Washington, DC
The zebra mussel problem spurred interest in aquatic invasions at the national level, sparking the production of a report on harmful non-indigenous species by the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). OTA's aim is to make technical information accessible to Congress. Members of Congress are generally educated laypeople who don't take naturally to scientific information. Using existing information, OTA produces extensive review papers, smaller summary versions, and four-page concise summaries.
The rate of introductions of non-indigenous species does not grow in a linear way; instead there are pulses in introduction due to social, technological and other factors. A pulse occurred at the end of the Vietnam war that may have been related to soldiers returning to the US with exotic species, intentionally and unintentionally. We are seeing another pulse now as the US military returns from Western Europe.
For OTA reports, accuracy is more important than precision. They seek to report information that is both necessary and sufficient, and not much beyond that. Showing the distribution of high-impact species and maps that reveal state-specific and region-specific problems are used because members of Congress want to know whether a problem specifically affects their districts. Scientists often seem unaware of what constitutes important information for Congress to have. What's missing is sometimes more important than the high precision information that is available.
Values play an important role in making decisions about how to manage non-indigenous species. How much value do we place on diversity? How important is it to avoid homogeneity? Do we care about preserving a heritage of US species and ecosystem integrity? What is our vision of the kind of world we want? We're not just dealing with scientific data here - we're dealing with poetic and philosophical issues.
US Policies on Non-indigenous Species (NIS)
Some have expressed the concern that it may be a form of racism to believe that certain species don't belong in some places - something like xenophobia - a fear of foreigners just because they're foreigners.
There are swiftly and steadily rising numbers of non-indigenous species. We're not eliminating any old ones as we keep adding lots of new ones. About 200 new species have been initially introduced or detected since 1980, and at least 60 of these are already causing harm or are expected to cause harm. Some fear that we could be in for a major crisis - analogous to the "body burden" for chemicals - when will it just become too much for the system to handle?
A Policy Primer
Formal laws come from all three branches of the federal government. From the legislative branch, come the federal statures and international treaties ratified by Congress. From the White House come executive orders and federal regulations that executive branch agencies use to turn laws into practices. From the Courts, come major judicial decisions that reinforce or change policies.
One White House directive came from President Jimmy Carter, whose 1977 executive order to restrict the introduction of exotic species into natural ecosystems was largely ignored and never implemented. The Supreme Court has made a few significant decisions including a 1986 ruling that allowed the state of Maine to ban all imports of bait fish from non-indigenous sources. This decision was important in that it implied that a state's interest in keeping out invading species would be allowed to override the interest of free interstate trade.
In general, international law is weak in comparison to national laws in this area. There are seven multilateral or bilateral treaties that relate to non-indigenous species (NIS) and another seven that indirectly affect NIS by dealing with habitat and other related issues. The Global Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) seeks to eliminate barriers to free trade and has spawned disputes over whether some quarantines are being used as protectionism not as legitimate quarantines to reduce biological invasions. Also, GATT may sidestep or override national environmental laws, such as the recent ruling that Mexican tuna caught with dolphins should be allowed in the US.
Federal laws related to non-indigenous plant species include the Federal Seed Act, the Federal Plant Pest Act, and the Federal Noxious Weed Act. There is some question about which laws apply to this issue - The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) have not been large players in this arena. They are largely silent on exotics and have never been applied to NIS.
The Federal Noxious Weed Act and The Lacy Act use a "dirty list" approach -- they list hazardous organisms and restrict them. They could use a "clean list" approach, shifting the burden of proof by requiring those wanting to bring in exotics to prove that they will not be harmful. Windle is skeptical of this approach because of the huge outcry that has resulted when similar approaches have been suggested. Still, the current approach has severe limitations. It is very difficult to get a species on the "dirty list" in a timely manner - before the problem gets out of control. This is due to many factors including the time required for the public review process, inertia, etc. Also, the existing laws leave a lot of discretion to the agencies. In addition, under current federal law, there is no provision for legal suits if agencies fail to perform, such as has been the case under the ESA.
The US Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) uses a strict definition of "noxious weed" which includes only agricultural weeds; they cannot stretch it to cover weeds that invade natural environments like the Everglades. Scientists want to make this change in the law to cover natural areas.
Should we tinker with existing legislation or seek a radical departure from current system? Should we use different risk levels, cost/benefit analysis, risk analysis, safe minimum standards to make our best decisions?
The regulation of genetically engineered organisms is relying on current law; no new laws have been passed to deal with this relatively new phenomenon. But some may fall through gaps in existing laws -- like non-indigenous species do. How are these NIS and genetically engineered organisms related? First, there is a mismatch between the levels of risk and the rigor of review, i.e., genetically engineered organisms have been subject to far more rigorous review before release. Second, they are both about the unexpected consequences of moving organisms to a new environment. And third, there is no commonly accepted method for evaluating high risk introductions of either kind.
Each agency has its own policies on NIS and they allocate their own money. Twenty-one agencies currently undertake activities related to non-indigenous species, causing much complication. In addition, each state has its own policy, and even within each state, the approaches of the fish and wildlife department may differ from the approach of other departments with responsibilities in this area.
Phyllis Windle says that the moral is that there are many different ways to tackle this problem: federal policy is not just the statutes but includes local ordinances, state laws, local judges, district rangers, etc. There are a variety of ways to intervene in this process that can make our approach to NIS more effective.
How much biological invasion amounts to too much too fast? What we are experiencing is clearly too much too fast. There is currently a 14% annual increase in acreage covered by noxious weeds in the US. Is homogenization destined to be a trait of our times? How much do we value biodiversity?
"For one species to mourn the death of another is a new thing under
the sun" -- Aldo Leopold, Sand County Almanac
Discussion comments
Regarding the national political process: The laws on this subject need to be changed. We also need to allocate more money - Congress now allocates just $400,000 to do something about domestic weeds (and $200,000 is preallocated to other things). The trend in Congress is that appropriations committees have grown in power compared to the large topic-oriented authorizing committees; apply pressure there. It might work to reform current legislation through the 1995 Farm Bill while building support for more sweeping legislation on this topic. The costs of prevention are so much lower than the costs of responding after the fact; why isn't this argument effective on Congress and the public in regard to allocating resources to this problem?
Regarding state and regional approaches: There seem to be some recent changes in the philosophy of state fish and wildlife agencies as they become more interested in nature conservation and somewhat less in sport fishing and hunting. This may not be true everywhere, and the extent differs. The Great Lakes regional approach has great promise.