TECHNICAL REPORT MARITIME AND COASTGUARD AGENCY BALLAST WATER SCOPING STUDY NORTH WESTERN EUROPE REPORT NO REVISION NO.

Transcription

1 MARITIME AND COASTGUARD AGENCY BALLAST WATER SCOPING STUDY NORTH WESTERN EUROPE REPORT NO REVISION NO. 01 DET NORSKE VERITAS

2 Date of first issue: Project No.: Approved by: Organisational unit: Jan Erik Granholdt Head of Section Client: Environmental and Technical Solutions Client ref.: DET NORSKE VERITAS AS Maritime Solutions Maritime Solutions Veritasveien Høvik Norway Tel: Fax: Org. No: NO MVA Maritime and Coastguard Agency Summary: Brian Elliott Report No.: Subject Group: Indexing terms Report title: Key words Service Area Ballast Water Scoping Study - Ballast Water - Management Europe Health, Safety and Environmental Management Market Sector Transportation Work carried out by: Egil Dragsund, Aage Bjørn Andersen, Stephan Gollasch, Cato C. ten Hallers-Tjabbes, Kari Skogen Work verified by: Hanna Lee Behrens Date of this revision: Rev. No.: Number of pages: No distribution without permission from the client or responsible organisational unit (however, free distribution for internal use within DNV after 3 years) No distribution without permission from the client or responsible organisational unit. Strictly confidential Unrestricted distribution 2002 Det Norske Veritas AS All rights reserved. This publication or parts thereof may not be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying or recording, without the prior written consent of Det Norske Veritas AS. Head Office: Veritasveien 1, 1322 Høvik, Norway

3 Table of Content Page 1 SUMMARY Recommendations 1 2 INTRODUCTION THE INTERNATIONAL BALLAST WATER CONVENTION OBLIGATIONS, OPTIONS AND MANAGEMENT TOOLS Introduction The administration of the Convention by a Party Facilitating for the provisions of the Convention Reception facilities Survey, Inspection and Certification Violation Voyage interference Technical assistance and regional co-operation Recommendations Control and Management of Ships Ballast Water and Sediments Regulations - Obligations and Rights of the Administration Regulation A-4: Exemptions Regulation A-5: Equivalent Compliance Regulation B-1: Ballast Water Management Plan Regulation B-2: Ballast Water Record Book Regulation B-4: Ballast Water Exchange Regulation C-1: Additional Measures Regulation C-2: Warnings Concerning Ballast Water Uptake in Certain Areas and related Flag State Measures Regulation D-3: Approval requirements for Ballast Water Management systems Regulation D-4: Prototype Ballast Water Treatment Technologies Regulation E-1: Surveys Regulation E-2: Issuance or Endorsement of a Certificate Regulation E-3: Issuance or Endorsement of a Certificate by Another Party Regulation E-4: Form of the Certificate Regulation E-5: Duration and Validity of a Certificate Convention tools Procedures and Guidelines Recommendations More Stringent or Additional Measures 21 4 THE BW SITUATION IN NW EUROPE Non-indigenous species in Europe Maritime traffic and ballast water patterns in Europe 24 Page i 23nov2005-MCA-scoping.DOC

4 4.2.1 The Netherlands Norway Sweden Port of Southampton Existing Ballast Water Management in Europe Implementation of the Convention 27 5 REGIONAL PERSPECTIVES AND APPROACHES EU The Baltic Sea The Mediterranean Mediterranean Action Plan Invasive Species The objectives of the Invasives Action Plan Biological monitoring Ballast water patterns today The Black Sea Background Biological monitoring Ballast water patterns today Existing Ballast Water Management Implementation of BW Convention 38 6 BW MANAGEMENT IN OTHER STATES US Ballast Water Legislation The National Aquatic Invasive Species Act Penalties for Non-submittal of Ballast Water Reports New Ballast Water Management Equivalent Reporting Program Mandatory Ballast Water Management Program for U.S. Waters Compliance Guidance Canada Ballast water patterns today Existing Ballast Water Management Ballast water reporting Ballast water exchange alternate exchange zones Recommended use of risk assessment Australia Existing Ballast Water Management Management requirements Reporting requirements Recommended use of risk assessment Ballast Water exchange strategy (special areas for exchange) Implementation of BW Convention 43 7 SELECTION OF A BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT REGION Page ii 23nov2005-MCA-scoping.DOC

5 7.1 General Goal and criteria for selection of region Existing biogeographic and management regions The Briggs and Ekman bioprovinces Watling Briggs system The IUCN system Large Marine Ecosystems (LME) The OSPAR regions Regionalisation in European Marine Strategy (EMS) Proposed ballast water management regions 53 8 BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT APPROACHES FOR NORTH WESTERN EUROPE Risk exposure and traffic categories National voyages Regional voyages Interregional voyages and intercontinental voyages Alternative approaches 57 9 BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT OPTIONS Provisions of the Convention Ballast Water Exchange Ballast water exchange methods Time required - BWE Interrupted ballast water exchange operation Designation of ballast water exchange zones Water Depth Limitations for ballast water exchange Salinity Deviation from planned route Risk Assessment No or minimum Ballast Water Release Ballast Water Treatment on-board General The use of "active substances" in ballast water treatment Active Substances applied as an Additional Measure or in relation to Emergency Situations Use of non-approved on-board treatment systems BW reception facilities Ship survey regimes Reception facilities for sediments Monitoring and sampling Self-Financing Mechanisms for Ballast Water Management Ballast Water Tax 72 Page iii 23nov2005-MCA-scoping.DOC

6 Penalty System ("Polluter Pays Principle") MANAGEMENT OPTIONS ON SELECTED ROUTES Route regimes and management strategies National traffic Regional traffic Ballast water exchange Risk assessment Monitoring and communication Designated ballast water exchange areas Incentives to minimise ballast water discharge Interregional traffic Traffic from the Baltic region (HELCOM area) Traffic from the Mediterranean Intercontinental traffic REFERENCES Appendix A Ballast Water Management in NW Europe Appendix B Ballast Water Management in the Baltic Sea Appendix C Examples of treatment technologies Page iv 23nov2005-MCA-scoping.DOC

7 1 SUMMARY 1.1 Recommendations The entire OSPAR Region should be included in the Ballast Water Management Strategy for the North West Europe and be subdivided into bio-provinces. The selective approach which allows for exemptions to management, either on a regional, trade or voyage specific level, based on appropriate risk assessment, is the most suitable management model for the OSPAR Region. Bio-provinces should initially mirror the areas in the OSPAR Quality Status Report, but should be revised in the light of further work being undertaken by OSPAR and the European Union. Borders between bioprovinces are never accurate and transition zones should be defined and included in the system. Dispersion of native species from one bioprovince to another is not acceptable; Non indigenous species dispersion within a region is not acceptable; Discharge of unmanaged ballast water in environmental emergency situations (such as harmful algal blooms) is not acceptable. A risk assessment procedure based on non-indigenous species and those native species known to cause harm needs to be developed to reduce the major risks of non indigenous species invasion in the waters of OSPAR. The most appropriate risk assessed management method should be applied en route where high and medium risks are identified for ballast water exchange between ports. More formal links need to be made between the Ballast Water Management Strategy for North West Europe and the work HELCOM are undertaking on Ballast Water Management. This could be achieved through the existing OSPAR/HELCOM liaison process. This include e.g.: - Common dedicated areas for ballast water exchange for vessels on voyage between two freshwater ports. - Definitions of freshwater and marine water. - Risk assessment system and method to be used. The feasibility of a voluntary scheme versus a mandatory scheme need to be investigated further. An Audit and Gap analysis of existing monitoring schemes under OSPAR and European programmes in needed to evaluate whether the biological and physical information needed for risk assessment is already being gathered A list of non-indigenous species and species of concern needs to be identified and collated on an OSPAR, country by country, bio-province and coastal area by coastal area basis A notification procedure for biological emergency situations would have to be developed. Further analysis of the risks of spreading non-indigenous species through the various management options is required. Guidelines may need to be developed within OSPAR (and preferably IMO) on what is undue deviation and the rights of a port state to expect and/or force deviation. Page 1

8 Any proposal for no ballast or designated areas for ballast water exchange need to be linked with the management and designation of areas under the EC Habitats and Birds Directives. For vessels going from a fresh water port to a fresh water port : Vessels should undertake Ballast water exchange in the marine environment in an appropriate/designated area. Definition of fresh water and seawater are needed. For vessels arriving from North America, South America and from around Southern Africa : Vessels should undertake ballast water exchange en route in waters greater 200nm from the shoreline than 200m depth. If this is not possible for safety reasons then vessels would be expected to make minor route deviations to areas within the 200nm limit that could be identified as discharge areas, so long as they are greater than 50nm from the coast. For vessels arriving from West Africa and the Mediterranean (or via the Suez Canal): If Vessels have not undertaken ballast water exchange en route in waters greater 200nm from the shoreline than 200m depth then they would be expected to undertake appropriate ballast water management measures, or make minor route deviations to areas within the 200nm limit that could be identified as discharge areas, so long as they are greater than 50nm from the coast. For vessels operating within a bio-province: These voyages should fall under the risk assessment. Ballast water can be discharged between ports where the risk is identified as low, however appropriate management measures will be needed for ballast water transfers are regarded as medium or high. For vessels operating between bio-provinces: Appropriate management measures will be needed such voyages. However, these measures will need to be risk assessed to ensure that they pose a low risk in transition areas. Page 2

9 2 INTRODUCTION In February 2004 the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) adopted the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship s Ballast Water and Sediments (hereafter the Convention). The Convention was signed subject to ratification by 8 States (Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Finland; Maldives, The Netherlands, Spain and Syrian Arab Republic) from 1 June 2004 to 31 May It may be noted that one North Western European State used this opportunity. From the 31 May 2005, the Convention has been open for accession by any State. The Maldives became the first Contracting Party after depositing its instrument of ratification on 22 June The Convention will entry into force one year after its ratification by at least 30 Parties to IMO controlling at least 35% of the world fleet by tonnage. Once ratified, ships will have to meet stringent ballast water discharge standards to reduce the probability of spreading non-indigenous species through the vector of ballast water. These standards will come into force (subject to ratification) between 2009 and 2016, depending on the type, size and age of the ship. Until these standards come into force the Convention recommends that regional management strategies based on oceanic ballast water exchange are developed in order to reduce the risk of non-indigenous species invasions. On behalf of OSPAR * and the Committee of North Sea Senior Officials (CONSSO), the UK has awarded the Scoping Study for the Implementation of a Regional Management Strategy for Ballast Water Management in North West Europe to Det Norske Veritas (DNV). The project has been funded by a Consortium of countries which include Belgium, Germany, The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom. The overall aim of the scoping study is to advise members of OSPAR and CONSSO on the appropriate scope, geographical area and management tools needed to implement a Regional Management Strategy for Ballast Water Management in the North West Europe/North Sea to reduce the risk of non-indigenous species invasion in the region in the period until ships may have approved ballast water treatment systems onboard. The objectives are to: Review the existing concerns, threats and research with respect to non-indigenous species invasion in the North Sea/North West Europe through ship s ballast water and sediments. Provide technical advice to member states of OSPAR and CONSSO on the implementation of a regional management strategy for the control of non-indigenous species invasion through ship s ballast water and sediments in the North Sea/North West Europe, from short sea shipping and vessels that have not been able to undertake ballast water exchange in line with the Convention. Identify appropriate management options for the development of a sustainable regional management strategy to address the risks of non-indigenous species invasion into, and the * OSPAR - The 1992 OSPAR Convention is the current instrument guiding international cooperation on the protection of the marine environment of the North-East Atlantic. It combined and up-dated the 1972 Oslo Convention on dumping waste at sea and the 1974 Paris Convention on land-based sources of marine pollution. Page 3

10 spread of existing invasive species in, the North Sea/North West Europe (depending on the area identified for a regional strategy by CONSSO, OSPAR and the European Union). Identify the management tools available to implement a regional management plan in parallel to the development and ratification of the Convention. Address the feasibility of these management options and tools with respect to countering the risks from ballast water exchange in the North Sea/North West Europe, recommending how the threat of non-indigenous species invasion through ballast water should be controlled. Identify the environmental data and the monitoring strategies needed to inform, enable and implement a regional management plan; Before approved treatment systems are available, mid-ocean ballast water exchange remains the most accessible and cost-effective tool to reduce spreading of waterborne non-indigenous species by ballast water as a vector. A ship shall whenever possible, conduct ballast water exchange at least 200 nautical miles from the nearest land and in water at least 200 metres in depth. In cases where the ship is unable to conduct ballast water exchange in accordance with this requirement in the Convention, exchange shall be conducted at least 50 nautical miles from the nearest land and in water at least 200 metres in depth. However, a ship shall not be required to deviate from its intended voyage, or delay the voyage, in order to comply with this particular requirement. Figure 2-1 presents data of vessel densities from the period in European waters. All internal European traffic is within 200 nm distance to the nearest shore and most routes are within 50 nm. Figure 2-1 Vessel density and distances from shore in European waters. Page 4

11 In such areas where the distance from the nearest land or the depth does not meet the criteria, the port State may designate areas in consultation with adjacent or other States where a ship may conduct Ballast Water exchange. Section 4 in this report gives a detailed presentation of ballast water management options and tools in line with the Convention. Sections 5, 6 and 7 present the BW management status in selected relevant States and regions. In section 8 and 9 the management approach and feasible region for implementation of a strategy are discussed. Section 10 discusses the feasibility of management options in relation to the situation in Europe. Page 5

12 3 THE INTERNATIONAL BALLAST WATER CONVENTION OBLIGATIONS, OPTIONS AND MANAGEMENT TOOLS 3.1 Introduction The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships Ballast Water and Sediments was adopted by a Diplomatic Conference on February The Convention will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 States, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. Any Party to the Convention undertake to give full and complete effect to the provisions of the Convention including its Annex in order to prevent, minimize and ultimately eliminate the transfer of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens through the control and management of ships ballast water and sediments. The Convention is not of hindrance for any Party from taking more stringent measures, individually or jointly with other Parties, in order to establish a more appropriate level of protection against the transfer of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens through the control and management of ships ballast water and sediments, consistent with international law. Parties should ensure that ballast water management, whatever practice is applied, does not cause greater harm than is prevented to their environment, human health, property or resources, or those of other States. The Convention consists of Articles followed by five sections containing actual Regulations. There are also two Appendices presenting standard formats with regards to the issuance of the International Ballast Water Management Certificate and operational recording for reporting and verification, Ballast Water record Book. The Convention make reference to a number of tools, Guidelines, witch are currently in the process of being drafted. These are listed in table 3.1 below. Adherence to the Convention will require some form of facilitation by the Contracting Party. The requirements in relation to such should be carefully assessed and commitment assuring the establishment of such should be secured prior to the decision of ratifying. Taking into account the optimistic anticipated entry into force time-schedule as indicated by Regulation B-3, it becomes obvious that these assessments should proceed in the very near future if not already in progress. This chapter provide an overview on issues that needs addressing by Parties when considering the obligation associated to ratification. As mention above, some assessments and indeed measures may be undertaken in co-operation with other Parties. This report will focus on such from the North Sea/North West Europe perspective. Page 6

13 Table 3-1 The Convention tools Procedures and Guidelines No Guideline Reference Status** G 1 Guideline for sediment reception Facilities Article 5 Pending MEPC 55 G 2 Guideline for Ballast Water sampling Article 9, 1 c) Pending G 3 Guideline for Equivalent Compliance with the Convention by Pleasure and Search and Rescue Craft Regulation A-5 Adopted by MEPC 53 G 4 Guidelines for Ballast Water Management and development of Ballast Water Management plan Regulation B-1 Adopted by MEPC 53 G 5 Guideline for Ballast Water Reception Facilities Regulation B-3, 6 Pending MEPC 55 G 6 Guidelines for Ballast Water Exchange Regulation B-4, 1.1 Adopted by MEPC 53 G 7 Guidelines on Risk Assessments Regulation A-4, 1.4 Pending MEPC 55 G 8 Guidelines for the Approval of Ballast Water Management Systems Regulation D-3, 1 Adopted by MEPC 53 G 9 Procedures for Approval of Ballast Water Management Systems that make use of Active Regulation D-3, 2 Adopted by MEPC 53 Substances G 10 Guideline for Prototype Ballast Water treatment Technologies Programme Approval Regulation D-4, 2 Pending MEPC 54 G 11 Guideline for Ballast Water Exchange Design and Construction Standard Regulation B-1* Pending MEPC 55 G 12 Guidelines for Sediment Control on Ships Regulation B-1, 3* Pending MEPC 55 G 13 Guidelines on the Introduction of Additional Measures including Emergency Situations Regulation C-1, 3.1 Pending MEPC 55 G 14 Guidelines on designation of areas for ballast water exchange Regulation B-4, 2 Pending MEPC 55 G 15 Guidelines for Port State Control Article 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12* FSI 14 * There are no specific references in the Convention. Note: RegulationB-1 refer to a mandatory ballast Water management plan to be approved by the Administration taking into account Guideline. Guideline G 4 provide recommendations for the development of such plans. Note however that guidelines G 11 and G 12 also cover details of such a plan as required by Regulation B-1. ** MEPC 53 adopted Guidelines G 3, G 4, G 6, G 8 and G 9. MEPC 53 also established a programme for the development of the guidelines for the uniform implementation of the Convention. An intersessional correspondence group was formed working to achieve adoption for the remaining guidelines at MEPC 54 and MEPC The administration of the Convention by a Party The obligations associated to that of becoming a Contracting Party to the Convention constitute some overall responsibilities to ensure; Complete effect of its provisions; The implementation of stringent measures in order to protect its waters in cooperation with other Parties if necessary; That ships entitled to fly its flag can and do comply with its requirements. Page 7

14 To implement the intentions of the Convention, Parties are encouraged to; Co-operate; Establish or to support continued development and research work in relation to Ballast Water Management; To report to IMO and to other Parties on matters and aspects related to ballast water management. This is a requirement referred to throughout the Convention and relates to a number of issues. Note that there are also obligations resting on IMO in association to the reporting. The Convention also include wording regarding the establishment of national policies, strategies and programmes for ballast water management. From the point of view of the Parties under the OSPAR and CONSSO, it is difficult not to interpret the wording as mandatory. Thus, for these states, the establishment and participation in Ballast Water policies, strategies and programmes on a regional level should be expected. Other administrative issues requiring management by a Party include; Dispute settlement; Relationship to other international laws and agreements; Procedures for amendments Facilitating for the provisions of the Convention There are a number of interaction issues addressed in the Convention regarding the Administrations and ships that require some form of facilitation. Such facilitation should be efficient and established so that they avoid voyage interference to the highest level possible Reception facilities Most all Convention dealing with environmental issues constitute some level of reception facilities. This Convention requires Parties to establish Sediment Reception Facilities in ports and terminals where cleaning or repair of ballast tanks take place. IMO is preparing a Guideline (G 1) specifying the requirements associated to such a facility (Guidelines for sediment reception Facilities). Note that the requirements in the Convention associated to Ballast Water Exchange or Ballast Water Management Systems onboard do not apply to Ships that delivers Ballast Water to a reception facility. Such facilities shall be designed taking into account the recommendations compiled in Guidelines for Ballast Water Reception Facilities (G 5). Note further that there are no mandatory requirements in the Convention requiring an Administration to facilitate for Ballast Water reception. Facilities for Ballast Water reception may be considered by Administrations finding the protective level against unwanted transfers offered by the performance requirements of the Convention insufficient and consider the implementation of additional measures as provided for in Section C and its associated Guideline (G 13). Page 8

