Ballast Alien Invaders 1999

Focus on IMO International Maritime Organization, 4 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7SR, United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)20 7735 7611 Fax: +44 (0)20 7587 3210 Contacts: Lee Adamson – Senior External Relations Officer; Natasha Brown – External Relations Officer E-mail: [email protected] Web site: www.imo.org These documents are for background information. Please refer to the website www.imo.org for up-to-date information.

August 1999

Alien invaders - putting a stop to the ballast water hitch-hikers Introduction Alien life forms that hitch a ride across the oceans in the ballast water of ships have been creating significant problems for the marine environment, public property and human health. Unlike oil spills and other marine pollution caused by shipping, exotic organisms and marine species cannot be cleaned up or absorbed into the oceans. Once introduced, they can be virtually impossible to eliminate and in the meantime may cause havoc. Specific examples include the introduction of the European zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) in the North American Great Lakes, resulting in expenses of billions of dollars for pollution control and cleaning of fouled underwater structures and waterpipes and the introduction of the American comb jelly (Mnemiopsis leidyi) to the Black and Azov Seas, causing the near extinction of anchovy and sprat fisheries. The bacterium Vibrio cholerae (cholera) has been transported from Asia to Latin American coastal waters, probably through discharges of ballast water, and South-East Asian dinoflagellates of the genera Gymnodinium and Alexandrium, which cause paralytic shellfish poisoning, have been dumped in Australian waters, harming local shellfish industries. Ships are designed and built to move through water carrying a cargo, such as oil or grains. So if the ship is travelling empty to pick up cargo, or has discharged some cargo in one port and is on route to its next port of call, ballast must be taken on board to achieve the required safe operating conditions. This includes keeping the ship deep enough in the water to ensure efficient propeller and rudder operation and to avoid the bow emerging from the water, especially in heavy seas. Ballast is thus defined as any solid or liquid placed in a ship to increase the draft, to change the trim, to regulate the stability or to maintain stress loads within acceptable limits. Water has been used as ballast from the 1880s onwards, thereby avoiding time-consuming loading of solid materials and the potential dangerous vessel instability resulting from the ballast shifting during a voyage. Some types of ships require large amounts of ballast water, primarily for journeys when the ship is unladen, including dry bulk carriers, ore carriers, tankers, liquefied gas carriers, oil bulk ore carriers. Other ships require smaller quantities of ballast in almost all loading conditions, to control stability, trim and heel. They include container ships, ferries, general cargo vessels, passenger vessels, roll-on,roll-off ferries, fishing vessels, fish factory vessels, military vessels. Globally, it is estimated that about 10 billion tonnes of ballast water are transferred each year. Each ship may carry from several hundred litres to more than 100,000 tons of ballast water, depending on the size and purpose of the vessel. That ballast water, probably scooped up and pumped to the ballast tanks in or near the port where the cargo has been delivered, may contain all life stages of aquatic organisms. It has been estimated that ballast water may be transporting 3,000 species of animals and plants a day around the world.

The survival rate of species after discharge depends upon the conditions of the receiving area, with species more likely to gain a foothold when conditions are similar in terms of, for example, salinity and temperature. Studies indicate that typically less than three per cent of the released species actually become established in new regions - but just one predatory fish species could seriously harm the local ecosystem. In the last decade, the International Maritime Organization has been working through its Member States to tackle the problem. Guidelines for Preventing the Introduction of Unwanted Organisms and Pathogens from Ships' Ballast Waters and Sediment Discharges were initially adopted in1991 and IMO is now working towards adopting mandatory regulations on the management of ballast water. Shipping is a crucial element in world trade, transporting more than 90 percent of goods and commodities around the world. Ballasting of ships is a necessary requirement for their safe operation when sailing empty to pick up a cargo, or with a light load, and it has been recognised that currently the only effective way to stop the spread of unwanted organisms is to prevent them being dumped in foreign ports. The early invaders Before the introduction of stee- hulled vessels in the late nineteenth century, when ships began using sea water for ballasting, sand, stone, bricks and even iron were used as ballast. This ballast was essentially benign. But when ships began to take on board thousands of tonnes of sea water in far off ports to ballast their ships, local life forms were unwittingly scooped up, to be transported to new locations across the oceans. Increasing speed of ships probably also helped these species to survive their journeys, ready to reinstate themselves in new seas - where their natural predators may not exist. Scientists first recognised the signs of an alien species introduction after a mass occurrence of the Asian phytoplankton algae Odontella (Biddulphia sinensis) in the North Sea in 1903. But it was not until the 1970s that they began reviewing the problem in detail. By then, the potential for ships to pollute the marine environment was a global issue - especially following the Torrey Canyon oil tanker disaster of 1967, which acted as a catalyst for IMO to act in drafting regulations to deal with oil pollution by ships. In 1973, IMO convened a Conference to adopt a new international convention which would address all aspects of marine pollution by ships - the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. (The Convention, and its Protocol adopted in 1978, is known as MARPOL 73/78. It initially consisted of five annexes dealing with oil, chemicals, goods in packaged form, sewage and garbage. In 1997, an annex on air pollution was added.) At the 1973 Conference, the ballast water problem was raised, specifically in the context of the transport of pathogens harmful to humans. The conference adopted a Resolution, which noted that "ballast water taken in waters which may contain bacteria of epidemic diseases, may, when discharged, cause a danger of spreading of the epidemic diseases to other countries". The Resolution requested IMO and the World Health Organization to "initiate studies on that problem on the basis of any evidence and proposals which may be submitted by governments". Meanwhile, scientists were assessing the problem. In 1976, a German scientist, Professor H. Rosenthal, published a study reviewing the state of knowledge and risks associated with the transplantation of non-indigenous species to fisheries and aquaculture through ballast water. He concluded that modern fish farms near main shipping routes were at high risk of disease transfer from ballast water. In the next decade, more and more alien species were being introduced - and being noticed - around the world. In the late 1980s, Canada and Australia were among countries experiencing particular problems with unwanted species, and they brought their concerns to the attention of IMO's Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC). Ballast water guidelines 1991 In 1990, the MEPC at its 31st session set up a working group on ballast water, which developed guidelines on addressing the problem of alien species. An MEPC Resolution - MEPC 50 (31), Guidelines for Preventing the Introduction of Unwanted Organisms and Pathogens from Ships' Ballast Waters and Sediment Discharges - was adopted in 1991. The Guidelines were aimed at providing Administrations and port State authorities with information on procedures to minimize the risk from the introduction of unwanted aquatic organisms form ships' ballast water and sediment.

