This work is based on the conclusions and recommendations following the pre-study on ballast water carried out by DNV in 1999; Ballast Water Transfer Atlas (BWTA), Hazard Assessment and Decision Support Pre-study. This was a feasibility study evaluating the risk-based ballast water management approach, based on biogeographical qualities and generally accepted methods of assessing risks.

The EMBLA Integration phase has outlined mismatches between current understanding of the driving mechanisms associated with transfer of unwanted aquatic organisms and data availability. Associated topics related to regulation-development and the integration of a global management concept have also been addressed.

The development of EMBLA is proposed to be undertaken in three stages. The first (EMBLA 2000) aims to include an upgraded proposal to EU fifth framework programme. Regardless of the outcome of this, EMBLA 2000 will focus on the following main items:

• Data-processing and analysis (DPA)
• Standards and norms (SAN)
• Consequence assessment methodologies (CAM)

The required Infrastructure and user interface (IUI) of EMBLA requires input from the above items and is not given priority in the first development stage. This will not be a subject in the EU proposal either.

In addition to the items outlined, EMBLA Integration phase has recognised the need to gain acceptance of the principles upon which it is based among national maritime authorities. The project will therefore, in addition to the identified tasks of EMBLA 2000 outlined above, include an activity aimed at presenting and gaining international acceptance and recognition. "Target authorities" will be those who already take precautions against biological invasions, and those who presently support the EMBLA initiative.

To promote the EMBLA initiative, a web site, as well as a Ballast Water Library have been established.

The earth's biological diversity is being destroyed at a rate unprecedented in human history. The legally binding Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was the first international agreement obligating governments to conserve and sustain their biological resources and ensure the equitable sharing of their benefits. The Convention was set up for signature on 5 June 1992 at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (the Rio "Earth Summit"). It remained open for signature until 4 June 1993, by which time it had received 168 signatures. The Convention entered into force on 29 December 1993.

Most of the world's governments gathered in Jakarta, Indonesia in November 1995 for the second meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP-2) to the CBD. The meeting marked for the first time, the international community’s comprehensive address to urgent global problems of marine and coastal biodiversity loss. The decisions taken on this topic were referred to collectively in the Ministerial Statement issued at COP-2 as the Jakarta Mandate on Marine and Coastal Biodiversity (Jakarta Mandate). These decisions can be found in two documents: UNEP/CBD/COP/2/19 and UNEP/CBD/COP/2/5.

At the national level, Parties are required to develop and implement comprehensive national biodiversity strategies and action plans. This includes, for example, to identify, research and monitor their biodiversity; establish protected areas; regulate or manage activities with significant adverse effects on biodiversity; and conduct assessments of the biodiversity impacts of proposed projects.

At an international level, institutional mechanisms are set up under the CBD to assist the Parties in their implementation efforts. This includes a financial mechanism to provide assistance to developing countries; an information clearing-house and an advisory body on scientific and technical matters (the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice, or SBSTTA). In addition, the COP which comprises all governments which have ratified the Convention, serves as the CBD's governing body, and currently meets once a year to review and strengthen CBD implementation.

In supporting the SBSTTA recommendations, the COP in effect recommended a "checklist" of actions that Parties should take to fulfil their obligations under the CBD in marine and coastal environments. These recommendations cover, in particular, five thematic areas:

Several of these thematic areas include to a lesser or greater extent elements of the "ballast water problem". However, the thematic area of "alien species" is particularly interesting in this context.

Integrated Marine and Coastal Area Management (IAM) involves an integrated, cross-sectored, and co-ordinated approach to managing marine and coastal resources, involving a wide variety of stakeholders and addressing a wide range of activities and threats.

Marine and Coastal Protected Areas (MPAs). MPAs are areas that have been designated for protection, in which activities and uses of the resources in the area are regulated to achieve conservation objectives. Many different categories of MPAs exist, based on the type and level of restrictions on resource uses and activities.

Sustainable Use of Coastal and Marine Living Resources (CMLR). The Over-exploitation of CMLR primarily resulting from industrial-scale, commercial fisheries and non-selective and destructive fishing gear and practices, poses a major threat to marine and coastal biodiversity.

Mariculture. Mariculture is the controlled cultivation in the sea of marine organisms in tanks, ponds, cages, and other structures. Mariculture on an industrial scale may pose several threats to marine and coastal biodiversity.

Alien Species. Alien species are species transferred by human activity, either intentionally or unintentionally, to an area in which they do not naturally occur. As noted by the SBSTTA: "Alien species have the potential for significant, non-reversible, adverse impacts on marine and coastal biodiversity. Such impacts generally tend to be unpredictable and tend to homogenise and simplify biotic communities. Eradication of established alien species is difficult, if not impossible".

