Marine Pollution Bulletin 56 (2008) 19661972

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Pollution Bulletin

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpolbul

Review

EU shipping in the dawn of managing the ballast water issue

Matej David a,*, Stephan Gollasch b
a
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Maritime Studies and Transport, Pot Pomorcakov 4, SI 6320 Portoroz, Slovenia
b
GoConsult, Grosse Brunnenstr. 61, 22763 Hamburg, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: After almost two decades of intensied research, regulatory and political activities focussed on the
Maritime transport prevention of harmful organisms and pathogen transfers around the world in 2004 the International
Shipping Convention on the Management of Ships Ballast Water and Sediments (BWM Convention) was adopted
Europe to provide a common and globally uniform ballast water management (BWM) approach. Nevertheless,
Ballast water management
regionally different BWM approaches are developing. By now, many countries around the world seem
Harmful organisms
Sustainable development
to be aware of the ballast water issue and its management limitations. In the EU, different approaches
have been identied at regional and national scales. The rst voluntary BWM requirements at the
regional level have been introduced by the HELCOM and OSPAR countries, Adriatic countries have pre-
pared a common approach considering a new legal framework for implementation, and some national
level requirements have also been identied. However, a common EU wide BWM approach has not yet
clearly emerged. In this paper the authors review the BWM approaches developing in Europe, and
describe the EU response on BWM. The authors further provide recommendations which may be consid-
ered when developing BWM measures in the EU. This contribution focuses on the BWM issue in European
seas in light of the EU Maritime Policy and EU Marine Strategy. The Caspian Sea was also considered.
2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Today global shipping transports over 90% of the worlds com-
modities in intercontinental trafc (IMO, 2008a). Within the EU,
waterborne trafc accounts for more than 90% of foreign and
approximately 40% of domestic trade (EU Commission, 2007).
Trends anticipate an increasing role for global and local shipping
in the future (UNCTAD, 2007).
Apart from harmful effects such as consequences of shipping
disasters, shipping activity exerts other negative inuences on
the environment; e.g. sea pollution through the discharges of oily
water and sewage water from vessels, air pollution from exhaust
gases emitted from the vessels machinery, pollution of water
and marine organisms from toxic protective underwater hull coat-
ings (antifouling paints), and one of the most recent waterborne
concerns the translocation of harmful organisms and pathogens
via ballast water and sediments inside ballast water tanks (e.g. Hal-
legraeff and Bolch, 1991; Gollasch, 1996; Ruiz et al., 2000; David
et al., 2007a; Flagella et al., 2007). More than 1000 non-indigenous
aquatic species have already been recorded in coastal Europe (Gol-
Abbreviations: BWE, ballast water exchange; BWM, ballast water management;
BWPS, ballast water performance standard; BWTS, ballast water treatment
systems; IMO, International Maritime Organization.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +386 5 6767 306; fax: +386 5 6767 130.
E-mail address: matej.david@fpp.uni-lj.si (M. David).
lasch, 2006). In recent years the severely harmful effects of intro-
duced alien species on the natural environment, human health
and the global economy (Nellemann et al., 2008; Kettunen et al.,
2008) attracted the attention of the global scientic and profes-
sional public to the ballast water issue.
The signicance of the ballast water issue was already acknowl-
edged in a 1973 International Maritime Organization (IMO) resolu-
tion (IMCO, 1973), and IMO worked towards the International
Convention for the Control and Management of Ships Ballast
Water and Sediments (BWM Convention) which was completed
and adopted in February 2004 at a diplomatic conference in Lon-
don. The BWM Convention at the moment of this writing is not
yet in force, but represents a solid framework for the introduction
of preventive measures from individual countries to joint ap-
proaches (Gollasch et al., 2007).
Despite the global efforts of industry and BWM Convention, ef-
cient, nancially feasible, environmentally friendly and safe meth-
ods of preventing the translocation of harmful organisms via
ballast water are still developing. Nonetheless, it must be empha-
sized that efcient ballast water management (BWM) does not re-
sult in the complete prevention of harmful organism introductions
with ships as organisms are also transported as fouling on ships
hulls.
BWM, when applied to all vessels on all voyages, lays an
additional burden on the shipping industry and generates higher
costs. This may not be necessary as the BWM Convention allows

0025-326X/$ - see front matter 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2008.09.027
 M. David, S. Gollasch / Marine Pollution Bulletin 56 (2008) 19661972
exempting certain ships from BWM requirements. Undoubtedly,
the cost of preventing species translocation should not be higher
than the benets yielded.
Countries wishing to protect their seas from the introduction of
harmful organisms are confronted with a signicant challenge.
Two main BWM approaches have been developed: (a) ballast water
exchange (BWE) and (b) ballast water treatment to meet the IMO
D-2 Ballast Water Performance Standard (BWPS). BWE appears to
be the most practical way to prevent species translocation since
most ships can do it. However, studies have proven its limited
effectiveness (e.g. Locke et al., 1991; Hallegraeff and Bolch, 1992;
Macdonald and Davidson, 1998; Zhang and Dickman, 1999; McCol-
lin et al., 2008). Further, different shipping patterns and local con-
ditions add complex challenges to BWE requirements (David et al.,
2007b; David, 2007), as these may also have an inuence on inter-
national trade patterns and competitiveness among ports (Hayes,
2003; Hewitt and Campbell, 2007; David, 2007).
Due to the limited effectiveness of BWE, ballast water treatment
systems (BWTS) were developed. However, their use depends on
the commercial availability of certied BWTS for installation on-
board vessels. At the time of writing, only two systems received
type approval certicates as required by the BWM Convention.