2

The Guidelines noted that the ability of aquatic organisms and pathogens to survive after transportation may be reduced by insignificant differences in prevailing ambient conditions, such as salinity, temperature, nutrients and light intensity. They recommended care in loading ballast water to ensure only clean water and clean sediments were taken on board. Where the non-discharge of ballast water was not possible, ballast water exchange in the open sea provided a means of limiting the introduction of unwanted species. Deep ocean water contains few organisms and those that do exist are unlikely to adapt readily to a new coastal or fresh-water environment. Other ballast water management practices could be acceptable. The guidelines highlighted possibilitie s for the future, such as treatment by chemicals and biocides; heat treatment; oxygen deprivation; tank coating; filters; and ultraviolet light disinfection. In the longer term, changes in ship design may help limit the uptake of unwanted pathogens and organisms in ballast water. UNCED 1992 The problem of non-indigenous species introduced by ballast water in ships was also being recognised by broader environmental forums. The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), in Rio de Janeiro 1992, recognised the issue as a major international concern. The Conference urged states to assess the need for additional measures to address degradation of the marine environment from shipping in12 different ways, including "Considering the adoption of appropriate rules on ballast water discharge to prevent the spread of non-indigenous organisms". 1 Back at IMO, the MEPC at its 33rd session in October1992 established an informal working group to discuss papers on ballast water presented by Australia. The MEPC endorsed a proposal by the group to establish an intersessional correspondence group which would conduct a survey on ballast water and look at the extent to which the1991 Guidelines were being implemented. The correspondence group included United States, Canada, United Kingdom, New Zealand and Japan, with Australia as the lead country. 1993 Ballast water survey In 1993, Australia presented the results of the ballast water survey to the 34th MEPC session. The survey, based on replies from13 countries, noted: "The introduction of exotic organisms and/or species is having a major economic impact on the marine environment, aquaculture and other industries in some countries. In some cases, aquaculture farms have been closed several times. This has resulted in financial loss to the industry, the people working in the industry and ultimately to the national economy. The whole New Zealand shellfish industry was closed to domestic and export markets due to a toxic algal bloom." The report noted that alien species, once established, may spread rapidly. "Invariably, once a species becomes established it is impossible to remove it, and control of the organisms can become a very expensive exercise, as best evidenced by the experience of Canada and the United States with the Zebra mussel in the Great Lakes, the introduction of which is estimated to cost those nations US$5 billion by the year 2000."

1

Paragraph 17.30(a)(vi) of Chapter 17 of Agenda 21. Agenda 21, adopted by UNCED, "addresses the pressing problems of today and also aims at preparing the world for the challenges of the next century. It reflects a global consensus and political commitment at the highest level on development and environment cooperation." Agenda 21 Chapter 17 "Protection of the Oceans, All Kinds of Seas, Including Enclosed and Semi-enclosed Seas, and Coastal Areas and the Protection, Rational Use and Development of their Living Resources" can be found on the Internet at: http://www.igc.apc.org/habitat/Agenda 21/ch-17.html