Changing ballast water in open waters either by re-ballasting or by the flush-through methods as proposed in the existing IMO Guidelines (Ass. Res. A868.20), and as requested by a number of flag states prior to entering their national waters, does not provide adequate protection against the introduction of unwanted harmful aquatic organisms. The method of changing ballast water including the third option, that of dilution, suffers from restraints associated with, among other things, remaining vessel safety. Furthermore, even where application is possible, there is strong evidence which suggests that the efficiency of the method of changing ballast water is highly variable, and dependent upon factors related to each case in particular. In most cases, these circumstances are such that they cannot be manipulated, modified or altered. Hence, the current policy on ballast water measures should be considered only as an intermediate action to be adopted when applicable from a safety point of view. The protection it might provide is uncertain and most likely not sufficient in cases where a real risk of unwanted biological invasion is present.

By looking at the geographical patterns of typical "ballast-dependent" trades, it becomes evident that not all of these will represent the same element of risk associated with causing an unwanted transfer. Furthermore, the nature of the risk element will differ and hence the characteristics in relation to the most efficient preventive measure might equally differ. By assessing the actual risks (in terms of bioinvasion) associated with an actual ballast voyage based on the requirements of the presence of basic parameters, safe ballast voyages can be identified. Moreover, by considering the nature of voyages that might represent such a risk, requirements to preventive or risk-reducing measures might be identified.

Alternative preventive actions or measures are required to sufficiently secure against unwanted biological invaders. Such alternatives will have different effects on different species and are therefore likely to have specific areas of application. Hence, standards or norms for such measures are required. The development of a managerial system for assessing case-specific risks and identifying adequate actions or measures to be undertaken, should comply with such norms/ standards. Further, such a system should also include the ability to assess the potential of both an invasion as well as that of introducing a measure. A consequential analysis such as this should include aspects related to both ship safety and ecological damage as well as to economical losses.

Realisation of the BWTA concept as described in the pre-study undertaken by DNV in 1999, was proposed for the EU’s fifth Framework Programme. The proposal was submitted to the Programme on Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development – Sustainable Marine Ecosystems, first call, June 15. 1999. The project proposal was titled "Environmental Risk Management System for Ballast Water Assessment" and given the acronym EMBLA.

The proposal consists of three parts as required:

• Part A:General information on applicant and partners.
• Part B:Detailed description of work to be undertaken presented in work packages with references to performing institutions, time schedules and related costs.
• Part C:Description of contribution to the EU community represented by the proposed project.

Part B of the proposal is attached to this report (chapter 11).

The EU initiative was proposed by DNV. Taken into account the diversity of the project, a partner consortium was established to represent all the stakeholders involved. The proposal was forwarded on behalf of the following partner institutions.:

• Registro Italiano Navale (RINA), Italy. Contact Mario Dogliani
• Rotterdam Municipal Port Management, Netherlands. Contact Cornelis de Keijzer
• SSPA Maritime Consulting, Sweden. Contact Claes Källström
• University für Meehreskunde, Kiel Germany. Contact Stephan Gollash
• Åbo Akademi University, Finland. Contact Erkki Leppakoski

Following the EU screening and evaluation process, the following statement was received.:

"The proposal is a useful effort to compile data on the transfer of unwanted organisms by ballast water, which is a significant problem in the management of the marine environment. However, such transfer is also taking place in other ways, e.g. by fouling of ship hulls or together with shipping of living organisms such as oysters and mussels.

We suggest that the proposal should be submitted to a different programme."

The BWTA project group is of the opinion that the true objective of the proposal was not sufficiently addressed and hence not fully appreciated by the evaluator. The reasons for this are thought not to be arbitrary, but to also be related to the priorities of the proposal and will be a subject of the process of preparing a follow-up. This follow-up proposal will be based on the objectives of the original proposal but will in addition reflect on findings, conclusions and priorities made by the work presented in this report.

A revised project proposal is expected submitted in the beginning of year 2000.

The acronym of the EU proposal, EMBLA, has later been adopted as the formal notation for the BWTA concept as it has been developed. It should therefore be noted that following references to EMBLA refer to the BWTA concept as described in the DNV pre-study of 1999.

The development work of EMBLA is undertaken by a project team based at DNV’s headquarters at Høvik, Norway. The team has wide access to expertise in specific areas throughout the DNV network as well as through co-operating partners.

The project has communicated widely with different organisations connected to the issues involved. The reference group established during the Pre-study (DNV 1999) has also been active through the integration phase. Partners have contributed on an individual basis. Project progress has been communicated to the group through memos from the internal project progress meetings (5).

In preparing the EU proposal, a consortium was formed. These partners have been providing important input not only used in the proposal but also utilised in the work reported on here.

Literature and references to ballast water management and related issues are comprehensive, but not always easily surveyable. To ensure an adequate and easily accessible flow of information, a literature Library including references used and collected for the project development was established. At present, the Library exists as an Excel worksheet. The implementation of this into a more suitable database structure is intended.