2. Materials and methods
The authors participated in different national and international
projects, expert, scientic and/or governmental groups or organi-
sations (e.g. IMO, MEPC,1 BWWG,2 WGBOSV,3 BWMSC4) where dif-
ferent aspects (i.e. technical, organisational, economical, legal and
policy issues) of BWM were dealt with. In summary the authors
recognised that the BWM issue by now has been addressed at differ-
ent national, regional and global levels. However, it has not yet been
approached at the EU level, although the rst European countries
ratied the BWM Convention.
To identify a need to approach BWM at the EU level in a con-
certed manner, BWM activities were reviewed at regional levels
considering the framework and requirements of the BWM Conven-
tion. Further, EU policy priorities in the marine environment and
maritime transport were put into focus.
The geographical coverage of this paper is based on the EU Mar-
ine Strategy, thus, the Baltic Sea, the northeastern Atlantic ocean,
the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea. The northeastern Atlantic
ocean includes: (i) the Greater North Sea, including the Kattegat,
and the English Channel; (ii) the Celtic Seas; (iii) the Bay of Biscay
and the Iberian Coast; and (iv) in the Atlantic ocean, the Macarone-
sian bio-geographic region, being the waters surrounding the
Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands. The Mediterranean Sea in-
cludes: (i) the western Mediterranean Sea; (ii) the Adriatic Sea; (iii)
the Ionian Sea and the central Mediterranean Sea; and (iv) the Ae-
gean-Levantine Sea.
Because of the Caspian Seas proximity to Europe, activities re-
lated to BWM in this region were also considered.
3. Ballast water management requirements
According to IMO: ballast water management means mechan-
ical, physical, chemical, and biological processes, either singularly
or in combination, to remove, render harmless, or avoid the uptake
1
Marine environment protection committee (of IMO).
2
Ballast water working group (of IMO).
3
Working group on ballast and other ship vectors (WGBOSV) of the international
council for the exploration of the sea, intergovernmental oceanographic commission
and international maritime organisation (ICES/IOC/IMO).
4
Ballast water management sub-commission for the Adriatic.
1967
or discharge of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens within
ballast water and sediments.
As the ballast water issue has proven to be very complex, the
BWM Convention could not be simple. The lack of effective BWM
tools means that this issue remains a challenge. The Convention
introduces two different protective regimes as a sequential
implementation:
1. Ballast Water Exchange (BWE) Standard (regulation D-1)
requiring ships to exchange a minimum of 95% ballast water
volume;
2. Ballast Water Performance Standard5 (BWPS) (Regulation D-2)
requires that ballast water discharged has the number of viable
organisms below the specied limits.
As required by IMO BWE should be undertaken at least 200 nau-
tical miles from the nearest land and in water depths of at least
200 m. If this is impossible, then BWE should be undertaken as
far from the nearest land as possible, and in all cases at least 50
nautical miles from the nearest land and in water at least 200 m
in depth (Fig. 1). In sea areas where these parameters cannot be
met, the port state may designate a BWE area, in consultation with
adjacent or other states, as appropriate. In addition to the IMO
requirements national BWE requirements should also be
considered.
In general, a ship should not be required to deviate from its in-
tended voyage and the voyage should not be delayed. However, a
port state may require a ship to deviate, which may result in a de-
lay in case a designated BWE area has been established.
Ships shall never be asked to comply with any requirements if
those would threaten the safety or stability of the ship, its crew,
or its passengers because of adverse weather, ship design or stress,
equipment failure, or any other extraordinary condition.
4. Phase in of the BWPS
Provided the BWM Convention enters into force, from 2016 on-
wards for existing vessels and from 2011/2012 onwards for new-
builds, the BWPS needs to be met (IMO, 2004, 2007) (Fig. 2). It is
likely that this standard will require the onboard installation of
BWTS, but in theory the standard may also be met with other
BWM measures; e.g. improved BWE, port reception facilities.
BWE is seen as an interim solution because scientic studies
have proven its limited effectiveness (e.g. Hallegraeff, 1998; McCol-
lin et al., 2001; Villac et al., 2001) and the water depth and distance
from shore requirements as set forth in the BWM Convention can-
not be met in many circumstances; e.g. intra-European shipping or
domestic shipping of many countries (David et al., 2007b; Gollasch
et al., 2007; David, 2007) (Fig. 1). However, whenever possible and
until certied BWTS installation onboard the majority of vessels,
BWE should be undertaken. Provided safety permits (i.e. vessel
safety remain in permissible limits), it is assumed that most vessels
operating on oceanic voyages are able to undertake BWE.
The shortcomings of BWE highlight the need for BWTS. How-
ever, before BWTS can be installed onboard vessels, such systems
need to pass a comprehensive testing procedure and obtain certif-
5
The ballast water performance standard as outlined in regulation D-2 stipulates
that ships meeting the requirements of the BWM convention must discharge: (1) less
than 10 viable organisms per cubic metre greater than or equal to 50 lm in minimum
dimension; and (2) less than 10 viable organisms per millilitre less than 50 lm in
minimum dimension and greater than or equal to 10 lm in minimum dimension; and
(3) less than the following concentrations of indicator microbes, as a human health
standard: (a) toxigenic Vibrio cholerae (serotypes O1 and O139) with less than one
colony forming unit (cfu) per 100 ml or less than 1 cfu per 1 g (wet weight) of
zooplankton samples; (b) Escherichia coli less than 250 cfu per 100 ml; and (c)
intestinal Enterococci less than 100 cfu per 100 ml.