3

The report also highlighted the rapid spread of the Japanese seaweed Undaria pinnatifida along Australia's Tasmanian east coast - with disastrous effects on the abalone industry and presenting a threat to oyster and mussel farms. Despite these and other examples, the report noted "the seriousness of the ballast water issue is not yet well understood" and the guidelines adopted in 1991 had not been widely implemented. The report recommended two main courses of action: ensuring as many Member States as possible implemented the ballast water guidelines; and continuing research into ballast water management practices and treatment processes. The main outcome of the discussions on the report was the adoption in November 1993 by the IMO Assembly of Resolution A.774(18) on Guidelines for Preventing the Introduction of Unwanted Organisms and Pathogens from Ships' Ballast Waters and Sediment Discharges, based on the guidelines adopted in 1991. Adopting the Guidelines as an Assembly Resolution gave them more weight than an MEPC Resolution. The resolution in addition requested the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) and the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) to keep the guidelines under review "with a view to further developing the guidelines as a basis for a new Annex to MARPOL 73/78", in other words, to develop internationally applicable, legally-binding provisions as part of the MARPOL 73/78 Convention. Since 1993, the ballast water working group has been working on developing the draft regulations. The working group has become an established feature at MEPC sessions, with increased levels of participation - by non-governmental bodies as well as individual countries who have become more aware of the problem. Updated guidelines adopted 1997 In March 1997, the MEPC agreed an updated version of the Guidelines on ballast water which was adopted by the 20th Assembly of IMO in November 1997 (Resolution A.868(20) Guidelines for the control and management of ships' ballast water to minimize the transfer of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens). The revised Guidelines incorporate further recommendations on tackling the problem, including how to lessen the chances of taking on board harmful organisms along with ballast water. The recommendations include informing local agents and/or ships of areas and situations where uptake of ballast water should be minimized, such as areas with known populations of harmful pathogens or areas near to sewage outlets. Ships should operate precautionary practices through avoiding loading ballast water in very shallow water or in areas where propellers may stir up sediment. Unnecessary discharge of ballast water should also be avoided. Procedures for dealing with ballast water include exchange of ballast water at sea and discharge to reception facilities, while the Guidelines note that in the future treatment using heat or ultraviolet light could become acceptable to port States. IMO's Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) and the MEPC had earlier in 1997 approved a joint circular on Guidance on safety aspects relating to the exchange of ballast water at sea (MSC/Circ.806/MEPC/Circ.329). The guidance outlines procedures for exchanging ballast water and points out safety issues which need to be considered, such as avoidance of over and under pressurization of ballast tanks and the need to be aware of weather conditions. Draft mandatory regulations During 1998, the ballast water working group has been working on the draft mandatory regulations to manage ballast water. The draft regulations under discussion would make it mandatory for ships on certain voyages (such as deep sea voyages) to carry out ballast water exchange at sea or some other form of ballast water management to avoid the introduction of unwanted species. In addition, port States would be expected to provide reception and treatment facilities to deal with ballast water. However, the ship's safety will remain paramount and ships would not be expected to carry out, for example, ballast water exchange in mid-ocean when it is unsafe to do so. The MEPC intends to complete all preparatory work in the near future so that an international conference to adopt the regulations could be held in the early 2000s.

4

Legal instrument options The proposed mandatory regulations on ballast water management could be adopted as a new Annex to MARPOL 73/78 (either through a new Protocol adding a new Annex, or as an amendment to MARPOL to add a new Annex), or as a new, independent convention. The main differences between the three options are outlined below: •

A new protocol to add an Annex to MARPOL 73/78: would involve a Conference of Parties to MARPOL 73/78, or a Diplomatic Conference of all States, convened to consider, with a view to adoption, a new Protocol. MARPOL 73/78 does not specify conditions for the entry into force of a new Protocol and, therefore, the conditions for its entry into force need not be bound by the provisions of MARPOL 73/78. However, regulations set out in an Annex to a new Protocol could not be enforced as mandatory requirements on those States which have not accepted the new Protocol. A problem may emerge when ships of non-Parties to the new Protocol call at a port of a Party to the Protocol.

•

Amendment to MARPOL 73/78 to add a new Annex: An expanded MEPC or a Conference of Parties to MARPOL 73/78 could be convened to consider adopting a new Annex to MARPOL as an amendment to the Convention. This would be deemed to have been accepted on the date on which it is accepted by two thirds of the Parties, the combined merchant fleets of which constitute not less than 50 per cent of the gross tonnage of the world's merchant fleet. But a Conference of MARPOL Parties may agree to develop variations of the amendment procedures and entry into force conditions.

•

A new convention: Ballast Water Management provisions in the form of a new Convention could be adopted by a Diplomatic Conference to which all States would be invited. The Diplomatic Conference may decide requirements for acceptance, entry-into-force conditions, application, enforcement and reporting, taking into account the scope and nature of the legal treaty and the participating States may develop a set of framework provisions different from those of MARPOL 73/78. But a clear distinction between the role and responsibilities of flag State administrations versus those of port State authorities would need to be cle arly identified.

It has also been proposed that a "Ballast Water Management Code" be developed. This could form an appendix to a MARPOL 73/78 Annex on Ballast Water Management and would provide the flexibility for MEPC to amend the Code through a tacit acceptance procedure whenever this might be deemed appropriate, e.g. in light of experience gained with existing techniques or when new technological developments become available. A Code on Ballast Water Management would be likely to contain three parts: A B C

-

Ballast Water Management Practices which are mandatory; Ballast Water Management Plans and Associated Information (mandatory); and Recommendations to assist in implementing the legally binding provisions of the Annex and its appendix.

Alternatives to ballast water exchange Mandatory regulations on ballast water are expected to include a reference to methods being developed or which may be developed in the future to deal with life forms being carried in ballast water. The main options under research at present include: • physical (heat, ultrasonic, ultraviolet, silver ion, magnetic etc); • mechanical (filtration, improved ship design, etc); • chemical (ozone, oxygen removal, chlorine, etc); • biological treatment methods to kill harmful organisms.

5

Ballast water treatment methods Ballast water treatment

Advantages/disadvantages

Ballast water exchange in deep sea - i.e. depths of 2,000 metres or more

Seen as most effective practical method of minimising risk of transfer of unwanted species. Deep ocean water contains few organisms and these are unlikely to survive transfer to coastal or fresh water environment. Ship safety aspects may inhibit operations - deep sea exchange may not be considered safe under certain weather/sea conditions. Flow-through exchange is preferred option as emptying and filling ballast tanks is unlikely to be a safe option for structural/stability reasons.

Taking on clean ballast

May be achieved through precautionary measures such as avoidance of shallow water, dredging operations and areas of known outbreak of disease or plankton bloom. But there may be little choice over where ballasting can take place.

Certifying clean ballast

Ships may obtain laboratory analysis certifying ballast water is free of aquatic organisms or pathogens considered harmful by receiving state. Not seen as an effective method of minimising risk.

