International agreements on alien species – implementation...
Transcript of International agreements on alien species – implementation...
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!