1968 M. David, S. Gollasch / Marine Pollution Bulletin 56 (2008) 19661972

Fig. 1. The seas surrounding the EU with the 50 nautical miles and 200 m depth limit shown in dark grey, and light grey shaded the 200 nautical miles limit. The black lines
show the main shipping routes.

Phase in of the D-1 and D-2 standards of the

Ships BW capacity
BWM Convention
built (m)
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
<2009 1500 - 5000 D-1 or D-2 D-2

<1500
<2009 D-1 or D-2 D-2
>5000
D-1 or D-2
2009 <5000 D-2
D-2

2010 <5000 D-2

2009
>5000 D-1 or D-2 D-2
<2012
2012 >5000 D-2

Fig. 2. Phase-in of the ballast water performance standard (regulation D-2) in relation to the ballast water exchange (regulation D-1) (modied after Gollasch et al. (2007)).

icates from an administrative body. This includes basic and nal
approval by IMO for systems which make use of active substances
(e.g. chemical treatment). More than 10 candidate BWTSs got IMO
basic approval (IMO MEPC, 2008a), allowing large scale land-based
efcacy tests and also tests onboard vessels to work towards nal
IMO approval. Three BWTSs received nal approval already, and
two have received a type approval certicate issued by an admin-
istration which conrms compliance with the BWPS of the BWM
Convention (Matthias Voigt and Carl Tullstedt pers. comm.). The
authors believe that in the very near future more certicates will
be issued. Although others are likely to follow soon, the production
capacity may not enable the equipping of all vessels until the BWPS
applies to the rst group of vessels (Fig. 2).
The unavailability of certied BWTS resulted in a two year delay
of the entry into force of provisions of the BWPS for the group of
vessels built in 2009 (IMO, 2007) (Fig. 2).
In conclusion, provided the BWM Convention enters into force
soon, it could be expected that the earliest date for vessels to have
BWTSs installed is 2010, and the latest for all vessels is 2016. This
triggers concerns that a set of vessels will still continue to dis-
charge unmanaged or at least not effectively managed ballast
water for almost another decade.
5. BWM in Europe
In Europe, the BMW Convention has been signed by only one of
the 27 EU Member States, i.e. Spain and by Norway (IMO, 2008b).
Several EU countries have announced that they are aiming to ratify
the BWM Convention in 2008 or 2009. However, some EU countries
noted difculties regarding the ratication of the BWM Convention
due to uncertainties,6 related to guidelines, which have not yet been
nalised and adopted. At this stage, the target completion date of
the remaining two guidelines,7 is 2010 (IMO MEPC, 2008b).
6
There are unknown impacts (e.g. nancial, operational) of the procedures that
will be required by the guidelines that are not yet nalised.
7
Guidelines on ballast water sampling (G2) and port state control (G15).
 M. David, S. Gollasch / Marine Pollution Bulletin 56 (2008) 19661972
There is no common EU ballast water policy and no legal man-
datory requirement in place. The European Maritime Safety Agency
(EMSA) is the responsible body for maritime safety and environ-
mental matters. However, at this point in time, the BWM issue
was not taken under its umbrella. By now it could be concluded
that the EU approach is leaning on the ratication and implemen-
tation of the BWM Convention by the EU member states. However,
the BWM issue may also be addressed under the framework of the
new EU Maritime Policy and the EU Marine Strategy.
The new EU Maritime Policy (EU Commission, 2007), in the
view of long-term enhanced maritime transport competitiveness
and environmental protection (i.e. sustainable development of
shipping industry), brings into focus needs for development of a
long-term maritime strategy, promotion of maritime excellence,
building knowledge and innovation, as well as establishing mari-
time transport surveillance. Among environmental issues the fo-
cus appears to be on air pollution and green house gas emissions,
mostly in light of climate change exacerbation. Unfortunately,
the issue of ballast water is not explicitly mentioned although
shipping is recognised as one of the most important vectors of
transferring harmful species with unwanted consequences.
The EU Marine Strategy Directive (EU Parliament, 2007) estab-
lishes a framework within Member States to take the necessary
measures to achieve or maintain good environmental status in
the marine environment at the latest by the year 2020. To this
end, the marine strategies each member state has to develop need
to focus on:
- protection and preservation of the marine environment,
- preventing its deterioration,
- where practicable, restore marine ecosystems in areas where
they have been adversely affected,
- prevention and reduction of inputs in the marine environment.
The overall goal is to phase out pollution to ensure that there
are no signicant impacts on or risks to marine biodiversity, mar-
ine ecosystems, human health or legitimate uses of the sea.
With this, implicitly, the ballast water issue is brought into the
main focus of this Directive although neither ballast water nor alien
species are mentioned. The Directive also stipulates the importance
of regional cooperation calling for cooperation and coordination
activities between Member States and, whenever possible, third
countries sharing the same marine region or sub-region.
5.1. North east Atlantic ocean and Baltic Sea
Several activities were undertaken to address possible BWM
measures in this region. One of the rst was a ballast water related
project initiated by HELCOM: Risk Assessment of Ballast Water
Mediated Species Introductions a Baltic Sea Approach. This risk
assessment followed the principles of IMO and was based upon in-
tra vs. inter Baltic shipping and matching vs. non-matching environ-
mental conditions (i.e. salinity and temperature) in ballast water
donor and recipient regions (Leppkoski & Gollasch, 2006).