Non-release of ballast water

Not an option for many ships, such as bulk carriers and tankers.

Relying on differences of temperature/salinity

Significant changes in ambient conditions between area of take-up/receiving area can affect ability of aquatic organism to survive. But more research is needed and it depends on locations.

Keeping water in ballast for long periods

Water maintained in ballast tanks for more than 100 days represent minimum risk, as most organisms do not survive the absence of light and higher iron content of ballast water. But tankers and bulk carriers may not have option of maintaining ballast water for three months.

Sediment disposal

Many aquatic organism are present in sediment and all sources of sediment retention such as anchor cables should be routinely cleaned. Ships should be designed to minimise sediment retention.

Reception facilities

Discharge of ships' ballast into reception facilities may provide adequate means of control. Dependent on these facilities being provided.

Filtration

Filtering ballast water as it is taken on board would remove large particles such as small seaweeds, but would not rule out the uptake of microscopic organisms. Residues would be released in the area of ballasting, but capital costs to provide infrastructure to do this could be high.

Ultra violet radiation

Effect varies with type of organism, with some highly resistant to UV radiation. But could be effective in combination with filtration. No toxic side effects, and no adverse effects on pipework, pumps or coatings.

Ballast water heating

Potentially attractive solution. Heating to temperatures of 36-38°C for 2-6 hours has been shown to kill zebra mussels. Temperatures above 40°C for eight minutes can be lethal to all organisms. Dependent on availability of heat to treat ballast water during voyage; thermal stresses also need to be addressed.

Use of chlorine as disinfectant

Effectiveness influenced by temperature, contact time and pH level. But there are environmental concerns about discharge of chlorinated ballast water. The reaction of chlorine with some organic compounds produces carcinogens.

Electrolytically generated copper and silver ions

Effectiveness seen as superior to chlorination, but some organism can enhance their tolerance to high copper and silver concentrations. Environmental implications of concentrations required need further study.

6

Ref: Resolution A.868(20) - Ballast water guidelines / Disinfection of ballast water, a Review of Potential Options, Lloyd's Register (July 1995)

7

Implementation and technical assistance To be effective, IMO regulations must be applied globally and the Organization's Technical Assistance Programme is aimed at helping those countries which need assistance to develop the infrastructure and knowledge necessary to implement legislation. In the case of ballast water regulations, IMO, alongside the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and Global Environmental Facility (GEF)2, began a project in 1997 on "Removal of Barriers to the Effective Implementation of Ballast Water Control and Management Measures in Developing Countries". The initial stages of the project, involving a report on ballast water management in a number of countries, have been completed and it is hoped the GEF Council in April 1999 will approve the launching of a three-year US$7.3 million project. The long-term objective is to assist developing countries in establishing capacities, such as thorough training programmes, to reduce the transfer of harmful organisms and pathogens in ships' ballast water, in accordance with the IMO guidelines - and the mandatory regulations when they come into force - on ballast water management. Full and effective implementation of ballast water regulations require that every seafarer on board a ship has to be fully aware why specific measures are taken, such as the exchange of ballast water at high sea, the monitoring of port and ballast waters, or the cleaning of tanks and lockers of sediments. At the same time, port State authorities and officials need to be aware of relevant IMO requirements and the ballast water management plans developed for each ship as well as specific local criteria, such as when a particular species is being targeted as an unwanted alien and it is important to ensure ballast water is not carrying that species. It is planned to establish five pilot demonstration sites in developing countries to test effective and manageable ballast control measures. Specific strategies for helping to establish ballast water control measures may include: training and provision of information; scientific and technical assistance, such as port and ballast water sampling and monitoring programmes; strengthening national laws and their enforcement; promoting bilateral and regional measures. Specific ballast water management measures to be tested under the project may include: open ocean ballast-exchange or continuous flushing; treating “contaminated” ballast water with heat or other physical and chemical methods; port monitoring programmes to establish whether there are any unwanted organisms in water which, if used for ballasting might pose a threat to the port of discharge; and fresh water ballasting.

2

The Global Environmental Facility (GEF) is a fund that helps countries translate global concerns into national action to help fight ozone depletion, global warming, loss of biodiversity and pollution of international waters by means of grant funding. The managing partners of the GEF are the World Bank, the United Nations Development Programme and the United Nations Environment Programme.

8

Status of regulations on ballast water Several countries, which have had particular problems with non-indigenous species arriving in ballast water, have already taken measures to inhibit the introduction of other species in the future. This table indicates some of the voluntary or mandatory measures which have been introduced to date: Country

Ballast water rules

United States

Exchange of ballast water mandatory for vessels entering Great Lakes

Australia

Voluntary controls imposed on vessels entering Australian waters

Canada

Vessels arriving at the British Columbia port of Vancouver must exchange ballast water at sea.

Israel

All ships destined for Israeli ports must exchange any ballast water in open seas, beyond any continental shelf or fresh water current effect. ships visiting Eilat must exchange outside the Red Sea and ships visiting the Mediterranean ports must exchange in the Atlantic.

Chile

Mandatory requirements on ballast water introduced in 1995. Any ship coming from zones affected by cholera or similar contagious epidemic should renew ballast water minimum 12 nautical miles from coast. where no proof of ballast water exchange is available, chemicals (powdered sodium hypochlorite or powdered calcium hypochlorite) must be added to ballast water prior to deballasting in port.

Panama Canal

Discharges of any kind prohibited in Panama Canal.

Argentina

Since early 1990s, Buenos Aires port authorities require chlorination of ballast water for ships calling at the port. Chlorine is added to ballast water via ventilation tubes of ballast tanks.

