Superseded by MEPC.289(71)
Resolution MEPC.162(56)
GUIDELINES FOR RISK ASSESSMENT UNDER REGULATION A-4 OF THE BWM CONVENTION (G7)
(Adopted on 13 July 2007)
THE
MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE,
RECALLING
Article 38(a) of the Convention on the International Maritime Organization
concerning the functions of the Marine Environment Protection Committee
conferred upon it by the international conventions for the prevention and
control of marine pollution,
RECALLING
ALSO that the International Conference on Ballast Water Management for Ships
held in February 2004 adopted the International Convention for the Control and
Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004 (the Ballast Water
Management Convention) together with four Conference resolutions,
NOTING
that regulation A-2 of the Ballast Water Management Convention requires that
discharge of ballast water shall only be conducted through Ballast Water
Management in accordance with the provisions of the Annex to the Convention,
NOTING
FURTHER that regulation A-4 of the Convention stipulates that a Party or
Parties, in waters under their jurisdiction, may grant exemptions to any
requirements to apply regulation B-3 or C-1, in addition to those exemptions
contained elsewhere in this Convention, but only when they are, inter alia,
granted based on the Guidelines on risk assessment developed by the
Organization.
NOTING
ALSO that the International Conference on Ballast Water Management for Ships,
in its resolution 1, invited the Organization to develop the Guidelines for
uniform application of the Convention as a matter of urgency,
HAVING
CONSIDERED, at its fifty-sixth session, the draft Guidelines for risk
assessment under regulation A-4 (G7) of the BWM Convention developed by the
Ballast Water Working Group, and the recommendation made by the Sub-Committee
on Bulk Liquids and Gases at its eleventh session,
1.
ADOPTS the Guidelines for risk assessment under regulation A-4 (G7) of the BWM
Convention as set out in the annex to this resolution;
2.
INVITES Governments to apply the Guidelines as soon as possible, or when the
Convention becomes applicable to them; and
3.
AGREES to keep the Guidelines under review.
Annex.
GUIDELINES FOR RISK ASSESSMENT UNDER REGULATION A-4 OF THE BWM CONVENTION (G7)
1.1
The purpose of these Guidelines is to assist Parties to ensure that provisions
of regulation A-4 of the Convention are applied in a consistent manner, and
based on scientifically robust risk assessment, which ensures that the general
and specific obligations of a Party to the Convention are achieved.
1.2
An additional purpose is to provide assurance to affected States that
exemptions granted by a Party meet the regulation A-4.3 obligations.
1.3
The Guidelines outline three risk assessment methods that will enable Parties
to identify unacceptable high risk scenarios and acceptable low risk scenarios,
and advise Parties on procedures for granting and withdrawing exemptions in
accordance with regulation A-4.
2.1
Regulation A-4 of the Convention states that a Party or Parties, in waters
under their jurisdiction may grant exemptions to any requirements to apply
regulation B-3 or C-1, in addition to those exemptions contained elsewhere in
the Convention, but only when they are:
.1 granted to a
ship or ships on a voyage or voyages between specified ports or locations; or
to a ship which operates exclusively between specified ports or locations;
.2 effective for
a period of no more than five years subject to intermediate review;
.3 granted to
ships that do not mix ballast water or sediments other than between the ports
or locations specified in paragraph 2.1.1; and
.4 granted based
on the Guidelines that have been developed by the Organization.
2.2
These Guidelines provide advice and information regarding risk assessment
principles and methods, data needs, advice on application of risk assessment
methods, procedures for granting exemptions, consultation and communication
processes, information for reviewing exemptions and advice regarding technical
assistance, co-operation and regional co-operation.
2.3
These Guidelines also provide advice regarding the roles of the Organization,
shipping industry, port States and other States that might be affected by
granting an exemption in accordance with regulation A-4 of the Convention.
2.4
Scientifically robust risk assessment underpins the process of Parties granting
exemptions under regulation A-4 of the Convention. The assessment must be
sufficiently robust to distinguish between unacceptable high risk scenarios and
acceptable low risk scenarios where the discharge of ballast water not meeting
regulations B-3 and C-1 is unlikely to impair or damage the environment, human
health, property or resources of the granting Party and of adjacent or other
States.