15 Survey, Inspection and Certification In order to implement requirements and to manage compliance-monitoring, parties are obliged to establish regimes for Survey (normally by or on behalf of the Flag State), Inspection (normally by or on behalf of a Port State) and Certification (by or on behalf of the Flag State). The Convention has regulations defining Survey and Inspection procedures as well as procedures concerning the issuance of Certificates. These are well consistent with general established practice and it is not anticipated that this issue should cause major challenges for CONSSO/ OSPAR states. The Port state has a duty to perform Inspections for the purpose of revealing violations of the provisions of the Convention. These shall; Verify that the ship is carrying an acceptable valid Certificate; Undertake an inspection of the Ballast Water Record Book. Sampling of the ships ballast water may also be undertaken. This process must in any case not cause any delay in voyage schedule of the ship. If the inspection indicates that there is a violation, a detailed inspection may be carried out. Procedures for such detailed inspections are not provided for by the Convention. It may be noted that MEPC have invited states to make submissions to FSI (Sub-Committee on Flag State Implementation) for the development of Guidelines for port State control under the Convention. (There are no references to such guidelines in the Convention text). A uniform inspection regime including comparative routines and understanding of content and means is imperative in this context and require states to arrive at mutual interpretations as relevant. In order for uniformly implementation to be secured, it is recommended by this assessment that efforts are made in order to establish mechanisms for the triggering of such detailed inspections and further, details of what such the inspection regime should encompass. This may be done by the CONSSO/ OSPAR States and should be coordinated with any similar initiatives by other states and/ or regions. This process may be initiated by the CONSSO/ OSPAR States through developing proposals for submission to FSI (FSI 14) Violation A Party also have obligations in relation to circumstances where violation of the Convention has been revealed. Items to note include; Violation is prohibited. The Administration is required to establish sanctions under its laws as appropriate. Such sanctions shall be adequately severe to discourage violations. Notification to the ship and its Administration accompanied by substance matter substantiating the allegations against the ship. Administrations at where the violation has been detected shall investigate the matter and cause proceedings or provide the Flag State in question with information and evidence of the violation in order for it to consider sanctions against the ship. In addition to the sanctions described above, the Flag State and/ or the Port State who detected the violation may take steps to warn, detain and/ or to exclude the ship. These actions represent both sanctions (detention and exclusion) as well as cooperation with other States (warning). A regional strategy should include uniform responses to violations when these are detected. This may be considered CONSSO/ OSPAR in conjunction with the addressing of the concept of Detailed Inspections. Page 9

16 Matters referred to under the headings of Surveys, Inspection, Certification and Violations are dealt with by the Convention in its Articles; 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. The regimes these describe require additional considerations and interpretation, ref. the above discussion on the guidelines for port State control. The issues they cover interrelate to the Port State and its neighbouring States, to the Flag State, to the ship as well as to States of which it is visiting. In order to establish an efficient regime, it is necessary to ensure uniformly understanding and thus preferably uniform implementation requiring both regional and general cooperation Voyage interference The need for uniformly understanding of the issues of the Convention dealing with its policing and non-conformity response is highlighted by Article 12 which define a responsibility on the Parties to avoid any unduly delay. It provides the ship the right for compensation in cases where it has been unduly delayed. It seems reasonable to establish criteria for such unduly delay. Since this most likely will be associated to the triggering of a detailed inspection, mechanisms for delays and compensation may be addressed when assessing the concept of Detailed Inspections Technical assistance and regional co-operation The Convention states that Parties with common interest to protect against unwanted transfer of aquatic organisms and its potential effects in a given geographical area, in particular those bordering enclosed and semi-enclosed sea areas shall encourage and participate in regional cooperation. Issues to be addressed regionally shall include those associated to information, notification as well as harmonized procedures. Parties are also encouraged to provide support for Parties requesting technical assistance. This may be arranged directly or through IMO. It is anticipated that the CONSSO/ OSPAR parties are both motivated to protect against unwanted transfers as well as in a position enabling them to provide support and thus, a commitment to the Convention encompasses a commitment to provide support. Requested support may include; Training of personnel; Assistance in relation to research and development; Assistance associated to technology, transfer of technology, equipment and facilities; Implementation issues Recommendations The Articles of the Convention including its references to Guidelines represent a cookery book for establishing the regime necessary in order to enforce its intentions. Its recipes give space for national or regional flavouring to make account for national or regional circumstances. However, it is at the same time emphasising the need for general consistency and predictability. A State considering becoming a Contracing Party to the Convention must make resources available to its Administration to ensure that the obligations resting on the State is ensured and not underestimated. Thus, these obligations should be carefully assessed. From the position of CONSSO/ OSPAR member States, the Conventions references to the establishment of national policies, strategies and programmes should be considered a requirement. Further, taking into account the regional specifics of these nations, trade patterns Page 10

17 within the region and ship borne trade in and out of the region, it is recommended that regional policies strategies and programmes are established accounting for the individual states national positions. An example substantiating the need to assess the challenge of enforcing the provisions of the Convention in accordance to the convention regionally is the interrelationships between Inspection, Detailed Inspection, Undue Delay and Sanctions. These issues require criteria, definitions, etc. in order to achieve consistent and predictable enforcement reaction. These issues are not covered by the Convention or its guidelines at present and form an obvious topic to be included in a Regional Cooperation Programme. Other items to be considered within the frames of regional cooperation may be that of reporting of violations and coordinated establishment of reception facilities. 3.3 Control and Management of Ships Ballast Water and Sediments Regulations for the control and management of ships ballast water and sediments are organised in five sections; Section A: General provisions: Definitions/ General applicability/ Exceptions/ Exemptions/ Equivalent Compliance; Section B: Management and control Requirements for Ships: Ballast water Management Section C: Special Requirements in Certain Areas; Section D: Standards for Ballast Water Management; Section E: Survey and Certification requirements for Ballast water Management. These sections define the requirements of the Convention in which ships have to comply to. They also define requirements to the regime necessary in order to enable compliance as well as enforcement. There are obligations to be met by all stakeholders inclusive of the ship, the Administrations (both in the capacity as Flag State as well as Port State and as the representative of the Party) and the Organization (IMO). In the following table, the regulations of the respective topical sections are listed and references are made to the obligations resting on the Administration. These references should be assessed further by Administrations (see recommendation under item 3.2.3) and coordinated with those elaborated on under item 3.2 in considering becoming a Party to the Convention. Elaborations made later in this chapter may be applied. This is necessary in order to ensure that sufficient resources as required in order to fulfil its obligations under the Convention are allocated. Page 11

18 Section A Section B Section C Section D Section E Regulations Obligations Regulations Obligations Regulations Obligations Regulations Obligations Regulations Obligations A-1 Definitions n.a. B-1 BW management Plan Establish means for the approval of BW management plans in accordance to guideline. C-1 Additional Measures Assess the adequacy of level of protection offered by regulations in section B. Consult/ communicate with adjacent Parties and stakeholders Establish additional measures. (Guideline G- 13) and facilitate for ease of compliance. D-1 BW Exchange Standard n.a. E-1 Surveys Establish a survey (and Certification) regime including instructions for nominating surveyors, for notification to stakeholders and implementation of corrective measures. Define renewal survey intervals (ref. survey guidelines adopted by IMO (A.739(18)/ A.789(19)/ A948(23). Establish measures for floating platforms, FSU s and FPSO s to ensure that applicable provisions of the Convention are compiled with. Followup incidents.. Page 12

19 Section A Section B Section C Section D Section E Regulations Obligations Regulations Obligations Regulations Obligations Regulations Obligations Regulations Obligations A-2 General Applicability n.a. B-2 BW Record Book Establish procedures for the authorisation of officers for inspection of the BW record book. C-2 Warnings Concerning BW Uptake in certain Areas and Related Flag State measures Assess/ monitor areas under their jurisdiction notify mariners, IMO and potentially affected states if BW uptake in an area/ areas should be avoided. D-2 BW Performance Standard n.a. E-2 Issuance or Endorsement of a Certificate To ensure the issuance of a Certificate following successful completion of a survey. A-3 Exceptions n.a. B-3 BW Management for Ships n.a. C-3 Communication of Measures n.a. (Parties). Require IMO to communicate information received D-3 Approval Requirements for BW Management systems Establish means enabling BW management systems (treatment technologies) to be assessed and approved in found compliant (according to Guideline (G- 8). E-3 Issuance or Endorsement of a Certificate by another Party Establish means for requesting the issuance of a Certificate by another Party. Page 13

20 Section A Section B Section C Section D Section E Regulations Obligations Regulations Obligations Regulations Obligations Regulations Obligations Regulations Obligations A-4 Exemptions Establish means of considering applications for exemptions in accordance to Guideline (G- 7) and the management of exemptions granted. B-4 BW Exchange Establish means to manage BW exchange including the consideration of designated areas for such (in accordance to guideline G- 11). D-4 Prototype BW Treatment Technologies Establish means for the assessment (and followup) of proposed (approved) prototype programmes (in accordance to Guideline G- 10). E-4 Form of the Certificate Require the Certificate to be drawn up in the language of the issuing Party and if this is not English, French nor Spanish, also in one of these languages. A-5 Equivalent Compliance Establish means for determining equivalent compliance in accordance to Guideline (G- 3). B-5 Sediment management for Ships n.a. D-5 Review of Standards by the Organization Obligations rests primarily on MEPC Parties may be required to consider the recommendations for amendments. E-5 Duration and Validity of the Certificate Establish validity intervals and routines for endorsement of existing Certificates in compliance with the Convention. B-6 Duties of Officers and Crew n.a. Page 14

21 3.3.1 Regulations - Obligations and Rights of the Administration The five Sections of Regulations make reference to stakeholders; the Ship, Flag State, Port State, Party, Administration, Organization. An Administration is most often the representative of the Party and can be both a Flag state as well as a Port state. In the following, obligations resting on either are referred to as obligations of the Administration. The Convention has wording such as;..shall be approved by the Administration..; If a Party, determines that.., then it may; endeavour to ; In the following paragraphs, recommendations are made concerning commitments related to the individual Regulations where an Administration (or a Party, Flag state or Port state) involvement is required to enable to materialise the substance of the actual provision. If the term shall is used, the recommendation must be considered a mandatory requirement. Other recommendations applies the terms may or should. These reflect the flexibility built into the text of the Convention Regulation A-4: Exemptions The regulation defines situations or scenarios where exemptions from the performance requirements of the Convention may be granted by a Party or Parties. If a ship operates within the frames of these situations or scenarios, it may apply for such exemptions. An application must be accompanied by a risk assessment. This should be carried out in accordance to Guidelines (Guidelines on Risk assessment). These are currently being developed by IMO. The responsibility or obligations of the Administration in association to Regulation A-4 is that of facilitating for the provision offered. This encompasses; Capability to assess the quality of a risk assessment; Communication with other states; The Guidelines referred to are quite specific and it is reasonable to assume that a limited number of risk assessment tools will be used and thus form, a standard for these assessments. It is unlikely that an Administration would need to be engaged in order to make these instruments available. Note that Australia has implemented an exemption scheme based on risk assessments by identifying routes and assessing their individual risk levels as a function of seasonal variations. The risk a vessel on route represents at a given point in time is then available. This approach may be feasible also in regions such as that considered here. Whatever approach applied, there will be a need to ensure that tools used are compliant with the recommended practices of the Guideline. The exemption provision involves more than one Administration; its neighbouring states and state of ballast water origin, thus communication as well as cooperation between these are essential. This is underlined by the wording of the Regulation;..shall not impair or damage the environment, human health, property or resources of adjacent or other states. Page 15

22 The Administration may establish procedures for the management of applications for exemptions and address associated required level and type of resources needed Regulation A-5: Equivalent Compliance The requirements dealt with are accompanied by a Guideline (Guideline for Equivalent compliance with the Convention by Pleasure and Search and Rescue Craft) in which will enable the Administration to determine equivalent compliance for small non-commercially operating vessels, e.g. pleasure craft and vessels used for search and rescue. The Administration shall establish requirements to equivalent compliance in accordance to IMO Guidelines Regulation B-1: Ballast Water Management Plan Every vessel to which the Convention applies must develop and implement a Ballast Water Management Plan. This plan is subjected to the Administration approval. The regulation is accompanied by a Guideline identifying its substance. The Administration shall establish approval procedures for Ballast Water Management Plans Regulation B-2: Ballast Water Record Book A vessel is required to carry a Ballast water record Book and to record ballast water operations including any eventualities divergent from the normal ballast water operation, this to enable the ship to document its adherence to the requirements of the Convention and for Parties to establish adherence or to reveal non-compliance. Thus, the obligations resting on the Administration in this context is associated to survey and inspection. The survey regime is dealt with under section E of the Convention. However, there is an obligation resting on an Administration associated to the inspection of the Ballast Water Record Book. The Administration (Port state) should ensure the capability of inspecting the Ballast Water Record Book of any vessel subjected to the regulations of the Convention visiting its ports or terminals Regulation B-4: Ballast Water Exchange This regulation defines the areas where Ballast Water Exchange may and may not be carried out. The regulation makes provisions which are of particular importance for shallow sea-areas and where ship-lanes are relatively close to shore. Both the North Sea as well as the Baltic are characterised by such. In cases where the distance to shore and depth requirements of the regulation can not be met, Administrations are provided with the opportunity to designate areas for Ballast Water Exchange. The process of such designation will for obvious reasons in most all cases involve a number of parties. The designation of Ballast Water Exchange Areas represents an issue underlining the need for regional cooperation in order to ensure efficient implementation of the Convention. Any such designation must take into account guideline G 14 (guidelines on designation of areas for ballast water exchange). Page 16

23 The Administration should be provided resources enabling it to undertake assessments as necessary in order to consider alternative areas for Ballast Water Exchange designation. Such assessments can only be fulfilled through cooperation with adjacent states. Regional cooperation should include considerations on the need for mutual Ballast Water Exchange Areas Regulation C-1: Additional Measures This regulation makes provisions for Administrations who does not find the level of protection offered by the Convention satisfactory. An Administration whose view is that additional measures are required should consult with adjacent or other States that may be affected by the Convention in a similar manner. The need for such Additional Measures may rest on geographical characteristics or on circumstantial situation, hence, the measure may be permanent or it may have a limited time of application. Administrations intending to implement Additional Measures are subjected to a number of obligations; Communication to IMO; Strive to provide facilities and/ or services available to ease the burden on the ship, e.g.: - Notification to mariners; - Available alternative routes or Ports; - Facilities for Ballast Water Management; Obtain IMO acceptance if required by applicable international law. Administrations should assess its exposure to Ballast Water import and the associated risks it represents taking into account the risk reduction represented by the implementation of the Convention. The Administration should also assess potential periodic scenarios or emergencies that may call for Additional measures to be implemented in order to bring risk levels to an acceptable level. Such assessments should include potential unacceptable risks associated to the export of Ballast water from its own ports and terminals. The assessments described here would benefit from regional cooperation Regulation C-2: Warnings Concerning Ballast Water Uptake in Certain Areas and related Flag State Measures The regulation encourages Administrations to monitor their waters and to notify mariners if restrictions on Ballast Water uptake are necessary. Such notification may be accompanied by recommendations on alternative Ballast Water uptake locations. Such warnings may be communicated as follows; In cases of outbreaks, infestation, toxic algal blooms, etc.; Such cases also require the Administration to notify IMO and potentially affected states. Near sewage outfalls; In areas of limited tidal/ natural flushing. The Administration should consider the need for and the extent of any monitoring for the purpose of notifying stakeholders. This may be considered within the framework of regional cooperation. Monitoring strategies must include procedures on communication/ notification, location of the area affected, alternative areas for ballast water uptake and even further consider arrangements for alternative supplies of ballast water. Page 17

24 Regulation D-3: Approval requirements for Ballast Water Management systems In order to comply with the performance requirements of the Convention, ships will install Ballast Water Management systems subjected to approval. The Administration is required to facilitate the process so that candidate systems can be approved following the successful testing and considerations as outlined by the Guideline for the Approval of Ballast Water Management systems and to manage such approvals. The Administration shall establish approval procedures for Ballast Water Management Systems and procedures for the management of these. Note that the approval requirements are comprehensive and will require the establishment of facilities enabling compliant testing to be carried out. Note further that testing will be time consuming and may last for as long as 2 3 years. There may be merit in regional cooperation related to the approval procedures and further interregional communication in order to assure mutual recognition approved ballast water management systems independent upon their approval origin Regulation D-4: Prototype Ballast Water Treatment Technologies This regulation is meant to motivate ship-owners to participate in treatment technology development programmes in order to promote research and development in this field. The responsibility resting on the Administration includes the consideration of approval applications for such programmes. This should follow the Guideline for prototype Ballast Water Treatment Technologies Programme Approval This incentive will be operational both prior to and after the entry into force of the ballast water performance requirement as identified in regulation D-2. Thus, the expectations to such prototypes participating in these programmes after entry into force of D-2, must have a likely potential to achieve a higher standard than D-2. Administrations should establish approval procedures for Prototype Ballast Water Treatment programmes and associated means enabling the proper follow-up of such Regulation E-1: Surveys This regulation identifies the survey requirements to which the ship is subjected to in order to be considered for the issuance of the International Ballast Water Management Certificate. Ships of 400 gross tonnage and above shall be subjected to a periodic survey regime. These surveys shall be undertaken by officers of the Administration or by surveyors nominated for the purpose or to organizations recognized by it. This may be a ship classification society. Administrations shall notify IMO on the arrangements under which surveys are organised, e.g. on responsibilities and delegated authority. If surveys reveal non-compliance to the Convention, the Administration or nominated surveyor/ organization shall ensure that corrective measures are applied to bring the ship into compliance. Likewise, if a ship suffer damage hindering it from performing Ballast Water Management in compliance with the Convention, it is required to report to the Administration or to nominated surveyor/ organization. The Administration or its nominee must then investigate the necessity of a new survey. Page 18

25 The Administration shall establish procedures for surveys as defined by the convention and nominee surveyors/ organizations if necessary to manage the fleet under its flag taking into account guidelines adopted by the Organization by resolution A.739(18) and specifications adopted by the Organization by resolution A.789(19) and guidelines under development under the Harmonised System of Survey and Certification (HSSC) in the form of amendments to resolution A.948(23) Regulation E-2: Issuance or Endorsement of a Certificate It is the Administrations responsibility to ensure the issuance of a Certificate following the successful completion of a survey (as identified under regulation E-1). The Certificate may be issued directly by the Administration or by any person or organization authorised by the Administration to do so. Procedures shall be established for the issuance of Certificates Regulation E-3: Issuance or Endorsement of a Certificate by Another Party This regulation deals with the situation where the administration is requested to issue a certificate on behalf of another Party. Certificates issued by another Administration than that of the vessels flag, shall contain information of this. Such Certificates carry the same force and shall receive the same recognition as a Certificate issued by the Administration. The Administration may draft procedures as appropriate in order for it to issue or endorse Certificates on behalf of other Parties Regulation E-4: Form of the Certificate The format of the Certificate is illustrated in Appendix I to the Convention and shall be drafted in the language of the issuing Administration. If this is not English, French or Spanish, the text shall include a translation into one of these languages. The Administration shall develop a standard format based on that appended to the Convention in its own language. If this is not English, French or Spanish, a translation text format in one of these languages must be prepared Regulation E-5: Duration and Validity of a Certificate The Administration must specify the period of which a Certificate should be valid. This must not exceed 5 years. There are provisions in the text of the regulation dealing with situations where circumstances are so that the issuance of a Certificate can not meet the expiry date. There are also wordings related to the right of an Administration to cease the validity of a Certificate. The Administration shall define procedures for Certificate duration and validity taking into account circumstantial situations as indicated by the Convention Convention tools Procedures and Guidelines In table 3.1 a listing of the tools of the convention is presented. Some additional tools are also referred to in the text of the Convention (ref.: ). MEPC 53 identified a programme for development of the guidelines for uniform implementation of the BWM Convention. A proposed time schedule suggests that all these tools will be adopted by MEPC 55 at the latest. Page 19

26 These tools are imperative in the implementation phase of the provisions of the Convention and will require consideration. They are instruments of generic character providing some interpretive leeway and thus potential ground for differential implementation. It is obvious that the implementation of national regulations on ballast water management arriving from the ratification of the Convention, will have to interrelate with a regional implementation in enclosed or semi-enclosed regions. The CONNSO/ OSPAR Parties will benefit from carefully assessing these instruments and where required establishing mutually agreed interpretations and definitions Recommendations A strict (square) interpretation of the terms of the Convention will limit the opportunities available in the Convention. Some examples of this are presented in Table 3-2. Table 3-2 Recommendations and interpretation concerning the opportunities represented by the Convention Regulation Lost opportunity A-4 If the Administration does not facilitate for the use of risk assessments, the provision offered to the shipping industry by the regulation can not be applied. Note also that this may affect the Administration as knowledge on such assessments may be vital in other areas when assessing the Convention, e.g. when considering risk levels in the context of evaluating the need for more stringent measures/ additional measures or in events of emergency (emergency planning). B-2 Unless procedures and responsibilities regarding the inspection of the Ballast Water Record Book are formalised, it will be difficult to carry out Inspections as anticipated in Article 9. Thus, it is necessary to dedicate responsibility and to include this action (ref. B-2, 6) in the survey, inspection and certification regime. B-4 Ballast Water Exchange as a mitigating measure is generally weakened as distance to shore and water depth is reduced. As the CONSSO/ OSPAR Parties sea areas are unsuited for efficient Ballast Water Exchange, it becomes necessary to assess alternatives. For this reason it is necessary to consider the option of establishing designated areas. Again, due to the characteristics of the sea areas and traffic patterns, it is necessary to undertake such assessments in cooperation. Note also the link between this topic and the provisions of Regulation C-1. Unless the Administration in cooperation with other affected states undertake considerations related to the adequacy of Ballast Water Exchange procedures as set out in the Convention, it is not possible for it conclude as to weather or not the Convention (in a perspective until 2016) will provide sufficient protection against harmful aquatic transfers. C-1 In order to be able to address the need for additional measures, it is necessary to undertake assessments as described above under regulation B-4. Thus, the Administrations In question, again taking into account the specifics of the sea-area in question, must expect to undertake assessments of risk and to consider the necessity of implementing additional measures. Page 20