Another project developed a BWM strategy for the North Sea
and was initiated by the Issue Group on Sustainable Shipping
(IGSS) of the Committee of North Sea Senior Ofcials (CONSSO)
and was instigated by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency
(MCA) of the United Kingdom (Dragsund et al., 2005).
5.2. First voluntary BWM requirements in the EU
The Contracting Parties of HELCOM and OSPAR worked towards
a voluntary interim application of the BWE Standard in Regulation
D-1 of the BWM Convention for shipping in the north east Atlantic
and the Baltic Sea. An instrument entitled General Guidance on the
1969
Voluntary Interim Application of the D-1 Ballast Water Exchange
Standard in the North East Atlantic and the Baltic Sea was agreed
by HELCOM at the 29th Meeting of the Baltic Marine Environment
Protection Commission in March 2008 (HELCOM, 2008). From April
1st 2008 HELCOM and OSPAR agreed, on a voluntary basis, and
provided safety permits, on BWM requirements for vessels enter-
ing the following regions of the Atlantic and Arctic oceans and
adjacent seas, including the Baltic Sea, north of 36 north latitude
as well as between 42 west longitude and 51 east longitude,
and the Atlantic ocean north of 59 north latitude and between
44 and 42 west longitude. The Mediterranean and its dependent
seas are excluded.
In short, the requirements include:
Vessels entering the area should carry a BWM Plan which com-
plies with the relevant IMO Guideline.
All ballast water operations should be recorded on all vessels
entering the area.
Ballast water of all tanks should be exchanged according to the
requirements outlined in the D-1 Standard of the BWM Conven-
tion; i.e. at least 200 nautical miles from nearest land and in
waters of more than 200 m depth. These requirements apply
to vessels on trans-Atlantic voyages, and those entering the
OSPAR and HELCOM on shipping routes passing the West Afri-
can coast before entering the north east Atlantic. In case of non-
compliance with the above, vessels are expected to undertake
BWE in accordance with the same distance and depth limits
within the north east Atlantic. In those cases where this is also
impossible, BWE should be carried out as far as possible from
nearest land, but always at least 50 nautical miles away and
in depths of at least 200 m.
Sediment releases from cleaned ballast tanks should only occur
outside 200 nautical miles of the north east Atlantic coast and
never in the Baltic Sea.
These guidelines are not meant to replace the requirements as
set forth in the BWM Convention, but to represent the rst initia-
tive of an interim BWM strategy for the region considered here. For
all ships enabled to meet the D-2 BWPS of the BWM Convention al-
ready these guidelines should no longer apply. Upon entry into
force of the BWM Convention these guidelines become mandatory
but will be replaced by the phase in of the BWPS (see Fig. 1). These
guidelines, also supported by the European Commission, are not
relevant for vessels entering the region from the Mediterranean.
It is expected that further guidance will be developed for this,
and other routes (HELCOM, 2008).
5.3. Mediterranean Sea region
The Mediterranean regime with the Mediterranean Action Plan
(MAP) as part of the Barcelona Convention, and the 1995 Protocol
Concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biodiversity (an instru-
ment in a similar niche as the 1992 Paris Convention for the north
east Atlantic), offers a feasible framework for BWM policies. In this
framework the Action Plan Concerning Species Introductions and
invasive species in the Mediterranean Sea (IAP) was adopted
(UNEP-MAP-RAC/SPA, 2003, 2005). The IAP set up a list of action
and schedule for their implementation. The IAP also recognises
that the implementation of the present action plan should be
accomplished in consultation and collaboration with initiatives
undertaken in this eld in other regions and/or by international
organisations. The MAP recommends that scientists and govern-
ment authorities work closely together.
In the framework of the GloBallast Partnerships programme,
scheduled to start in the second half of 2008, the Mediterranean
1970 M. David, S. Gollasch / Marine Pollution Bulletin 56 (2008) 19661972
region was selected as one of the six priority regions of the world
to assist participating countries to implement and enforce the pro-
visions of the BWM Convention (IMO MEPC, 2006; GloBallast,
2008). REMPEC and RAC/SPA act as regional coordinating
organizations.
In the Adriatic Sea sub-region, the initiative is being carried
through the Trilateral (Croatia, Italy, Slovenia) Commission for
the Protection of the Adriatic Sea (Trilateral commission) coopera-
tion. In 2003, the Ballast Water Management Task Force was estab-
lished to cope with the ballast water issue at the Adriatic level. In
2004 it developed into a more formal Ballast Water Management
Sub Commission (BWMSC), wherein experts and government rep-
resentatives work on plans and proposal developments. The
BWMSC is part of a wider trilateral agreement on the protection
of the Adriatic Sea between the three countries and is more binding
than other regional frameworks for ballast water policies (e.g. Adri-
atic-Ionian Initiative, Adriatic Partnership).
National activities and the trilateral cooperation resulted in
reviewing the state-of-the-art regarding the ballast water issue,
forming National Task Force bodies, introduction of the same Bal-
last Water Reporting Form (BWRF) in Slovenian (in 2001) (BWMSC,
2004) and Croatian (in 2005) (Trilateral Commission, 2005) and
Italian ports (in process) and studying shipping activities in ports
and shipyards, e.g. ballast water origin and quantity released,
shipping patterns, sediment disposal, presence of harmful and
pathogenic organisms in ballast water and the sea (David, 2007;
BWMSC, 2007).