New Zealand

Voluntary guidelines in place since 1992. Vessels should provide evidence of origin of ballast water and certification that it is free from toxic dinoflagellates; or evidence of ballast water exchange at sea; or evidence ballast water has been disinfected.

9

Some case studies American comb jelly plagues fisheries in the Black Sea The American ctenophore Mnemniopsis leidyi, an organism originating from the east coast of the Americas, is believed to have been introduced into the Black Sea through ballast water in the 1970s. The comb jelly (an organism with similarities to a jelly fish) is a voracious predator on zooplankton and fish eggs and larvae and has been largely responsible for the collapse of the anchovy fishing industry in the Black Sea. As author Neal Ascherson wrote in his book "Black Sea" (Jonathon Cape, London, 1996): "In the late 1980s, mostly between 1987 and 1988, there took place one of the most devastating biological explosions ever recorded by science. Mnemniopsis, an animal with no known predators to control it, spread suddenly and incontinently through the Black Sea. It fed voraciously on zooplankton, the food of young fish, and on fish larvae. In the Sea of Azov, Mnemniopsis consumed almost the entire zooplankton population, which in 1989 and 1991 collapsed to one-six-hundredth of its normal average. Its total biomass in the Black sea and the Sea of Azov reached 700 million tons of translucent jelly, and its impact was entirely catastrophic. No recorded destruction by human pestilence or locust swarm compares with this damage to fish and their resources..." Further reading: Opportunistic settlers and the problem of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi invasion in the Black Sea. GESAMP Reports and Studies No.58. IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/WMO/WHO/IAEA/UN/UNEP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP). ISSN 1020-4873; ISBN 92-801-1436-4

Toxic dinoflagellates and other species in Australian waters Australia receives some 60 million tonnes of ballast water annually and concern over alien species mounted in the 1980s. In 1990, Australia introduced voluntary guidelines on ballast water for ships calling at Australian ports. This followed particular concern over the introduction of toxic dinoflagellates to Australian waters, representing a real threat to shellfish farming industries on the Tasmanian, Victorian and New South Wales coastline. Toxic dinoflagellates are a type of algae known to cause paralytic shellfish poisoning in humans. Evidence suggested the toxic dinoflagellate Gymnodinium catenatum became established in Australian waters after arriving in ballast water - the species was already present in waters of Argentina, Japan, Mexico, Portugal, Spain, Venezuela and in Mediterranean sea ports. Toxic dinoflagellates of the species Alexandrium tamarense have a wide distribution and became established in waters off Melbourne.3 Dinoflagellates can reproduce simply by splitting in two, allowing multiplication wherever conditions are favourable. Gymnodium catenatum also has a type of reproduction in which two cells of opposing "gender" come together, which is usually a result of unfavourable conditions. This results in a tough encased spore that can survive different conditions by staying dormant in sediment. These spores remain viable for 20 to 30 years, germinating into the usual swimming form when conditions are suitable , and entering the food cycle of shellfish causing the shellfish to become toxic to humans. Farms in Tasmania had been forced to shut down for extensive periods on occasions, as a precautionary measures during plankton blooms (red tides), which generally follow heavy rain. In the 1990 guidelines, ships were asked to carry certificates attesting that the ballast water was loaded in a place free from toxic dinoflagellates at the time the ballasting took place, to re-ballast at sea in open tropical waters, or to treat the ballast water in hold or in on-shore ballast tanks. Toxic dinoflagellates were not the only species Australia was, and is, concerned about. In 1990, Australia presented a paper to IMO in which it listed several species found in Australian waters and their suspected origin:

3

Toxic dinoflagellates, introduced by ballast water, have also caused problems to shellfish industries in other parts of the world, including China, India and South Africa.

10

Some non-native organisms found in Australian waters

Suspected origin

Yellow fin goby fish

Japan, North East Asia

Striped goby fish

Japan, North East Asia

Japanese sea bass

Japan, Korea, China, Hong Kong

Sobaity sea bream

Arabian Sea

Slater (invertebrate)

New Zealand, Chile

Mysid Shrimp species

Japan

Polycaete worm species

Japan, New Zealand, Pacific, India

Molluscan species

Pacific coast of Asia

Sea slug

Japan, New Zealand, South Africa, Mediterranean

Toxic dinoflagellate (Gymnodium catenatum)

Japan

Japanese laminarium kelp

Japan

North Pacific sea star (Asterias amurensis)

Japan, Alaska

Researchers have been looking into the possibility of using biocontrol methods to deal with the North Pacific sea star, which threatens the shellfish industry as it eats mussels. The species, native to Japanese and Alaskan waters, has been found in Tasmanian waters since 1986 and is believed to have arrived as larvae in ballast water. Physical removal of the starfish may be the only viable solution, but it may be possible to introduce a disease agent for biocontrol. This could be the Japanese ciliate (a single -celled organism) Orchitophyra sp., which disables the host's reproduction. But further research is needed on possible effects on other native echinodermata (sea stars, sea urchins, sea cucumbers). In 1997, Australia's Quarantine Inspection Service (AQIS) estimated that more than 170 species had been introduced to Australian waters, mostly through ballast water. Each year around 150 million tonnes of ships' ballast water are discharged into Australia's 64 international ports by 10,000 vessels from 300 overseas ports. In addition, some 34 million tonnes of ballast water is moved by domestic shipping each year from one Australian port to another. The Australian Ballast Water Program includes the Australian Ballast Water Management Advisory Council (ABWMAC) and its Research Advisory Group (RAG), administered by AQIS in Canberra. Further Reading: AQIS Ballast Water Program: Web site: http://www.aqis.gov.au/ballastwater E-Mail: [email protected] Address: Ballast Water Program; AQIS; GPO Box 858; Canberra ACT 2601 FAX: 61 2 6272 3036