27 Regulation Lost opportunity C-2 To be able to warn and notify, means of monitoring must be implemented. This is an obligation also to other Port states. It is recommended that Administrations integrate such monitoring with the assessment as required under item C-1 and include scenarios described in Regulation C-2 in the assessment. D-4 An Administration can enhance the development pace by allowing the industry to proceed with prototype development in accordance to the provisions of regulation D-4. Any Administration having concerns with respect to the adequacy of Ballast Water Exchange must make use of this opportunity as an incentive to the industry. E-4 This falls into the category of supporting other Administrations in implementing the requirements of the Convention for different reasons. Administrations are recommended establish procedures for this also reflecting to some extent the spirit of Article More Stringent or Additional Measures Somewhat simplified, one may claim that the Convention is resting on the implementation of Ballast water exchange as a measure until the finalisation of the phase-in of the Ballast Water Performance Standard as defined in Regulation D-2. Further, it may be claimed that the Convention has defined the efficiency of this procedure at 95%. The validity of this claim is questioned by both scientists as well as by Administrations and the industry itself for various reasons. More stringent protection can be achieved by; 1. The implementation of treatment technologies e.g. prior to approval; 2. Ballast Water Reception Facilities; 3. Designation of Ballast Water Exchange Areas in some special cases; 4. Re-routing of vessels; 5. Re-location of terminals. The two latter alternatives are likely to be unrealistic in most cases. The feasibility of designating an area for Ballast Water Exchange give raise to many concerns in particular to semi-enclosed or partly semi-enclosed sea-areas. In addition to biogeographical considerations, trading patterns and the development of such will affect the efficiency. Increase in trade as anticipated in most sea-areas, not only within the region, will over time undermine the quality of such a measure. As to item 2, the delivery of ballast water and maybe even the supply of treated ballast water may be defendable from both a practical as well as an economical point of view at certain hotspots. This may be terminals and/ or Ports with a considerable trading volume or by busy traffic lanes. However, most ships may have difficulties using such facilities as they most likely will require access to the ballast water at deck. Item 1 above reflects the intention of the Convention as this approach is thought to be that applied in order for a ship to meet the D-2 Ballast Water Performance Standard. However, such technologies are at present not able to meet the performance requirement referred to. On the other hand, they do compete and in many cases exceed by significance the optimistic assumption of the efficiency of Ballast water exchange. Thus, a more stringent requirement may be that of Page 21

28 allowing technologies exceeding the capability of Ballast Water Exchange in the wake prior to the introduction of compliant technology and the phase-out of Ballast Water exchange. This approach has recently been proposed to the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2005 (NAISA). The act reauthorizes and amends the Non-indigenous aquatic nuisance prevention and control act of 1990 (NANPCA). Note that this is a proposal that will be considered by the US Congress. During the MEPC 53, a Ballast Water Review Group met as required by Regulation D-5. The recommended outcome of the review was that at present time, there is no need to consider amending the regulations including the dates in Regulation B-3 as..that it is reasonable to expect ballast water management technologies and type approved systems to be available to meet the review criteria of Regulation D-5.2 by October The group did however established that there are some uncertainties in relation to the availability of appropriate technologies from 2009 and that it therefore is necessary to undertake a further review of technologies at MEPC 55. The availability of compliant ballast water management systems will impact any considerations in relation to the need for additional measures. Page 22

29 4 THE BW SITUATION IN NW EUROPE The project has collected information from north-western European regarding the existing concerns, threats, research and management systems with respect to non-indigenous species and ballast water introductions. In the following a brief summary of the received information from each country is presented. A more detailed presentation of the information received is given in Appendix A. 4.1 Non-indigenous species in Europe In total more than 400 non-native species have been found in north-western Europe including the Baltic and Celtic Seas with adjacent brackish and freshwater habitats. Most of these species occur in marine (261 species) and freshwater habitats (85 species). 28 species are known as typical brackish. It is interesting to note that 28 species are considered as parasites, disease agents or have the potential to be toxic. The assumed dominating introduction vectors are hull fouling (119 species), ballast water (105 species) and intentional introductions for aquaculture and stocking purposes (110 species). The origin of several invaders is unknown. However, from the species where the origin is known, more than half of the taxa (115 species) originate from the Pacific Ocean (here including the Indian Ocean). 40 species are native in waters of the Atlantic Ocean outside Europe and 51 species originate in European waters outside the geographic scope of this study. For 32 species it is unknown whether they are introduced or native (cryptogenic species). The population status of several invaders is unclear (113 taxa). However, the majority of all nonnative species found are known to occur in self-sustaining populations (224 species). 26 species are considered as unestablished (e.g. occasional findings only) and 7 species became extinct after their introduction and have not been recorded again. How vulnerable is the European coast to invasive species and what is the probability for a new species to establish in the new environment? Surveys in the areas close to the oil terminal Mongstad at the Norwegian west coast found few introduced species and most of these was probably introduced either in other Norwegian ports or had spread by natural means in the coastal currents from southern North Sea. The yearly ballast water discharge at Mongstad and the nearby Sture terminal is approximately 30 million tons. Comparable volumes are probably discharged in the southern North Sea area (Netherlands, Belgium and Germany), but in this area there have been several new introductions and a high number of NIS has established. Key parameters that have been listed as important for the success of invaders and potential effects of introductions have been (from Gollasch & Leppäkoski, 1999): Strong anthropogenic influence; e.g. pollution, power plants, aquaculture, artificial hard substrates. Low biodiversity: Ecological Niche (microhabitat) available; Absence of predators, grazers and parasites; Low number of native species. Page 23

30 Topographic diversity; embayments, estuaries, harbours and other areas, that are frequently more conducive to establishment than habitats of the outer coast. The impact of human activities on marine systems in particular those leading to pollution or physical alteration are well known; the effect of some other human developments is less appreciated. Adverse effects of excess of nutrients, chemical contaminants and physical disturbances (land-reclamation, fisheries) may eventually fundamentally change an ecosystem. Such impacts can lead to a changed or impoverished ecosystem, which often has empty niches where a non-native organism may easily settle and establish itself and preventing the original organism to return. An altered physical environment can become unfit for the original dwellers to live there, leaving it open to re-colonising by other species. The biology of the species is important, fertility, breeding success, life span of organisms, juvenile period, reproduction age and frequency, reproduction mechanism, quantities of offspring, dispersion mechanism of offspring and tolerance for environmental changes. Subtle processes govern settling and establishment of populations and being able to settle also depends on the capacity to recognise and accept a suitable habitat, triggered by some type of sensory information. It is recommended to develop a better appreciation of the role human activities, other than those associated with ballast water operations, can play in the risk of alien invasions in coastal ecosystems. 4.2 Maritime traffic and ballast water patterns in Europe None of the European countries contacted in this project had detailed information about national ballast water patterns based on reports from individual ships. More thorough studies have been carried out in some of the large ports in the Netherlands and Norway. Sweden has collected some information from their ship traffic. A more limited study from the Port of Southampton in UK was also provided. For the other countries estimates have been done based on ship movement and cargo statistics. This general information and estimates are referred in more detail in Appendix A of this report. In this section we have included only a short summary of the more detailed studies The Netherlands The export of ballast water to Dutch ports in 1998 was 68 million tonnes /year, which is 86% of the total of ballast water exported from European ports, and the import of ballast water was 7.5 million tonnes /year, which is 42% of the total of ballast water imported to European ports (data 1998). Page 24

31 The largest ports are Rotterdam and Amsterdam: 1. Port of Rotterdam (data 1998): Total nr of ships entering the port: ~ Of ships discharging ballast water 72% arrived in Rotterdam from Ports around the North Sea (50%; BW 60%), the Baltic Sea (11%, BW 6%) and the European part of the Atlantic Ocean (11%, BW 5%); they accounted for 71% of all discharged ballast water. Of the remaining 28 %, most ships arrived from the Mediterranean, tropical areas and America, although information on the whole route of the ship is unknown. 8% of the ballast water is of unknown origin. The majority of ballast water is exported by tankers which leave in ballast, about 65%. Bulk carriers predominantly leave partly in ballast (10% of the total amount of ballast water). In a 2004 brief inventory port of Rotterdam, no such specific information was available. 2. Port of Amsterdam (data 1998): Total nr of ships entering the port: ~ Percentage of ship type and contribution to ballast water import: General Cargo: 38% (BW import: 34%) Dredgers: 14% (BW import: 9%) Tankers: 9% (BW import: nil) Bulk carriers: 6% (BW import: 24%) Other, including supply vessels: 30% (BW import: 26%). Most ballast water from North Sea (52%), Baltic (10%), European Atlantic (7%); unknown ports (14%), fresh water route (7%). In the 2004 brief inventory port of Amsterdam, information on last port of call and destination was available for most ships Norway In contrast to most European States, the import of ballast water in Norway is larger than its export of ballast water. The largest receiving ports are the oil terminals at Mongstad and Sture, the LNG/LPG terminal at Kårstø and the LKAB ore export terminal in Narvik. The Mongstad oil terminal has approximately 2300 vessel calls yearly with size between 1000 and 400,000 dwt. The ballast water discharge was in 2000 approximately 20 million tonnes of which approximately 25% came from other Norwegian ports, 55% from US east coast and Canada and 20% from other European ports. The LNG/LPG terminal at Kårstø had in 2000 approximately 420 vessel calls which were expected to increase to 600 in 2001 due to increased production. Vessel sizes vary between 2000 and 110,000 dwt. Ballast water discharge volumes are estimated to approximately 6 million tonnes. Page 25

32 The LNG terminal at Melkøya in Northern Norway is planned to start export in 2006 and will receive approximately 4 million tonnes mainly from the US (east coast and Gulf of Mexico) and the Atlantic coast of Spain Sweden A desk study of the Ballast Water handling on ships calling Swedish Ports was conducted in 1997 (SSPA Report ). The study was based on information from ships arriving during the period July-September The purpose of the study was to get an assessment of the major transport routes of ballast water (intra-swedish intra-baltic, European, global) as well as the quantities of ballast water discharged into different Swedish water areas or regions, and also of the export of ballast water from Swedish waters. According to the study, the largest quantities of ballast water are imported to Swedish coastal and inland waters from the Baltic Sea Area and the North Sea. The largest quantities of ballast water loaded in Swedish water are transported to other Swedish water areas or, mainly, to the south-eastern part of the Baltic Sea (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Russia). Discharge of ballast water in Swedish marine and inland waters from ship in international traffic during one year is 23.2 million m 3. Ballast water discharged from non-tankers (cargo ships) in Swedish water makes up about two thirds of the total quantity. (A) Ballast water import (B) Ballast water export Baltic Sea Area 52 % Worldwide 9 % North Sea 30 % Europe other 9 % Baltic Sea Area 37 % North Sea 13 % Unknown 13 % Other Swedish water 36 % Worldwide 1 % Figure 4-1 Imported ballast water (A) to Swedish water and exported ballast water (B) from Swedish water. (Source: SSPA Report ) Port of Southampton Shipping movements data from the Vessel Traffic Services in Southampton was compiled throughout 2003 and March and June selected as the representative months. In these months data for 1109 of the shipping vessels entering and departing was provided. However, detailed ballast water volume information was only provided for 35 voyages entering Southampton waters and 34 voyages departing. The majority of vessels entering had either originated or departed from an English Port. In general most of the vessels entering the Port of Southampton commenced their voyage within Europe from destinations including Belgium, France, Germany and Spain. Vessels commencing their journeys outside of Europe with the highest frequency originated from Singapore and USA. Page 26

33 4.3 Existing Ballast Water Management in Europe Presently there are no national or a formal national policy dealing with ballast water management in the European countries. No reporting requirements on ballast water management have been introduced for ship calling upon Ports in North-East Atlantic. Land based reception facilities are not available at the moment in European Ports. 4.4 Implementation of the Convention Spain and the Netherlands are the only countries in Europe who have signed the Convention subject to ratification. Several other North West European States are aiming to ratify the Convention in Page 27

34 5 REGIONAL PERSPECTIVES AND APPROACHES 5.1 EU Despite several s, telephone calls and direct contacts during e.g. IMO meetings no information has been received from EU. However, the EU-Commission is expected to launch its proposal for a Thematic Strategy for the Protection and Conservation of the Marine Environment in November The key element in the strategy is presumed to be a Marine Framework Directive, with the objective to achieve good ecological status in the European Seas. Implementation of this objective will be organised in ecosystem-based regions. The proposed regions are used in this report as a basis for ballast water management regime in North-West Europe. 5.2 The Baltic Sea There are more than 500 ports in the Baltic Sea with a total annual port throughput close to 700 million tonnes for 1997/98, nearly 600 million tonnes of which was cargo loaded or unloaded for export or import (VIT, 2002). The maritime traffic is expected to double from 1995 to 2017 (COWI, 1998) with largest increase in container traffic. The increase in oil export from Russia is uncertain, but was estimated to grow with 40% in the same period. From 1995 to 2000 oil export increased from 55 million tonnes to 80 million tonnes. In 2000 more than 14,000 oil tankers passed through the straits between Denmark and Sweden discharging roughly estimated 30 millions tonnes of ballast water in Baltic ports. The semi-enclosed Baltic Sea has a mean depth of 55 metres and all areas deeper than 200 m are within less than 50 nautical miles to the nearest land (Figure 5-1). Consequently, the requirements of the Ballast Water Convention (Regulation B-4) for conducting ballast water exchange cannot be met in the Baltic Sea. The adjacent North Sea has similar constraints regarding ballast water exchange. Page 28

35 Figure 5-1 The Baltic Sea area with the contracting Countries of the Helsinki Convention in grey colour; Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia and Sweden. All countries surrounding the Baltic Sea (Figure 5-1) has contracted the Helsinki Convention ( Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area ). The Helsinki Commission, or HELCOM, is the governing body and works to protect the marine environment of the Baltic Sea from all sources of pollution through intergovernmental cooperation between the Contracting Parties Denmark, Estonia, the European Community, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia and Sweden. The Maritime Group (HELCOM MARITIME) working programme for is to identify ways to regionally implement the ballast water Convention and to develop an action plan (including concrete objectives, steps and target dates) to ensure rapid and harmonized implementation of the Convention in the Baltic (HELCOM, 2005). HELCOM 25 in March 2004 recommended the HELCOM Contracting Parties to ratify, as soon as possible, the Convention; and each Baltic state should develop a national lead agency for ballast water management. The Maritime group drafted in a meeting in Copenhagen October 2004 the HELCOM recommendations: "Measures to address the threat of invasive species transported via the ballast water of ships". Considering that ballast water exchange is a limited option for ballast water management in the Baltic Sea the group emphasized the need for regional cooperation when addressing the threat. The Governments of the Contracting Parties to the Helsinki Convention was recommended: to designate/identify a clear responsibility for coordinating the national response to the issue; Page 29

36 to request arriving ships to submit Ballast Water reporting forms using the IMO Guidelines (IMO Resolution A.868(20), Adopted on 27 November 1997); to require ships flying the country s flag or calling at the country s ports to carry and implement a shipboard ballast water management plan (taking into account the IMO Guidelines); to provide adequate reception facilities for sediments in ports and terminals where cleaning and repair of ballast tanks occurs; to carry out by 1 January 2007 risk assessments for major ports. The risk assessments should be carried out using the compatible methodology developed under IMO; to cooperate in order to establish by 2006 the national and regional information systems for the data obtained from the Ballast Water reporting as well as during risk assessments, biological surveys and monitoring (including early warning system); to conduct by 1 January 2007 biological surveys and establish a monitoring system for invasive aquatic species in major ports using harmonized methodology developed and updated by the appropriate HELCOM subsidiary bodies (deadline) and to be based on guidelines prepared under the IMO; to link the port surveys and monitoring to an early-warning system, whereby ships can be alerted to outbreaks of harmful species; and to cooperate with the North Sea countries when implementing the provision of this Convention. In a workshop held in Lithuania February 2005 the following subjects were elaborated and discussed further: The applicability of the risk assessment and port baseline survey methodologies developed under the IMO GloBallast and other relevant projects for the Baltic Sea; The research capacity, technical potential and financial resources needed for the risk assessment and the port baseline surveys; Common principles for the monitoring system of invasive species in the Baltic Sea; A common information system for the Baltic Sea supporting the implementation of the IMO BWMC Convention. The following is a brief summary of the workshop report (HELCOM, 2005). The Workshop stressed that cooperation within the Baltic Sea region is crucial for minimizing the risk of ballast water mediated introductions of invasive alien species into the Baltic Sea region. Development of methodologies for port baseline biological surveys and risk assessment, design of alien species monitoring programmes, early-warning system and exchange of information would be most effective, both financially and scientifically, if done in cooperation, between states both within the Baltic Sea region and outside it. An evaluation of the suitability of designating areas in the Baltic where a ship may conduct ballast water exchange must be made by the port states. Ballast water exchange within the Baltic may prevent the spread of freshwater invasive alien species from one freshwater Baltic port to another. However, the ballast water exchange should not be considered as the only effective measure for managing ballast water within the Baltic. Development of risk assessment methodology and other tools (biological surveys, monitoring, early-warning systems, appropriate Page 30

37 treatment of ballast water) is extremely important for prevention of ballast water mediated introductions of invasive alien species. High risk ships can be identified through risk assessment and special measures can be applied for the management of their ballast water (for example treatment, exchange of ballast water in designated areas outside the Baltic or treatment at land-based ballast water and sediment reception facilities). It was agreed that a common approach to risk assessment within the Baltic Sea region is needed. The internal Baltic ship traffic is not of primary interest for the risk assessments because alien species once settled in some part of the Baltic, are able to spread through natural means, if the environmental conditions (salinity, temperature, etc.) are acceptable, as well as through ballast water and other human-mediated vectors. Possibilities are very limited for effectively preventing secondary introductions through ballast water within the region and thus limit the advantages of using risk assessment procedures. However, there could be certain cases where the internal shipping risks should be analyzed, for example when extraordinary measures are required to prevent the spread of a particularly harmful species (such as a pathogen or toxic algae). Port baseline surveys should be carried out with the aim to provide necessary baseline data on the alien species composition, distribution and abundance in ports and adjacent areas for the risk assessment procedure and to outline the reference conditions in ports and adjacent areas to be used in development of an early-warning system, future monitoring of alien species and for the ecosystem management systems. A common information system for the Baltic Sea States supporting the implementation of the IMO Ballast Water Management Convention should be developed to support risk assessment activities and decision making in Baltic Sea ports. This system should also serve as a data source for other regions that may be potential recipients of Baltic Sea species and provide a basis for exchanging information and feed into an early-warning system. The system should include: an early-warning system on new introductions and spread of invasive alien species and warning for outbreaks of harmful organisms which may affect the suitability of ballast water uptake (Convention Regulation C-2); information for Baltic Sea countries and recipient countries outside the Baltic Sea region about the status of alien species etc.; information on water quality and abiotic conditions in Baltic harbours; a list of targeted or most unwanted species. The Workshop recommended that HELCOM together with the IMO GloBallast programme organize a regional introductory training course for port administrators, environmental and fisheries administrators as well as NGOs. 5.3 The Mediterranean The information on Mediterranean regional and sub regional policies was received from Mr. Matej David (Slovenia) and from a report on invasive status from Mr Ameer Abdulla (IUCN- Mediterranean regional office). Ballast patterns today are referred from DNV, Page 31