Considering these results, as a priority the three countries
decided to introduce BWM measures for the Adriatic ports based
upon the requirements and principles of the BWM Convention. In
this context, at the last meeting of the BWMSC in October 2007,
whereat all Adriatic countries participated, common BWM mea-
sures for all vessels entering the Adriatic were agreed. These in-
clude the following mandatory requirements (i.e. blanket
approach):
 ships should conduct BWM in accordance with the BWPS as
dened by Regulation D-2 of the BWM Convention or conduct
BWE according to Regulation B-4 and D-1 prior to entry in the
Adriatic;
 ships shall have a BWM Plan and a Ballast Water Record Book;
 ballast water reporting using agreed BWRFs (BWMSC, 2007).
The BWM requirements as listed above are planned for imple-
mentation by the designation of the Adriatic Sea as a Particularly
Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA) according to IMO Guidelines (BWMSC,
2007). This approach was recognised as an appropriate legal
framework for the introduction of agreed measures before the
BWM Convention enters into force. The preparation of the PSSA
proposal is in its nal phase, and submission to the IMO is foreseen
for the 59th meeting of Marine Environment Protection Committee
(MEPC) in July 2009 (Trilateral Commission, 2008).
As scientic studies have proven that the blanket approach has
limited effectiveness (David, 2007; BWMSC, 2007), the Adriatic
countries recognised the necessity to study options for implement-
ing a selective approach for a more effective BWM. With this, the
following main priorities were set:
 study the possibility to designate BWE area/s according to the
relevant IMO Guideline;
 conduct ballast water risk assessment; and
 study BWM options for a selective approach (BWMSC, 2007).
In Slovenia, a Ballast Water Management Decision Support System
(DSS) was developed to support the implementation of selective
BWM according to the BWM Convention (David, 2007). The DSS in-
cludes risk assessment principles and approaches agreed in the
IMO Guidelines for Risk Assessment Under Regulation A-4 of the
BWM Convention (G7). With this approach, BWM requirements
may be adapted to the level of risk posed by a single vessel, i.e. provid-
ing a basis for more stringent requirements when the risk is identied
as high, as well as less stringent requirements if enough evidence is
provided that the ballast water to be discharged is of low risk.
In 2007 Croatia, by issuing the Ordinance on Ballast Water Man-
agement and Control, introduced mandatory BWM requirements
for all vessels calling at their ports including ballast water report-
ing and BWE based on a target species list (REMPEC, 2008).
5.4. Black Sea region
Due to activities in the framework of the rst GloBallast Pro-
gramme and the Black Sea conferences on ballast water control
and management a ballast water related Regional Task Force was
implemented to minimize the transfer of harmful aquatic organ-
isms and pathogens in ships ballast water. BWM was also incorpo-
rated in the revised Strategic Action Plan of the Black Sea which is
open for adoption at a ministerial meeting in 2008 (Velikova, pers.
comm.).
At a recent OSCE International Expert Conference on the Safety
of Navigation and Environmental Security in a Transboundary Con-
text in the Black Sea Basin, held in Odessa in June 2008, one session
dealt with BWM. At this meeting it became clear that the Black Sea
countries have divided positions regarding how to address BWM.
Also, the level of detail regarding existing national BWM require-
ments varies substantially within the Black Sea countries, i.e. a har-
monized and agreed upon uniform approach is lacking (Kideys,
2008). The requirements include:
 Bulgaria, Georgia, Turkey and Ukraine require ballast water
reporting and follow the IMO Assembly Resolution 868(20)
which contains a Ballast Water Reporting Form.
 Ballast water reception facilities are available in the Georgian
ports Batumi and Poti, but it remains unclear if these are only
in use for ballast water carried in empty cargo holds of oil tank-
ers, i.e. oil-contaminated ballast water.
 Bulgaria, Georgia, Ukraine and the Russian Federation imple-
mented a BWM scenario and require BWE for ballast water orig-
inating outside the Black Sea (Bashtannyy et al., 2001; Georgian
Ballast Water Decree, 2002; Velikova, pers. comm.).
 In the Russian port Novorossiysk ballast water is monitored for
chemical contamination (BSC, 2007) and non-compliance with
BWE requirements may cause delay and/or penalties and the
Ukraine prohibits vessels to enter their territorial waters with
unexchanged ballast water (Aquatic Code of the Ukraine,
1995; Berdnikov, 2008).
 Ukrainian authorities sample ballast water to assess possible
chemical contamination and a ballast water discharge fee
applies when sampling results proof chemical contamination
(Beken et al., 2007; Velikova, pers. comm., Cabinet Ministers of
Ukraine, 2002).
A BWM strategy is currently under development by Turkish
authorities and Bulgaria works towards regional cooperation con-
cerning the designation of a BWE area (Kideys, 2008). Currently
the Black Sea countries are planning to harmonize procedures on a
regional level, but funding is critical (Velikova, pers. comm., Basht-
annyy et al., 2001; BSC, 2007; Kideys, 2008; Matheickal, 2008).
5.5. Caspian Sea
At a workshop on ballast water sampling, jointly arranged by
IMO and the Caspian Environmental Programme Coordination Unit
 M. David, S. Gollasch / Marine Pollution Bulletin 56 (2008) 19661972
in 2005, BWM issues were addressed (Gollasch, 2005). One sugges-
tion expressed at the workshop was that vessels arriving from the
outside into the Caspian Sea may treat or exchange their ballast
water prior to having left the Black (Azov) and Baltic Seas before
the entrance of the water-ways connecting it to the Caspian Sea.
The workshop participants concluded that building land-based bal-
last water reception facilities for water treatment at major Caspian
Sea ports may also be considered. A regional road map for the
development of a BWM scenario in the Caspian Sea was prepared
through a series of workshops facilitated by IMO and the Caspian
Sea Environmental Programme (Matheickal pers. comm.).