Invasion of the Great Lakes The invasion of the Great Lakes by alien species in ballast water probably dates back to the opening of the St Lawrence Seaway in 1959, when ocean-going ships began entering the Lakes in large numbers. By 1996, more than 130 alien species had been identified. One trans-Atlantic invader is the European zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha), believed to have been introduced to the Great Lakes in the 1980s. Native to the Capsian and Black Seas, it spread throughout Europe in the19th century. In 1990, the United States federal government pledged US$11 per year to fight the zebra mussels, which were causing problems by swarming round water intake pipes of power plants and factories, in some cases clogging them completely. The zebra mussel also competes with native fish for plankton, affecting native fish populations.

11

Another intruder has been the round goby Neogobius melanostomus from the Black and Caspian Seas. According to the University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute "the gobies belong to a family of fish with a worldwide distribution in both salt and fresh water, but they had not been found in the Great Lakes prior to 1990". The round goby first turned up in Lake Superior's Duluth/Superior harbour area in 1995. Round gobies are aggressive fish and voracious feeders, which will vigorously defend spawning sites in rocky or gravel habitats, thereby restricting access of other less aggressive fish to prime spawning areas. Gobies also have a well-developed sensory system that enhances their ability to detect water movement. This allows them to feed in complete darkness, and gives them another advantage over other fish in the same habitat. Gobies also are capable of rapid population growth. They spawn repeatedly during the summer months, and each time, a female can produce up to 5,000 eggs. The males die after spawning. However, the introduction of the goby may prove some comfort to those trying to fight the zebra mussel - studies show the round goby eats the zebra mussel in the Lakes. The ruffe Gymnocephalus cernuus, a small but aggressive fish native to Eurasia, was introduced to the Lakes via ballast water in the 1980s. Because the ruffe grows very fast, has a high reproductive capacity and adapts to a wide variety of environments, it is considered a serious threat to commercial and sport fishing. It also has the potential to seriously disrupt the delicate predator/prey balance vital to sustaining a healthy fishery. Under state laws, it is illegal to possess a ruffe, dead or alive, in Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Ontario. In May 1993, regulations adopted in 1990 came into effect, making it mandatory for vessels intending to enter the Great Lakes or the Hudson river north of the George Washington Bridge to carry out ballast water exchange at sea, in waters beyond the Exclusive Economic Zone and in a depth of more than 2,000 metres. Alternatively, ships can retain the ballast water on board during the entire voyage within the Great lakes, or use an alternative, environmentally sound method of ballast water management, which must first be approved by the U.S. Coast Guard. In 1996, the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 was passed. The act is the U.S. federal bill to reauthorize and expand the 1990 federal nonindigenous species legislation. A key element of the legislation is that it provides for ballast water management to prevent the introduction and further spread of nonindigenous species in U.S. waters. Further reading: Stemming the Tide - Controlling Introductions of Nonindigenous Species by Ships' Ballast Water Committee on Ships' Ballast Operation, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington D.C. 1996 ISBN 0-309-05537-7 Web sites: National Invasive Species Act of 1996: http://www.nemw.org/nisa.htm For more information on ballast water regulations, contact the U.S. Coast Guard, Office of Response (G-MOR), 2100 Second Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20593-0001.

Seaweed spreads in the Mediterranean The tropical green alga Caulerpa taxifolia was probably introduced to the Mediterranean in the 1980s. It replaces native sea grasses (such as the floweringPosidonia oceanica, only found in the Mediterranean) and limits the natural habitat for larval fish and invertebrates. In 1984, it was first recorded covering an area of just one square metre off Monaco. It then spread inexorably, covering 3 hectares in 1990, 30 hectares in 1991, 427 hectares in 1992, 1,300 hectares in 1993, 1,500 hectares in 1994 and more than 3,000 hectares in 1996. Today it covers thousands of hectares along the coasts of France, Spain, Italy and Croatia.

12

Appendix 1 Global invasions of non-indigenous species discovered 1979-1993 Species first discovered in 1979-1983 Species

Introduced to

American razor calm Ensis directus

Germany/Denmark

Japan/China hydroid Cladonema uchidai

San Francisco Bay

Atlantic mysid Neomysis amerciana

Argentina/Uruguay

Japan Cumacean Nippoleucon hinumensis

Oregon

Asian copepod Oithona davisae

San Francisco Bay/Chile

Chinese copepod Limnoithona sinensis

San Francisco Bay

Japan mussel Musculista senhousia

New Zealand/Australia

Indonesian mysid Rhopalopthalmus tatttersallae

Arabian Gulf

Indo-Pacific jellyfish Phyllorhiza punctata

Southern California

Japan shipworm Lyrodus takanoshimensis

British Columbia

Mediterranean Algae Polysiphonia breviarticulata

North Carolina/Dominica

American comb jelly Mnemniopsis leidyi

Black Sea

Asian Clam Theora fragilis

San Francisco Bay

American sea slug Doridella obscura

Black Sea

Japan copepods Centropages abdominalis and Acartia omorii

Chile

Pacific clam Scarpharca cornea

Black Sea

Indo-Pacific goby Butis koilomatodon

Nigeria/Cameroon

American worm Marenzelleria viridis

Germany

Indonesia shrimp Exopalaemon styliferus

Iraq/Kuwait

European nudibranch Tritonia plebeia

Massachussetts

European shorecrab Carcinus maenas

South Africa

Mediterranean mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis

Hong Kong

Species first discovered in 1984-1988 Chinese worm Teneridrilus mastix

San Francisco Bay

European waterflea Bythotrephes cederstroemi

Great Lakes

Atlantic shrimp Hippolyte zostericola

Colombia (Caribbean)