38 5.3.1 Mediterranean Action Plan Invasive Species The Mediterranean regime that offers a feasible framework for ballast water policies would be the Mediterranean Action Plan (UNEP-MAP; a UNEP-Regional Seas Action Plan). UNEP includes the Barcelona Convention and the 1995 Protocol concerning specially protected areas and biodiversity (an instrument in a similar niche as the 1992 Paris Convention for the North East Atlantic). In this context an Action Plan (IAP) has been drafted concerning species introductions and invasive species in the Mediterranean. (Report 6th meeting national focal points for SPAs (UNEP-MAP, 2003, Marseille). The IAP recognises that the implementation of the present Action Plan should be done in consultation and collaboration with initiatives undertaken in this field in other regions and/or by international organisations. The Barcelona Mediterranean Action Plan recommends that scientists and government authorities should work together The objectives of the Invasives Action Plan The main objective of the present Action Plan is to promote the development of co-ordinated measures and efforts throughout the Mediterranean region in order to prevent, control and monitor the effects of species introduction, particularly by: - strengthening the capacity of the Mediterranean countries to deal with the issue of nonindigenous species introduction - strengthening the institutional and legislative frameworks at the level of the countries of the region - collecting reliable and pertinent scientific data that can be used for decision-making where necessary - setting up mechanisms for cooperation and the exchange of information between the states of the region The priorities at regional and national level are: Regional: Considering the breadth and complexity of the issue of non-indigenous species introduction, priority at regional level should be given to: - coordinating and supporting the compiling and regular updating of Mediterranean-wide lists of non-indigenous species 5, including information on their ecology, biology and habitats. Lists should distinguish between species that are harmful to human health, invasive or both, and provide information on such a classification - elaborating and adopting at regional level guidelines intended to assist the relevant national authorities - co-ordinating the actions taken by neighbouring states to prevent and control the introduction of non-indigenous species - Establishment of monitoring and early warning networks - Supporting co-operation at international level. National: Considering the lack of the data and knowledge necessary for risk assessment and the implementation of preventive and control actions, priority at national level should be given to: Page 32

39 - encouraging all necessary actions (e.g. research work, data collection, monitoring, etc.) aimed at improving the available knowledge - co-ordinating the actions that are necessary for the regular provision of supplementary information for the national and Mediterranean-wide reference lists of non-indigenous species - supporting information exchanges and concerted actions at regional level - encouraging the implementation of scientifically-backed regionally-harmonised measures of prevention and control. Sub regionally the recommendation has been carried through for the Adriatic, where a threelateral (Slovenia, Croatia and Italy) co-operation resulted in a BW Task Force that developed into a more formal subcommittee where experts develop plans and proposals. The subcommittee is part of a wider three-lateral agreement on Adriatic Protection between the three countries and is more binding than other regional frameworks for ballast water policies. If the Commission adopts a plan that is binding, and up to now all sub commission decisions have been adopted. The three-lateral co-operation is a platform for direct action. At present Slovenia chairs the threelateral co-operation. Another sub regional initiative is the Adriatic Union, where Ministers meet (comparable to the North Sea Ministers meetings?) The Ministers accept an action plan and intent of co-operation. This framework is more indirect. The first AU meeting focussed on Italy-Greece, the second, which will meet (or in the mean time has met) in rno Goro (Monte Negro) will include ballast water and focuses on awareness raising with other committees; the meeting is lead by Slovenia Biological monitoring Monitoring is done in sub regional contexts and not on a regionally managed basis. The threat of NIS is well recognised; the number of such introductions has recently increased. Introductions in the Mediterranean, although sometimes by natural causes(such as through the Strait of Gibraltar)are most often of anthropogenic origin; through the Suez Canal (Lessepsian migrations, from 19th century and onwards), through shipping (ballast water and sediments, fouling), through aquaculture (both marine and brackish) and trade in live marine organisms (such as Aquarium activities, fishing bait) and scientific research. (From: Abdulla, A.A. & Flagella, M.M., Ship ballast water as a main vector of marine introductions in the Mediterranean. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 4(1): ): The Mediterranean is not a uniform system, the Eastern part is subtropical; the Western part warm temperate. This difference, together with entrance channels and shipping patterns is reflected in the pattern of invasions. Ballast water is a major vector for marine introductions in the Mediterranean. The number of introduced species is probably underestimated and the impact is poorly understood, the topic has only recently been studied in an EU project Algal introductions to European shores. 30% of plants, 38% of molluscs, 55% of crustaceans of the introduced species are from temperate to cold-water regions. Estimates of high levels of introductions through fouling are an artefact (due to fouling of sampling systems etc.). Page 33

40 5.3.4 Ballast water patterns today The maritime traffic touching the Mediterranean can be divided into three different groups: Traffic coming from outside the Mediterranean to a Mediterranean port and vice versa. Traffic within the Mediterranean. Traffic in transit trough the Mediterranean. In Figure 5-2 the estimated ballast water discharge in ports are estimated for the Mediterranean Sea. This traffic is coming from outside Mediterranean and represents a risk of being a carrier of invasive species in the ballast water. The most influenced areas according to ballast water discharge are the Middle East and North Africa, mainly because of the oil export and import. But also the northern part of the Mediterranean Sea is influenced by imported ballast water. Figure 5-2 Estimated ballast water discharge in ports from all vessel types (coming from outside Mediterranean) (Figure from DNV 2005 based on data from Fearnleys, 2004) The largest BW receivers in the Mediterranean are oil exporting countries, like Algeria, Egypt, Turkey and Libya. Figure 5-3 mirrors this as the four countries together contribute to some 90% of all external Mediterranean ballast water volumes introduced to the Mediterranean. Page 34

41 tonnes Algeria Egypt Turkey Libya Figure 5-3 Volumes of ballast water discharged in the top four receiving Mediterranean States (from DNV, 2005) Some 90% of all BW arriving the Mediterranean comes from North-West Europe (~50%) and North (East) America (~40%) (Figure 5-4). Figure 5-4 Donor regions for BW volumes discharged in the Mediterranean (Figure from DNV, 2005 based on data from Fearnleys, 2004) Some 80% of all vessels discharging BW do arrive from North-West Europe (~50%) and North (East) America (~30%). By this it can be concluded that the vessels arriving from Americas in average are somewhat larger than the vessels arriving from Europe. Page 35

42 Figure 5-5 Donor regions for frequency of introduction of BW to the Mediterranean (Figure from DNV, 2005 based on data from Fearnleys, 2004) In the Figure 5-6 below the potential discharge of ballast water in ports are estimated for traffic inside the Mediterranean Sea. These ports are represented to a secondary risk for introduction of invasive species if the donor ports are a one of the marked port in the Figure 5-2. Figure 5-6 Potential ballast water discharge in ports from all vessel types from ports within Mediterranean (Figure from DNV, 2005 based on data from Fearnleys, 2004) Page 36

43 5.4 The Black Sea The information was provided by Roman Bashtannyy, Head of Shipping Safety Standards Division, Information and Analytical Centre for Shipping Safety, Odessa, Ukraine and Country Focal Point Assistant for GloBallast-Ukraine and drawn from reports. Mr Aybars Aaltiparmak of the Turkish Ministry of Environment and Forestry guided us to relevant general information on the Black Sea Background The Black Sea is the world's most isolated sea - connected to the Oceans via the Mediterranean Sea through the Bosphorus, Dardanelle and Gibraltar straits and with the Sea of Azov in the northeast through the Kerch Strait. The catchment area is 6 times greater than the surface area of the Black Sea. The Bucharest Convention (Black Sea Conventionand its three Protocols were adopted by the Diplomatic Conference on the Protection of the Black Sea against Pollution held in Bucharest on 21 April 1992, and deposited with the Government of Romania. The Black Sea region has set off development of ballast water management and policies earlier on than other European regions. Two factors underlie this proactive stance. The most important one by far is the impetus for tackling the problems caused through ballast water from the GloBallast Programme (IMO-UNDP-GEF), where Ukraine was one of the six developing countries that participated in the programme. In the course of the past five years, during Globallast-I, Ukraine developed in-country and regional policies for ballast water management, inviting participation of other Black Sea countries. As a spin-off effect, the Black Sea Convention has also taken ballast water on the agenda. A second reason for the interest to cope with ballast water problems is the collapse of the Black Sea fisheries, following introduction of an American comb jelly (Mneopsis Lyedi), feeding on the eggs and larva of pelagic fish species such as anchovy, mackerel, and bonito and a strong competitor. As a consequence the Black Sea ecosystem collapsed and Black Sea fisheries were virtually wiped out Biological monitoring Since the start of the Globallast Programme Ukraine has identified and published 80 new invasive species in the Black Sea. (poster Globallast Ukraine, presented at 5th Global Task Force Meeting (February 2004). The most striking harmful NIS is the American comb jelly (Mneopsis Lyedi), that has, through its feeding pattern on fish eggs has set off a collapse of Black Sea fisheries, a fisheries that prior to this event was already heavily stressed by over-fishing and pollution and eutrophication. Biological and other Port Baseline survey data are available as well. However, no GloBallast report is being prepared at the moment. If the information would be of interest, a draft report can be forwarded to my (Cato s) address if requested. As yet I wouldn t know how confidential this would be. Monitoring is now performed in the framework of regionalising the Ukrainian Globallast expertise as Regional replication. Page 37

44 5.4.3 Ballast water patterns today Ukrainian national traffic information is present in the country profile of Ukraine and in the report Port Baseline Survey Port of Odessa (to be found at the Globallast Web site, Existing Ballast Water Management Starting from Ukraine, regional co-operation on ballast water management through regional task force has been initiated for the Black Sea region. Ukraine and Georgia both have legislation on BW. The Black Sea region has already adopted a number of steps towards BW management and control at a regional level: they developed a Regional Action Plan (RAP) and a Short-Term RAP. To implement the RAP three seminars on Port Baseline Survey and Risk Assessment methodology were organised in Turkey (Istanbul), Georgia (Tbilisi and Batumi) and Russia (Novorossiysk and Rostov-on-Don). The CME, based on experience gained at the Odessa Demonstration Site, developed a draft National Strategy to implement the BW Convention in Ukraine. Unfortunately at present this is only in Ukrainian. It might be possible to translate the document into English through a translating agency with further editing from the ballast water country focal point. This will depend on funding. The first Black Sea Conference on Ballast Water Control and Management (10-12 October 2001, Odessa, Ukraine) adopted a Conference Resolution (Annex 3) and a regional Action Plan to minimise the Transfer of Harmful Aquatic Organisms and Pathogens in Ships Ballast Water (Source Globallast Monograph Series No. 3). At the 2nd Black Sea Conference on Ballast Water Control and Management (28-30 January 2004, Constanta, Romania) a short term plan aimed at implementation of the Regional Action Plan to minimise the transfer of harmful marine and pathogens organisms in ships ballast water for the Black Sea region, the policies were supported by a Conference Resolution. Risk Assessment in the Black Sea region has been carried out for the Port of Odessa and is reported in the relevant GloBallast report Implementation of BW Convention In Ukraine ballast water management and policies have developed alongside contributing to the decision process at IMO, hence many initiatives that relate to the Ballast Water Convention have either been or are being developed. Page 38

45 6 BW MANAGEMENT IN OTHER STATES 6.1 US Ballast Water Legislation The following text is based on information from Internet (e.g. ) and a presentation held by Roger Mann, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, at ICES WGBOSV meeting, Arendal, Norway, March 14-18, The National Aquatic Invasive Species Act The National Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act (NANPCA) was passed in 1990 in response to the invasion of the zebra mussel and other species that damaged the Great Lakes. The strictest and most detailed provisions required that ships headed for the Great Lakes exchange their ballast water at sea. The law was reauthorized, renamed the National Invasive Species Act, or NISA, and expanded slightly in Then all ships arriving from outside the 200-mile U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone were encouraged to exchange their ballast water and to report whether they had. NISA also authorized important research and linked its results to decisions about whether further ballast water regulation was needed. However, the rate of compliance was found to be inadequate, and vessel operators often failed to submit mandatory ballast water reports to the Coast Guard during this timeframe. The voluntary program has therefore become mandatory Penalties for Non-submittal of Ballast Water Reports On June 14, 2004, the Coast Guard published regulations establishing penalties for ships headed to the U.S. that fail to submit a ballast water management reporting form, as well as vessels bound for the Great Lakes or portions of the Hudson River that violate mandatory ballast water management requirements. These regulations also increase the number of vessels subject to these provisions by expanding the reporting and the recordkeeping requirements on ships, increasing the Coast Guard s ability to determine the patterns of ballast water movement as required by NISA. The Coast Guard may now impose a civil penalty of up to $27,500 per day for nonsubmittal. Vessels are strongly encouraged to electronically submit ballast water management reporting forms via and/or web-based methods available New Ballast Water Management Equivalent Reporting Program The Coast Guard and the National Ballast Information Clearinghouse (NBIC) have launched the new Equivalent Reporting Program for vessels operating exclusively in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). This program offers an alternative for an Owner, Operator, Master, Agent, Person-in-Charge or Charterer of a vessel to submit required Ballast Water Management (BWM) Reports in a single batch report on a monthly basis, instead of on a port-to-port, prearrival schedule as required under 33 CFR (b). To be accepted into this program, a BWM Equivalent Reporting Program Applications must be filled out and ed as an attachment to the Coast Guard s Environmental Standards Division. Each applicant vessel must operate exclusively within the EEZ or Canadian equivalent and must not have ever been listed on a Coast Guard Lookout List for failing to submit a BWM report or for submitting incomplete or inaccurate reports; have suitable capability for ing the form as an attachment; and either make 10 or more BWM reports per calendar month or be part of a fleet of applicant vessels, owned by the same company, who make 50 or more BWM reports per calendar month. Page 39

46 6.1.4 Mandatory Ballast Water Management Program for U.S. Waters On July 28, 2004, the U.S. Coast Guard published regulations establishing a national mandatory ballast water management program for all vessels equipped with ballast water tanks that enter or operate within U.S. waters. These regulations also require vessels to maintain a ballast water management plan that is specific for that vessel and assigns responsibility to the master or appropriate official to understand and execute the ballast water management strategy for that vessel Compliance Guidance On October 29, 2004, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) issued Change-1 to the Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) 07-04, titled Ballast Water Management for the Control of Aquatic Nuisance Species in the Waters of the United States. The NVIC provides guidance for USCG personnel, vessel owners and operators, masters, shipping agents, and persons-in-charge concerning compliance with and enforcement of the USCG s Ballast Water Management (BWM) Program. 6.2 Canada The information below is given from Transport Canada, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Environmental Issues Officer Ballast water patterns today Canada monitors vessels traffic in a number of ways depending upon the region. Vessels arriving on the East Coast of Canada are required to report to ECAREG (Canadian Coast Guard Vessel Traffic Regulators) re ballast water management. They in turn provide Transport Canada with Ballast Water Reporting Forms; forms can be faxed, or provided electronically. Transport Canada Atlantic Region maintains the database and forward appropriate information to Regions inland as required ( i.e. Quebec Region for the Gulf of St Lawrence ports or the St Lawrence River) Ballast Water Records are available from Vessels bound for the Great Lakes report to the St Lawrence Seaway which maintains records. Ballast Water records are available from 1989 Vessels Bound to West Coast Ports in the lower mainland ie Vancouver, Nanaimo, ports on the Frazer river are required by Vancouvers Mandatory Ballast Water Regime to report to the Vancouver Harbour Authority. They have a database going back to Vessels bound for Eastern Canadian Arctic Ports Fax ballast water records to Prairie and Northern Region Transport Canada. They have records from Existing Ballast Water Management The current Canadian regulations and guidelines are pre Convention (from 1989 and 2001) although the proposed regulations have included Convention language as much as possible. Page 40

47 Ballast water strategy has been fairly simplistic following the IMO Convention / Guidelines for East and West Coast and Arctic. The Great Lakes regulations are potentially more stringent based on fresh water and history of introductions. Great Lakes has additional problem in that the majority of vessel do not arrive in ballast rather with No Ballast on Board ( NOBOB) Scientific evidence suggest that the residual water and sediments in these vessels is of considerable risk to the Great Lakes and considerable bi-national research is currently taking place between scientists in Canada and the US to propose a regulatory regime. Salinity shock / or exposure to saline waters has been proposed as a potential interim solution although significant research is still required. Experience has suggested that probably the greatest success has been achieved by getting buy in from the shipping industry. Considerable consultation has taken place since 1989 on the issue and the USCG, US Scientists and the Shipping Industry either individual ship owners or their association representatives have been consistently involved Ballast water reporting Ballast water reporting is required via Ballast Water Reporting Form in IMO / Canadian / US form Ballast water exchange alternate exchange zones Ballast Water exchange strategy is as per the current Canadian National Guidelines agreed upon in 2001, but Guidelines have been in place since 1989 for the St Lawrence and Great Lakes. Regulations based on the Guidelines and are harmonized with the current US regulations likely to be promulgated in For East Coast Canada ask vessels to exchange ballast 200 nm / 200 meters. If unable to do so alternate exchange zones identified (based on scientific advice from DFO and consultations with the USCG and US Scientists) Exchange zone is demarcated south of a marine protected area (the Gully). For ships heading for the Great Lakes or St Lawrence River an alternate exchange Zone is identified in the Laurentian Channel. This was based on risk assessment carried out in a probabilistic way. In practice, very few ocean going ships have used the alternate zone (1-2 vessels a year) although vessels engaged in Coastal voyages did use it regularly. For the west coast an alternate exchange zone was set up in the Straits of Juan de Fuca. Recent scientific advice suggests that this should be extended farther out greater than 50 nm although setting up exclusion zones around Sea Mounts. To date no vessel has used either zone. For the Arctic Canada an alternate exchange zones was set on the east coast of Hudson strait. Similar to the other zones no knowledge of any vessels actually ever using it Recommended use of risk assessment A number of studies have utilized the above records to for use in scientific papers or risk analysis studies. Current intent is to provide a risk analysis for each of the Regions in Canada West Coast, East Coast, Great Lakes, St Lawrence River, Gulf of St Lawrence and the Arctic Canada Page 41

48 based on the best current Risk analysis protocols. The risk assessment methods Australian DSS, Cawthorne Institute, Globallast and EMBLA are likely to be examined in this context. The current study for the Great Lakes / Gulf of St Lawrence for 2004/05 utilizes the Globallast method. The West Coast and/or East Coast will be carried out in 2005/ Australia The information below is given from the Australian Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Existing Ballast Water Management Management requirements Australia has developed and implemented ballast water management requirements for all international ships arriving in Australia from overseas. The current requirements include mandatory management of ballast water by either undertaking a full exchange at sea or obtaining a low risk assessment from the Australian ballast water decision support system. A low risk assessment does not require any further management and the ballast water may be discharged in port. Information regarding management undertaken must be recorded in the AQIS ballast water log and provided to an inspection officer upon request. Vessel arrival information and management undertaken must also be reported to AQIS hrs prior to arrival at the ships first port of call. AQIS currently inspects all ships at the first port of call, as they are on board for inspection of other quarantine health risks. Further information on Australian requirements can be found at In addition the Victorian government have implemented requirements for ships carrying ballast water from other Australian ports (coastal ballast water). These requirements closely follow those of AQIS and are based on exchange at sea and include a risk based approach. Australia is currently developing national ballast water management requirements that will include management of all coastal ballast water between all Australian ports. These requirements are likely to be developed by July 2006, after which the implementation phase will begin. The policy objective is that these requirements will be consistent with those listed above and the BWM Convention. Details of the national policy objectives for the prevention and management of marine pests is available at BA1A-11A1-A B0A01241&contType=outputs Reporting requirements The current Australian requirements include completion of a Quarantine Pre Arrival Report 12-48hrs prior to arrival. This report includes information on whether or not ballast water has been exchanged and what method was used, and whether or not the ballast water decision support system was used and the risk assessment result received. The detailed information on ballast water operations is currently recorded in an AQIS ballast water log which is kept on board the ship and made available to a quarantine officer during the inspection. Details on these record-keeping requirements can be found at and by clicking on the maritime awareness kit link. Page 42