6. Conclusions
Decades of intensied research, regulatory and political activi-
ties have focussed on the prevention of the transfer of harmful
organisms and pathogens around the world. Consequently, the
BWM Convention was adopted in 2004 as a possible common
instrument. The main focus of the BWM Convention is to provide,
further to environmental protection, for a common approach to
avoid additional unnecessary burden to the shipping industry
when implementing BWM measures.
As the BWM Convention did not enter into force yet, different
BWM approaches were developed world-wide. As shown above,
all jurisdictions along the European seas are engaged in the devel-
opment of regional BWM requirements. The rst regional volun-
tary requirement of BWE on certain shipping routes is the
HELCOM/OSPAR approach, which has been in force since April
1st 2008. Adriatic Sea countries have developed, in the framework
of the Trilateral BWMSC, a common BWE and reporting require-
ment both foreseen to soon be legally binding implementations.
Legally binding requirements on the national level were developed
in Croatia, Bulgaria, Georgia, the Russian Federation, Turkey and
Ukraine. Other European BWM requirements are currently
developing.
However, BWE as a BWM tool is seen as an interim solution be-
cause scientic studies have proven its limited effectiveness, in
addition to the fact that the water depth and distance from shore
requirements as set forth in the BWM Convention cannot be met
in many circumstances. The shortcomings of BWE highlight the
need for BWTS. However, to date only three BWTSs have received
the nal approval of IMO, and two have also received certicates
by an administration conrming their compliance with the BWPS.
Until more BWTSs are certied and become commercially available
for installation on vessels BWE will remain an interim BWM
measure.
All risk reducing measures, including BWE, are seen as essential
tools to protect European seas from new harmful species introduc-
tions. It is also believed that the implementation of mandatory
BWE requirements may prompt the ratication of the BWM Con-
vention and with this the implementation of the BWPS require-
ments. In principle, this will also result in phasing out BWE in its
present form.
Further to technical issues, the BWM issues by default call for a
concerted regional approach basically because no state would like
to have its ports economically disadvantaged by introduced BWM
requirements of ships. Furthermore, from a biological perspective
it does not at all make sense if one state implements BWM mea-
sures to avoid species introductions when a neighbouring state
ignores this problem, since after introduction species may migrate
by their natural means and eventually reach neighbouring
jurisdictions.
Problems may also occur when identifying appropriate BWE
areas as neighbouring seas and jurisdictions may be affected, e.g.
recommendations to exchange ballast water of ships on
1971
intra-European voyages may result in a water exchange in adjacent
seas. From the ballast water recipient perspective this is consid-
ered a risk reducing measure. However, at the same time it may ex-
pose the adjacent sea to additional ballast water discharges. This
conict of interest may only be solved by the development of a
European-wide BWM approach. To ease the process it was recom-
mended to launch a European Ballast Water Management Decision
Support System (Leppkoski and Gollasch, 2006; David, 2007; Da-
vid et al., 2007b; Gollasch and Leppkoski, 2007).
The authors conclude with the following nal recommenda-
tions to approach the BWM issue in Europe:
 the ballast water issue should be addressed on a European scale
to avoid different BWM requirements in different European seas
as regional different BWM approaches would complicate
shipping;
 a main responsible EU body or agency (e.g. EMSA) that would
coordinate the preparation of the plan and its implementation,
would need to be designated;
 the HELCOM/OSPAR and Adriatic approaches may be taken as a
starting point for the development of a European-wide con-
certed approach;
 the BWM concerted approach should incorporate the main prin-
ciples of the new EU Maritime Policy and EU Marine Strategy,
bolstering the BWM convention requirements with EU specics;
 close cooperation should be established with the various bodies
developing BWM measures in Europe to assist in the harmoniza-
tion of BWM requirements all over Europe; and
 consideration should be given toward the participation/involve-
ment of non-EU states that are neighbouring European seas.
Acknowledgements
We express our grateful thanks to Arnaud Leroy and Mirja
Ikonen (EMSA) for their updated information on BWM develop-
ments in EU as well as to Violeta Velikova, and Ahmet Kideys
(Black Sea Commission, Istanbul, Turkey), for providing insights
of the BWM situation in the Black Sea countries. We also thank
Marko Perkovic and Oliver Mllenhoff (EU Joint Reserch Centre,
Ispra, Italy) for support in GIS data elaboration, as well as Jose
Matheickal (IMO) for his comments on the Caspian Sea chapter.
References
Aquatic Code of the Ukraine, 1995. Article 67. In: Proceedings of the Supreme Rada
(PSR), 1995, # 24, p. 189 (Put in force by the SR resolution # 21495-BP of
06.06.95, BBP 1995, # 24, p. 190.).
Bashtannyy, R., Webster, L., Raaymakers, S., 2001. In: Proceedings of the First Black
Sea Conference on Ballast Water Control and Management. Globallast
Monograph Series No. 3, p. 112.
Beken, S..P., Tolun, L.G., Murat, S., 2007. Regional gap analysis of the Black Sea
strategic action plan. Final report. Institute of Environment and Chemistry,
Marmara Research Center, The Scientic and Technological Research Council of
Turkey. p. 138.
Berdnikov, V., 2008. Ballast water management in the Black Sea. In: Proceedings of
the International OSCE Expert Conference on The Safety of Navigation and
Environmental Security in a Transboundary Context in the Black Sea Basin,
Odessa, Ukraine, Oral presentation, June 25, 2008.