Tropical green alga Caulerpa taxifolia

Mediterranean

American blenny Hypsoblennius ionthas

Hudson River

13

Atlantic copepod Centropages typicus

Texas

Indian seabream Sparidentex hasta

Australia

European seasquirt Ascidiella aspersa

New England

Asian clam Potamocorbula amurensis

San Francisco Bay

Japanese sea star Asterias amurensis

Australia

Asian copepod Pseudodiaptomus marinus

Southern California

Japan read alga Antithamnion nipponicum

Long Island Sound

South Africa/Australian worm Desdemona ornata

Mediterranean

Asian shrimp Salmoneus gracilipes

Southern California

Japan dinoflagellate Alexandrium catenella

Australia

European (probably) dinoflagellate Alexandrium minutum

Australia

Japanese dinoflagellate Gymnodinum catenatum

Australia

South American mussel Mytella charruana

Florida

Indo-Pacific crab Charybdis helleri

Colombia (Caribbean)

Chinese copepod Pseudodiaptomus forbesi

Soutehrn California

European bryozoan Membranipora membranacea

Maine/New Hampshire

European ruffe Gymnocephalus cernuus

Great lakes

Japanese goby Rhinogobius brunneus

Arabian Gulf

Philippine/Taiwan goby Mugilogobius parvus

Hawaii

Japanese kelp Undaria primatifida

New Zealand

Japanese crab Hemigrapsus sangineus

New Jersey

European zebra mussel Dreissena polymorpha

Great Lakes

Japanese red alga Antithamnion nipponicum

France (Mediterranean)

Atlantic clam Rangia cuneata

Hudson River

Japanese kelp Undaria pinnatifida

Australia

Japanese brown alga Sargassum muticum

North Sea

Species first discovered in 1989-1993 European zebra mussel Dreissena bugensis

Great Lakes

South American mussel Perna perna

Texas

European shore crab Carcinus maenas

San Francisco Bay

Asian copepod Pseudodiaptomus inopinus

Columbia River

American comb jelly Mnemniopsis Leidyi

Mediterranean

Black Sea goby Proterorhinus marmoratus

Great Lakes

Mediterranean goby Neogobious melanostomus

Great Lakes

14

European oyster Ostrea edulis

Rhode Island

South American Vibrio cholera 01

Alabama

Sarmatic hydoid Blackfordia virginica

San Francisco Bay

Sarmatic hydroid Maeotias inexspectata

San Francisco Bay

New Zealand sea slug Exopalaemom carinicauda

San Francisco Bay

Mysid Hemimysis anomala

North Baltic Sea

Ref: Opportunistic settlers and the problem of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi invasion in the Black Sea. GESAMP Reports and Studies No.58. IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/WMO/WHO/IAEA/UN/UNEP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP). ISSN 1020-4873; ISBN 92-801-1436-4

15

Appendix 2 Development of ballast water regulations and guidelines at IMO International Conference on Marine Pollution, 1973

Adopted Resolution 18 on Research into the effect of discharge of ballast water containing bacteria of epidemic diseases, calling for research on the issue.

Marine Environment Protection Committee 26th Session (MEPC 26) September 1988

Canada presents paper with study on The presence and implication of foreign organisms in ship ballast waters discharged into the Great Lakes. United States also expresses concern. Canada invites Member States with problems of foreign species to communicate this information to them.

MEPC 29 March 1990

Australia presents a paper giving evidence that toxic dinoflagellates may have been dumped in Australian waters via ballast water. An informal discussion group (Australia, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Japan, Norway, United States and International Chamber of Shipping) debates the issue. The Committee agrees to include the issue in its work programme and establish a working group at its next session.

MEPC 30 May 1990

A working group reviews and modifies draft guidelines on the control of ballast water, submitted by Canada. Committee agrees Members should review them intersessionally with a view to adopting them at the next session.

MEPC 31 July 1991

Working group finalises guidelines and these are adopted as MEPC.50(31) Guidelines for Preventing the Introduction of Unwanted Organisms and Pathogens from Ships' Ballast Waters and Sediment Discharges.

MEPC 33 October 1992

Australia submits paper containing information on Australia's experience in dealing with the introduction of harmful marine organisms. An informal working group meets during the session and agrees to form an intersessional correspondence group (with Australia as lead country) and circulate a questionnaire on the issue to all Member States.

MEPC 34 July 1993

Australia presents the results of the survey. An informal working group discusses how to proceed and the Committee agrees to establish a working group at the next session with a view to further developing the existing IMO guidelines. The Committee also approves a draft Assembly Resolution, incorporating the existing guidelines.

IMO Assembly 18th Session November 1993

Assembly adopts Resolution A.774(18) on Guidelines for Preventing the Introduction of Unwanted Organisms and Pathogens from Ships' Ballast Waters and Sediment Discharges.

MEPC 35 March 1994

A working group begins looking at developing legally binding regulations on ballast water control and management. Members of the working group include: Australia, Canada, India, Japan, Liberia, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, united Kingdom, United States, Hong Kong, China, ICS, International Association of Classification Societies (IACS), Oil Companies International Marine Forum (OCIMF), Friends of the Earth International (FOEI).