2.5
Risk assessments should be based on best available scientific information.
2.6
The Guidelines should be kept under review in order to incorporate experiences
gained during their application and any new scientific and technical knowledge.
3.1
These Guidelines apply to Parties granting exemptions to ships under regulation
A-4 of the Convention.
3.2
Shipowners or operators wanting to seek an exemption under regulation A-4
should also consult these Guidelines.
4.1
For the purposes of these Guidelines, the definitions in the Convention apply.
4.2
"Anadromous": species that spawn/reproduce in freshwater
environments, but spend at least part of their adult life in a marine environment.
4.3
"Biogeographic region": a large natural region defined by
physiographic and biologic characteristics within which the animal and plant
species show a high degree of similarity. There are no sharp and absolute
boundaries but rather more or less clearly expressed transition zones.
4.4
"Catadromous": species that spawn/reproduce in marine environments,
but spend at least part of their adult life in a freshwater environment.
4.5
"Cryptogenic": species that are of unknown origin, i.e. species that
are not demonstrably native or introduced to a region.
4.6
"Donor Port": port or location where the ballast water is taken
onboard.
4.7
"Euryhaline": species able to tolerate a wide range of salinities.
4.8
"Eurythermal": species able to tolerate a wide range of temperatures.
4.9
"Freshwater": water with salinity lower than 0.5 psu (practical
salinity units).
4.10
"Marine water": Water with salinity higher than 30 psu.
4.11
"Non-indigenous species": any species outside its native range,
whether transported intentionally or accidentally by humans or transported
through natural processes.
4.12
"Recipient port": port or location where the ballast water is
discharged.
4.13
"Target species": species identified by a Party that meet specific
criteria indicating that they may impair or damage the environment, human
health, property or resources and are defined for a specific port, State or
biogeographic region.
5.1
Risk assessment is a logical process for assigning the likelihood and
consequences of specific events, such as the entry, establishment, or spread of
harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens. Risk assessments can be qualitative or
quantitative, and can be a valuable decision aid if completed in a systematic
and rigorous manner.
5.2
The following key principles define the nature and performance of risk
assessment:
.1 Effectiveness
– That risk assessments accurately measures the risks to the extent necessary
to achieve an appropriate level of protection.
.2 Transparency
– That the reasoning and evidence supporting the action recommended by risk
assessments, and areas of uncertainty (and their possible consequences to those
recommendations), are clearly documented and made available to decision-makers.
.3 Consistency –
That risk assessments achieve a uniform high level of performance, using a
common process and methodology.
.4
Comprehensiveness – That the full range of values, including economic,
environmental, social and cultural, are considered when assessing risks and
making recommendations.
.5 Risk
Management – That low risk scenarios may exist, but zero risk is not
obtainable, and as such risk should be managed by determining the acceptable
level of risk in each instance.
.6 Precautionary
– That risk assessments incorporate a level of precaution when making
assumptions, and making recommendations, to account for uncertainty,
unreliability, and inadequacy of information. The absence of, or uncertainty
in, any information should therefore be considered an indicator of potential
risk.
.7 Science based
– That risk assessments are based on the best available information that has
been collected and analysed using scientific methods.
.8 Continuous
improvement – Any risk model should be periodically reviewed and updated to
account for improved understanding.
5.3
In undertaking risk assessment when considering granting an exemption, the risk
assessment principles should be carefully applied. The lack of full scientific
certainty should be carefully considered in the decision making process. This
is especially important under these Guidelines, as any decision to grant an
exemption will allow for the discharge of ballast water that does not meet the
standards of regulation D-1 or D-2.