49 Australia is also in the process of developing a comprehensive monitoring strategy for marine pests, however this is still currently in the early phases Recommended use of risk assessment Australia is currently using a target-species risk assessment approach through the Ballast Water Decision Support System. The risk assessments are determined on a port to port basis. We are currently reviewing the risk assessment approach in developing the requirements for moving coastal ballast water between Australian ports. Australia believes though that a species based risk assessment is the most effective mechanism for geographically close locations Ballast Water exchange strategy (special areas for exchange) Australia s current requirements specify exchange must take place prior to entry into Australia s territorial sea (12 nautical miles) and where possible at 200m depth. Exchange must be carried out to the 95% volumetric exchange as specified in the Convention. Australia is still considering issues for designation of areas for undertaking ballast water exchange under the Convention Implementation of BW Convention Australia implemented mandatory ballast water requirements for international ships arriving in Australia in July 2001 and these requirements are administered by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS). The requirements in Australia are largely consistent with the Convention, and are currently based on ballast water exchange at sea. However it is likely that some aspects of the requirements may need to be modified in order to fully comply with the Convention (for example, incorporation of the D-2 standard, the Ballast water record book and ballast water management plan requirements). This may involve amendments to the legislation currently used for ballast water requirements, ie the Quarantine Act 1908 and its subordinate legislation as well as any other Commonwealth or State/Territory legislation. It is likely this will take a number of years to examine and fully implement. It is anticipated that Australia will sign the Convention prior to May and will then look towards the implementation of the Convention. More information on this may become available as we review and evaluate requirements for ships moving between Australian ports and discharging coastal ballast water. Page 43

50 7 SELECTION OF A BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT REGION 7.1 General One of the major issues discussed in the formulation of a ballast water management strategy for the North West European waters have been to define the appropriate geographic and biological region to implement this strategy. The prime choice in a political context, such as regional ballast water policies, is often a geopolitical one and less often based on natural system characteristics. The pattern of region selection for a regional ballast water strategy by the European countries regarding the most appropriate ballast water management area in Europe (Questionnaire- CONSSO 2004) appears to reflect a regional geopolitical approach (Figure 7-1) rather than based on natural boundaries. Figure 7-1 Alternate regions to apply a ballast water management scheme within North West European waters (based on OSPAR/CONSSO Questionnaire, 2004) The responses to the CONSSO Questionnaire favoured the waters of all EU Member States through the Regional Seas Conventions (i.e. Alternative B: OSPAR/HELCOM/Barcelona Convention), with NW Europe (Alternative C: waters from Portugal to Iceland including the North Sea, Irish Sea and the Baltic Sea) as a predominant second choice and the waters of all the EU member states as a third (Alternative A). 7.2 Goal and criteria for selection of region As there is a predominant preference for a larger European ballast water management region, a choice might be to define a large region which has linkages on a political level, such as been Page 44

51 bound by a regional convention. This region then might be differentiated to subsets that make sense in view of ballast water specific policies. The prime goal at present is defining a region within which the natural system is sufficiently ecologically uniform to accommodate maritime transport that would not need to perform ballast water management. The system should fulfil the following criteria (based on Hayes et al., in prep): - Ballast water regions should be based on biogeographic principles. This means that spreading of native species by ballast water as a vector is accepted within the region. - The region must be sufficiently large so as to allow ballast water management over the course of the journey. Currently the only feasible management option is ballast water exchange. A limiting condition is the IMO requirement to perform ballast water exchange in water depths of at least 200 m and a distance from the coast of 200 nm or if not possible 50 nm. Areas to meet these requirements are limited in north-western European jurisdictions (Figure 7-2). - The region must be sufficiently large such that ballast water management is effective in slowing or preventing the spread by ballast water of non-native invasive species within the region. Figure 7-2 Areas with depth larger than 200m (green colour) and with distance larger than 200 nm and 50 nm from the coast (blue and red line). It should be stressed that biogeographic regions are not static and that region boundaries merge into each other and it arise areas which overlap, where species from adjacent regions mingles. Transition zones should therefore be defined between the regions in a final ballast water management system. Page 45

52 7.3 Existing biogeographic and management regions Existing regionally demarcated marine areas including those defined on natural system grounds (e.g. Large Marine Ecosystems LME; IUCN marine protected areas; OSPAR regions), were chosen on natural goals associated with conservation in its broad sense, while for ballast water management particular features of a natural system are more relevant than others. The designation of bioprovinces or bioregions is most often based on the study of biogeography. Bioprovinces are natural assemblages of plants and animals with noticeable but dynamic boundaries existing simultaneously along both spatial and temporal borders. They are defined by physiographic and climatic limits that define the natural communities of organisms in space and time through interactions with the physiological and behavioural capabilities of these organisms. Despite the fluctuation of biotic communities in both time and space, and the anthropogenic bias inherent in defining their composition, such natural assemblages do exist and are of scientific interest and have useful management applications. A wide variety of zoogeographical divisions and subdivisions are proposed in the literature and many attempts have been done to establish regional boundaries objectively and the level of detail varies considerable. Ballast water is taken from surface and upper subsurface waters and will include organisms that live in these habitats. What constitutes an ecosystem of deeper layers is less relevant to the adverse biodiversity effects of ballast water than for overall conservation objectives. Some of the biogeographic systems based on the distribution of organisms in the coastal shallow waters are therefore presented here The Briggs and Ekman bioprovinces On an oceanic or global scale, it is the temperature that primarily controls distribution of species. The widespread patterns demonstrated by many species tell us that the surface of the ocean is subdivided into four temperature zones, each with its own distinctive complex of species. The work of Ekman (1953) and Briggs (1974 and 1995) constitutes the basis for the classification of the four various natural marine life zones and to the delineation and characterisation of the many zoogeographic regions and provinces that are found within them (Figure 7-3). The regions and the provinces within these four temperature zones are confined to the continental shelves of the world. Large proportion of the known marine fauna species live on the continental shelf or in shallow areas around islands, which is down to 200 m. The taxon range is vital for the regional boundaries within a zone. The limits for the distribution of many species and animal groups and the degree of endemism in an area have been set as basis for the division of the four marine life zones into regions and a further subdivision into provinces. The bioprovinces in the European region is presented in Figure 7-4. Page 46

53 The Arctic Region The Arctic Region The Eastern Pacific Boreal Region The California Region The W estern Atlantic Boreal Region The Carolina region The Eastern Atlantic Boreal Region The Mediterranean-Atlantic Region The Western Pacific Boreal Region The Japan Region The Indo - W est Pacific Region The Eastern Pacific R egion The Western Atlantic R egion The Eastern Atlantic R egion The Indo-West Pacific Region The Western South America Region T h e E a s t e r n S o u t h Am erica Region The Southern A frica Region The Northern New Zealand Region The Southern A ustralia Region # The Southern South America Region The Tasmanian Region # The Sub-Antarctic Region The A ntarctic R egion The Sub-Antarctic Region The Southern N ew Zealand Region Figure 7-3 The marine life zones based on temperature with its zoogeographical regions and provinces. Based on Ekman (1953) and Briggs (1974 and 1995). Figure 7-4 The North West European bioprovinces based on Ekman (1953) and Briggs (1974 and 1995). However, the boundaries are not static and the region boundaries merge into each other and it arise areas which overlap, where species from adjacent regions mingles. This is often observed e.g. in the English Channel and in the Kattegat Baltic Sea area. Besides, the boundaries vary with the depth, also on the continental shelf. For instance cold water species submerges, that is, they go down into colder water at larger depth when they reach warmer areas. On the other hand warm water species are able, in the north, to go deep under the cold surface layer s in the Polar basin. Page 47

54 7.3.2 Watling Briggs system A biogeographic region system based on Briggs (1995) and Springer (1982) developed by Watling ( have similar borders in the European area as the Briggs-Ekman system. Figure 7-5: Coastal Marine Region Map produced by Watling and Gerken ( The IUCN system In with the support of IUCN, UNEP and WWF - the IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre becomes the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) an independent non-profit organization, which provides a worldwide information service based on its collection and analysis of global conservation data. The Action Plan specifically requires that states should identify marine ecosystems exhibiting high levels of biodiversity and productivity and other critical habitat areas and provide necessary limitations on use in these areas, through inter alia designation of marine protected areas (MPA). Through its Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas (CNPPA), IUCN has been carrying out a program to promote the establishment and management of marine protected areas (MPAs) around the world. The CNPPA has divided the marine areas of the world into 18 marine regions, largely on the basis of biogeographical criteria, but also political boundaries (Figure 7-6). Page 48

55 Figure 7-6 The IUCN biogeographic system with 18 regions (coloured) divided further in bioregions. Each of the 18 regional working groups has developed or adopted a classification that it considers the most appropriate for the region based on guidelines in Kelleher and Kenchington (1992). In many cases, these are based on Hayden, Ray and Dolan (1984) who follow Briggs (1974) closely, but have done a few modifications of his system. There are four IUCN of 18 regions in the European area (Figure 7-7) (no. 2 Arctic, 3 Mediterranean, 5 Atlantic and 6 Baltic). These are further divided into what IUCN call bioregions (e.g. the Baltic Sea has 12 bioregions; I XII). Figure 7-7 IUCN regions around North West Europe. Colours indicate regions and Roman numeral the subdivision in bioregions Page 49

56 The regions within the IUCN system are in many cases too large for the purpose of ballast water management while the smaller bioregions in the North Sea are too small. In addition, the borders between the regions are not optimal in the North Sea with regard to more detailed studies on coastal biodiversity Large Marine Ecosystems (LME) Reviews by experts have associated coastal areas of the world's oceans into large marine ecosystems (LME). As their name states, LMEs are relatively large regions that have been delineated according to continuities in their physical and biological characteristics, including inter alia: bathymetry, hydrography, productivity and trophically dependent populations. The LME as an organizational unit facilitates management and governance strategies that recognize the ecosystem's numerous biological and physical elements and the complex dynamics that exist amongst and between them. LMEs can be used as a structure for ecological models and they roughly nest into larger subdivisons of the world's oceans called biogeochemical provinces. Different levels are maintained by dominant currents, gyres and other regional oceanographic features. Satellite images, analysed for water colour, helped decide where boundaries should lie. Though the placement of boundaries between provinces would obviously shift between years and even between seasons, those shown here are intended to show their average position. Figure 7-8 Large Marine Ecosystems (mapfiles from Page 50

57 7.3.5 The OSPAR regions The 1992 OSPAR Convention is the current instrument guiding international cooperation on the protection of the marine environment of the North-East Atlantic. It combined and up-dated the 1972 Oslo Convention on dumping waste at sea and the 1974 Paris Convention on land-based sources of marine pollution. The work under the convention is managed by the OSPAR Commission, made up of representatives of the Governments of 15 Contracting Parties and the European Commission, representing the European Community. Since 1992 OSPAR has recognised that there may be the need to divide the area into sub-regions (Figure 7-9): 1. Arctic waters 2. The Greater North Sea 3. The Celtic Seas 4. The Bay of Biscay and Iberian Coast 5. The wider Atlantic Figure 7-9 The OSPAR area and subdivisions into five regions (map from Page 51

58 Three factors were particularly significant in establishing the boundaries: (a) the Greater North Sea region (Region II) reflected the area defined for the purposes of the International Conferences on the Protection of the North Sea, so that the regional report would be directly comparable with the North Sea Quality Status Report produced in 1993; (b) the other boundaries were intended to delimit regions that had significantly different ecological circumstances; (c) in drawing them, however, account was also taken of the extent to which coastal States facing the Wider Atlantic (Region V) had information on that region, and Region IV (Bay of Biscay/Golfe de Gascogne and Iberian Waters) therefore included some of the deeper waters similar to the rest of Region V There are several similarities between the OSPAR regions and existing biogeographic systems such as LME and Briggs-Ekman. The work applies the ecosystem approach to the management of human activities. OSPAR (2003) defines this as the comprehensive integrated management of human activities based on the best available scientific knowledge about the ecosystem and its dynamics, in order to identify and take action on influences which are critical to the health of marine ecosystems, thereby achieving sustainable use of ecosystem goods and services and maintenance of ecosystem integrity. By 2010 their goal is to develop the existing system into a full set of management measures that are consistent with an ecosystem approach Regionalisation in European Marine Strategy (EMS) The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) was asked by the European Commission to provide information and advice about appropriate eco-regions for the implementation of an ecosystem approach in European waters. The background for the request was the development of a European marine strategy and a need to identify individual regional areas for which ecological objectives are to be defined. In their review of existing biogeographical and management regions, the ICES group concluded that no existing regions could be adopted as eco-regions and therefore proposed eco-regions based on biogeographic and oceanographic features, taking into account of existing political, social, economic and management divisions (ICES, 2004). ICES proposal is presented in Figure In the final European marine strategy (EMS) proposal (COM, 2005) the definition of regions was slightly changed for the Mediterranean, but not for the North West Europe. European waters are divided in four regions: (a) The Baltic Sea (b) The North-East Atlantic Ocean (c) The Mediterranean Sea (d) The Black Sea In the EMS the North-East Atlantic Region was subdivided into the following sub-regions: i. the Greater North Sea, including the Kattegat, the English Channel, the marine waters covered by the sovereignty or jurisdiction of Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom; ii. the Celtic Seas, the marine waters covered by the sovereignty or jurisdiction of Ireland and the United Kingdom; Page 52

59 iii. the Bay of Biscay and the Iberian Coast, the marine waters covered by the sovereignty or jurisdiction of France, Portugal and Spain; iv. the Atlantic Ocean, the marine waters covered by the sovereignty or jurisdiction of Portugal surrounding the Azores and Madeira, and of Spain, surrounding the Canary Islands; Figure 7-10 Proposed eco-regions for the implementation of the ecosystem approach in European waters. The eco-regions are Greenland and Iceland Seas (A), Barents Sea (B), Faroes (C), Norwegian Sea (D), Celtic Seas (E), North Sea (F), South European Atlantic Shelf (G), Western Mediterranean Sea (H), Adriatic-Ionian Seas (I), Aegean-Levantine Seas (J) and Oceanic northeast Atlantic (K). The question mark denotes the western Channel (ICES Area VIIe), which could be placed in either the Celtic Sea or North Sea ecoregion (picture from ICES, 2004) 7.4 Proposed ballast water management regions It has been done many attempts to establish regional boundaries objectively and the level of detail varies considerable. Different scientists have dissimilar basis, and the knowledge of the fauna in the different parts of the world is highly variable. According to Brattstrøm (1977) which Page 53

60 built upon Ekman (1953) and Briggs (1974) it has been demonstrated that different scientists have reached comparable results independent of which organism groups they have studied, indicating that the regional boundaries of Ekman and Briggs are still relative real. Taking into the account existing management regions and bioprovinces, available risk reducing measures before approved treatment within the next ten years and the time schedule in the Convention, we will recommend that the large regions in the European Marine Strategy (OSPAR area/north-east Atlantic Ocean, see Figure 7-9 and Figure 7-10) is used as ballast water management region until achieved D-2 compliant implementation. When ships have installed approved treatment systems onboard, from 2009 resp. 2016, the smaller sub-regions ( bioprovinces ) in OSPAR or EMS may be feasible. However, this should be developed further to include transition zones between the sub-regions and also be discussed more in detail by biogeographic experts. The OSPAR area is the predominant second choice from the CONSSO Questionnaire (2004) and do not include other European waters such as the semienclosed seas of the Mediterranean (Barcelona Convention) and the Baltic Sea (HELCOM area). This is in line with the region system in the European Marine Strategy. Close co-operation with these other regions is needed when developing a BW management strategy for the North West Europe. Page 54

61 8 BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT APPROACHES FOR NORTH WESTERN EUROPE 8.1 Risk exposure and traffic categories A strategic ballast water management platform for the region must rest on solid and accurate information describing exposure scenarios preferably with a validity covering the lifespan of the strategy. We may assume that the lifespan of the OSPAR/ CONNSO strategy will equal the period from now to achieved D-2 compliant implementation. At present this period is most likely going to last until Note that the level of risks associated to the exposure will change as a consequence of D-2 implementation most likely throughout the period but most certainly from The development of such a platform must encounter for the risk exposure from different categories of traffic: Regional traffic is seaborne transportation between the nations within the North-East Atlantic region; which generally includes national traffic within national borders (this is not the case for e.g. France and Spain which have coastlines in two different regions: OSPAR and the Mediterranean); Interregional traffic is ships coming with ballast water from bordering regions such as the Baltic Sea (HELCOM area) and the Mediterranean Sea (Barcelona Convention area). Traffic from non-bordering regions, e.g. from America, may be referred to as intercontinental traffic. The platform should also take into account distribution of non-indigenous species, seasonal variations in traffic and species, water quality parameters such as temperature and salinity, duration of voyage and available ballast water management options (available risk reducing measure) National voyages Traffic between ports within national borders may be of such a nature that they represent a risk of exposure to spreading of non-indigenous species and/or harmful organisms. Examples may be between areas such as estuaries where the salinity is similar to that of fresh water. Other such cases may be where the different ports lie in different bio-geographical regions, e.g. France and Spain which both have a Atlantic/North Sea as well as a Mediterranean coastline and Germany and Denmark which have coastline in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea. These latter cases will involve a regional voyage as well as being a national voyage. National voyages within the region involving the uptake and discharge of ballast water should in general be considered to carry a low level of risk and thus, should be exempted from ballast water management requirements unless there are particular circumstances present. Such may be; a) Water salinity, e.g. discharge of unmanaged ballast water between freshwater ports should be avoided if the two ports are separated by a marine area; b) Algae blooms and seasonal harmful phenomena; e.g. discharge of unmanaged ballast water arriving from an area experiencing such phenomena should be avoided. Page 55

62 c) Infected areas, e.g. certain areas may have identified targeted invasive species causing harm. The discharge of unmanaged water from such areas should be avoided. The challenges in managing ballast water between national ports are first and foremost likely to be associated to the short space in time available for any such management. A general preventive measure may be that of encouraging vessels to undertake ballast water exchange between the longer haul national voyages where this may be an option Regional voyages Regional voyages are voyages with ballast water form ports within the region which will be discharged in a port in the same region. These are most often short sea voyages and constitute both; 1. Vessels exclusively operating between ports within the region; 2. Vessels operating between ports in the region and between other adjacent regions 3. Vessels operating between ports in the region and between other regions including non-adjacent regions The opportunity for ballast water management by ballast water exchange for vessels operating exclusively between ports in the region is considered to be limited primarily due to the short voyage duration and the routing versus water depth and distance to shore. Generally, these voyages may be claimed to carry a similar risk to that of national voyages. However, the same scenarios arises as described in chapter (a, b, c), hence similar precautions do apply. Vessels operating between ports within the region, but carrying ballast water originating from other regions have the potential of being of high risk even when operating between regional ports. Such risks may be related to mixture of non-regional ballast or regional ballast mixing with non-regional sedimentation (no-ballast-onboard-issues). Vessels operating exclusively within the region are typically smaller size than the next category discussed here. They are often carrying goods such as containers, general cargo, roll on/ roll off items, passengers, etc. and have often a limited ballast requirement. Some however carry dense cargoes and are reliant on ballasting to a higher extent Interregional voyages and intercontinental voyages Vessels arriving direct from other regions or continents are typically of larger size and in general reliant on the use of a larger amount of ballast. It is relatively likely that the intercontinental high capacity-carriers dependent upon large ballast quantities will have the opportunity to undertake compliant ballast water exchange prior to entering the region. This is also the case for such vessels arriving to the region and operating between ports within it before departing. These should be capable to a high degree to undertake compliant ballast water exchange prior to arrival at the first port in the region. However, interregional voyages arriving from the Baltic (HELCOM area) or the Mediterranean Sea regions will not have the same opportunity for ballast water exchange. Thus, there is valid argumentation for assessing the feasibility of establishing dedicated areas for ballast water exchange and that some of these areas may require minor deviations from planned route for the ships to enter these areas. Page 56

63 Both these two categories of vessels represent again yet another risk regime all dependent upon the characteristics of the origin of the ballast water onboard and to a lesser degree, the ballast history represented by the characteristics of the onboard sedimentation. Note that also for these vessels, the same scenarios arise as described in chapter (a, b, c), hence similar precautions do apply. 8.2 Alternative approaches Based on Haskoning (2004), two possible approaches are identified with respect to ballast water management: The blanket approach: a. Requires all ballast water to undergo a means of management (exchange or treatment) prior to discharge in a port or coastal waters and does not allow for any exemptions at all. This approach will be implemented for the Great Lakes in North America from b. Requires all ballast water to undergo a means of management prior to discharge, but accept that some ships have not been successful in their attempt to conduct BWE due to safety reasons or other accepted reasons 1 which must be defined by a Port State or the region and thoroughly documented by the ship. Ballast water exchange is accepted until approved treatment systems are available. The selective approach allows for exemptions based on the results of risk assessments as referred to in Regulation A-4 and elaborated further in accompanying guideline (G 7). This approach identifies three scenarios for granting exemptions, that is allowing the discharge of unmanaged ballast water, when the results of a risk assessment conclude a low risk; o Regional specific exemptions; e.g. all vessels carrying ballast water only from ports within a bioprovince are not required to manage their ballast water. o Trade specific; e.g. ferries or other vessels in regular routes between the same regional ports. o Voyage specific exemptions. The disadvantage of the selective approach is that the management burden is placed upon the Port State. It requires as a minimum a standardised and approved method for risk assessment, a relative high level of monitoring of NIS in the donor ports and an organised warning system between States when harmful algal blooms or other extraordinary/emergency situations occur. Further, a selective approach, based upon a target group of invasive species may leave the port (and the State) vulnerable to risk of invasion from non-target organisms. If risk assessment is decided to be applied in the North West European ballast water management strategy it is important that practical risk mitigation strategies are available for the nonacceptable routes/voyages. If they are not, the risk assessment becomes largely an academic exercise which neither protects the environment nor helps allocate limited funds in a manner 1 Acceptance is not based on risk assessment, but due to absence of available exchange areas or other situations described in the Convention Page 57