As part of the Integration phase, an EMBLA web site has also been established. The site encompasses an open section as well as one with access restrictions. The latter is only available for the project team. The site can be found at:

EMBLA has been presented to both national and international groups, institutions, etc. Some of these presentations can be found at the web site. Further, this work has extended the development of the demonstrator that was established in the pre-study. This is also available from the site.

EMBLA is a ballast water decision-support management system aiming at gaining worldwide recognition and acceptance. The system will provide case-specific assessments of ballast voyages (DNV 1999). EMBLA will identify those voyages which do not represent an unacceptable risk of the transfer of harmful aquatic organisms. These voyages can then proceed without delay. For some voyages, the system will identify parameters providing an element of unacceptable risk. The cause of these risks will be "isolated" and the system will provide a statement clarifying the circumstances. The system will further provide advisory as to actions to be taken.

A number of flag-states (14) have already implemented precautionary measures to vessels entering their national waters in ballast condition. Some nations strongly advise vessels to carry out ballast water exchange prior to entering, whilst some merely require a report of ballast water, amount and origin. At present there are only some few "local" mandatory requirements associated to ballast water precautions.

A future ballast water regulative regime will require a management system ensuring that potential biological threats are identified and that appropriate action is initiated. EMBLA will respond to such requirements. The users of EMBLA can be both port-states, as well as ship owners.

Shipping can be sectored into two main categories, firstly scheduled routes and that of non-scheduled. The latter will require that ballast water support by EMBLA is available on a 24/7 basis and can perform rapid assessments. EMBLA is therefore developed highly automised and accessible via Internet.

For fixed scheduled vessels, pre-assessments can be provided which have a limited validity. EMBLA will store all past assessments, and in doing so build up a ballast inventory for the specific vessel.

Table 3.4 below contains definitions of wordings used in the summarised report.

An ecological revolution in the biodiversity of the shallow waters of the ocean - the waters that we rely on for fisheries, industries and for recreation is now happening (Carlton 1993). Alien animals and plants are invading estuaries, bays, rocky shores and other coastal ecosystems at a rate of decades and years. What nature took millions of year to create, human activities are homogenising in a few decades through transport mechanisms which constantly cross the natural barriers of open oceans and continents. The introduction of alien species by human intervention is not new; ships have moved marine animals and plants for centuries. However, controlling coastal environment destruction and alteration, and eliminating alien species dispersal vectors will predictably lead to fewer and fewer invasions in the twenty first century.

Due to increased attention, the field of coastal rehabilitation has been steadily growing over the last two decades. According to Spurgeon (1999), coastal habitats provide a vast array of benefits to mankind in the form of goods (products) and services (functions). Since few of the goods and services are traded in the market place, they rarely have a readily observable monetary or financial value. However, they can have a considerable socio-economic value, particularly when utilised on a sustainable basis.

Living organisms in coastal water are loaded into ballast tanks along with the water when a vessel is ballasting. If a ship takes on ballast water in a shallow area, sediments and any associated organisms may also enter the ballast tanks. The release of ballast water may introduce non-native or alien species into the port of discharge. Once in a new environment, an organism may simply die, or it may take hold and reproduce, but with little noticeable effect on its surroundings. However, introduced species sometimes spread unimpeded with devastating ecological and/or economic results. Some well-known examples are listed in DNV’s Pre-study (DNV 1999).

Introduced species are those that have been transported beyond their natural range. Instead of being members of an ecosystem developed over time, these animals were transported beyond barriers that defined their natural range. The new habitat challenges the organism to perish or persist. An introduced species can spread rapidly, for instance where their natural predators, competitors and pathogens are absent from their new environment.

The role and impact of alien species in the marine environment is not well documented. Typically, very few organisms are able to survive in new surroundings because temperature, food and salinity are less than optimal. However, the few that survive and establish a population have the potential to cause changes in the receiving ecosystem. The impacts can be divided into two areas; ecological and economic, these two areas are however interdependent. Most of the observed effects have been detrimental and irreparable, displacing native species, and altering trophic level structure. Occasionally, alien species reproduce with natives and produce hybrids. Hybrids change the gene pool in an area and can simplify the ecosystem.

There are two basic approaches in dealing with bioinvaders:

• stop them from invading in the first place, or
• eliminate organisms that have invaded.

Eradication of established invaders is practically impossible. Preventing invasions from occurring is the more practical and economical solution in the long term.

No ballast water treatment method can so far completely eliminate the risk of introducing alien species. The goal should therefore be to build up a ballast water management system that minimises the risk of species introduction.

