International agreements on alien species – implementation in the

Baltic Sea

Riikka Puntila HELCOM 29.8.2012

Outline

• Background

• Alien species

• International agreements

• BWM Convention

– Practical execution

– Caveats

– Potential effect

– Implementation in the Baltic

Background

• Alien species have been spreading with human assistance throughout the world for centuries

• The problem was not properly acknowledged until the 70’s and the 80’s

• Alien species may cause significant harm to both environment and economy (IMO GloBallast estimates lossess of ~100 Billion USD yearly)

Alien species

• S. Saesmaa, FIMR

• J Bruun, FIMR

More than 100 alien species detected in the Baltic, e.g. acorn barnacle, fish hook water flea, comb jelly...

• Great deal of species have spread with ship ballast and more are arriving as we speak

• Nearly 10 billion tonns of ballast water transported each year

• Larger and faster ships increase the species survival

• New routes connect distant areas to each other.

• Ballast water management and control has potential to hinder or stop the dispersal of some alien species.

International agreements of alien species

• Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Adopted in 1992, in force 1993

• Convention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS or Bonn Convention) Adopted 1979, in force 1983

• Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES or Washington Convention) Adopted 1973, in force 1975

• Ballast water management convention (BWM Convention) Adopted 2004, in force ?

• EU Directives and Regulations (e.g. MSFD) • Regional Conventions (e.g. OSPAR, HELCOM)

International agreements of alien species in ballast water

• Guidelines for Preventing the Introduction of Unwanted Organisms and Pathogens from Ships' Ballast Water and Sediment Discharges (MEPC.50(31)) adopted in 1991

• The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) requested “immediate measures for preventing invasions”

• MEPC guidelines updated in 1993 (Resolution A.774(18)) where MSC- and MEPC –committees were requested to develop binding regulations

• Guidelines for the control and management of ships' ballast water to minimize the transfer of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens – was accepted 1997 (Resolution A.868(20))

• Ballast water management convention was accepted in 13.2.2004 in London

• The HELCOM countries have agreed to ratify the BWM Convention by 2010, or at the latest by 2013

6

HELCOM Guidelines

• HELCOM Ballast Water Road Map was adopted as a part of the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan in 2007

• The joint OSPAR/HELCOM General Guidance on the Voluntary Interim application of the D1 Ballast Water Exchange Standard in the North-East Atlantic have been applied from 1 April 2008 (IMO BWM.2/Circ.14)

– Beginning from 1 October 2012, vessels operating between the Mediterranean Sea and the North-East Atlantic and/or the Baltic Sea are requested to exchange ballast water (IMO BWM.2/Circ.22)

• The HELCOM countries have agreed that ballast water exchange in the Baltic Sea is not a suitable management option, either for oceanic or regional voyages

7

BWM Convention (2004): International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water

and Sediments

16.12.2010

Ballast water

9

Ballast water management convention

Albania, Antigua & Barbuda, Barbados, Brazil, Canada, Cook Islands, Croatia, Egypt, France, Iran, Kenya, Kiribati, Republic of Korea, Lebanon, Liberia, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Mongolia, Montenegro, Netherlands Nigeria, Niue, Norway, Palau, Russian Fed., St. Kitts & Nevis, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Trinidad & Tobaco, Tuvalu

• Will enter to force 12 months after ratification by at least 30 countries who represent 35% of the Worlds merchant shipping tonnage

• To the date (the end of July) 35 countries representing ~27.95 % of the Worlds tonnage have ratified the BWMC

• 22 Articles – General obligations – Research and monitoring – Sediment reception facilities – Violations – Surveys and certificates – Ballast water and sediments plan

and Ballast water record book – ….

• Annexes – Regulations – Ballast water standards (D-1 and

D-2) – Exemptions and Exeptions

• Guidelines – G1-G14

www.imo.org

BWMC Guidelines G1-G14

• G1 Sediment reception facilities

• G2 BW sampling • G3 Equivalent compliance • G4 BWM and development of

BWM -plans • G5 BW-reception facilities • G6 BW exchange • G7 Risk assessments under

regulation A-4

• G8 Approval of BWM systems • G9 Approval of BWM systems

w. active substances • G10 Prototype BW

technology programmes • G11 BW exchange design

and construction • G12 Design and constr. To

facilitate sediment control • G13 Additional measures • G14 Designation of BWE

areas

Applies to…

• Applies to all vessels in international traffic who can carry ballast water

• Applies also to vessels whose flag state has not ratified the convention

• Does not apply to army or coast guard vessels

• Requires ballast water management always unless there is no risk of spreading alien organisms

Ballast water management

•Options: – No ballast water release (applies to RoRo vessels mainly)

–Ballast release to on land/in port facilities

–Ballast water exchange (D-1 standard)

–Ballast water performance (treatment) (D-2 standard)

Regulation B-3, schedule for standards

Built BW m³ 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

< 2009 1500-5000

< 2009 <1500 >5000

≥2009 <5000

≥2009 < 2012

>5000

≥2012 >5000

D1/D2

D2

D1/D2 D2

D2

D2

D2

D1/D2

Ballast water exchange (D-1 standard)

• Exchange of ballast water may be unsafe

• Convention requires exchange only if ship safety can be guaranteed

• If exchange will result in detours or hold ups it is not required

• 95% of BW volume to be changed, or tank rinsed 3 times using flow-through method

– 200 nm distance from the coast, 200m depth if not possible

– 50 nm distance from the coast, 200m depth if not possible

– assigned BW exchange zones

->Not applicable in the Baltic

Source: SMHI

Ballast water treatment (D-2 Standard)

• Performance standard: < 10 viable organisms/m3 > 50 µm < 10 viable organisms/ml 50-10 µm Vibrio cholerae < 1 cfu/100 ml E. coli < 250 cfu/100 ml Intestinal Enterococci < 100 cfu/100 ml

• Dozens of methods being developed – UV, ozone, electrochemical reactions, infiltration etc.