64 which maximizes societal benefit. This principle may be suspended, however, if the risk assessment is designed to inform resource allocation whilst developing risk mitigation strategies. The conclusions drawn by Haskoning (2004) that:..although the blanket approach will give the best protection against unwanted introductions, it does not seem feasible since this imposes all the ship owners with the costs involved with ballast water management, irrespective of the risk of discharge of unmanaged ballast water.. have some validity. However, following the phase-in of the D-2 requirements, this will be exactly the case. A stronger argument against the blanket approach is that it is simply not achievable for a number of voyage scenarios, in particular in the pre-d-2 phase. The selective approach may be developed further in order to discriminate based on risk assumptions to a higher degree rather than using other more practical parameters as above or even a combination of the two. Risk criteria or acceptance criteria may differ from vessel traffic within the region and interregional traffic adopting a Schengen-alike approach for ballast water management in the NW European area. This hybrid strategy may have a blanket approach for all intercontinental and inter-regional traffic from the Mediterranean and a selective approach for traffic from the Baltic and regional/national traffic. Note that this hybrid approach based on the principles outlined above would reflect the pre D-2 performance phase initially. Assuming that the phase-in dates of D-2 compliance can not be brought forward, this phase will last till at least the end of However, as the phase-in process may be initiated from 2009, the characteristics of the threat represented by vessels releasing ballast water will change as a proportion of the water will be D- 2 compliant. It should also be noted that the distribution in changes in risk levels may be skewed as function of phase-in requirements as smaller vessels are likely to be in majority within regional shipping. Considerations also need to include assessing the potential levels of risk after the D-2 performance standard has been made mandatory for all ships. However, this may not be feasible until the D-2 performance standard and the timeline is manifested through the entry into force of the Convention. Page 58

65 9 BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT OPTIONS 9.1 Provisions of the Convention Ratification of the BW Convention will trigger off implementation of various requirements at national level. Vessels visiting European ports will need to undertake ballast water exchange until the ballast water performance standard as identified in Regulation D-2 is introduced. In order to enable compliance to this standard, the likely approach will be to install treatment systems onboard. Assuming that the introduction of the D-2 compliance requirement is synonym with onboard ballast water treatment, treatment facilities on board will be required from 2014/2016 onwards for existing vessels or from 2009/2012 onwards for new-built vessels (Table 9-1). Table 9-1 Ballast Water Exchange phase-out Ships constructed Ballast water Requirements over time before 2009 capacity (m 3 ) Less than <1500 Between > 1500 < 5000 Larger than > 5000 Ships constructed in or after 2009 Ballast water capacity (m 3 ) Less than < 5000 Ships constructed in or after 2009 Ballast water capacity (m 3 ) but before 2012 Greater than > 5000 Ships constructed Ballast water in or after 2012 capacity (m 3 ) Greater than > 5000 Shall conduct Ballast Water Management that at least meets the requirements described in Regulation D-1 or Regulation D-2 Shall conduct Ballast Water Management that at least meets the requirements described in Regulation D-2 It is evident that the implementation of the Convention introduces two different protective regimes of which one will supersede the other; Pre-D-2 Performance Standard Post-D-2 Performance standard The perception is that the introduction of complete D-2 compliance will fulfil all Parties need of protection. Any strategic management concept must take this into account. This implies also the anticipated change in the risk levels during the phase-in period of the D-2 standard. The following sections will briefly present and discuss some of the relevant management options for north-western Europe. Page 59

66 9.2 Ballast Water Exchange Whenever possible, i.e. if safety precautions permit, the ballast water should be exchanged well before a vessel enters European waters. Ballast Water Exchange rests in principle on that of dilution and is therefore subject to geographical constraints (Regulation B-4). Recognising the complex interrelations of sea lanes, bathymetry as well as geography and the fact that a vessel will be able to travel a considerable distance during ballast exchange operations, again depending of which exchange method is applied, have forced the Convention to identify alternative exchange areas. The process of identifying such are subject to a process (G 14) aiming to ensure that a certain level of risk reducing potential is achieved and that there are no threats associated to the establishment of such an area to adjacent areas. Ballast water exchange is a non-uniform measure with respect to efficacy depending on a number of variables such as: Time required a number of exchange operations will be disrupted because of time restrictions exchange operations may typically take 1 to 3 days thus the voyage may be of insufficient duration for exchange operations to take place in accordance to the Convention; Location, some ship-lanes are of such a characteristic that they do not comply to the recommendations regarding minimum distance from shore and depth requirements of the Convention; Safety implications for some vessels, safe exchange may only take place given certain weather constraints. The geometric references attached to this option are established from a practical perspective rather than from a scientific. The method may be claimed feasible but only from a practical viewpoint; most all vessels can undertake the process without being modified or refitted. Looking at feasibility from a risk reduction platform, one may claim that the introduction of any other ballast water management option likely to have a higher potential of that of ballast water exchange ballast water exchange should be favoured. Such options may include; Minimising or avoiding the use and/or discharge of ballast water. This is relevant for vessels carrying low density cargoes (e.g. passenger vessels) or vessels normally only partly utilising their loading capacity, e.g. container vessels, roro s, etc.; e.g. eliminating ballasting by convenience (see section 9.4). Ballast water treatment systems operating with an efficacy likely to meet or exceed that of ballast water exchange. Assuming the likeliness that ballast water exchange operations may enable a 95% efficiency with respect to volumetric exchange and further assuming (very conservative) that this representative of the biological efficacy, one may use this (or a higher figure) as an acceptance criteria for such technologies (see section 9.6) Ballast water exchange methods The feasibility of ballast water exchange and designated exchange areas are to some extent dependent on the method used. Vessels may undertake ballast water exchange by: Sequential (empty/refill) exchange or Flow through of tanks. Page 60

67 Sequential exchange is the most frequent used option. Some 75% of the ships coming into California and Texas ports reports t have exchanged ballast water by this method; however, there are some variations between vessels types (National Ballast Information Clearinghouse, 2002). This figure is confirmed by DNV s experiences related to the approval of Ballast Water Management Plans. Out of more than 200 approvals, some 80 % are based on the sequential method. Hazards associated with this approach are presented in several earlier studies (Skjong, 1997; 2000; Karaminas, 2000; Japan, 2001). The flow through or continuous flushing method avoids the problems associated with the sequential method, since the fresh ocean water is pumped via the ballast pumps into the ballast tanks and allowed to overflow in a safe manner never actually changing the loading condition of the vessel. An additional safety aspect is brought in though, that of risk of over-pressurising the tanks. Assuming proper ventilation designed for flush through, this is a manageable issue. The Convention requires that 3 times the tank volume must be pumped through the tank. This increases the exchange time as well as cost compared to the sequential method. There is an increased tendency that vessels adopt a combination of both sequential exchange and the flow through method. This is the result of practical and safety considerations. Some vessels simply cannot be exchanged sequentially without entering into conflict with stability issues. It should be noted that the flow trough method may have limited usage in extreme winter conditions in some areas; e.g. the formation of ice on deck, the blockage of ventilation piping by the formation of ice causing tanks to be exposed to excess pressures. This may not necessarily be of concern within North Western Europe as defined here. It is however of concern within our neighbouring HELCOM region Time required - BWE The table below illustrate how time required for complete exchange may vary as function ballast water exchange method and vessel type/ size (Table 9-2). Table 9-2 Ballast capacity of some vessels and calculated time to conduct BWE (Data from DNV databases) TYPE OF VESSEL DWT (1000) TOTAL BW PUMP CAPACITY M3/H BW VOLUME TIME NEEDED FOR BW EXCHANGE (H) FLOW- SEQUENTIAL THROUGH Container ship Crude oil carrier Suezmax Suezmax VLCC VLCC OBO Page 61

68 An oil tanker going with a speed of 14 knots needs approximately a distance of 400 nm for a complete sequential BW exchange and 600 nm for a BW exchange undertaking the flow-through method Interrupted ballast water exchange operation According to the Convention ships are only required to conduct ballast water exchange when time and weather conditions allow a full operation with exchange of all tanks in accordance with the ship s ballast water management plan. However, as discussed elsewhere in this report, available distances within several of the relevant ballast water exchange zones in the CONSSO area are too short for a full operation. Incomplete exchange operation where ballast water from only a few selected tanks are exchanged in accordance with the method used by the ship (flow-through, sequential) may be a viable option reducing the total volume of unmanaged ballast water released in a port. When the ballast water onboard is from different donor ports, tanks could be prioritised based on risk assessment. Criteria and procedures for applying such management options need to be elaborated further, e.g. as one of several options within the additional measures context (guideline G 13). When defining acceptance criteria for applying incomplete exchange, one should bear in mind that this is different from interrupted exchange operations. Clauses should be implemented so that incomplete exchange does not become an alternative to complete exchange Designation of ballast water exchange zones For vessels in inner-european services the 200nm/50 nm distance and 200m depth exchange limit is not applicable as routes are too short, too close to coast and/or in shallow waters. Management options for these vessels may be route based risk assessment granting exemptions (see below) or use of designated ballast water exchange zones. IMO MEPC is drafting the Guidelines on designation of areas for ballast water exchange (G14). Taking into account the geographical boundaries and the complexity of both the current and traffic systems, it seems to be difficult, if at all possible to find areas in Northwest Europe waters suitable for designation as ballast water exchange areas given the priorities identified; Avoiding voyage deviation Ensuring efficient dilution Avoiding exposure of risk for secondary introductions The rationale for a ballast water exchange zone is that it provides an area where ships can safely discharge ballast water with minimal risk of non-indigenous taxa either surviving and/or being carried into inshore regions. Thus, the challenge is then to identify areas that can provide an acceptable risk reduction in the period until all ships are operating in accordance to the performance standard (D 2) ( ). Potential identified exchange zones may be of limited efficacy, but possibly a better approach rather than to discharge unmanaged ballast water in a port. One critical issue with this approach is that as ballast water is exchanged closer to shore, the risk reduction potential of the procedure reduces as the likeliness of increasing presence of organism s increases. To identify required distance from shore studies carried out in New Page 62

69 Zealand (Gibbs et al, 2005) and North America (Petrie & Smith, 2004) both applied circulation models validated by direct observations for testing and assessing drift pathways in the surface layers and the probability for organisms discharged in offshore waters to be transported into coastal waters. Results of studies in the North Sea area suggest that it would be unwise to encourage ships to undertake ballast water exchange in highly productive zones even if these are in compliance with Convention requirements Water Depth Limitations for ballast water exchange Within the defined ballast water management region, water depths larger than 200 m occur along the Norwegian coast (Norwegian Trench), Bay of Biscay and west of Ireland. The two first subregions are of smaller dimension and may be considered unsuitable for a complete ballast water exchange in particular with respect to the application of a flow-through approach as ships usually need less than a day to pass through these water bodies (see Table 9-2). However, it is recommended to do more thorough assessments of ballast water exchange in these areas as a risk reducing measure. At a meeting in ICES WGBOSV (2005) it was concluded that no ballast water exchange zone can be identified in shallower waters in European coastal waters - excluding large water bodies in the OSPAR region from being an appropriate ballast water exchange zone. However, permanent stratified water columns may provide acceptable risk reductions (see Figure 9-1). Adapted from: ten Hallers-Tjabbes et al., 2003 The possible effects of vertical stratification on the distribution of organisms in the water column Free vertical movement Mixed Water Column Advection Pycnocline present Restricted vertical movement Figure 9-1 Vertical species distribution and potential horizontal movement in a stratified versus a mixed sea Page 63

70 Salinity A unique situation exists in Europe as some of the busiest ports are located in estuaries with brackish or even freshwater habitats (e.g. Antwerp, Hamburg and parts of Rotterdam). A high risk for a species introduction exists when moving freshwater organisms in ballast tanks between two freshwater ports. These species would not likely be able to spread with their natural means between freshwater ports as the higher saline water between these ports poses a migration barrier. Consequently it should be considered how to deal with freshwater ballast water carried between the mentioned brackish and freshwater ports or from freshwater or brackish areas in other regions. It should be noted, however, that some organisms show a very wide salinity tolerance, i.e. the recommendations below will not completely eliminate the risk of species invasions. Further, it should be noted that few organisms migrate between freshwater and marine waters, i.e. are tolerable to all water salinities. One example here is the Chinese Mitten Crab, known to be invasive in Europe and North America. It is believed, however, that these scenarios describe a risk reducing measure until more efficient ballast water treatment technology is available. It is also believed that the following scenarios are more efficient than the do nothing option. It is therefore proposed that ballast water taken onboard in a freshwater port should be exchanged in marine European coastal waters. For example a vessel on its voyage from St. Petersburg (eastern Baltic, freshwater) to Hamburg or from Antwerp to St. Petersburg likely has sufficient time to exchange the ballast water enroute completely in marine water conditions. By doing so, freshwater organisms taken onboard in one port will be discharged in marine waters and are unlikely to survive. At the same time, marine organisms are taken onboard during the water exchange and when being discharged in the freshwater port of call are also unlikely to survive. This scenario is applicable for marine and freshwater ballast. In case ballast water is taken in estuarine, i.e. brackish water conditions, none of the above should apply as brackish water species are usually highly tolerable to salinity Deviation from planned route Reference is made to the discussion of designated BWE zones in section An integral part of the IMO Convention is that ships should not be forced to deviate or be delayed by any ballast water management regime. Definition of designated BWE zones may be more efficient, however, if this is required as an additional measure for vessels arriving from e.g. the Mediterranean region. By using a slightly more western route than normal after passing Gibraltar there are approximately 1000 nm distance before approaching the 50 nm limit close to Le Havre. This western route is less than 100 nm longer than the normal route representing a few hours delay. Ships in this traffic will typically have average voyage duration of 1-2 days in the Atlantic for open ocean exchange. Page 64

71 9.3 Risk Assessment Risk assessments as referred to in the Conventions Regulation A-4, are a process of elimination of those voyages that does not represent a likely risk rather than a management option. Voyages involving the release of otherwise unmanaged ballast water (ballast water exchange has not been carried out) found unacceptable, may then be rejected. One may claim that this approach does not represent a real option as long as there are no risks reducing measures that can be applied. Risk assessment tools in the ballast water context should be developed taking the recommendations of the IMO guidelines (G 7) into account. These guidelines were recently discussed and revised at MEPC 53 London in July 2005, but are still at the draft level. However, it is anticipated that these will be adopted by IMO during the 55 th MEPC session (early 2007). When considering risk assessments as a management tool in a strategic context, it may form a platform for ballast water management planning as it may be used to classify risks represented by the shipping activity to which an area is exposed to. It may help identifying actual risk parameters and thus help identifying more targeted approaches. Use of risk management is essential in the process of developing strategic management plans in order to identify the adequacy of the measures of the Convention and the need for additional measures. This is a very different way of using the risk assessment approach from that of the reference in Regulation A-4 (see guideline G 7 Guidelines on risk assessment). In order to e.g. consider the establishment of regional ballast water exchange areas, this risk assessment approach would represent the scientific contribution which again would be applied together with practical constraints and eventually form the basis for any recommendations. Risks vary as a function of many variables among others the origin of the ballast water, e.g. regional, interregional, freshwater/ brackish water etc. Thus, some risk reducing measures may arise which are not equally visual when considering the ballast water challenge in a generic fashion. Some countries have introduced risk-based approaches to support their management of ships ballast water. Australia has in particular gained experiences in this area following the development and implementation of their Decision Support System (DSS). This risk-based concept is used alongside other management options (such as Ballast Water Exchange). The DSS concept uses target species listings representing identified invasive or undesirable species and applies a species specific risk assessment to identify vessels that represents a particular risk and is prohibited from discharging its ballast water in other Australian ports unless it carries out ballast water exchange at sea (or undertake treatment equivalent to, or more effective than ballast water exchange). Different methods on ballast water risk assessment have been proposed and developed to some extent. The two methods most likely to achieve the goal to determine the likelihood of unmanaged ballast water discharge causing at least one new species introduction (defined either as discharge, establishment, or spread) into the receiving port are: - Environmental matching risk assessments; Comparing environmental conditions in the donor and recipient port to determine if they are sufficiently different that any species found in the source port are sufficiently unlikely to survive and to establish. - Species-specific risk assessments consider information about individual target species in the donor port and the environmental conditions in the receiving port. Page 65

72 9.4 No or minimum Ballast Water Release For certain vessels it may be an option to minimise or avoid the use and/or discharge of ballast water, least when trafficking ballast water management regions such as the OSPAR region. This is relevant for vessels carrying low density cargoes (e.g. passenger vessels) or vessels normally only partly utilising their loading capacity, e.g. container vessels, roro s, cruise vessels etc.; e.g. eliminating ballasting by convenience. This may be achieved through proper planning of cargo loading and unloading or, alternatively, some vessels may be enabled to pump the ballast water from one tank into another to compensate cargo operations. In any case, the absolute essentially needed minimum of ballast water should be discharged, even if the water was managed as all management approaches reduce, but do not eliminate the risk to introduce species. There may be merit in looking at some regional trades with respect to actual required ballasting. An incentive in some form may trigger these to focus on their loading policies in order to optimise (read minimise) the use of ballast. 9.5 Ballast Water Treatment on-board General Despite the lack of established approval facilities for the evaluation of ballast water treatment systems for type approval, there has been a considerable increase in the number of projects working in this area since the Convention was adopted by IMO in Following the adoption of the approval guidelines during MEPC 53, it is expected that an appropriate facilities will be established and procedures and methods will become available for such considerations. During the MEPC session this summer, the review as required in Regulation D-5 was conducted. The meeting had received proposed technologies from; Sweden (MEPC 53/2/6) Germany (MEPC 53/2/11) United States (MEPC 53/2/14) Australia (MEPC 53/2/15) Norway (MEPC 53/2/16) Republic of Korea (MEPC 53/2/31) The purpose of the review process as stated by the Convention is to determine if appropriate technologies are likely to be available to achieve the standard as identified in Regulation D-2. The review group assessed a total of 16 systems. Some duplication was identified so the final number for review was reduced to 13. Information on a 14 th Proposal was received during the review. Page 66

73 It may be noted that only one of the treatment systems considered claimed to fulfil all the requirements of the Convention. This system is based on the use of an active substance. Table 9-3 summarises the working principles of the different technologies. The review group concluded that there is no need to consider amending the existing regulations including the phase-in dates of regulation B-3. Thus, it reached the conclusion that it is reasonable to assume that a number of the proposed technologies will meet or exceed the ballast water performance requirement in accordance to the phase-in intervals. However, the group identified some uncertainties in the documentation assessed and thus advised MEPC to undertake a second review of technologies during MEPC 55. It should be noted also that a number of technologies can provide verified documentation on performance characteristics that partly meet the D-2 standard. These technologies will most certainly satisfy the at least as good as ballast water exchange requirement ) see chapter 9.6. Table 9-3 Ballast water treatment technologies included in the review at MEPC 53 Ref. Technology Working principle Proposed by 1. In-tank heat treatment Australia 2. Filtration and Chlorine Dioxide Australia 3. Mechanical separation and Germany Disinfection 4. Filtration and UV Germany 5. SEDNA System including Physical separation and Disinfection Germany PeraClean 6. Filtration and Disinfection Germany 7. Optimar Filtration and UV radiation Norway 9. OceanSaver Filtration, Dual Pulsed Shock Wave/ Norway supersaturation and Oxygen deprivation 11. Electrochemical Disinfection Republic of Korea 12. Alfa Laval Benrad Filtration and Advanced Oxidation Sweden 14. Chlorine Dioxide United States 15. Separation and UV Radiation United States 16. Filter and Advanced Oxidation United States 17 1 Greenship Hydrocyclone/ electrolyse Netherland 1 Proposed during the review by the Netherlands Administration. The system was not subjected to a review The use of "active substances" in ballast water treatment Several countries at the IMO have expressed their concerns to use "active substances" as longterm effects cannot easily be assessed. The concern was triggered by both the massive amounts in ballast water operations and by the well-known potential of many active substances to interact with the receiving environment, in particular with organic matter. For instance chlorine, in the presence of organic matter, can form organohalogens that are toxic and persistent. During MEPC 52, IMO adopted a guideline for approval of active substances, in which evaluation of a Page 67