In order to predict the risk for successful establishment of an alien species in a new ecosystem/environment, basic information about species known to be invaders together with their natural history, community structure, and the biodiversity of their regional system is essential. The use of biogeographical regions and hazard species lists is therefore a main input in a risk assessment (described in chapter 8), estimating the risk for successful transfer of hazard alien species and their establishment in a new environment.

The acknowledged work of Briggs (1974) and Ekman (1953) constitutes the basis for the proposed marine biogeographical regions used in EMBLA. Their works provide a general and global distribution of the regions and are therefore preferred as a basis for the system. In cases where individual nations can verify the need for more detailed region division, this should be integrated in the system.

The regions are based on zoogeographical and temperature barriers. A zoogeographic barrier will usually separate regions of different geographic areas and/or different climatic history. Consequently the degree of species diversity and hence ecosystem stability will also differ between regions. The region that develops the greatest ecosystem stability, will function as a distribution centre and supply species to less stable areas, but it will accept few or none species in return. Two areas with ecosystems of approximately equal stability can experience successful invasions in both directions. The risk for introduction of alien species increases in an ecologically unstable area. The biogeographical regions are described thoroughly in the pre-study (DNV 1999).

Barriers determine where organisms live and how natural ecosystems are created. Alien species live in places that they could not reach by natural dispersal (tides, currents etc.).

Physical barriers can be land, oceans (large distances, large depth), salinity and temperature which to a greater degree are absolute barriers. Other barriers such as unsuitable food and habitats, the presence of pathogens, predators and competitors, are not absolute barriers. Natural ecosystems are dynamic and the range of species changes over time, spreading or retracting as environmental conditions fluctuate and food availability, predators and diseases influence populations.

On commission for among others the World Bank, a global representative system of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) (Kelleher et. al. 1995) has been established. The role of MPAs is briefly described in chapter 2. MPAs are a practical way of conserving marine biodiversity, maintaining the productivity of marine ecosystems as well as contributing to the economic and social welfare of human communities.

The criteria used to identify priority areas in the report of Kelleher and coworkers (1995) were developed by Kelleher and Kenchington (1992) and have been adopted by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) for use in the identification of particularly sensitive areas. So far 1306 MPAs have been identified around the world. The main focus is on areas with a subtidal element.

• The MPAs (marine protected areas) are not yet incorporated in the system of regions, but it is essential that the existing and forthcoming MPAs are incorporated in the system as a part of the existing regions.
• The preservation of coastal biodiversity is an international aim (chapter 2). However, it is up to the recipient nation, to decide on the degree of immigration and further dispersion out of port. Some countries will doubtless be very conservative, whilst others will focus on avoiding species known to lead to economical problems.
• The probability for survival of a species in a port area could differ from that of a species outside the port area. The environmental parameters in the port can support a local establishment for a species, while the surrounding waters do not support establishment and vice versa. It is therefore essential to include the environmental conditions (salinity, habitat etc.) of the specific port in the risk matrix.
• Scientific knowledge of the natural ecosystem of a port and its surrounding waters will differ greatly; different areas of the world have been investigated at differing levels and to varying degrees, mirroring the community structure and biodiversity.
• Modified or disturbed ecosystems, for instance a port, will be vulnerable to the establishment of new species, regardless of the general ecological stability in the surrounding area. Immigrating species (often from another port) with flexible living requirements and high reproductive rates could be highly invasive in the absence of natural competitors and predators in the recipient areas.
• In many cases, the shipboard ballast water will contain a mix of water and sediment from multiple ports. This factor could make it necessary to include back tracing ballast water history.

Literature concerning the topic of aquatic organism transfer has identified a need to "rate" certain species with a link to some geographical origin. The terms "target lists" and "hazard lists" are frequently used.

Some nations have or will create special country or port specific target lists; i.e. lists of unwanted organisms. EMBLA has established a target list concept, which could be used in this context. The target list could range from species known to cause economical or ecological harm to any species not naturally occurring in the coastal region of the country.

EMBLA will prepare a list based on known historical transfer of invasive species. The information in this list gives central information to the risk assessment (see chapter 7). The list also gives information on the region of origin and which regions the species are distributed in. Other information such as rate of spread, salinity- and temperature tolerances, type of habitat, known ecological-, economic- and aesthetic effects are also included in the list.

The list will require regular updating and must be combined with a list of environmental variables for each port. The information in the list combined with environmental data in the recipient port is essential for estimating the risk of establishment of an invading species.