6.1.1
There are three risk assessment methods outlined in these Guidelines for
assessing the risks in relation to granting an exemption in accordance with
regulation A-4 of the Convention:
- Environmental
matching risk assessment
- Species’
biogeographical risk assessment
-
Species-specific risk assessment
6.1.2
Environmental matching risk assessment relies on comparing environmental
conditions between locations, species’ biogeographical risk assessment compares
the overlap of native and non-indigenous species to evaluate environmental
similarity and to identify high risk invaders, while species-specific risk
assessment evaluates the distribution and characteristics of identified target
species. Dependent on the scope of the assessment being performed, the three
approaches could be used either individually or in any combination, recognizing
that each approach has its limitations.
6.1.3
Environment matching and species’ biogeographical risk assessment may be best
suited to assessments between biogeographic regions. Species-specific risk
assessment may be best suited to situations where the assessment can be
conducted on a limited number of harmful species within a biogeographic region.
6.2 Environmental matching
risk assessment
6.2.1
Environmental matching risk assessments compare environmental conditions
including temperature and salinity between donor and recipient regions. The
degree of similarity between the locations provides an indication of the
likelihood of survival and the establishment of any species transferred between
those locations.
6.2.2
Since species are widely distributed in a region, and are rarely restricted to
a single port the environmental conditions of the source region should be
considered.
6.2.3
These regions are typically defined as biogeographic regions. Noting that all
of the existing biogeographical schemes were derived for different purposes
than proposed here, it is suggested that the Large Marine Ecosystems (LME)
scheme ( http://www.edc.uri.edu/lme) be used based on best available
information at this time, with local and regional adaptation as necessary. It
is recognized that the suggested biogeographical scheme may not be appropriate
in certain circumstances and in this case other recognized biogeographical
schemes may need to be considered1.
___________________
1 Watling and Gerkin
(http://marine.rutgers.edu/OBIS/index.html) based on Briggs (1953) and Springer
(1982); IUCN bioregion system; Briggs (1953) and Ekman (1974; 1995); Longhurst
provinces.
6.2.4
Environmental matching should therefore compare environmental conditions
between the donor biogeographic region and the recipient port to determine the
likelihood that any species found in the donor biogeographic region are able to
survive in the recipient port in another biogeographic region. The
environmental conditions that may be considered for environmental matching
include salinity, temperature or other environmental conditions, such as
nutrients or oxygen.
6.2.5
The difficulty in using environmental matching risk assessments is identifying
the environmental conditions that are predictive of the ability of the harmful
species to successfully establish and cause harm in the new location, and in
determining whether the risk of ballast water discharge is sufficiently low to
be acceptable. Environmental matching risk assessments have limited value where
the differences between a donor biogeographic region and a recipient port are
small as high similarity is likely to indicate high likelihood of successful
establishment.
6.2.6
Environmental conditions should also be compared between the donor and
recipient ports. Similarity in key environmental conditions between the two
ports is a stronger indication that species entrained in ballast water in the
donor port could survive when released into the waters of the recipient port.
The environmental conditions that may be considered for environmental matching
include salinity, temperature or other environmental conditions, such as
nutrients or oxygen.
6.2.7
The data necessary to enable a risk assessment using environmental matching
includes, but is not limited to:
.1 Origin of the
ballast water to be discharged in recipient port.
.2 Biogeographic
region of donor and recipient port(s).
.3 The average
and range of environmental conditions, in particular salinity and temperature.
This
information is used to determine the degree of environmental similarity between
the donor and recipient environments. In many cases, it should be possible to
use existing data for part or all of these environmental profiles.
6.2.8
The following should be considered in gathering data on the environmental
conditions:
.1 The seasonal
variations in surface and bottom salinities and temperatures at the recipient
port and the larger water body the port is contained within (e.g., estuary or
bay). Surface and bottom values are needed to determine the full range of
environmental conditions available for a potential invader (e.g., low salinity
surface waters allowing the invasion of a freshwater species). Salinity and
temperature depth profiles are not required if available data indicates the
waters are well mixed over the entire year.
.2 In recipient
ports with strong tides or currents, the temporal variations in salinity should
be determined over a tidal cycle.
.3 In areas with
seasonal or depth variations, the salinity should be determined on a seasonal
and/or depth basis.
.4 Any
anthropogenic influences on freshwater flow that could temporarily or
permanently alter the salinity regime of the recipient port and surrounding
waters.