74 proposed substance has to be evaluated for by and end products of the substance in the receiving environment (this includes both in tank and at discharge). During MEPC 53 it was decided to establish a dedicated GESAMP Ballast Water (GESAMP BW) Technical Group on Active Substances. It is anticipated that this group will develop detailed methodologies and information requirements for conducting its work for review by MEPC 54. Thus, it should be anticipated that this group can assess proposals following MEPC 54. This expert group will be tasked with the evaluation of submitted data ensuring that all requirements concerning environmental protection, animal and human health as well as safety of crew and ship is met. Test standards and procedures have to follow international standards, e.g. OECD Guidelines. Thus the risk in using active substances can be assessed and compared to the risk of future species invasions (and the negative impacts caused) as laid down in Article 2 of the Ballast Water Management Convention. True to the Convention, the approach shall not cause greater harm than it prevents. It is possible that such assessment results in a broad acceptance to use active substances that have no potential to form toxic and/or persistent end products, as non-native invasive species are known to severely alter environments and to pose a significant potential to cause ecological and economical damage in the receiving environments. As a key issue, one has to weigh the acceptance the risk of using active substances rather than accepting future species invasions. This is of particular concern as the taxa being affected by the use of active substances, such as bacteria, disease agents and potentially toxic phytoplankton taxa, may pose a significant threat to the receiving environments and human health. On the other hand massive discharges of harmful substances or their harmful by- or end products in a coastal environment are a matter of high concern Active Substances applied as an Additional Measure or in relation to Emergency Situations Application of risk assessment approach (Section 9.3) may help to minimise the use of active substances. One scenario may be to identify high risk vessels and include use of active substances as a management option for these vessels. This approach allows the use of "active substances" in critical situations, rather than applying these substances to all vessels on all voyages. For example, in case an outbreak of the Cholera disease or a toxic fish killing phytoplankton bloom in a donor region, the use of active substances is essential to avoid the risk of these species invasions. When an active substance is used for such purposes, it may be considered an additional measure in case of an identified emergency or a measure to avoid such an emergency. It is somewhat obscure as to whether such application of active substance is subject to approval in accordance to the guideline G Use of non-approved on-board treatment systems Ballast water treatment techniques are still in a development stage and existing measures to prevent non-indigenous species invading other waters will continue for several years. Due to the highly variable biological efficacy of ballast water exchange as management option a possible approach that may reduce the application of this option and speed up the development of treatment systems, may be to accept the use of ballast water treatment systems onboard ships Page 68

75 even if these systems not yet are approved in accordance with the IMO Guidelines. Such a strategy would most likely require some form of incentive e.g. grandfathering. This may be difficult in the light of the D-2 requirement and the dates of implementation of this standard. However, it may be considered in particular as a regional arrangement (option available for vessels operating only within the region). It may be noted in this context that the provisions in Regulation D-4 related to Prototype Ballast Water Treatment Technologies onboard testing (G 10) open up an important opportunity for vendors, ship-owners as well as national regulators to gain experience in this area. Unfortunately, a number of projects report considerable difficulties among flag States to participate as required by the provision. By acceptance of the use of treatment systems before formal approval is in place, the risk related to unmanaged ballast water may be reduced if the treatment systems can prove biological efficacy exceeding that offered by ballast water exchange by flow through. Assuming dilution efficacy is synonym with biological efficacy (a very conservative assumption), a treatment system should have a overall mortality capability of 95% or more. A similar system is proposed for US waters with a required efficacy of 99% reduction in viable near-coastal plankton for existing vessels and 99.9% reduction in viable near-coastal plankton for new vessels. An implementation of this approach would require efficacy requirements and criteria to be developed in co-operation with other regional States. 9.7 BW reception facilities The concept of land based treatment facilities would seem to be attractive, as it treats water at the source and standards of treatment could be guaranteed. Technically, it would be feasible to retrofit vessels and wharves, construct onshore storage tanks and treatment systems and discharge treated water back to the ocean/bay/port. Both Australian and US authorities (URS/Dames and Moore, 2000) and oil majors (DNV, 2003) have considered the feasibility of shore based facilities. The Australian and the US study concluded that expense for the port country and logistics, and the fact that many ships deballast large amounts of water before entering ports make land based treatment an unattractive single option. At the LNG terminal in Northern Norway the most negative factors were the high investment costs in particular for the storage tanks and logistics for the land based management option. However, they do not discard the possibility of certain ports offering land based ballast water treatments for ships unable to reballast or otherwise treat the water, but the service will have to be based on mandatory treatment regulation and the ships paying the cost of treatment. The major infrastructure and operational modifications required for an onshore system are: 1. Retrofitting of vessels to allow discharge of ballast water through standardized wharfside connections; 2. Retrofitting of wharves with piping connections, pumps and force mains to convey ballast water from vessels to onshore storage and treatment facilities; 3. Construction of storage tanks to handle peak discharge flows from multiple vessels that exceed ballast water treatment system flow rates; Page 69

76 4. Construction of ballast water treatment plant(s); and 5. Construction of outfalls to discharge treated water and disposal of solids at a landfill. Few existing vessels have the capability to pump ballast water to a shore facility at volumes required to prevent vessel delays. Vessels would require the ability to transfer ballast water from either side of the vessel to a shore side facility. The conceptual vessel retrofit design would need to lift ballast water vertically approximately 30 meters from the ballast tanks to the main or weather deck at a rate of at least 1,000 metric tons/hour. Cost estimates in the US study were converted to a cost estimate of treatment cost per metric ton (MT) of discharged ballast water (vessel retrofitting costs do not convert well to this metric). For the 11 California public ports considered, these costs range from USD 1.40 to USD 8.30 per MT. Vessel delay costs and land acquisition costs were not included in these figures. Cost estimates in the DNV study ranged from USD per MT. In this study all ships were newbuilt and there was only one export terminal where ballast water will be discharged, making the logistic much easier. Several onboard treatment technologies are currently under development and an important aspect to consider is therefore the relatively short time an on-shore facility will be in operation making the capital costs of the investment higher. To solve some problems it is recommended to consider the use of mobile reception facilities, i.e. installed onboard of barges or trucks. These mobile reception facilities may be brought alongside the vessels where needed. However, some ships, such as container vessels, need continuously to ballast/deballast in ports according to the cargo handling. The use of reception facilities may be of higher interest in smaller ports with fluid cargo handling. Crude oil carrier for example may use their pipework to discharge unmanaged ballast water prior loading crude oil. 9.8 Ship survey regimes An inspection system is required for the purpose of determining whether ships arriving with ballast water in European ports are in compliance with the Convention. The inspection system is limited to: a. verifying that there is onboard a valid Certificate, which, if valid shall be accepted; b. inspection of the Ballast Water record book; c. sampling of the ship s Ballast Water, carried out in accordance with the guidelines to be developed by the IMO and will be submitted from MEPC 53 in July Item a. and b. above may easily be carried out within the period the ships are in the port as an integrated part of existing inspection programmes, but the time required to analyse the samples of ballast water to control compliance with the ballast water standard shall not be used as a basis for unduly delay of the operation, movement or departure of the ship. Samples will therefore be analysed after the ship has left the port. Further; a national information system for the data collected should be established and; if the results of sample analysis show non-compliance with the ballast water standard; an information system to inform next port, vessel and ship owner should be established. Page 70

77 9.9 Reception facilities for sediments Vessels which declare No Ballast on Board (NOBOB), but which yet often contain significant quantities of unpumpable residual water and accumulated sediment that may contain NIS organisms requires additional efforts for port states. Some of these ships may unload it s cargo in one OSPAR region port taking up ballast water in the same port and thereafter go to another port in the same area and discharge unmanaged ballast water if the receiving port has approved exemption for this route or donor port. Due to the residual water and organisms contained in the sediments, the discharged ballast water may represent high risk for transfer of NIS species. Under Article 5 the Convention requires that parties have adequate reception facilities for the reception of sediments in ports and terminals where cleaning or repair of ballast tanks occurs. A guideline for such facilities is developed and will probably be finalised at MEPC 55. However, this will not cover the NOBOB problem and additional requirements may therefore be considered in the OSPAR region. This may include cleaning of ballast water tanks by NOBOB vessels when entering European ports and operational procedures that could be performed by vessel operators in the near term to reduce the amount of sediments before entering the OSPAR region. Studies that characterize the temporal and spatial patterns of NOBOB vessels, the amount and distribution of water and sediment carried in their ballast tanks, and the composition of the biological communities they carry, should be undertaken to substantiate this problem and assist the evaluation of necessary additional requirements Monitoring and sampling Various monitoring and sampling programs have had a variety of different aims, e.g.: (1) To better understand the biology and the chemistry of a region/habitat or the ballast water (i.e., scientific research). (2) To identify organisms carried in ship s ballast water as basis for risk assessment or to assess compliance with ballast water management requirements (i.e., compliance monitoring). (3) To identify species distribution and origin (native, cryptogenic, non-indigenous) in a port or region. (4) To identify occurrence of harmful algal blooms or other risk species as a warning system for the public (shellfish toxins) or for receiving ports of ballast water from the monitored area. Basic information about indigenous species and their natural history, community structure and the biodiversity of regional systems is essential for a management system. Several existing monitoring programmes can be extended to be more useful for this purpose, e.g. by including areas wherein ships discharge and take up ballast water. Relevant challenges are the documentation of potentially invasive species in the water taken on board vessels leaving a port and documentation of non-indigenous species distribution in port areas. An international harbour monitoring network and database regime is necessary to make the selective approach and risk assessment a viable alternative. As the presence of organisms can vary greatly by season, monitoring would have to be on a regular basis. Port surveys and monitoring should be linked to an early warning system, whereby ships can be alerted to outbreaks of harmful species. Page 71

78 Advances in rapid genetic detection methods may enable the development of simple diagnostic tests that can detect the presence of selected indicator species Self-Financing Mechanisms for Ballast Water Management This section is a short summary from a report to the GloBallast Programme from Gollasch (2004). Revenues generated with self-financing mechanisms may be used to fund relevant R&D initiatives, such as projects to develop ballast water management technologies. These may also include monitoring initiatives of introduced species, risk assessment, development and implementation of ballast water management measures, compliance monitoring and enforcement once ballast water legislation is implemented, all with the aim to improve prevention and management measures, such as ballast water treatment, to minimize the introduction of new species. Some countries have tested self-financing mechanisms for ballast water management: - Australia, nation-wide and State of Victoria - United States of America, nation-wide and along the US West-Coast States California, Oregon and Washington, as well as in - New Zealand, nation-wide. Taxation is the most common financial revenue source used to fund Government services and may be applicable here as well Ballast Water Tax The tax could either address the total volume of ballast water onboard or the total volume of unmanaged ballast water being (intended to be) discharged (see 10.11). It should be noted that the amount of money generated by the tax should be competitive with the price of other means of ballast water management, i.e. the better one manages its ballast water, the less you pay assuming here that the best way of ballast water management is treatment onboard or discharge to land-based reception facilities. Another source of income could be fines imposed on ships or shipping companies if they fail or persist not to comply with the ballast water discharge requirements as set forth e.g. in the IMO Ballast Water Management Convention Penalty System ("Polluter Pays Principle") The Polluter Pays Principle has demonstrated to be an efficient fund-raising tool for e.g. cleanup of pollution and may also work for "biological pollution". However, the reactive approach may not be useful in biological invasions as a time lag usually occurs before a new species is detected and possibly demonstrated as harmful. Due to the time lag, the "polluter", i.e. the individual ship which introduced this new species, cannot easily be identified. Whether or not the IMO Ballast Water Management Convention is implemented yet, countries may consider requiring ships calling at their ports to provide ballast water reporting forms and further ask crews to enter all ballast water operations into a ballast water record book. A penalty system may apply to non-complying vessels, i.e. ship reporting forms or keeping the ballast water record book are not correct or not complied with in a satisfactory manner. Page 72

79 10 MANAGEMENT OPTIONS ON SELECTED ROUTES 10.1 Route regimes and management strategies International maritime legislation has experienced quite a change within the last decade or two. A number of new legal instruments covering different areas have been developed. In the wake of this, various tools have arrived enabling both regulators as well as the industry to fulfil their respective obligation. A continuous evident characteristic of these developments are that they are about to become related in the sense that they use similar technologies or rest upon similar sources of information. This is certainly the case when considering some new environmental issues and some aspects concerning security. The concept of route discrimination may certainly benefit from the forthcoming Long Range Information and Tracking (LRIT). The coupling of LRIT and pollution prevention purposes have already been suggested to MEPC by MSC, see MEPC 53/11/4. The concept was endorsed by the EU Commission as well as by several independent nations (including parties to CONNSO/ OSPAR). It has obvious merit in a clearing-house strategy which of course may address other topics as well as that of ballast water. The discussion under the previous sections highlights some potential for introducing route discrimination as a management strategy. It also underlines the necessity of establishing some form of reporting from ships and monitoring. The feasibility of management options discussed in previous sections and the obtained risk reduction will vary with factors such as type of ships, routes and environmental conditions. Available traffic information and information regarding NIS distribution in ports and sub-regions is too limited to do a thorough evaluation of achieved risk reduction by employing alternative management options on specific routes. We have therefore selected some routes within different traffic categories as basis for a discussion of some relevant management options. Three traffic categories were presented in section 8.1: National traffic Regional traffic Interregional traffic Intercontinental traffic For all these categories there are mutual environmental subsets: From a fresh water 1 port to a fresh water port transiting a typical marine 2 area on the voyage. From a fresh water port to a marine port and vice versa. From a marine or brackish port to a marine or brackish port. 1 Fresh water is here defined with salinity below or equal to 0.5 psu 2 Marine water is here assumed to be salinity higher than 25 psu Page 73

80 10.2 National traffic The Convention shall not apply to ships operating only within one State unless otherwise determined. However, in situations with a harmful algae bloom or other emergency situation a State may decide to require ballast water management for such ships. These situations are probably covered in regional management systems. States such as Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Spain and France which have their coastlines and ports in two different ballast management regions should follow the regional accepted ballast water management regimes for traffic between these regions Regional traffic Vessels operating exclusively within the OSPAR region may not have a large ballast requirement. It is even likely that the volume of ballast distributed in the region by these vessels can be reduced given the right incentive - reducing convenience ballasting. However, it is evident that unmanaged ballast water will be discharged in the pre-d-2 performance standard phase. Thus, there is valid argumentation for assessing the feasibility of establishing regional ballast water exchange areas. Following this line of argument, one may consider such an area for regional traffic only and these areas may even be exclusively for those regional voyages identified to represent high risk. This will have impacts on the potential threats represented by such an area both in regards to the characteristics of the water exchanged (as it will be regional) as well as to the volumes required exchanged (relatively small) and thus the size of the exchange area Ballast water exchange Ballast water exchange for voyages within the region cannot be undertaken in compliance with the requirements of the regulations of the Convention. As an example of the associated challenges we postulate a ship voyage from Zeebrugge in Belgium to Bremerhaven in Germany. Although it is known that several non-native invasive species have recently been introduced in the southern part of the North Sea and not spread beyond, on that specific voyage, there is no one region where ballast water may be exchanged according to the depth and distance limitations as set forth in the IMO Ballast Water Management Convention as the whole of the southern and central North Sea is nowhere of adequate depth, and, unless the vessel extends its voyage far to the North West, it will always be within 50 nm from a coast. Other examples may be: A large tanker coming from Rotterdam to Mongstad in Norway with tons of BW. Ferries going between North Sea countries (UK - France, UK - Norway, Norway - Germany, Norway - Denmark) Container vessels visiting several North Sea ports (route from overseas to Rotterdam - Felixstowe - Hamburg or alternatively Antwerp - Gothenburg Bremerhaven) Exchange on voyage between ports in the region is therefore not an option unless dedicated ballast water exchange areas are identified. In order to establish such, a number of considerations must be undertaken. These include elements such as oceanography, traffic patterns including volumes and navigational implications, natural resources, legal issues and require agreement between all affected countries. The applied process of considerations regarding the designation of such areas reflects the recommendations of G 14. Page 74

81 As postulated is section 7.2 one goal for defining a ballast water management region is to find a natural system that is sufficiently ecologically uniform to accommodate maritime transport that would not need to perform ballast water management. Management of ballast water should therefore only be required on routes representing a high risk for spreading harmful organisms and where ballast water exchange is a feasible risk reducing option Risk assessment Environmental matching has limited use within the OSPAR region, as the salinity and temperature regime is comparable throughout the entire sea. However, one exception is the unique situation that many of the busiest ports in the region are located in estuaries with low salinities and sometimes even freshwater conditions. From freshwater locations, organisms would not be able to spread to other similar locations when separated by typical marine habitats. These organisms may, however, be transported from one estuary to another in the ballast water of ships, identifying the need to manage the ballast water in these unique situations. We therefore recommend that vessels going in a marine environment from one fresh water port to another fresh water port shall undertake ballast water exchange in the marine environment in appropriate and designated areas with marine water. Unfortunately the voyage time between certain estuarine ports will be too short to enable a full ballast water exchange (e.g. from Rotterdam to Hamburg) on larger vessels. However, between other ports and with other types of ships with smaller volumes ballast water exchange is a feasible risk reduction option. A special case of the environmental matching is vessels coming into the defined typical freshwater ports with fully marine ballast water. In these situations it could be considered to define areas in these ports as ballast water exchange zones for ships intending to discharge unmanaged ballast water. In case this scenario applies, all incoming vessels in inner-european service carrying unmanaged marine ballast water and calling for freshwater ports may be granted permission to discharge the ballast water in the port. However, more detailed studies should be carried out in particular regarding the environmental conditions in such harbours and where ships are taking up and/or discharging ballast water in these ports. Environmental matching as a risk assessment method needs clear definitions of marine water and fresh water (salinities), together with detailed studies on salinity distributions in estuary-ports and ballast water uptake locations in these ports. As environmental matching has its limitations in the OSPAR region, a species based risk assessment is recommended as a general accepted tool in the regional ballast water management; in combination with a route based approach. This should focus on non-indigenous species and targeted native species that are known to cause harm. Work undertaken looking at the establishment of this concept has reported serious lack of appropriate data. Many routine monitoring programmes lack sampling stations in ports. A species-specific risk assessment can therefore be used to monitor as well as to manage the regional transport of ballast water. A recommendation is to detail the available NIS information both geographically and seasonally, in particular in port areas. Existing data should be systematized and monitoring programs with a defined network of sampling stations should be defined and implemented regionally to detail existing knowledge and also form basis for recommendations regarding emergency situations Page 75

82 (harmful alga blooms). A regional database system including warning procedures to the affected states and shipping industry should be established Monitoring and communication Species specific risk assessment and risk reducing measures related to emergency situations identifies the need to establish monitoring and communication regimes. This process need to consider the needs for establishing criteria such as e.g.; Monitoring criteria (within the region); Type of monitoring Alert concepts Communicating monitoring results and recommendations; Port area classification criteria; Seawater/ brackish water/ fresh water; Infected port area Port area specific information about non-indigenous species Designated ballast water exchange areas Several of the zones available for ballast water exchange may not be the most appropriate for conducting ballast water exchange. Taking into account the geographical boundaries of the ballast water management region and the complexity of both the current and traffic systems, it seems to be difficult, if at all possible to find areas suitable for designation as ballast water exchange areas given the priorities identified; Avoiding voyage deviation Ensuring efficient dilution Avoiding exposure of risk for secondary introductions Due to the relatively high risk of dispersion of planktonic organisms from the possible areas to the coastal areas these zones may not effectively prevent new marine introductions. In order to make a decision, scientific information on the physical and biological oceanography in these zones is needed as a first step for a more thorough assessment Incentives to minimise ballast water discharge A large proportion of regional traffic are roro, container and other types of vessels may minimise or avoid the use and/or discharge of ballast water within the OSPAR region. This may be achieved through proper planning of cargo loading and unloading or, alternatively, some vessels may be enabled to pump the ballast water from one tank into another to compensate cargo operations. An incentive in some form may trigger these to focus on their loading policies in order to minimise the use of ballast Interregional traffic Traffic from the Baltic region (HELCOM area) Vessels arriving from the Baltic destined for a port within the OSPAR region may carry ballast water originating from both the Baltic as well as other sea areas reflecting its past schedules. Exchange opportunities with distance larger than 50 nm from shore in the Baltic Sea and North Page 76