Availability of treatment techniques is frequently reviewed in IMO

• MEPC 53: Some methods available by 2008

• MEPC 55: Many methods available by 2009, but not for all types of vessels> Res. A.1005(25) postpones the BWMC until 31.12.2011

• MEPC 58 and 59: Technology is available

• MEPC 61: Technology is available for vessels carrying up to 5000 m3 BW.

• MEPC 62 (July 2011): Treatment systems available, larger and special vessels may encounter problems

• Availability of treatment systems will be evaluated prior to entry to force.

Surveys and certifications

• Vessels larger than 400 GT have to be surveyed and certified to comply with BWMC.

• Port State control officers will be responsible for conducting the inspections

• Ballast water may be sampled to assure for compliance to the standards

• Authorities may stop vessels and/or deny ballast water release

• Violators will be penalized

Other requirements

• Vessels are required to have: – Official Ballast Water and

Sediments Management Plan

– Ballast Water Record Book

• Ports are required to have:

– Sediment reception, if cleaning or emptying of ballast tanks occurrs in the port

– Mostly applies to repair yards which already receive sediments -> no added costs

To be decided…

• Monitoring options to be defined: – IMO has guidance for BW sampling and sample analysing – Port monitoring guidance to be developed

• Exeptions, exemptions and risk assessments: – BWMC may allow exemptions from BW treatment to certain vessels on

specific routes – Risk assessment following G7 guidance is prerequisite for exemptions – Exemption can be granted only if the risk for new organisms spreading is

low – G7 guidance is not applicable to the Baltic – HELCOM has created a guidance to risk assessments in Intra-Baltic traffic – HELCOM develops a decision support tool to be used in granting the

exemptions

• How to treat vessels who do not have treatment facilities?

Exemptions and exeptions

• Exemptions: – Granted based on

application after conducting a risk assessment (G7)

– Low risk routes, vessel and route specific

– Granted for ≤5 years – Other countries

consulted – IMO informed – Risk assessment

procedures currently being developed

– HELCOM and OSPAR have developed RA procedures

• Exeptions:

− To assure for safety of the vessel

− BW is either released or taken in the open ocean

− BW is released to the same location where taken

• No mixing to other water bodies and sediments allowed

• Definition for same location?

• Detailed information on port carachtheristics required

22

Challenges in implementation

• BW exchange is problematic (mainly for safety reasons)

• Treatment methods are still being developed • Installation of the treatment facilities to old vessels

may be difficult. In years 2016-2017 thousands of vessels are required to have them onboard.

• Issues with monitoring and sampling need to be resolved

• Risk assessments for granting exemptions are currently being developed (HELCOM, OSPAR)

• Definition of the ”same location” needs to be defined

What will BWMC cost?

• Costs of the alien species: – Can cause losses of

billion dollars – Negative impacts to the

environment significant – May cause negative

impacts on human health – No way of knowing how

harmful the next species will be

– Eradication measures uneffective and expensive

• Costs of the ratification of BWMC: – Installing and running

costs of the treatment facilities

– New requirements for repair yards

– More tasks to local authorities

– New market for technology companies

– Risk of spreading new alien species declines

– Even if a country does not ratify, the vessels have to follow the rules!!

24

ALIENS 2 – Port survey protocol and decision support tool development

• ALIENS 1 -Pilot risk assessments of alien species transfer on intra-Baltic ship voyages –project pointed out the critical need for data on alien species and environmental conditions in ports

• ALIENS 2 project aims at – developing harmonized survey protocols for detecting

alien species in ports in the Baltic – defining a list of target species which will be used in

the risk assessment – developing a, data management, risk assessment and

decision support tool to assist contracting parties in granting exemptions to shipping routes

25

Protocol for port surveys

• Based on globally used methods in port surveys – CRIMP – Rapid Assessment Surveys

• Methods were selected among generally known and widely used sampling methods

• Aim is to cover all species groups – Pathogens – Plankton – Fouling organisms – Benthos – Epifauna

26

Port surveys in Turku and Naantali

• Test surveys were conducted in August 2012 in Ports of Turku and Naantali

• Concentrating mainly on how chosen methods work in port environments

• Data obtained will be utilized when testing the decision support tool as well as in granting the exemptions

27

Conclusions

• Ballast water management is an essential tool in preventing future invasions

• First step (D-1) ballast water exchange • After 2015 all vessels are required to follow D-2 standard • Uncertainties such as sampling, granting exemptions etc. still

exist – Currently in the Baltic, projects aiming to resolve these issues

• International cooperation is crucial and fast ratification of BWM Convention important in preventing future invasions

• S. Saesmaa, F • J Bruun, FIMR

Questions, please?

Thank you!