.5 The seasonal
temperature variation of coastal waters for the biogeographic region of the
recipient port. Consideration should be given to both surface waters and to how
temperature varies with depth.
6.2.9
It is recommended that the analysis of environmental conditions be followed by
a consideration of the species known to be in the donor region that can
tolerate extreme environmental differences. If present, a species-specific
approach should be used to evaluate the risks associated with these species.
Such species include:
- species that
utilize both fresh and marine environments to complete their life-cycle
(including anadromous (e.g., Sea Lamprey) and catadromous (e.g., Chinese Mitten
crab) species);
- species with a
tolerance to a wide range of temperatures (eurythermal species) or salinities
(euryhaline species).
6.3 Species’ biogeographical
risk assessment
6.3.1
Species’ biogeographical risk assessment compares the biogeographical
distributions of nonindigenous, cryptogenic, and harmful native species that
presently exist in the donor and recipient ports and biogeographic regions.
Overlapping species in the donor and recipient ports and regions are a direct
indication that environmental conditions are sufficiently similar to allow a
shared fauna and flora. The biogeographical analysis could also be used to
identify high risk invaders. For example, native species in the donor
biogeographic region that have successfully invaded other similar biogeographic
regions but that are not found in the recipient biogeographic region could be
considered high risk invaders for the recipient port or location. The larger
the number of biogeographic regions that such species have invaded, the greater
the potential that those species would be able to become established in the
recipient port or biogeographic region if introduced by ballast water not
meeting regulation B-3 or C-1. Another general indicator of risk would be if
the donor biogeographic region is a major source of invaders to other areas.
6.3.2
The data necessary to enable a risk assessment using a species biogeographical
approach includes but may not be limited to:
.1 records of
invasion in the donor and recipient biogeographic regions and ports;
.2 records of
native or non-indigenous species that could be transferred through ballast
water in the donor biogeographic region that have invaded other biogeographic
regions and the number and nature of biogeographic regions invaded;
.3 records of
native species in the donor region that have the potential to affect human
health or result in substantial ecological or economic impacts after
introduction in the recipient region through ballast water transfer.
6.3.3
The species’ biogeographical risk assessment could also be used to identify
potential target species in the donor regions as indicated by native species
with wide biogeographical or habitat distributions or which are known invaders
in other biogeographic regions similar to that of the recipient port.
6.4 Species-specific risk
assessment
6.4.1
Species-specific risk assessments use information on life history and
physiological tolerances to define a species’ physiological limits and thereby
estimate its potential to survive or complete its life cycle in the recipient
environment. That is, they compare individual species characteristics with the
environmental conditions in the recipient port, to determine the likelihood of
transfer and survival.
6.4.2
In order to undertake a species-specific risk assessment, species of concern that
may impair or damage the environment, human health, property or resources need
to be identified and selected. These are known as the target species. Target
species should be selected for a specific port, State, or geographical region,
and should be identified and agreed on in consultation with affected States.
6.4.3
To determine the species that are potentially harmful and invasive, parties
should initially identify all species (including cryptogenic species) that are
present in the donor port but not in the recipient port. Target species should
then be selected based on criteria that identify the species that have the
ability to invade and become harmful. The factors to consider when identifying
target species include, but should not be limited to:
- evidence of
prior introduction;
- demonstrated
impacts on environment, economy, human health, property or resources;
- strength and
type of ecological interactions, e.g. ecological engineers;
- current
distribution within biogeographic region and in other biogeographic regions;
and
- relationship
with ballast water as a vector.
6.4.4
Species-specific risk assessments should then be conducted on a list of target
species, including actual or potentially harmful non-indigenous species
(including cryptogenic species). As the number of species included in the
assessment increases the number of low risk scenarios decreases. This is
justified if the species assessments are accurate. The difficulty arises when
the assessments are conservative due to lack of data. It should be recognized
however, that the fewer the number of species analyzed, the greater the
uncertainty in predicting the overall risk. The uncertainty associated with
limiting the analysis to a small number of species should therefore be considered
in assessing the overall risk of invasion.