• A problem, which often will arise, is that many countries possess insufficient knowledge on national marine ecology, to predict the likelihood of certain species being able to cause major effects. In these cases a target list could be constructed from the hazard species list.
• Available information of nonindigenous species is widely scattered, sometimes obscure and highly variable in quality.
• No institution/ mechanism exists for monitoring new invasive species on an international basis.
• The effects of many known invasive species have never been studied and information on effects is similarly lacking for undetected species, which are already is established.
• Relatively few invasive species cause great harm, but there are time lags and unknown effects. For example, changes in environmental conditions could lead to some species eventually causing great harm.
• Lack of environmental data in ports.
• Predicting the role and effects of a species in a new environment is extremely difficult. Each introduction creates a new combination of organism and environment. Detailed information on both is necessary to anticipate the result. Such information is usually lacking.
• A new environment may affect rates of reproduction, susceptibility to disease and other features that affect a species’ success in becoming established.
• The effects of some species could change as they enter new environments - a factor making predictions difficult.
• Species characterised as cosmopolitan are often highly tolerant to different environmental variables and are assumed to be living in all regions of the world. An invasion of such species into a port could therefore not necessarily be solely connected to discharge of ballast water. Such species are also likely to move in to the port from the surrounding waters.
• Identification problems of invasive species could make it necessary to include all species in a genus as possible invaders. However, correct identification is vital for distinguishing invading species from native species and for establishing a management programme.

Each day more than 3-4000 species are being transported around the world in the ballast water and sediments of ships (Carlton & Geller 1993, Carlton et al. 1995, Gollasch 1996). These organisms include everything from phytoplankton, zooplankton, virus and bacteria, to a wide variety of invertebrates, and small fish. Most of the higher taxa are represented, and the animal taxa most commonly found are copepods, barnacle larvae, nematodes, rotifers, polychaetes and cladocerans (Carlton 1985). This implies that a number of organisms are being shipped to areas where they are non-indigenous.

Sampling of the ballast water is essential in order to establish whether vessels are transporting non-indigenous species in their ballast tanks or not. If any kind of transfer prevention technique is being implemented on board, sampling can also verify the success of the treatment.

The literature on sampling techniques has been assessed (table 5.1). Currently used sampling methods has been identified and their quality/ reliability, feasibility, costs, and compatibility with other comparative methods has been investigated. The literature was obtained by searches, both in university libraries and at the library of DNV, as well as on the Internet. Documents and material received as handouts at conferences and meetings has also been used. It should be noted that during the search several obstacles were met. Some literature was difficult to obtain; some reports were only intended for internal use, and some seemed only to be distributed through conferences and workshops. Often, only abstracts of work were obtainable or results had not yet been published. On these grounds it is acknowledged that important works may be absent from this literature study. It must also be pointed out that this literature study covered all aspects of the ballast water problem, and all the literature references and homepages were listed in a file. This is available through the EMBLA Library.

Ballast tanks are for obvious reasons located in vessels’ bottom and sides (fig. 5.2). Onboard there may also be other water-filled containers/ devices that can contain organisms, for example temporarily empty cargo tanks, fire mains, bilge tanks, oily-water separators, holding tanks, and marine sanitation devices (see also below). In addition to ballast water and sediments, ships also carry fouling organisms on the hull, thereby introducing organisms by three different means during one trip. Typical fouling organisms are bivalves, cirripedia, and tubeworms. This study however focuses on ballast water.

The first studies on ballast water sampling seems to have been undertaken in Australia (Medcof 1975) where the ship investigated yielded plankton of polychaetes, copepods, amphipods, ostracods, and chaetognaths. Several studies have since followed (see table 5.1). Some studies have revolved around specific groups, like dinoflagellates and diatoms (Hallegraeff & Bolch 1991, 1992), virus (McCarthy & Khambaty 1994), and protists (Galil & Hülsmann 1997). Taxa in the sediments have also been investigated (Kelly 1993). An IMO report from 1997 (Gollasch 1997) lists the results of a number of ballast water sampling studies to indicate the variety of species found, and Cohen (1998) compares the number of distinct taxa and densities of organisms reported in different studies from all over the world.

Several other sampling studies are in progress. The Smithsonian Environmental Research Centre (SERC) is conducting a project in Prince William Sound, Alaska and will have a report finished by the end of 1999. In England and Wales a project is being conducted on behalf of The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) and it is in co-operation with Scotland (ICES 1999). In the Netherlands, AquaSense (AquaSense 1998) is undertaking a study with emphasis on sampling of phytoplankton and zooplankton. An international network for marine invasion research, INFORMIR, is also established to ease the exchange of information and co-operation between researchers (Gollasch 1997).

The problem of sampling studies include the fact that no standardised method has been applied during sampling, leading to quite a number of different sampling designs (Gollasch et al. 1998). Water samples from ballast tanks can be obtained through horizontal or vertical manhole covers or sounding pipes, from pipes during de-ballasting, or from water remains after de-ballasting. Specimen can be collected from these by means of water samplers (Ruttner, Van Dorn), buckets, pumps, or traps, or with plankton nets with a variety of different mesh sizes, opening diameters and shapes, lengths, etc. In addition, samples can be collected at different levels of the water column, at different time-intervals, during shipping or at port, and before or after treatment of ballast water. Table 5.2 give a summary identifying sampling access while table 5.3 summarises combinations of sampling locations for ballast tanks on different vessel types.