MEPC 36 October-November 1994

Working group continues looking at developing legally binding regulations on ballast water control and management.

MEPC 37 September 1995

Working group continues looking at developing legally binding regulations on ballast water control and management.

MEPC 38 July 1996

Working group reviews preliminary draft regulations for the control and management of ships' ballast water to minimize the transfer of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens and begin to work on implementation guidelines related to the regulations.

16

MEPC 39 March 1997

Working group continues work on draft regulations and updating the 1991 guidelines. Committee approves joint MEPC/MSC circular on Guidance on safety aspects relating to the exchange of ballast water at sea. MEPC also agrees an updated version of the 1991 Guidelines on ballast water as a draft Assembly Resolution.

MEPC 40 September 1997

Working group continues work on draft regulations with highest attendance so far, with experts from Argentina; Australia; Brazil; Canada; China; Denmark; Finland; Germany; Greece; India; Japan; Liberia; Malaysia; Malta; Netherlands; New Zealand; Norway; Panama; Poland; Republic of Korea; Russian Federation; Singapore; South Africa; Sweden; United Kingdom; United States; Hong Kong, China; UNDP; ICS; International Association of Ports and Harbours (IAPH) ; Baltic and international maritime Council (BIMCO); IACS; OCIMF; FOEI; (International Association of Independent Tanker Owners) INTERTANKO; International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN); International Council of Cruise Lines (ICCL); World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF).

IMO Assembly 20th Session November 1997

Assembly adopts Resolution A.868(20) Guidelines for the control and management of ships' ballast water to minimize the transfer of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens, revoking and updating Resolution A.774(18). The revised Guidelines incorporate further recommendations on tackling the problem, including how to lessen the chances of taking on board harmful organisms along with ballast water.

MEPC 41 March-April 1998

Working group of 25 countries and 10 organizations with consultative status continues work on draft regulations and guidelines. Committee requests that draft regulations and the associated draft Code or guidelines be circulated as soon as possible in order to allow all members of the Working Group to submit comments and proposals for additional amendments.

MEPC 42 November 1998

Working group to continue finalising draft regulations and code/guidelines and proposed format of legal instrument.

MEPC 43 Early/mid 1999

Work continues on outstanding issues.

Conference in early 2000s

Conference to adopt mandatory regulations on ballast water management.

(subject to change)

17

Appendix 3 Further reading/References Guidelines for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water to Minimize the Transfer of Harmful Aquatic Organisms and Pathogens (1998 edition). IMO. This publication contains the latest of the guidelines on avoiding the spread of potentially dangerous or damaging organisms. Contact IMO Publications, web site: http://www.imo.org/imo/pubs/pubstart.htm Stemming the Tide - Controlling Introductions of Nonindigenous Species by Ships' Ballast Water Committee on Ships' Ballast Operation, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington D.C. 1996 ISBN 0-309-05537-7 Annotated bibliography on transplantations and transfers of aquatic organisms and their implications on aquaculture and ecosystems . By Prof H. Rosenthal. More than 10,000 literature entries - in preparation. Institut für Meereskunde, Universitat Kiel, 23 Kiel, Dusternbrooker Weg 20, Germany. Opportunistic settlers and the problem of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi invasion in the Black Sea. GESAMP Reports and Studies No.58. IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/WMO/WHO/ IAEA/UN/UNEP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP). ISSN 1020-4873; ISBN 92-801-1436-4 IMO Bibliography on ballast water management. In preparation. Contact IMO Library for details.

Web sites: National Invasive Species Act of 1996: http://www.nemw.org/nisa.htm U.S. Coast Guard Sea Partners Campaign: http://www.uscg.mil/dotinfo/hq/g-m/nmc/seapart.htm USCG Sea Partners: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/nmc/seapart.htm Aquatic nuisance species: http://www.uscg.mil/dotinfo/hq/g-m/nmc/introsp.htm#nuisance Exotic species and their effects on the Great Lakes - Great Lakes Sport Fishing Council: http://www.great-lakes.org/exotics.html University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute: http://www.seagrant.wisc.edu/communications/publications/Fish/roundgoby.html http://www.seagrant.wisc.edu/communications/publications/Fish/ruffe.html America's least wanted: Alien Species Invasions of U.S. Ecosystems from the Nature Conservancy: http://www.consci.tnc.org/library/pubs/dd/toc.html Sea Grant Nonindigenous Species Site (SGNIS): http://www.ansc.purdue.edu/sgnis/home.htm GreatLakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS): http://www.glc.org/projects/ans/anspanel.html Aquatic Nuisance Species(ANS)-Links to Other ANS Sites:http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/waterq/ans/anslink.htm Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Task Force: http://www.anstaskforce.gov/ AQIS Ballast Water Program: http://www.aqis.gov.au/ballastwater Australian ballast water guidelines: http://www.dpie.gov.au/aqis/homepage/imadvice/bguidaus.html CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization): http://www.csiro.au/ UNCED: Agenda 21 Chapter 17 "Protection Of The Oceans, All Kinds Of Seas, Including Enclosed And Semi-enclosed Seas, And Coastal Areas And The Protection, Rational Use And Development Of Their Living Resources": http://www.igc.apc.org/habitat/Agenda 21/ch-17.html BIMCO Ballast Water Regulation Database (BIMCO members only): http://www.bimco.dk

Visit the IMO web site at: http://www.imo.org _______ 25 August 1999

18