BSC, 2007. Black Sea Commission (Commission on the Protection of the Black Sea
Against Pollution). Final Report on Policy Measures Development and Data
Analysis for 2006/2007. p. 16.
BWMSC, 2007. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Meeting of the Trilateral Ballast Water
Management Sub Commission (BWMSC), Meeting report, Portoroz (Slovenia),
October 2930, 2007. p. 15.
Cabinet Ministers of Ukraine, 2002. Decree of Cabinet Ministers of Ukraine No. 269
dated 19.02.1996 with amendments No. 431 dated 29.03.2002.
David, M., 2007. A decision support system model for ballast water management of
vessels. Doctoral Dissertation, Portoroz. p. 295.
David, M., Gollasch, S., Cabrini, M., Perkovic, M., Bonjak, D., Virgilio, D., 2007a.
Results from the rst ballast water sampling study in the Mediterranean Sea
the Port of Koper study. Marine Pollution Bulletin 54, 5365.
1972 M. David, S. Gollasch / Marine Pollution Bulletin 56 (2008) 19661972
David, M., Gollasch, S., Hewitt, C., Jakomin, L., 2007b. Ballast water management for
European seas is there a need for a decision support system? In: Conference
Proceedings, Aberdeen, IEEE. p. 6.
Dragsund, E., Andersen, A.B., Gollasch, S., ten Hallers-Tjabbes, C.C., Skogen, K., 2005.
Ballast water scoping study. North Western Europe, DNV Report No. 2005-0638,
p. 131.
EU Commission, 2007. An integrated maritime policy for the European Union.
Commission of the European Communities, Communication from the
Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Brussels, October 10,
2007. COM (2007) 575 nal. p. 16.
EU Parliament, 2007. Protection and conservation of the marine environment:
marine strategy directive. EU Parliament, Strasbourg, December 11, 2007.
Provisional edition, P6_TA-PROV(2007)0595. p. 29.
Flagella, M.M., Verlaque, M., Soria, A., Buia, M.C., 2007. Macroalgal survival in ballast
water tanks. Marine Pollution Bulletin 54, 13951401.
Georgian Ballast Water Decree, 2002. The order on approval of the regulations on
ballast waters management procedures in Georgia. Based on the decree of the
president of Georgia No. 227 On Ship Ballast Waters Management Control of
June, 2001. Ministry of the Environment and Natural Recourses of Georgia and
Ministry of Justice of Georgia State Register of Normative Acts. p. 5.
GloBallast, 2008. <www.globallast.imo.org> (accessed 21.07.2008).
Gollasch, S., Leppkoski, E., 2007. Risk assessment and management scenarios for
ballast water mediated species introductions into the Baltic Sea. Aquatic
Invasions 2 (4), 313340.
Gollasch, S., 1996. Untersuchungen des Arteintrages durch den internationalen
Schiffsverkehr unter besonderer Bercksichtigung nichtheimischer Arten. Diss.,
Univ. Hamburg; Verlag Dr. Kovac, Hamburg. p. 314.
Gollasch, S., 2005. Workshop report of the IMO-UNOPS project on ballast water
management in the Caspian region, Baku (Azerbaijan), November 1011, 2005,
unpublished. p. 41.
Gollasch, S., 2006. Overview on introduced aquatic species in European navigational
and adjacent waters. Helgoland Marine Research 60, 8489.
Gollasch, S., David, M., Voigt, M., Dragsund, E., Hewitt, C., Fukuyo, Y., 2007. Critical
review of the IMO International Convention on the Management of Ships
Ballast Water and Sediments. In: Hallegraeff, G.M. (Ed.), Harmful Algae, vol. 6,
pp. 585600.
Hallegraeff, G.M., Bolch, C.J., 1991. Transport of toxic dinoagellate cysts via ships
ballast water. Marine Pollution Bulletin 22 (1991), 2730.
Hallegraeff, G.M., Bolch, C.J., 1992. Transport of dinoagellate cysts in ships ballast
water: implications for plankton biogeography and aquaculture. Journal of
Plankton Research 14, 10671084.
Hallegraeff, G.M., 1998. Transport of toxic dinoagellates via ships ballast water:
bioeconomic risk assessment and efcacy of possible ballast water
management strategies. Marine Ecology Progress Series 168, 297309.
Hayes, K.R., 2003. Biosecurity and the role of risk assessment. In: Ruiz, G.M., Carlton,
J.T. (Eds.), Invasive Species: Vectors and Management Strategies. Island Press,
Boca Raton, pp. 382414.
Hewitt, C.L., Campbell, M.L., 2007. Mechanisms for the prevention of marine
bioinvasions for better biosecurity. Marine Pollution Bulletin 55, 395401.
HELCOM, 2008. General guidance on the voluntary interim application of the D-1
ballast water exchange standard in the north east Atlantic and the Baltic Sea.
Agenda Item 2 HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan. Document code 2/8, from
26.2.2008. Submitted by the Executive Secretary. In: Proceedings of the
HELSINKI COMMISSION, Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission,
Twenty-ninth Meeting, Helsinki, Finland, March 56, 2008. p. 6.
IMCO, 1973. In: Proceedings of the Resolution 18, Conference for Adoption of the
International Convention for Prevention of Pollution from Ships.
IMO, 2004. International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships
Ballast Water and Sediments, London, 2004. International Maritime
Organization. p. 38.
IMO, 2007. Application of the International Convention for the Control and
Management of Ships Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004. Assembly,
Resolution A. 1005 (25), A 25/Res. 1005.