A number of studies on ballast water sampling have been carried out and others are in progress world-wide. In spite of the lack of mutual norms or standards, the institutions engaged seem to put considerable efforts into distributing information on their work. However, details and results are not always easily accessible.

Germany is co-ordinating a major study; "Testing Monitoring Systems for Risk Assessment of Harmful Introductions by Ships to European Waters". This project has been in progress for approximately two years and was expected to report at end off 1999. This is an EU Concerted Action project funded by the EU with the IMO as a partner. Several European countries are active participants but other institutions are also involved in the work. One of the subject areas includes comparing and harmonising various sampling methods, and thereby studying their effectiveness. Several land- and ocean-based workshops are included for testing the methodologies, and ocean-based workshops have been completed, for example on vessels between St. Petersburg and Lisbon, and Cork (Ireland) and Sture (Norway) (Gollasch et al. 1998, Gollasch’ homepage, Gollasch 1999). Gollasch and his co-workers have also tested different methods using a land-based plankton tower in Helgoland with known densities of specimens (Gollasch et al. 1998). Results after the first of these intercalibration and ocean-going workshops were:

• different methods must be applied in accordance to tank accessibility
• manholes are preferred to sounding pipes
• net samples are preferred to pumps
• the large Monopump is more efficient than the small handpump, but cumbersome to use
• the short cone-shaped net is preferred to a larger net (for zooplankton samples)
• a Ruttner sampler is the best device for phytoplankton samples (Gollasch et al. 1998)

After the fourth land-based workshop in Wales 1999 it was recommended that the number of sampling methods be narrowed down to include only the most effective, so one tank could be sampled more than once a day (Gollasch 1999). For zooplankton the most efficient sampling devices were the 55 um cone net, 55 um net, bucket, and hand pump. (There were no conclusions for phytoplankton.)

The project is being completed in 1999, and the final report is soon to be published (Gollasch in prep.).

In Australia, a sampling program was found to be necessary as a component of the Australian Quarantine Inspection Services (AQIS) decision support system for the assessment of risk of introduced species (Sutton et al. 1998). This program was to include an evaluation of a selected group of methods regarding practicality and effectiveness, by contacting international groups working on sampling to identify methods, and testing the methods on vessels under a variety of conditions.

Sutton et al. (1998) collected information from researchers all over the world during their procedures regarding ballast water sampling. Of nine identified methods, seven were evaluated for their operational application and effectiveness in sampling zooplankton and a suite of target taxa. The seven methods were sounding pipes, manholes, air vents and breather pipes, in-line sampling, deck/fire taps, fixed position sampling, and sampling the port community. Fixed position sampling involves a fitting of hoses on the manhole hatches for sampling at specific "fixed" depths. Field trials of the methods were a large part of the study.

In the report the sampling locations and equipment (nets, pumps) are described, as are the details of the methods and respective research institutions.

Practicality and relative effectiveness were considered during the evaluation task. The effectiveness was found by comparing density and richness of taxa for each set of method comparisons. An overview of the evaluations by Sutton is listed in table 5.4. Table 5.5 shows an overview of the suitability for each method related to target taxa.

Conclusions of Sutton et al. (1998) is summarised below:

• Access to the tanks and the stage of ballast cycle limits the choice of methods available. It is advised not to rely on one single method because this will not account for all possible situations on the vessel or be able to sample all taxa.
• For phytoplankton and microbes, any tested method was adequate for monitoring or testing, but none were adequate for sediments.
• For zooplankton, there were significant differences between methods and all showed sampling bias. The bias can be caused by organisms’ attempting to avoid becoming caught by swimming, heterogeneity in tanks or comparisons of methods (between tanks, between vessels, seasons, age of ballast water, time between samples, exchanged ballast water, etc.). Sampling from manholes by nets was over all the most effective.

Both New Zealand and Australia have several activities related to the ballast issue. Ongoing work in New Zealand covering sampling is discussed in the following.

A manual for sampling sounding pipes

The Cawthron Institute in New Zealand has compiled a practical manual for sampling ballast tanks via ships’ sounding pipes (Dodgshun & Handley 1997, also in Hay et al. 1997). This manual examines two important sides of sampling, namely the preparation beforehand and the actual sampling process onboard. The work is extremely thorough. The method is chosen because of its simplicity, quickness, repeatability, minimum assistance requirement, disruption to routine, and because it can obtain samples from every tank on board which are fitted with a sounding pipe.

