Progress from Governments

Governments are making some progress toward addressing the threat of alien invasive species with incremental advances in legislation, rulemaking and international agreements, such as those proposed for the year 2003 by the International Maritime Organization.¹⁸ Recently, the U.S. Coast Guard published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking and a request for comment on the development of a ballast water treatment goal and interim ballast water treatment standard.¹⁹ Both of these actions are essential to determine whether alternative ballast water management methods are environmentally sound and at least as effective as ballast water exchange. However, such measures are focused on long-term actions and solutions and are developing at a frustratingly slow pace, despite repeated calls for immediate, urgent action from the Great Lakes community.²⁰

Our Future Hangs in the Ballast

Photo of highway billboard developed by citizen group, Protect the Great Lakes, communicates its concerns about aquatic invasive species.

Reflecting the need to act now, some U.S. states have attempted to pass legislation concerning alien invasive species in the Great Lakes. Only the state of Michigan has successfully enacted such legislation. A private member's bill in Ontario was not passed. These local initiatives, including the recent action by the St. Lawrence Seaway Management and Development Corporations noted previously, illustrate the need for greater federal leadership, particularly between the U.S. and Canada, who control the entrance to the freshwater ecosystem of the Great Lakes.

Historically, Great Lakes - St. Lawrence River regional concerns have driven the creation of laws and programs to prevent the introduction and spread of biological pollution, including, in the U.S., the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990, and the National Invasive Species Act (NISA) of 1996.²¹

The pending re-authorization of NISA is an opportunity to bolster action, strengthen research and improve binational harmonization. Therefore, it is not surprising that the region's sense of the biological and economic urgency of this problem should again drive the call for federal action to implement immediate steps to address the continuing threat of alien invasive species in the basin.

The Tenth Biennial Report recommended that a reference be given to the Commission to develop binational standards and the most appropriate methods for implementing those standards. Our reasons for requesting that reference persist. Both the Canadian and United States governments responded that progress was being made and that the technical aspects of the issue were best left to existing bodies such as the Ballast Water and Shipping Committee of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force.

The Commission notes the position of the Parties but remains concerned that the pace of progress is much too slow while the risks to the lakes remain high. In recognition that the gateway to the freshwater ecosystem of the Great Lakes is a binational waterway, the coordinating and harmonizing role of the International Joint Commission is particularly relevant. The Commission stands willing to assist the Parties, pursuant to their request. Action must be taken quickly to stop this ongoing threat to the economy and the biological integrity of the Great Lakes.