IMO, 2008a. About IMO. <www.imo.org> (accessed 21.07.2008).
IMO, 2008b. Status of conventions. <www.imo.org> accessed 21.07.2008).
IMO MEPC, 2006. Technical co-operation programme, Technical co-operation sub-
programme for the protection of the marine environment, proposed
contribution to the new ITCP for 20082009, Thematic priorities and
contributions. Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 55/16/1. p. 9.
IMO MEPC, 2008a. Work programme of the committee and subsidiary bodies, Work
programme of the BLG and the FSI sub-committees and provisional agendas for
their forthcoming sessions. Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC
58/19/1. p. 10.
IMO MEPC, 2008b. Harmful aquatic organisms in ballast water, Update on the
ballast water management convention. Marine Environment Protection
Committee, MEPC 57/2/9. p. 6.
Kettunen, M., Genovesi, P., Gollasch, S., Pagad, S., Starnger, U., ten Brink, P., Shine,
C., 2008. Technical support to EU strategy on invasive species (IAS)
Assessment of the impacts of IAS in Europe and the EU (Final module report
for the European Commission). Institute for European Environmental Policy
(IEEP), Brussels, Belgium. p. 40 + annexes.
Kideys, A., 2008. Towards ballast water management in the Black Sea. In:
Proceedings of the International OSCE Expert Conference on The Safety of
Navigation and Environmental Security in a Transboundary Context in the Black
Sea Basin, Odessa, Ukraine, Oral presentation, June 25, 2008.
Leppkoski, L., Gollasch, S., 2006. Risk assessment of ballast water mediated species
introductions a Baltic Sea approach. Report prepared for HELCOM, Helsinki,
Finland, p. 111.
Locke, A., Reid, D.M., Sprules, W.G., Carlton, J.T., van Leeuwen, H.C., 1991.
Effectiveness of mid-ocean exchange in controlling freshwater and coastal
zooplankton in ballast water. Canadian Technical Report. Fishery Aquatic
Science 1822, 193.
Macdonald, E.M., Davidson, R.D., 1998. The occurrence of harmful algae in ballast
water discharges in Scottish ports and the effects of mid-water exchange in
regional seas. In: Reguera, B., Blanco, J., Fernandez, M.L., Wyatt, T. (Eds.),
Harmful Algae. Xunta de Galicia and Intergovernmental Oceanographic
Commission of UNESCO, pp. 220223.
Matheickal, J., 2008. Progressing the IMO BWM convention implementation in the
Black Sea Region. In: Proceedings of the International OSCE Expert Conference
on The Safety of Navigation and Environmental Security in a Transboundary
Context in the Black Sea Basin, Odessa, Ukraine, Oral presentation, June 25,
2008.
McCollin, T., Macdonald, E.M., Dunn, J., Hall, C., Ware, S., 2001. Investigations into
ballast water exchange in European regional seas. In: Proceedings of the
International Conference on Marine Bioinvasions, New Orleans, April 911. pp.
9495.
McCollin, T., Shanks, A.M., Dunn, J., 2008. Changes in zooplankton abundance and
diversity after ballast water exchange in regional seas. Marine Pollution Bulletin
56, 834844.
Nellemann, C., Hain, S., Alder, J. (Eds), 2008. In Dead Water Merging of Climate
Change with Pollution, Over-harvest, and Infestations in the Worlds Fishing
Grounds. United Nations Environment Programme, GRID-Arendal, Norway. p.
64.
REMPEC, 2008. <http://www.rempec.org>, GloBallast News Release on 1st June
2008.
Ruiz, G.M., Rawlings, T.K., Dobbs, F.C., Drake, L.A., Mullady, T., Huq, A., Colwell, R.R.,
2000. Global spread of microorganisms by ships Ballast water discharged
from vessels harbours a cocktail of potential pathogens. Nature 408,
4950.
Trilateral Commission, 2005. Zapisnik 6. Sestanka meane slovensko hrvako
italijanske komisije za zacito voda jadranskega morja in obalnih obmocij.
Portotoz, Slovenija, 4. 5. 5.2005.
Trilateral Commission, 2008. In: Proceedings of the Minutes of the Ninth Ordinary
Meeting of the SlovenianCroatianItalian Commission for Protection of the
Adriatic Sea Waters and Coastal Areas. Portoroz, Slovenia, June 1517, 2008.
UNCTAD, 2007. Review of maritime transport 2007, Report by the UNCTAD
secretariat. United Nations, New York and Geneva 2007. p. 167.
UNEP-MAP-RAC/SPA, 2003. Report of the Sixth Meeting of National Focal Points for
SPAs, UNEP-MAP, Marseille.
UNEP-MAP-RAC/SPA, 2005. Action Plan Concerning Species Introductions and
Invasive Species in the Mediterranean Sea. Ed. RAC/SPA, Tunis. p. 30.
Villac, M.C., Persich, G., Fernandes, L., Paranhos, R., Bonecker, S., Garcia, V.,
Odebrecht, C., Tenenbaum, D., Tristao, M.L., de Andrade, S., Fadel, A., 2001.
Ballast water exchange: testing the dilution method. In: Hallegraeff, G.M.,
Blackburn, S.I., Bolch, C.J., Lewis, R.J. (Eds.), Harmful Algal Blooms 2000. IOC-
UNESCO, Paris, pp. 470473.
Zhang, F., Dickman, M., 1999. Mid-ocean exchange of container vessel ballast water
1. Seasonal factors affecting the transport of harmful diatoms and
dinoagellates. Marine Ecology Progress Series 176, 243251.