Instructions on other types of sampling are included for situations where it is impossible or unnecessary to sample via sounding pipes. For example when samples can be taken directly from the ballast tank using a plankton net where the impeller pump does not reach down deep enough in the tank or when the inertia pump hose only functions inside a narrow pipe. The sampling of ballast tanks with nets through the manholes also provides both quantitative and qualitative information (the quantity of water is known because of the diameter and length of nets, and can be related to the number of organisms retrieved).

The sampling comparisons

The practical manual for sampling of sounding pipes mentioned above (Dodgshun & Handley 1997) was part of a bigger project on ballast water (Hay et al. 1997). Another major part was to compare samples according to a number of variables such as type of tank and type of vessel, origin of water, possible ballast water exchanges (and their volume and frequency), and containment time.

In addition to investigating the phytoplankton and zooplankton in the tanks, the study compared the efficacy of the Waterra inertia pump & centrifugal petrol pump (impeller pump) and determined an optimum sample volume. The optimum sample volume was standardised to 100 litres based on comparisons of taxa in 50 litre volumes. For the pumps, the inertia pump sampled both more species and a greater abundance of species than the petrol pump. The centrifugal pump was seen to damage taxa.

When comparing taxa by ship type it was found that the number of living phytoplankton were greater in bulk carriers and break bulk carriers than in container ships. This also goes for the zooplankton, but these where found to be in about 10% more of the container ships.

For tank types and phytoplankton there was little evidence of differences in container ships, but the lowest numbers of phytoplankton were found in double bottom tanks and the highest numbers in lower wing and forepeak tanks. The number of invertebrates in container ships was also lowest in double bottom tanks, and the highest numbers were found in upper wing tanks.

With regard to bulk carriers, the majority of tanks contained phytoplankton, except some double bottom tanks, while the highest numbers of invertebrates was found in holds, forepeaks and upper wing tanks. The lowest numbers of phytoplankton were found in double bottoms and upper wings, and the lowest number of invertebrates in double bottom tanks.

One explanation for the distribution of plankton was that tanks lacking plankton were used less frequently. This goes especially/specifically for the double bottom tanks. It was underlined that the numbers of some of the sampled ship types were possibly too low for the comparisons to be accurate.

The methodology is compared to the method of sampling through manholes, and the disadvantages of each method are compared. As far as manhole sampling is concerned, the "lid" need to be removed and thus incurring assistance from the ships’ crew; cargo may be covering the manhole; it might be situated lower than the water-level or access can be through two or more other (possibly water-filled) tanks, and there could be a safety violation. For sounding pipes sampling there are two disadvantages. Some ships do not have sounding pipes, and sampling by this means is thereby impossible. The samples also only come from the bottom of the tank, which leads to the question as to whether the taxa in this level are representative for the water in the tank as a whole. To counteract this effect, it is suggested that plankton net samples could be taken from the top layers where possible.

For a discussion on the exchange of ballast water, see chapter 6.

The lack of standardisation for sampling, resulting in a great variety of sampling designs is clearly seen when comparing the methods. To reach sound conclusions from these comparisons is difficult. Each study has used their own method notwithstanding other works, and some have thereby sampled both qualitatively and quantitatively, while others have only sampled qualitatively. The last category can not standardise the number of taxa per unit of volume, but only give a number on organisms (e.g. Williams et al. 1988). The results of the studies are thereby not very comparable.

The works of Gollasch and co-workers, Sutton et al. (1998) and Hay et al. (1997) have tried to compare several different methods. The conclusion seems to be that sampling with nets through manholes is the most effective way to get good results. When there is no access to manholes, sounding-pipe sampling with pumps may be the best option.

The studies have utilised different types of pumps, and in comparison the pumps seem to be judged the following way: The monopump is more efficient than both the Waterra inertia pump and the small handpump, and the impeller pump is inferior to both the inertia pump and the monopump. The problem lies in the monopump’s limitations when the head (distance between water level and deck) is greater than 6 meters. Under these circumstances the monopump must be replaced by the inertia pump. The fact that this is a more cumbersome method than for example the impeller pump can not prevent it from being used. Instead, it must be noted that this is the most effective method.

It must be stressed that if sampling via manholes is by far the most efficient way of sampling, there is a need for relevant authorities to establish guidelines when sampling is to be done by scientists, quarantine agencies, or others. In that way the sampling personnel saves a lot of paperwork and the ship’s crew can take such precautions as may be necessary, like ensuring that manholes are accessible after loading. In this way, when entering a vessel, it will be possible for each of the sampling methods to be performed.

To get a clear picture of the diversity of organisms on board a ship, it is necessary to obtain samples that are representative of the ship as a whole. Representative samples mean that replicates from each tank must be collected, and from as many tanks as possible. Taking a couple of samples from one tank will not give a clear picture of the organisms being transported on a ship. Very often, studies give no information as to whether more than one tank has been sampled or not, which again give little information of particular value. Hay et al. (1997) are one of the few who compared tanks within ships, and they did find some evidence of differences between tanks, but tested too few ships to get an accurate picture.