83 Sea is visualised in Figure The depths are less than 200 m in all available areas. Available distances for conducting ballast water exchange within marked areas in the Baltic are less than 100 nm. Within >50nm-areas in the North Sea depths are less than 90 m. Figure 10-1 Ports in the Baltic Sea and North Sea and available areas for ballast water exchange with distance larger than 50 nm from shore We will therefore recommend that the ballast water management regime for traffic between the OSPAR region and the Baltic region will be similar to the regime as for regional traffic Traffic from the Mediterranean Vessels on their normal voyage from the Mediterranean to the North Sea and other North European ports are always closer than 200 nm distances from shore and barely outside 50 nm distances at 200 m depths when crossing the Bay of Biscay (Figure 10-2). Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the efficacy of the exchange process is lower than that of Regulation B compliant operations. By small changes in their route however, they may have the opportunity to exchange ballast water in in the Atlantic Ocean west of Portugal and the Bay of Biscay as presented in Figure Page 77

84 Figure 10-2 Vessels routes between Mediterranean and North Europe. # nm indicate available length for BW exchange operations (> 50 nm from coast and > 200m depth). Light blue colour indicates depths less than 200m. Ballast water exchange in the Atlantic requires deviation from planned route. Ballast water exchange seems therefore to be a viable option for this traffic. Several studies (e.g. Pederson & Fertig, 2003) have suggested that ballast water exchange may not decrease the number of all non-indigenous species (e.g. copepods may increase in number) in tanks. However, ballast water exchange is the most important management option in the pre-d-2 performance standard phase Intercontinental traffic A blanket approach may be proposed for intercontinental voyages. It is assumed that vessels on voyages from the Americas would have sufficient time and opportunity in most cases to undertake compliant exchange in accordance to regulation B-4, 1.1 (at least 200 nautical miles from the nearest land and in water at least 200 metres in depth, see (Figure 10-3) and guideline G 6 (adopted at MEPC 53). If this is not possible for safety reasons then vessels would be expected to make minor route deviations to areas within the 200nm limit that could be identified as discharge areas, so long as they are greater than 50nm from the coast. Endresen et al. (2002) estimated the probability for successful ballast water exchange in the North Atlantic by identifying windows of opportunity using wind and wave statistics and typical recognised threshold values related to operational safety acceptance criteria. They assumed that Page 78

85 the ships had 5 days available compliant open sea exchange and that safety critical problems occur when the significant wave height is above 3m. Based on the traffic patterns in the North Atlantic they estimated the probability for being unable to carry out ballast water exchange as 7% when the ships require one day for undertaking the operation. When the required exchange time is increased to 2 days, 30% of the vessels will not be capable of performing exchange. The study took into account the skewed distribution concerning the methods applied. Figure 10-3 Tanker routes from donor ports in North America to the North Sea. Green line indicates 200 nm distances from shore. However, experiences from USA and Australia support the view that most vessels on intercontinental routes may conduct successful ballast water exchange during their voyage. Vessels arriving via the Suez Canal from Africa or Asia and have not undertaken ballast water exchange en route in waters greater 200nm from the shoreline than 200m depth then they would be expected to undertake appropriate ballast water management measures, or make minor route deviations to areas within the 200nm limit that could be identified as discharge areas, so long as they are greater than 50nm from the coast. For these vessels available areas are found both in the Mediterranean and in the Atlantic (Figure 10-2). In cases where neither ballast water exchange nor any other preventive measures have been applied, environmental matching could be used to support any further decisions. One concept could be that mandatory ballast water exchange was established as an outer-boarder measure (regardless of the entry into force of the Convention) and that one or more regional ballast water exchange area(s) was established. In case risk was identified to be unacceptable following an environmental matching assessment, the vessel would then be denied port clearance until exchange was carried out, preferably in accordance to Regulation B or alternatively in these interregional ballast water exchange areas. Page 79

86 11 REFERENCES Brattstrøm, H. 1977: Marine zoogeography (compendium in Norwegian). University in Bergen. Briggs, J.C Marine zoogeography. McGraw-Hill, New York. Briggs, J.C Global biogeography. Developments in palaeontology and stratigraphy. Elsevier science. Amsterdam. Carver, C.E. & A.L. Mallet, An Assessment of the Risk of Ballast Water-Mediated Introduction of Non-indigenous Phytoplankton and Zooplankton into Atlantic Canadian Waters. Final Report to Transport Canada, Marine Safety COADS, Database for reported ship positions in the years COM (2005). Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Framework for Community Action in the field of Marine Environmental Policy (Marine Strategy Directive). [SEC (2005) 1290]. Brussels, COWI, Existing and Future Shipping through the Baltic Sea. Tacis, DG 1a p. Dietrich, G. 1963: General Oceanography: An Introduction. John Wiley & Sons. DNV, Internal databases, containing information on DNV classed vessels. DNV, Melkøya LNG Terminal. Alternative methods for ballast water management. DNV Report No Ekman, S., In Zoogeography of the sea. Sidgwick and Jackson, London. Endresen, Ø., Sørgård, E., Andersen, A.B., Gravir, G., Bitner-Gregersen, E., Implications of Open Ocean Ballast Water Exchange, Marine Science and Technology for Environmental Sustainability, ENSUS FAO, Trends in oceanic captures and clustering of large marine ecosystems 2 studies based on the FAO capture database. FAO fisheries technical paper pages. GEBCO (General Bathymetric Chart of the Oceans) Digital Atlas, British Oceanographic Data Centre, web site: Hayden, B.P., Ray, G.C. and Dolan, R. 1984: Classification of Coastal and Marine Environments. Environmental Conservation 11 (3). HELCOM, 2005a. HELCOM, 2005b. Report of the BSRP/HELCOM/COLAR Workshop on Ballast water introductions of alien species into the Baltic Sea February 2005, Palanga, Lithuania. ICES, ICES response to EC request for information and advice about appropriate ecoregions for the implementation of an ecosystem approach in European waters. Memo from International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Page 80

87 Japan Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC), Harmful Aquatic Organisms in ballast water, Safety of Ballast Water Exchange at Sea, submitted by Japan, MEPC 47/2/7. Karaminas, L., An investigation of ballast water management methods with particular emphasis on the risks of the sequential method. Lloyd s Register of Shipping, June. Liberia 1996, Prevention of air pollution from ships, submitted by Liberia, 17 April, MEPC 38/INF.12 Kelleher, G. and R. Kenchington. 1992: Guidelines for establishing marine protected areas. A Marine Conservation and Development Report. IUCN. Kelleher, G., Bleakley, C. and Wells, S. 1995: A Global Representative System of Marine Protected Areas. Vol I IV. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, The World Bank, The World Conservation Union (IUCN). Kelly, B., GIS mapping of marine vessel ballast water exchange endpoint data in Atlantic Canada, for the 2002 shipping season. Report to: Marine Safety, Transport Canada Dartmouth, NS, November LME Internet. Longhurst, A.R. (1998) Ecological Geography of the Sea. Academic Press, San Diego. 398 pp. Mann, R., Status of Ballast Water Legislation in the United States. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, VA USA. Presentation held at ICES WGBOSV meeting, Arendal, Norway, March 14-18, 2005 MCA, A ballast a ballast water management strategy for the North Sea/North West Europe. A base paper bu the United Kingdom for the CONSSO issue group on sustainable shipping. Revised in February 2004 to take into account the International Maritime Organization s International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships Ballast Water and Sediments on 13th February 2004 MCA, A ballast water management strategy for the North Sea / North West Europe. CONSSO Update, March Paper presented by the United Kingdom. OSPAR, Statement on the Ecosystem Approach to the Management of Human Activities. Towards an ecosystem approach to the management of human activities. First joint ministerial meeting of the Helsinki and OSPAR commissions (JMM). Bremen: JUNE 2003 Pederson, J. & Fertig, B., Ballast Water Exchange in the North Atlantic. A Background Paper for the Ballast Water Management Workshop, Halifax, Nova Scotia, October 27-28, 2003 RNT Consulting Quantification of risks of alien species introductions associated with alternative area for ballast water exchange in the Laurentian Channel of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. ii+36p. Skjong, R., Spouge, J., Hazid of ballast water exchange at sea for bulk carriers by SWIFT. London, IACS, 2000, International Association of Classification Societies (IACS), International Maritime Organisation, Document, MEPC 45/2/1. Page 81

88 Skjong, R, Dahle, E., Hazard identification, Ballast Water Exchange at Sea. IMO MEPC 41/9/2 Sherman, K., Alexander, L.M. and Gold, B.D. (eds). (1990) Large marine ecosystems: patterns, processes and yields. Amer. Assoc. Adv. Sci. Washington D.C. 242 pp. Sherman, K., Alexander, L.M. and Gold, B.D. (eds). (1993). Stress, mitigation and sustainability of large marine ecosystems. Amer. Assoc. Advan. Sci., Washington D.C.,., 376 pp. Sherman, K. and Duda, A.M. (1999) An ecosystem approach to global assessment and management of coastal waters. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 190, URS/Dames & Moore, Feasibility of onshore ballast water treatment at California ports. A Study Conducted on behalf of the California Association of Port Authorities (CAPA) Pursuant to a Small Grant Assistance Agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. VIT, Statistical Analyses of the Baltic Maritime Traffic. VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland. Report No. VAL o0o - Page 82

89 APPENDIX A BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT IN NW EUROPE Report No , rev. 01 Page A-1

90 BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT IN NW EUROPE 1 INTRODUCTION The project has been collected information from the European countries regarding their experience and recommendation on ballast water management. In Europe, the knowledge and experience regarding ballast water management are very varying. In the following the information received from each country is presented. 2 BELGIUM 2.1 Monitoring systems Information on non-indigenous species including known and possible NIS in Belgian marine waters (including harbours) is gathered mainly on a voluntary base. No funded scientific studies have been done or are planned. There is no database available specific dealing with the Belgian situation. Ongoing and finished surveys of the biota in Belgian marine waters do not focus on NIS or on non-indigenous species in general. No monitoring efforts are ongoing on disease agents and parasites. Studies to reduce the nuisance of the mussel Mytilopsis leucophaeata are ongoing. No other studies on impact of introduced species in Belgian waters have been done. 2.2 NIS situation Several NIS have been identified for Belgium, rooting form different sources. The species together with their status and (potential) impact are listed below. So far one species has resulted in an approach to curb the impact. One NIS, Crassostrea gigas, is currently used in limited numbers for aquaculture in the Spuikom of Oostende One harmful NIS has been recorded in Belgium so far is Mytilopsis leucophaeata NIS that may have an impact are: Ensis directus: habitat alteration and competition with other infaunal species Crepidula fornicata: habitat alteration and competition. Crassostrea gigas: habitat alteration, competition notably with Mytilus edulis Mytilopsis leucophaeata: obstruction of water intake installations in Antwerpen Other species that are known as nuisance species in other countries also occur in Belgian marine waters e.g. Undaria pinnatifida, Eriocheir sinensis, Sargassum muticum, Teredo navalis, Dreissena polymorpha, certain Ascidians, several species of red-algae, several species of calcareous tube building polychaetes, barnacles. Their occurrence in Belgian waters is limited and their behaviour (so far) poses no great problems Report No , rev. 01 Page A-1

91 Other species such as Elminius modestus (competition?) Balanus amphitrite (competition?) Hemigrapsus spec. (competition?) are very abundant in Belgian coastal waters. Impact of these species has not been recognized so far. The same holds for several other non-indigenous species colonising the coastal waters and especially harbour environments. In general the mean impact in Belgian waters of the species mentioned above is competition with other native species, the altering of the overall biodiversity and biomass and in some cases the changing of the original habitat. As most of the introduced species in Belgian waters, whether or not recognised as NIS, are not thought to pose great threats or economic damage, they are of no concern, hence the lack of studies. There is one exception the case. 2.3 BW risk assessment No risk assessments have been carried out. 2.3 Warning systems Early warning systems are not implemented. Due to the limited taxonomic knowledge there is a real risk that possible new introductions encountered during monitoring or other studies are not recognised and remain unreported, at least in the first period of their arrival. 2.4 Ballast water patterns today No data on ballast water volumes or shipping traffic in Belgian ports has been identified so far. 2.5 Existing Ballast Water Management No ballast water exchange strategy is in place. 3 DENMARK The Danish Forest and Nature Agency has provided the information below. 3.1 Biological monitoring No information has been received from Denmark regarding biological monitoring. 3.2 Ballast water patterns today Denmark has no information available regarding ballast water patterns today. 3.3 Existing Ballast Water Management Management requirements Denmark has not for the moment introduced a national ballast water management policy. Report No , rev. 01 Page A-2

92 Reporting requirement Denmark has not at present introduced reporting requirements related to ballast water. Recommended use of risk assessment Denmark has not at present recommendations regarding the use of risk assessment. Ballast Water exchange strategy (special areas for exchange) Denmark has not at present any ballast water exchange strategy. Land based reception facilities planned Denmark has not at present any land based reception facilities planned. 3.4 Implementation of BW Convention Denmark has not signed the Convention and they have not implemented the Convention in their national legislation yet. Denmark has no official recommendations yet. 4 FRANCE The information was provided by Daniel Masson (IFREMER, Daniel.Masson@ifremer.fr) during BLG9 at IMO. Details were provided from an individual biologist, i.e. should not be considered as an official countries statement. 4.1 Biological monitoring Information on NIS in French coastal waters is regionally and taxonomically scattered with no overall inventory being available. From the French Atlantic coast no database on NIS is known. In contrast NIS inventories are known from the Mediterranean coast as e.g. the CIESM atlas on NIS. Monitoring studies on biota in French coastal waters are carried out on a routine basis. However, these initiatives do not focus on NIS. Several NIS are used in current commercial practice, e.g. for aquaculture purposes. The most prominent NIS in culture is the Pacific Oyster Crassostrea gigas. To ensure successful aquaculture activities monitoring efforts are underway, especially on NIS potentially threatening the aquaculture industries, such as harmful algae. Other monitoring efforts include studies on disease agents and parasites in oysters, potentially effecting the growth of the target species for aquaculture. This is of particular interest as France exports seed oysters to various countries and relevant quarantine and inspection efforts are carried out to avoid non-target species movements when exporting living biota. NIS with an economical or ecological impact include (selection): Crepidula fornicata, a gastropod known as food competitor to oysters Caulerpa taxifolia, a green alga which has the potential to negative impact on native macroalga as competitor in the Mediterranean Sea Report No , rev. 01 Page A-3

93 Teredo navalis. This NIS, also known as ship-worm, destructs permanently submerged wooden installations, such as pilings in marinas and coastal protection constructions toxic phytoplankton NIS potentially impacting the aquaculture industry. Early warning systems on other NIS than harmful algae are not in place. So far, no risk assessment has been carried out. 4.2 Ballast water patterns today National traffic information France exports 55 Mio tonnes of cargo resulting in approx. 22 Mio tonnes of ballast water being discharged in French ports (ca. 40 % of the tonnes of cargo). France imports 175 Mio tonnes of cargo resulting in ca. 70 Mio tonnes of ballast water being exported from France, i.e. taken onboard in French ports. Ballast water discharged in French ports The dominating French ballast water recipient ports are located on the Atlantic coast. Here, the ports of le Havre and Roven receive the majority of the total amount of ballast water being discharged: le Havre, ballast water discharge of 6 Mio tonnes (Mt), Roven 6 Mt, Dunkerque 3 Mt, Nantes 2,5 Mt, la Rochelle 1,2 Mt, and Bordeaux 1 Mt. All French Mediterranean Ports play a less important role with in total 1 Mt of ballast water discharges. The Port of Marseille is the dominant receiving port in the region. 4.3 Existing Ballast Water Management No ballast water exchange strategy is in place nation-wide, except the compliance with IMO Res. A868(20) required by ships being registered in France. Following IMO Res. A.868(20) ballast water is exchanged whenever possible, i.e. when ships cross the Atlantic Ocean or other oceanic regions with deep waters. However, ships are not required to exchange their ballast water when the 200nm/200m depth or 50nm/200m depth limit is not met during their intended voyage. However, in some ports local regulations prohibit ballast water discharge inside the port (e.g. Sete, on the Mediterranean coast). Currently no national policy, strategy or programme regarding ballast water management is being developed. Report No , rev. 01 Page A-4

94 No plans are known regarding the definition of coastal ballast water exchange zones in case the depth and distance limit in IMO Res. A. 868(20) cannot be met. Land based reception facilities are not available and it is unknown whether or not such facilities will occur in the future. No risk assessment relevant to NIS has been carried out yet. The following recommendations were provided. In the future French authorities may considered to produce a database on high risk areas in (a) North West Europe and (b) in areas known to be risk areas world-wide, i.e. regions with known toxic phytoplankton outbreakes, construct a software tool for easy access of the risk area data, prepare a "black box" concept for rapid compliance control of ships without undue delays, and develop and run a public awareness campaign to prepare for general adoption of ballast water management instruments. 4.4 Implementation of BW Convention France currently considers to ratify the IMO Ballast Water Management Convention. A decision on how to proceed with this process was not taken yet. 5 GERMANY The biological information provided are based upon earlier studies on biological invaders in German coastal waters. Details on ballast water pattern were estimated according to a calculation form based upon results from the German shipping study carried out (Gollasch 1996). Input provided on ballast water management is a result of a recent meeting involving several state and national authorities, such as the Ministries of Transport and Environment as well as federal state and port authorities. 5.1 Biological monitoring In total 81 non-indigenous species (NIS) are known from German North Sea coastal and adjacent waters of which 60 species are considered to be established with self-sustaining populations. The most impacting species are the Chinese Mitten Crab Eriocheir sinensis, the zebra mussel Dreissena polymorpha, the ship worm Teredo navalis, and the Pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas. An overall impact calculation of all known introduced aquatic species in German coastal waters cannot be given due to the lack of relevant information. During an unpublished study carried out by Gollasch for the German Federal Agency for Shipping and Hydrography in 2004, indications of the monetary impact of two species, the Chinese Mitten Crab Eriocheir sinensis and the ship Report No , rev. 01 Page A-5

95 worm Teredo navalis were assessed. However, the following attempt of an impact calculation should be critical reviewed once additional information becomes available. The total damage caused by the ship worm Teredo navalis along all German coastal waters (including the Baltic Sea) is estimated as 50 million since 1993 (Hoppe pers. comm.). Since its first record in Germany in 1912 costs to manage the crab population and for compensation of damage caused by the Chinese Mitten Crab Eriocheir sinensis results in approx. 80 million (includes impact to inland waters as the crab migrates to inland lakes). It should be noted that this crab occurs in largely oscillating densities. The impact of this invader became especially clear during the mass occurrences in German waters in the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1980s and 1990s. In total mass developments were reported for approximately 30 years in the last century (Fladung pers. comm.). Monitoring programmes exists in various locations along the German North Sea coast. However, these initiatives do not focus on NIS. Neither early warning systems or databases have been launched so far. However, the knowledge on coastal invaders in the academic arena is comprehensive due to the enthusiastic work of selected scientists. 5.2 Ballast water patterns today The following ship traffic information excludes inland shipping, i.e. sea-going merchant vessels are considered only. Figure 1 shows the cargo turnover for selected European ports. Rotterdam is by far the most important port in continental Europe followed by Antwerp and Hamburg. In Figure 2 the cargo turnover for containers is shown in TEU. [in tonnes] Hamburg Bremen (incl. Bremerhaven) Rotterdam Antwerp Fig. 1 Cargo turnover in 1,000 tonnes for selected ports in continental Europe. Report No , rev. 01 Page A-6

96 Hamburg Bremen (incl. Bremerhaven) Rotterdam Antwerp Fig. 2 Turnover of containers (in TEU) in selected ports in continental Europe. Figure 3 shows the importance of various German ports according to cargo turnover. The ports of Hamburg, Bremen (including Bremerhaven) and Wilhelmshaven are the busiest ports in the country. Fig. 3 Ranking of German ports according to cargo turnover in million tonnes Report No , rev. 01 Page A-7