and monitoring. Marine
and Freshwater Research 2001;52:491–512.
323
[36] Bax N, Williams A, Davenport S, Bulman C. Managing the
ecosystem by leverage points: a model for a multispecies
fishery. Ecosystem approaches for fisheries management,
Alaska Sea Grant College Program, AK-SG-99-01, 1999.
p. 283–303.
[37] GESAMP, ‘Treatment and management of ships’ ballast water to
control introductions of non-indigenous species’, Report of the
GESAMP Ballast Water Correspondence Group to Marine
Environment and Protection Committee of the International
Maritime Organization. MEPC 48/2, 2002.
[38] Williamson AT, Bax NJ, Gonzalez E, Geeves W, editors.
Development of a regional risk management framework for
APEC economies for use in the control and prevention of
introduced marine pests, APEC secretariat. Technical Reports of
the Marine Resource Conservation Working Group, 195pp;
CSIRO Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests, Hobart,
Australia; Inter-American Centre for Sustainable Ecosystems
Development, Santiago, Chile, 2002.
[39] Global Ballast Water Management Programme, Ballast Water
News, International Maritime Organization, London, Issue 4
January–March 2001.
[40] Lafferty KD, Kuris AM. Biological control of marine pests.
Ecology 1999;77(7):1989–2000.
[41] Goggin L. Parasites (excluding Sacculina) which could regulate
populations of the European green crab Carcinus maenas. In:
Thresher R, editor. Proceedings of the First International
Workshop on the Demography, Impacts and Management of
Introduced Populations of the European Crab, Carcinus maenas.
CRIMP Technical Report, Hobart (Australia): CSIRO Marine
Research, No 11, 1997. p. 87–91.
[42] Bax N, Carlton J, Mathews-Amos A, Haedrich R, Howarth FG,
Purcell J, Reiser A, Gray A. Conserving marine biodiversity
through the control of biological invasions. Conservation Biology
2001;451:145–76.
[43] APEC, The First Ocean-related Ministerial Meeting Report.
Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, Republic of Korea,
Seoul, 2002.