Laboratory simulations where several sampling methods are applied on the same water masses are crucial for determining differences between methods. Compared to field trials, laboratory simulations could be the easiest way to get clear results, as the conditions are monitored in a controlled environment.

As also stressed by Sutton et al. (1998), the efficiency of the method applied largely depends on clearly specifying the aims of the study. Sampling can be applied in the routine monitoring of survival of organisms during every voyage (as would be the case for establishing the efficiency of treatment), alternately, sampling could be done on an individual basis (such as when scientists border a vessel to sample specific taxa). Some references assume that in the future sampling will be implemented on every vessel to verify treatment, and the method must thereby be simple, quick, and not disrupt the other activities onboard. With respect to this, the sounding pipe sampling described by Dodgshun & Handley (1997) would be most appropriate.

Regardless of methods chosen, some preparative actions onboard should be taken. This would aid sampling to be performed under controlled conditions, and the industry would have to recognise the need for sampling to be carried out.

Based on the literature used in this study and its incomparable findings, no clear conclusions towards a single method can be obtained. Additional studies in field and laboratories are needed before further assessments can be made.

The literature survey carried out has not provided a sufficient base for detailed methodology assessment, as the references of most studies did not give any reference to the methodology. This is also the case for the summaries of the studies.

If further literature on ballast water and introductions of species is needed, it would be advisable to start with the compiled literature-list in Cawthron’s Report No. 417 (Hay et al. 1997), and the multiple articles and reports of Dr. James T. Carlton. Gollasch (1997) lists multiple homepages and mailing-lists. These could be of help when investigating ballast water issues.

Considerable efforts have been put into developing new technologies or assessing the applicability of known methodologies in order to eliminate or eradicate organisms in ballast water.

Most technologies proposed or presented as a transfer prevention measure are often adopted from other applications than that of treatment of seawater.

In order to establish a base of understanding in relation to the issue of treatment options necessary when considering the issue of risk reducing measures, a literature assessment has been undertaken. The aim of this being to address the availability of such measures likely to enable reliable cost-efficient ballast water treatment.

Relevant literature was identified through the search described in chapter 5.1 and also include presentations, reports and documents received during meetings and at conferences. It should be noted that obstacles were experienced when approaching some sources, and some relevant studies may therefore not have been addressed.

Common to some of the studies identified, is the approach of summarising techniques in a prioritised manner that is attempting to visualise their individual feasibility as a function of some identified parameters. Typical parameters are those of efficiency, cost and safety. Other important characteristics are also focused upon.

The aim of the assessment undertaken here has been to compare existing proposed transfer prevention techniques based on literature findings with respect to:

• Feasibility
• Safety (occupational and environmental)
• Cost efficiency
• Quality/ certainty of results

Study reports and scientific articles identified, covering one or more prevention techniques are listed in table 6.1. Table 6.2 summarises the treatment options and describes their individual mode of operation. Table 6.6 provides further information on the prevention techniques assessed.

A recent report (Oemcke, D. 1999) has provided input to this chapter on a general basis. This work emphasises that until a system of comparing options on the basis of the cost of removing particular organisms to a pre-determined level of invasion risk is developed, it will be difficult to rationally compare ballast water treatment alternatives. This statement is supported by other works.

Some major studies have been identified:

• The American National Biological Invasion Shipping Study (NABISS) (Carlton et al. 1995) investigated 32 identified alternative technical prevention solutions and ranged them in accordance to efficiency, costs, feasibility, and safety, se table 6.3 (Carlton et al. 1995, also sited in AquaSense 1998).
• An IMO report (Gollasch 1997) describes 36 different options in general terms but emphasises cost aspects from a selection of these.
• The Committee of Ships’ Ballast Operations et al. (1996) have published a book, "Stemming the tide" which includes a large section on treatment prevention techniques.
• The Pollutech Environmental Ltd study (Laughton et al. 1992) reviews and evaluates treatment options for The Great Lakes.

Carlton, Reid & van Leeuwen (1995) included an analysis of control options for the coastal waters of the United States (except The Great Lakes, but this area is dealt with in Reid & Carlton 1997 as a part of a larger study). Their conclusion was that an integrated management system, and hence the choice of a number of alternatives, is the most effective approach. Thirty-two control options and alternatives were identified and evaluated. These are listed in table 6.3. Of these, 16 options where considered pursuable for further study. These are presented in table 6.4.

The management options were divided into 4 categories:

The criteria used to evaluate and analyse the identified options included those of human and vessel safety, costs, biological effectiveness in removing or killing organisms, shipboard operational reality, post-implementation monitoring and assessment, and environmental impacts.

Table 6.5 summarises some aspects concerning ballast water exchange addressed in the study.