80
important and urgent issue as in other marine and freshwater basins (e.g. Caspian
and Mediterranean Sea, Great Lakes). Only quite recently have IAS received signifi cant attention within EU policy and governance structures (e.g. Shine et al.
2010 ).
4.4 Bioinvasions as a New Domain of Environmental
Governance
Due to the global nature of IAS and the increasing number of vectors of transportation, unilateral action by a single stakeholder (e.g. one nation state), even if aligned
with the precautionary principle, is usually insuffi cient to prevent introductions of
AS in marine ecosystems (Shine et al. 2010 ). Moreover, IAS-related environmental
risks do not respond to management measures in the same way as other forms of
environmental threats. While, for example, existing threats from chemical pollution
and eutrophication can be to some extent decreased if appropriate actions are taken,
the risk of biological invasion in marine ecosystems can be reduced only by adopting precautionary measures, since control or eradication of once established species
is generally regarded as impossible (EC 2011 ). Genovesi ( 2007 ) has given examples of partially successful cases of control and eradication of IAS from marine
waters, but so far none have been recorded in Europe (Genovesi 2005 ). Hence,
preventing the introduction of AS is believed to be the best and most cost-effective
option (Olenin et al. 2010 ).
Horizontal (between different stakeholders and sectors) and vertical (international, regional and local) cooperations are essential for developing effective
approaches to address crosscutting issues like IAS. Many national and international
management instruments and technical guidelines already deal with this problem,
focusing on plant and animal health, biodiversity conservation , aquatic/ marine ecosystems and maritime transportation (Lemke et al. 2010 ). These instruments can be
binding (e.g. EU regulations) or more voluntary in nature (e.g. HELCOM recommendations) and provide the baseline from which countries and regional organisations such as the European Union develop policies and legal frameworks designed
to decrease IAS threats.
Globally, the problem of IAS is addressed in two conventions, namely, the CBD
(1992)
5 and the BWMC (2004). In October 2010, the parties to the CBD agreed the
following under the CBD Strategic Plan 2011–2020 regarding IAS: ‘By 2020, invasive alien species and pathways are identifi ed and prioritised, priority species are
controlled or eradicated, and measures are in place to manage pathways to prevent
their introduction and establishment’ (EC 2011 ). Additionally, the Global Invasive
Species Programme (GISP) established in 1997 provides support for implementing
5 CBD (1992) Article 8(h) requires that, as far as possible, each contracting State should prevent
the introduction of, control or eradicate those alien species which threaten ecosystems, habitats or
species .
K. Smolarz et al.
important and urgent issue as in other marine and freshwater basins (e.g. Caspian
and Mediterranean Sea, Great Lakes). Only quite recently have IAS received signifi cant attention within EU policy and governance structures (e.g. Shine et al.
2010 ).
4.4 Bioinvasions as a New Domain of Environmental
Governance
Due to the global nature of IAS and the increasing number of vectors of transportation, unilateral action by a single stakeholder (e.g. one nation state), even if aligned
with the precautionary principle, is usually insuffi cient to prevent introductions of
AS in marine ecosystems (Shine et al. 2010 ). Moreover, IAS-related environmental
risks do not respond to management measures in the same way as other forms of
environmental threats. While, for example, existing threats from chemical pollution
and eutrophication can be to some extent decreased if appropriate actions are taken,
the risk of biological invasion in marine ecosystems can be reduced only by adopting precautionary measures, since control or eradication of once established species
is generally regarded as impossible (EC 2011 ). Genovesi ( 2007 ) has given examples of partially successful cases of control and eradication of IAS from marine
waters, but so far none have been recorded in Europe (Genovesi 2005 ). Hence,
preventing the introduction of AS is believed to be the best and most cost-effective
option (Olenin et al. 2010 ).
Horizontal (between different stakeholders and sectors) and vertical (international, regional and local) cooperations are essential for developing effective
approaches to address crosscutting issues like IAS. Many national and international
management instruments and technical guidelines already deal with this problem,
focusing on plant and animal health, biodiversity conservation , aquatic/ marine ecosystems and maritime transportation (Lemke et al. 2010 ). These instruments can be
binding (e.g. EU regulations) or more voluntary in nature (e.g. HELCOM recommendations) and provide the baseline from which countries and regional organisations such as the European Union develop policies and legal frameworks designed
to decrease IAS threats.
Globally, the problem of IAS is addressed in two conventions, namely, the CBD
(1992)
5 and the BWMC (2004). In October 2010, the parties to the CBD agreed the
following under the CBD Strategic Plan 2011–2020 regarding IAS: ‘By 2020, invasive alien species and pathways are identifi ed and prioritised, priority species are
controlled or eradicated, and measures are in place to manage pathways to prevent
their introduction and establishment’ (EC 2011 ). Additionally, the Global Invasive
Species Programme (GISP) established in 1997 provides support for implementing
5 CBD (1992) Article 8(h) requires that, as far as possible, each contracting State should prevent
the introduction of, control or eradicate those alien species which threaten ecosystems, habitats or
species .
K. Smolarz et al.